The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA001 - Council Action Form dated September 23, 2025ITEM #:8 DATE:09-23-25 DEPT:AAMPO SUBJECT:2050 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is a federally required, performance-based, long-range plan that establishes a regional vision for the multimodal transportation system through the year 2050. Updated every five years, the MTP guides how federal transportation funds are invested across the region. Ames Connect 2050, the Ames Area MPO’s (AAMPO’s) 2050 MTP, includes: A performance-based analysis of the existing transportation system Regional growth forecasts and travel demand modeling A fiscally constrained list of roadway, bicycle/pedestrian, and transit projects Alignment with federal planning factors, local priorities, and other regional plans such as Ames Plan 2040, Walk Bike Roll Ames , and Forward 2045 (the previous MTP) The Plan (see Attachment A ) was developed in coordination with the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP), a complementary effort focused on eliminating fatal and serious injury crashes. While the CSAP identifies a broader range of safety strategies, the MTP applies fiscal constraint by prioritizing projects that align with anticipated federal funding and local match sources. Many of the CSAP’s highest-priority safety projects are also included in the MTP’s fiscally constrained project list. Ames Connect 2050 reflects extensive input from the public, agency stakeholders, and AAMPO committees. Engagement efforts included open houses, surveys, stakeholder meetings, and a dedicated project website. UPDATES FROM THE DRAFT MTP: Since the draft plan was reviewed and approved by the Transportation Policy Committee on July 29, 2025, it has been reviewed by state and federal partners as well as undergone a final public comment period. In response to comments received during final review, the following minor changes were implemented in the final plan: 1. Expanded Appendix E (Public Engagement Summary) to reflect public comments that were received during the final public comment period and provide a more detailed summary on how an accessible approach was used for public engagement throughout the plan's development. 1 2. Added more description regarding the travel demand model in the main report text as well as expanded Appendix F (Travel Demand Model Documentation) to include detailed traffic volume maps of various model runs and growth scenarios. 3. Made minor corrections to multi-modal project maps to ensure accurate project alignments were shown and all projects appeared on the map. 4. Added hyperlinks at the bottom of each page to make navigation and switching between chapters easier. 5. Created a standalone four-page Executive Summary document (see Attachment B) which summarizes the key content of the plan. It should be noted that no changes have been made to the fiscally constrained project list. All projects shown in the final plan are the same as the draft plan that was approved by the Transportation Policy Committee on July 29, 2025. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the attached 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Ames Connect 2050. 2. Adopt the attached 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Ames Connect 2050, along with any suggested modifications by Transportation Policy Committee . MPO DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Ames Connect 2050 meets all federal planning requirements, reflects the region’s multimodal priorities, and was developed through a collaborative process with extensive technical input and public engagement. Additionally, all projects shown in the final plan are the same as the draft plan that was approved by the Transportation Policy Committee on July 29, 2025. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the MPO Executive Director that the Transportation Policy Committee adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted. ATTACHMENT(S): A - Ames Connect 2050 (Final Plan).pdf B - Ames Connect 2050 (Executive Summary).pdf 2 Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan 3 i CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 1 The AAMPO’s Governance 1 The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process 3 The Metropolitan Transportation Plan 3 Related Planning Efforts 4 Connect 2050 Goals and Objectives 5 CHAPTER 2 REGIONAL PROFILE 7 Historic Population & Employment Growth Trends 7 Current Demographics 8 Intercity Commute Patterns 14 CHAPTER 3 EXISTING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 15 Roadway System Conditions 16 System Safety 20 Traffic Operations 29 Asset Conditions 43 Multimodal Conditions 51 Existing Regional Connections 78 Summary of Existing System Performance 80 CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 82 Connect 2050 Website 82 Engagement Milestone 1: Identifying Challenges and Goals 82 Engagement Milestone #2: Developing Strategies 84 Engagement Milestone #3: Reviewing the Draft Plan 88 TTC / Policy Committee Meetings 89 CHAPTER 5: FUTURE TRENDS AND NEEDS 90 Future Growth 90 4 ii Travel Demand Model 93 Transportation Trends and Technology 99 CHAPTER 6 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT 105 CHAPTER 7 FUNDING ANALYSIS 119 CHAPTER 8 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN 129 Selecting Fiscally Constrained Projects 129 2025-2050 Fiscally Constrained Plan 129 CHAPTER 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING 148 Environmental Analysis 148 Environmental Screening and Considerations 148 CHAPTER 10 FEDERAL COMPLIANCE 162 APPENDIX A Project Alternatives A-1 APPENDIX B Prioritization Results B-1 APPENDIX C Pavement Technical Analysis C-1 APPENDIX D Travel Patterns Analysis D-1 APPENDIX E Public Engagement Summary E-1 APPENDIX F Travel Demand Model Documentation F-1 5 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The AAMPO Region 2 Figure 2: Historical Population Growth, Ames and Story County, 1990–2023 7 Figure 3: Employment and Unemployment Rates, Ames Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2010–2023 8 Figure 4: Population Pyramid, Ames Metro Area 8 Figure 5: Household Income of Residents, Ames Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2023 10 Figure 6: Occupation by Industry, Ames Metro Area 11 Figure 7: Household Car Ownership, Ames Metro Area 12 Figure 8: 2023 Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips for Public Transit Providers in Iowa 13 Figure 9: 2022 Regional Commuting Patterns 14 Figure 10: The AAMPO’s Functionally Classified Streets and Roads 17 Figure 11: NHS Routes, AAMPO Region 19 Figure 12: Key Safety Findings, The AAMPO Region, 2019–2023 21 Figure 13: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Year, 2019–2023 21 Figure 14: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Location, 2019–2023 22 Figure 15: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Mode, 2019–2023 23 Figure 16: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Between 1 and 3 a.m., 2019–2023 24 Figure 17: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Between 5 and 8 p.m., 2019–2023 24 Figure 18: Intersection-Related Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 25 Figure 19: Lane Departure Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 25 Figure 20: Speed-Related Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 26 Figure 21: Single Vehicle Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 26 Figure 22: Protection Worn Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 27 Figure 23: Impairment-Involved Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 27 Figure 24: Distracted Driving Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 28 Figure 25: Level of Service Thresholds for Intersections 29 Figure 26: Percent of Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections by Level of Service 30 Figure 27: Existing Intersection Planning Level of Service, PM Peak Hour 32 6 iv Figure 28: Percent of Person Miles Traveled That Were Reliable by Month, Interstate System, 2023 34 Figure 29: Percent of Person Miles Traveled That Were Reliable by Month, Non-Interstate NHS, 2023 35 Figure 30: Passenger Level of Travel Time Reliability, Interstate and Non-Interstate NHS Routes 36 Figure 31: Monthly Truck Travel Time Reliability Index, Interstate System, 2023 37 Figure 32: Truck Travel Reliability Index, The AAMPO Region, 2023 38 Figure 33: AM Peak Hour Speed Reductions 41 Figure 34: PM Peak Hour Speed Reductions 42 Figure 35: The AAMPO Bridge and Culvert Conditions, 2023 45 Figure 36: Interstate and Non-Interstate NHS Pavement Conditions, 2023 48 Figure 37: Non-NHS Federal Aid Pavement Conditions, 2023 50 Figure 38: Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic Volumes, 2023 53 Figure 39: The AAMPO’s Rail Freight Facilities 55 Figure 40: Trains per Day at the AAMPO’s Public At-Grade Rail Crossings 56 Figure 41: Story County Pipelines 58 Figure 42: Boone County Pipelines 59 Figure 43: Existing Bicycle Facilities 62 Figure 44: Existing Sidewalk Facilities 63 Figure 45: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress for Walk, Bike, Roll Ames Priority Pedestrian Crossings 65 Figure 46: BLTS Ratings on Bicycle Facilities 66 Figure 47: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress for Walk, Bike, Roll Ames Priority Bicycle Routes 67 Figure 48: Annual CyRide Fixed Route/EASE/Moonlight Express Ridership, 2010–2024 70 Figure 49: CyRide Dial-A-Ride Ridership, 2010–2024 71 Figure 50: 2019, 2023, and 2024 CyRide Ridership per Route 73 Figure 51: CyRide Transit Service 74 Figure 52: Transit Peak Level of Service 76 Figure 53: Rideshare Trips, The AAMPO Region, 2022–2024 79 Figure 54: Top Transportation Issues Identified by Travel Survey Participants 80 Figure 55: Public Prioritization Results - Identifying Challenges and Goals Phase 84 7 v Figure 56: Growth of Employment (in Jobs) by TAZ, 2023–2050 91 Figure 57: Projected Household Growth by TAZ, 2023–2050 92 Figure 58: Growth in Average Daily Traffic, 2023-2050 95 Figure 59: Percent Growth in Average Daily Traffic, 2023-2050 96 Figure 60: Peak Hour Traffic Operations for the E+C Scenario 98 Figure 61: Number of Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes, Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Pandemic 99 Figure 62: FHWA Safe System Approach 99 Figure 63: Historic Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled in the United States, 1971-2023 100 Figure 64: FHWA Bikeway Selection Guidance 109 Figure 65: FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasures Selection System 111 Figure 66: Connect 2050 Roadway and Intersection Alternatives 114 Figure 67: Connect 2050 Bicycle and Pedestrian Alternatives 115 Figure 68: Prioritization Results for Roadway and Intersection Alternatives 117 Figure 69: Walk, Bike, and Roll High and Medium Priority Projects 118 Figure 70: Historical and Targeted STBG and TAP Funding Levels, 2019-2029 120 Figure 71: Funding Breakdown 131 Figure 72: Committed Roadway Projects 133 Figure 73: Committed Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 135 Figure 74: Fiscally Constrained Streets Projects 138 Figure 75: Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 141 Figure 76: Developer Driven Projects 144 Figure 77: Recommended Future Studies 147 Figure 78: Human Environmental Constraints 150 Figure 79: Physical Environmental Constraints 153 Figure 80: Preliminary Identified Vulnerable Populations 156 Figure 81:Fiscally Constrained Roadway Projects and the AAMPO’s Vulnerable Populations 160 Figure 82: Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects and the AAMPO’s Vulnerable Populations 161 8 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Key Transportation Planning Documents 3 Table 2: Population by Race/Ethnicity, Ames Urbanized Area 9 Table 3: Residents with Limited English Proficiency, Ames Urbanized Area 9 Table 4: Percent of Population Living Below the Poverty Level 10 Table 5: Commute Modes, Ames Metro Area Residents and United States 11 Table 6: Travel Time to Work, Ames Metro Area Residents 12 Table 7: NHS Routes, AAMPO Region 18 Table 8: Safety Targets (Adopted September 2024) 20 Table 9: Safety Emphasis Areas, The AAMPO Region 24 Table 10: The AAMPO’s Progress Toward the Region’s Safety Performance Targets 28 Table 11: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections by Estimated Level of Service 30 Table 12: Signalized/Unsignalized Intersections Operating at Level of Service D or Worse 31 Table 13: System and Freight Reliability Targets (Adopted January 2023) 33 Table 14: The AAMPO’s Progress Toward the Region’s System and Freight Reliability Performance Targets 39 Table 15: Bridge Condition Targets (Adopted March 2025) 43 Table 16: The AAMPO Bridge Conditions 43 Table 17: The AAMPO Bridge Conditions by Total Deck Area 44 Table 18: The AAMPO’s Progress Toward the Region’s Bridge Condition Performance Targets 46 Table 19: Pavement Condition Targets (Adopted March 2025) 46 Table 20: Interstate and Non-Interstate NHS Pavement Conditions, 2023 47 Table 21: CityPCI Rating 49 Table 22: Pavement Condition Ratings for Non-NHS Federal-Aid Streets and Roads, 2023 49 Table 23: The AAMPO’s Progress Toward the Region’s Pavement Condition Performance Targets 51 Table 24: Position of Public Rail Crossings, The AAMPO Region 54 Table 25. Existing Bicycle Facilities 60 Table 26: Level of Traffic Stress Thresholds 64 9 vii Table 27: The AAMPO’s Public Transit Services 68 Table 28: Public Transit Safety Performance Targets (Adopted September 2024) 69 Table 29: Transit Asset Management Performance Targets (Adopted March 2025) 69 Table 30: Annual CyRide Fixed Route Performance, FY2020–FY2024 72 Table 31: Transit Level of Service for CyRide Fixed Routes 75 Table 32: Transit Level of Service Thresholds 75 Table 33: Historic Dial-A-Ride Performance by Fiscal Year, FY2020–FY2024 77 Table 34: Existing System Performance Analysis Key Findings 81 Table 35: Projected Regional Growth Trends, 2023–2050 90 Table 36: System-Wide Statistics for the E+C 2050 Scenario 94 Table 37: 2050 E+C Scenario Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections by Estimated LOS 97 Table 38: EVs Registered – United States and Iowa 102 Table 39: U.S. Zero-Emission Bus Fleets: 2021–2023 102 Table 40: TSMO Strategy Types and Treatments 107 Table 41: Transit Alternatives 112 Table 42: MPO TIP Funding Expenditures by Federal Source, 2015–2025 121 Table 43: Historic FTA Funding, 2020–2025 122 Table 44: Historic Local Funding for the City of Ames, 2015-2024 123 Table 45: Historic Local Funding for the City of Gilbert, 2021-2024 124 Table 46: Federal Funding Forecasts for STBG and TAP 125 Table 47: Forecasted Local Revenue for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert by Time Period 126 Table 48: Historic Annual Federal-Aid O&M Expenditures for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert, 2015–2025 127 Table 49: Forecasted Federal-Aid Operations and Maintenance Expenditures for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert 128 Table 50: Forecasted Local Revenue and Forecasted Federal-Aid O&M Costs for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert 128 Table 51: Balancing Preservation and Improvement Needs for Future STBG and TAP Revenues 130 Table 52: Committed Roadway Projects 132 10 viii Table 53: Committed Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 134 Table 54: Fiscally Constrained Streets Projects 137 Table 55: Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 140 Table 56: Fiscally Constrained Transit Projects 142 Table 57: Developer Driven Projects 143 Table 58: Recommended Future Studies 146 Table 59: Alignment of Connect 2050 Goals and Objectives with Federal Planning Factors 163 Table 60: Fiscally Constrained Projects’ Alignment with Regional Goals 164 11 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION THE AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION The Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO) was established in 2003 to lead a comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing transportation planning process for the agencies in the Ames, Iowa urbanized area. The AAMPO brings together regional stakeholders and agencies to develop long- and short-term transportation plans, identify and prioritize transportation projects and initiatives, ensure that transportation plans/projects align with regional goals and comply with federal regulations, and allocate federal transportation funds. Figure 1 shows the AAMPO region. The AAMPO comprises several member agencies working together to provide a performance-based, multimodal transportation planning process that is continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive. The member agencies participating in the AAMPO include: • City of Ames • City of Gilbert • Story County • Boone County • Ames Transit Agency (CyRide) • Iowa State University • Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) • Federal Transit Administration (FTA) THE AAMPO’S GOVERNANCE Two committees govern and advise the AAMPO on its transportation planning process: • Transportation Policy Committee (TPC): The governing body of the AAMPO, comprised of representatives from each of the AAMPO’s voting agencies: Ames, Gilbert, Story County, Boone County, and CyRide. TPC provides policy direction for long-range and near-term planning activities, selects projects for inclusion in AAMPO’s annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and approves the AAMPO Transportation Planning Work Program (TPWP). • Transportation Technical Committee (TTC): The primary advisory committee to the TPC, comprising staff-level representatives from regional agencies and organizations for both voting and non-voting members. One additional committee, the Story County Transportation Collaboration, plays a key role in the Transportation Advisory Group for the development of Passenger Transportation Plans (PTPs). The Story County Transportation Collaboration comprises representatives from organizations, health and human service agencies, and transportation providers who advise about persistent and emerging transportation needs and work to develop and strengthen partnerships to address those needs. 12 2 Figure 1: The AAMPO Region 13 3 THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS Federal metropolitan transportation planning regulations contained in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) of 2015 were carried forward with the enactment of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), signed into law as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), in November 2021 as the Metropolitan Planning Program. The overarching purpose of the program is to provide a continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive framework for making transportation investment decisions in the nation’s metropolitan areas. Table 1 lists the key transportation planning documents that the AAMPO develops. Table 1: Key Transportation Planning Documents THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN The MTP is the AAMPO’s overall blueprint for how the multimodal system should be operated through the year 2050. The AAMPO updates its MTP every 5 years based on stakeholder input, issues identified, and forecasted future conditions to develop a series of strategies and investments that can address issues while conforming to the region’s stated vision and goals. A performance-based planning approach leveraging the AAMPO’s performance targets is used to ensure progress is made toward the vision and goals. Document Description Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Provides the guiding framework for how the metropolitan area will manage and operate its multimodal transportation system for the next 20+ years. The plan engages with residents and stakeholders and uses data to establish area goals and objectives that lay out strategies to achieve that vision. A prioritized list of fiscally constrained projects is included in the MTP. Transportation Improvement Program A 4-year implementation program for federally funded and regionally significant transportation projects in the Ames region; it aligns with the MTP. Transportation Planning Work Program Identifies work and budget to be completed by the MPO during the next 1-year period by major activity and task. Public Participation Plan Details how the AAMPO involves the public and stakeholders in its transportation planning efforts. Passenger Transportation Plan Coordinates efforts between transportation providers and human service agencies that provide transportation services for the Ames community. 14 4 The MTP update must include some core federal requirements: • Updated every 5 years • Fiscally constrained • Plans for a horizon at least 20 years out • Consults local agencies, Iowa DOT, FHWA, and FTA • Is a performance-based plan promoting and supporting the region’s as well as Iowa DOT’s performance measures and targets This update to the MTP, Ames Connect 2050, looks out to the year 2050 and builds off the 2045 MTP while incorporating the findings and recommendations of plans and regional studies since the 2045 MTP. RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS AMES PLAN 2040 Ames Plan 2040 is a comprehensive plan that guides growth and change for the City’s planning area through the year 2020 and beyond. The plan was adopted in 2021 and amended in 2023 and addresses the vision for Ames related to land use and growth, mobility, community character, environment, parks and recreation, and neighborhoods, housing, and subareas. It covers the majority of the AAMPO study area. WALK BIKE ROLL AMES Walk Bike Roll Ames is an active transportation plan that builds on the community’s existing path, sidewalk, and bikeway assets and offers recommendations to improve conditions for people walking, biking, and rolling. STORY COUNTY TRAILS PLAN This plan was completed in 2024 for the Story County Conservation Board and identifies actionable steps to implement new trail connections in Story County, including the AAMPO area. IOWA IN MOTION 2050 The state’s long-range transportation plan looks out to 2050 and provides the long-range vision, policies, and decision-making framework that will guide investments in Iowa’s transportation system over the coming years. The plan covers all modes of transportation in the state, for both people and goods. IOWA STATE FREIGHT PLAN The Iowa State Freight Plan was completed in 2022 and weaves together Iowa DOT’s freight planning activities to help achieve the goal of optimal freight transportation in the state. Additionally, the plan guides Iowa DOT’s investment decisions to maintain and improve the freight transportation system. 15 5 CONNECT 2050 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goals and objectives of the Connect 2050 plan provide a foundation for shaping the region’s transportation future. Goals represent broad, long-term outcomes the plan seeks to achieve, while objectives define specific, measurable steps that support each goal. Together, they offer a clear strategic direction to guide project prioritization, investment decisions, and policy development over the next 20 years. These goals and objectives were thoughtfully developed based on public feedback gathered during the first round of community engagement, as well as the Federal Planning Factors that ensure consistency with national transportation priorities. FORWARD 2045 GOALS AND FEDERAL METROPOLITAN PLANNING FACTORS As part of the federal transportation planning process, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and state DOTs are required to consider a set of Federal Planning Factors, as outlined in federal code 23 CFR 450.306 and listed below. The ten factors ensure that transportation plans and programs address key national priorities such as safety, economic vitality, environmental sustainability, and system efficiency. They serve as a framework to guide comprehensive, performance-based planning that aligns local and regional goals with federal transportation policy. 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system across modes, for people and freight 7. Promote efficient system management and operation 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system 9. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation 10. Enhance travel and tourism Aligning the Connect 2050 goals and objectives with the Federal Planning Factors ensures that regional transportation strategies support national priorities. This alignment not only strengthens the plan’s consistency with federal requirements, but also enhances its eligibility for funding, promotes comprehensive planning, and ensures that local investments contribute to broader outcomes such as safety, sustainability, and economic vitality. The Connect 2050 Goals and Objectives are as follows: 16 6 Accessibility & Connectivity Safety Sustainability Efficiency & Reliability Placemaking/ Quality of Life • Improve walk, bike, and transit connections • Promote land-use policies that support multimodal connectivity • Design streets to accommodate all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists • Incorporate accessible design standards to serve individuals with disabilities or mobility challenges • Incorporate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit-friendly infrastructure in new developments • Reduce fatal and serious injury crashes • Reduce the number of crashes involving vulnerable road users • Implement a safe system approach to design, operate, and incident management • Work towards eliminating all traffic fatalities and serious injuries on streets • Focus safety investments on the High Priority Network • Promote low-carbon transportation options • Reduce transportation impacts to natural resources • Reduce the number of single- occupant vehicle trips • Build transportation infrastructure to be more resilient to natural and manmade events • Promote financially sustainable transportation system investments • Maintain acceptable travel reliability on Interstate and principal arterial roadways • Maintain the current high level of transit services • Prioritize freight corridors to minimize delays in goods movement • Increase the regional share of trips made by walking, biking, and transit • Identify technology solutions to enhance system operation • Design transportation projects that preserve and complement the unique identity of neighborhoods • Provide transportation strategies and infrastructure that support current adopted plans • Develop infrastructure that supports affordable housing • Increase the percentage of population and employment within close proximity to transit and/or walking and biking system Table 59 in the Federal Compliance chapter illustrates the alignment of the Connect 2050 plan goals and objectives to the federal planning factors. 17 77 CHAPTER 2 REGIONAL PROFILE Understanding trends related to the demographics of the AAMPO region can highlight key socioeconomic conditions influencing multimodal travel today and help estimate how transportation could be used in the future. The following section will highlight the historical population and employment trends in the AAMPO and the current demographic makeup of the region. HISTORIC POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT GROWTH TRENDS Population in both Ames and Story County saw a significant increase between 1990 and 2023. Ames grew from roughly 47,000 in 1990 to more than 66,000 residents in 2023. During the same period, Story County grew by about 24,000 people, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Historical Population Growth, Ames and Story County, 1990–2023 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) Employment in the Ames metropolitan statistical area maintained a steady level between 2010 and 2018 before increasing significantly during 2019 and maintaining a higher employment level through 2023. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate peaked at 6.2% in 2013 and fell to 4.2% by 2023, as shown in Figure 3. 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 74,252 89,542 98,537 98,592 66,11266,42758,965 50,73147,198 79,981 City of Ames Story County 18 88 Figure 3: Employment and Unemployment Rates, Ames Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2010–2023 Source: ACS 2010–2023 5-Year Estimates CURRENT DEMOGRAPHICS The current estimated population of the Ames urbanized area is 66,112, a significant increase from 57,343 residents in 2010. Figure 4 shows the distribution of population in Ames by gender and age. The largest age cohort in Ames is 20 to 24, most likely attributable to the large student population at Iowa State University; 2024 enrollment figures provided by Iowa State University indicate a total enrollment of 30,432 students. The next largest age cohort includes residents between the ages of 15 and 19. Figure 4: Population Pyramid, Ames Metro Area 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 00 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0%6.2% 4.1%4.2% Unemployment RateEmployment To t a l E m p l o y m e n t Pe r c e n t U n e m p l o y m e n t Under 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 45 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79 80 to 84 85+ 20%15%10%5%0%5%10%15%20% 2.20%1.52% 1.23% 1.92% 3.81% 4.31% 5.09% 4.65% 4.26% 4.46% 5.05% 6.02% 5.75% 7.95% 17.79% 12.23% 4.43% 5.15% 4.36% 2.26% 2.53% 4.08% 5.04% 5.23% 5.48% 4.45% 4.64% 5.38% 5.20% 5.56% 6.39% 16.43% 10.46% 5.14% 5.02% 4.51% Female Percent Male Percent 19 99 Ames continues to grow into a more diverse population. In 2010, 89.2% of the Ames metro area was white, which dropped to 85.3% in 2023. As shown in Table 2, the second largest minority population in Ames is Asian at 9.4%, followed by Hispanic/Latino at 4.8%. Table 3 shows the number of residents with limited English proficiency by languages spoken at home. Table 2: Population by Race/Ethnicity, Ames Urbanized Area Source: ACS 2019–2023 5-Year Estimates Table 3: Residents with Limited English Proficiency, Ames Urbanized Area Source: ACS 2019–2023 5-Year Estimates Median household income for residents of the Ames metro area in 2023 dollars was $71,090, and median family income was $110,143. Figure 5 shows the proportion of Ames households by 2023 household income. The percentage of the population living below the poverty level by age cohort is shown in Table 4. The age cohort 18 to 24, which is considered the typical age for a college student, makes up the largest percentage of population living below the poverty level, most likely due to the large number of full-time students attending Iowa State University. Race/Ethnicity People Percentage White 52,251 79.0 Black or African American 2,473 3.7 Asian 6,224 9.4 Hispanic or Latino 3,165 4.8 American Indian or Alaska Native 386 0.6 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 91 0.1 Other 1,188 1.8 Language Spoken People Percentage Spanish 1,112 1.7 Other Indo-European languages 2,681 4.2 Asian and Pacific Island languages 4,008 6.3 Other languages 799 1.3 20 1010 Figure 5: Household Income of Residents, Ames Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2023 Source: ACS 2019–2023 5-Year Estimates Table 4: Percent of Population Living Below the Poverty Level Source: ACS 2019–2023 5-Year Estimates Grouping the Ames population by occupation can help determine where most residents are traveling to and from in relation to their place of employment. In 2023, 33.6% of Ames residents were employed in the educational services, health, and social assistance job sector. The second highest sector of employment was retail trade, at 11.4%. The smallest share of employment was information, at 1.1%. Figure 6 provides an overview of employment by industry in the Ames metro area. Less than $10,000 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 20.00% $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more 5.6% 3.8% 7.5% 6.5% 11.5% 17.6% 13.4% 17.4% 8.2%8.5% Age Cohort Population for whom Poverty Status Is Determined Percentage Below Poverty Level Under 18 1,729 9.7 18 to 24 10,629 59.7 25 to 34 2,011 11.3 35 to 64 2,504 14.1 65 years and over 930 5.2 21 1111 Figure 6: Occupation by Industry, Ames Metro Area Source: ACS 2019–2023 5-Year Estimates Of workers ages 16 years or older, 72.9% commuted to work alone via private vehicle. However, 4.9% of Ames residents did walk to work versus 2.4% across the nation. Similarly, 3.2% of Ames residents used public transportation to travel to work, which is slightly less than the 3.5% public transit commute seen nationwide. Table 5 summarizes the means of transportation to work for both Ames metro area residents and national averages. Table 5: Commute Modes, Ames Metro Area Residents and United States Source: ACS 2019–2023 5-Year Estimates Educational services, and health care and social assistance Retail trade Manufacturing Professional, scientiﬁc, and management, and administrative services Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and food services Construction Finance and insurance, and real estate Public administration Transportation and warehousing, and utilities Agriculture, forestry, ﬁshing and hunting, and mining Other services, except public administration Wholesale trade Information 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40% 33.6% 11.4% 9.7% 8.6% 7.6% 5.7% 5.1% 4.2% 4.2% 3.4% 3.1% 2.3% 1.1% Means to Work Ames Metro Area United States Drove alone 72.9%70.2% Carpool 7.0%8.5% Public transportation (excluding taxi)3.2%3.5% Walk 4.9%2.4% Bike 0.9%0.4% Taxi, motorcycle, or other means 0.5%1.5% Work from home 10.5%13.5% 22 1212 For roughly 45% of the Ames metro area, it takes between 0 and 14 minutes to commute to work, while 63% of Ames residents have a commute that takes less than 20 minutes. Table 6 shows the commute time split for Ames commuters. Table 6: Travel Time to Work, Ames Metro Area Residents Source: ACS 2019–2023 5-Year Estimates Figure 7 shows the number of vehicles available to households. Approximately 79% of households have access to 2 or more vehicles, while roughly 3% of households do not have a vehicle available. Figure 7: Household Car Ownership, Ames Metro Area Source: ACS 2019–2023 5-Year Estimates Travel to Work Ames Metro Area Less than 10 minutes 24.8% 10 to 14 minutes 20.7% 15 to 19 minutes 17.3% 20 to 24 minutes 10.9% 25 to 29 minutes 5.3% 30 to 34 minutes 7.6% 35 to 44 minutes 5.5% 45 to 59 minutes 5.0% 60 or more minutes 2.9% 3.1% 18.0% 41.9% 36.9% No vehicle available 1 vehicle available 2 vehicles available 3 or more vehicles available 23 1313 Understanding the socioeconomic conditions of the AAMPO region can help determine future transportation needs and demands. For residents who may be economically disadvantaged, having access to transportation that does not require a personal vehicle is important. Additionally, given the large presence of university students, options such as transit, walking, and biking are in more demand due to limited car ownership and parking options. Ames enjoys a high level of transit service due to the demand for public transit by residents affiliated with Iowa State University. The public transit provider, CyRide, estimates that approximately 94% of public transit ridership is university-student related. Refer to the Existing System Performance chapter for further discussion about Ames’ transit services. To add more insight into the transit usage in the AAMPO region, annual passenger trips in other metropolitan areas in Iowa and peer cities were compared to the CyRide system in Ames. As shown in Figure 8, the annual unlinked passenger trips in Ames were the highest among all other metropolitan areas in Iowa during 2023. The transit provider that came closest was Iowa City, which is also home to a large student population who rely on fixed route transit. Figure 8: 2023 Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips for Public Transit Providers in Iowa Source: National Transit Database 0 0 500,000 1,000,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 Ames Iowa City Sioux City Quad Cities Cedar Rapids Dubuque Waterloo Des Moines Omaha-Council Bluﬀs 20 2 3 A n n u a l U n l i n k e d P a s s e n g e r T r i p s 2023 Urbanized Area Population 24 1414 INTERCITY COMMUTE PATTERNS Intercity commute patterns were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Household-Employer Dynamics (LEHD) Program, which compiles data about employers and employees to provide insight into local economies. LEHD data for 2022 was reviewed for Ames, Boone, Ankeny, Nevada, and Des Moines to identify intercity commuting patterns among the primary metropolitan areas along Interstate 35 (I-35) and U.S. Highway 30 (U.S. 30). As shown in Figure 9, the LEHD data shows that the largest share of commuting trips is between Boone to Ames and Ames to Des Moines. The city with the largest inflow and outflow overall with Ames is Des Moines, likely due to a larger number of employment opportunities and larger population. There is significant commuting pattern between Ames and Ankeny as well, with 1,157 Ankeny residents traveling to Ames for work and 763 Ames residents working in Ankeny. 1,076 Nevada residents also travel to Ames for work, with 604 Ames residents working in Nevada. An example of a travel patterns analysis based on Streetlight data for Ames is shown within Appendix D. Figure 9: 2022 Regional Commuting Patterns Source: U.S. Census Bureau LEHD 2022 25 15 CHAPTER 3 EXISTING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE The performance of the AAMPO’s existing multimodal transportation system was evaluated to understand how the system operates today and the issues and needs facing multimodal transportation in the region. The existing system performance evaluation is based on a series of data-driven technical analyses that focus on safety, traffic operations, asset conditions, and multimodal operations. The overarching goal of the existing system performance analysis is to develop a baseline profile for the AAMPO region’s multimodal transportation system that can be used to evaluate future growth scenarios. This chapter discusses socioeconomic trends related to transportation, provides a summary of the existing system performance analyses and key findings, and concludes with an overview of the key issues facing multimodal transportation today, as shown below. Traffic Safety Bridge and Pavement Conditions Freight Conditions Traffic Operations Transit Conditions Regional Connections 26 16 ROADWAY SYSTEM CONDITIONS ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS Functional Classifications FHWA established a federal functional classification system to categorize highways, roads, and streets by their mobility and access functions. The classification guidelines determine how roads are funded, planned, and engineered. The classification also helps determine design, speed limits, accessibility, and other considerations. Beyond planning, the classification system functions as a designation for certain federal funding programs. For example, streets and roadways designated as functionally classified routes are also considered federal aid roads eligible for federal funds for transportation-related improvements. Functional classifications for roadways in the AAMPO area are shown in Figure 10 and defined as follows:1 • Interstates are designed for higher mobility, speeds, and long-distance travel. I-35 is the sole Interstate in the AAMPO region. • Principal Arterials provide high mobility to major metropolitan areas, provide intra-area travel, and allow for mobility to adjacent land uses. • Minor Arterials are for moderate length trips, serve geographies smaller than principal arterials, and provide direct connections to the higher arterial system. • Collectors are designed to collect traffic from local roads and deliver it to the nearest arterial. Collectors do not accommodate long-distance travel. Collector roads outside urban areas are further classified into “major collector” and “minor collector” designations. Local streets and roads are an additional classification outside the federal functional classification system; these facilities are designed to have high accessibility and functionality for all users and modes. Local roads connect to collector and arterial roads and typically not used for through traffic or long- distance travel. 1 FHWA, Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and Procedures. Few connections Lo w e r s p e e d , mo r e d e l a y Hi g h e r s p e e d , le s s d e l a y Many connections Collector Local Arterial MO B I L I T Y ACCESSIBILITY 27 17 Figure 10: The AAMPO’s Functionally Classified Streets and Roads 28 18 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM The National Highway System (NHS) is a federally designated system of highway routes that are critical to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility needs. Designation as an NHS route results from coordination among FHWA, state and local governments, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). Eligibility for certain federal funding programs is contingent on inclusion in the NHS classification of national and state highways. The NHS comprises five subsystems:2 • Interstate: Eisenhower Interstate System of Highways • Other NHS Routes: Highways in rural and urban areas that provide access between an arterial and major port, public transportation facility, or other intermodal facility • Strategic Highway Network: Network of highways that are important to the United States strategic defense policy and that provide access, continuity, and emergency capabilities • Major Strategic Highway Network Connectors: Highways providing access between major military installations and highways that are part of the Strategic Highway Network • Intermodal Connectors: Highways that provide access between major intermodal facilities and the other four NHS subsystems There are currently several NHS routes in the AAMPO region, as shown in Table 7. Table 7: NHS Routes, AAMPO Region Note: U.S. 69 = U.S. Highway 69 Figure 11 shows the AAMPO’s streets and roadways included in the NHS. 2 FHWA, National Highway System. Route NHS Subsystem I-35 Eisenhower Interstate System U.S. 30 Other NHS Routes U.S. 69 Other NHS Routes Lincoln Way Other NHS Routes 29 19 Figure 11: NHS Routes, AAMPO Region 30 20 SYSTEM SAFETY FEDERAL SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES The AAMPO documents safety performance per federal performance management reporting requirements. The AAMPO is also responsible for setting safety performance targets; it may also opt to support safety performance targets identified by Iowa DOT. The AAMPO currently supports Iowa DOT’s statewide safety targets, which are shown in Table 8. Table 8: Safety Targets (Adopted September 2024) Source: The AAMPO AAMPO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN The AAMPO is currently developing a regional Comprehensive Safety Action Plan3 (CSAP) funded through the federal Safe Streets and Roads for All program to identify safety projects and strategies that could reduce or eliminate fatal and serious injuries and save lives through a data-driven approach. The AAMPO has initiated the CSAP study in tandem with the 2050 MTP update to provide a synergistic process in which MTP and CSAP findings support one another. The existing safety conditions conducted as part of the CSAP effort inform the existing safety conditions for the 2050 MTP update. Figure 12 shows key safety findings for the AAMPO region based on 2019 through 2023 crash data from Iowa DOT. 3 The AAMPO, Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Performance Measure Five-Year Rolling Average 2019–2023 Baseline 2021–2025 Target Number of fatalities 350.2 365.8 Fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 1.070 1.085 Number of serious injuries 1,378.4 1,496.1 Serious injury rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 4.208 4.391 Non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries 142.2 148.4 31 21 Figure 12: Key Safety Findings, The AAMPO Region, 2019–2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool. FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES The safety analysis conducted as part of the CSAP effort seeks to understand factors influencing fatal and serious injury crashes in the AAMPO region. As such, the summary of existing safety conditions in the following sections focuses on these crash types. Overall, 72 crashes resulting in fatal or serious injuries occurred in the AAMPO region between 2019 and 2023. Figure 13 shows fatal and serious injury crashes by year, while the crash locations are shown in Figure 14. Figure 13: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Year, 2019–2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Between 2019-2023, the Ames MPO area has experienced: 1 3 ,1 1 9 8 6 9persons involved in crashes one person impacted by a crash every THAT IS... fatalities serious injuries 1 fatality and serious injuries were non-motorists 13 0 5 10 15 20 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 1111 4 14 17 18 6 9 Fatal Serious Injury 32 22 Figure 14: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Location, 2019–2023 33 23 Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Mode Further review of the fatal and serious injury crashes occurring between 2019 and 2023 looked at the breakdown of these crash types by mode. Figure 15 shows the fatal and serious injury crashes involving bicyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles. Overall, most fatal and serious injury crashes involved motor vehicles, while the second most common mode involved motorcyclists. Fatal and serious injury crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists totaled 3 and 1, respectively. Crashes involving motorcycles, pedestrians, and bicyclists may require design mitigation for the transportation system to protect more vulnerable users with fewer layers of protection (no airbags or crumple zones like on a motor vehicle). Figure 15: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Mode, 2019–2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool. Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes – Emphasis Areas Crash events, particularly fatal and severe crashes, often exhibit consistent presence of risk factors despite high levels of variation in time and space. Existing fatality and serious injury crashes were reviewed for the presence of these contributing risk factors and the highest propensity risk factors will be a focus of the future safety strategies. Table 9 summarizes the emphasis areas pertinent to recent crash patterns in Ames. 3 21 1 47 Bicycle Motorcycle Pedestrian Motor Vehicle 34 24 Table 9: Safety Emphasis Areas, The AAMPO Region Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes – Time of Day One important factor that can influence crash events is time of day; roadway conditions during low- light hours can cause an increase in crashes compared to daylight hours. An additional factor that can influence time-of-day crash statistics is increased traffic levels during peak traffic volume periods, such as the morning and evening commute periods. Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the number of fatal and serious injury crashes occurring between 1 and 3 a.m. and 5 and 8 p.m., respectively. Between 2019 and 2023, 11 crashes resulting in fatal or serious injury in the AAMPO region were recorded between 1 and 3 a.m., while 18 fatal or serious injury crashes occurred between 5 and 8 p.m. Crash Type Percent Intersection crashes 47% (34 of 72) Single vehicle crashes 47% (34 of 72) Lane departure crashes 31% (22 of 72) Motorcycle crashes 29% (21 of 72) Distracted driving crashes 21% (15 of 72) Speed-related crashes 14% (10 of 72) Impaired driving crashes 11% (8 of 72) Crashes with occupant protection (seat belts)22% (16 of 72) Evening crashes (5 to 8 p.m.)25% (18 of 72) Late night crashes (1 to 3 a.m.)15% (11 of 72) Figure 16: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Between 1 and 3 a.m., 2019–2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool. 11 (15%) 61 (85%) Between 1-3 AM Other 18 (25%) 54 (75%) Between 5-8 PM Other Figure 17: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Between 5 and 8 p.m., 2019–2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool 35 25 Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes – Intersection Related Crashes that occur at intersections can highlight systemic and/or location-specific design factors influencing crash events. Regarding fatal and serious injury crashes that occurred in the AAMPO region, roughly 53% were not considered “intersection related” as shown in Figure 18. Figure 18: Intersection-Related Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool. Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes – Lane Departure Lane departure refers to crashes that occur after a vehicle crosses an edge or centerline. These crash types can result in severe crashes, especially when a vehicle departs its travel lane into opposing lanes of traffic, potentially causing head-on collisions. In the AAMPO region, 22 fatal and serious injury crashes that occurred between 2019 and 2023 involved a lane departure, as shown in Figure 19. Figure 19: Lane Departure Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool. 34 (47%) 38 (53%) Intersection Related Other 22 (31%) 50 (69%) Lane Departures Other 36 26 Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes – Speed Related Speeding is a major factor that influences the severity of crashes. In the AAMPO region, 10 fatal and serious injury crashes that occurred between 2019 and 2023 were speed related, as shown in Figure 20. Figure 20: Speed-Related Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool. Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes – Single Vehicle Crashes Single vehicle crashes are the result of a vehicle striking an object, such as a tree or light. In the AAMPO region, 34 fatal and serious injury crashes that occurred between 2019 and 2023 were single vehicle crashes, as shown in Figure 21. Figure 21: Single Vehicle Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool. 10 (14%) 42 (86%) Speed Related Non-Speed Related 34 (47%) 38 (53%) Single Vehicle Other 37 27 Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes – Protection Worn “Protection worn” refers to whether vehicle occupants involved in a crash used seat belts or other protective restraints. In the AAMPO region, 16 fatal and serious injury crashes that occurred between 2019 and 2023 involved occupants who did not use seat belts or other restraints, as shown in Figure 22. Figure 22: Protection Worn Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool. Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes – Impairment Involved Impaired driving has long been recognized as a substantial safety risk, and enforcement efforts to curb this risk have sought to reduce crashes resulting from operating under the influence of legal and illicit substances. In the AAMPO region, 8 fatal and serious injury crashes that occurred between 2019 and 2023 resulted from impaired driving, as shown in Figure 23. Figure 23: Impairment-Involved Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool. 56 (78%) 16 (22%) Restraint Used No Restraint Used 8 (11%) 64 (89%) Impairment Involved Other 38 28 Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes – Distracted Driving Crashes resulting from distracted driving have substantially risen in frequency owing to smartphones and other devices used by vehicle operators and can pose safety risks as serious as impaired driving. In the AAMPO region, 15 fatal and serious injury crashes that occurred between 2019 and 2023 resulted from impaired driving, as shown in Figure 24. 15 (21%) 57 (79%) Distracted Driving Involved Other Performance Measure Five Year Rolling Averages AAMPO’s 2019– 2023 Performance 2019–2023 Baseline 2021–2025 Target Number of fatalities 1.6 350.2 365.8 Fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 0.42 1.070 1.085 Number of serious injuries 12.8 1,378.4 1,496.1 Serious injury rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 3.47 4.208 4.391 Non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries 0.8 142.2 148.4 Figure 24: Distracted Driving Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2019–2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool. THE AAMPO REGION’S PERFORMANCE – SAFETY The AAMPO’s current performance toward the 2- and 4-year targets for the region’s safety performance measures is summarized in Table 10. Note that the 2019 to 2023 baseline and 2021 to 2025 targets represent statewide performance, whereas the AAMPO’s 2019 to 2023 performance is for the MPO area only. As Table 10 shows, the Ames area had 1.6 annual fatalities and 12.8 annual serious injuries during the five-year period. The table also shows that current baseline data for statewide fatal and serious injury crashes and crash rates are below targets for 2021-2025. During the 2019 to 2023 time period, the AAMPO region recorded a five-year average of 0.8 non-motorized fatal and serious injury crashes; again, this result reflects performance of the MPO region only whereas the 2019 to 2023 baseline and 2021 to 2025 target levels reflect non-motorized fatal and serious injury crashes for the state of Iowa. Table 10: The AAMPO’s Progress Toward the Region’s Safety Performance Targets 39 29 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Baseline traffic operations for the streets and roads network in the AAMPO region were assessed through two different approaches, peak period intersection level of service (LOS) and travel reliability, with the goal of understanding how congestion and vehicle delays are impacting the region’s traffic operations. Peak period intersection LOS was obtained through analysis using Synchro 12 software, replicating the Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition methodology for unsignalized intersections, and Synchro’s methodology for control delay at signalized intersections, which incorporates gap acceptance for turning traffic queue delay from adjacent intersections. PEAK PERIOD TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Baseline traffic operations for the streets and roads network in the AAMPO region were analyzed using an intersection delay approach that reviewed 80 signalized intersections in the area and 19 additional unsignalized intersection locations that include all-way stop-controlled and two-way stop-controlled intersections and roundabouts. The purpose of the analysis was to estimate the seconds of delay experienced by vehicular traffic during the peak hour PM travel period; from the estimated delay, each intersection is assigned an LOS grade that ranges from “A” to “F.” The thresholds for each LOS grade are shown in Figure 25. Figure 25: Level of Service Thresholds for Intersections The LOS results for signalized and unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 11. Note that the estimated delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the worst-case approach. Highly stable, free-ﬂow condition with little to no congestion Intersection Delay: Signalized: LEVEL OF SERVICELEVEL OF SERVICE QUALITY OF TRAFFIC FLOW DECREASES Stable, free-ﬂow condition with little congestion Intersection Delay: Signalized: 10-20 Free-ﬂow condition with moderate congestion Intersection Delay: Signalized: 20-35 Approaching unstable condition with increasing congestion Intersection Delay: Signalized: 35-55 Unstable, congested condition Intersection Delay: Signalized: 35-55 seconds/vehicle Stop and go condition Intersection Delay: Signalized: >80 seconds/vehicle Unsignalized: >50 seconds/vehicle A B C D E F 40 30 Table 11: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections by Estimated Level of Service Figure 26: Percent of Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections by Level of Service Signalized and unsignalized intersections that currently operate at LOS D or worse are listed in Table 12, while Figure 27 shows their locations in the AAMPO region. Intersection Level of Service Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections LOS A to C 79 14 LOS D 1 3 LOS E 0 2 LOS F 0 0 Total 80 19 1.3% 98.8% 73.7% 15.8% 10.50% Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections LOS A - C LOS D LOS E LOS F 41 31 Table 12: Signalized/Unsignalized Intersections Operating at Level of Service D or Worse Intersection Location Level of Service Context S Grand Avenue and S 5th Street (two-way stop- controlled) D Limited gaps for westbound left-turning traffic to head south on Grand Avenue causes an LOS D on the westbound approach. Grand Avenue and 13th Street (signalized intersection) D Split-phased signal in the northbound and southbound direction (needed for moderate left-turn volume) is inefficient for heavy through movements and creates long wait times, resulting in an LOS D. U.S. 69 and Ada Hayden Access/ Arrasmith Trail (two-way stop-controlled) D Limited gaps for westbound left-turning traffic to head south on U.S. 69 causes an LOS D on the low- volume westbound approach. Lowe’s Access/Sam’s Club Access and Airport Road (two-way stop- controlled) D Limited gaps for the heavy southbound left-turn movement due to heavy volumes on Airport Road results in a southbound approach LOS D. Grand Avenue and 16th Street (two-way stop- controlled) E Limited gaps for the eastbound and westbound approaches to turn onto Grand Avenue due to heavy volumes on Grand Avenue results in an LOS E for the low-volume eastbound and westbound approaches. S Dayton Avenue and Isaac Newton Drive (two- way stop-controlled) E Limited gaps for westbound left-turning traffic to head south on S Dayton Avenue causes an LOS E on the westbound approach. 42 32 Figure 27: Existing Intersection Planning Level of Service, PM Peak Hour 43 33 TRAVEL RELIABILITY “Travel reliability” refers to the dependability and consistency of the region’s streets and roadways network to allow travelers to reach their destination. Reliability is an important measure in evaluating the impact of congestion and delays on vehicular traffic and trip planning. This method of analyzing traffic operations contrasts with the LOS approach because it emphasizes an understanding of how travel times vary along a specific corridor. A corridor that experiences recurring congestion during peak hour travel periods can still be considered reliable if travelers can easily predict this delay and adjust their travel routes accordingly. Where the LOS approach seeks to identify specific locations and corridors where congestion occurs daily, reliability seeks to understand which corridors are demonstrating consistency in travel times and which are not. Existing reliability of the AAMPO’s streets and roadways network was reviewed using these metrics: • Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR): Describes travel reliability conditions for passenger vehicles • Truck Time Reliability Index (TTTR): Describes travel reliability conditions for freight vehicles Reliability data was sourced from The National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS), which is a vehicle probe-based travel time dataset acquired by FHWA. Federal System and Freight Reliability Performance Measures The AAMPO documents LOTTR and TTTR performance for the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS per federal performance management reporting requirements. The AAMPO is also responsible for setting reliability performance targets, or it can opt to support reliability performance targets identified by Iowa DOT for the state’s Interstate and non-Interstate NHS routes under its jurisdiction. The AAMPO currently supports Iowa DOT’s reliability targets, which are shown in Table 13. Table 13: System and Freight Reliability Targets (Adopted January 2023) Source: The AAMPO Performance Measure 2021 Baseline 2-Year Target 4-Year Target Reliable person miles traveled on the Interstate 99.9%98.0%98.0% Reliable person miles traveled on the non-Interstate NHS 96.5%94.0%94.0% TTTR Index 1.13 1.25 1.25 44 34 Interstate and Non-Interstate NHS Reliability Figure 28 shows the percentage of person miles traveled that were reliable by month for the AAMPO’s Interstate routes in 2023. For the Interstate system, the reliability target assumed is the 4-year target of 98.0% (as shown in Table 13) of reliable person miles traveled. As Figure 28 shows, person miles traveled on the AAMPO’s Interstate routes were 100% reliable during 2023, exceeding the target of 98% each month. Therefore, Interstate users in the AAMPO region can consistently anticipate delays along these routes and adjust travel plans accordingly. Figure 28: Percent of Person Miles Traveled That Were Reliable by Month, Interstate System, 2023 Source: National Performance Management Research Dataset 2023 Figure 29 shows the percentage of person miles traveled on the non-Interstate NHS, by month, that were considered reliable in 2023. For the non-Intestate NHS system, the reliability target assumed is the 4-year target of 94.0% (as shown in Table 13) of reliable person miles traveled. Monthly travel reliability conditions for the non-Interstate NHS demonstrated more variation than the Interstate system, which can be attributed to a range of factors including winter driving conditions and road construction. Half of the months reached the AAMPO target of 94% of vehicle miles traveled as being reliable. The most reliable months were January, February, and March, while October, November, and December recorded the lowest percentages of reliable person miles traveled. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Target 98% 45 35 Figure 29: Percent of Person Miles Traveled That Were Reliable by Month, Non-Interstate NHS, 2023 Source: National Performance Management Research Dataset 2023 Level of Travel Time Reliability Figure 30 shows the annual LOTTR results for the AAMPO Interstate and non-Interstate NHS based on the 2023 NPMRDS data. A LOTTR at or less than 1.5 is considered reliable, while anything more than 1.5 is considered unreliable. The LOTTR for the I-35 corridor in the AAMPO region was less than 1.25, which supports the findings related to monthly person miles traveled shown in Figure 28. The AAMPO’s non-Interstate NHS routes also supported the findings in Figure 29 because they saw a substantially higher degree of variability when compared to the region’s Interstate system routes. Most non-Interstate NHS segments have a LOTTR ranging between 1.25 to 1.50 and are considered reliable; however, several segments experienced a LOTTR of 1.5 or more in 2023. These corridors, and their worst LOTTR result, include the following: • S Duff Avenue, from U.S. 30 to S 16thth Street; LOTTR of 1.87 • E Lincoln Way, from Grand Avenue to S Duff Avenue; LOTTR of 1.54 • W Lincoln Way, Alcott Avene to Dakota Avenue; LOTTR of 1.86 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Target 94% 46 36 Figure 30: Passenger Level of Travel Time Reliability, Interstate and Non-Interstate NHS Routes 47 37 Truck Time Reliability Index The TTTR Index is serves as the measure of reliability for freight vehicles and is only reported for Interstate routes. The TTTR Index for the AAMPO’s Interstate routes was calculated using NPMRDS data for the year 2023. The AAMPO’s TTTR Index performance target supports the Iowa DOT-established target of 1.25 in determining the reliability of the AAMPO’s Interstate routes for freight vehicles. Figure 31 shows the monthly TTTR Index for the Interstate system in the AAMPO region for 2023. All of I-35 in the AAMPO region was less than the 1.25 target and is considered reliable in 2023, except for the months of February and August. Figure 31: Monthly Truck Travel Time Reliability Index, Interstate System, 2023 Source: National Performance Management Research Dataset 2023 Figure 32 displays the annual TTTR Index performance for the AAMPO’s interstate system for 2023. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Target 1.25 48 38 Figure 32: Truck Travel Reliability Index, The AAMPO Region, 2023 49 39 THE AAMPO REGION’S PERFORMANCE – SYSTEM AND FREIGHT RELIABILITY The AAMPO’s current performance toward the 2- and 4-year targets for the region’s system and freight reliability measures is summarized in Table 14. As Table 14 shows, the percentage of reliable person miles traveled on the AAMPO’s Interstate routes was 100% in 2023 which exceeds both the 2023 2-year and 2025 4-year targets of 98%. For reliable person miles traveled on the AAMPO’s non-Interstate NHS routes in 2023, 92.2% were determined to be reliable, which falls short of the 2023 2-year and 2025 4-year targets of 94.0%. The AAMPO’s 2023 2-year and 2025 4-year freight reliability targets, reported for the Interstate only, are both 1.25. The 2023 NPMRDS data used to calculate the AAMPO’s systemwide TTTR Index indicates a TTTR of 1.11, well below the 2- and 4-year targets set for the AAMPO region, demonstrating positive progress toward desired freight reliability performance. Table 14: The AAMPO’s Progress Toward the Region’s System and Freight Reliability Performance Targets PEAK HOUR SPEED REDUCTION Peak hour speed reduction data provides an additional approach for understanding traffic operations and considers the decline in vehicle speeds observed during peak hour travel periods. Existing peak hour speed reductions for the AAMPO region were analyzed using Streetlight probe data for the year 2023. This data is reported in hourly intervals and was analyzed to identify the reduction in peak hour speeds, defined as 7 to 8 AM for the AM peak and 4 to 5 PM for the afternoon. Speed reductions were calculated for each segment by comparing the observed 50th percentile, or median speed, for each segment’s AM and PM peak period condition to a typical off-peak free flow travel speed. The resulting speed reduction coefficient was used as the delay measure for peak hour speed reductions. Figure 33 and Figure 34 display the AM and PM peak hour speed reduction coefficients for the AAMPO’s functional classification system. During the AM peak hour, I-35 and U.S. 30 travel speeds were shown to be within 75% of the free-flow speed, meaning these corridors are experiencing minimal recurring delays. Several corridors demonstrated reductions in speed between 60 and 75% compared to off-peak free flow speeds while the following locations saw reductions in AM speeds between 41 and 60%: Performance Measure AAMPO Performance, 2023 2023 2 Year Target 2025 4 Year Target Reliable person miles traveled on the Interstate 100.0%98.0%98.0% Reliable person miles traveled on the non- Interstate NHS 92.2%94.0%94.0% TTTR Index 1.11 1.25 1.25 50 40 • University Boulevard, south approach at intersection with Collaboration Place • Mathews Drive, intersection with Grant Avenue / 530th Avenue in Gilbert The PM peak hour experiences similar delay patterns as the AM peak hour, with I-35 and U.S. 30 exhibiting minimal delay, while portions of major thoroughfares such as S Duff Avenue and Lincoln Way show speed reductions at or less than 60% of free-flow speeds. During the PM peak hour, the following corridors experiences delays between 41 and 60% compared to daily off-peak free flow speeds: • University Boulevard, south approach at intersection with Collaboration Place • S Duff Avenue, north approach at intersection with S 16th Street • S Duff Avenue, at U.S. 30 south ramp terminal • Lincoln Way, from S Hyland Avenue and S Sheldon Avenue • Lincoln Way, from S Sheldon Avenue and Welch Avenue • Clark Avenue, from Main Street to 6th Street • 265th Street, from U.S. 69 to 260th Street 51 41 Figure 33: AM Peak Hour Speed Reductions 52 42 Figure 34: PM Peak Hour Speed Reductions 53 43 ASSET CONDITIONS THE AAMPO’S BRIDGES Federal Bridge Performance Measures Monitoring bridge infrastructure conditions is crucial for state departments of transportation (DOT) and MPOs because maintaining and expanding bridge infrastructure demands substantial investment from both state and local sources. Bridges are essential components that enhance vehicle flow, especially in constrained areas, and their condition directly impacts the efficiency and reliability of local transportation networks. FHWA mandates that state DOTs and MPOs report on the condition of all bridges located in their jurisdictions for the Interstate and non-interstate NHS. These performance measure requirements specify that the following conditions must be reported: •  Percent of NHS bridges by deck area in good condition •  Percent of NHS bridges by deck area in poor condition The AAMPO documents bridge condition performance for the NHS on an annual basis per federal performance management reporting requirements. The AAMPO is also responsible for setting bridge condition performance targets, or it may opt to support bridge condition performance targets identified by Iowa DOT for the state’s NHS routes under its jurisdiction. The AAMPO currently supports Iowa DOT’s bridge condition targets, which are shown in Table 15. Table 15: Bridge Condition Targets (Adopted March 2025) Source: The AAMPO Bridge Conditions There are 66 bridges and culverts in the AAMPO region, with 24 of these bridges located on the NHS. Figure 35 shows the bridge and culvert locations in the AAMPO region. Table 16: The AAMPO Bridge Conditions Source: FHWA, National Bridge Inventory. Performance Measure 2021 Baseline 2-Year Target 4-Year Target NHS bridges classified in Good condition 49.4%52.5%48.0% NHS bridges classified in Poor condition 2.4%5.0%6.6% Bridge Ratings NHS Bridges Non-NHS Bridges All AAMPO Bridges Good 8 33.30%18 42.90%26 39.40% Fair 16 66.70%21 50.00%37 56.10% Poor 0 0%3 7.10%3 4.50% Total 24 42 66 54 44 Table 16 summarizes the condition of the AAMPO’s bridges. All NHS bridges are considered as being in at least Fair condition, and almost half of all bridges are in Good condition. Three bridges in the region were identified as being in poor condition: • 590th Avenue: North of U.S. 30. Structure is currently load posted. • Ken Maril Road: Over the Skunk River. Structure is currently closed. • 190th Street: Over Ioway Creek. Structure is currently closed. The bridges identified as being in Poor condition do not currently support critical travel needs of the AAMPO region; there are no current plans to replace or rehabilitate these structures. Table 17 summarizes bridge conditions by total deck area. For NHS bridges, 50.1% of the bridges by deck area are rated in Fair condition, while 49.6% of NHS bridges by deck area are in Good condition. The breakdown of conditions by deck area for all the AAMPO bridges is similar, with 51.9% of bridges by deck area rated as being in Good condition and 47.1% of bridges by deck area rated as being in Fair condition. Only 1% of bridges by deck area were determined to be in Poor condition. Table 17: The AAMPO Bridge Conditions by Total Deck Area Source: FHWA, National Bridge Inventory. Bridge Ratings NHS Bridges (sq ft) % of Total Deck Area Non-NHS Bridges (sq ft) % of Total Deck Area All AAMPO Bridges (sq ft) % of Total Deck Area Good 13,093.28 49.9 15,933.00 53.6 29,026.28 51.9 Fair 13,131.21 50.1 13,236.64 44.6 26,367.85 47.1 Poor 0 0 537.38 1.8 537.38 1.0 Total 26,224.49 29,707.02 55,931.51 55 45 Figure 35: The AAMPO Bridge and Culvert Conditions, 2023 56 46 THE AAMPO REGION’S PERFORMANCE – BRIDGE CONDITIONS The AAMPO’s current performance toward the 2- and 4-year targets for the region’s NHS bridges is summarized in Table 18. As Table 18 shows, the percentage of NHS bridges in Good condition based on 2023 National Bridge Inventory data was 50%, which is less than both the 2023 2-year and 2025 4-year targets of 52.5% and 48.0%, respectively. National Bridge Inventory data indicates that 0% of NHS bridges are in Poor condition, which is less than the 2023 2-year and 2025 4-year targets of 5.0% and 6.6%, respectively, indicating that the AAMPO is on track to meet the 2025 4-year target for NHS bridges in Poor condition. Table 18: The AAMPO’s Progress Toward the Region’s Bridge Condition Performance Targets THE AAMPO PAVEMENT Federal Pavement Performance Measures Interstate and non-Interstate NHS routes provide critical connections and must be kept in good condition. FHWA sets pavement condition as a federal performance measure through the following two ratings: • Good condition: Suggests no major investment is needed • Poor condition: Suggests major reconstruction investment is needed The AAMPO documents pavement condition performance for Interstate and non-Interstate NHS routes on an annual basis per federal performance management reporting requirements. The AAMPO is also responsible for setting pavement condition performance targets, or it may opt to support pavement condition performance targets identified by Iowa DOT for the state’s Interstate and non-Interstate NHS routes under its jurisdiction. The AAMPO currently supports Iowa DOT’s pavement condition targets, which are shown in Table 19. Table 19: Pavement Condition Targets (Adopted March 2025) Source: The AAMPO Performance Measure AAMPO Performance, 2023 2023 2 Year Target 2025 4 Year Target NHS bridges classified in Good condition 50%52.5%48.0% NHS bridges classified in Poor condition 0.0%5.0%6.6% Performance Measure 2021 Baseline 2-Year Target 4-Year Target Pavements in the interstate system in Good condition 58.5%55.0%53.0% Pavements in the interstate system in Poor condition 0.4%3.0%3.0% Pavements in the non-Interstate NHS in Good condition 37.9%35.0%30.0% Pavements in the non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition 3.7%6.0%6.0% 57 47 Interstate and Non-Interstate Pavement Conditions Data from Iowa DOT’s Pavement Management Information System was reviewed to analyze the conditions of Interstate and non-Interstate NHS pavements for the year 2023. Table 20: Interstate and Non-Interstate NHS Pavement Conditions, 2023 Source: Iowa DOT, Pavement Management Information System. Interstate and non-Interstate NHS routes in the AAMPO region with pavement in Poor condition include the following: • S Duff Avenue, from Kitty Hawk Drive to Lincon Way • Grand Avenue, from Lincoln Way to 18th Street Note that Iowa DOT completed pavement rehabilitation projects for both segments after data were collected to calculate pavement conditions. Route Good Fair Poor Lane Miles Percent of Lane Miles Lane Miles Percent of Lane Miles Lane Miles Percent of Lane Miles Interstate 18.64 52.9 16.61 47.1 0.00 0.0 Non- Interstate NHS 24.84 31.4 42.97 54.2 11.41 14.4 58 48 Figure 36: Interstate and Non-Interstate NHS Pavement Conditions, 2023 59 49 Federal-Aid Network Pavement Conditions Federal-aid roadway pavement conditions, which refers to non-NHS routes that are found on the Federal-aid network, were evaluated using data from the Iowa Pavement Management Program to evaluate pavement conditions using a City Pavement Condition Index (CityPCI) measure. The CityPCI measure differs from the conventional Pavement Condition Index rating because the data collection process for CityPCI calculations is adjusted to accommodate the lower vehicle speeds at which this data is collected. CityPCI ratings are organized into five broad categories that indicate overall pavement condition, shown in Table 21. Table 21: CityPCI Rating Table 22 summarizes the breakdown of pavement conditions, using the CityPCI measure, for non-NHS Federal-aid routes in the AAMPO region by functional classification, while Figure 37 shows pavement conditions for Ames’ non-NHS Federal-aid routes. As Table 22 indicates, the majority of the non-NHS system pavements are in Fair or better condition. Overall, 11.4% of non-NHS pavements are in Poor condition, while 2.6% are rated as being in Very Poor condition. For information pertaining to condition of AAMPO’s local streets network, refer to Appendix C which contains information on the technical pavement analysis conducted for the local streets network. Table 22: Pavement Condition Ratings for Non-NHS Federal-Aid Streets and Roads, 2023 Source: The AAMPO CityPCI Rating CityPCI Value Excellent Between 81 and 100 Good Between 61 and 80 Fair Between 41 and 60 Poor Between 21 and 40 Very Poor Between 0 and 20 Functional Classification Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Collector 26.6%36.8%28.3%7.6%0.7% Minor Arterial 32.2%28.2%22.4%12.3%4.9% Principal Arterial 11.4%31.6%30.4%26.6%0.0% Total 28.0%32.3%25.7%11.4%2.6% 60 50 Figure 37: Non-NHS Federal Aid Pavement Conditions, 2023 61 51 THE AAMPO REGION’S PERFORMANCE – PAVEMENT CONDITIONS The AAMPO’s current performance toward the 2- and 4-year targets for the region’s Interstate and non- Interstate NHS pavement is summarized in Table 23. As Table 23 shows, the percentage of Interstate pavement in Good condition based on 2023 data was 52.8%, which is less than both the 2023 2-year and 2025 4-year targets of 55.0% and 53.0%, respectively. The percentage of Interstate pavement in Poor condition was determined to be 0% in 2023, which is less than the 2- and 4-year targets of 3.0%. The percentage of non-Interstate NHS pavement in Good condition in 2023 was 31.4%, which is less than the 2023 2-year of 35.0% but exceeds the 2025 4-year target of 30.0%. The percentage of non- Interstate NHS pavement in Poor condition in 2023 was calculated to be 14.4%, substantially higher the 2- and 4-year targets of 6.0%. Table 23: The AAMPO’s Progress Toward the Region’s Pavement Condition Performance Targets MULTIMODAL CONDITIONS HIGHWAY FREIGHT The AAMPO region relies on multimodal freight to support the regional and broader Iowa economy. The multimodal network of truck routes, rail lines, and pipelines in the region are critical to supporting freight mobility both locally and nationally. Federal Freight Routes Ames is located adjacent to I-35, which is a critical freight corridor facilitating truck movements across the nation as evidenced by I-35’s inclusion in the National Highway Freight Network. This network was established through the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act to direct federal resources and policies to improving performance of highway portions of the U.S. freight transportation system.4 The National Highway Freight Network is composed of a series of subsystems that include the following: 4 FHWA, National Highway Freight Network. Performance Measure AAMPO Performance, 2023 2023 2 Year Target 2025 4 Year Target Pavements on the Interstate system in Good condition 52.8%55.0%53.0% Pavements on the Interstate system in Poor condition 0.0%3.0%3.0% Pavements on the non-Interstate NHS in Good condition 31.4%35.0%30.0% Pavements on the non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition 14.4%6.0%6.0% 62 52 • Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS): Network of highways identified as the most critical highway portions of the U.S. freight transportation system • Other Interstate Portions not on the PHFS (non-PHFS): The remaining portion of interstate roads not included in PHFS • Critical Rural Freight Corridors (CRFCs): Public roads not in an urbanized area that provide access and connection to PHFS and the Interstate with other important ports, public transportation facilities, or intermodal freight facilities • Critical Urban Freight Corridors (CUFCs): Public roads in urbanized areas that provide access and connection to PHFS and the Interstate with other ports, public transportation facilities, or intermodal transportation facilities Additionally, several other major freight routes serve the Ames region: • U.S. 30 • U.S. 69 • S 16th Street (east of S Duff Avenue) • Lincoln Way (east of S Duff Avenue) State Freight Routes While CRFCs and CUFCs are considered federal freight routes, state DOTs are directed to identify and designate these routes. The most recent designation of CRFCs and CUFCs in Iowa occurred with the publication of the 2022 Iowa State Freight Plan.5 While no CRFCs were designated in the AAMPO region, several CUFCs were identified: • E 13th Street, N Dayton Avenue from I-35 to Old Bloomington Road • Dayton Avenue from U.S. 30 to E 13th Street • U.S. 30, S Dayton Avenue, SE 18th Street from I-35 to Dayton Avenue Locally Designated Truck Routes Ames and Gilbert do not currently have designated truck routes. Certain routes in the communities prohibit truck traffic. Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic Volumes To better understand the current demand for freight-supportive infrastructure in the AAMPO region, average annual daily truck traffic (AADTT) volumes were reviewed using truck volume data from Iowa DOT for the year 2023. Figure 38 shows the most recent truck volumes for the AAMPO’s routes. In the AAMPO region, I-35 currently carries the highest AADTTs, which exceed 5,000 trucks per day. As Figure 38 shows, AADTT information was limited to the AAMPO’s NHS routes; in addition to I-35, U.S. 30 is another high truck volume corridor in the region with daily truck volumes ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 trucks per day. The nature of S Duff Avenue and Grand Avenue as freight-supportive routes is reflected by their daily AADTTs ranging from a low of 251 to 500 trucks per day. 5 2022 Iowa State Freight Plan 63 53 Figure 38: Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic Volumes, 2023 64 54 RAIL FREIGHT Rail Lines Rail freight is an additional mode that is critical to the AAMPO regional and broader Iowa economy. Currently, there are three rail lines in the AAMPO region, all owned and operated by Union Pacific Railroad. Figure 39 shows the Union Pacific lines in the AAMPO region. The east-west mainline track runs through Ames on its route from Chicago, Illinois, to Oakland, California. The north-south track runs through the AAMPO area on its route from Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Kansas City, Missouri. According to the 2022 Iowa State Freight Plan, the east-west mainline track through Ames is one of two tracks with the highest traffic density of all tracks in Iowa, with more than 40 gross tons per mile. There are currently no intermodal facilities or transloads in Ames that would create additional rail traffic. Rail Crossings Locations where rail lines intersect with streets and roadways pose special concern for the safety and operation of the multimodal transportation system. At-grade crossings can result in train-vehicle collisions, while train crossing events can cause delays for vehicular traffic. Currently, there are 32 public rail crossings in the AAMPO region. An analysis of the rail crossing locations found that 19 of the 32 crossings are at-grade, while 4 crossings are railroad under, and 9 crossings are railroad over as shown in Table 24. Figure 39 includes the AAMPO’s public rail crossing locations. Table 24: Position of Public Rail Crossings, The AAMPO Region Source: Federal Rail Administration, Safety Map. Further analysis of the AAMPO’s public at-grade rail crossings looked at the number of trains recorded at each crossing based on Federal Rail Administration crossing data. Public at-grade crossings along the east-west mainline recorded 43 total trains per day, while 1 train per day traverses the public at- grade crossings along the north-south mainline, as shown in Figure 40. Crossing Position Count At-grade 19 Railroad under 4 Railroad over 9 Total 32 65 55 Figure 39: The AAMPO’s Rail Freight Facilities 66 56 Figure 40: Trains per Day at the AAMPO’s Public At-Grade Rail Crossings 67 57 Pipelines Pipelines serve critical freight functions by facilitating high-volume movement of liquid and gas commodities. Intermodal pipeline facilities have important freight implications because these locations generate the intermodal movement of products among pipeline, truck, and rail modes. Currently, there are 194.67 total miles of active pipelines in Story County, with 122.73 miles dedicated to natural gas transmission and the remaining 71.94 miles used for hazardous liquids. In Boone County, there are 263.02 total miles of active pipelines: 234.02 miles of gas transmission and 28.82 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline.6 Figure 41 and Figure 42 show the approximate locations of active pipelines in Story and Boone Counties. 6 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, National Pipeline Mapping System. 68 58 Figure 41: Story County Pipelines Source: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, National Pipeline Mapping System. 69 59 Figure 42: Boone County Pipelines Source: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, National Pipeline Mapping System. 70 60 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN Existing Bicycle Network The AAMPO region has an extensive network of existing bicycle facilities that can be broadly divided into two categories: on-street and off-street. Off-street bicycle facilities are those that are separated from vehicular travel lanes and include shared-use paths and trails, while on-street facilities are found in the roadway space and include bike lanes, paved shoulders, and shared lanes (sharrows/bike boulevards). Figure 43 shows the existing bicycle network for the AAMPO region as published in Walk, Bike, Roll Ames,7 which is the bicycle and pedestrian plan published in 2024. Table 25. Existing Bicycle Facilities 7 Walk, Bike, Roll Ames Facility Type Description Mileage in Ames On-Street Bikeways Bike lanes a Bike lanes are an on-street dedicated space solely for cyclists. These lanes are usually marked with signs and pavement markings to remind motorists. Bike lanes in Ames connect many destinations where shared-use paths currently have gaps. a Source: https://coloradosprings.gov/types-bike-lanes 5 miles Shared lanes b Shared bike lanes or “sharrows” are pavement markings used to alert motorists of a shared lane environment for cyclists and motorists. The shared lanes in Ames are found on neighborhood street types, as well as around Iowa State University. b Source: https://momentummag.com/sharrows-used-to-make- sense-in-theory-but-are-now-useless-in-practice/ 17 miles Paved shoulders c Paved shoulders provide a separate space for cyclists, like bike lanes. Paved shoulders are not considered a travel lane and may contain temporary parked vehicles. Paved shoulders in Ames are located on the edges of town and on rural roads to connect regional destinations. c Source: https://toolkit.irap.org/safer-road-treatments/paved- shoulder/ 8 miles Off-Street Bikeways Shared-use paths d Shared use paths are multi-use trails, fully separated from motor vehicle traffic, usually on the side of roads. Shared-use paths also run through Iowa State campus, parks, and other recreation areas. The shared-use paths are found mainly along arterial and collector streets and along greenbelt corridors. d Source: https://www.nationalrtap.org/Resources%20/Best- Practices-Spotlight/shared-use-paths 36 miles 71 61 Existing Pedestrian Network The existing pedestrian network includes sidewalks and shared-use paths that can be used by both bicycles and pedestrians. Most neighborhoods in Ames have complete sidewalks on both sides of the road. Areas lacking complete sidewalks are in places of higher commercial land use and are mainly on the edges of town. Figure 44 shows the existing pedestrian facilities in the AAMPO region. 72 62 Figure 43: Existing Bicycle Facilities 73 63 Figure 44: Existing Sidewalk Facilities 74 64 Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Level of Traffic Stress The comfort of the bicycle and pedestrian experience is a key factor in whether an individual will decide to walk, bike, or roll as their travel mode. The comfort of an individual’s bicycle or pedestrian experience is measured using an estimated Level of Traffic Stress (LTS). LTS is estimated based on a range of roadway and bicycle/ pedestrian facility characteristics, such as number of vehicular travel lanes, traffic volumes, posted speeds, and the presence of a sidewalk, on-street, or off-street bicycle facility. Based on the characteristics associated with route, an LTS is calculated and reported across one of the four LTS ratings, as shown in Table 26. Table 26: Level of Traffic Stress Thresholds Two LTS analyses were conducted as part of Walk, Bike, Roll Ames; the results are summarized in the following sections. Pedestrian Crossing Level of Traffic Stress A Pedestrian Crossing Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) conducted for Ames sought to evaluate locations that pose the highest degree of difficulty for pedestrians in crossing the corresponding street or road. Figure 45 shows the PLTS at the priority crossings identified in Walk, Bike, Roll Ames. Based on the results of the analysis, corridors in the AAMPO region that contain the highest stress intersections (PLTS 4) are as follows: • S Duff Avenue • Lincoln Way • 13th Street • Grand Avenue • Stange Road • Dakota Avenue • Mortensen Road • University Boulevard • S 16th Street Stress Rating Stress Level Simplified Stress Level LTS 1 Lowest Low Stress LevelLTS 2 Medium Low LTS 3 Medium High High StressLTS 4 Highest 75 65 Figure 45: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress for Walk, Bike, Roll Ames Priority Pedestrian Crossings 76 66 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress A segment’s Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) is influenced by corresponding traffic volumes, posted traffic speeds, the presence of dedicated bike space, and the presence of parking. BLTS ratings are applied to road segments based on the traffic experience of a cyclist using that route. Generalized BLTS levels by facility type are shown in Figure 46. Figure 47 shows the resulting BLTS for priority bicycle routes identified in Walk, Bike, Roll Ames. Neighborhood streets are mostly classified as low stress due to the presence of lower and slower traffic and sidewalks. Higher-stress roads include major collectors and arterial segments that are without shared-use paths or on-street bikeways. Figure 46: BLTS Ratings on Bicycle Facilities Source: Walk Bike Roll Ames 2024 77 67 Figure 47: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress for Walk, Bike, Roll Ames Priority Bicycle Routes 78 68 PUBLIC TRANSIT CyRide is the primary urbanized transit provider in the AAMPO region, operating 13 fixed routes, an on- demand service in east Ames, a late-night Moonlight Express, and a paratransit service (Dial-A-Ride) for individuals with disabilities. CyRide operates under a partnership with Ames, Iowa State University, and Iowa State University’s student government. A summary of all transit services in the AAMPO region are shown in Table 27. Table 27: The AAMPO’s Public Transit Services Federal Transit Performance Measures Federal rulemaking under the purview of FTA directs public transit agencies to create safety performance measures that address the following: • Transit-related fatalities • Transit-related injuries • Safety events • System reliability In addition to transit safety performance measures, CyRide is required to develop transit asset management targets and share those targets with the AAMPO on an annual basis. The purpose of transit asset performance management is to monitor the condition of CyRide’s transit facilities and vehicles. Table 28 and Table 29 present the transit safety and asset management performance targets for CyRide public transit and the vehicles leased to HIRTA by CyRide. Service Description Fixed route service A bus network with 13 fixed routes in Ames. East Ames service extension (EASE) On-demand, curb-to-curb service between the Ames City Hall and the eastern part of Ames. Moonlight Express Fare-free service with two routes and an additional door-to-door service for Ames residents. This service is offered during the university’s fall and spring semesters. Paratransit Door-to-door paratransit service contracted through Heart of Iowa Transit Agency (HIRTA), serving individuals with a disability. Regional public transit service Additional service provided by HIRTA that includes a regional door-to- door service throughout central Iowa, including Story County and Ames. 79 69 Table 28: Public Transit Safety Performance Targets (Adopted September 2024) Source: The AAMPO Table 29: Transit Asset Management Performance Targets (Adopted March 2025) Notes: ULB = useful life benchmark; TERM = Transit Economics Requirements Model Source: The AAMPO Mode of Transit Service Major Events Major Events (Rate) Collisions (Rate) Pedestrian Collisions (Rate) Vehicular Collisions (Rate) Fatalities Fatalities (Rate) Fixed Route Bus 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Paratransit 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Mode of Transit Service Transit Worker Fatalities (Rate) Injuries Injuries (Rate) Transit Worker Injuries (Rate) Assaults on Transit Workers Assaults on Transit Workers (Rate) System Reliability (Rate) Fixed Route Bus 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 34,119.55 Paratransit 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 238,798 Class 2024 Target 2024 Year-End Results 2025 Performance Target 2026 2027 2028 2029 Rolling Stock 40- to 60-ft Bus 27%26%43% of fleet exceeds ULB of 15 years 35%38%32%25% Rolling Stock Cutaways 0%0%0% of fleet exceeds ULB of 8 years 0%0%0%0% Equipment Shop Trucks 0%0%0% of fleet exceeds ULB of 10 years 0%0%0%0% Facilities Admin/ Maint. Facility 0%0% 0% of facilities rated under 3.0 on TERM scale 0%0%0%0% Facilities Ames Intermodal Facility 0%0% 0% of facilities rated under 3.0 on TERM scale 0%0%0%0% 80 70 Transit Performance System Level Performance Transit ridership steadily increased from 2010 to 2016. This was followed by a gradual decline through 2019, and ridership experienced a sharp drop in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as shown in Figure 48 and Figure 49. When the pandemic began, approximately 30,000 university students, which represents half of the Ames population, did not return after spring break. Because students account for roughly 93% of CyRide’s ridership, this led to a dramatic decline. Additional system-level trends include the following: • Fixed route service experienced a 72% decrease in 2020 because many university classes shifted to virtual formats, eliminating the need for students to travel to campus. However, ridership rebounded by 98% between 2021 and 2022 when in-person classes resumed. • Dial-A-Ride service (paratransit) has remained relatively steady over the years but experienced a significant increase of 106% from approximately 6,300 to 13,089 rides between 2021and 2022. This increase reflects collaborative efforts with HIRTA to raise awareness and transition eligible passengers to Dial-A-Ride, ensuring the service is used by those who need it most while maintaining accessibility for the Ames community. Figure 48: Annual CyRide Fixed Route/EASE/Moonlight Express Ridership, 2010–2024 Source: CyRide 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 5, 3 6 7 , 4 1 0 5, 4 3 8 , 1 8 8 5, 7 4 9 , 0 3 0 5, 8 8 3 , 3 1 8 6, 6 0 8 , 4 6 7 6, 7 0 0 , 0 9 9 6, 7 7 3 , 5 5 6 6, 6 4 8 , 7 5 0 6, 5 6 3 , 1 6 2 6, 1 1 2 , 6 4 3 4, 5 6 9 , 6 4 4 1, 8 5 5 , 9 2 6 3, 6 5 6 , 8 0 5 4, 1 2 8 , 4 1 3 4, 7 0 0 , 9 0 6 Fixed Route/EASE/Moonlight Ridership 81 71 Figure 49: CyRide Dial-A-Ride Ridership, 2010–2024 Source: CyRide Historic system performance for CyRide’s fixed route service for Fiscal Year (FY)2020 through FY2024 is shown in Table 30. CyRide’s fixed route services saw a reduction in usage during FY2021 and FY2022, which coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. After FY2022, transit usage began to trend toward pre- FY2021 levels as indicated by the increases in all key performance metrics shown in Table 30. Another trend observed in the historic performance data is the sustained annual increase in operating expenses per vehicle revenue miles and vehicle revenue hour. This increase reflects the rising costs of providing transit service post-pandemic, including higher expenses for fuel, wages, and maintenance, which align with national trends in transit operations. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 9, 7 4 5 9, 1 0 1 10 , 8 5 3 9, 4 6 8 10 , 7 1 5 11 , 5 6 6 11 , 9 2 3 9, 2 7 7 8, 9 0 3 8, 3 8 0 7, 8 1 8 6, 3 4 8 13 , 0 8 9 13 , 7 8 3 41 , 6 0 8 82 72 Table 30: Annual CyRide Fixed Route Performance, FY2020–FY2024 Source: National Transit Database, Transit Agency Profile 2019-2023. Route Level Performance Ridership route data for 2023 and 2024 was analyzed and compared to the 2019 ridership reported in AAMPO’s 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Figure 50 summarizes 2019, 2023, and 2024 ridership by route. The routes with highest ridership for these periods were #23 Orange, #1 Red, and #25 Gold. The routes with the lowest ridership include #8 Aqua, the EASE route, and #14 Peach. The overall trend observed when comparing the time series data is that ridership by route decreased in 2023 and 2024 compared to 2019. Figure 51 shows CyRide’s transit service operating in Ames. The Dial-A-Ride service operates anywhere in Ames or ¾ of a mile from any CyRide fixed route, whichever is greater. Fixed Route FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 Annual passenger miles 9,856,054 7,357,159 2,988,040 5,887,456 6,223,904 Annual unlinked trips 6,112,643 4,569,664 1,855,926 3,656,805 4,128,413 Annual vehicle revenue miles 1,228,098 1,236,826 1,247,364 1,276,110 1,268,158 Annual vehicle revenue hours 127,538 119,228 121,288 125,314 124,014 Operating expenses per vehicle revenue mile $8.49 $8.38 $8.20 $8.85 $9.84 Operating expenses per vehicle revenue hour $85.79 $86.94 $84.34 $90.11 $100.56 Fare revenues $4,657,646 $4,133,494 $1,597,115 $2,573,303 $6,788,132 83 73 Figure 50: 2019, 2023, and 2024 CyRide Ridership per Route Source: CyRide 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 74,252 89,542 98,537 98,592 66,11266,42758,965 50,73147,198 79,981 City of Ames Story County 84 74 Figure 51: CyRide Transit Service Source: CyRide 85 75 Transit Level of Service Transit LOS analysis evaluates transit service performance across peak periods, which are generally assumed to be 6 to 9 a.m. and 3 to 6 p.m. on weekdays. Given the high student population of the AAMPO region, peak transit demand occurs in the morning hours through 10 a.m., at which point demand reduces but ridership remains high as CyRide user trips are spread out through the late morning, afternoon, and evening hours. Figure 52 shows the resulting transit LOS for CyRide’s fixed routes. The LOS reflect a.m. peak demand. It is noted that the #8 Aqua route was not included in the analysis as it only operates during summer months, and the EASE service boundary assumes a 60 minute for service which resulted in an LOS exceeding 30 minutes. Table 31: Transit Level of Service for CyRide Fixed Routes Table 32: Transit Level of Service Thresholds Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. Highest LOS Routes Lowest LOS Routes #11 Cherry #5 Yellow #21 Cardinal #14 Peach #23 Orange EASE (on-demand service) Frequency (Minutes)Description <10 No bus schedule needed. 10–14 Passengers may consult schedules. 15–20 Passengers consult schedules to minimize wait time. 21–30 Passengers adapt travel to transit schedule. 31–40 Minimal service to meet basic travel needs. 86 76 Figure 52: Transit Peak Level of Service 87 77 Dial-A-Ride Service HIRTA is a regional transit agency that operates door-to-door demand-response transit services in central Iowa, including the counties of Boone, Dallas, Jasper, Madison, Marion, Story, and Warren. CyRide contracts with HIRTA to provide complementary Americans with Disabilities Act service, referred to as Dial-A-Ride.8 Dial-A-Ride service in Ames is reserved for passengers unable to use fixed route buses due to a disability. To be eligible for this service within the CyRide service boundary, passengers must be approved by CyRide. Outside the CyRide service area, HIRTA provides services directly for Story County. Dial-A-Ride Historic Performance Historic Dial-A-Ride performance by fiscal year within the CyRide service boundary was reviewed based on performance statistics provided by CyRide and is presented in Table 33 for fiscal years 2020 through 2024. Note that starting in 2020, HIRTA began reporting performance statistics for services they directly operate to the NTD while CyRide reports services they directly operate. While the Dial-A- Ride service is CyRide’s service, these numbers are embedded in HIRTA’s overall performance for the counties they serve in Central Iowa. The main findings of the review of Dial-A-Ride historic performance within the CyRide service area are that the service saw a substantial increase across all performance metrics since fiscal year 2020; one factor likely influencing limited performance in 2020 is the COVID-19 pandemic that began in mid- March, which saw nationwide reductions in travel. One notable trend regarding historic performance Dial-A-Ride service is the general increase in annual farebox recovery ratios, defined as the percentage of operating expenses covered by passenger fares, which indicates an increase in service efficiency. Table 33: Historic Dial-A-Ride Performance by Fiscal Year, FY2020–FY2024 Source: CyRide 8 Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Agency, Ames Area MPO FY2025-2029 Passenger Transportation Plan. Dial-A-Ride FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 Passengers 7,818 6,348 13,089 13,783 14,608 Revenue miles 36,413 36,234 73,340 56,953 61,542 Revenue hours 3,341 3,360 6,758 4,807 4,220 Passengers/revenue hour 2.3 1.9 1.9 2.9 3.5 Passengers/revenue mile 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Expenses $154,967 $129,217 $243,104 $254,074 $305,030 Farebox revenue $11,790 $5,050 $15,598 $15,077 $22,741 Farebox recovery ratio 7.6%3.9%6.4%5.9%7.5% 88 78 EXISTING REGIONAL CONNECTIONS Although personal vehicle travel and CyRide transit are the most preferred modes of travel in the AAMPO region, there are other transportation providers in the region that allow additional connections in Ames and beyond and connect travelers to different modes. The following sections discuss those services. AVIATION Aviation services in the AAMPO region are facilitated at the James Herman Banning Ames Municipal Airport. Current services at the site include business aviation that allows users to charter flights across the country. Key airport operation statistics include the following:9 • Aircraft based on field: 86 • Aircraft operations: Average 921/day • Single engine airplanes: 61.25% transient general aviation • Multiengine airplanes: 6.37% local general aviation • Jet airplanes: 2.5% air taxi • Gliders: 13.1% military • Ultralights: 3 INTERCITY BUS SERVICE Additional operators provide intercity bus services between Ames and surrounding communities. Regional transportation services are centrally located at the Ames Intermodal Facility, located at the intersection of Hayward Avenue and Chamberlain Street. CyRide provides services to the facility, connecting travelers to additional destinations in Ames. The following intercity bus services serve the AAMPO region: • Jefferson Lines: Provides service to Ames primarily through the I-35 corridor, offering transportation to destinations north and south of Ames and providing access to nearby states as well. • Executive Express: Provides one-way and round-trip shuttle service to and from the Des Moines International Airport and picks up travelers at the Ames Intermodal Facility or the Quality Inn & Suites located on E 13th Street. PASSENGER RAIL Union Pacific operates several freight lines in the AAMPO region; however, Amtrak does not provide service along any railroads in the area. The Boone & Scenic Valley Railroad does operate seasonal passenger rides, such as a dinner train and the Santa Express. The service operates in Boone and Fraser, Iowa. WATERWAYS The Skunk River Water Trail is a recreational waterway located in the AAMPO region. It provides a scenic recreational route for paddlers. Numerous access points to the water trail are located in the AAMPO region and offer recreational opportunities to residents during the spring and summer months. 9 City of Ames, James Herman Banning Ames Municipal Airport General Information. 89 79 ALTERNATIVE MOBILITY PROVIDERS Travelers in the AAMPO region have many options available for travel in addition to public transportation services and the bicycle and pedestrian network. Ridesharing services, such as Uber and Lyft, are available and can connect users to drivers via smartphone app. Taxi services are provided by Yellow Cab, whose facility is located at the James Herman Banning Ames Municipal Airport.10 Uber, Lyft, and taxi services provide a considerable number of trips to riders in the AAMPO region. Replica was used to estimate the number of trips taken during a typical weekend from fall 2022 through spring 2024, as shown in Figure 53. Fall 2023 had the largest number of ridesharing trips on a typical Saturday, with trips falling significantly during the spring of 2023 and 2024. Figure 53: Rideshare Trips, The AAMPO Region, 2022–2024 Source: Replica HQ 10 The AAMPO, FFY2025-2029 Passenger Transportation Plan. 0 Fall 2022 Spring 2023 Fall 2023 Spring 2024 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2,150 1,440 2,610 1,290 90 80 SUMMARY OF EXISTING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Completing existing system performance analyses enabled the identification of the key issues and needs facing the AAMPO’s multimodal transportation system. To understand how the perceptions of the region’s issues and needs have evolved over time, a review of responses to the travel surveys distributed as part of the 2035 and 2040 long-range transportation plans and 2045 MTP were compared with the results of the 2050 MTP travel survey. Each survey asked participants to name the three most important transportation issues that need addressed. Several common themes were observed across survey responses for each plan. As Figure 54 shows, the condition of roadways, ease of north/south travel in Ames, and flow of traffic on area streets during peak times were consistently ranked by survey respondents as top issues in the AAMPO region. Transportation safety was not highly ranked in the 2035 and 2040 long-range transportation plans, but it increased in importance for the 2045 and 2050 MTPs and was a top 3 issue identified in the 2050 MTP travel survey. Figure 54: Top Transportation Issues Identified by Travel Survey Participants The key takeaways of the AAMPO’s existing multimodal system performance analysis are summarized in Table 34. Traﬃc safety 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% Flow of traﬃc on area streets during peak times Ease of north/south travel in the Ames area Condition of Roadways 54% 25% 34% 38% 37% 40% 46% 46% 37% 37% 50% 46% 12% 13% 32% 38% 2035 LRTP 2040 LRTP 2045 MTP 2050 MTP 91 81 Table 34: Existing System Performance Analysis Key Findings Mode Key Findings Safety Fatal and serious injury crashes have illustrated a declining trend since 2019 but are still ocvcurring on the region’s higher volume arterial network. Traffic Operations AM and PM peak hour congestion is present along the AAMPO’s arterial streets and roads, and future growth could exacerbate peak hour traffic operations. Asset Conditions The region’s bridges and pavement exhibit areas of Poor condition. The AAMPO and local jurisdictions have plans in place to address asset conditions. Freight Few barriers to freight mobility exist today, but strategies to accommodate growth in freight usage and freight-generating land uses could help preserve efficient regional freight movements. Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority bicycle routes and pedestrian crossings exhibit a range of stress levels. The Walk, Bike, Roll Ames bicycle and pedestrian plan identifies potential treatments that best fit the context of specific corridors/pedestrian crossings. Public Transit Fixed route and demand response ridership saw substantial declines in 2020 and 2021 but have begun to trend back toward pre-2020 levels. 92 82 CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AAMPO is dedicated to making the Ames Connect 2050 Plan a collaborative effort shaped by the community and system users. Public engagement throughout the plan’s development focused on informing residents about the MTP’s goals and objectives while fostering opportunities for meaningful participation. Guided by the MPO’s Public Participation Plan, multiple outreach methods were used to encourage dialogue, generate ideas, and build consensus. To gather feedback from community members, AAMPO hosted in-person public open houses, online open houses, and presented at several community events. The engagement process was structured around three key milestones: • Identifying Challenges and Goals • Developing Strategies • Reviewing the Draft Plan Each engagement activity was designed to verify that public input played a central role in shaping transportation priorities. CONNECT 2050 WEBSITE A project website was created to provide background and updates throughout the development of Connect 2050. This website also hosted the online engagement events, including online open houses and an engagement survey. ENGAGEMENT MILESTONE 1: IDENTIFYING CHALLENGES AND GOALS The first public engagement milestone of the MTP development process sought to solicit input from community members on the current challenges facing multi-modal transportation in the region and to listen to their ideas on the goal areas that should guide Connect 2050. Events held as part of the Identifying Challenges and Goals milestone included: • In-Person Open House #1 – Visioning • Online Open House #1 – Visioning • Ames Eco Fair Engagement Booth • Engagement Survey IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSE #1 The in-person Visioning open house was held in November 2024 at the Ames Community Library. The purpose of this event was to provide attendees with an overview of the MTP process and solicit feedback on the vision and priorities they felt should guide Connect 2050. A total of 22 community members attended the open house event. Educational materials for the event included a series of boards that provided an overview of the MTP process, background on the city of Ames’ CSAP, the project schedule, and information on how the region is expected to grow in terms of population, number of households, and employment through 2050. 93 83 Activities conducted at Open House #1 included: • Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis – participants were asked to share their thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of AAMPO’s multi-modal transportation system today, and what opportunities and threats could impact the region in the future. • Connect 2050 Focus Areas Voting – Participants were asked to vote for what they believe Connect 2050’s focus areas should be; each participant was able to vote for up to three focus areas. • Tabletop Mapping Exercise – Participants were asked to leave comments on a tabletop map related to specific multi-modal issues and needs within the region. ONLINE OPEN HOUSE #1 The supplementary online meeting for Open House #1 was hosted for two weeks, from November 21 through December 6, 2024. This event presented the same educational materials and used the same activities as the in-person event. A total of 186 users visited the online open house. AMES ECO FAIR ENGAGEMENT BOOTH A Connect 2050 engagement booth was set up at the Ames Eco Fair, which took place in September 2024. This booth provided the same educational content and activities as described for Open House #1. The engagement booth totaled 178 attendees. ENGAGEMENT SURVEY The final element of the Identifying Challenges and Goals public engagement milestone was an engagement survey posted on the Connect 2050 project website. This survey was available from September 25 through December 6, 2024, and asked respondents questions related to: • Potential priorities of Connect 2050. • Strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities facing the region’s multi-modal transportation system. • Safety topics in support of the CSAP. • Optional demographic information. The survey received 42 responses. IDENTIFYING CHALLENGES AND GOALS – WHAT WE HEARD The key themes arising from the Identifying Challenges and Goals public engagement milestone were: 94 84 • Residents enjoy having CyRide but want to see it be even more accessible to all residents. • There is a desire for an increased focus on multi-modal facilities, such as better and more connected bike trails, safer walking and rolling options, and access to transit options that serve beyond the Ames area. The focus areas that emerged from community input regarding what they felt should be the top priorities guiding Connect 2050 were Public and Active Transportation, Accessibility, and Sustainability. Figure 55 shows the total votes received for each focus area across the first public engagement milestone events. Figure 55: Public Prioritization Results - Identifying Challenges and Goals Phase MPO-WIDE HOUSEHOLD TRANSPORTATION SURVEY A transportation survey was administered to a random sample of MPO residents during the fall of 2024. The survey’s purpose was to gather input from residents regarding issues and opportunities related to transportation planning for the region. Some of the specific topics addressed in the survey included: • Perceptions of current transportation system and issues. • Methods of transportation used. • Detailed perceptions of topics related to traffic safety, public transit, and bicycle and pedestrian options. • Priorities for potential future transportation improvements. The survey was mailed to a random sample of residents and completed by 406 recipients, resulting in a statistical precision of at least +/- 4.8% at a 95% level of confidence. A summary report is included in Appendix E. ENGAGEMENT MILESTONE #2: DEVELOPING STRATEGIES The second public engagement milestone of the MTP development process sought to solicit input from community members on the potential strategies they would like to see recommended as part of Connect 2050. Events held as part of the Developing Strategies milestone included: Other Resiliency Preservation Placemaking Eﬃciency & Reliability Safety Equity Sustainability Accessibility Public & Active Transportation 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Votes 95 85 • In-Person Open House #2 – Alternatives and Strategies • Online Open House #2 – Alternatives and Strategies • Ames Farmers Market Engagement Booth IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSE #2 The in-person Alternatives and Strategies open house was held in April 2025 at the Ames Community Library. The purpose of this event was to provide attendees with an update on Connect 2050 and solicit feedback on the strategies they would like to see recommended in the MTP. A total of 22 community members attended the open house event. Educational materials for the event included a series of boards that provided an overview of the MTP’s role, additional information on the city of Ames’ CSAP, the project schedule, and the key themes identified during the Identifying Challenges and Goals public engagement milestone. Activities conducted at Open House #2 included: • Connect 2050 Strategies Voting – participants were asked to share their thoughts on potential strategies that could be included in Connect 2050 to address the issues and needs facing the region’s multi-modal transportation. • Build Your Own Street – Participants were invited to demonstrate their ideas on how to implement various strategies within the region by designing a street. • Tabletop Mapping Exercise – Participants were asked to leave comments on a tabletop map related to locations where they felt potential Connect 2050 strategies could be applied. ONLINE OPEN HOUSE #2 The supplementary online meeting for Open House #2 was hosted for two weeks, from April 29 through May 13, 2025. This event presented the same educational materials and used the same Connect 2050 Strategies Voting and Mapping Exercise activities as the in-person event. A total of 90 users visited the online open house. AMES FARMERS MARKET ENGAGEMENT BOOTH A Connect 2050 engagement booth was set up at the Ames Farmers Market, which took place in May 2025. This booth provided the same educational content and activities as described for Open House #2. A total of 116 Attendees visited the engagement booth. 96 86 DEVELOPING STRATEGIES – WHAT WE HEARD The key theme arising from the Developing Strategies public engagement milestone was that the strategies presented at the engagement events were supported by the majority of participants, with certain strategies receiving higher degrees of support. The results of the Connect 2050 Strategies Voting activity are summarized below by topic. 97 87 98 88 ENGAGEMENT MILESTONE #3: REVIEWING THE DRAFT PLAN The third public engagement milestone of the MTP development process sought to solicit input from community members on the draft Connect 2050 MTP. Online Open House #3 provided a dedicated review of the Draft Plan milestone. OPEN HOUSE #3 – DRAFT CONNECT 2050 MTP Online Open Hose The Draft Connect 2050 MTP launched July 30th and provided the public, resource agencies, and stakeholders the opportunity to review the draft document over a 30 day comment period. 99 89 TTC / POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS The MTP team met with and presented to the TTC to get feedback and provide updates at the following milestones: DEC 2024 2025 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP MTP Overview Existing Conditions Summary Goals/Objectives Development Future Land Use Plan Update Performance Measure Discussion Future Travel Summary Draft Alternatives Development Project Prioritization Approach Draft Fiscally Constrained Plan Present Draft MTP Adopt MTP Presented the MTP process, draft project list, and draft fiscally constrained plan Presented the draft MTP Adopted the final MTP The MTP team also presented and got feedback from the Policy Committee at the following milestones: JUNE 2025 JULY 2025 SEPT 2025 100 90 CHAPTER 5: FUTURE TRENDS AND NEEDS A future performance analysis was conducted for the Ames Area MPO transportation system to assess how projected growth in employment and households will affect the region’s transportation system. This analysis used inputs from the updated Travel Demand Model (TDM), with 2023 as the base year and 2050 as the scenario year. FUTURE GROWTH Employment and population in the Ames Area MPO are estimated to continue to grow steadily into 2050. Table 35 shows the future growth predictions to 2050 that were used as inputs for the TDM. While the estimated employment and household growth levels are not indicative of how future land uses will be planned, zoned, or phased, they inform the travel parameters used in the future system performance analysis presented in this chapter. Table 35: Projected Regional Growth Trends, 2023–2050 *Note – The TDM boundary was larger than the Ames Area MPOs boundary, including additional land in Story County and the town of Kelly, resulting in a larger population and more households than shown in Chapter 2. As shown in the table above, both households and population are projected to grow by 27% between 2023 and 2050. Similarly, employment is expected to grow by 27%, rising from 35,879 to 45,700 jobs during the same period. Future growth areas were determined by the Ames Plan 2040, then refined based on input from Ames City Staff. Once growth areas were determined, the amount of growth to occur was calculated using specific land use assumptions based on each land use type. Employment and household projections were then allocated to specific traffic analysis zones (TAZ) based on the geographic locations of the future growth. Project employment growth by TAZ is shown in Figure 56 and projected Household growth is shown in Figure 57. Year Households Population Employment 2023 28,748 73,910 35,879 2050 36,620 94,140 45,700 Growth 27% 27%27% 101 91 Figure 56: Growth of Employment (in Jobs) by TAZ, 2023–2050 102 92 Figure 57: Projected Household Growth by TAZ, 2023–2050 103 93 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL A TDM is a forecasting tool used to estimate future travel patterns based on the projected change in population, employment, land use, and transportation infrastructure. The TDM simulates the base year travel conditions and behaviors and then models how future growth and transportation system changes will impact travel patterns. This helps planners determine how the area performs today and will perform in future-year scenarios. A TDM is the primary method used to assess the condition and performance of the future transportation system, which is done by predicting the number, purpose, origin and destination, and route of trips made on the system. The TDM’s core concept is that land use directly affects the number and types of trips people make, with a “trip” defined as travel between two locations for a specific purpose, such as commuting from home to work, going to school, or traveling from work to a shopping destination. The TDM roadway network input includes the number of lanes, turn lanes, intersection controls, and speed limits. The transit network input includes bus routes, stop locations, route frequency, and other cost and travel information. The parcel data input includes the land use, number of households, and square footage of non-residential uses. Then, TAZs are developed by aggregating parcel-level land use data and aligning it with the network, verifying each zone reflects travel patterns, accessibility, and connectivity to the surrounding road system. 2050 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED BASELINE The existing plus committed (E+C) network represents the network as it is today combined with projects that are already funded or programmed for implementation and included in either the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and/or TIP. It serves as the baseline network for modeling future travel demand, verifying that only realistic and fiscally constrained improvements are included in the analysis. For this E+C Scenario, the existing roadway system plus the following major roadway projects are included: • 16th Street from University Boulevard to Apple Place – Widen to 4 lanes • 13th Street & Grand Avenue – Left turn lanes • Grand Avenue & S 20th Street – Left turn lanes • Stange Crescent – Reduction to two lanes • Airport Road from Sam’s Club to S Duff Avenue – Intersection upgrades • 24th Street from Stange Road to Hayes Avenue – Conversion from 4 to 3 lanes • East Lincoln Way from S Duff Avenue to S Skunk River – Conversion from 4 to 3 lanes • Bloomington Road from Hoover to Eisenhower – Conversion from 4 to 3 lanes FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Future traffic operations for the year 2050 were analyzed by comparing the model outputs from base year 2023 and the 2050 E+C Scenario. To accurately compare the 2023 traffic counts and the estimated traffic counts for the 2050 E+C Scenario, a processing procedure was applied to the 2050 E+C raw model flows. This procedure corrects the differences in the base year 2023 observed traffic counts versus the modeled traffic flows and applies those differences to the 2050 modeled flows. Growth in average daily traffic levels between 2023 and 2050 are shown in Figure 58 while percent growth in average daily traffic levels for this same period are shown in Figure 59. System-wide statistics are provided in Table 36. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is projected to increase by 35%, which means the 104 94 average trip distance will be longer, thus the distance traveled will be longer in 2050. • Vehicle hours traveled (VHT) is projected to increase by 37%, which means the average trip time will be longer, thus the time spent traveling will increase in 2050. • The number of trips is projected to increase by 25%, from 327,624 to 407,950 trips. The total number of trips will increase due to population growth. • Average trip length is projected to increase by 8%, which is consistent with the future growth happening at the urban fringe, increasing the travel distance needed to reach certain locations. • The average travel speed is estimated to remain the same at 28 mph, suggesting that committed infrastructure improvements are expected to offset future growth patterns and prevent additional congestion. Table 36: System-Wide Statistics for the E+C 2050 Scenario Source: Ames Area MPO Travel Demand Model Outputs Appendix F provides additional information on the travel demand model scenarios and methodology for forecasting future year traffic volumes; included in the Appendix is a figure comparing base year 2023 ADTs to forecasted 2050 ADTs. The scenarios included are: • Existing-plus-Committed (E+C) • Existing-plus-Committed with Planned Projects (E+C+P) • Existing-plus-Committed with Planned and Developer Driven Projects (E+C+P+D) Performance Measure (Annual)2023 2050 Change Vehicles Miles Traveled 1,762,390 2,371,325 35% Vehicle Hours Traveled 62,374 85,512 37% Trips 327,624 407,950 25% Average Trip Length (miles)5.38 5.81 8% Average Travel Speed (MPH)28 28 0% 105 95 Figure 58: Growth in Average Daily Traffic, 2023-2050 106 96 Figure 59: Percent Growth in Average Daily Traffic, 2023-2050 107 97 E+C 2050 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Intersection peak hour traffic operations in the 2050 E+C Scenario were analyzed using the same Synchro 12 software and methodology used for the baseline conditions in Chapter 3, Existing Systems Performance. The LOS results for signalized and unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 37. The intersections projected to experience significant delays are rated an LOS D or worse. Table 37: 2050 E+C Scenario Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections by Estimated LOS The signalized intersections that will be operating with a LOS D or worse under the 2050 E+C Scenario are: • S Duff Avenue/Duff Avenue & Lincoln Way/E Lincoln Way • S Dayton Avenue & SE 16th Street The unsignalized intersections that will be operating with a LOS D or worse under the 2050 E+C Scenario are: • Church Access/Hyde Avenue & Bloomington Road • S Grand Avenue & S 5th Street • Grand Avenue & 16th Street • U.S. 69 & W Riverside Road • U.S. 69 & Ada Hayden Access/Arrasmith Trail • U.S. 69 & 190th Street/Rookwood Drive • Dayton Avenue & Isaac Newton Drive The locations of the intersections operating at an LOS of D or worse are shown in Figure 60. Intersection Level of Service Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections LOS A to C 80 20 LOS D 2 1 LOS E 0 1 LOS F 0 5 Total 82 27 108 98 Figure 60: Peak Hour Traffic Operations for the E+C Scenario 109 99 TRANSPORTATION TRENDS AND TECHNOLOGY The transportation industry is undergoing a transformative shift driven by rapid advancements in technology and evolving societal needs. Emerging trends, such as autonomous vehicles, Mobility as a Service (MaaS), and electric vehicles (EV), are revolutionizing how we move people and goods. As communities and regions strive for more efficient solutions, these technologies promise to reshape the future of transportation, making it smarter, safer, and more sustainable. This section provides an overview of the ongoing changes in transportation-related trends and technologies that may impact the Ames Area MPO. Although it is difficult to measure the exact effect of changing technology in the future, outlining current trends is useful for understanding what future transportation may evolve. TRAVEL TRENDS Increased Focus on Safety Between 1994 and 2023, the number of fatal motor vehicle crashes per year increased significantly throughout the United States. The period between pre-COVID-19 (2016 2019) and post-COVID-19 (2020-2023) saw a 10.5% increase in fatal crashes. Iowa’s share of fatal motor vehicle crashes rose just slightly during this period and Ames’ fatal crashes decreased by 1 to mark a 33.9% decrease (National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration, 2023). Figure 61: Number of Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes, Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Pandemic Number of Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes 2016-2019 Number of Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes 2020-2023 % Change U.S.136,714 152,796 10.5% Iowa 1,260 1,272 0.9% Ames 3 2 -33.3% SAFESYSTEMAPPROACH SAFER SPEEDS SAFER ROADS POST CRASH CARE SAFER VEHICLES SAFER PEOPLEDEATH AND SERIOUS INJURIES ARE UNACCEPTABLE + HUMANS MAKE MISTAKES + HUMANS ARE VULNERABLE + RESPONSIBILITY IS SHARED + SAFETY IS PROACTIVE + REDUNDANCY IS CRUCIAL + Figure 62: FHWA Safe System ApproachThe National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) aims for zero traffic deaths through the Safe System Approach, but traffic fatalities increased by 12% from 2020 to 2021, totaling 31,720 deaths in the first nine months of 2021. To combat these trends, FHWA has identified several proven safety countermeasures to reduce fatal crashes. As examples, installing roundabouts can reduce fatal crashes by 82%, while adding bike lanes can decrease total crashes by up to 49%. Enhanced lighting at intersections can reduce pedestrian nighttime injury crashes by 42%, and rumble strips on rural roads can cut head-on fatalities by 44 to 64%. AAMPO has implemented numerous safety countermeasures to improve traffic safety, such as a roundabouts in key areas and a recently constructed pedestrian bridge near Jack Trice Stadium and Hilton Coliseum. Source: FHWA 110 100 There has been a more recent emphasis on bicyclist and pedestrian safety. Over the past 20 years, hundreds of U.S. jurisdictions have adopted Complete Streets policies, with two-thirds of states now designing roads to be safe and accessible for all users. Complete Streets policies facilitate street configurations and facilities such as sidewalks, bike lanes, bus lanes, crosswalks, and accessible pedestrian signals. Shifting Travel Behaviors Over time, there has been a noticeable change in the total VMT nationwide. In 2022, households reported 37% fewer person trips and 32% fewer vehicle trips compared to 2017. This decline was also reflected in the significant drop in both person miles of travel (PMT) and VMT. Travel behaviors shifted with the COVID-19 pandemic, with 30% of workers and 15% of students traveling less frequently than they did before the COVID-19 pandemic. The surge in e-commerce also played a role in these changes, as online shopping doubled from 2017 to 2022. This increase in online shopping led to fewer in person trips, particularly for shopping and errands (National Household Travel Survey, 2022). Figure 63 shows the overall trend of nationwide VMT recorded between 1971 and 2023. This figure illustrates the significant rise in VMT that occurred during this period as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on VMT in 2020. Figure 63: Historic Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled in the United States, 1971-2023 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 19 7 1 19 7 5 19 7 9 19 8 3 19 8 7 19 9 1 19 9 5 19 9 9 20 0 3 20 0 7 20 1 1 20 1 5 20 1 9 20 2 3 afdc.energy.gov/data Tr i l l i o n s o f M i l e s The United States has had a significant increase in its aging population, with over 54 million Americans age 65 and older in 2022. This demographic shift has resulted in travel pattern changes across the country. As people age, their travel frequency diminishes, leading to a noticeable reduction in overall travel demand per capita. This trend is particularly pronounced among those over the age of 75, where both VMT and the number of person trips drop significantly. Along with stagnant overall population growth and the increase in remote or hybrid working conditions, per capita travel metrics, such as trips per person and VMT per driver, have seen a downward trend (National Household Travel Survey, 2022). 111 101 Commuting trends in Iowa generally mirror national trends. In 2023, 76.2% of workers drove alone to work, down from 81.6% in 2018. Carpooling in Iowa dipped during the COVID-19 pandemic but rebounded to near pre-COVID-19 levels by 2023. Public transportation and walking commutes have dipped since the COVID-19 pandemic but are seeing a slow rebound. Commuting by walking or bicycling has remained relatively stable between 2018 and 2023. Working from home rose dramatically in Iowa pre- to post pandemic with 10.5% doing so in 2023 versus 5.1% in 2018, though the trend is declining as people return to offices (U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2024). United States and Iowa Commuting Trends 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Drove Alone 80.7%75.9%69.0%67.8%68.7%69.2% Carpool 9.8%8.9%7.9%7.8%8.6%9.0% Public Transit 1.3%5.0%3.2%2.5%3.1%3.5% Walk 1.5%2.7%2.2%2.4%2.4% Bicycle 0.2%0.5%0.4%0.5%0.5% Worked at Home 5.2%5.7%15.8%17.9%15.1%13.8% 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Drove Alone 81.6%80.2%76.3%74.4%76.1%76.2% Carpool 8.1%8.6%7.0%7.5%8.0%8.2% Public Transit 1.0%1.1%0.6%0.5%0.8%0.8% Walk 3.0%3.2%2.8%2.9%2.8% Bicycle 0.4%0.3%0.3%0.4%0.4% Worked at Home 5.1%5.8%11.9%13.4%11.0%10.5% IowaIowa United States United States U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, State Transportation by the Numbers | Bureau of Transportation Statistics EMERGING TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES The U.S. transportation system is seeing continuous changes driven by the advent of emerging technologies. Innovations such as electric and autonomous vehicles, micromobility, and connected vehicle technologies are revolutionizing the way we travel and transport goods. These advancements promise to enhance the efficiency, safety, and sustainability of the transportation system. 112 102 Electric Vehicles EVs, which encompass battery electric and plug-in/hybrid EVs, continue to constitute an increasing share of vehicles on roadways. From 2021 to 2023, there was a 145% increase in the number of EVs registered in the United States. As Table 38 shows, there were approximately 3.5 million EVs on U.S. roads by the end of 2023, a 145% increase from the 1.5 million in 2021. From 2021 to 2023 there was a 143% increase in the number of registered EVs in Iowa, slightly lower than the nationwide increase (Alternative Fuels Data Center, 2023). Table 38: EVs Registered – United States and Iowa Alternative Fuels Data Center: TransAtlas In 2023, transit vehicles continued to transition to cleaner alternatives. The majority of transit buses, however, are still powered by internal combustion engines. Over the past two decades, approximately half of the diesel-powered transit buses in the United States have been replaced by alternatives powered by natural gas, biodiesel, or hybrid-electric powertrains. Supported by the BIL and federal programs, such as the FTA’s Low and No Emission Program and the Grants for Bus and Bus Facilities Program, the U.S. electric bus fleet grew 12 percent from 2022 to 2023 (Table 39). The Ames municipal transit fleet, including CyRide, currently has 12 hybrid EVs. In addition to electrification, CyRide has continued to invest in biodiesel fuel, solar powered shelters, and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified offices. Table 39: U.S. Zero-Emission Bus Fleets: 2021–2023 Source: U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2024 Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Technologies Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAV) leverages both Connected Vehicle (CV) and Automated Vehicle (AV) technologies by communicating with nearby vehicles and infrastructure, thus providing vehicle automation to make driving decisions. 2021 2023 Percent Change, 2021 to 2023 United States 1,454,000 3,555,900 145% Iowa 3,700 9,000 143% Bus Type 2021 2022 2023 Increase, 2022 to 2023 Percent Increase, 2022 to 2023 Battery Electric 3,168 5,269 5,775 506 9.6% Fuel Cell Electric 129 211 372 116 76.3% Full Size Total 3,297 5,480 6,147 667 12.2% Small Total 615 876 1,010 134 15.3% 113 103 CV are “connected” to receive and send alerts by communicating in the following ways: • Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V): Information on speed, location, and heading • Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I): Information on signal timing, work zones, crashes, congestion, and weather conditions • Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P): Information between vehicles and non-motorized crosswalks and bicyclists • Vehicle-to-Everything (V2N to V2E): Data is transmitted to a central location for analysis, including demand management, travel times, and incident response AV are driverless or self-driving vehicles that are artificial intelligence or computer-driven and do not require a human to operate the vehicle safely. There are six levels of driving automation ranging from 0 (No Automation) to 5 (Full Automation). Most newer cars today have some automation, usually Level 1 (Driver Assistance) or Level 2 (Partial Driver Automation). Fully autonomous vehicles are in the research and testing stages but are not available to the public. It is anticipated that additional automated features will be available to consumers over time as safety and reliability testing ensures roadworthiness (California Department of Transportation, 2025). Development of autonomous freight corridors and driverless trucks have made great strides in research, development, and implementation. In early 2024, Aurora Innovation, Inc., began deploying fully autonomous trucks and driverless operations along an Interstate 45 corridor between hubs in Dallas and Houston, Texas. As additional autonomous freight corridors are implemented, autonomous heavy-duty trucks are projected to account for 13 percent of trucks on U.S. roads by 2035, according to McKinsey projections (Axios, 2025). MICROMOBILITY In 2023, a total of 157 million trips were taken on shared micromobility devices across the U.S. and Canada, marking an increase from 131 million trips in 2022. Of these, 133 million trips occurred in the U.S., representing a 16% increase. This figure surpasses the pre-pandemic peak of 147 million trips in 2019. Since 2010, over 887 million trips have been taken on shared bikes and scooters. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a 36% drop in micromobility systems between 2019 and 2021. However, ridership rebounded by 2021, with scooter systems showing the strongest recovery. By 2023, both system availability and ridership surpassed pre-pandemic levels (National Association of City Transportation Officials, 2023). Shared Bikes & E-Bikes (Station-Based) Station-based bike-share ridership in the U.S. increased to 61 million trips in 2023, up from 53 million in 2022. E-bike trips saw a significant 40% rise, reaching 28 million in 2023, and now account for 46% of station-based bike share trips. E-bikes are notably more popular than pedal bikes in systems that offer both options. Ames does not currently offer a bike share service within the MPO area; however, it could be a possible service in the future. Dockless E-Scooters and E-Bikes In 2023, there were 69 million dockless e-scooter trips, marking a 15% increase from 2022. E-scooters are a popular mobility mode that allows users to complete shorter trips. Scooter trips are gaining popularity in large metropolitan areas and spreading to smaller communities as well. Similar to bike- share programs, users can locate an e scooter using a mobile device and then rent the e-scooter to 114 104 complete their trip. An e-scooter service is not currently offered in the Ames region but may be an additional alternative to providing micromobility in the future. MOBILITY AS A SERVICE MaaS is a comprehensive mobility solution that enables travelers to access different transportation options via a single digital platform. It allows users to plan, book, and pay for journeys across various modes, including public transportation, ridesharing, and car and bike-sharing, aiming to offer seamless and flexible mobility tailored to individual needs. As cities continue to grow and expand, congestion continues to increase, which creates the demand for integrated mobility solutions. Continued growth in the use of smartphones, advancements in artificial intelligence, and increasing environmental challenges are some of the factors fueling the adoption of MaaS solutions. The market outlook is expected to grow significantly in North America between 2025 and 2035, with projections indicating a robust compound annual growth rate of 38 percent from 2025 to 2035. The market’s exponential growth is attributed to the widespread adoption of subscription-based transport models, increasing investments in electric and autonomous vehicles, and rising consumer preference for cost-effective and flexible mobility solutions (Future Market Insights, Inc., 2025). 115 105 CHAPTER 6 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT The alternatives included in Ames Connect 2050 were informed by public input received through several engagement activities, as well as past plans and studies completed for AAMPO. The past plans and studies that were reviewed to guide the alternatives’ development include: • AAMPO 2045 MTP “Forward 2045” • City of Ames Bicycle-Pedestrian Master Plan “Walk Bike Roll Ames” • AAMPO Comprehensive Safety Action Plan • Iowa Counties Comprehensive Safety Action Plan • AAMPO 2024 Passenger Transportation Plan • City of Ames 2040 Comprehensive Plan “Ames Plan 2040” • 190th Street (GW Carver Avenue – U.S. 69) Corridor Study • Grand Avenue (9th Street – 24th Street) Corridor Study • S Duff Avenue (S 16th Street – Airport Road) Corridor and U.S. 30 Interchange Study • Story County Conservation Trails Master Plan Potential projects were categorized by mode (i.e., roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, and transit) and then evaluated against the MTP’s goals and objectives. The alternatives development process identified issues through the engagement and technical processes. The alternatives themselves were influenced by the project’s context in its surrounding built and natural environment and how the project would accommodate transportation demand and the nearby existing network. The alternatives were then put through a prioritization process that is rooted in performance-based planning and attempts to identify projects that align with several plan objectives. PRIORITIZATION PROCESS The prioritization process scored each potential project alternative using a performance-based system that aligns with the MTP’s goals and objectives. Alternatives were evaluated and awarded points based on their alignment with the plan objectives and prioritized based on total points. Once priorities were assigned, the alternatives with medium to high priority scores that aligned best with the long-range priorities of the AAMPO and its member agencies were recommended for the fiscally constrained plan. Develop 2050 MTP Goals and Objectives Identify 2050 MTP Alternatives Develop Project Scoring Criteria Evaluate Alternatives against Project Scoring Criteria Rank and Prioritize Alternatives Based on Scoring Results 116 106 CONNECT 2050 UNIVERSE OF ALTERNATIVES Connect 2050’s universe of alternatives was identified using input from the public, regional stakeholders, AAMPO staff and committees, regional agencies, State and federal partners, and previous plans and a data-driven approach using the baseline and future conditions analyses described in previous chapters regarding traffic, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety, and transit system needs in the AAMPO region. Street and Roadway Projects Roadway project alternatives were developed to address key issues facing the AAMPO region, such as traffic congestion, vehicular safety, bicycle and pedestrian safety, improving multimodal options, and reducing environmental impacts. Examples of strategies aimed at addressing these issues are organized into intersection and roadway strategies and outlined below. INTERSECTION STRATEGIES Grade Separation • Requires constructing an overpass or underpass to separate vehicular traffic from a railroad or other roadway. Grade-separated crossings remove conflict points and reduce travel delays; however, they are often costly and can be more difficult to implement. Interchange Reconfiguration • Involves a change in access and/or design to an interchange and may not necessarily change the number of access points. Intersection Control • May require implementing or adjusting methods used to manage traffic flow, such signs, traffic signals, geometric access control, and/or lane reconfigurations. Roundabout • A road treatment that converts a traditional intersection into a circular configuration that moves traffic efficiently and safely by reducing speeds and channeling traffic into curved approaches. Turn Lanes • Provide a constructed turn lane designed to allow for deceleration before making a turn. They also improve traffic flow by providing additional space for turning vehicles to queue. 117 107 STREET AND ROADWAY STRATEGIES: Traffic Calming • Encompasses a range of roadway safety strategies that aim to reduce vehicle speeds or volumes on a single street or within a street network. Management • Strategies aimed at managing roadway safety, speed, access to cross streets or driveways, or improved traffic flow and can include road diets or adding travel lanes. Construct New Corridors • Projects that construct new streets or roadways. Pave • Converting an unimproved street (dirt or gravel) to concrete or asphalt. Turn Lanes • Constructing turn lanes (either left or right) at intersections or access points along a corridor to improve traffic flow and safety. Widen • Adding lanes to existing roadways, such as the conversion of a 2-lane road to 4 lanes. System Management Strategies In addition to the intersection and roadway strategies discussed above, operational strategies, otherwise known as Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO), are available for future strategy considerations. These strategies aim to improve the roadway system’s operational abilities without the need to add system capacity. TSMO is a cost-effective strategy that addresses congestion issues across a system, outside of peak hour congestion. TSMO strategies fall into three categories: System Performance Monitoring, Management of Recurring Issues, and Management of Non Recurring Issues. Table 40 provides examples of TSMO strategies that target each category. Table 40: TSMO Strategy Types and Treatments AMPO is currently developing a TSMO Plan dedicated to evaluating these strategies, with plan adoption anticipated in spring or summer 2026. System Performance Monitoring Management of Recurring Issues Management of Non Recurring Issues Active Traffic Management Managed Lanes Traffic Incident Management Traveler Information Traffic Signal Coordination Work Zone Management Transportation Management Centers Active Transportation and Demand Management Special Event Management 118 108 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS Bicycle and pedestrian projects were selected based on their ability to improve existing bike and pedestrian facilities around Ames, improve safety for non-motorized users, improve network connectivity, and expand the existing network. Bicycle and pedestrian project types that were screened include the following. Bike Lane Provides dedicated space within the street for exclusive use by bicyclists. Source: Google Earth Bike Boulevard Includes traffic calming features, such as signage or speed bumps, to optimize local streets for bicycle travel by reducing speeds and volumes. Source: City of Lincoln NE F Street Bicycle Boulevard Separate Bike Lane Provides a dedicated space within the street for exclusive use by bicyclists with a physical barrier between traffic and bicyclists. Source: The Gazette -Johnston Protected Bike Lane Greenbelt Trail Constructs or extends off-street trails for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Source: Iowa DOT Bike Route Provides designated routes for bikes marked by signage or shared lane markings such as sharrows. Does not provide designated space for bicyclists and are designed for streets with low traffic speeds and volumes. Source: NACTO Crossing Improvements Includes projects such as improved intersection markings, pedestrian signals, curb extensions, and improved visibility. Source: Institute of Traffic Engineers 119 109 The bike facilities recommended within Connect 2050 are based on FHWA guidance (shown in Figure 64), which uses the daily volume of vehicle traffic and posted speed limit of a roadway to provide a standard for the appropriate bike facility. Figure 64: FHWA Bikeway Selection Guidance 500 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 0 mph 10 mph 20 mph 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph and above and above Separated Facilities by Mode Protected Facilities by Mode Combined Bicycle & Vehicular Facilities Target Motor Vehicle Speed Ta r g e t M a x i m u m M o t o r V e h i c l e V o l u m e ( A D T ) In addition to improved bicycle facilities, various pedestrian countermeasures are available that aim to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles. • Leading Pedestrian Interval – Signal interval that allows pedestrians 3 to 7 seconds to enter a crosswalk prior to vehicular traffic being given a green indication. • Pedestrian Refuge Island – A median with a sufficiently wide refuge area to help project pedestrians crossing multilane streets or roads. • Lane Reconfiguration – Conversion of existing street lanes to other uses, such as converting a four lane undivided street or road to a three-lane cross-section with two through lanes and a center two-way left-turn lane. • Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) – Traffic control device installed along higher-speed streets and roads at midblock crossings and uncontrolled intersections. PHBs contain two red lenses above a single yellow lens and remain “dark” until activated by a pedestrian. Once activated, the PHB conducts a lighting sequence to direct motorists to slow down and stop, allowing for the 120 110 pedestrian to cross safely. • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons – Pedestrian warning signs installed at uncontrolled, marked crosswalks that consist of flashing indicators to alert motorists to the presence of pedestrians within the crossing. • Raised Crosswalks – Ramped crosswalk facility with a flat top that spans the full width of the street or road. These crossing features elevate users, allowing for better visibility of pedestrians by motorists. • High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings – Crosswalk markings that use bar pairs, continental, ladder, or other patterns to enhance visibility for both pedestrians and motorists. High visibility crosswalk markings are typically used at midblock pedestrian crossings or uncontrolled intersections. • Curb Extensions – Curb extensions are locations where the street is narrowed to create safer and shorter pedestrian crossings. They make pedestrians more visible to drivers and provide visual cues for slower speeds. They are often located at mid-block crossings and intersections where there is on-street parking. The countermeasures described above should be applied based on the guidelines outlined in the FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasures Selection System, which provides selection criteria for improved pedestrian safety and mobility, as shown in Figure 65. Locations for proposed safety treatments are based on factors such as vehicle annual average daily traffic (AADT), speed, and number of lanes. These factors are then considered when selecting an appropriate countermeasure to improve overall pedestrian safety. 121 111 Figure 65: FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasures Selection System Source: Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (FHWA) TRANSIT PROJECTS Transit connectivity is a critical link in the Ames area’s multimodal system. CyRide is the AAMPO area’s regional transit provider, offering fixed-route, Dial-A-Ride, and late-night services. While specific project alternatives were identified for roadway and bicycle and pedestrian modes, transit needs were assessed to identify capital and operational transit system improvements to enhance multimodal connections and improve mobility for all transportation system users. Transit projects were identified and assessed based on their funding requirements, ability to improve overall transit access, and connectivity to other modes. Potential transit improvements by project type include the following: 122 112 • Increased Service Levels – Increasing bus service frequency or hours of operation (nights and weekends). • Express Routes – Express routes make fewer stops than regular routes and connect key destinations. • Intercity Bus – A longer-distance bus service that connects several cities or regions. An example of this would be a bus route that connects Ames to Des Moines. • New Route or Extension – New bus routes or current route expansions improve accessibility and connectivity by increasing the total number of people and land area served. Connect 2050 Project Alternatives The list of project alternatives evaluated as part of Connect 2050 are shown in Figure 66 and Figure 67. Refer to Appendix A for further details on the alternatives, including extents and project descriptions. Table 41 provides the transit alternatives. Table 41: Transit Alternatives ID Description Type 1 Vehicle Replacement/Expansion Rolling Stock 2 Preventative Maintenance, Real-Time Passenger Information Technology 3 Passenger Amenity Improvements Technology 4 Battery Electric Buses Expansion Rolling Stock 5 Light Duty Vehicles Rolling Stock 6 Articulated Bus Replacement/Expansion Rolling Stock 7 Install Benches and Shelters Passenger Amenities 8 Lincoln and Beach – Add Transit Signal Priority Transit Signal Priority 9 Lincoln and Welch – Add Transit Signal Priority Transit Signal Priority 10 Ames Intermodal Facility Improvements Facilities 11 South 16th Street – Add Innovative Transit Service Zone Service 12 North Ames (Somerset/Northridge/Valley View) – Add Innovative Transit Service Zone Service 13 Applied Sciences – Add Innovative Transit Service Zone Service 14 Stange Road from Bloomington to University – Corridor Service Improvements Service 15 University Boulevard from ISU/ISC to ISU Research Park – Corridor Service Improvements Service 16 South Duff from Lincoln to Crystal – Corridor Service Improvements Service 17 Airport Road from South Duff to University – Corridor Service Improvements Service 123 113 ID Description Type 18 Ames to Ankeny and Des Moines Intercity/Commuter Service Service 19 Amtrak Thruway from Ames to Osceola Intercity/Commuter Service Service 20 ISU to College of Veterinary Medicine – Corridor Service Improvements Service 21 Additional Vehicle Replacement/Expansion Rolling Stock 22 Additional Battery Electric Buses Rolling Stock 23 Battery Electric Bus Charging Infrastructure (Chargers/Wiring)Facilities 24 Facility Expansion/Modifications Facilities 25 Automatic Passenger Counters (APC) Replacement/Expansion Technology 26 Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Technology Replacement/ Expansion Technology 27 Provide Free Fares for Youth (18 and Under) Study/ Implementation Fares 28 Install Benches and Shelters Passenger Amenities 29 Add LED Signage and Real-Time Passenger Information at Major Bus Stops Passenger Amenities 30 System Redesign 3.0 Planning 31 Target/Walmart on S. Duff to ISU Campus – Increase Frequency of Service (weeknight)Service 32 Target/Walmart on S. Duff to ISU Campus – Increase Frequency of Service (weekday)Service 33 Service to S Lots and Reiman Gardens Service 34 Oakwood Road and ISU Kent Feed Mill – Add Innovative Transit Service Zone Service 35 Provide Free Fares for Low-Income Study/Implementation Fares 36 B100 Infrastructure Rolling Stock 124 114 Figure 66: Connect 2050 Roadway and Intersection Alternatives 125 115 Figure 67: Connect 2050 Bicycle and Pedestrian Alternatives 126 116 EVALUATING AND PRIORITIZING CONNECT 2050’S UNIVERSE OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluating Connect 2050’s Universe of Alternatives Once the universe of alternatives was identified, these projects were evaluated against the scoring criteria shown in Appendix A. This process included consultation with AAMPO staff and a desktop analysis that sought to gauge each alternative’s ability to address existing and potential future issues related to safety, traffic operations, traffic, enhancing multimodal options, and reducing environmental impacts. Each roadway and intersection alternative was scored using the project scoring criteria, with final scores reflecting the total points gained through the assessment of each alternative’s alignment with Connect 2050’s goal areas and objectives. Bicycle and pedestrian alternatives were carried over from the City of Ames’ 2024 Walk, Bike, and Roll Plan. Identified projects were prioritized as part of the plan development process. Connect 2050’s bicycle and pedestrian alternatives carried forward projects that received a “medium” or “high” prioritization score in the Walk, Bike, and Roll Plan and helped advance non-motorized safety on the CSAP’s HPN. Prioritization Results The resulting prioritization scores for each Connect 2050 alternative are shown in Figure 68 and Figure 69. Refer to Appendix B for the full results of the alternatives prioritization evaluation. Alignment with Comprehensive Safety Action Plan The CSAP identified an HPN that focuses capital safety projects on a small portion of the street network that has the highest number of fatal and serious injury crashes. This approach provides a substantial public benefit through crash reduction and can help accelerate progress for community-wide safety goals. While the MTP may include a broad range of transportation needs covering a larger network of streets, the CSAP will often target a subset of those streets through the HPN. From a strategy perspective, effective safety projects reduce severe conflicts between vehicles and bicycles and pedestrians. Separate facilities are often desired by those users, which aligns these strategies across the MTP and CSAP. On arterial streets, the shared MTP and CSAP strategies include street reconfiguration, road diets, and access management. While the CSAP prioritizes high priority locations, the principles of Complete Streets design, access and speed management, and reduced- conflict intersections are applicable for the MTP in both near-term projects and for mid- and long-term projects that may be driven by growth or land development. Prioritization reflects a performance-based scoring approach to how many goals and objectives each project matches. It does a good job of showing how well a project aligns with the Ames area’s transportation goals, but does not reflect the timing, feasibility, or project readiness of an alternative. 127 117 Figure 68: Prioritization Results for Roadway and Intersection Alternatives 128 118 Figure 69: Walk, Bike, and Roll High and Medium Priority Projects 129 119 CHAPTER 7 FUNDING ANALYSIS A key element of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning process is the creation of a fiscally constrained plan of projects that identifies multimodal improvements meeting the priorities of the AAMPO and its member agencies while being feasible for implementation regarding the constraints of reasonably expected future revenue levels. The fiscally constrained plan must also identify reasonably expected system-level costs related to the operation and maintenance of the federal-aid system. Developing a financial plan is the MTP’s first step toward achieving fiscal constraint. This section documents the data, approach, and results for the financial plan. AAMPO’S FUNDING TARGETS AND HISTORIC FUNDING TRENDS AAMPO receives revenues from several funding sources on a relatively consistent, targeted annual basis while other sources of transportation revenues are competitive or discretionary programs that may or may not provide funding for projects in the AAMPO region any given year. Thus, an analysis of historic funding levels can serve as a baseline for understanding trends in revenues received and to forecast potential future funding levels. This section discusses the federal, State, and local funding programs that the AAMPO and its member agencies typically leverage in programming annual multimodal transportation improvements. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL FUNDING PROGRAMS Federal Funding Programs AAMPO receives a significant portion of its annual funding from three federal programs. As part of the annual TIP process, Iowa DOT provides AAMPO with targeted amounts of these funds for each year of the TIP cycle. These funds are: • Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG): Funding for roads, bridges, transit capital improvements, and transportation planning activities for MPOs. The formula-based funds are distributed to MPOs across the state, with individual projects selected annually by the MPO through an application process. • Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP): Funding for projects and programs defined as transportation alternatives, which includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities, improving non-driver access to public transportation, Safe Routes to School projects, community improvement activities, and environmental mitigation projects. TAP funds are formula-based, with projects selected annually by the AAMPO through an application process. • Carbon Reduction Program (CRP): Funding for projects designed to reduce transportation emissions, defined as carbon dioxide emissions from on-road highway sources. AAMPO receives targeted CRP funds annually and is given the authority to award funds at its own discretion, similar to STBG and TAP. There are additional discretionary federal funding programs that Iowa DOT distributes across the state at their discretion, because needs vary across the state by time. These programs include: • National Highway Performance Program (NHPP): Funding support for the condition and performance of the NHS, as well as construction of new facilities on the system. Iowa DOT directs NHPP funding for use on the NHS system in the AAMPO. 130 120 • Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ): Funding for transportation projects and programs at the state and local levels that help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Iowa DOT administers a portion of CMAQ funds through its Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP). • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): Funding for transportation projects that achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State- owned roads and roads on tribal land. Iowa DOT administers a portion of CMAQ funds through its ICAAP. Historic Federal Funding Levels Historic STBG and TAP funding levels received by AAMPO for the years 2019 to 2026 were reviewed to understand how these revenue levels have changed in recent years. Figure 70 shows the STBG and TAP funding amounts targeted for distribution to the AAMPO by Iowa DOT between 2019 and 2025, while the levels of STBG and TAP funds for the years 2026 through 2029 represent current targets for these funding sources. Figure 70: Historical and Targeted STBG and TAP Funding Levels, 2019-2029 Source: Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Programs, 2019-2025, and Iowa DOT Revenues from discretionary sources, such as CMAQ/ICAAP, NHPP, PRF, and HSIP, supplement the formula-based STBG and TAP revenues AAMPO receives annually. Table 42 contains historic annual funding amounts expended on projects within the AAMPO region between 2015 and 2025. The table demonstrates average funding levels within each year of expenditure (YOE) dollars, as well as the annual average normalized to 2025 dollars. As of fiscal year 2026, AAMPO has accrued $750,336 in CRP funds. Due to recent changes at the federal level, these funds are not assumed to be available during the 2029 to 2050 planning horizon. $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 $8 9 , 0 0 0 $1 , 7 5 1 , 6 1 5 $1 , 7 9 5 , 0 8 9 $1 , 7 2 5 , 4 2 7 $1 , 6 9 6 , 6 3 2 $1 , 8 6 0 , 9 5 8 $1 , 9 8 7 , 5 7 2 $2 , 0 1 8 , 5 8 0 $2 , 2 1 3 , 8 8 4 $2 , 2 5 5 , 0 0 0 $2 , 2 5 5 , 0 0 0 $2 , 2 5 5 , 0 0 0 $8 7 , 3 6 3 $8 6 , 7 7 0 $8 6 , 4 1 4 $1 7 6 , 5 4 0 $1 9 3 , 3 2 1 $1 9 6 , 7 6 3 $2 1 1 , 3 4 2 $2 1 8 , 0 0 0 $2 1 8 , 0 0 0 $2 1 8 , 0 0 0 TAP FundingSTBG Funding 131 121 Table 42: MPO TIP Funding Expenditures by Federal Source, 2015–2025 Source: Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Program, 2015-2025 Federal Transit Funding Programs The AAMPO region’s public transit operator (CyRide) receives funds administered by the FTA under the following funding programs: • Section 5307 – Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program: Funds for transit activities (capital, planning, access to employment, operating expenses) in urbanized areas exceeding 50,000 in population. • Section 5310 – Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program: Funding program designed to meet the needs of certain transit dependent populations in rural and/or urbanized areas. • Section 5339 – Bus and Bus Facilities Program: Funds for purchasing replacement transit equipment and to construct transit facilities. In addition to these FTA funding programs, CyRide can request STBG, CRP, and ICAAP funds for the purposes of fleet vehicle procurement and maintenance from the AAMPO. A summary of federal transit funds programmed by CyRide in the AAMPO’s annual TIPs for years 2020 through 2025 is provided in Table 43. The table organizes historic funds into operating, elderly and disabled, and bus funding categories to demonstrate how CyRide programmed federal dollars during this period. Year STBG/STBG- SWAP TAP CMAQ/ICAAP NHPP HSIP 2015 $1,750,594 $ -$861,000 $ -$2,492,000 2016 $1,060,000 $360,000 $ -$22,890,000 $ - 2017 $1,171,394 $ -$1,081,000 $ -$ - 2018 $932,878 $306,121 $293,000 $3,431,000 $ - 2019 $2,400,000 $ -$703,000 $ -$ - 2020 $3,725,000 $159,000 $ -$ -$ - 2021 $1,774,669 $ -$847,918 $ -$ - 2022 $1,125,000 $159,000 $2,666,215 $ -$ - 2023 $1,825,000 $728,000 $ -$16,936,800 $ - 2024 $1,911,000 $ -$1,495,280 $15,636,803 $ - 2025 $5,502,230 $ -$1,521,280 $4,592,730 $ - Average YOE $$2,107,070 $155,647 $860,790 $5,771,576 $226,545 Average 2025 $$2,284,119 $171,233 $930,733 $6,314,557 $276,158 132 122 As Table 43 shows: • CyRide has programmed an average of $3.6 million per year on operations which are funded through Section 5307. • Elderly and disabled services funding, which uses Section 5310 revenues, averaged just over $400,000 per year. • Funding to purchase and maintain fleet vehicles averaged $2.3 million per year between 2020 and 2025. These are funded with Section 5339, STBG, 5307, CRP, and ICAAP sources. Table 43: Historic FTA Funding, 2020–2025 Source: Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Programs, 2020-2025 State Funding Programs Several State funding sources were identified throughout the TIP documents from previous years. The primary State DOT funding programs are the Primary Road Fund, Time-21, and ICAAP funds. These funds are used for the operation, maintenance, and construction of the Primary Road System. These funding sources are described further below: • Primary Roads Fund (PRF): Largest funding source for supporting the primary road system within Iowa. A portion of overall funds are received through an annual formula-based distribution of revenues from the Road Use Tax Fund (RUTF). • Time-21: Funding created by Iowa DOT and other State agencies used to fund transportation projects throughout the state. • Iowa Clear Air Attainment Program (ICAAP): Competitive funding source administered by Iowa DOT for projects that demonstrate potential for reducing transportation-related congestion and air pollution. Roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and railroad projects are eligible for ICAAP funds. AAMPO has traditionally received these funds for transit projects and traffic signal enhancements. • Other State Grants: There are additional grant programs administered by Iowa DOT and other State agencies to fund transportation projects throughout the state. Local Funding Programs Local funding is an additional funding source to supplement State and federal funds (and in some Year Operating Funding Elderly and Disabled Funding Bus Funding 2020 $2,494,129 $267,676 $1,938,160 2021 $2,502,489 $557,007 $3,607,435 2022 $4,135,821 $284,772 $4,044,458 2023 $4,226,994 $414,717 $3,657,714 2024 $4,194,044 $424,159 $225,000 2025 $4,271,813 $477,669 $377,050 Average YOE $$3,637,548 $404,333 $2,308,303 Average 2025 $$3,799,827 $423,741 $2,458,123 133 123 cases to match federal funds) in the AAMPO region. Local funding sources used for transportation projects are generated primarily from bond funds and City funds. Local funding sources from Ames and Gilbert available for transportation projects include: • City Funds: City funds consist of general fund revenues, road use taxes (RUT Fund), local option sales tax (LOST) revenues, local transit fund, parking reserve fund, airport improvement fund, and utility funds. • Bond Proceed Funds: General obligation bonds make up the local bond proceed funds for the MPO. • Miscellaneous Funding Sources: City assessments and similar sources. Historic annual funding from the main sources of local revenues for the city of Ames are shown in Table 44 while Table 45 shows historic local revenues for the city of Gilbert. Local revenue information for the city of Ames was provided by the City’s finance department for the years 2015 though 2024 while the city of Gilbert’s local funding information was sourced from Iowa DOT’s annual road fund receipts for the years 2021 through 2024. Table 44: Historic Local Funding for the City of Ames, 2015-2024 Source: City of Ames Year LOST Fund RUT Fund Bonds 2015 $169,066 $570,289 $5,881,149 2016 $484,984 $1,772,879 $12,677,067 2017 $456,052 $1,116,273 $6,750,960 2018 $331,919 $2,607,346 $5,621,249 2019 $344,297 $1,627,642 $5,253,276 2020 $575,808 $1,255,099 $4,733,266 2021 $470,690 $1,636,771 $8,819,898 2022 $482,354 $2,302,059 $9,877,900 2023 $915,290 $1,383,678 $11,220,577 2024 $847,984 $2,064,179 $10,229,717 Average YOE $$507,844 $1,633,622 $8,106,506 Average 2025 $$556,335 $1,809,526 $8,996,583 Average 2025 $$930,733 $6,314,557 $276,158 134 124 Table 45: Historic Local Funding for the City of Gilbert, 2021-2024 Source: Iowa DOT Additional Funding Sources There are additional discretionary programs that can fund transportation projects in the AAMPO area. These programs are made available through federal programs, with additional funding administered by Iowa DOT: Federal Sources: • Bridge Formula Program (BFP): Provides funding for highway bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, and construction projects. • Recreational Trails Program: Provides federal funding for trail projects. Iowa DOT Administered Grant Program Funding Sources: • City Bridge Program: STBG funding dedicated to local bridge projects set aside for the replacement or rehabilitation of City-owned bridges classified as poor. • Highway Safety Improvement Program – Local (HSIP): Uses a portion of Iowa’s HSIP apportionment to fund low- to medium-cost systemic safety improvements in cities and counties. Federal HSIP funds used for these projects are swapped for Primary Road Fund dollars. FUTURE FUNDING FORECASTS Future funding levels for the formula-based STBG and TAP revenues the AAMPO receives on an annual basis were forecasted through the year 2050 to derive the reasonably expected revenues anticipated to be available to the AAMPO over the life of Connect 2050. These forecasted revenues provide the underlying basis of the MTP’s fiscal constraint. The forecasts, presented in Table 46, were developed by applying the observed annual growth rate associated with the STBG and TAP target amounts for the years 2015 through 2029 (Figure 70), using the 2029 STBG and TAP targets as the launch point. The observed growth rate for STBG funds was 2.5% while the observed growth rate for TAP was 6.5%. Given the relatively high historic annual growth rate for TAP funds, the 2.5% growth rate associated with historic STBG funds was also applied in forecasting future TAP revenues. Forecasted revenue amounts shown in Table 46 were rounded down to the nearest $1,000 value. Year General Fund RUT Fund Other (LOST, Benefits, TIF)Service Debt Capital Projects 2021 $0 $161,935 $14,810 $4,472 $683,515 2022 $30,000 $164,185 $19,875 $50,424 $0 2023 $44,438 $211,085 $24,577 $49,580 $0 2024 $0 $17,107 $33,410 $83,452 $1,400,000 Average YOE $$18,610 $138,578 $23,168 $46,982 $520,879 Average 2025 $$19,517 $146,645 $24,193 $48,764 $541,965 135 125 The forecasted STBG and TAP funds were organized into time bands that will be used to direct the MTP’s fiscally constrained plan and calculate future YOE costs for individual projects included in the fiscally constrained plan. These time bands are: • Current TIP: 2026–2029 • Short-Term: 2030–2034 • Mid-Term: 2035–2042 • Long-Term: 2043–2050 As shown below, STBG funding is estimated to total $62.8 million between 2026 and 2050, with TAP funding totaling approximately $6.1 million. Total revenues for STBG and TAP for the MTP’s short-, mid-, and long-term time bands were forecasted at just under $68.8 million. Table 46: Federal Funding Forecasts for STBG and TAP Source: Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Program, 2026-2029 *Totals shown only reflect the Short-, Mid-, and Long-Term forecasted revenues and costs Funds for NHPP, HSIP, and ICAAP (the program Iowa DOT administers with federal CMAQ funds) are not forecasted because these programs are discretionary and directed by Iowa DOT. NHPP funds are directed to projects on the NHS while HSIP and ICAAP-funded projects are awarded funds through a competitive, discretionary process. Although not forecasted, the ICAAP program serves as a potential source of future revenues for the AAMPO, which could use ICAAP funds for projects such as:11 • Traffic flow improvements • Planning and project development activities • Travel demand management • Transit improvements • Ride-share activities • Bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs • Intermodal freight • Alternative fuels • Vehicle inspection and maintenance programs • Outreach activities • SIP transportation projects and programs • Transportation control measures • Other projects and programs using promising technologies and feasible approaches to reduce air pollution emissions, and implementing transportation-related air quality improvement strategies 11 Iowa DOT, Iowa’s Clean Air Attainment Program Application Handbook. Time Period/Years STBG TAP Total Current TIP 2026-2029 $8,978,000 $865,000 $9,843,000 Short-Term 2030-2034 $12,148,000 $1,172,000 $13,320,000 Mid-Term 2035-2042 $22,842,000 $2,206,000 $25,048,000 Long-Term 2043-2050 $27,832,000 $2,688,000 $30,520,000 Total*$62,822,000 $6,066,000 $68,888,000 136 126 An example use of ICAAP funds used within the AAMPO region are the recently awarded rounds of ICAAP funding to build the region’s traffic fiber network. Local Funding Programs Local revenues were forecasted through the planning horizon year 2050 based on historic local revenue levels for the cities of Ames and Gilbert. Forecasts for the city of Ames were based on historic 5-year rolling average revenue levels for the city’s LOST, RUTF, and Bond funding sources for the years 2019 through 2024. Revenue levels for the year 2025 were forecasted based on the historic 5-year rolling average trends then increased by 3.5% per year between 2026 and 2050. Forecasts for the city of Gilbert were based on revenue levels for the city’s General Fund, RUTF, LOST, Service Debt, Capital Projects, and Utilities funds for the years 2020 through 2025, as reported in Iowa DOT’s annual road fund receipts. The baseline levels used for launching the city of Gilbert’s local revenue forecasts were the average revenue level observed for each fund, then increased by 3.5% per year through 2050. Table 47 presents the resulting forecasts for the cities of Ames and Gilbert’s local revenues. As the table indicates, the city of Ames anticipates total local revenues in excess of $472 million between 2026 and 2050 while the city of Gilbert anticipates just over $30 million in local revenue capacity. Collectively, just over $500 million in local revenue capacity was forecasted for the two cities. Table 47: Forecasted Local Revenue for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert by Time Period Source: Ames Area MPO OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING Operations and maintenance (O&M) refers to the routine, daily service and repair required to support AAMPO’s multimodal transportation system. O&M costs represent a significant portion of the AAMPO and its member agencies’ annual financial obligations. In the context of Metropolitan Transportation Planning, system-level estimates of O&M costs and revenue sources reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain federal-aid highways and public transportation is a required element of an MTP.12 Historic Federal-Aid O&M Expenditures Historic O&M expenditures for the cities of Ames and Gilbert for the years 2015 through 2025 were reviewed to develop historic trends to guide forecasts of reasonably expected future O&M 12 23 CFR Part 450 Subpart C Agency TIP Years (2026–2029) Short-Term (2030–2034) Mid-Term (2035–2042) Long-Term (2043–2050)Total City of Ames $51,112,000 $74,621,000 $149,599,000 $196,996,000 $472,328,000 City of Gilbert $3,262,000 $4,762,000 $9,550,000 $12,575,000 $30,149,000 Total $54,374,000 $79,383,000 $159,149,000 $209,571,000 $502,477,000 137 127 expenditures for these cities. The historic O&M expenditures for Ames and Gilbert represent actual costs and were sourced from Iowa DOT. Table 48 shows the annual historic O&M expenditures. As Table 48 shows, O&M expenditure information was not available in the years 2020 and 2025. The annual averages shown in the table below were calculated to exclude those years and remove influence on the historic trend due to data unavailability. Table 48: Historic Annual Federal-Aid O&M Expenditures for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert, 2015– 2025 Source: Iowa Department of Transportation Forecasted Federal-Aid O&M Expenditures Forecasted federal-aid O&M expenditures were derived by applying a linear forecast that launched off the reported federal-aid O&M expenditure levels for both cities as reported for the year 2024. The assumed growth rate was 4.0% to reflect the growth rate used to identify short-term O&M expenditure forecasts reported in the AAMPO’s annual TIP publications. The resulting federal-aid O&M forecasts for Ames and Gilbert are organized by MTP time band in Table 49. Year City of Ames Total O&M Costs City of Gilbert Total O&M Costs 2015 $1,541,388 $12,907 2016 $1,465,569 $14,358 2017 $2,129,262 $15,713 2018 $1,992,592 $16,813 2019 $2,412,347 $10,498 2020 Not Available Not Available 2021 $2,620,414 $27,862 2022 $3,094,634 $143,537 2023 $3,711,142 $33,080 2024 $3,607,128 $218,718 2025 Not Available Not Available Average (2015–2019 & 2021–2024)$2,508,275 $54,832 138 128 Table 49: Forecasted Federal-Aid Operations and Maintenance Expenditures for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert Based on the 4% annual growth rate assumed in forecasting reasonably expected future O&M revenues, Ames and Gilbert anticipate a total of approximately $74.3 million in O&M costs between 2026 and 2050, with $26.2 million incurred in the short-term, roughly $54.3 million in the mid-term, and roughly $74.3 million in the long term. Overall forecasted federal-aid O&M expenditures for both Ames and Gilbert are expected to be just over $172.3 million over the life of the MTP. The forecasted federal-aid O&M expenditures were further broken down into O&M categories, as shown in Table 50, to demonstrate how forecasted local revenues are balanced with forecasted federal-aid O&M expenditures. The overall distribution of total forecasted federal-aid O&M costs for the cities of Ames and Gilbert sees roughly 51% of future forecasted federal-aid O&M costs being dedicated to maintenance while the remaining 49% is dedicated to operations. Given future local revenue forecasts, the cities of Ames and Gilbert are expected to generate an additional $330 million in local revenues over their forecasted federal-aid O&M expenditures through the year 2050. Table 50: Forecasted Local Revenue and Forecasted Federal-Aid O&M Costs for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert Source: Ames Area MPO Agency TIP Years (2026–2029) Short-Term (2030–2034) Mid-Term (2035–2042) Long-Term (2043–2050)Total Total Maintenance Costs $9,013,000 $13,450,000 $27,838,000 $38,105,000 $88,406,000 Total Operations Costs $8,551,000 $12,761,000 $26,414,000 $36,151,000 $83,877,000 Forecasted Local Revenues $54,374,000 $79,383,000 $159,149,000 $209,571,000 $502,477,000 Revenue in Excess of O&M $36,810,000 $53,172,000 $104,897,000 $135,315,000 $330,194,000 Agency TIP Years (2026–2029) Short-Term (2030–2034) Mid-Term (2035–2042) Long-Term (2043–2050)Total City of Ames $16,565,000 $24,719,000 $51,165,000 $70,021,000 $162,740,000 City of Gilbert $1,003,000 $1,496,000 $3,099,000 $4,243,000 $9,841,000 Total $17,568,000 $26,215,000 $54,264,000 $74,264,000 $172,311,00 139 129 CHAPTER 8 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN The fiscally constrained plan is the cornerstone of Connect 2050 and provides the roadmap for the AAMPO and its member agencies to navigating future multimodal investments. This plan identifies a range of projects anticipated to use federal funds for implementation through 2050, including a general timeframe for their implementation. Fiscal constraint is a core requirement of the federal Metropolitan Transportation Planning process and aims to verify that future investments that leverage federal funds are within reasonably expected future revenue levels. SELECTING FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS The selection of fiscally constrained projects was driven by the results of the prioritization evaluation detailed in the Alternatives Development chapter. Alternatives determined to be a high or medium priority were first considered for inclusion in the fiscally constrained plan. Projects were then matched with anticipated timing of the need, each project’s estimated YOE cost, and available funding by source. 2025-2050 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN The summary of Connect 2050’s fiscally constrained plan organizes projects by their anticipated MTP time band used to identify their implementation timing. These time bands are: • Short-Term: 2030-2034 • Mid-Term: 2035-2042 • Long-Term: 2043-2050 The summary also includes each project’s current (2025) estimated project cost, estimated YOE project cost, and anticipated federal and non-federal cost share amounts. Project costs are projected to increase by 4% per year for YOE cost estimation. BALANCING IMPROVEMENT AND PRESERVATION Connect 2050’s fiscally constrained plan balanced the needs of preserving existing transportation infrastructure with improving the region’s multimodal transportation system to address emerging safety and mobility needs. Connect 2050 included updates to and analysis of the Ames pavement management application (dTIMS), and scenarios were considered along with historical funding needs to determine baseline preservation needs. AAMPO identified target allocations of future transportation revenues that balance preservation and improvement needs. These allocations were developed for System Improvement vs. System Preservation System Improvement refers to a range of future multimodal projects that will modify the existing multimodal network through lane reconfiguration, safety improvements, additional capacity, creating new connections, or improving intersections. System Preservation refers to major projects that focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, such as resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating streets and bridges. 140 130 future STBG and TAP revenues and assume: • 60% of future STBG revenues toward system improvement. • 40% of future STBG revenues toward system preservation. • 90% of future TAP revenues toward system improvement. • 10% of future TAP revenues toward system preservation. Under this allocation scenario, Table 51 summarizes the resulting amounts of future STBG and TAP funds estimated for preservation and system improvement. Figure 71 shows a breakdown of Preservation and Improvement funding from different perspectives. Table 51: Balancing Preservation and Improvement Needs for Future STBG and TAP Revenues MTP Time Band STBG TAP Improvement Preservation Improvement Preservation Short-Term (2030–2034)$7,289,000 $4,859,000 $1,054,800 $117,200 Mid-Term (2035–2042)$13,705,000 $9,137,000 $1,985,400 $220,600 Long-Term (2043–2050)$16,699,000 $11,133,000 $2,419,200 $268,800 Total $37,693,000 $25,129,000 $5,459,400 $606,600 Percent 60%40%90%10% 141 131 Short-Term (2030-2034) Mid-Term (2035-2042 Long-Term (2043-2050) $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 Short-Term (2030-2034) Mid-Term (2035-2042 Long-Term (2043-2050) $0 $500000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 40% 60% $4 , 8 5 9 , 0 0 0 $7 , 2 8 9 , 0 0 0 $9 , 1 3 7 , 0 0 0 $1 3 , 7 0 5 , 0 0 0 $1 1 , 1 3 3 , 0 0 0 $1 6 , 6 9 9 , 0 0 0 40% 60% $1 1 7 , 5 0 0 $1 , 0 5 4 , 8 0 0 $2 2 0 , 6 0 0 $1 , 9 8 5 , 4 0 0 $2 6 8 , 8 0 0 $2 , 4 1 9 , 2 0 0 STBG-System Improvement STBG-System Preservation TAP-System Preservation TAP-System Improvement Figure 71: Funding Breakdown 142 132 2025-2028 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AAMPO’s current TIP documents projects that are programmed or “committed” for implementation and covers the years 2026 through 2029. Given the timeframe covered by the current TIP, the short-term time band for the fiscally constrained plan begins in 2030 and provides the basis for the development of AAMPO’s next several TIP cycles. The roadway projects considered as committed for the purposes of the fiscally constrained plan are detailed in Table 52, with their locations shown in Figure 72. Committed bicycle and pedestrian projects are detailed in Table 53 and their locations are shown in Figure 73. Table 52: Committed Roadway Projects ID Project Location Type C-1 Bloomington Road from Hoover Avenue to Eisenhower Avenue Reconstruction of Bloomington Road C-2 E Lincoln Way from Duff Avenue to Skunk River Repair and reconstruction of E Lincoln Way C-3 Stange Road from Northridge Parkway to Aspen Road Lane reconfiguration from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with Complete Streets elements C-4 Freel Drive from Lincoln Way to SE 5th Street Paving C-6 U.S. 30 from east Duff Avenue ramp terminals to east S Dayton Road ramp terminals Widen to 6 lanes C-7 Grand Avenue/13th Street Intersection Intersection improvements C-9 Grand Avenue/24th Street Intersection Intersection improvements C-10 Grand Avenue/20th Street Intersection Intersection improvements C-11 S 16th Street from University Boulevard to Vet Med Trail Widen to 4 lanes C-12 Multiple Corridors in the city of Ames Fifth phase deployment of Ames Traffic Signal Master Plan C-13 Wilder Boulevard from Thackeray Drive to Clemens Boulevard Mini-roundabouts corridor improvement 143 133 Figure 72: Committed Roadway Projects 144 134 Table 53: Committed Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ID Project Location Type C-14 Well Access Road from Lincoln Way to Ioway Creek Greenbelt Trail C-15 S Dayton Avenue from SE 16th Street to E Lincoln Way Shared Use Path C-16 Moore Memorial Park to Ioway Creek Trail Greenbelt Trail C-17 Mortensen Road from Dickinson Road to South Dakota Avenue Shared Use Path C-18 S Duff from S 5th Street to S 3rd Street Shared Use Path C-19 Grand Avenue from 13th Street to 16th Street Shared Use Path C-20 24th Street from Grand Avenue to Duff Avenue Shared Use Path C-21 16th Street from Grand Avenue to Ridgewood Avenue Shared Use Path 145 135 Figure 73: Committed Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 146 136 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN – STREETS PROJECTS Streets projects selected for inclusion in Connect 2050’s fiscally constrained plan are detailed in Table 54 while their locations within the AAMPO region are shown in Figure 74. Short-Term Streets Projects Short-term streets projects identified for the fiscally constrained plan represent those improvements that are AAMPO’s top priorities in meeting the region’s most pressing needs. These projects are anticipated to use $6.4 million in STBG funding between 2030 and 2034, with $1.6 million provided by AAMPO’s member agencies to meet federal cost sharing agreements, which assumes an 80/20 split for future STBG funds. The short-term streets projects also include two projects that are anticipated to be directed by Iowa DOT and include an interchange reconfiguration at U.S. 30 and S Duff Avenue as well as widening U.S. 30 to 6-lanes from S Duff Avenue to University Avenue. Total YOE project costs for these improvements are calculated to be just over $48 million. Mid-Term Streets Projects Mid-term streets projects identified for the fiscally constrained plan represent those improvements that are planned for implementation between the years 2035 and 2042. These projects are anticipated to use $14.6 million in STBG funding with $5.7 million provided by AAMPO’s member agencies to meet federal cost sharing agreements. Long-Term Streets Projects Long-term streets projects identified for the fiscally constrained plan represent those improvements that are planned for implementation between the years 2043 and 2050. These projects are anticipated to use $16.7 million in STBG funding with $16.2 million provided by AAMPO’s member agencies to meet federal cost sharing agreements. The long-term streets projects also include a project that is expected to leverage a cost share by Iowa DOT. This improvement will widen a section of Duff Avenue from Ken Maril Road to Kitty Hawk Drive to a 4-lane divided roadway. Total YOE project costs for this improvement are calculated to be $18.2 million, with AAMPO using $1.4 million in STBG revenues, $12.3 million in local revenues, and $4.6 million in Iowa DOT-sourced revenues. 147 137 Table 54: Fiscally Constrained Streets Projects ID Corridor Location Project Type Cost (2025$)Cost (YOE)STBG Share Local Share State Share Short-Term Projects N-40 W Lincoln Way Y Avenue Roundabout $1,950,000 $2,570,000 $2,056,000 $514,000 $0 R-52 S Duff Avenue U.S. 30 Interchange Reconfiguration $18,000,000 $23,690,000 $0 $0 $23,690,000 N-39 Ontario Street N 500th Avenue Roundabout $1,950,000 $2,570,000 $2,056,000 $514,000 $0 N-51 W 190th Street Grant Avenue / Hyde Avenue Roundabout $1,950,000 $2,570,000 $2,056,000 $514,000 $0 N-75 Grand Avenue 16th Street Intersection Improvements $234,000 $310,000 $248,000 $62,000 $0 R-51 U.S. 30 Duff Avenue to University Avenue Widen to 6-lanes $18,500,000 $24,340,000 $0 $0 $24,340,000 Short-Term Total $6,416,000 $1,604,000 $48,030,000 Mid-Term Projects R-39 Bloomington Road Valley View Road to Stange Road Lane Reconfiguration and Roundabouts $4,006,000 $6,800,000 $5,440,000 $1,360,000 $0 N-48 W 190th Street George Washington Carver Avenue Roundabout $1,950,000 $3,310,000 $2,648,000 $662,000 $0 R-45 Mortensen Parkway Welch Avenue to Beech Avenue Lane Reconfiguration and Roundabouts $6,000,000 $10,190,000 $6,521,600 $3,668,400 $0 Mid-Term Total $14,609,600 $5,690,400 $0 Long-Term Projects R-29a Duff Avenue Ken Maril Road Widen to 4-Lane Divided $7,861,750 $18,270,000 $1,370,250 $12,332,250 $4,567,500 N-79 13th Street Stange Road Intersection Improvements $3,000,000 $6,970,000 $5,576,000 $1,394,000 $0 R-46 N Dakota Avenue Lincoln Way to Ontario Street Lane Reconfiguration $5,219,000 $12,130,000 $9,704,000 $2,426,000 $0 R-37 I-35 260th Street New Interchange $16,000,000 $37,180,000 $0 $0 $37,180,000 Long-Term Total $16,650,250 $16,152,250 $41,747,500 148 138 Figure 74: Fiscally Constrained Streets Projects 149 139 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN – BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS Bicycle and pedestrian projects selected for inclusion in Connect 2050’s fiscally constrained plan are detailed in Table 55 while their locations within the AAMPO region are shown in Figure 75. Short-Term Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Short-term bicycle and pedestrian projects identified for the fiscally constrained plan are anticipated to use $1.0 million in TAP funding between 2030 and 2034, with $250,000 provided by AAMPO’s member agencies to meet federal cost sharing agreements, which assumes an 80/20 split for future TAP funds. Mid-Term Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Mid-term bicycle and pedestrian projects identified for the fiscally constrained plan represent those improvements that are planned for implementation between the years 2035 and 2042. These projects are anticipated to use $1.8 million in TAP funding with $452,000 provided by AAMPO’s member agencies to meet federal cost sharing agreements. Long-Term Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Long-term bicycle and pedestrian projects identified for the fiscally constrained plan represent those improvements that are planned for implementation between the years 2043 and 2050. These projects are anticipated to use $2.6 million in TAP funding with $648,000 provided by AAMPO’s member agencies to meet federal cost sharing agreements. 150 140 Table 55: Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ID Corridor From To Project Type Cost (2025$)Cost (YOE)TAP Share Local Share State Share Short-Term Projects B-145 Skunk River Trail Ioway Creek S 16th Street Greenbelt Trail $1,200,000 $1,580,000 $1,264,000 $316,000 $0 Short-Term Total $1,264,000 $316,000 $0 Mid-Term Projects B-60 Mortensen Road Rowling Drive S Dakota Avenue Shared Use Path $532,688 $900,000 $720,000 $180,000 $0 B-112 S Duff Avenue Lincoln Way S 3rd Street Shared Use Path $123,058 $210,00 $168,000 $42,000 $0 B-114 Skunk River Trail North Side Inis Grove Park Duff Avenue Greenbelt Trail $825,000 $1,400,000 $1,120,000 $280,000 $0 Mid-Term Total $2,008,000 $502,000 $0 Long-Term Projects B-81 13th Street Northwestern Avenue Grand Avenue Shared Use Path $175,700 $410,000 $328,000 $82,000 $0 B-115 Duff Avenue Grand Avenue Northwood Drive Shared Use Path $289,159 $670,000 $536,000 $134,000 $0 B-117 Grand Avenue 13th Street 6th Street Shared Use Path $410,215 $950,000 $760,000 $190,000 $0 B-144 Lincoln Swing S Dakota Avenue Abraham Drive Shared Use Path $100,000 $230,000 $184,000 $46,000 $0 Long-Term Total $1,808,000 $452,000 $0 151 141 Figure 75: Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 152 142 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN – TRANSIT PROJECTS Transit projects that were selected for Connect 2050’s fiscally constrained plan are described below in Table 56. Due to funding availability, the projects included in the fiscally constrained transit projects would all take place in the short-term (2030–2034). Additional transit projects after that period will be selected from the illustrative project list, which is detailed in Appendix A. Table 56: Fiscally Constrained Transit Projects Time Frame Description Project Type Total 2025 Annual Cost Federal 2025 Annual Cost %Fund Type Sh o r t - T e r m ( 2 0 3 0 - 2 0 3 4 ) Vehicle Replacement/ Expansion Rolling Stock $2,136,000 $1,815,600 85%5339, CRP Dial-A- Ride ADA Paratransit Operating $331,250 $265,000 80%5310 Preventative Maintenance- Real-Time Passenger Information Technology $132,000 $105,600 80%5310 Passenger Amenity Improvements Technology $100,000 $80,000 80%5310 Battery Electric Buses Expansion Rolling Stock $1,200,000 $1,020,000 85%5339, CRP, STBG Light Duty Vehicles Rolling Stock $225,800 $191,930 85%5310 Articulated Bus Replacement/ Expansion Rolling Stock $1,100,000 $935,000 85%5339, CRP, STBG Install Benches and Shelters Passenger Amenities $80,000 $64,000 80%5310 Operating Funding for Fixed Route Service Operating $8,543,626 $4,271,813 50%5307 Partial Vehicle Replacement/ Expansion Rolling Stock $471,313 $377,050 80%STBG 153 143 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Because of limited availability of federal and local funding levels throughout the timeline of the fiscally constrained plan, not all projects can receive allocated funding. These projects are moved to an illustrative project list, meaning they are eligible to be selected as projects in the future should funding become available. Further detail on illustrative projects is provided in Appendix A. DEVELOPER-DRIVEN PROJECTS Developer-driven projects represent improvements that are expected to be implemented based on development needs. As such, implementation and project costs are expected to be, at least in part, the responsibility of the developer and are excluded from the fiscally constrained plan because they are not anticipated to use federal funds. Identified developer-driven projects are summarized in Table 57 and shown in Figure 76. Table 57: Developer Driven Projects ID Corridor From To Project Type Cost (2025 $) N-47 Cameron School Road GW Carver Avenue Roundabout $1,950,000 R-11a Lincoln Way X Avenue 0.5 mile west of X Avenue Widen to 3-Lanes $3,276,000 R-11b Lincoln Way 0.5 mile west of X Avenue Y Avenue Widen to 3-Lanes $3,276,000 R-13 Y Avenue Lincoln Way Ontario Street Widen to 3-Lanes $5,289,000 R-14 Ontario Street Y Avenue/500th Avenue Idaho Avenue Widen to 3-Lanes $4,910,000 R-15 Lincoln Way Y Avenue/500th Avenue Wilder Boulevard Widen to 3-Lanes $2,315,000 R-19 New Backage Road System Lincoln Way S 5th Street New 2-Lane Street $4,110,000 R-23 Freel Drive SE 5th Street S Dayton Avenue New 2-Lane Street $2,304,000 R-24 E 13th Street I-35 Ramp Terminal 570th Avenue Turn Lanes $1,040,000 R-25 E 13th Street 570th Avenue 580th Avenue Turn Lanes $1,040,000 R-26 Lincoln Way I-35 Ramp Terminal 580th Avenue Turn Lanes $1,040,000 R-27 Sand Hill Trail Turing Street Lincoln Way New 2-Lane Street $5,345,000 R-28 580th Avenue U.S. 30 13th Street Turn Lanes $3,120,000 R-3 Stange Road Weston Drive George Washington Carver Avenue New 2-Lane Street $4,080,000 R-32 265th Street Duff Avenue 550th Avenue Widen to 3-Lanes $4,295,000 R-33 550th Avenue Ken Maril Road 265th Street Pave $4,534,000 R-43 Y Ave Mortensen Road Lincoln Way Pave and Widen to 3-Lanes $3,770,000 154 144 Figure 76: Developer Driven Projects 155 145 POTENTIAL IOWA DOT PROJECTS Iowa DOT manages investments and O&M for the statewide highway network through administration of the NHPP program and other funding sources. The needs across the state are evaluated, and funding is allocated to address the state’s most critical highway needs. These funds are State-directed, and Iowa DOT works with Local Public Agencies (LPA), such as AAMPO, to program improvements. Given the nature of this program, Connect 2050 did not identify all State-directed projects. Connect 2050 instead forecasts reasonably expected future revenue levels for the MPO region that could fund eligible projects. Projects funded through the State funding program are intended to address Iowa DOT’s investment priorities and include: • Preventative maintenance • Minor rehabilitation • Safety improvements • Bicycle and pedestrian improvements FUTURE STUDIES To supplement the multi-modal improvements recommended as part of Connect 2050, a series of future studies were identified for AAMPO to consider over the life of the MTP. These studies are detailed in Table 58 and Figure 77. To conduct one of these studies, AAMPO will program it in a Transportation Planning Work Program (TPWP) as a special study in order to access federal planning funds in that study’s fiscal year. 156 146 Table 58: Recommended Future Studies Study ID Timeline Study Name Study Description S1 Near-Term (FY27)Lincoln Way Corridor Study (Duff Avenue to Grand Avenue) Corridor study to guide future street/intersection design, pedestrian/bike improvements, and access management, and will inform illustrative projects R-16 and B-67. S2 Medium-Term (FY30-34) 13th Street Corridor Study (Hyland Avenue to Furman Aquatic Center) Corridor study to guide future street/intersection design, pedestrian/bike improvements, access management, and feasibility of roundabouts and lane reconfiguration on 13th Street; will inform projects R-42, R-44, N-70, and long-term project N-79. S3 Near-Term (FY29)Mortensen Parkway (University Boulevard to Welch Avenue) Corridor study to guide future street/intersection design, pedestrian/bike improvements, and access management, including evaluating roundabouts and a lane reconfiguration on Mortensen Parkway. The study will support mid-term project R-45 and inform medium priority bike/pedestrian project B-23. S4 Medium-Term (FY30-34) Grand Avenue & 16th Street Intersection Study Study to reassess the Grand Avenue & 16th Street intersection after nearby corridor upgrades, focusing on safety and multimodal improvements. It will form the basis for short-term project N-75. S5 Medium-Term (FY30-34) Bloomington Road & GW Carver Avenue Corridor Study (Stange Road to 190th Street) Corridor study to evaluate roundabouts and lane reconfiguration on Bloomington Road and GW Carver Avenue; will support R-39 and may inform N-47, N-48, and R-1. S6 Long-Term (≥FY35) I-35 & 260th Street Interchange Study & Interchange Justification Report (IJR) Study and IJR for a potential I-35 interchange at 260th Street to support Ames south and east industrial growth; coordinated with S9 and informs long-term project R-37. S7 Near-Term (FY28)S Dayton Avenue & U.S. 30 Interchange Area Study Study of S Dayton Avenue & U.S. 30 interchange operations, including nearby intersections, to guide future design and access improvements; informs illustrative project N-76. S8 Near-Term (FY27- 29) Duff / UPRR Grade Separation Study Feasibility study for a Duff Avenue–Union Pacific Railroad grade separation, building on the current corridor study and following FRA guidelines; required to pursue grant funding for project N-44. S9 Long-Term (≥FY35) Ames South Growth Area Study (S Duff Avenue, U.S. 69, 260th Street, 265th Street) Study of Ames south growth area focused on S Duff Avenue/U.S. 69 and 260th/265th Street, coordinated with S6; informs long-term project R-29a and illustrative projects R-29b, R-32, R-33, and R-34. 157 147 Figure 77: Recommended Future Studies 158 148 CHAPTER 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The AAMPO study area was evaluated for environmental resources in the natural and built environment. Federal, state, and tribal agencies concerned with management, regulation, and wildlife resources will be consulted in the draft plan phase of the MTP update. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, federal agencies are required to consider environmental resources and potential impacts on them during the planning design phase of any project receiving federal funding. As such, this analysis highlights potential environmental resources that could require further consideration for future implementation. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND CONSIDERATIONS Environmental resources that could potentially be affected by transportation projects in the study area are discussed in this section. Figure 78 and Figure 79 show some of the environmentally sensitive natural and human-built areas in the study area. Discussion regarding the resources shown in the figures, such as historic resources and waters of the United States, are detailed as well. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES The consideration of impacts on cultural resources is subject to several federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. Principal among these are NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 requires federal agencies (and agencies receiving federal assistance for projects) to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties (any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places). Through consultation with agency officials and other parties, the effects of the project on historic properties are considered, beginning with the earliest stages of project planning. The goal is to identify historic properties in the area of potential effect (APE) as early as possible in project development, evaluate the historic significance of the properties, assess the expected project impacts, and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. Archaeological and historical data from the ISites Public Data Web Map13, maintained by the Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist, were reviewed to determine the number of historic sites in proximity to the study area. The study area includes numerous historic structures and archaeological sites. As transportation projects are developed, an APE would be proposed by sponsoring agencies (Iowa DOT and local governments). Coordination with the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) would confirm the APE. Records of known historic sites would be searched to determine the presence of historic resources in the APE. The potential for unknown archaeological sites would be determined through site-specific cultural resource surveys. Through consultation with Iowa SHPO, the potential for projects to affect historic resources would be determined (No Historic Properties Affected, No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties, or an Adverse Effect on Historic Properties [when a historic resource cannot be avoided]). 13 Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist, ISites Public Data Web Map. 159 149 In the event of an adverse effect on historic properties, FHWA must contact the Advisory Council to advise it of the situation and offer an opportunity for participation in the consultation with SHPO and others to plan measures to minimize harm and, ultimately, to mitigate the adverse effects. The agency sponsoring the project would consult with SHPO and other interested parties to formulate a mitigation plan that would become the basis for a Memorandum of Agreement among FHWA, SHPO, and the DOT or local agency. Execution of the Memorandum completes consultation under Section 106 unless there are changes or additions to the project. SECTION 4(F) AND SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES The Department of Transportation Act of 1966 included a provision – Section 4(f) – that is intended to protect any publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance or any land of a historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site). DOT agencies, including FHWA, cannot approve any program or project that requires the use these lands unless the following is met: • There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use; or • FHWA determines that the use of the property, including any measures to minimize harm (such as avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures), would have a de minimis impact (a determination that the project would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes qualifying a park, recreation area, or refuge for protection under Section 4(f) or a Section 106 finding of no adverse effect or no historic properties affected on a historic property). There are three types of Section 4(f) impacts: • Direct use: Conversion of public park land into a transportation use and may include de minimis impacts • Temporary occupancy: Temporary use of Section 4(f) land for construction operations • Constructive use: Proximity impacts, such as noise, of a proposed project that is adjacent, or nearby, to a Section 4(f) property resulting in a substantial impairment to the property’s activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) The study area includes parks and other Section 4(f)-protected properties. Transportation projects would be further evaluated in the project planning phase. Section 6(f), which was created as a part of the Land and Water Conservation Act, protects state- and locally sponsored projects that were funded as part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. These lands cannot be converted to non-park/ recreation use without the approval of the National Park Service. Conversion of these lands is allowed if it is determined that there are no practicable alternatives to the conversion and that there would be a provision of replacement property. Mitigation for Section 6(f) lands impacted by a project must include replacement with land of at least the same fair market value and reasonably equivalent usefulness and location relative to the impacted land. The potential presence of Section 6(f) lands was evaluated by determining the presence of public parks, recreation areas, and refuges using GIS data from Ames and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The study area includes properties that may be Section 6(f)-protected lands; further evaluation would be needed in the project planning phase. 160 150 Figure 78: Human Environmental Constraints 161 151 REGULATED MATERIALS SITES Regulated materials are hazardous substances that are regulated by federal, state, or local entities based on their potential to result in environmental contamination and to affect public health. The purpose of an initial regulated materials review is to identify properties that are, or may be, contaminated with regulated materials in the study area so that the presence of these properties may be factored into subsequent transportation selection and design considerations. It is preferable to avoid highly contaminated sites to minimize potential additional costs, liability, or schedule delays due to site remediation. The study area was evaluated using GIS data from Iowa DNR to determine the presence of any national priority sites, non-national priority sites, contaminated sites, and leaking underground storage tanks as defined by Iowa DNR and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The study area includes regulated material sites. More detailed assessments of transportation projects during the planning process would be needed in future environmental reviews. WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES For purposes of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its implementing regulations, the term “waters of the United States” means: all waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; the territorial seas; all impoundments of waters otherwise identified as waters of the United States in the CWA; and all tributaries, as defined in the CWA. Waters of the United States are subject to the CWA and are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). A permit from USACE is necessary for all projects that would discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The National Wetlands Inventory and aerial photography were reviewed for the study area to determine potential project impacts on wetlands and other waters of the United States. The study area includes potential wetlands and other waters of the United States. Wetland delineations are recommended in the initial stages of transportation projects to determine the boundaries of the wetlands and other waters of the United States in the project area and to coordinate with USACE to determine who has jurisdiction over these areas. FLOODPLAINS Development in floodplains is regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Iowa DNR. Iowa DNR floodplain regulations affect only those transportation projects in the floodplains of streams draining more than 100 square miles in rural areas and 2 square miles in urban areas. Projects on streams with drainage areas less than these thresholds are regulated by cities and counties. A floodplain permit from Iowa DNR or the city or county is required for most projects in a floodplain. A hydraulic review must be completed for projects in floodplains to determine the effect of the project on the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood. FEMA regulations prohibit encroachments in regulated floodways unless it is accompanied by a no-rise analysis that demonstrates the project 162 152 would cause no increase in the 100-year flood level. The study area was reviewed to determine the extent that occurs in the 100-year floodplain using the latest Flood Insurance Rate Maps showing the extent of the 100 year floodplain in Story County. Portions of the study area are in floodplains and would need to further evaluation. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Threatened and endangered species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act would need to be considered for each project. Iowa also maintains a list of state-listed threatened and endangered species and species of special concern. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Iowa DNR would be required to determine which listed species have the potential to occur in each project area and the potential for the project to affect each species present. The study area was reviewed for the presence of suitable habitat. Potential habitat does exist in the study area. Road projects moving forward in the planning process would need further review for their potential to affect species by completing habitat surveys and potential consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Iowa DNR. 163 153 Figure 79: Physical Environmental Constraints 164 154 SOCIOECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY COMPOSITION The Council on Environmental Quality requires federal, state, and local agencies receiving federal funding to use the NEPA process to identify and assess the effects of a proposed project on the human environment, its relationship to people in the environment, and the reasonable alternatives to proposed projects that would avoid or minimize adverse effects on the quality of the human environment, such as those that disproportionately affect communities with environmental justice concerns. When assessing socioeconomic and community impacts, particular attention is given to minority and low-income populations because transportation and other types of infrastructure projects have historically had a greater impact on these groups. A review of the community characteristics, including demographic data and income for areas in persistent poverty, was conducted; readily identifiable vulnerable populations, including minority and low-income populations, were identified in the study area. Census data from the 2020 Decennial Census for total population by race and ethnicity and from the 2019 to 2023 ACS 5-year estimates for low income were analyzed to identify vulnerable populations and communities with environmental justice concerns. A minority or low-income population exists where the percentage in an affected area either exceeds 50% or is meaningfully greater than an appropriate unit of geographic assessment that represents the general population that would be affected in the study area. For this analysis, the combined study area was used as the representative unit of geographic assessment for comparison. To determine whether a block group is “meaningfully greater,” it must have at least 130%, or approximately 1 standard deviation (34%) from the mean, of the corresponding percentage of minorities and low-income residents in the study area. For a block group to contain a minority or low-income population compared to the study area, it would be approximately 28.4% minority or 29.3% low income. Approximately 21.8% of the population in the study area has been identified as minority. The following groups are considered minority block groups because the percentage of total minority populations is meaningfully greater than the corresponding percentage for the study area: • Block Groups 1 and 2 of Census Tract 1.05 • Block Group 3 of Census Tract 3 • Block Groups 1 and 2 of Census Tract 5 • Block Group 4 of Census Tract 7 • Block Groups 2, 3, and 4 of Census Tract 10 • Block Group 1 of Census Tract 12 • Block Group 3 of Census Tract 13.03 • Block Groups 1, 2, and 4 of Census Tract 13.04 165 155 Approximately 22.5% of the residents in the study area have been identified as low income. The following groups are considered low-income block groups because the percentage of low-income populations is meaningfully greater than the corresponding percentage for the study area: • Block Group 3 of Census Tract 1.02 • Block Groups 1 and 2 of Census Tract 5 • Block Group 1 of Census Tract 6 • Block Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Census Tract 7 • Block Groups 2, 3, and 4 of Census Tract 10 • Block Groups 1 and 2 of Census Tract 11.01 • Block Groups 1 and 2 of Census Tract 11.02 • Block Group 2 of Census Tract 13.02 • Block Group 2 of Census Tract 13.03 • Block Groups 2 and 4 of Census Tract 13.04 Figure 80 shows the minority and low-income populations. Note that the location of university students has an effect on the results for the Ames area. The student population tends to be younger, and those living away from home have limited income and can heavily influence the low-income population results. The AAMPO’s Public Participation Plan would be used to determine the appropriate level of public outreach to allow for meaningful engagement of all persons in the community. The public involvement process would help guide the rest of the community composition analysis, evaluating potential impacts on vulnerable populations and addressing potential impacts on the overall community. The results of the public involvement process would document events conducted with vulnerable populations, and any avoidance or minimization measures to the community characteristics would be summarized in the NEPA document. 166 156 Figure 80: Preliminary Identified Vulnerable Populations 167 157 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS A desktop review of Connect 2050’s fiscally constrained roadway and bicycle and pedestrian projects was conducted to evaluate potential impacts on the region’s identified human and physical environmental constraints, as well as its vulnerable populations, as shown in Figure 80. Key Findings of the Fiscally Constrained Plan Environmental Review – Human and Physical Constraints The approach to assessing potential impacts on the AAMPO region’s environmental resources used a proximity analysis that determined potential impact(s) based on the location of each fiscally constrained project and the region’s human and physical resources. During the planning and preliminary phases of project development, additional consideration will need to be given when determining potential impacts on environmental resources. Key findings from the assessment of potential impacts stemming from the implementation of Connect 2050’s fiscally constrained roadway projects on the region’s human and physical constraints include: • R-52, S Duff Avenue at U.S. 30 Interchange Reconfiguration: Intersects trails; adjacent to parkland and a cemetery; may be 4(f); National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) waterway is present. • N-39, Ontario Street at N 500th Avenue Roundabout: Trail present; may be 4(f). • N-51, W 190th Street at Grant Avenue/Hyde Avenue Roundabout: NHD waterway just west of alignment. • R-51, U.S. 30 from Duff Avenue to University Avenue Widen to 6 Lanes: Intersects trails; adjacent to park land and cemetery; may be 4(f); NHD waterway is present. • R-45, Mortensen Parkway from Welch Avenue to Beach Avenue Land Reconfiguration and Roundabouts: Trail and park land adjacent. May be 4(f). • R-29a, Duff Avenue at Ken Maril Road Widen to 4-Lane Divided Section: Crosses two NHD waterways; cemetery and trail are adjacent. • N-79, 13th Street at Stange Road Intersection Improvements: Trail present; may be 4(f). • R-46, N Dakota Avenue from Lincoln Way to Ontario Street Lane Reconfiguration: Cemetery, school, and trail present; school and trail may be 4(f). • R-37, I-35 at 260th Street New Interchange: NHD waterway present. Key findings from the assessment of potential impacts stemming from the implementation of Connect 2050’s fiscally constrained bicycle and pedestrian projects on the region’s human and physical constraints include: • B-145, Skunk River Trail from Ioway Creek to S 16th Street Greenbelt Trail: NHD waterway. • B-114, Skunk River Trail from Inis Grove Park to Duff Avenue Greenbelt Trail: Adjacent rails; NHD waterway and parkland present; likely 4(f). • B-112, S Duff Avenue from Lincoln Way to S 3rd Street Shared Use Path: Intersects two trails; may be 4(f). • B-115, Duff Avenue from Grand Avenue to Northwood Drive Shared Use Path: Adjacent rails, NHD waterway, school, and park land present; likely 4(f). • B-81, 13th Street from Northwestern Avenue to Grand Avenue Shared Use Path: Intersects two trails; may be 4(f). • B-56, Lincoln Way from Riverside Drive to Grand Avenue Shared Use Path: Trail, park land, and 168 158 school present; may be 4(f); NHD waterway is present. • B-134, S 16th Street from Apple Place to S Duff Avenue Widen Existing Shared Use Path: Trails and parkland present; may be 4(f). Key Findings of the Fiscally Constrained Plan Environmental Review – Vulnerable Populations Connect 2050’s fiscally constrained roadway and bicycle and pedestrian projects underwent a second proximity analysis to identify potential impacts on the AAMPO region’s vulnerable populations, defined as low-income and minority block groups. Fiscally constrained projects that fall within low-income and/ or minority block groups are identified as having potential for impacting vulnerable populations. Fiscally constrained roadway projects determined to fall within block groups with vulnerable populations include: • R-52, S Duff Avenue at U.S 30 Interchange Reconfiguration • R-51, U.S. 30 from Duff Avenue to University Avenue Widen to 6 Lanes • R-39, Bloomington Road from Valley View Road to Stange Road Lane Reconfiguration and Roundabout • N-48, W 190th Street at George Washington Carver Avenue Roundabout • R-45, Mortensen Parkway from Welch Avenue to Beech Avenue Lane Reconfiguration and Roundabouts • R-29a, Duff Avenue from Ken Maril Road to Kitty Hawk Drive Widen to 4-Lane Divided Section • N-79, 13th Street at Stange Road Intersection Improvements 38% 62%31% 69% Within Low-Income Block Group Percent of Projects in Low-Income Block Groups Percent of Projects in Minority Block Groups Outside of Low-Income Block Group Within Minority Block Group Outside of Minority Block Group 169 159 Figure 81 shows the location of the fiscally constrained roadway projects in relation to the AAMPO region’s low-income and minority block groups. Fiscally constrained bicycle and pedestrian projects determined to fall within block groups with vulnerable populations include: • B-145, Skunk River Trail from Ioway Creek to S 16th Street Greenbelt Trail • B-112, S Duff Avenue from Lincoln Way to S 3rd Street Shared Use Path • B-60, Mortensen Road from Rowling Drive to S Dakota Avenue Shared Use Path • B-144, Lincoln Swing from South Dakota Avenue to Abraham Drive Shared Use Path Figure 82 shows the location of the fiscally constrained bicycle and pedestrian projects in relation to the AAMPO region’s low-income and minority block groups. 50% 50%50% 50% Within Low-Income Block Group Percent of Projects in Low-Income Block Groups Percent of Projects in Minority Block Groups Outside of Low-Income Block Group Within Minority Block Group Outside of Minority Block Group 170 160 Figure 81:Fiscally Constrained Roadway Projects and the AAMPO’s Vulnerable Populations 171 161 Figure 82: Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects and the AAMPO’s Vulnerable Populations 172 162 CHAPTER 10 FEDERAL COMPLIANCE The Connect 2050 plan follows the federal guidelines set by 23 CFR § 450.306, Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming, which outlines the process for developing an MTP. AAMPO is federally required to create an MTP document that uses a performance-based approach. Connect 2050 adheres to this requirement by providing objectives and performance measures that align with federal, State, and local requirements. The following 10 federal planning factors influenced the development of the plan’s goals and objectives. 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non motorized users 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system across modes for people and freight 7. Promote efficient system management and operation 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system 9. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation 10. Enhance travel and tourism Table 59 demonstrates the alignment of Connect 2050’s goal areas and objectives with the ten federal planning factors while Table 60 illustrates how Connect 2050’s fiscally constrained plan aligns with the MTP goal areas and objectives. 173 163 Table 59: Alignment of Connect 2050 Goals and Objectives with Federal Planning Factors Goal Area Objective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Accessibility & Connectivity Improve walk, bike, and transit connections X X Promote land-use policies that support multimodal connectivity X X X Design streets to accommodate all users X X Incorporate accessible design standards Incorporate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit-friendly infrastructure X X X Provide reliable access to jobs and services X X X X Provide balanced transportation funding X X X Safety Reduce fatal and serious injury crashes X Reduce the number of crashes involving vulnerable road users X X Implement a safe system approach X Eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries X Focus safety investments on the High Priority Network X X Sustainability Promote low-carbon transportation options X X Reduce transportation impacts to natural resources X X Reduce the number of single-occupant vehicle trips X X Build transportation infrastructure to be more resilient X Promote financially sustainable transportation system investments X X Maintain NHS routes in good condition X X Maintain NHS bridges in good condition X X Prioritize regular maintenance and rehabilitation X X Efficiency & Reliability Limit the level of congestion on high-volume arterials and Interstates X X X Maintain acceptable travel reliability on Interstate and principal arterial roadways X X X Maintain the current high level of transit services X X Prioritize freight corridors to minimize delays in goods movements X X X Identify technology solutions to enhance system operation X Placemaking/ Quality of Life Design transportation projects that preserve the identity of neighborhoods X Provide transportation strategies and infrastructure that support current adopted plans X X Develop infrastructure that supports affordable housing X Increase percentage of population and employment within close proximity to transit and/or walking and biking system X X X 174 164 Table 60: Fiscally Constrained Projects’ Alignment with Regional Goals Accessibility & Connectivity Efficiency & Reliability Safety Sustainability Placemaking/ Quality of Life KEY Project ID Corridor Project Type Goals Met R-52 S Duff Avenue Interchange Reconfiguration R-51 US 30 Widen to 6-lanes R-39 Bloomington Road Lane Reconfiguration and Roundabout R-45 Mortensen Parkway Lane Reconfiguration and Roundabouts R-29a Duff Avenue Widen to 4-Lane Divided R-46 N Dakota Avenue Lane Reconfiguration R-37 I-35 New Interchange N-40 W Lincoln Way Roundabout N-39 Ontario Street Roundabout 175 165 Accessibility & Connectivity Efficiency & Reliability Safety Sustainability Placemaking/ Quality of Life KEY Project ID Corridor Project Type Goals Met N-51 W 190th Street Roundabout N-75 Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements N-48 W 190th Street Roundabout N-79 13th Street Intersection Improvements B-114 Skunk River Trail Greenbelt Trail B-112 S Duff Ave Shared Use Path B-60 Mortensen Rd Shared Use Path B-117 Grand Ave Shared Use Path B-115 Duff Avenue Shared Use Path 176 166 Accessibility & Connectivity Efficiency & Reliability Safety Sustainability Placemaking/ Quality of Life KEY Project ID Corridor Project Type Goals Met B-144 Lincoln Swing Shared Use Path B-81 13th St Shared Use Path B-145 Skunk River Trail Greenbelt Trail 177 A-1 APPENDIX A PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 178 2 Connect 2050 Universe of Alternatives Roadway Alternatives Table 1: Roadway Project Alternatives R-1 George Washington Carver Ave Weston Dr 190th St Add Turn Lanes $1,040,000 R-2 W 190th Street George Washington Carver Ave US 69 Add Turn Lanes $1,040,000 R-3 Stange Rd Weston Dr George Washington Carver Ave New Connection $4,080,000 R-7 Riverside Rd Grand Ave / US 69 Dayton Ave Add Turn Lanes $5,200,000 R-9 Dayton Ave USDA Riverside Rd Add Turn Lanes $1,040,000 R-10 Riverside Rd Dayton Ave 570th Ave $4,916,000 R-11a R-11b R-13 Y Ave Lincoln Way Ontario Street Widen to 3-Lanes $5,289,000 R-14 Ontario Street Y Ave / 500th Ave Idaho Ave Widen to 3-Lanes $4,910,000 R-15 Lincoln Way Y Ave / 500th Ave Wilder Boulevard Widen to 3-Lanes $2,315,000 R-16 Lincoln Way Grand Ave / US 69 Duff Ave Management $1,000,000 R-17 Duff Ave Union Pacific RR 16th Street Management $7,172,000 R-19 New Backage Road System Lincoln Way S 5th St $4,110,000 R-23 Freel Drive SE 5th St S Dayton Ave $2,304,000 R-24 E 13th St I-35 Ramp Terminal 570th Ave Add Turn Lanes $1,040,000 R-25 E 13th St 570th Ave 580th Ave Add Turn Lanes $1,040,000 R-26 Lincoln Way I-35 Ramp Terminal 580th Ave Add Turn Lanes $1,040,000 R-27 Sand Hill Trail Turing St Lincoln Way $5,345,000 R-28 R-29a R-29b Duff Ave 265th St Ken Maril Rd Wident to 5-Lanes $11,313,250 R-30 530th Ave Collaboration Pl 265th St Widen to 3-Lanes $8,194,000 R-31 265th St 530th Ave Duff Ave $7,849,000 R-32 265th St Duff Ave 550th Ave $4,295,000 R-33 550th Ave Ken Maril Rd 265th St Pave to 2-Lanes $4,534,000 R-34 R-36 R-37 179 3 ID Corridor From To Project Type Cost R-39 Bloomington Rd Clifton Ave Stange Rd Reconfiguration / $2,056,000 R-41 R-42 Ontario St Woodstock Ave Hyland Ave Curb Extensions / High Visibility $139,000 R-43 Y Ave Mortensen Rd Lincoln Way $3,770,000 R-44 13th St Hyland Ave Aquatic Center $7,846,000 R-45 Mortensen Parkway Welch Ave University Ave Reconfiguration / $6,000,000 R-46 N Dakota Ave Lincoln Way Ontario Street Management $5,219,000 R-47 Duff Ave S 5th Street Lincoln Way Management $180,000 R-48 Duff Ave Ioway Creek S 16th St Management $540,000 R-49 Dayton Ave Browning Street Lincoln Way Widen to 3-Lanes $3,701,000 R-50 Grand Ave Dawes Drive Add Turn Lanes $520,000 R-51 US 30 Duff Ave University Ave Widen to 6-lanes $18,500,000 R-52 S Duff Ave US 30 $18,000,000 180 4 Figure 1: Roadway Project Alternatives 181 5 Intersection Alternatives Table 2: Intersection Project Alternatives Ontario Street N 500th Avenue Roundabout $1,950,000 W Lincoln Way Y Avenue Roundabout $1,950,000 N-41 Ontario Street North Dakota Avenue $520,000 N-44 S Duff Avenue Union Pacific RR $50,000,000 N-45 E Lincoln Way East of Cherry Avenue $520,000 N-46 580th Avenue Union Pacific RR $20,000,000 N-47 Cameron School Road George Washington Carver Avenue Intersection Control $1,950,000 N-48 W 190th Street $1,950,000 N-49 N-50 N-51 W 190th Street $1,950,000 N-52 Grand Avenue W 190th Street $520,000 N-53 E Riverside Road Grand Avenue $520,000 N-54 E Riverside Road N Dayton Avenue $520,000 N-55 Bloomington Rd Roundabout $1,950,000 N-56 E 13th Street I-35 Ramp $520,000 N-57 S Duff Avenue / US 69 Ken Maril Road $520,000 N-58 S Duff Avenue / US 69 Timber Creek Drive $520,000 N-59 US 69 265th Street $520,000 N-60 265th Street 550th Avenue $520,000 N-61 220th Street 570th Avenue $520,000 N-62 220th Street 580th Avenue $520,000 N-63 E Lincoln Way Future Collector Road $520,000 N-64 E Lincoln Way 580th Avenue $520,000 N-65 George Washington Carver Avenue Weston Drive Roundabout $1,950,000 182 6 ID Corridor Intersection Strategy Type Cost N-66 George Washington Carver Avenue Barcelos Street Roundabout $1,950,000 N-67 E Lincoln Way 566th Avenue $520,000 N-68 George Washington Carver Avenue Valley View Road Roundabout $1,950,000 N-70 N-71 Cameron School Road N Dakota Avenue Roundabout $1,950,000 N-72 Mortensen Parkway Beach Avenue $200,000 N-73 N-74 N-75 Grand Avenue 16th Street $234,000 N-76 S Dayton Ave Isaac Newton Drive $520,000 N-77 N-78 N-79 13th Street Stange Road $3,000,000 N-80 Bloomington Rd Hyde Ave $520,000 N-81 N-82 US 69 Roundabout $1,950,000 183 7 Figure 2: Intersection Project Alternatives 184 8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Alternatives Table 3: Bike and Pedestrian Project Alternatives Lincoln Way Borne Ave City well Sidepath $ 2,154,432 Hazel Ave 6th St 4th St Sidepath $ 35,492 B-3 20th St Stotts Rd Shared Use Path $ 284,906 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 S Duff Ave 13th St 6th St $ 137,579 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12 500th Ave 500th Ave Sidepath $ 1,608,070 B-13 B-14 B-15 B-16 Cameron School Rd Washington Hyde Ave Shared Use Path $ 1,478,982 B-17 George Washington Cameron School Rd Aldrin Ave Sidepath $ 323,072 B-18 Stange Rd Stange Rd Sidepath $ 960,174 B-19 B-20 B-21 B-22 B-23 Mortensen Pkwy Ash Ave University Blvd $ 327,248 B-24 S Duff Ave 5th St $ 165,213 B-25 9th St Brookridge Ave Route $ 11,440 B-26 B-27 Ioway Creek Stotts Rd Trail Widen Existing Path $ 230,109 B-28 University Blvd Stange Rd Wallace Rd $ 89,185 B-29 Lincoln Way Dakota Ave Hickory Dr $ 1,314,659 B-30 B-31 Bruner Dr Stange Rd Stotts Rd $ 120,063 185 9 B-32 Airport Rd Green Hills Dr University Blvd $ 155,072 B-33 University Blvd Wallace Rd 6th St $ 294,901 B-34 University Blvd 6th St Lincoln Way $ 207,232 B-35 B-36 SE 3rd St S Duff Ave Sidepath $ 325,491 B-37 SE 5th St S Duff Ave Sidepath $ 159,822 B-38 Borne Ave SE 5th St Ioway Creek Trail Further Study Needed $ - B-39 B-40 Borne Ave SE 3rd St SE 5th St Further Study Needed $ - B-41 Dakota Ave College Creek Steinbeck St $ 492,107 B-42 Airport Rd University Blvd N Loop Dr $ 268,193 B-43 Pammel Dr Hyland Ave $ 275,511 B-44 B-45 B-46 B-47 S Duff Ave 16th St 13th St $ 65,290 B-48 B-49 B-50 B-51 B-52 B-53 B-54 B-55 Main St Clark Ave Duff Ave $ 22,880 B-56 B-57 B-58 Beedle Dr Baughman Rd Bike Boulevard $ 22,880 B-59 Pammel Dr $ 4,713 B-60 B-61 20th St Ames High Dr Sidepath $ 802,929 B-62 Borne Ave Lincoln Way 2nd St B-63 Borne Ave 2nd St SE 3rd St B-64 186 10 B-65 Dayton Ave E 13th St Sidepath $ 882,342 B-66 Ioway Creek S Duff Ave Shared Use Path $ 762,094 B-67 Lincoln Way Grand Ave Duff Ave $131,627 B-68 B-69 Scholl Rd Scholl Rd Shared Use Path $ 698,523 B-70 Ioway Creek Onion Creek B-71 Ioway Creek B-72 B-73 B-74 B-75 Cessna St Beach Ave Sidepath $ 107,270 B-76 B-77 B-78 B-79 B-80 B-81 13th St Grand Ave Sidepath $ 175,700 B-82 B-83 B-85 B-86 Country Club Blvd Ash Ave Cessna St Bike Lanes $ 25,111 B-87 University Blvd University Blvd Wallace Rd $ 20,704 B-88 Ioway Creek $ 408,197 B-89 University Blvd Stange Rd Wallace Rd $ 13,624 B-91 B-92 S Dakota Ave Mortensen Rd $ 854,784 B-93 South Skunk River Ioway Creek S 16th St Shared Use Path $ 237,526 B-94 South Skunk River Lincoln Way Ioway Creek Shared Use Path $ 1,437,446 B-95 B-96 B-97 B-99 B-101 B-102 B-103 B-103 187 11 B-104 B-105 16th St Ridgewood Ave Route $ 11,440 B-106 B-107 College Creek Morningside St Shared Use Path $ 94,513 B-108 B-109 B-110 B-111 B-112 B-113 B-114 Skunk River Trail Duff Ave Shared Use Path $ 276,001 B-115 Duff Avenue Grand Ave Northwood Ave $ 289,159 B-116 Lincoln Way Duff Ave S Borne Ave $ 65,962 B-117 B-118 B-119 B-120 B-121 B-122 B-123 South Skunk River US 30 265th St B-124 B-125 B-126 B-127 B-128 E 6th St Carroll Ave Skunk River Trail $ 11,440 B-129 Ames Municipal Cemetery E 9th St Route $ 17,160 B-130 B-131 B-132 B-134 S 16th St Apple Pl S Duff Ave $ 578,398 B-135 S Duff Ave S 16th St Ioway Creek $ 247,893 B-136 S 16th St S Dayton Ave S Duff Ave $ 788,673 B-137 Beach Rd Lincoln Way University Ave $ 168,689 B-138 S 4th St S 4th St University Blvd $ 168,709 B-139 B-140 B-141 Northwestern Ave 30th St Grand Ave Bike Boulevard $ 85,800 188 12 B-142 B-143 B-144 B-145 189 13 Figure 3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Alternatives 190 14 Illustrative Projects Illustrative Roadway Projects Table 4: Illustrative Roadway Projects GW Carver Ave Weston Dr 190th St Add Turn Lanes $1,040,000 W 190th Street GW Carver Ave US 69 Add Turn Lanes $1,040,000 R-3 Stange Rd Weston Dr Washington New Connection $4,080,000 R-7 R-9 R-10 R-11a Lincoln Way Y Ave Widen to 3-Lanes $3,276,000 R-11b Lincoln Way X Ave Widen to 3-Lanes $3,276,000 R-13 R-14 R-15 Lincoln Way Y Ave / 500th Ave Widen to 3-Lanes $2,315,000 R-16 R-17 R-19 New Backage Road System Lincoln Way S 5th St New 2-Lane Street $4,110,000 R-23 R-24 R-25 R-26 R-27 R-28 R-32 R-33 R-34 260th St / 265th St 550th Ave 580th Ave Pave to 2-Lanes $15,801,000 R-36 R-41 R-42 Ontario St Woodstock Ave Hyland Ave Extensions / High $139,000 R-43 Y Ave Mortensen Rd Lincoln Way $3,770,000 R-44 13th St Hyland Ave Aquatic Center $7,846,000 R-47 R-48 R-49 R-50 191 15 Figure 4: Illustrative Roadway Projects 192 16 Illustrative Intersection Projects Table 5: Illustrative Intersection Projects S Duff Avenue Union Pacific RR Grade Separation $50,000,000 E Lincoln Way East of Cherry Avenue Intersection Control $520,000 E Riverside Road N Dayton Avenue Intersection Control $520,000 580th Avenue Union Pacific RR Grade Separation $20,000,000 Harrison Road Hyde Avenue Roundabout $500,000 E Riverside Road Grand Avenue Intersection Control $520,000 N-49 Stone Brooke Road Hyde Avenue Roundabout $500,000 N-52 N-41 N-56 E 13th Street I-35 Ramp $520,000 N-57 S Duff Avenue / US 69 Ken Maril Road Intersection Control $520,000 N-58 S Duff Avenue / US 69 Timber Creek Drive Intersection Control $520,000 N-59 N-60 N-61 N-62 N-63 N-64 N-65 George Washington Weston Drive Roundabout $1,950,000 N-66 George Washington Barcelos Street Roundabout $1,950,000 N-67 N-68 George Washington Valley View Road Roundabout $1,950,000 N-70 N-71 Cameron School Road N Dakota Avenue Roundabout $1,950,000 N-76 N-77 N-78 N-80 N-81 N-82 US 69 Roundabout $1,950,000 193 17 Figure 5: Illustrative Intersection Projects 194 18 Illustrative Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Table 6: Illustrative Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects B-7 S Duff Ave S 3rd St S 5th St Sidepath $122,309 B-22 Ridgewood Ave 16th St 6th St Bike Boulevard $40,040 B-23 Mortensen Pkwy Ash Ave University Blvd Widen Existing Path $327,248 B-29 Lincoln Way Dakota Ave Hickory Dr Widen Existing Path $1,314,659 B-30 Lincoln Way Beach Ave University Ave Sidepath $198,524 B-37 SE 5th St S Duff Ave Sidepath $159,822 B-41 Dakota Ave College Creek Steinbeck St Widen Existing Path $492,107 B-44 West St Hyland Ave Sheldon Ave Bike Lanes $18,097 B-45 Arbor St State Ave Sheldon Ave Bike Boulevard $11,440 B-54 Grand Ave 5th St Lincoln Way Sidepath $130,024 B-67 Lincoln Way Grand Ave Duff Ave Separated Bike Lane $131,627 B-68 Lincoln Way 500th Ave Wilder Ave Sidepath $181,331 B-76 Storm St Welch Ave Ash Ave Route $17,160 B-83 Lynn Ave Chamberlain St Storm St Route $22,880 B-101 S Walnut Ave S 3rd St S 5th St Sidepath $142,018 B-103 Grand Ave Lincoln Way S 5th St Sidepath $246,123 B-116 Lincoln Way Duff Ave S Borne Ave Separated Bike Lane $65,962 B-137 Beach Rd Lincoln Way University Ave Separated Bike Lane $168,689 B-139 S 3rd St S Duff Ave Grand Ave Bike Lanes $143,929 B-142 Clark Ave 24th St Main St Bike Boulevard $85,800 B-143 6th St Carroll Ave Grand Ave Bike Lanes $154,982 195 19 Figure 6: Illustrative Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 196 20 Illustrative Transit Projects Table 7: Transit Illustrative Projects 1 Lincoln & Beach - Add Transit Signal Priority Transit Signal Priority coordinated with City of Ames 2 Lincoln & Welch - Add Transit Signal Priority Transit Signal Priority coordinated with City of Ames 3 Stange & Bruner - Add New Signal New Signal 4 Stange & Blankenburg - Add Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian Crossing coordinated with City of Ames 5 South Dakota & Steinbeck - Add Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian Crossing coordinated with City of Ames 6 Ames Intermodal Facility Improvements Facilities funded from intercity grant; use placeholder cost from TAM if 7 South 16th Street - Add Innovative Transit Service Zone Service Ames on weekdays 7am-7pm 8 North Ames (Somerset/Northridge/Valley View) - Add Innovative Transit Service Service Weekdays 7am-7pm (year-round) 9 Applied Sciences - Add Innovative Transit Service Zone Service 10 Stange Road from Bloomington to University - Corridor Service Service Daily 20-minute service (school year only) - Brown route 11 University Blvd from ISU/ISC to ISU Research Park - Corridor Service Improvements Service only) - Brown route; Addition of Sunday service (ISU Research park, Airport Road, S. Riverside 12 South Duff from Lincoln to Crystal - Corridor Service Improvements Service with reduced summer/break schedule) - Yellow route; Add 13 Airport Road from South Duff to University - Corridor Service Service Weekdays 7am-7pm (year-round); 14 Ames to Ankeny and Des Moines Intercity/Commuter Service Service funded by CyRide - priority is Ames 197 B-1 APPENDIX B PRIORITIZATION RESULTS 198 1 APPENDIX B Prioritization Results Developing Project Scoring Criteria Project scoring criteria were developed in consideration of the Iowa DOT Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), the Iowa State Long Range Transportation Plan, the Iowa State Freight Plan, and the State Transportation Asset Management Plan. Goal Objective Possible Points Safety Project reduces fatal and serious injury crashes 12 Project reduces the number of crashes involving vulnerable road users 10 Project is a safety countermeasure on the High Priority Network 8 Total Points 30 Accessibility & Connectivity Project creates or improves connections between transportation modes (e.g., transit, biking, walking) 6 Project creates or enhances complete streets, which accommodate all users (e.g., adding bike lanes, wide encourage economic growth (e.g., by improving access community to essential services like healthcare, schools, Total Points 25 Efficiency & Reliability Total Points 20 Sustainability Total Points 15 Placemaking/Quality of Life 199 2 Total Points 10 The following section illustrates how projects were prioritized utilizing the scoring criteria shown above. 200 R-29a Duff Avenue Ken Maril Road Kitty Hawk Drive Widen to 5-Lanes High R-16 Lincoln Way Grand Avenue Duff Avenue Management High R-9 Dayton Avenue USDA 570th Avenue Turn Lanes High R-17 Duff Avenue Union Pacific RR 16th Street Management High R-39 Bloomington Road Valley View Road Stange Road Lane Reconfiguration High R-41 Lincoln Way Dakota Avenue Wilmoth Avenue Management High R-42 Ontario Street Woodstock Avenue Hyland Avenue Management High R-44 13th Street Hyland Avenue Aquatic Center Lane Reconfiguration High R-47 Duff Avenue S 5th Street Lincoln Way Management High R-48 Duff Avenue Ioway Creek S 16th Street Management High R-29b Duff Avenue 265th Street Ken Maril Road Widen to 5-Lanes High R-52 US 30 Duff Ave New Interchange High R-7 Riverside Road Grand Avenue/US 69 Dayton Avenue Widen to 3-Lanes Medium R-34 260th Street/265th Street 550th Avenue 580th Avenue Pave Medium R-24 E 13th Street I-35 Ramp Terminal 570th Avenue Turn Lanes Medium R-10 E Riverside Road Dayton Avenue 570th Avenue New 2-Lane Street Medium R-36 I-35 E Riverside Street New Interchange Medium R-23 Freel Drive SE 5th Street S Dayton Avenue New 2-Lane Street Medium R-37 I-35 260th Street New Interchange Medium R-31 265th Street 530th Avenue Duff Avenue Pave Medium R-25 E 13th Street 570th Avenue 580th Avenue Turn Lanes Medium R-3 Stange Road Weston Drive George Washington Carver AvenueNew 2-Lane Street Medium R-11a Lincoln Way XG Pl Y Avenue Widen to 3-Lanes Medium R-15 Lincoln Way Y Avenue/500th Avenue Wilder Boulevard Widen to 3-Lanes Medium R-13 Y Avenue Lincoln Way Ontario Street Widen to 3-Lanes Medium R-33 550th Avenue Ken Maril Road 265th Street Pave Medium R-26 Lincoln Way I-35 Ramp Terminal 580th Avenue Turn Lanes Medium R-28 580th Avenue US 30 13th Street Turn Lanes Medium R-19 New Backage Road System Lincoln Way S 5th Street New 2-Lane Street Medium R-32 265th Street Duff Avenue 550th Avenue Widen to 3-Lanes Medium R-45 Mortensen Parkway Welch Avenue University Avenue Lane Reconfiguration Medium R-46 N Dakota Avenue Lincoln Way Ontario Street Lane Reconfiguration Medium R-51 US 30 Duff Ave University Ave Widen to 5-Lanes Medium R-11b Lincoln Way XG Pl X Ave Widen to 3-Lanes Medium R-43 Y Ave Mortensen Lincoln Way Pave Medium R-14 Ontario Street Y Avenue/500th Avenue Idaho Avenue Widen to 3-Lanes Low R-1 George Washington Carver AvenueWeston Drive W 190th Street Turn Lanes Low R-2 W 190th Street George Washington Carver AvenueUS 69 Turn Lanes Low R-30 530th Avenue Collaboration Place 265th Street Widen to 3-Lanes Low R-27 Sand Hill Trail Turing Street Lincoln Way New 2-Lane Street Low R-49 Dayton Avenue Browning Street Lincoln Way Widen to 3-Lanes Low R-50 Grand Avenue Dawes Drive Turn Lanes Low ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Project ID Corridor/Location From To Project Type Priority 201 N-51 W 190th Street Grant Avenue Roundabout High N-47 Cameron School Road George Washington Carver Avenue Roundabout High N-40 W Lincoln Way Y Avenue Roundabout High N-44 S Duff Avenue Union Pacific RR Grade Separation High N-45 E Lincoln Way East of Cherry Avenue Intersection Control High N-52 W 190th Street Grand Avenue Intersection Control High N-79 13th Street Stange Road Intersection Control High N-48 W 190th Street George Washington Carver Avenue Roundabout Medium N-46 580th Avenue Union Pacific RR Grade Separation Medium N-50 Harrison Road Hyde Avenue Roundabout Medium N-53 E Riverside Road Grand Avenue Intersection Control Medium N-49 Stone Brooke Road Hyde Avenue Roundabout Medium N-41 Ontario Street N Dakota Avenue Intersection Control Medium N-56 E 13th Street I-35 Interchange Reconfiguration Medium N-57 S Duff Avenue / US 69 Ken Maril Road Intersection Control Medium N-70 13th Street Haber Road Roundabout Medium N-71 Cameron School Road N Dakota Avenue Roundabout Medium N-75 Grand Avenue 16th Street Intersection Control Medium N-76 S 16th Street Isaac Newton Drive Intersection Control Medium N-77 500th Avenue Westfield Drive Roundabout Medium N-78 500th Avenue Future Collector Road Roundabout Medium N-80 Bloomington Rd Hyde Ave Intersection Control Medium N-81 S Grand Ave S 5th St Roundabout Medium N-54 E Riverside Road N Dayton Avenue Intersection Control Low N-58 S Duff Avenue / US 69 Timber Creek Drive Intersection Control Low N-59 US 69 265th Street Intersection Control Low N-60 265th Street 550th Avenue Intersection Control Low N-61 220th Street 570th Avenue Intersection Control Low N-62 220th Street 580th Avenue Intersection Control Low N-63 E Lincoln Way Future Collector Road Intersection Control Low N-64 E Lincoln Way 580th Avenue Intersection Control Low N-65 George Washington Carver AvenueWeston Drive Roundabout Low N-66 George Washington Carver AvenueBarcelos Street Roundabout Low N-67 E Lincoln Way 566th Avenue Intersection Control Low N-68 George Washington Carver AvenueValley View Road Roundabout Low N-82 US 69 Arrasmith Trail/Ada Hayden Roundabout Low INTERSECTION PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Project ID Corridor/Location Intersection Project Type Priority 202 Project ID Corridor/Location From To Project Type Priority B-7 S Duff Ave S 3rd St S 5th St Sidepath High B-29 Lincoln Way Dakota Ave Hickory Dr Widen Existing Path High B-30 Lincoln Way Beach Ave University Ave Sidepath High B-41 Dakota Ave College Creek Steinbeck St Widen Existing Path High B-54 Grand Ave 5th St Lincoln Way Sidepath High B-56 Lincoln Way Riverside Dr Grand Ave Sidepath High B-60 Mortensen Rd Rowling Dr S Dakota Ave Sidepath High B-67 Lincoln Way Grand Ave Duff Ave Separated Bike Lane High B-81 13th St Northwestern Ave Grand Ave Sidepath High B-103 Grand Ave Lincoln Way S 5th St Sidepath High B-112 S Duff Ave Lincoln Way S 3rd St Sidepath High B-114 Skunk River Trail Inis Grove Park Duff Ave Shared Use Path High B-115 Duff Ave Skunk River Trail Grand Ave Sidepath High B-116 Lincoln Way Duff Ave S Borne Ave Separated Bike Lane High B-117 Grand Ave 13th St Lincoln Way Shared Use Path High B-137 Beach Rd Lincoln Way University Ave Separated Bike Lane High B-139 S 3rd St S Duff Ave Grand Ave Bike Lanes High B-142 Clark Ave 24th St Main St Bike Boulevard High B-143 6th St Carroll Ave Grand Ave Bike Lanes High B-145 Skunk River Trail Ioway Creek S 16th St Greenbelt Trail High B-22 Ridgewood Ave 16th St 6th St Bike Boulevard Medium B-23 Mortensen Pkwy Ash Ave University Blvd Widen Existing Path Medium B-37 SE 5th St S Duff Ave Future trail connection Sidepath Medium B-44 West St Hyland Ave Sheldon Ave Bike Lanes Medium B-45 Arbor St State Ave Sheldon Ave Bike Boulevard Medium B-68 Lincoln Way 500th Ave Wilder Ave Sidepath Medium B-76 Storm St Welch Ave Ash Ave Route Medium B-83 Lynn Ave Chamberlain St Storm St Route Medium B-101 S Walnut Ave S 3rd St S 5th St Sidepath Medium B-134 S 16th St Apple Pl S Duff Ave Widen Existing Path Medium BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECT PRIORITIZATION 203 C-1 APPENDIX C PAVEMENT TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 204 1 AAMPO MTP 2050 Pavement Management Technical Memorandum Historical Pavement Condition Data Analysis Background As part of the work to support pavement management, the project team conducted an analysis of historical pavement condition data. This analysis helped better understand recent trends in pavement condition and deterioration rates, as well as differences in pavement performance by functional class. Methodology Pavement condition data for all local jurisdictions in Iowa are available from the Iowa Pavement Management Program (IPMP) at the Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) at Iowa State University. The pavement condition data is collected by a specialized vendor selected by the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) to collect all pavement data statewide. Since the late 1990’s, pavement distresses have been standardized and there are multiple vendors using similar technology to capture equivalent data. The data collection vendor was selected by Iowa DOT under a competitively-bid procurement and follows national standards for equipment calibration and quality assurance as outlined in Iowa DOT’s federally-required Data Quality Management Plan. There have been changes to the collection process that have created minor variances in the six historical datasets available from the IPMP. Since 2013, changes in technology have improved data collection and allowed for more accurate and rapid data collection. Although the data collection process has changed, the pavement condition data elements and the underlying meaning of measures and indices have essentially stayed the same. IPMP augments the pavement condition data with other network information, including functional classification, traffic volume (Average Annual Daily Traffic, or AADT), number of lanes, roadway width, etc. These elements provide additional options to group, compare, and analyze the network data. The project team used the IPMP website1 to obtain all available historical datasets for the city of Ames. The city’s pavement condition data was used to represent the 1 https://ipmp.ctre.iastate.edu/gisdata/ 205 2 condition of MPO network as IPMP does not offer datasets corresponding to MPO areas. IPMP had six datasets available for the city of Ames, representing pavement condition data collected in 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023 – over a decade of data history. The project team examined these historical datasets for insights into overall network performance and potential focus areas. Most of the fields of interest were pre- calculated by IPMP, however there were several that required additional calculation such as the Federal Functional Classification categories (Arterial, Collector, Local) based on other values. Results The overall network size measured for the IPMP dataset representing the AAMPO region has grown from 2,097 segments totaling 1,077,152 feet (204 mi) in 2013 to 2,478 segments totaling 1,381,634 feet (261.7 mi) in 2023. In addition to the expected growth of the city network due to new development, this growth can be also attributed to two other factors: 1) the inclusion of Iowa State University’s street network, and 2) a bi- directional data collection issue discussed in-depth in the Bi-Directional Data Collection Creating Multiple Datapoints section of this memorandum. A pavement’s condition is often summarized by the numerical value Pavement Condition Index (PCI). This index is calculated using multiple condition indicators including smoothness and cracking, into a single value that represents the overall condition of the pavement. CityPCI is a weighted PCI calculation developed in a cooperative effort between IPMP and local government stakeholders to create an index believed to be more representative of city pavement conditions. This weighted CityPCI value was developed to account for the slower travel speeds on city streets compared to the PCI used by the DOT and county governments on higher speed roadways like interstates and highways. On the CityPCI scale, a perfect new pavement would score 100, and a badly deteriorated and failed pavement would score 0. A summary of the CityPCI condition categories are as follows: • 0-20 - Very Poor • 21-40 - Poor • 41-60 - Fair • 61-80 - Good • 81-100 - Excellent Average network condition is rated across all measured segments and weighted by the length of each segment in order to more accurately reflect the overall network. The weighted calculation was done for each of the six data points and the results are shown in Figure 1. 206 3 Figure 1. Historical Pavement Condition (CityPCI) Trends for the City of Ames The figure above indicates that the overall average CityPCI has fallen about 5 points between 2013 and 2023 (from 64.8 to 60.2). The largest drop in condition appears to be concentrated in the arterial streets network, while the lowest average condition ratings are observed in the local streets network which consists of about 66% of the network by length. On average, local streets are now at the upper end of the “Fair” condition range, while arterials and collectors are in the lower end of the “Good” range. The analysis suggests that although the city has been proactive about investing in street infrastructure, there has been a drop in average pavement condition of the overall network and it may be worth investigating alternative strategies (in terms of treatment mix and funding levels) to better understand how to maintain or improve the overall condition of the city’s street network. Understanding the trend in pavement condition is made somewhat challenging by the fact that the network has grown and changed (as discussed above). An effective strategy to enhancing the management of pavement condition data is investing in a longitudinal analysis of pavement data to better understand the deterioration of their pavements and the impact/life of treatments. This could lead to improved deterioration curves that better predict future pavement condition, as well as improved treatment decision trees and resets to better model investment strategies. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Ames -Trend in City PCI, 2013 -2023 CityPCI-All Arterials Collectors Locals 207 4 Existing Pavement Condition Local Streets and Roads Network Pavement Conditions Local roadway pavement conditions, which refers to non-NHS routes, were evaluated using data from the Iowa Pavement Management Program to evaluate local network pavement conditions using a City Pavement Condition Index (CityPCI) measure. Table 1 summarizes the breakdown of pavement conditions, using the CityPCI measure, for non-NHS routes in the AAMPO region by functional classification, while Figure 2 shows pavement conditions for Ames’ non-NHS routes. As Table 1 indicates, the majority of the non-NHS system pavements are in Fair or better condition. Overall, 15% of non-NHS pavements are in Poor condition, while 1% are rated as being in Very Poor condition. Table 1: Pavement Condition Ratings for Local Streets and Roads, 2023 Functional Classification Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Local 17.8% 24.9% 39.6% 16.4% 1.3% Collector 26.6% 36.8% 28.3% 7.6% 0.7% Minor Arterial 32.2% 28.2% 22.4% 12.3% 4.9% Principal Arterial 11.4% 31.6% 30.4% 26.6% 0.0% Total 21.0% 27.2% 35.3% 14.8% 1.7% Source: The AAMPO 208 5 Figure 2: Local Network Pavement Conditions, 2023 209 6 Bi-Directional Data Collection Creating Multiple Datapoints Background Pavement distress data is collected using a vehicle equipped with instruments such as a profilometer and a laser scanner to detect various aspects of pavement condition including cracking, rutting, faulting, and smoothness. The collection process requires the vehicle to traverse the roads and record the vehicle’s position, imagery of the surrounding area, and the condition data. The data from the instruments are analyzed and summarized to create a pavement condition summary for each road segment. Because of the cost and complexity of collecting condition data, it is standard practice for most transportation agencies to collect only one traveled lane on each roadway and use the results from that lane to infer the pavement condition of all other lanes on that roadway segment. Throughout Iowa, the standard practice since 2020 has been to collect only one lane for roadways with less than four lanes. For roadways with four or more lanes (or any roadway with a physical median separating the travel lanes) data is collected in one lane in each direction. This means road segments with four or more lanes (or divided/median separate road segments), will have two sets of data which can be the basis to infer the overall condition of the roadway segment. This “bi-directional data collection” sets up the issue of deciding which data to use or how to combine the two potential datasets. The project team examined several approaches to this issue, presented below along with our recommendations.2 Methodology The project team has identified three (3) acceptable strategies to address this issue: 1. Leave Data As-is – The project team used this strategy to complete the Ames 2050 MTP analysis. This is a commonly used strategy that selects treatments based on the lowest condition rating for each segment. This should theoretically provide the most thorough analysis because it leverages all available data for every segment to select treatments. However, this may unnecessarily complicate the analysis by allowing the same segment to compete with itself if the segment contains multiple data sets. The problem posed with the presence of multiple data sets for a segment is that selection is based on the most efficient treatment alternative, meaning multiple treatments may be selected for the same segment 2 Note: prior to 2020, data were collected only in one lane for undivided roadways, regardless of the number of lanes. Furthermore, the collection vendor was required to collect only in the “cardinal direction” (increasing milepoint). To help offset the costs of collecting both directions, the vendor was allowed to collect local roads in whatever direction was most efficient for their routing (this was discussed and approved by local agency stakeholders). Now, for any given route the data could be collected in different directions on different cycles, further complicating analysis. 210 7 during the analysis period. This could potentially result in the “crowding out” of other candidate projects with similar efficiency. 2. Eliminate Duplicate Data in Bi-Directional Data – The elimination of the data collected in a single direction would require little effort. However, this could lead to overstating a segment’s overall condition by potentially eliminating the lowest condition rating. This strategy is also more challenging because it requires careful review of the entire network to identify and remove the bi-directional data from those segments with data collected in both directions. This key outcome of this strategy would be the removal of duplication issues and prevent multiple treatments being selected for the same segment. 3. Develop an Average PCI for Each Segment – This strategy would use all available data to calculate an average condition rating for each segment. The project team believes using an average value could provide a better representation of a segments overall condition because the condition rating would be based on data collected in both directions when available. Because initial treatment selection is based on the pavement condition, this strategy may change what treatments are available for a segment depending on difference between the average value and the recorded condition rating. However, this may create an analysis that is more representative of treatments that would be selected after a field assessment because both methods consider the condition of the entire segment and not just one direction. This strategy may also be computationally simpler than Strategy 2 because the direction does not have to be selected. Simply averaging the condition data for segments with multiple datasets would be a relatively straightforward calculation. Recommendations The project team has estimated the additional effort required to complete each of these strategies, and a brief summary of this estimation is below: 1. Leave Data As-is – As stated above in the Methodology section, the project team used this strategy to complete the Ames analysis. Therefore, this method would require no additional effort. 2. Eliminate Duplicate Data – This would require additional effort to analyze the available data for each segment and identify the direction with lowest condition rating. This approach would provide the most conservative strategy and would therefore be the optimal approach from a technical perspective, however it would also be the most resource intensive. This strategy would require ongoing support to repeat this effort in managing data from future collection cycles to maintain a consistent pavement management approach. This approach would require the highest level of effort now as well as after any future data collection cycles. 211 8 3. Develop and Average PCI for Each Segment – This would require additional effort analyze the available data and calculate the average condition of each segment, although less than with Strategy 2. This strategy would require ongoing support to repeat this effort for future collection cycles to maintain a consistent pavement management approach. 212 9 Cracking Percent Calculation Used for Treatment Triggers Background Pavement treatment selection is based primarily on the CityPCI index that brings together multiple aspects of pavement condition in a single value that describes overall condition. The project team is familiar with the CityPCI calculation (Figure 3) and the raw data used to build the index value. Because the CityPCI value is calculated using the available data for each segment, attributes with the most reliable data should create triggers that are more representative of each segment’s condition. In this case, the cracking attributes account for a large portion of each segment’s CityPCI, and they are reliably collected at relatively low speeds (in contrast to IRI, which is not a reliable indicator of pavement condition when collected at speeds below 25 mph). The types and severity of cracking present on a pavement can indicate numerous issues that may call for different treatment strategies. Therefore, the project team felt it important to incorporate cracking attributes into the treatment triggers for Ames. The data provided by IPMP provides detailed information about cracking, as well as a summarized index of pavement cracking called “Percent Cracking”. The project team’s analysis found that this index did not provide results consistent with observed pavement conditions for the city of Ames. This section describes how the project team created a new cracking percent measure to address this issue and develop treatment triggers. 213 10 Figure 3: City Pavement Condition Index (CityPCI) Calculation 214 11 Methodology Data from IPMP were analyzed, and the project team found that the cracking attributes with the most data include: 3 ▪ Moderate and high severity alligator (fatigue) cracks; ▪ Sealed, low, moderate, and high severity longitudinal cracks; ▪ sealed, low, moderate, and high severity longitudinal wheel path cracks; ▪ and sealed, low, moderate, and high severity transverse cracks. The project team combined the values from each of these attributes and developed a calculation to estimate the approximate area of a segment that includes cracking. When factored by the width of the segment, this result is a percent of the pavement surface that is contains cracks, or “crack percent”. As mentioned, IPMP data also includes a cracking percent calculation; however, the project team believes the calculated values were neither representative of the actual network conditions nor were they consistent with national regulations.4 The project team’s calculation uses weighted values and an assumed deterioration rate as there is limited guidance on calculating cracking percent or crack deterioration. This means engineering judgement was used when developing a calculation that produced a value representative of the measured distresses. A few of the data limitations and assumptions made when calculating the cracking percent are listed below: ▪ Data collection Raw data is collected in just one lane for alignments with less than four lanes. For roadways with four or more lanes, data is collected in one lane in each direction (preferentially the outside driving lane). The collection process assumes that the measured area is more-or-less representative of the overall pavement, and that identified distresses can be extrapolated to the entire pavement surface. Data is collected only for areas intended for motor vehicle operation – bicycle lanes, parking, and other roadway features are not evaluated. ▪ Consistent with the IPMP data collection process, the project team assumed a 12 foot width for the collection area (Analysis Expression- >a_meas_width) to calculate the percent cracking within the data collection area for each segment. The resulting value from this one lane width is used to represent the cracking percent for the entire segment. ▪ Units of Measurement Calculating a combined cracking value is challenging because the various cracking attributes are measured differently. Alligator cracking is measured in square feet (SF), longitudinal cracking is measured in linear feet (LF) and 3 The definitions of each cracking type follow the distress identification manual created by Iowa DOT, based on U.S. government publication FHWA-HRT-13-092. 4 23 CFR 490.309 215 12 transverse cracking is measured by count. Converting these values into a combined SF equivalent is the first step towards calculating a segment’s cracking percent. ▪ Transverse Cracking Conversion Since transverse cracks are measured by count, the value needs to be converted to LF by multiplying the count by a conversion factor. The project team used the conversion value recommended by IPMP in the dTIMS™ expressions (Analysis Expression->a_trck_lane). Once converted to LF, the transverse cracking and longitudinal cracking values can be converted from LF to SF. ▪ Crack severity and Unit Conversion The project team relied on engineering judgement and field experience to develop an approximate weight for each crack severity; sealed, low, moderate, and high, based on the estimated effort it would take to prepare and seal a 1 LF crack contained within 1 SF of pavement. This weight factor would serve as the conversion factor to transform the LF values to SF values to complete the cracking percent calculation. For example, a high severity crack which is 0.75 inches wide or larger would impact the entire square foot of pavement because it would require the most effort to remedy and would be indicative of significant issues with the pavement, so its weight factor is equal to one (1). A moderate severity crack would impact approximately 70 percent of the SF of pavement making its weight factor 0.7. Low severity cracks and sealed cracks would receive a weight factor of 0.3 and 0.1 respectively. These weight factors can be found in the Analysis Expressions and have a name starting with a_crpct_lin for longitudinal and transverse cracking and a_crpct_sq for alligator cracking. Because these values are based on engineering judgement, the project team recommends they be modified if additional guidance is found; however, these weights have produced acceptable values to date and demonstrate proof of concept. ▪ Deterioration Rate Because the treatment triggers are based on cracking, the project team needed to develop a deterioration rate for the cracking attributes to ensure treatments are selected in the later years of the dTIMS™ analysis. As there is little guidance on pavement crack deterioration and/or propagation, the project team assumed a deterioration rate of 1 percentage point per year for the cracking percent and created a new Analysis Variable, aav_XCRK to support the annual calculation process. 216 13 Recommendations The project team used roadway imagery available from Pathweb5 to review many segments, including different pavement types and distress levels with this new Cracking Percent calculation, and found the calculation to be more representative of cracking distresses than the pre-calculated percent cracking calculation provided by IPMP. The project team believes that there are opportunities to further refine and validate the cracking percent calculation and deterioration rates as part of a future effort. Because historical pavement condition data dating back to 2013 is available through IPMP, cracking attributes can be analyzed to develop a more accurate deterioration rate for the various cracks and crack severities. The project team would also recommend tracking pavement maintenance and rehabilitation projects in future collection cycles to refine the cracking and CityPCI reset values. In doing so, a more representative approach to developing the treatment triggers can be accomplished by identifying trends in the historic data and future maintenance projects impact on pavement conditions. Another potential improvement to the cracking percent calculation may also include the addition of sealed and low severity alligator cracking. Currently the sealed and low severity alligator cracking attributes are not included in the dTIMS™ Inventory Table. Adding these values would require the creation of 2 new attributes in dTIMS™ to assign the associated raw data values to. Once imported, the total alligator cracking calculation can be updated to include the additional data. More data should create a more accurate and representative cracking percent calculation. While the deterioration and reset values can be refined using historic and future pavement condition data, the unit conversion / weight factor is still based on engineering judgement and would require additional effort to validate. Because these weight factors have been created as Analysis Expressions in dTIMS™, the values can be easily modified to optimize the cracking percent calculation values. 5 https://rams.iowadot.gov/PathWeb 217 D-1 APPENDIX D TRAVEL PATTERNS ANALYSIS 218 D-1 This section illustrates some of the travel patterns observed on major corridors and entry points to the Ames Area. The data source is StreetLight Data, which was used to conduct a Top Routes analysis to understand how vehicular traffic travels through the region. The Top Routes analysis establishes an anchor point which is then used as the basis for determining the routes travelers take to go through the anchor point. Shown in each figure below in green, the Top Routes analysis indicates the routes travelers take to their final destinations. The percentages shown in the figures represent the proportions of travelers with trips beginning at the origin point that continue their travel to that point (i.e. 6% of east-bound trips starting on Lincoln Way between Beach Avenue and University Avenue continue eastbound through Duff Avenue). 219 D-2 220 D-3 221 D-4 222 D-5 223 D-6 224 D-7 225 D-8 226 D-9 227 E-1 APPENDIX E PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY 228 1 AMES CONNECT 2050 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Throughout the Ames Connect 2050 Plan process the AAMPO (Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization) and project team received feedback from the Ames area community. The community provided their thoughts through community events, in-person public open house, online open house, and surveys. The engagements was split in three phases. The first phase focused on how Ames area residents felt about transportation as it is right now and what they wanted to see in the future. The next phase allowed residents to react to some of the potential strategies to better transportation, the final phase was a chance for residents to the draft plan and provide any final comments before making it final. Below are the three phases engagement and what was shared by residents. Accessible Engagement for All In effort to provide members of the AAMPO community the opportunity to participate in the metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) process, public engagement activities strove to be accessible by meeting the needs of all of the region’s residents. These efforts included: • Centrally located in-person events: in-person public open house events were held at the city of Ames Public Library, in close proximity to public transit services and offering ADA- accessible facilities to residents of all backgrounds. The project team attended community events to capture input from residents that would not otherwise not be able to attend the open house. • Web-based materials and activities: All public engagement materials and activities were hosted on the Connect 2050 website. These materials and activities were designed to be Section 508 and ADA compliant, and a Google Translate widget was available to translate the materials and activities to over 50 languages. • Consultation with Story County Transportation Collaboration: The draft MTP was shared with Story County Transportation Collaboration, a group that strives to reduce transportation barriers within Story County, for input on how the Plan can enhance mobility for underserved populations in the region. Phase One: Visioning During the visioning phase of the Ames Connect 2050 Plan, the AAMPO and project team received feedback from the Ames -area community on how this iteration of the MTP should look. Residents were able to provide their thoughts at the Ames Eco Fair, an in-person public open house, an online public open house, and an online survey. Altogether, the MTP project team interacted with more than 380 residents. 229 2 Feedback from residents who engaged during the visioning phase can primarily be divided into a few key themes. • Residents enjoy having CyRide but want to see it be even more accessible to all residents. • There’s a desire for an increased focus on multi-modal facilities, such as better and more connected bike trails, safer walking/rolling options, and access to transit options that serve beyond the Ames area. Residents were asked to select the top priorities that should be reflected in the Ames Connect 2050 Plan. The top responses were: • Public and active transportation • Accessibility • Sustainability Ames Eco Fair The Ames Eco Fair took place on Saturday, September 28, 2024, from 9 a.m. – 1 p.m. Two HDR project team members staffed the booth for the entirety of the event. Residents from Ames were able to stop by and provide thoughts on transportation in the Ames area, learn about the Ames Connect 2050 Plan and vote on their priorities for the plan. There was a total of 178 attendees that stopped by the booth, including Iowa State University students, adults, children and city staff. Attendance levels stayed fairly even the whole event. There were two activity boards, one informational/welcome board, printed surveys and candy as a giveaway for attendees. Figure 1: Ames Eco Fair 230 3 Public Open House The AAMPO hosted a public open house in two formats: in-person and online. The in- person meeting was held on November 21, 2024, at the Ames Community Library. The online meeting was open to the public for two weeks from November 21 – December 6, 2024. 22 people attended the in-person meeting to learn about the project and ask questions to the project team. The online meeting had 186 users. Both the in-person and online open house had educational segments and activities for attendees to engage with. For the online open house users provided feedback via the survey and an online comment map. The in-person attendees stopped at different stations for feedback. Activity Results SWOT Analysis At all the input opportunities residents were are able to provide their current strengths, weaknesses, ideas and concerns (opportunities and threats) for the future. Figure 2: Residents talking with the project team and adding comments to the map 231 4 Strengths Weaknesses • • Trails/Paths for biking and walking (x6) • The long yellow stoplights feel safer • Cybrid (Cyride) • CyRide - very accessible due to amount of stopes, wheelchair access • Enjoy the newly paved roads • Sidwalks on Franklin St. and near Ames Middle school are good • 13th street provides good access to the rest of Ames • Only need one car for the family since the city has a bus and is bikeable • Can reach almost anything in 5-15 min. • • • Traffic signals are not synced (x3) • Comments about specific locations (x20) o Duff (x4) o 13th (x3) o Grand (x3) o Others (x6) o 13th and Grand needs a turn lane (x4) • Bike lanes and Trails (connectivity) (x12) • Buses/ Public Transportation (stop/route availability) (x7) • Pedestrian crossing safety (x6) • HIRTA needs more drivers (x2) • Enforce speed, more police presence on speeding cars • Congestion between Ames & DSM • Lack of nearby grocery stores and restaurants in some neighborhoods • Icy/Snowy roads not cleared in a timely manner • Side parking is dangerous • Bus stop accessibility to safety concern (no sidewalks or crosswalks) • Resiliency – flooding Opportunities Threats • • Expand CyRide/other Public Transportation more (more routes in neighborhoods, more frequency) (x13) • Transit, like a light rail, to connect Ames, DSM, Nevada, Etc. (x4) • Safer intersections (traffic signals and pedestrian signals) (x10) • • Speeding (x2) • Lack of transit connections to Area Cities (Nevada, DSM, Ankeny) (x3) • Riding bikes in unsafe locations (x3) • S. Duff sidewalk gaps cause safety concerns when walking (x2) • Prioritize non gasoline modes of transport (bike, walks, bus) 232 5 • Connected bike paths – more bike paths (x5) • Greener busses (x4) • Expand multi-modal facilities (x12) • Wider streets in N. Bloomington neighborhoods to preserve on street parking • Gameday special transit/shuttle • More transportation access for K-12 and non-profits • More driver educations related to pedestrian crossings • Improved deer crossings? • 16th st. lack of shelter shade or benches • Cyride: Google amps allows you to plug in you destinations and tells you exactly where to go and what busses to take, but few students use that tool. They need to know about it • Widen sidewalks on Lincoln Way between Grand and University • Better alternative routes and notice to road closures • Very few throughways in town, none/few roads go all the • • HIRTA is not an alternative to CyRide due to price • More signalized crosswalks – the ones are scary to cross • Extreme weather make open, unsheltered, bus stops less appealing • New developments not designed to be easily serviced by transit from the beginning • People not stopping for flashing crosswalk lights • Self driving cars • Maintenance/closure times of streets (liquidated damages) • Two different types of RFB on Mortensen causes confusion for drivers (within a block of each other) • Sustainable funding for electric buses • Headphones while walking • Gas prices 233 6 Priorities Residents were given the chance to select their top three priorities for the Ames Connect 2050 Plan. The top three priorities that were voted for were accessibility, public and active transportation, and sustainability. The full results from this activity are in Table 1. Table 1: Priority Results Issue  Total Votes Percentage ACCESSIBILITY 95 18.63% SAFETY 54 10.59% SUSTAINABILITY 76 14.90% EFFICIENCY AND RELIABILITY 50 9.80% 96 18.82% Comment Map The final activity was a comment mapping exercise. Residents could view a map of the MPO’s jurisdiction and place stickers/drop pins and comment to show what they think needs to be enhanced in the future. Attendees labeled their comment as a safety concern, travel issue, an idea, something they like or other. There was a total of 135 comments. The comments primarily focused on pedestrian crossings, bike facilities in the area, and general safety. 234 7 In-Person Open House Comment Map Map # Topic Comment 1 Safety High speeds, pedestrian crossing on Stange, pedestrian crossing safety on GW Carver Ave Safety (no comment x16) 3 Safety Speed Travel Issues (no comment x2) 17 Travel Issues Access at event peaks 18 Travel Issues Pave gravel road connecting 69 and McFarland Park 19 Miscellaneous Increased stop signs become detriment to cycling 20 Idea New road 21 Idea New road 22 Idea New road 23 Idea New road 24 Idea North-South alternate route; street just east of Walmart and Target; South Duff to Lincoln Way Like (no comment x11) 29 Other New Road - Continue Grand Ave to Airport Road 30 Other Pave University/530th Ave south to County Rd E57/280th St 235 8 Map # Topic Comment 31 Miscellaneous Consider button for "extra" pedestrian time for a slower crossing e.x.: N Grand & S. Duff 32 Miscellaneous Intercity transit service to Boone and Nevada 33 Idea 13th trail to Nevada? 34 Idea Connect GWC trail up to country club trail 35 Idea Shared use bridge over RR tracks Idea 37 Idea Under 13th with path to Furman and to University Village 38 Idea Shared use path from Ontario south through park to Lincoln Way on along county line from new development and Lincoln Way 39 Idea Crosstown bus route West Ames to East Ames on Lincoln Way (serve workers) 42 Idea Roundabout 43 Idea Ped crossing is dangerous. Needs flashing LED ped xing sign. 44 Idea Bus pull outs east and west 45 Idea Extend Pum Route to Bell Ave. 46 Idea Shared use path along edge of field from Ken Maril Rd to soccer park to the under 30 trail 47 Idea Shared use path from Gilbert roundabout to 69 corner. 48 Idea Under the street with path or make curb cuts on north side of street. Pave on south side from RV village drive to University 49 Safety Hoover 30th-Bloomington speeding. 2 lane traffic on equivalent of 4 lanes 51 Safety Refuge islands near bus stops on Mortenson, elementary school zone 52 Safety Ontario-California-Hyland: passing happening in parking lane because no barrier to the behavior 53 Safety Univ Blvd at Green Hills Retirement - dangerous for ages 60+ to cross for bus stop 54 Safety Blind corners because of apartment buildings fence close to trail, other side drops down to water. Lower fence would help 58 Travel Issues Need WB left turn lane onto State Ave from Lincoln Way 59 Travel Issues SB to EB left turn signal is too short. Landscaping in SE quadrant needs to be cut way back. 60 Travel Issues Shared use path ends at Dayton to old Dayton narrow road and no shoulder. Old Dayton to Bell good width. Widen roadway/add shoulders 61 Miscellaneous Free fare on all bus routes to expedite boarding and lower driver/passenger conflicts 62 Miscellaneous Extend transit coverage to City of Boone 63 Idea Ped bike path connecting Wilder and California through city property 64 Miscellaneous Bus shelter Fletcher Stop - microtransit in neighborhood - senior accessibility 65 Safety Thackeray - speeding due to wide field of view and no parking lane barriers 66 Safety Bridge too low. Need DDI 67 Other Public transportation to and from Nevada county buildings jail, courthouse, etc. 68 Miscellaneous Downtown bus stop improvements - Douglas at library both directions - 5th and Kellogg westbound 69 Idea Take shared use path under 13th by river to connect North & South River Valley Parks 236 9 Online Comment Map Map # Topic Comment 1 Other Bricktown development is a high density area currently only barely served by transit with the nearest stop over 1/2 mile away from most units. Recommend that discussions with IDOT of future improvements along this section of S. Duff Ave include provision for 2 congestion in this already busy corridor should include discussion with IDOT regarding additional facilities for transit and alternate forms 3 Way corridor near downtown; the alleviation of congestion in this already busy corridor should include discussion with IDOT regarding 4 to WalMart and North Grand Mall are directly across from one another. While not technically an intersection (both of the crossing 'roads' are technically private driveways) - the level of traffic from all directions and the frequent pedestrians may make it prudent to treat 237 10 Map # Topic Comment considered. While the existing protected crossing at the Grand Ave intersection is less than 300 feet away, this qusai-intersection is on the direct path between the WalMart and mall entrances, so we may 5 vehicle traffic (and sidewalks are not large enough for bicycles). The addition of protected facilities on Duff Ave (between Main St. and 16th St. at a minimum) should be a future goal. If this is deemed not feasible the Carroll Ave is the logical alternate, parallel, route (similar to the bike route on Clark Ave vs. Grand Ave.). If this is the case a protected crossing should be provided across East 13th St, especially to access the wider sidewalk/multi-use trail on the north side. Just as with Clark Ave & 13th St, a HAWK signal should be strongly 6 vicinity of Hilton Coliseum. Before and after large events here and at Jack Trice Stadium large numbers of pedestrians cross the street here to get to and from the bus stop on the north side. Given the high amount of vehicular traffic in the area at these times, better facilities are needed - even if only around the time of these events. The use of alternate transportation options such as transit should be encouraged 7 should strongly consider the addition of protected bike lanes along this section (Beach Rd to Sheldon Ave). This area is a gap in Ames' protected bicycle network which requires cyclists to either travel in high volume, moderate speed traffic (something most cyclists will not be comfortable with) or detour to less busy roads either through campus or Campustown (this requires them to go several blocks out of their way, especially since neither Chamberlin St or Union Dr go through to Beach Rd/Ave.) The addition of protected cycle facilities would not only close this gap, but make cycling more convenient and desirable in this high density area, further encouraging mode-shift away from cars and lessening congestion. It would also, arguably, be 8 Todd Dr. Pedestrians crossing to and from apartments on the west side to the bus stop on the east side would be better protected from 9 Steinbeck St. High numbers of people crossing from apartments on the west side to a bus stop on the east side would be better protected 10 Coliseum, and other Iowa State Center buildings. These locations are frequent sites for large-attendance events. Addition of secure bicycle parking nearby would enable more people to use alternate 11 Greensboro Dr, Blankenburg Dr, and Bruner Dr. This will allow the large number of students to safely cross the road to and from university housing on the east side to access bus stops and the multi- 238 11 Map # Topic Comment do not allow a comfortable experience for pedestrians, which no doubt suppresses use of these alternate transportation methods. 12 Other Every intersection is a problem because people don't stop at stop signs or check for traffic before proceeding. Many times, I am concerned that the driver behind me is going to rear end me because I stopped. Many times, I have seen drivers go thru stop signs as if the stop sign doesn't exist. Concerned that the decision makers will keep in mind that people with mobility issues need to drive to maintain some sense of independence. Concerned that decision makers remember that the winter brings on challenges with ice, etc. and to safely get places people need to be able to drive. I have changed my driving habits. I try and do multiple errands in an area of town instead of just driving to that area of town 13 paths are instrumental for younger community members to travel to and from the Aquatic Center and help to keep a more active 14 right outside of the Parkview Heights neighborhood. This allows for easy access to Iowa State University and was a sole reason for purchasing a house in the neighborhood. I love taking public 15 connected. To navigate this area prior was dangerous and did not allow for accessibility for those within a wheelchair. It still doesn't 16 17 No bike path, no CyRide. They are lower income and may not have gas money. They walk and ride bicycles to HyVee and CyRide to get 18 high density like this have access roads, you take the main road to a light, then take the nearest access road to the businesses in that zone. If S. Duff is going to be the access road a "beltway needs to be installed to move north-south traffic off the streets with the businesses. What is the bike route to Walmart or the movie theater? What is the CyRide route? How do people of lower pay scales and potentially ones without cars navigate the City? If CyRide was more like Dart more people in town could ride and less cars would flood the 19 should stop when the light is red. There is a sign that says No Turn on Red, but this is poorly marked and drivers know it is not enforced. Similarly, all vehicles push their luck on the yellow to Red light change. These habits endanger pedestrians. As a pedestrian and biker who uses this intersection twice daily most weekdays, it is not uncommon for me to see vehicles turning right on red, when the east- 239 12 Map # Topic Comment Please put better signs here and better enforce the intersection, especially during busy commute times. 20 Other There is a number of students and workers that I see taking CyRide daily, but need to walk ~10 minutes to the nearest stop. Could 21 22 going south would help alleviate morning congestion; a dedicated left arrow for a period of time would also be very helpful. Those of us turning right at that corner presently inch over in order to "make a lane" - simply widening the pavement at that corner would allow that 23 no east west traffic coming? This location would be much better served with a roundabout. Traffic from all directions would be much 24 intersection. I have seen many people go through this interaction at high rates of speed,. I have seen many people run the red light especially going north and south on Hyde. A roundabout would be 25 from the west in front of people. Ther is also school bus traffic here that is in danger because of this. Best to put in a roundabout before 26 27 excellent spot for one. Studies have shown they are much safer and 28 into the North side of Ames. many people speed coming from the north and this intersection at 190th has several school buses go thru several times a day. A roundabout would be much safer and more 29 To facilitate traffic flow, I believe that a traffic circle would be the best 30 become extremely busy and will only continue to be so as the development south and west of this intersection gets completely built out. I have sat at this intersection and waited for multiple vehicles either to turn N, S or W as they approach this intersection. Unfortunately, drivers are not very good about using turn signals. This has also become a stretch where speed of traffic can be deceiving, despite the number of driveways that enter the road (ie., Christ Community Church, the Ames GCC, and the Irons development). The 31 of the traffic lights a few years ago has made a huge difference. I can understand the advantage of installing a traffic circle at this location, 240 13 Map # Topic Comment traffic circle were to be installed, it would need to be offset to the west as straight-on construction of a traffic circle would significantly infringe on the private property of Vintage Cooperative (SE corner) and the property owner on the NE corner. The traffic lights have worked well and a continuation of their use would incur no additional cost at this time. If the city is anticipating on-going and increasing population growth in this corridor, then a traffic circle at this intersection is probably the best long-term solution to increased traffic 32 busy as more traffic coming to/from Gilbert uses 190th and Grand (Highway 69) as a route to/from Ames. This is especially true during rush hour and school start/end times (7:30-9:00 am and 4:30-5:30 pm). I think a traffic light is probably warranted at this intersection in the near future. The issues are typically greater during the school year than during the summer months when school traffic is very 33 34 intersection. Even since the temporary stoplight system was installed, I have witnessed vehicles speeding through red lights (especially at night), and during the day there are dozens of construction vehicles (dump trucks, etc.) that are traveling well above the speed limit and would be hard pressed to stop for a red light. I would be highly in favor of a roundabout at this intersection to better 35 downtown and it's very hard without walking for 15-20 minutes to 36 37 miss because someone waiting to turn left (west) who was traveling north was blocking the view of the external lane. I believe it was my fault for not ensuring no one was coming, but thought I should 38 connect the upper Inis grove trail to the lower river side trail. Would 39 40 41 Applied Sciences to Moore Park paths. It would be a lovely addition to the Lynn Furher area and provide another way go west to north without going all the way east to Stange or so far north (to Cameron 42 bike/pedestrian path thru the park, and continue on to the path on S Riverside. It’s frustrating to reach the end of this lovely path through 241 14 Map # Topic Comment defined or wheel friendly way to get across. Please connect these two paths safely. 43 Dangerous intersection for pets/cyclists. 2 problems: 1-When you are biking north on university, all of the bushes and trees obscure cars that are turning off of mortenson south onto university from seeing bikers. Cars pull into/across the crosswalk to check traffic to see if they can turn right on red. 2 - as a pedestrian/cyclist heading north on university, waiting to cross mortenson - it often feels unsafe. When the green arrow for cars turning west from university to mortenson turns to a solid green light, drivers seem to only watch for a gap in traffic to make their turn, and are not checking for cyclists/pedestrians crossing. Several near misses have happened to us there each of the 44 points to the west to reduce car entry and the road use and parking expansion within the city. A free shuttle to/from this could provide access to CyRide. And a free day use token could incentivise use, and reduce peak demand for cars in the city. This amenity could 45 to walk on the street for a ways to get to it from a crosswalk. As this is 46 Stop lights are not the answer. This is an excellent location for a roundabout from a safety and cost standpoint since there are not 47 festivities! We need proper bike parking so that fans and tailgaters 48 shuttling people to the stadium. To relieve congestion and decrease drunk driving, everyone residing in Ames should easily be able to get to/from their house to the stadium (current bus stops aren’t close enough so could improve with locations too) without having to drive. Additionally, the shuttle route should be advertised as such so that folks coming to Ames on gameday can park in other parking lots 49 valuable restaurants, grocery stores, etc along Duff but it’s built for cars. I feel exposed and scared to bike along this street, and I would never bike with my children along here. This area always feels congested and doesn’t feel like it’s the optimal design for cars even at 50 51 52 53 54 mph to make auto and bike speeds more compatible. Bike lanes 242 15 Map # Topic Comment speed limit would make the continuation east along 6th safer for cyclists and effectively continue the bike route that 6th already has become. Safety would be increased as well as for city employees now having to cross 6th. And sometime in the not distant future, increasing use of what will be the Shanker Plaza which should see 55 downtown - at every intersection is a significant deterrent to cycling. Presumably the increase in stop signs is an attempt to reduce speeding by autos but this can often be achieved by decreasing lane widths, bumpouts, actual enforcement, etc. without stop signs every 56 cyclists (undoubtedly for scooters, etc as well) - rebuild of intersection in '25 should include significant safety improvements part. to stop right hand hooks from University onto 6th if there are peds or others trying (legally) to cross. Hanging electric signage like what used to be at Haber & Uni., tightening the turn radius, elevating the 57 College Creek south to the existing shared use path along Oakwood Rd. Vehicle speeds are 45+ mph along State Ave, which is very uncomfortable for most multi-modal users without some form of 58 south side of Ontario St as far west as Kentucky Ave. It should be planned for extension to the new city limits at the county line, especially with the new large city park being developed on the south 59 rural road with higher speeds to a 25 mph residential street with driveways very quickly with little visual transition. Traffic calming is necessary in this area. As more development occurs to the north traffic must be discouraged from using Hyde as their primary access into more central areas of Ames. As a residential street it cannot support large amounts of this traffic nor should it. Every effort should be made to incentivize traffic to use Grand Ave and GW Carver Ave instead. If the need for an additional north-south arterial here had been anticipated 25 years ago, then no doubt the neighborhood around Hyde Ave would have been platted to support that, however it 60 stretch between S. Grand Ave and S. Duff Ave. This despite there being numerous residential complexes, retail outlets, and other businesses on both sides of the road. While this road has good transit service, potential passengers in this section are forced to skirt between heavy traffic moving at 35+ mph or use up valuable time by catching the bus on the near side of the road and riding it out-and- back to reach their destination. Safe, protected, pedestrian crossings should be co-located with these bus stops at the intersections with 61 243 16 Map # Topic Comment side of major, busy, roads from likely destinations without any adequate pedestrian crossings. In this case even the nearby intersection with Mortensen Pkwy does not have crossing facilities are there are no pedestrian facilities on the east side of the road. These situations should be addressed throughout the city, but this is 244 17 Phase 2: Strategies During this phase of the Ames Connect 2050 Plan, the and project team received feedback from the Ames area community on what strategies the MTP should focus on for this iteration of the Plan. Residents were able to provide their thoughts at the Ames Farmers Market, an in-person public open house, and an online public open house. Altogether, the MTP project team interacted with more than 225 residents. The feedback that came from the respondents during the strategies phase showed that all the strategies have some support from residents, however there are some that are much more favored than others. The full results are below. Respondents online were only given the option of support or do not support. Strategies Results 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bike Lanes Protected Bike Lanes Bike Boulevard New or Improved Trail or Sidepath Bike & Pedestrian Strategies Support Do Not Support 245 18 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Express Routes Increased hours and service Increased Transit Frequency Transit Signal Priority Intercity Bus New transit route or extension Transit Strategies Support Do Not Support 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% More Travel Lanes (Street Widening) Ridesharing Smart Traffic Signal Controls and System Management Traffic Signal Timing Optimization and Coordination Vehicular Mobility Strategies Support Do Not Support 246 19 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Medians Roundabouts Road Right-Sizing Turn Lanes Safety Strategies Support Do Not Support 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Micromobility Options Wayfinding Signs Additional Strategies Support Do Not Support 247 20 Ames Farmers Market The Ames Connect 2050 project team attended the first Farmers Market of the season on Saturday, May 3, 2025, from 8 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Two HDR project team members staffed the booth for the entirety of the event. Residents from Ames and other market attendees were able to stop by and provide thoughts on transportation in the Ames area, learn about the Ames Connect 2050 Plan and share their opinions about which strategies they want to see in the Plan. There was a total of 116 attendees that stopped by the booth, including Iowa State University students, adults, children and city staff. Attendance levels stayed fairly even throughout the whole event. There were two informational boards, printed surveys, the build your own street activity, and candy as a giveaway for attendees. Public Open House The AAMPO hosted a public open house in two formats: in-person and online. The in- person meeting was held on April 29, 2025, at the Ames Community Library. The online meeting was open to the public for two weeks from April 29 – May 13, 2025. 22 people attended the in-person meeting to learn about the project and ask questions of the project team. The online meeting had 90 users. Both the in-person and online open house had educational segments and activities for attendees to engage with. For the online open house users provided feedback via a survey where they shared if they supported or did not support each strategy and an online comment map. The in-person attendees stopped at different stations for feedback. Figure 3: Ames Farmers Market Figure 4: Residents attending the Open House 248 21 Activity Results Build your own street activity Residents at the in-person events were able to try and show how they would use the strategies that could be part of Ames Connect 2050 to design a street in the community. They were given a 66’ right of way to work with and had the options of: • 11’ motorized travel lanes • 12’ motorized travel lanes • 12’ two-way left turn lane • 8’ parallel parking area • 6’ median island • 8’ sidewalk • 5’ sidewalk • 10’ shared use path • 2’ curb • 2’ painted bike buffer • 3’ vertical bike separator • 5’ bike lane • 2’ landscape buffer • 5’ landscape buffer Strategies Attendees at the in-person open house were able to vote how much they support or do not support each potential strategy in the Plan. Respondents showed support for nearly all the strategies with the exception of bike lanes and more travel lanes. Attendees were divided on roundabouts while the other safety strategies proved to lean towards support. Other strategies, like wayfinding, had good support. The full results with the online open house results are in Table 2. 249 22 Table 2: Strategies voting results Strategy Strategy Support Do Not Result Bike and Pedestrian Strategies 80%20%Support 57%40%Slight Support 79%21%Support 87%11%Strong Support Transit Strategies 84%14%Support 74%20%Support 89%9%Strong Support 92%8%Strong Support 78%20%Support 84%16%Support Safety Strategies 74%26%Support 81%19%Support 60%31%Slight Support Road Right-Sizing 78% 18% Support Vehicular mobility strategies 60%33%Slight Support 56%40%Slight Support 82%16%Support 88%12%Strong Support Additional Strategies 71%27%Support 81%19%Support 250 23 Comment Map Online and in-person residents could view a map of the MPO’s jurisdiction. Similar to the other comment map residents could add a sticker/pin and a comment to the location they were wanting to call attention to . The locations for this phase were to identify where they wanted different strategies included. These strategies were: safety strategy, transit strategy, bike & pedestrian strategy, vehicular mobility strategy, or an additional strategy. 67 Comments were collected total. 2 1 1 1 1 13 3 3 2 3 1 1 7 1 5 8 3 9 3 2 22 3 3 2 11 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 6 3 4 2 251 24 Comment Number Please tell us why you would want this strategy implemented. Which strategy would you like to discuss? 1 East Lincolnway, an important "to work" corridor for many in Ames working population, lacks adequate and safe sidewalks and bike paths from Grand Ave almost all the way to the river. Sidewalks are fragmented and in some cases cracked/lifted, there is no safe bike path on the side, and CyRide service ends at S. Duff. Adding a shared bike/pedestrian path in place of existing sidewalks will improve access to East Ames for non-car users. 2 paths for use by bikes and pedestrians. In conjunction with the County, it should either be repaved to meet current standards, a parallel path be added nearby, or another road (520th?) paved with a path/sidewalk to make the route to Slater accessible. 3 4 options to cross the gap. While routes exist, wayfinding is not well established and the proximity to high volume/low protection roadways make these choices unpleasant for pedestrians. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 252 25 Comment Number Please tell us why you would want this strategy implemented. Which strategy would you like to discuss? 14 A shared use path on the S side of 13th street from the Ames Maintenance building to S Dayton would be optimal. Cyclist living on the S side of 13th and going to Danfoss, 3 M or heading S on Dayton must cross 13th twice which is not optimal. 15 would be optimal. Otherwise a pedestrian signal would help. 16 eliminated making cross much less safe. Please put curb cut on the N side of 13th back in. 17 to the side to avoid collisions. Additionally, mirrors can be used to increase visibility. 18 square of concrete can allow an easier angle. 19 use it. 20 square of concrete can allow an easier angle. 21 square of concrete can allow an easier angle. 22 23 24 253 26 Comment Number Please tell us why you would want this strategy implemented. Which strategy would you like to discuss? 25 A bike lane or shoulder or separated path would be very helpful on North bound Grand after Northwood street to Arrasmith Trail would be very useful for bicyclist coming from the East side of town and heading out on gravel or accessing Riverside drive. It's currently possible by crossing Grand twice and crossing Bloomington and using the Ada Hayden path but 3 busy street crossing in a short distance is not ideal. 26 certain times of the day. A pedestrian signal and/or calming method like a raise cross walk would be helpful. 27 to this dangerous intersection 28 often focused on other vehicle traffic and bicyclist have to watch behind and all other directions. A signal of some sort could help. 29 dedicated time for bicyclist and pedestrians to cross would help the situation. Even better, a path on the other side of University where there are less driveway and road intersections would help. 30 31 County Rd E57. That might relieve some of the traffic on Duff/US 69 going in and out of Ames. 32 improve safety and operations greatly. 254 27 Comment Number Please tell us why you would want this strategy implemented. Which strategy would you like to discuss? 33 I don't know if it should be a roundabout or a signal, but when I used to take my kids to preschool here it was very difficult to make a left-turn from Bruner onto Stang (especially during the am peak). Plus traffic gets going too fast in this long, straight stretch of Stang so it would be nice to slow that down a bit so I think my pick would be a roundabout. 34 roundabout here might be a nice solution. 35 lanes in all directions, maybe right turn lanes also. Making lefts from 13th seems particularly unsafe. There can be quite a delay too with the way the signal functions currently. I know they've talked about adding turning lanes for years- would be nice to see that happen. 36 were 4 cars that I saw involved, maybe more) that had traffic all fouled up. Not to mention all the damage and potential injuries. The signal phasing for this intersection needs some protected left turns for the west and east legs of the intersection. There are too many people trying to go straight and it is very difficult to make a left turn onto Duff. I just missed seeing the accident but my guess was someone tried to make a left when they didn't have enough time. I was struggling to make a left there again at lunchtime today so I came here to leave this comment. 37 near S. Duff/S. 16th, and Iowa State Center. Also need some stops on campus for people coming from Des Moines and by Maple-Willow-Larch for students who have internships in Des Moines and also to DSM airport. 38 39 255 28 In-Person Open House neighborhood near old downtown/Main Street. needed (main street) Grand Ave/ Overpass hwy 30 few vehicles parked on Ontario I have observed passing on multiple occasions 256 29 A crosswalk around UV where there is a bus stop on weekend 13th/Grand Duff by Applebees/TJ Maxx US 69 South of the north of Ames 257 30 Phase 3: Draft Plan In the third phase of engagement, was online only. Ames area residents were able to review the draft plan and make comments before it was made final. There were a total of 328 viewers to the online meeting with the draft plan, and 11 people provided comments. The list of comments is below in table 3. Table 3: Draft Plan Public Comments Comment Response I’m not sure what the plan has been to work on Grand Ave. Is it adding a center turn lane at 13th, 16th, 20th and 24th? Or a round about? I still read to have less “single person travel”. If I understand that, you want less people driving their own vehicles? Do you not want us to shop, go to the clinics, get groceries? I know the thought is they could get rides or bike or walk. But that isn’t always feasible. This plan and thought is what I consider to be age discrimination and also discrimination against those with mobility issues. Many of us don’t have access to the a bus stop without being many blocks away and timing isn’t that great. People trying to go to church without a car have a terrible time on Sundays for example. We need more parking overall in some areas and certainly more handicapped parking. I’m thankful for several handicap spots downtown. There aren’t enough on Lincolnway in campus town. You say you are considering all of Ames, and I hope you really mean that. with Grand Avenue. The MTP is encouraging more shared rides and bicycle pedestrian trips for efficiency and sustainability reasons for those with the ability. We understand that this is not an option for many people in the Ames area. None of the projects or policies in the plan will restrict or discourage single person travel in automobiles. I would enjoy better trail connections that allow for lower, if not zero, car interactions while biking. Things like shoulder bike lanes are useful but community in Ames! This is such a wonderful town to bike around, and one day we hope to have a good path out of town linking us up to some of d the intersection at chamberlain, this area is the current central hub and district for new and current students for shopping, bars, and entertainment, I would greatly like to see more effort put into the streetscape and night life atmosphere in this area as the night life and bar scene (which is one of the major deciding factors for students choosing a college) it’s good to have a respected and prestigious college but when there is no longer any energy or vibrancy in the central Campustown area, it effects students wellbeing and overall satisfaction with the university, I would personally like to see more effort into the artisanal side of redevelopment rather than an emphasis on major chain and mixed use development, start by focusing on sidewalk appeal for the area by adding softer amber lighting with overhead string lights along the 100 block of Welch avenue and addressing the ditch weed filled empty planters since they are designed to look like, and are used like garbage pits on weekends, also utilize filling those empty planters with newly planted Comment has been passed along to city of Ames staff. 258 31 Comment Response improvements will help bring back a sense of vibrancy, energy, and fun both during the day and at night for students and visitors to enjoy, thank looking forward to not setting my vehicles airborn when crossing Grand the same way there is one on Grand Avenue. Also, more safe and accessible sidewalks so that pedestrians do not find themselves unable to travel during the winter months. included for the underpass on Duff at the UP railroad (N-44). It is not currently in the I live at 1003 Lincoln Way. I'm concerned that the city seems to have decided to ignore the results of the Lincoln Way Corridor Plan. I think Lincoln Way between University and Grand should be narrowed to 3 lanes IN ADDITION to the planned "side path" (B-56) shown in this draft document. Narrowing the road will make crossings faster and safer, while also potentially reducing speeds and eliminating slowdowns. I cross Lincoln Way twice a day everyday for work, and the width of the road and lack of signals makes this difficult. With the addition of the aquatic center and further high density development in the area, I think it would be in the city's interest to improve walk ability along this corridor. Many in our neighborhood have been anticipating this improvement for several years and haven't heard anything from the city. There are families with children that elect to use Brookside park instead of O'Neil park because it is easier and safer to cross the railroad tracks than it is to cross Lincoln Way. There are also bus stops that are dangerous to access with children because of the width of the road and the speed of the vehicles. The other bike/ped projects proposed in the document along Lincoln Way (B-67 and B-116) that call for a bike lane should also be, at best, reconsidered. Adding a bike lane to a four-lane road is inadequate and dangerous along a corridor with so many access points. If a bike lane is added, it NEEDS to be more than just paint. There should (at the very least) be some sort of physical barrier such as a curb to deter motorists from veering into the bike lane. I have saved my most "out there" suggestions for last. There are 4 intersections along Lincoln Way that are prime candidates for roundabouts to improve safety: Grand Avenue (68 crashes in the last 5 years), Duff Avenue (94 crashes), University Avenue (134 crashes), and Dakota Avenue (167 crashes). I don't need to explain to city staff the benefits of roundabouts, but this needs to be SERIOUSLY considered by elected officials. You'd think that a configuration that reduces fatal crashes by 90% would be more widely adopted in a city like Ames. Finally, I would like the city to explore building a pedestrian bridge over the UP rail lines between Oak Avenue and 5th Street (near Wheatsfield). This would help connect the new Aquatic Center to downtown, and connect a residential neighborhood to a grocery store. The existing connections are either excessively convoluted, dangerous, or The Lincoln Way Corridor Study is still referenced for the city’s planning efforts. Development and traffic patterns are dynamic and it’s being monitored for potential future implementation. 259 32 Comment Response It's good to see other opportunities to leave town without heading to the center of town or highway 30. Wish the gravel roads by Iowa State This is very much needed. Traffic is way too fast coming up that hill making it unsafe. A center turning lane would do wonders with 1 lane each direction near Arizona Ave. Also a need to more aggressively paint yellow no parking on curbs farther back to keep vehicles from parking near intersections off Ontario/13th near Sawyer Elementary is needed for This comment related to on street parking is governed by local ordinance. When planning a bike path, remember to ask yourself if you'd feel safe having your 3 year old bike alongside you. If not then you haven't really made a bike friendly city. Many of the newly created bike paths don't pass idea, that area gets very congested as traffic merges into the 2 traffic lanes quickly there before Dayton. Similarly, the plans to widen South Duff to continue the 4+ lanes south to R-32 will also be helpful, the traffic can get backed up all the way past Airport Road due to the light at Crystal when traffic is busy in the afternoon. One item I don't see addressed, and it may be but just isn't noted, is a larger volume left-turn option from north-bound S Duff to South 16th street. The left-turn traffic at that particular intersection can get backed up clear down past the highway 30 bridge and further south. There needs to be 2 left-turn lanes at that intersection (which there is room for with the median), and the length of both of those lanes needs to be extended to allow for more traffic to queue up there without blocking the north-bound traffic lanes. The South Grand extension is a very popular route many folks use to avoid the congestion of South Duff up to Lincoln Way, but that results in a very large volume of left-turn traffic that is currently not handled well by that intersection. Additionally, due to the popularity of the South Grand extension, let me further suggest that a bridge be considered for highway 30 so South Grand can continue to Airport Road, allowing more traffic to peel off of South Duff prior to getting into the heavily congested sections north of highway 30. This would likely also require 2 left-turn lanes at Airport Road and South Duff northbound, but again there is room with the median. Even if the budget does not exist for the overpass, it may be worth planning the intersection of South Duff and Airport Road to support 2 left turn lanes in the future, in the event the extension could be continued to Airport Road. Very long term, continuing South Grand down to R-22 on the east side of the airport would be a very beneficial improvement, allowing north-bound traffic from Ankeny to peel off of South Duff south of town and head west onto Grand earlier, utilizing the space on the west side of the apartments and connecting several of those cross-roads and car dealerships to traffic g S. 16th and Duff improvements might be considered as a part of the future US 30 / Duff project. 260 33 Comment Response areas. Alternatively, much of the traffic north-bound from Ankeny is heading to the university, so expanding University Blvd paved south (as depicted in your plan) and then formally connecting that to 69 in the south would also achieve the goal of peeling traffic off South Duff and reducing congestion. This may require changes to the round-a-bouts to put 261 2024 Ames Region, IA Regional Travel Survey Findings Report 262 Contents Section 1: Executive Summary.............................. 4 Section 2: Charts and Graphs................................ 8 Section 3: Tabular Data....................................... 47 Section 4: Open-Ended Comments....................... 78 Section 5: Survey Instrument............................... 81 263 1 Executive Summary 264 Ames Area MPO 2024 Regional Travel Survey Executive Summary Overview Purpose. ETC Institute, in association with HDR, conducted a regional transportation survey of residents in the City of Ames during the fall of 2024. The purpose of the survey was to gather input from residents regarding issues and opportunities relating to transportation planning for the region. Some of the specific topics that were addressed in the survey included: Perceptions of current transportation issues. Commute issues for those who worked outside of the home. Methods of transportation used. Perception of the current transportation system in Ames. Concern about traffic safety. Perceived quality of public transit. Barriers to using public transit. Bicycle and pedestrian issues. The importance of various issues to transportation improvements. Methodology. The survey was mailed to a random sample of residents and completed by 406. The goal of 400 surveys was met, with 406 surveys being completed. The overall results for 406 surveys have a precision of at least +/- 4.8% at the 95% level of confidence. Contents of the Report. This report contains: an executive summary of the methodology and major findings charts depicting the overall results of the survey tables that show the results of the survey a copy of the survey instrument Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 4 265 Major Findings  Perceptions of Current Transportation Issues. Those surveyed were asked about their level of satisfaction with various transportation issues. The issues with which residents were most satisfied included: the ease of travel to work, shopping, and activities (61%), CyRide (57%), and the physical condition of shared use paths and trails (55%). Respondents were least satisfied with on street bicycle facilities (23%) and the flow of traffic on area streets during peak times (23%). When respondents were asked to name the most important issues, they selected flow of traffic on area streets during peak times, the ease of north/south travel in the Ames area, and traffic safety. TRENDS. There were increases in satisfaction in all perception categories that were measured between 2019 and 2024, with the most notable being the ease of north/south travel in the Ames area.  Overall Rating of the Transportation System in Ames. Sixty-two percent (62%) of those surveyed rated the transportation system in Ames as “excellent” or “good,” compared to 56% who rated it as “excellent” or “good” in 2019.  Public Transit. The availability of public transit was rated “excellent” or “good” by 72% of respondents. Those surveyed were asked how satisfied they were with various aspects of transit in the Ames area; 89% were satisfied (“very satisfied” or “satisfied”) with the physical condition of the bus, 76% were satisfied with the availability of information about public transit services, and 77% were satisfied with the distance to the nearest transit stop from home. TRENDS. There was a notable increase in satisfaction with the distance to the nearest stop from your home (77% in 2024 vs. 67% in 2019 and 2014).  Bicycling in Ames. The percentage of respondents who reported riding a bike in the Ames area during the past year was 52%, compared to 47% in 2019. Of the 52% who reported riding a bike, 19% felt safe on major streets without bike lanes; 20% were neutral, and 61% felt unsafe. Additionally, of the 52% who rode a bike in the past year, 37% felt safe bicycling on streets with an on-street bike lane, and 90% felt safe bicycling on a shared-use path or trail.  Walking in Ames. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those surveyed indicated they felt “very safe” or “safe” walking or using a wheelchair on sidewalks along major streets; 24% were neutral, and 8% felt unsafe. Additionally, 61% felt safe using pedestrian crossings on major streets, and 79% felt safe walking or using a wheelchair on a shared-use path, trail or sidewalk in the area where they live. Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 5 266  Support for System Enhancements. Those surveyed indicated the most important system enhancements of 8 that were presented were: 1) implementing targeted safety improvements at high crash locations, 2) adding more turn lanes at critical intersections to improve traffic operations, and 3) adding more shared use paths and trails.  Importance of Issues Related to Transportation Improvements. Of several possible issues related to long-range transportation improvements, those most important to respondents were: 1) having a transportation system that supports quality of life, 2) a safe and connected multi-modal network, and 3) preserves/enhances the environment and the community. Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 6 267 Charts & Graphs2 268 Q1. How many operating vehicles do you have in your household? by percentage of respondents (excluding "not provided") None 1% One 24% Two 51% Three 15%Four 5%Five or more 4% Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 8 269 65% 22% 10% 8% 2% Employed outside the home Retired Operate home-based business Student (University) Not currently employed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Q2. What is your employment status? by percentage of respondents (excluding "not provided" - multiple selections could be made) Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 9 270 81% 8% 6% 3% 1% Car/Truck - drive alone Bicycle Walk Carpool Public transit (CyRide) 0%20%40%60%80% 100% Q2b. What method of transportation do you normally use to go to work or school? by percentage of respondents who indicated they work outside the home or go to school (multiple selections could be made) Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 10 271 Q2c. How many miles is your place of employment/school from your home? by percentage of respondents (excluding "not provided") 0-2 29% 3-5 39% 6-10 15%11-15 3% 16-20 2% 21+ 12% Mean number of miles from home to school or place of employment = 8.49 milesSource: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 11 272 5.71 0.73 0.58 0.34 0.26 0.04 0.01 Drive a car/truck alone Walk Ride a bicycle Carpool Ride the bus/shuttle Ride a motorcycle/moped Vanpool 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Q3. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make using the following types of transportation? by average number of trips made per transit type (multiple selections could be made) Average Total Trips Per Day in 2004 = 7.16 Average Total Trips Per Day in 2014 = 8.19 Average Total Trips Per Day = 7.52 Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Average Total Trips Per Day in 2019 = 6.27 Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 12 273 52% 44% 30% 29% 21% 33% Expanded transit service coverage More bicycle and/or pedestrian connections More inexpensive transit service Higher costs to operate vehicle or less parking Wider availability of emerging options None chosen 0%15% 30% 45% 60% Q4. Which THREE of the following would encourage you to use a mode of transportation other than driving a personal vehicle to complete your daily trips? by percentage of respondents (multiple selections could be made) Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 13 274 10% 18% 8% 10% 8% 10% 6% 6% 6% 2% 5% 51% 39% 47% 38% 39% 35% 38% 35% 33% 21% 18% 26% 36% 34% 27% 28% 37% 36% 23% 31% 30% 35% 13% 8% 11% 25% 25% 18% 21% 35% 31% 46% 41% Ease of traveling to work, shopping, & activities CyRide service Physical condition of shared use paths/trails "Off street" shared use paths/trails Ease of east/west travel in the Ames area Pedestrian facilities Physical condition of roadways Ease of north/south travel in the Ames area Traffic safety Flow of traffic on area streets during peak times "On street" bicycle facilities 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (1/2) Q5. Satisfaction With Perceptions of Current Transportation Issues by percentage of respondents (excluding "don't know") Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 14 275 65% 69% 49% 36% 67% 55% 44% 48% 41% 33% 52% 46% 41% 37% 34% 20% 57% 47% 48% 44% 42% 24% CyRide Ease of east/west travel in the Ames area Off street shared use paths/trails Physical condition of roadways Ease of north/south travel in the Ames area Flow of traffic on area streets during peak times 0%20%40%60%80% 2004 2014 2019 2024 NOT ASKED IN 2004 TREND Q5. Satisfaction With Perceptions of Current Transportation Issues by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding "don't know") NOT ASKED IN 2004 Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 15 276 46% 42% 38% 31% 30% 25% 22% 17% 14% 10% 10% Flow of traffic on area streets during peak times Ease of north/south travel in Ames area Traffic safety Physical condition of roadways Ease of east/west travel in Ames area Ease of traveling to work, shopping, & activities "On street" bicycle facilities "Off street" shared-use paths/trails CyRide service Physical condition of shared-use paths & trails Pedestrian facilities 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% First Choice Second Choice Third Choice Q6. Most Important Transportation Issues by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 16 277 50% 50% 45% 32% 31% 25% 21% 19% 17% Facilitates reliable & efficient travel Provides safe transportation options Ease of connecting to destinations A sustainable transportation system Equitable access to transportation options Supports economic vitality of Ames area Maintains/preserves existing transportation system 0%20%40%60% Q7. Most Important Characteristics of the Ames Area Transportation System for the Future by percentage of respondents (multiple selections could be made) A transportation system that supports quality of life Active transportation options that support public health Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 17 278 Q8. Overall, would you rate the transportation system in the Ames Area as excellent, good, average, or poor? by percentage of respondents (excluding "don't know") Excellent 10%Good 52% Average 33% Poor 5% Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 18 279 Excellent 21% Good 55% Average 20% Poor 4% Excellent 13% Good 51% Average 28% Poor 8% 2004 2014 TREND Excellent 8%Good 48% Average 35% Poor 10% 2019 by percentage of respondents (excluding "don't know") Q8. Overall, would you rate the transportation system in the Ames area as excellent, good, average, or poor? Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Excellent 10% Good 52% Average 33% Poor 5% 2024 Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 19 280 Q9. Have you used public transit (CyRide) in the past 12 months? by percentage of respondents Yes 25% No 75% Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 20 281 Q9a. How often do you use CyRide during a typical week? by percentage of respondents who have used CyRide in the past 12 months (excluding "not provided") 1 time 63% 2-4 times 18% 5 or more times 19% Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 21 282 Q9b. How would you rate the availability of public transit in Ames? by percentage of respondents who have used CyRide in the past 12 months (excluding "don't know") Excellent 21% Good 51% Average 27% Poor 1% Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 22 283 Q9b. How would you rate the availability of public transit in Ames? by percentage of respondents who have used CyRide in the past 12 months (excluding "don't know") Excellent 21% Good 55% Average 19% Poor 6% Excellent 40% Good 48% Average 10% Poor 2% Excellent 40% Good 46% Average 11% Poor 3% 2004 2014 2019 TREND Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Excellent 21% Good 51% Average 27% Poor 1% 2024 Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 23 284 53% 40% 28% 19% 19% 13% 19% 19% 36% 37% 48% 46% 44% 50% 35% 28% 9% 12% 21% 25% 27% 20% 34% 44% 2% 11% 3% 10% 9% 17% 12% 9% The physical condition of the bus Distance to the nearest stop from your home Availability of info about public transit services Hours and days transit service is provided The frequency of bus service Destinations served by public transit Access to bus stops/amenities at bus stops 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (1/2) Q9c. Satisfaction With Transit Availability in the Ames Area by percentage of respondents who have used CyRide in the past 12 months (excluding "don't know") Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Bus accessibility for mobility impared/disabled riders Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 24 285 Q9c. Satisfaction With Transit Availability in the Ames Area 75% 73% 71% 71% 73% 77% 67% 69% 69% 68% 79% 67% 63% 59% 58% 76% 77% 65% 63% 64% Availability of info about public transit services Distance to the nearest stop from your home Hours and days transit service is provided Destinations served by public transit The frequency of bus service 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2004 2014 2019 2024 TREND by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding "don't know") Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 25 286 26% 23% 12% 9% 7% 6% 6% 2% 1% 1% 0% 6% I just prefer to drive It takes too long to get to destinations Service is not available near my home Service is not offered to destinations I visit Service is not offered at the time I need it I don't know how to use the service Buses do not come by stops frequently enough Service is confusing to use It's too expensive Bus is too crowded when I need to take it I had a bad experience with the service Other 0%10%20%30% Q10. Which of the following are reasons that you do not use public transit more often? by percentage of respondents (multiple selections could be made) Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) 0.1% Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 26 287 Q10. Which of the following are reasons that you do not use public transit more often? by percentage of respondents (multiple selections could be made) 38% 18% 7% 7% 7% 59% 36% 22% 15% 12% 6% 8% 6% 5% 4% 1% 18% 27% 22% 13% 9% 7% 6% 4% 3% 3% 2% 0% 5% 26% 23% 12% 9% 7% 6% 6% 1% 2% 1% 0% 6% I just prefer to drive It takes too long to get to destinations Service is not available near my home Service is not offered to destinations I visit Service is not offered at the time I need it I don't know how to use the service Buses do not come by stops frequently enough It's too expensive The service is confusing to use The bus is too crowded when I need it I had a bad experience with the service Other 0%20%40%60% 2004 2014 2019 2024 All other questions not asked in 2004 TRENDSource: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 27 288 Q11. Have you ridden a bicycle in the Ames area during the past year? by percentage of respondents (excluding "not provided") Yes 52% No 48%In 2004, 48% had ridden a bike in the past year. In 2014, it was 53%. In 2019, 47%. Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 28 289 Q11a. How safe do you feel bicycling on major streets without bike lanes? by percentage of respondents who have ridden a bicycle in the Ames area during the past year (excluding "don't know") Very Safe 3% Safe 16% Neutral 20% Unsafe 36% Very Unsafe 25% Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 29 290 Q11b. How safe do you feel bicycling on streets with an on-street bike lane? Very Safe 8% Safe 29% Neutral 30% Unsafe 25% Very Unsafe 8% by percentage of respondents who have ridden a bicycle in the Ames area during the past year (excluding "don't know") Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 30 291 Q11c. How safe do you feel bicycling on a shared-use path or trail? Very Safe 43% Safe 47% Neutral 7% Unsafe 2% Very Unsafe 1% by percentage of respondents who have ridden a bicycle in the Ames area during the past year (excluding "don't know") Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 31 292 Q11d. What is the primary reason why you ride your bike? Commute 12% Recreational use 64% Both 23% by percentage of respondents who have ridden a bicycle in the Ames area during the past year (excluding "not provided") In 2019, 64% rode for recreation, 10% rode to commute, and 26% rode for both purposes. Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 32 293 Q12. How safe do you feel, walking or using a wheelchair on sidewalks along major streets? by percentage of respondents (excluding "don't know") Very Safe 22% Safe 45% Neutral 24% Unsafe 7% Very Unsafe 1% Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 33 294 Q13. How safe do you feel using pedestrian crossings on major streets? by percentage of respondents (excluding "don't know") Very Safe 15% Safe 46% Neutral 25% Unsafe 13% Very Unsafe 2% Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 34 295 Q14. How safe do you feel walking or using a wheelchair on a shared-use path or trail or sidewalk in the area where you live? by percentage of respondents (excluding "don't know") Very Safe 35% Safe 44% Neutral 15% Unsafe 5% Very Unsafe 1% Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 35 296 Q15. What is the primary reason for your pedestrian travel? 69% 10% Both 22% To commute to school, work, personal business or shopping trips For recreational (fitness, leisure) use by percentage of respondents (excluding "not provided") In 2019, 68% walked for recreation, 11% walked to commute, and 21% walked for both purposes.Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 36 297 37% 37% 44% 26% 22% 22% 20% 11% 46% 42% 33% 34% 36% 26% 25% 21% 12% 14% 17% 32% 25% 22% 41% 47% 4% 7% 7% 9% 18% 30% 13% 22% Adding more shared use paths and trails 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Supportive (5) Supportive (4) Neutral (3) Not Supportive (1/2) Q16. Support for the Following System Enhancements by percentage of respondents (excluding "don't know") Adding more turn lanes at critical intersections to improve traffic operations Implementing targeted safety improvements at high crash locations Widening existing roads and building new roads to relieve congestion Increasing investments in traffic management technologies Providing better access to I-35 and/or US 30 for the Ames Area Adding more dedicated bike lanes on streets in the Ames Area Installing traffic control equipment to give buses priority through signalized intersections Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 37 298 91% 71% 63% 70% 92% 72% 59% 58% 82% 65% 57% 44% 79% 57% 59% 48% Adding more turn lanes Widening existing roads Increase investments in technologies Having dedicated lanes for bikes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2004 2014 2019 2024 by percentage of respondents who were "very supportive" or "supportive" (excluding "don't know") TREND Q16. Support for the Following System Enhancements Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 38 299 35% 37% 35% 35% 25% 31% 22% 15% 46% 42% 39% 37% 46% 36% 42% 39% 17% 16% 22% 21% 26% 24% 31% 36% 3% 5% 4% 6% 3% 9% 5% 10% A safe and connected multi-modal network Protects environmental resources Supports the economic vitality of the Ames Area Access to transportation options is equitable 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Important (5) Important (4) Neutral (3) Not Important (1/2) Q17. Importance of the Following Long-Range Goals by percentage of respondents (excluding "don't know") A transportation system that supports quality of life Active transportation options that support public health Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Preserves/enhances the environment and the community Maintains/preserves the existing transportation system Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 39 300 79% 76% 78% 78% 55% 74% 79% 78% 80% 73% 80% 80% 78% 75% 75% 71% 74% 80% 72% 78% Supports the economic vitality of the Ames Area Preserves/enhances the environment and community Protects environmental resources A safe and connected multi-modal network 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2004 2014 2019 2024 TREND Q17. Importance of the Following Long-Range Goals by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding "don't know") A transportation system that supports quality of life Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 40 301 Q18. How many persons in your household are dependent on public transit or rides from friends/relatives because they do not have a car or do not drive? by percentage of respondents None 81% One 13% Two 5% Three or more 1% Source: ETC Institute Regional Travel Survey (2024) Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 41 302 Q19. Including yourself, how many people in your household are... Under age 5 4% Ages 5-9 4% Ages 10-14 6%Ages 15-19 5% Ages 20-24 7% Ages 25-34 11% Ages 35-44 13% Ages 45-54 15% Ages 55-64 17% Ages 65+ 17% by percentage of persons in household Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 42 303 Q20. Would you say your total household income is... Under $30K 12% $30K to $59,999 25% $60K to $99,999 26% $100K+ 37% by percentage of respondents (excluding “not provided") Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 43 304 Q21. Which of the following best describes your race/ethnicity? by percentage of respondents (excluding "prefer not to say") 86.3% 4.9% 4.6% 2.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% White or Caucasian Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino/a/x Asian or Asian Indian Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Other Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.0%25.0%50.0%75.0%100.0% Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 44 305 Q22. Your gender: Male 49.8% Female 49.0% Self-identified 1.2% by percentage of respondents (excluding "not provided") Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 45 306 Tabular Data3 307 Q1. How many operating vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles/mopeds, vans) do you have in your household? Q1. How many operating vehicles do you have in your household Number Percent 0 3 0.7 % 1 97 23.9 % 2 205 50.5 % 3 61 15.0 % 4 22 5.4 % 5+ 16 3.9 % Not provided 2 0.5 % Total 406 100.0 % (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q1. How many operating vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles/mopeds, vans) do you have in your household? (without "not provided") Q1. How many operating vehicles do you have in your household Number Percent 0 3 0.7 % 1 97 24.0 % 2 205 50.7 % 3 61 15.1 % 4 22 5.4 % 5+ 16 4.0 % Total 404 100.0 % Q2. What is your employment status? Q2. What is your employment status Number Percent Employed outside the home 264 65.0 % Student (K-12) 1 0.2 % Student (University) 31 7.6 % Operate home-based business 41 10.1 % Not currently employed 8 2.0 % Retired 90 22.2 % Total 435 Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 47 308 Q2a. In which City do you work/go to school? Q2a. In which City do you work/go to school Number Percent Ames 223 79.6 % Des Moines 8 2.9 % Ames/Des Moines 6 2.1 % Nevada 5 1.8 % Boone 4 1.4 % Johnston 3 1.1 % Urbandale 2 0.7 % Iowa State University 2 0.7 % Gilbert 2 0.7 % Ankeny 2 0.7 % Huxley 2 0.7 % Slater 2 0.7 % Webster City 2 0.7 % Woodward 1 0.4 % Hubbard 1 0.4 % Des Moines/Ames 1 0.4 % Marshalltown 1 0.4 % Carroll 1 0.4 % Ames, Ankeny 1 0.4 % Ames/Nevada 1 0.4 % Polk City 1 0.4 % Story 1 0.4 % Ames/Waterloo 1 0.4 % Ames/Storm Lake 1 0.4 % Dallas Center 1 0.4 % Ames/Iowa City 1 0.4 % Ames, Boone, Des Moines, Sioux Falls 1 0.4 % Luther 1 0.4 % West Des Moines 1 0.4 % Grimes 1 0.4 % Total 280 100.0 % Q2b. What method of transportation do you normally use to go to work/school? Q2b. What method of transportation do you normally use to go to work/school Number Percent Car/truck-drive alone 226 80.7 % Carpool 9 3.2 % Walk 17 6.1 % Bicycle 21 7.5 % Public transit (CyRide) 4 1.4 % Other 3 1.1 % Total 280 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 48 309 Q2c. How many miles is your place of employment/school from your home? Q2c. How many miles is your place of employment/school from your home Number Percent 0-2 81 28.9 % 3-5 108 38.6 % 6-10 43 15.4 % 11-15 7 2.5 % 16-20 5 1.8 % 21-25 1 0.4 % 26-30 8 2.9 % 31+ 25 8.9 % Not provided 2 0.7 % Total 280 100.0 % (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q2c. How many miles is your place of employment/school from your home? (without "not provided") Q2c. How many miles is your place of employment/school from your home Number Percent 0-2 81 29.1 % 3-5 108 38.8 % 6-10 43 15.5 % 11-15 7 2.5 % 16-20 5 1.8 % 21-25 1 0.4 % 26-30 8 2.9 % 31+ 25 9.0 % Total 278 100.0 % Q3-1. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make driving a car or truck alone? Q3-1. Drive a car/truck alone Number Percent 0-5 284 70.0 % 6-10 64 15.8 % 11-15 18 4.4 % 16-20 22 5.4 % 21+ 10 2.5 % Not provided 8 2.0 % Total 406 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 49 310 (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q3-1. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make driving a car or truck alone? (without "not provided") Q3-1. Drive a car/truck alone Number Percent 0-5 284 71.4 % 6-10 64 16.1 % 11-15 18 4.5 % 16-20 22 5.5 % 21+ 10 2.5 % Total 398 100.0 % Q3-2. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make carpooling? Q3-2. Carpool Number Percent 0 352 86.7 % 1 11 2.7 % 2 24 5.9 % 3+ 11 2.7 % Not provided 8 2.0 % Total 406 100.0 % (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q3-2. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make carpooling? (without "not provided") Q3-2. Carpool Number Percent 0 352 88.4 % 1 11 2.8 % 2 24 6.0 % 3+ 11 2.8 % Total 398 100.0 % Q3-3. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make vanpooling? Q3-3. Vanpool Number Percent 0 397 97.8 % 2 1 0.2 % Not provided 8 2.0 % Total 406 100.0 % (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q3-3. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make vanpooling? (without "not provided") Q3-3. Vanpool Number Percent 0 397 99.7 % 2 1 0.3 % Total 398 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 50 311 Q3-4. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make riding bus/shuttle? Q3-4. Ride the bus/shuttle Number Percent 0 372 91.6 % 1 3 0.7 % 2 12 3.0 % 3+ 11 2.7 % Not provided 8 2.0 % Total 406 100.0 % (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q3-4. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make riding bus/shuttle? (without "not provided") Q3-4. Ride the bus/shuttle Number Percent 0 372 93.5 % 1 3 0.8 % 2 12 3.0 % 3+ 11 2.8 % Total 398 100.0 % Q3-5. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make riding a motorcycle/moped? Q3-5. Ride a motorcycle/moped Number Percent 0 392 96.6 % 1 1 0.2 % 2 3 0.7 % 3+ 2 0.5 % Not provided 8 2.0 % Total 406 100.0 % (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q3-5. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make riding a motorcycle/moped? (without "not provided") Q3-5. Ride a motorcycle/moped Number Percent 0 392 98.5 % 1 1 0.3 % 2 3 0.8 % 3+ 2 0.5 % Total 398 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 51 312 Q3-6. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make walking (to a destination)? Q3-6. Walk (to a destination) Number Percent 0 308 75.9 % 1 25 6.2 % 2 40 9.9 % 3 3 0.7 % 4+ 22 5.4 % Not provided 8 2.0 % Total 406 100.0 % (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q3-6. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make walking (to a destination)? (without "not provided") Q3-6. Walk (to a destination) Number Percent 0 308 77.4 % 1 25 6.3 % 2 40 10.1 % 3 3 0.8 % 4+ 22 5.5 % Total 398 100.0 % Q3-7. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make riding a bicycle? Q3-7. Ride a bicycle Number Percent 0 334 82.3 % 1 22 5.4 % 2 21 5.2 % 3+ 21 5.2 % Not provided 8 2.0 % Total 406 100.0 % (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q3-7. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make riding a bicycle? (without "not provided") Q3-7. Ride a bicycle Number Percent 0 334 83.9 % 1 22 5.5 % 2 21 5.3 % 3+ 21 5.3 % Total 398 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 52 313 Q4. Which THREE of the following would encourage you to use a mode of transportation other than driving a personal vehicle to complete your daily trips? Q4. Top choice Number Percent Expanded transit service coverage 115 28.3 % More inexpensive transit service 21 5.2 % More bicycle and/or pedestrian connections (trails, bike lanes) to employment & commercial destinations 98 24.1 % Wider availability of emerging transportation options like bike sharing, ridesharing (Uber, Lyft), & electric scooters 16 3.9 % Less vehicle parking availability, more bicycle parking availability, and/or higher vehicle operating costs like gas prices 23 5.7 % None chosen 133 32.8 % Total 406 100.0 % Q4. Which THREE of the following would encourage you to use a mode of transportation other than driving a personal vehicle to complete your daily trips? Q4. 2nd choice Number Percent Expanded transit service coverage 62 15.3 % More inexpensive transit service 59 14.5 % More bicycle and/or pedestrian connections (trails, bike lanes) to employment & commercial destinations 42 10.3 % Wider availability of emerging transportation options like bike sharing, ridesharing (Uber, Lyft), & electric scooters 29 7.1 % Less vehicle parking availability, more bicycle parking availability, and/or higher vehicle operating costs like gas prices 52 12.8 % None chosen 162 39.9 % Total 406 100.0 % Q4. Which THREE of the following would encourage you to use a mode of transportation other than driving a personal vehicle to complete your daily trips? Q4. 3rd choice Number Percent Expanded transit service coverage 32 7.9 % More inexpensive transit service 41 10.1 % More bicycle and/or pedestrian connections (trails, bike lanes) to employment & commercial destinations 38 9.4 % Wider availability of emerging transportation options like bike sharing, ridesharing (Uber, Lyft), & electric scooters 40 9.9 % Less vehicle parking availability, more bicycle parking availability, and/or higher vehicle operating costs like gas prices 41 10.1 % None chosen 214 52.7 % Total 406 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 53 314 (SUM OF TOP 3 CHOICES) Q4. Which THREE of the following would encourage you to use a mode of transportation other than driving a personal vehicle to complete your daily trips? (top 3) Q4. Top choice Number Percent Expanded transit service coverage 209 51.5 % More inexpensive transit service 121 29.8 % More bicycle and/or pedestrian connections (trails, bike lanes) to employment & commercial destinations 178 43.8 % Wider availability of emerging transportation options like bike sharing, ridesharing (Uber, Lyft), & electric scooters 85 20.9 % Less vehicle parking availability, more bicycle parking availability, and/or higher vehicle operating costs like gas prices 116 28.6 % None chosen 133 32.8 % Total 842 Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 54 315 Q5. Perceptions of Current Transportation Issues. Please rate your satisfaction with the following. (N=406) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Q5-1. Ease of north/ south travel in Ames area 6.2% 34.2% 22.7% 26.8% 7.1% 3.0% Q5-2. Ease of east/ west travel in Ames area 7.6% 38.2% 26.8% 19.7% 4.4% 3.2% Q5-3. Ease of traveling to work, shopping, & recreational activities in Ames Area 10.1% 49.8% 24.9% 10.6% 1.7% 3.0% Q5-4. CyRide (public transit in Ames) service 11.1% 24.4% 22.4% 3.7% 1.0% 37.4% Q5-5. "On-street" bicycle facilities (e.g., bike lanes, sharrows, cycle tracks) 3.7% 13.5% 26.4% 22.7% 8.1% 25.6% Q5-6. "Off street" shared-use paths/trails 8.4% 31.0% 22.2% 16.3% 4.4% 17.7% Q5-7. Pedestrian facilities 8.1% 28.1% 29.1% 12.8% 1.5% 20.4% Q5-8. Traffic safety, including automobile, bicycle, & pedestrian safety 5.4% 31.0% 29.6% 24.9% 4.4% 4.7% Q5-9. Flow of traffic on area streets during peak times ("rush hours") 2.2% 20.9% 29.6% 30.0% 15.3% 2.0% Q5-10. Physical condition of roadways 5.9% 37.2% 35.2% 17.2% 3.0% 1.5% Q5-11. Physical condition of shared-use paths & trails 6.7% 38.4% 28.1% 7.4% 1.2% 18.2% Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 55 316 (WITHOUT "DON’T KNOW") Q5. Perceptions of Current Transportation Issues. Please rate your satisfaction with the following. (without "don't know") (N=406) Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Q5-1. Ease of north/ south travel in Ames area 6.3% 35.3% 23.4% 27.7% 7.4% Q5-2. Ease of east/ west travel in Ames area 7.9% 39.4% 27.7% 20.4% 4.6% Q5-3. Ease of traveling to work, shopping, & recreational activities in Ames Area 10.4% 51.3% 25.6% 10.9% 1.8% Q5-4. CyRide (public transit in Ames) service 17.7% 39.0% 35.8% 5.9% 1.6% Q5-5. "On-street" bicycle facilities (e.g., bike lanes, sharrows, cycle tracks) 5.0% 18.2% 35.4% 30.5% 10.9% Q5-6. "Off street" shared-use paths/ trails 10.2% 37.7% 26.9% 19.8% 5.4% Q5-7. Pedestrian facilities 10.2% 35.3% 36.5% 16.1% 1.9% Q5-8. Traffic safety, including automobile, bicycle, & pedestrian safety 5.7% 32.6% 31.0% 26.1% 4.7% Q5-9. Flow of traffic on area streets during peak times ("rush hours") 2.3% 21.4% 30.2% 30.7% 15.6% Q5-10. Physical condition of roadways 6.0% 37.8% 35.8% 17.5% 3.0% Q5-11. Physical condition of shared- use paths & trails 8.1% 47.0% 34.3% 9.0% 1.5% Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 56 317 Q6. Which THREE of the items in Question 5 do you think are the most important Transportation issues? Q6. Top choice Number Percent Ease of north/south travel in Ames area 85 20.9 % Ease of east/west travel in Ames area 26 6.4 % Ease of traveling to work, shopping, & recreational activities in Ames area 32 7.9 % CyRide (public transit in Ames) service 17 4.2 % "On street" bicycle facilities (e.g. bike lanes, sharrows, cycle tracks) 38 9.4 % "Off street" shared-use paths/trails 25 6.2 % Pedestrian facilities 2 0.5 % Traffic safety, including automobiles, bicycle, & pedestrian safety 64 15.8 % Flow of traffic on area streets during peak times ("rush hours") 74 18.2 % Physical condition of roadways 27 6.7 % Physical condition of shared-use paths & trails 5 1.2 % None chosen 11 2.7 % Total 406 100.0 % Q6. Which THREE of the items in Question 5 do you think are the most important Transportation issues? Q6. 2nd choice Number Percent Ease of north/south travel in Ames area 50 12.3 % Ease of east/west travel in Ames area 60 14.8 % Ease of traveling to work, shopping, & recreational activities in Ames area 29 7.1 % CyRide (public transit in Ames) service 15 3.7 % "On street" bicycle facilities (e.g. bike lanes, sharrows, cycle tracks) 33 8.1 % "Off street" shared-use paths/trails 27 6.7 % Pedestrian facilities 23 5.7 % Traffic safety, including automobiles, bicycle, & pedestrian safety 42 10.3 % Flow of traffic on area streets during peak times ("rush hours") 54 13.3 % Physical condition of roadways 48 11.8 % Physical condition of shared-use paths & trails 10 2.5 % None chosen 15 3.7 % Total 406 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 57 318 Q6. Which THREE of the items in Question 5 do you think are the most important Transportation issues? Q6. 3rd choice Number Percent Ease of north/south travel in Ames area 35 8.6 % Ease of east/west travel in Ames area 37 9.1 % Ease of traveling to work, shopping, & recreational activities in Ames area 42 10.3 % CyRide (public transit in Ames) service 25 6.2 % "On street" bicycle facilities (e.g. bike lanes, sharrows, cycle tracks) 17 4.2 % "Off street" shared-use paths/trails 18 4.4 % Pedestrian facilities 15 3.7 % Traffic safety, including automobiles, bicycle, & pedestrian safety 48 11.8 % Flow of traffic on area streets during peak times ("rush hours") 59 14.5 % Physical condition of roadways 50 12.3 % Physical condition of shared-use paths & trails 26 6.4 % None chosen 34 8.4 % Total 406 100.0 % (SUM OF TOP 3 CHOICES) Q6. Which THREE of the items in Question 5 do you think are the most important Transportation issues? (top 3) Q6. Top choice Number Percent Ease of north/south travel in Ames area 170 41.9 % Ease of east/west travel in Ames area 123 30.3 % Ease of traveling to work, shopping, & recreational activities in Ames area 103 25.4 % CyRide (public transit in Ames) service 57 14.0 % "On street" bicycle facilities (e.g. bike lanes, sharrows, cycle tracks) 88 21.7 % "Off street" shared-use paths/trails 70 17.2 % Pedestrian facilities 40 9.9 % Traffic safety, including automobiles, bicycle, & pedestrian safety 154 37.9 % Flow of traffic on area streets during peak times ("rush hours") 187 46.1 % Physical condition of roadways 125 30.8 % Physical condition of shared-use paths & trails 41 10.1 % None chosen 11 2.7 % Total 1169 Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 58 319 Q7. Which THREE of the following characteristics of the Ames Area transportation system do you think are most important for the future? Q7. Top choice Number Percent Provides safe transportation options 117 28.8 % Facilitates reliable & efficient travel 65 16.0 % Ease of connecting to destinations 60 14.8 % Supports economic vitality of Ames area 24 5.9 % Maintains & preserves existing transportation system 24 5.9 % A sustainable transportation system 28 6.9 % A transportation system that supports quality of life 35 8.6 % Active transportation options that support public health 15 3.7 % Equitable access to transportation options 30 7.4 % None chosen 8 2.0 % Total 406 100.0 % Q7. Which THREE of the following characteristics of the Ames Area transportation system do you think are most important for the future? Q7. 2nd choice Number Percent Provides safe transportation options 37 9.1 % Facilitates reliable & efficient travel 89 21.9 % Ease of connecting to destinations 66 16.3 % Supports economic vitality of Ames area 28 6.9 % Maintains & preserves existing transportation system 21 5.2 % A sustainable transportation system 57 14.0 % A transportation system that supports quality of life 41 10.1 % Active transportation options that support public health 27 6.7 % Equitable access to transportation options 25 6.2 % None chosen 15 3.7 % Total 406 100.0 % Q7. Which THREE of the following characteristics of the Ames Area transportation system do you think are most important for the future? Q7. 3rd choice Number Percent Provides safe transportation options 47 11.6 % Facilitates reliable & efficient travel 49 12.1 % Ease of connecting to destinations 56 13.8 % Supports economic vitality of Ames area 32 7.9 % Maintains & preserves existing transportation system 33 8.1 % A sustainable transportation system 44 10.8 % A transportation system that supports quality of life 49 12.1 % Active transportation options that support public health 28 6.9 % Equitable access to transportation options 46 11.3 % None chosen 22 5.4 % Total 406 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 59 320 (SUM OF TOP 3 CHOICES) Q7. Which THREE of the following characteristics of the Ames Area transportation system do you think are most important for the future? (top 3) Q7. Top choice Number Percent Provides safe transportation options 201 49.5 % Facilitates reliable & efficient travel 203 50.0 % Ease of connecting to destinations 182 44.8 % Supports economic vitality of Ames area 84 20.7 % Maintains & preserves existing transportation system 78 19.2 % A sustainable transportation system 129 31.8 % A transportation system that supports quality of life 125 30.8 % Active transportation options that support public health 70 17.2 % Equitable access to transportation options 101 24.9 % None chosen 8 2.0 % Total 1181 Q8. Overall, would you rate the transportation system in the Ames Area as excellent, good, average, or poor? Q8. How would you rate transportation system in Ames Area Number Percent Excellent 38 9.4 % Good 203 50.0 % Average 129 31.8 % Poor 19 4.7 % Don't know 17 4.2 % Total 406 100.0 % (WITHOUT "DON’T KNOW") Q8. Overall, would you rate the transportation system in the Ames Area as excellent, good, average, or poor? (without "don't know") Q8. How would you rate transportation system in Ames Area Number Percent Excellent 38 9.8 % Good 203 52.2 % Average 129 33.2 % Poor 19 4.9 % Total 389 100.0 % Q9. Have you used public transit (CyRide) in the past 12 months? Q9. Have you used public transit (CyRide) in past 12 months Number Percent Yes 101 24.9 % No 305 75.1 % Total 406 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 60 321 Q9a. How often do you use CyRide during a typical week? Q9a. How often do you use CyRide during a typical week Number Percent 1 time per week 53 52.5 % 2-4 times per week 15 14.9 % 5+ times per week 16 15.8 % Not provided 17 16.8 % Total 101 100.0 % (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q9a. How often do you use CyRide during a typical week? (without "not provided") Q9a. How often do you use CyRide during a typical week Number Percent 1 time per week 53 63.1 % 2-4 times per week 15 17.9 % 5+ times per week 16 19.0 % Total 84 100.0 % Q9b. How would you rate the availability of public transit in Ames? Q9b. How would you rate availability of public transit in Ames Number Percent Excellent 21 20.8 % Good 52 51.5 % Average 27 26.7 % Poor 1 1.0 % Total 101 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 61 322 Q9c. Transit Availability in the Ames Area. Please rate your satisfaction with the following. (N=101) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Q9c-1. Availability of information about public transit services 27.7% 46.5% 20.8% 3.0% 0.0% 2.0% Q9c-2. Destinations served by public transit 12.9% 48.5% 19.8% 14.9% 2.0% 2.0% Q9c-3. Distance to nearest public transit stop from your home 39.6% 36.6% 11.9% 9.9% 1.0% 1.0% Q9c-4. Frequency of bus service 18.8% 43.6% 26.7% 7.9% 1.0% 2.0% Q9c-5. Hours & days transit service is provided 17.8% 43.6% 23.8% 8.9% 1.0% 5.0% Q9c-6. Physical condition of bus 52.5% 35.6% 8.9% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% Q9c-7. Access to bus stops/amenities at bus stops 17.8% 32.7% 31.7% 6.9% 4.0% 6.9% Q9c-8. Bus accessibility for mobility impaired/ disabled riders 11.9% 17.8% 27.7% 5.0% 1.0% 36.6% Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 62 323 (WITHOUT "DON’T KNOW") Q9c. Transit Availability in the Ames Area. Please rate your satisfaction with the following. (without "don't know") (N=101) Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Q9c-1. Availability of information about public transit services 28.3% 47.5% 21.2% 3.0% 0.0% Q9c-2. Destinations served by public transit 13.1% 49.5% 20.2% 15.2% 2.0% Q9c-3. Distance to nearest public transit stop from your home 40.0% 37.0% 12.0% 10.0% 1.0% Q9c-4. Frequency of bus service 19.2% 44.4% 27.3% 8.1% 1.0% Q9c-5. Hours & days transit service is provided 18.8% 45.8% 25.0% 9.4% 1.0% Q9c-6. Physical condition of bus 53.0% 36.0% 9.0% 2.0% 0.0% Q9c-7. Access to bus stops/amenities at bus stops 19.1% 35.1% 34.0% 7.4% 4.3% Q9c-8. Bus accessibility for mobility impaired/ disabled riders 18.8% 28.1% 43.8% 7.8% 1.6% Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 63 324 Q10. Which of the following are reasons that you do not use public transit (CyRide) more often? Q10. Reasons why you do not use public transit (CyRide) more often Number Percent Service is not available near my home 105 12.4 % Service is not offered to destinations I visit frequently 73 8.6 % I don't know how to use the service (need information about routes/fees/schedules) 52 6.1 % I had a bad experience with the service (treated poorly, arrived late, did not feel safe) 1 0.1 % It takes too long to get to destinations compared to travel by car 196 23.1 % Service is confusing to use 18 2.1 % Service is not offered at the time I need it 60 7.1 % It's too expensive 11 1.3 % Buses do not come by stops frequently enough 49 5.8 % Bus is too crowded when I need to take it 9 1.1 % I just prefer to drive 220 26.0 % Other 53 6.3 % Total 847 100.0 % Q11. Have you ridden a bicycle in the Ames area during the past year? Q11. Have you ridden a bicycle in Ames area during past year Number Percent Yes 213 52.5 % No 193 47.5 % Total 406 100.0 % Q11a. How safe do you feel bicycling on major streets without bike lanes? Q11a. How safe do you feel bicycling on major streets without bike lanes Number Percent Very safe 6 2.8 % Safe 32 15.0 % Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe 40 18.8 % Unsafe 74 34.7 % Very unsafe 51 23.9 % Don't know 10 4.7 % Total 213 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 64 325 (WITHOUT "DON’T KNOW") Q11a. How safe do you feel bicycling on major streets without bike lanes? (without "don't know") Q11a. How safe do you feel bicycling on major streets without bike lanes Number Percent Very safe 6 3.0 % Safe 32 15.8 % Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe 40 19.7 % Unsafe 74 36.5 % Very unsafe 51 25.1 % Total 203 100.0 % Q11b. How safe do you feel bicycling on streets with an on-street bike lane? Q11b. How safe do you feel bicycling on streets with an on-street bike lane Number Percent Very safe 17 8.0 % Safe 59 27.7 % Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe 61 28.6 % Unsafe 50 23.5 % Very unsafe 17 8.0 % Don't know 9 4.2 % Total 213 100.0 % (WITHOUT "DON’T KNOW") Q11b. How safe do you feel bicycling on streets with an on-street bike lane? (without "don't know") Q11b. How safe do you feel bicycling on streets with an on-street bike lane Number Percent Very safe 17 8.3 % Safe 59 28.9 % Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe 61 29.9 % Unsafe 50 24.5 % Very unsafe 17 8.3 % Total 204 100.0 % Q11c. How safe do you feel bicycling on a shared-use path or trail? Q11c. How safe do you feel bicycling on a shared- use path or trail Number Percent Very safe 91 42.7 % Safe 100 46.9 % Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe 14 6.6 % Unsafe 5 2.3 % Very unsafe 2 0.9 % Don't know 1 0.5 % Total 213 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 65 326 (WITHOUT "DON’T KNOW") Q11c. How safe do you feel bicycling on a shared-use path or trail? (without "don't know") Q11c. How safe do you feel bicycling on a shared- use path or trail Number Percent Very safe 91 42.9 % Safe 100 47.2 % Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe 14 6.6 % Unsafe 5 2.4 % Very unsafe 2 0.9 % Total 212 100.0 % Q11d. What is the primary reason why you ride your bike? Q11d. Primary reason why you ride your bike Number Percent To commute to school, work, personal business, or shopping trips 26 12.2 % For recreational (fitness, leisure) use 137 64.3 % Both 50 23.5 % Total 213 100.0 % Q12. How safe do you feel walking or using a wheelchair on sidewalks along major streets? Q12. How safe do you feel walking or using a wheelchair on sidewalks along major streets Number Percent Very safe 79 19.5 % Safe 161 39.7 % Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe 84 20.7 % Unsafe 26 6.4 % Very unsafe 5 1.2 % Don't know 51 12.6 % Total 406 100.0 % (WITHOUT "DON’T KNOW") Q12. How safe do you feel, walking or using a wheelchair on sidewalks along major streets? (without "don't know") Q12. How safe do you feel walking or using a wheelchair on sidewalks along major streets Number Percent Very unsafe 5 1.4 % Unsafe 26 7.3 % Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe 84 23.7 % Safe 161 45.4 % Very safe 79 22.3 % Total 355 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 66 327 Q13. How safe do you feel using pedestrian crossings on major streets? Q13. How safe do you feel using pedestrian crossings on major streets Number Percent Very safe 57 14.0 % Safe 181 44.6 % Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe 97 23.9 % Unsafe 49 12.1 % Very unsafe 8 2.0 % Don't know 14 3.4 % Total 406 100.0 % (WITHOUT "DON’T KNOW") Q13. How safe do you feel using pedestrian crossings on major streets? (without "don't know") Q13. How safe do you feel using pedestrian crossings on major streets Number Percent Very safe 57 14.5 % Safe 181 46.2 % Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe 97 24.7 % Unsafe 49 12.5 % Very unsafe 8 2.0 % Total 392 100.0 % Q14. How safe do you feel walking or using a wheelchair on a shared-use path or trail or sidewalk in the area where you live? Q14. How safe do you feel walking or using a wheelchair on a shared-use path or trail or sidewalk in the area where you live Number Percent Very safe 120 29.6 % Safe 149 36.7 % Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe 52 12.8 % Unsafe 17 4.2 % Very unsafe 2 0.5 % Don't know 66 16.3 % Total 406 100.0 % (WITHOUT "DON’T KNOW") Q14. How safe do you feel walking or using a wheelchair on a shared-use path or trail or sidewalk in the area where you live? (without "don't know") Q14. How safe do you feel walking or using a wheelchair on a shared-use path or trail or sidewalk in the area where you live Number Percent Very safe 120 35.3 % Safe 149 43.8 % Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe 52 15.3 % Unsafe 17 5.0 % Very unsafe 2 0.6 % Total 340 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 67 328 Q15. What is the primary reason for your pedestrian travel? Q15. Primary reason for your pedestrian travel Number Percent To commute to school, work, personal business, or shopping trips 38 9.4 % For recreational (fitness, leisure) use 269 66.3 % Both 85 20.9 % Not provided 14 3.4 % Total 406 100.0 % (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q15. What is the primary reason for your pedestrian travel? (without "not provided") Q15. Primary reason for your pedestrian travel Number Percent To commute to school, work, personal business, or shopping trips 38 9.7 % For recreational (fitness, leisure) use 269 68.6 % Both 85 21.7 % Total 392 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 68 329 Q16. For each of the following system enhancements, please indicate whether you would be Very Supportive, Supportive, Neutral, Not Supportive, or Not at all Supportive. Please recognize that there is an increased cost to some of these elements. (N=406) Very Not Not at all supportive Supportive Neutral supportive supportive Don't know Q16-1. Adding more dedicated bike lanes on streets in Ames Area 21.4% 25.4% 20.9% 14.0% 15.3% 3.0% Q16-2. Adding more shared-use paths & trails in Ames Area 41.9% 31.0% 15.8% 3.7% 3.2% 4.4% Q16-3. Increasing investments in traffic management technologies such as real-time traveler information & advanced traffic signal systems 24.1% 31.8% 30.3% 5.9% 2.2% 5.7% Q16-4. Widening existing roads & building new roads to relieve congestion 21.2% 34.7% 23.9% 8.9% 8.9% 2.5% Q16-5. Adding more turn lanes at critical intersections to improve traffic operations 36.5% 41.4% 13.8% 3.7% 3.2% 1.5% Q16-6. Installing traffic control equipment to give buses priority through signalized intersections 9.9% 19.5% 43.3% 14.0% 6.4% 6.9% Q16-7. Implementing targeted safety improvements at high crash locations 35.7% 44.6% 11.8% 3.0% 1.0% 3.9% Q16-8. Providing better access to I-35 and/or US 30 for Ames Area 19.7% 24.4% 39.9% 9.6% 3.0% 3.4% Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 69 330 (WITHOUT "DON’T KNOW") Q16. For each of the following system enhancements, please indicate whether you would be Very Supportive, Supportive, Neutral, Not Supportive, or Not at all Supportive. Please recognize that there is an increased cost to some of these elements. (without "don't know") (N=406) Not at all Very supportive Supportive Neutral Not supportive supportive Q16-1. Adding more dedicated bike lanes on streets in Ames Area 22.1% 26.1% 21.6% 14.5% 15.7% Q16-2. Adding more shared-use paths & trails in Ames Area 43.8% 32.5% 16.5% 3.9% 3.4% Q16-3. Increasing investments in traffic management technologies such as real-time traveler information & advanced traffic signal systems 25.6% 33.7% 32.1% 6.3% 2.3% Q16-4. Widening existing roads & building new roads to relieve congestion 21.7% 35.6% 24.5% 9.1% 9.1% Q16-5. Adding more turn lanes at critical intersections to improve traffic operations 37.0% 42.0% 14.0% 3.8% 3.3% Q16-6. Installing traffic control equipment to give buses priority through signalized intersections 10.6% 20.9% 46.6% 15.1% 6.9% Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 70 331 (WITHOUT "DON’T KNOW") Q16. For each of the following system enhancements, please indicate whether you would be Very Supportive, Supportive, Neutral, Not Supportive, or Not at all Supportive. Please recognize that there is an increased cost to some of these elements. (without "don't know") Not at all Very supportive Supportive Neutral Not supportive supportive Q16-7. Implementing targeted safety improvements at high crash locations 37.2% 46.4% 12.3% 3.1% 1.0% Q16-8. Providing better access to I-35 and/or US 30 for Ames Area 20.4% 25.3% 41.3% 9.9% 3.1% Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 71 332 Q17. Understanding the long-range goals and vision of Ames area residents is vital to the Plan. Help us by telling us how important each of the following statements are to you. Please rate each goal area by choosing a number between 5 and 1, where 5 means it is "Very Important" and 1 means "Not at all Important." (N=406) Very Not Not at all important Important Neutral important important Not provided Q17-1. A safe & connected multi-modal network, including bikes, pedestrians, transit & autos 36.2% 40.6% 16.0% 2.7% 2.5% 2.0% Q17-2. A transportation system that supports quality of life 34.0% 44.8% 17.0% 1.0% 1.7% 1.5% Q17-3. Preserves & enhances the environment & the community 34.7% 38.2% 22.2% 2.2% 1.5% 1.2% Q17-4. Supports the economic vitality of Ames Area 24.6% 45.3% 25.9% 2.5% 0.2% 1.5% Q17-5. Maintains & preserves the existing transportation system 15.3% 38.4% 35.5% 6.7% 3.2% 1.0% Q17-6. Active transportation options that support public health 22.2% 41.1% 30.3% 2.5% 2.7% 1.2% Q17-7. Protects environmental resources 35.0% 36.5% 20.9% 3.2% 3.2% 1.2% Q17-8. Access to transportation options is equitable 30.5% 35.7% 24.1% 4.4% 4.2% 1.0% Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 72 333 (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q17. Understanding the long-range goals and vision of Ames area residents is vital to the Plan. Help us by telling us how important each of the following statements are to you. Please rate each goal area by choosing a number between 5 and 1, where 5 means it is "Very Important" and 1 means "Not at all Important." (without "not provided") (N=406) Not at all Very important Important Neutral Not important important Q17-1. A safe & connected multi- modal network, including bikes, pedestrians, transit & autos 36.9% 41.5% 16.3% 2.8% 2.5% Q17-2. A transportation system that supports quality of life 34.5% 45.5% 17.3% 1.0% 1.8% Q17-3. Preserves & enhances the environment & the community 35.2% 38.7% 22.4% 2.2% 1.5% Q17-4. Supports the economic vitality of Ames Area 25.0% 46.0% 26.3% 2.5% 0.3% Q17-5. Maintains & preserves the existing transportation system 15.4% 38.8% 35.8% 6.7% 3.2% Q17-6. Active transportation options that support public health 22.4% 41.6% 30.7% 2.5% 2.7% Q17-7. Protects environmental resources 35.4% 36.9% 21.2% 3.2% 3.2% Q17-8. Access to transportation options is equitable 30.8% 36.1% 24.4% 4.5% 4.2% Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 73 334 Q18. How many persons in your household, ages 16 and older, are dependent on public transit or rides from friends/relatives because they do not have a car or do not drive? Q18. How many persons in your household 16 & older are dependent on public transit or rides from friends/relatives Number Percent 0 329 81.0 % 1 52 12.8 % 2 20 4.9 % 3 5 1.2 % Total 406 100.0 % Q19. Including yourself, how many persons in your household are... Mean Sum number 2.4 961 Under age 5 0.1 42 5-9 years 0.1 42 10-14 years 0.1 57 15-19 years 0.1 52 20-24 years 0.2 70 25-34 years 0.3 101 35-44 years 0.3 122 45-54 years 0.4 146 55-64 years 0.4 163 65+ years 0.4 166 Q20. Would you say your total household income is... Q20. Your total household income Number Percent Under $30K 44 10.8 % $30K to $59,999 90 22.2 % $60K to $99,999 95 23.4 % $100K+ 135 33.3 % Not provided 42 10.3 % Total 406 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 74 335 (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q20. Would you say your total household income is... (without "not provided") Q20. Your total household income Number Percent Under $30K 44 12.1 % $30K to $59,999 90 24.7 % $60K to $99,999 95 26.1 % $100K+ 135 37.1 % Total 364 100.0 % Q21. Which of the following best describes your race/ethnicity? Q21. Your race/ethnicity Number Percent Asian or Asian Indian 18 4.4 % Black or African American 11 2.7 % American Indian or Alaska Native 2 0.5 % White or Caucasian 335 82.3 % Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1 0.2 % Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino/a/x 19 4.7 % Prefer not to say 19 4.7 % Other 2 0.5 % Total 407 100.0 % (WITHOUT "PREFER NOT TO SAY") Q21. Which of the following best describes your race/ethnicity? (without "prefer not to say") Q21. Your race/ethnicity Number Percent White or Caucasian 335 86.3 % Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino/a/x 19 4.9 % Asian or Asian Indian 18 4.6 % Black or African American 11 2.8 % American Indian or Alaska Native 2 0.5 % Other 2 0.5 % Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1 0.3 % Total 388 100.0 % Q21-8. Self-describe your race/ethnicity: Q21-8. Self-describe your race/ethnicity Number Percent More than one 1 50.0 % Mixed 1 50.0 % Total 2 100.0 % Q22. Your gender: Q22. Your gender Number Percent Male 201 49.5 % Female 198 48.8 % Self-identified 5 1.2 % Not provided 2 0.5 % Total 406 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 75 336 (WITHOUT "NOT PROVIDED") Q22. Your gender: (without "not provided") Q22. Your gender Number Percent Male 201 49.8 % Female 198 49.0 % Self-identified 5 1.2 % Total 404 100.0 % Q22-3. Self-describe your gender: Q22-3. Self-describe your gender Number Percent Non binary 3 60.0 % Fluid 1 20.0 % Agender 1 20.0 % Total 5 100.0 % Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 76 337 Open-Ended Comments4 338 Open-Ended Ques on Responses Q10—“Other”: Which of the following are reasons that you do not use public transit (CyRide) more o en?  app is poor  Biking  BUSES ARE ALWAYS BLOCKING VEHICLE TRAFFIC. OVERALL THEY ANNOY ME  BUSINESS USE  cannot take pets  carrying packages  Convenience  do not carry cash  Doesn't get close enough to where I work when weather is bad. Otherwise, I don't mind a walk.  Elderly parent unable to physically tolerate the wait/physical demands of riding public transporta on. On occasion needs ability to return home immediately. Not all bus stops are wheelchair accessible. Distance from bus stop to des na on is not friendly for mobility challenged family members.  Hauling things  Have kids.  Have to take a child to daycare  HERTA for disabled was terrible.  I BIKE  I don't like crossing Strange Road on foot  I have never given it a thought.  I have to carry a lot.  I just prefer to bike. Some mes buses need more bike rack spots.  I NEED TO ESTABLISH THE HABIT OF CHOOSING CYRIDE  I o en have large items or many bags  I quit riding CyRide when my library stop was overrun with unhoused people.  I RIDE A BICYCLE OR MY DELIVERY VAN  I travel with my dogs  I want to bike the places I would bus to  I'll get mo on sickness on buses  Imprac cal to transport groceries or other items, ming and des na ons would be impossible for transpor ng kids to sport events Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 78 339  It takes too long to get to des na ons compared to travel by bike including wait me and travel me  Like to walk  Make stops faster  MULTI TASKING EASIER BY CAR  mul ple errands  need ﬂexible schedule for errands  NEED IT FOR ON DEMAND TRAVEL  not a habit  not free for faculty  NOT NEEDED  Nowhere to go  O en easier to bike  O en hauling garden tools or buying items  physical limits  prefer to bike or walk  prefer to walk  problem is walkability when you get oﬀ the bus  re rement community has transporta on  Sharing the same air with others.  staﬀ at IS have to pay to ride the bus  Transpor ng large or heavy items  use bicycle  Walk from home to bus stop is long  Weekend frequency is bad.  When I need a ride  Young children Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 79 340 Survey Instrument5 341 Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization  515 Clark Avenue  Ames, IA 50010 October 2024 RE: Ames Area Regional Transportation Survey Dear Resident: On behalf of local governments in Story County and Boone County, I want to encourage you to take a few minutes to complete this important survey. Your input will be used by community leaders to set transportation priorities for our region. The Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO) is an organization of local governments that is responsible for regional transportation planning. We are currently updating the region’s transportation plan, Ames Connect 2050, and the results of this survey will help us identify which transportation improvements are needed most. Since only a limited number of households in the region were selected at random to receive this survey, your participation will ensure residents in your area are well represented. A postage-paid return envelope addressed to ETC Institute has been provided for your convenience. We have selected ETC Institute as our partner for this project. They will compile the survey results, which will be critical for the transportation plan’s development. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to me by email at kyle.thompson@cityofames.org or by phone at 515-239-5169. More information about the AAMPO and this transportation plan can also be found online at aampo.org. Thank you for your support of this important effort. Sincerely, Kyle Thompson Transportation Planner Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 81 342 ©2024 ETC Institute Page 1 2024 Regional Travel Survey One of the first considerations for planning the future of a region is the need for adequate transportation. Because of the time it takes to implement, and the investment required, long-range transportation planning is vital to successfully shaping the future of any region. We would like your help today in shaping the future of the Ames Region. Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey. When you are finished, please return your completed survey in the postage-paid envelope addressed to ETC Institute, 725 W. Frontier Circle, Olathe, KS 66061. If you prefer, you can complete the survey online at aamposurvey.org. 1. How many operating vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles/mopeds, vans) do you have in your household? ______ vehicle(s) 2. What is your employment status? [Check all that apply.] ____(1) Employed outside the home [Answer Q2a-2c.] ____(2) Student (K-12) [Answer Q2a-2c.] ____(3) Student (University) [Answer Q2a-2c.] ____(4) Operate home-based business [Skip to Q3.] ____(5) Not currently employed [Skip to Q3.] ____(6) Retired [Skip to Q3.] 2a. In which city do you work/go to school? __________________________________________________ 2b. What method of transportation do you normally use to go to work/school? ____(1) Car/Truck - drive alone ____(2) Carpool ____(3) Vanpool ____(4) Walk ____(5) Taxi/Ride hail (Uber, Lyft, etc.) ____(6) Bicycle ____(7) Public transit (CyRide) ____(8) Motorcycle/Moped ____(9) Other: __________________________________________ 2c. How many miles is your place of employment/school from your home? ______ miles 3. On a typical weekday, how many one-way trips do you normally make using the following types of transportation? Please count all trips completed, including return trips to your home. If you make multiple stops on your way, please count each destination you visit as a separate trip. For example, if you stop at a gas station on the way to work, this would count as two trips. 1. Drive a car/truck alone ______ trips 2. Carpool ______ trips 3. Vanpool ______ trips 4. Ride the bus/shuttle ______ trips 5. Ride a motorcycle/moped ______ trips 6. Walk (to a destination) ______ trips 7. Ride a bicycle ______ trips 4. Which THREE of the following would encourage you to use a mode of transportation other than driving a personal vehicle to complete your daily trips? [Write in your answers below using the numbers.] (1) Expanded transit service coverage (2) More inexpensive transit service (3) More bicycle and/or pedestrian connections (trails, bike lanes) to employment and commercial destinations (4) Wider availability of emerging transportation options like bike sharing, ridesharing (Uber, Lyft), and electric scooters (5) Less vehicle parking availability, more bicycle parking availability, and/or higher vehicle operating costs like gas prices 1st: ____ 2nd: ____ 3rd: ____ NONE Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 82 343 ©2024 ETC Institute Page 2 5.Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Don't KnowPlease rate your satisfaction with the following. 01. Ease of north/south travel in the Ames area 5 4 3 2 1 9 02. Ease of east/west travel in the Ames area 5 4 3 2 1 9 03.5 4 3 2 1 9 05.5 4 3 2 1 9 08.5 4 3 2 1 9 6. Which THREE of the items in Question 5 do you think are the most important Transportation issues? [Write in your answers below using the numbers from the list in Question 5.] 1st: ____ 2nd: ____ 3rd: ____ 7. Which THREE of the following characteristics of the Ames Area transportation system do you think are most important for the future? [Write in your answers below using the numbers.] (1) Provides safe transportation options (2) Facilitates reliable and efficient travel (3) Ease of connecting to destinations (4) Supports the economic vitality of the Ames Area (5) Maintains and preserves the existing transportation system (6) A sustainable transportation system (7) A transportation system that supports quality of life (8) Active transportation options that support public health (9) Equitable access to transportation options 1st: ____ 2nd: ____ 3rd: ____ 8. Overall, would you rate the transportation system in the Ames Area as Excellent, Good, Average, or Poor? ____(4) Excellent ____(3) Good ____(2) Average ____(1) Poor ____(9) Don't know 9. Have you used public transit (CyRide) in the past 12 months? ____(1) Yes [Answer Q9a-c.] ____(2) No [Skip to Q10.] 9a. How often do you use CyRide during a typical week? ____(1) 1 time per week ____(2) 2-4 times per week ____(3) 5 or more times per week 9b. How would you rate the availability of public transit in Ames? ____(4) Excellent ____(3) Good ____(2) Average ____(1) Poor ____(9) Don't know 9c.Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Don't Know Please rate your satisfaction with the following. 1. Availability of information about public transit services 5 4 3 2 1 9 2. Destinations served by public transit 5 4 3 2 1 9 3. Distance to the nearest public transit stop from your home 5 4 3 2 1 9 4. Frequency of bus service 5 4 3 2 1 9 5. Hours and days transit service is provided 5 4 3 2 1 9 6. Physical condition of the bus 5 4 3 2 1 9 7. Access to bus stops/amenities at bus stops 5 4 3 2 1 9 8. Bus accessibility for mobility impaired/disabled riders 5 4 3 2 1 9 Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 83 344 ©2024 ETC Institute Page 3 10. Which of the following are reasons that you do not use public transit (CyRide) more often? [Check all that apply.] ____(01) Service is not available near my home ____(02) Service is not offered to destinations I visit frequently ____(03) I don't know how to use the service (need information about routes/fees/schedules) ____(04) I had a bad experience with the service (treated poorly, arrived late, did not feel safe) ____(05) It takes too long to get to destinations compared to travel by car ____(06) The service is confusing to use ____(07) Service is not offered at the time I need it ____(08) It's too expensive ____(09) Buses do not come by stops frequently enough ____(10) The bus is too crowded when I need to take it ____(11) I just prefer to drive ____(12) Other: _________________________________ Bicycling in the Ames Area 11. Have you ridden a bicycle in the Ames area during the past year? ____(1) Yes [Answer Q11a-d.] ____(2) No [Skip to Q12.] 11a. How safe do you feel bicycling on major streets without bike lanes? ____(5) Very safe ____(4) Safe ____(3) Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe ____(2) Unsafe ____(1) Very unsafe ____(9) Don't know 11b. How safe do you feel bicycling on streets with an on-street bike lane? ____(5) Very safe ____(4) Safe ____(3) Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe ____(2) Unsafe ____(1) Very unsafe ____(9) Don't know 11c. How safe do you feel bicycling on a shared-use path or trail? ____(5) Very safe ____(4) Safe ____(3) Neutral/neither safe nor unsafe ____(2) Unsafe ____(1) Very unsafe ____(9) Don't know 11d. What is the primary reason why you ride your bike? ____(1) To commute to school, work, personal business, or shopping trips ____(2) For recreational (fitness, leisure) use ____(3) Both 12. How safe do you feel walking or using a wheelchair on sidewalks along major streets? ____(5) Very safe ____(4) Safe ____(3) Neutral/Neither safe nor unsafe ____(2) Unsafe ____(1) Very unsafe ____(9) Don't know 13. How safe do you feel using pedestrian crossings on major streets? ____(5) Very safe ____(4) Safe ____(3) Neutral/Neither safe nor unsafe ____(2) Unsafe ____(1) Very unsafe ____(9) Don't know 14. How safe do you feel walking or using a wheelchair on a shared-use path or trail or sidewalk in the area where you live? ____(5) Very safe ____(4) Safe ____(3) Neutral/Neither safe nor unsafe ____(2) Unsafe ____(1) Very unsafe ____(9) Don't know 15. What is the primary reason for your pedestrian travel? ____(1) To commute to school, work, personal business or shopping trips ____(2) For recreational (fitness, leisure) use ____(3) Both Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 84 345 ©2024 ETC Institute Page 4 16. For each of the following system enhancements, please indicate whether you would be Very Supportive, Supportive, Neutral, Not Supportive, or Not at all Supportive. Please recognize that there is an increased cost to some of these elements. System Enhancements Very Supportive Supportive Neutral Not Supportive Not at all Supportive Don't Know Please rate your support for the following. 1. Adding more dedicated bike lanes on streets in the Ames Area 5 4 3 2 1 9 2. Adding more shared use paths and trails in the Ames Area 5 4 3 2 1 9 3.5 4 3 2 1 9 5.5 4 3 2 1 9 6.signalized intersections 5 4 3 2 1 9 17. Understanding the long-range goals and vision of Ames area residents is vital to the Plan. Help us by telling us how important each of the following statements are to you. Please rate each goal area by choosing a number between 5 and 1, where 5 means it is "Very Important" and 1 means "Not at all Important." Importance of Various Issues to Transportation Improvements Very Important Important Neutral important Important 1.5 4 3 2 1 To ensure our survey is representative of the community, please provide the following information. 18. How many persons in your household, ages 16 and older, are dependent on public transit or rides from friends/relatives because they do not have a car or do not drive? ______ persons 19. Including yourself, how many persons in your household are... Under age 5: ____ 5 - 9 years: ____ 10 - 14 years: ____ 15 - 19 years: ____ 20 - 24 years: ____ 25 - 34 years: ____ 35 - 44 years: ____ 45 - 54 years: ____ 55 - 64 years: ____ 65+ years: ____ 20. Would you say your total Household income is... ____(1) Under $30,000 ____(2) $30,000 to $59,999 ____(3) $60,000 to $99,999 ____(4) $100,000 plus 21. Which of the following best describes your race/ethnicity? [Check all that apply.] ____(01) Asian or Asian Indian ____(02) Black or African American ____(03) American Indian or Alaska Native ____(04) White or Caucasian ____(05) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander ____(06) Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino/a/x ____(88) Prefer not to say ____(99) Other: ____________________________________________ Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 85 346 ©2024 ETC Institute Page 5 22. Your gender: ____(1) Male ____(2) Female ____(3) Self-identified: _____________ 23. Would you be willing to participate in future surveys sponsored by the Ames Area MPO? ____(1) Yes [Answer Q23a.] ____(2) No 23a. Please provide your contact information. Mobile Phone Number: Email Address: This concludes the survey. Thank you for your time! Please Return Your Completed Survey in the Enclosed Postage Paid Envelope Addressed to: ETC Institute, 725 W. Frontier Circle, Olathe, KS 66061 Your responses will remain completely confidential. The information printed to the right will ONLY be used to help identify which areas of the City are having problems with city services. If your address is not Ames, IA 2024 Report ETC Institute (2024)Page 86 347 F-1 APPENDIX F TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL DOCUMENTATION 348 ` 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Update and Validation Report Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 349 2 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Table of Contents 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Update and Validation Report..................... 1 Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ........................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 5 Model Updates ............................................................................. 5 Network Updates........................................................................................... 6 Traffic Counts .............................................................................................. 7 Parcel Data Updates ....................................................................................... 8 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) Updates................................................................... 9 External Analysis Updates ...............................................................................11 Transit Routes and Stops ................................................................................12 Trip Rates ..................................................................................................13 Employment Density......................................................................................13 Time of Day ................................................................................................15 Auto Occupancy ...........................................................................................16 Calibration and Validation ............................................................... 17 Trip Generation Validation Checks and Calibration Adjustments .................................17 Trip Distribution Validation Checks and Calibration Adjustments ................................18 Mode Choice Validation Checks and Calibration Adjustments.....................................25 Traffic Assignment Validation Checks and Calibration Adjustments .............................28 Future Year ................................................................................................30 Conclusions and Next Steps.............................................................. 36 Appendices ................................................................................ 37 Appendix 1 – Future Projects ...........................................................................37 Appendix 2 – External Station Inputs ..................................................................40 Appendix 3 – Trip Production Rates ....................................................................42 Appendix 4 – Trip Attraction Rates.....................................................................47 350 3 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model List of Figures Figure 1 - Study Area .............................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2 - Validation Count Locations....................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 – Ames Area MPO TAZs.......................................................................................... 10 Figure 4 - External Station Locations...................................................................................... 11 Figure 5 - Transit Routes and Stops....................................................................................... 12 Figure 6 - Home-Based Work Trip Length Distribution Curves (Miles and Minutes) ................. 19 Figure 7 - Home-Based Other Trip Length Distribution Curves (Miles and Minutes)................. 20 Figure 8 - Non-Home Based Trip Length Distribution Curves (Miles and Minutes) ................... 21 Figure 9 – HBW (All Income Levels) and HBSC Friction Factor Curves................................... 23 Figure 10 - Home-based Shopping and Other Trip Purpose Friction Factor Curves................. 24 Figure 11 - NHB Friction Factor Curve ................................................................................... 24 Figure 12 - Special Trip Purpose Friction Factor Curves ......................................................... 24 Figure 13 - Truck Friction Factor Curves ................................................................................ 25 Figure 14 - Observed Versus Modeled Ridership by Route..................................................... 28 Figure 15 - Forecast Household Growth ................................................................................. 30 Figure 16 - Forecast Employment Growth .............................................................................. 31 Figure 17 – 2023 AM Level-of -Service ................................................................................... 32 Figure 18 – 2023 PM Level-of -Service ................................................................................... 33 Figure 19 – 2050 AM Level-of -Service ................................................................................... 34 Figure 20 – 2050 PM Level-of -Service ................................................................................... 35 351 4 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model List of Tables Table 1 - Housing Unit Growth in Sample of Jurisdictions ......................................................... 8 Table 2 - Amount Growth for a Sample of Land Uses ............................................................... 9 Table 3 - Employment Densities by Land Use ........................................................................ 13 Table 4 - Directional Factors .................................................................................................. 15 Table 5 - Auto Occupancy Values .......................................................................................... 16 Table 6 - Unbalanced Production and Attraction Ratios .......................................................... 17 Table 7 - Balanced Trips Per Household*............................................................................... 18 Table 8 - Trip Mile Frequency Distribution Curve Coincidence Ratios ..................................... 22 Table 9 - Trip Minute Frequency Distribution Curve Coincidence Ratios ................................. 22 Table 10 - Average Travel Distance (Miles) ............................................................................ 22 Table 11 - Average Travel Time (Minutes).............................................................................. 22 Table 12 – Replica versus Model-Estimated Non-motorized Trips by Purpose ........................ 26 Table 13 - Non-Motorized.Bin File Containing Percentages by Purpose and Distance............. 26 Table 14 - Percent Person Trips by Mode – Weekday ............................................................ 26 Table 15 - Percent Person Trips by Mode – Weekend ............................................................ 27 Table 16 - Observed versus Modeled Ridership by Route ...................................................... 27 Table 17 - Model-Estimated VMT by Functional Class Compared to Observed VMT ............... 29 Table 18 - Percent Root Mean Squared Error by Volume Groups ........................................... 29 Table 19 - Percent Root Mean Squared Error by Functional Class.......................................... 29 Table 20 – Growth Summary ................................................................................................. 36 Table 20- Future Projects Table ............................................................................................. 37 Table 21 – External Station Inputs ......................................................................................... 40 Table 22 – Trip Production Rates........................................................................................... 42 Table 23 – Trip Attraction Rates............................................................................................. 47 352 5 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Introduction This document provides a summary of the 2023 base Ames Area Metropolitan Organization (AAMPO) Iowa Standardized Model Structure 2.0 (ISMS 2.0) Travel Demand Model (TDM). A TDM is an important tool for transportation planning that estimates and distributes the area’s trips across its transportation network. The modeling process attempts to replicate existing traffic levels and forecast future traffic volumes based on anticipated population and employment growth. One of the primary purposes of the TDM is to support the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The model can be used to identify potential future deficiencies in the road network and used to estimate the impacts of various scenarios such as adding new roads, changing the capacity of existing roads, or removing roads from the network. ISMS 2.0 is the current version of the Iowa standard model structure. The ISMS process is in use by every metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in Iowa, as well as all MPOs that border Iowa. ISMS 2.0 has numerous updates to the first version of ISMS (ISMS 1.0), which are discussed in the ISMS 2.0 Manual. More details on default inputs and specific modeling procedures used in the ISMS 2.0 process can be found in the ISMS 2.0 Manual. This TDM update and validation report can be used as an addendum to the ISMS 2.0 Manual. Inputs that differ from ISMS 2.0 defaults are discussed as well as validation statistics specific to this model. Model Updates The AAMPO TDM was updated to a new base year of 2023 using the Iowa Standardized Model Structure (ISMS). The major categories of inputs to the TDM are the transportation network and the parcel-based land use data, which includes households and non-residential land use activity. Next, projections of future year land use and future road network information are placed in the model to predict traffic conditions in the future. The AAMPO TDM is built to forecast traffic conditions to a 2050 horizon year. Interim year forecast land use data for 2035 was also prepared and external station data inputs are interpolated between 2023 and 2050, so the 2035 interim forecast years can also be run. A map of the model area is shown in Figure 1. 353 6 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Figure 1 - Study Area Network Updates The base year road network was updated from the previous 2015 base year to match 2023 year roadway alignments and attributes. The Iowa DOT Systems Planning Bureau provided an updated base year road network that included alignment and attribute changes since the previous base model road network. Attributes were reviewed for accuracy, and intersection control data were copied from the previous base model network and manually updated. A summary of the model network inputs can be found in the ISMS Manual. When the model is run, the input network is copied over to the scenario output folder. The ISMS master network approach is used so that all existing, committed, and planned or other “illustrative” scenario network projects are included in one master input network. Attributes are coded that allow certain projects to be “turned on” or “turned off”, depending on the scenario being run. Attributes are updated if they have future year attributes and meet certain criteria in the projlut.bin input file. Appendix 1 summarizes the future road projects in the projects bin file. 354 7 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Attributes will be updated on the scenario network if the project number has a year less than or equal to the year listed in the column representing the network set that is being run (Committed, Planned, or Illustrative). The output road network has several new fields added to it during the model runtime. The ISMS 2.0 Manual can be referenced for descriptions of the fields. Traffic Counts The traffic counts were provided through the 2023 counts conducted by the Iowa DOT. The count locations were determined by the Interstate Strip Counts and the City Count Maps. The traffic count locations are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 - Validation Count Locations 355 8 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Parcel Data Updates The ISMS uses land use parcel data inputs to determine the quantity of trips. The AAMPO TDM parcel data was updated to a new base year by obtaining data from assessors for the two counties in the model area (Story and Boone) and processing the data per the ISMS 2.0 Manual guidelines. The household and non-residential land use activity was compared with the previous model to check for reasonable amounts of growth. A sample of jurisdictions and a sum of housing units for the entire model area is shown in Table 1. Table 1 - Housing Unit Growth in the Sample of Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Housing Units (2015) Housing Units (2023) % Growth 27,506 31,544 15% 25,931 29,116 12% 429 454 6% -- 140 -- *Kelly was outside the model boundary in 2015. Similar comparisons by jurisdiction were done for non-residential land use activity. Large differences in the values were investigated and discussed with the Model Project Team (MPT). A comparison of the amount field sums for a sample of land uses is shown in Table 2. The ISMS 2.0 Manual can be referenced for details about the Land Use Names (LUNAME) and the unit that is used in amount (AMT) field. The 2015 parcel data did not have assessor building square footage data available. Building footprint data was used to try to approximate the building square footage. For the 2023 update, the assessor building square footage information was used. This led to volatile growth percentages for some land uses, which should not be the case for future model updates where assessor building square footage information is available. 356 9 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Table 2 - Amount Growth for a Sample of Land Uses LUNAME AMT (2015) AMT (2023) Growth AUC 308 186 -40% BNK 158 170 8% CEM 63 83 32% CSC 941 1,240 32% ELEM 3,201 3,299 3% FF 77 176 129% GO 2,509 2,546 1% GOV 653 653 0% HOSP 865 520 -40% HOT 892 524 -41% IPK 669 1,263 89% JRHS 1,334 1,436 8% LIB 100 100 0% NSC 968 1,238 28% OHC 206 677 229% PO 13 14 8% PS 45 53 18% REC 73 150 105% RF 814 2,834 248% RSC 447 443 -1% SDR 231 287 24% SFC 611 530 -13% SNF 85 52 -39% SRHS 1,705 1,955 15% SS 77 297 286% WAR 1,143 1,819 59% Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) Updates The model area is divided up into a number of Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs). TAZs are geographical areas that represent groups of homes and employment locations with somewhat similar trip making behavior. The TAZ is used as the unit in which the model generates and distributes trips. The AAMPO TDM has 653 TAZs, which are shown in Figure 3 . 602 are internal zones and 51 are external station zones. Parcel land use data is aggregated to the TAZs during a model run, which includes both households and non-residential by land use categories. The ISMS 2.0 Manual Appendix G provides a summary of land uses and the unit of measure represented by the AMT field. Households are next disaggregated at the TAZ level by household size and income level percentages from Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP) data. Trip production rates are then applied to the disaggregated households. Trip attraction rates are separately applied to 357 10 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model the land use amounts for each TAZ. The TAZ structure and data were built from the previous model as a starting point. Several TAZs were subdivided where new roads were added to the model or where future road projects were anticipated. Figure 3 – Ames Area MPO TAZs 358 11 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model External Analysis Updates The AAMPO TDM has 51 external stations shown in Figure 4. Trips both to and from external stations are External-External (E-E) trips. The trips that have one end at an external station and do not have the other trip end at another external station are External-Internal or Internal- External (E-I/I-E) trips. Traffic counts at the external stations and a statewide model (iTRAM) sub-area for both the existing year and future year were prepared by the Iowa DOT . The external station forecast volumes were also prepared by the Iowa DOT and reviewed by the MPT. The Traffic_Forecasts.bin provided by the Iowa specifies how trips from iTRAM should be disaggregated to ISMS trip purposes. These values were adjusted during model calibration and reviewed with the MPT. The inputs are shown in Appendix 2 . During the execution of the model, external inputs are split into E-I/I-E and E-E trips. The E-E trips are adjusted with an iterative proportional fitting procedure to balance trips by direction. The E-I/I-E trips are added to the internal trips prior to balancing. Figure 4 - External Station Locations 359 12 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Transit Routes and Stops Transit route alignments were updated using information provided by CyRide . Often, routes vary by times of the day or days of the week. Whenever there was a variation, the new alignment was modeled as a new route. The attribute for r oute number is consistent among all variations so that results can be easily grouped. Headways and fares were updated with information provided by CyRide for all time periods. Transit stop locations were added for each route based on locations shown on Google Maps. During the model processing, transit routes are copied to output folders for both weekday and weekend time periods and the headways by time period are used to prepare a modeled headway and calculate transit skims that are used in mode choice. The transit routes and stops in the AAMPO model are shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 - Transit Routes and Stops ` 360 13 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Trip Rates Trip production rates had been prepared for ISMS trip purposes from a 2017 National Household Travel Survey Add-on (NHTS Add-on) for the Des Moines area for the prior model update. Trip productions from the NHTS Add-on were used again for this model update. Trip production rates are shown in Appendix 3. The prior model trip attraction rates were also from the NHTS Add-on. Yet, sample sizes for many land uses and time periods were extremely low or zero, which required significant inferring of trip rates. Thus, Replica data was leveraged to estimate trip attraction rates by classifying the trips produced by the Replica Fall 2023 model synthetic population into ISMS trip purposes and dividing by land use amount values from the parcel data. For land uses with larger sample sizes, the NHTS Add-on trip attraction rates were used. For other land uses, Replica data was used after careful review for reasonableness. The final trip attraction rates and the source of data used are shown in Appendix 4. Employment Density Employment density inputs are used to convert land use amount values to an estimated employment value. Each land use has a different density of employment per square mile. The AAMPO TDM employment density inputs were initially estimated using employment densities borrowed from the Waterloo-Cedar Falls metropolitan area by geocoding employment to parcel data. The employment density values were altered to calibrate to employment totals by jurisdiction. Table 3 - Employment Densities by Land Use LUC LUNAME Employment Density SNF 2.633 HOT 1.658 MFG 0.991 IPK 0.991 WAR 0.991 EXT 0.461 LF 0.278 CAIR 0.634 GAIR 0.610 TERM 1.050 SFC 1.658 NSC 1.658 CSC 1.658 RSC 1.658 AUC 1.658 SS 1.658 FF 1.658 361 14 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC LUNAME Employment Density SDR 1.658 ORC 1.658 GO 2.182 GOV 2.182 HRO 2.182 LIB 0.571 PO 1.658 BNK 1.658 FS 0.571 RF 0.571 OPS 0.571 HOSP 2.633 OHC 2.633 REC 0.571 CUL 0.571 CCEN 0.571 PA 0.571 MIL 2.247 JAIL 0.571 TOUR 0.571 PS 0.571 ELEM 0.168 JRHS 0.105 SRHS 0.122 COLL 0.316 ORS 0.571 GC 0.167 CAS 2.633 STAD 2.633 APRK 0.084 FPUB 0.571 FSPI 2.633 FOFF 2.182 FCOM 1.658 FIND 0.991 FCO 2.051 362 15 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Time of Day Time of day factors are applied to trip rate values by land use and disaggregated household category to generate trips for each time period in the ISMS. Directional factors are applied during trip distribution. The Des Moines 2017 NHTS Add-on was used to estimate directional factors for the previous AAMPO ISMS model. The same values were used for the ISMS 2.0 model update. Table 4 - Directional Factors Weekday Weekend 0.97 0.55 0.07 0.38 1.00 0.55 0.15 0.23 0.99 0.54 0.07 0.42 0.88 0.54 0.15 0.42 1.00 0.51 0.07 0.27 1.00 0.51 0.15 0.33 0.99 0.29 0.03 0.11 1.00 0.29 0.03 0.11 0.83 0.48 0.40 0.27 0.77 0.47 0.38 0.26 0.81 0.61 0.48 0.38 0.84 0.62 0.58 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 COMBO 363 16 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Auto Occupancy Auto occupancies were borrowed from the 2017 Des Moines NHTS Add-on. Minor revisions were made to match total observed VMT. Table 5 shows the final input auto occupancy values compared to NCHRP 716 where available. Most revisions occurred on weekend values, which had lower sample sizes in the NHTS Add-on and had more volatile initial values. Table 5 - Auto Occupancy Values PURPOSE WDWE am pm op md HBWL wd 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.10 HBWL we 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 HBWM wd 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 HBWM we 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 HBWH wd 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 HBWH we 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 HBSC wd 1.521 1.521 1.521 1.521 N/A HBSC we 1.521 1.521 1.521 1.521 HBSH wd 1.459 1.459 1.459 1.459 1.75 HBSH we 1.726 1.726 1.726 1.726 HBO wd 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 HBO we 1.726 1.726 1.726 1.726 NHB wd 1.545 1.545 1.545 1.545 1.66 NHB we 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 UNIV wd 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 N/A UNIV we 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 HOSP wd 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 HOSP we 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 APRT wd 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 APRT we 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 RREC wd 1.425 1.425 1.425 1.425 RREC we 1.726 1.726 1.726 1.726 HOT wd 1.286 1.286 1.286 1.286 HOT we 1.726 1.726 1.726 1.726 SU wd 1 1 1 1 SU we 1 1 1 1 COMBO wd 1 1 1 1 COMBO we 1 1 1 1 364 17 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Calibration and Validation The model development goal is to create a realistic picture of travel patterns in the study area. As such, models should be calibrated to reflect current travel conditions. Travel is unique in each community. T herefore, results need to be reviewed in detail and adjustments made to inputs or parameters to match local conditions. Each adjustment needs to be done without unreasonably modifying inputs to unrealistic values, which might constrain the model in future scenario years. Validation refers to the statistical and non-statistical reasonableness checks used to assess the accuracy of the model. The best practice is to perform validation checks on each major step of the model process. This helps to ensure that data and model structure errors are limited or omitted throughout the process, and that the model will be flexible enough to respond to transportation and land use scenarios to be effectively used as a forecasting tool. The main validation checks and calibration adjustments are discussed below. Trip Generation Validation Checks and Calibration Adjustments Each trip has a beginning and an end, and it is necessary for the trip producing trips ends to be equal to the number trip attracting ends. The initial (unbalanced) productions and attractions in the model are never completely equal due to different data sources and trip rate sources, the ratios of productions and attractions by trip purpose should be reasonably close prior to balancing. If they are not, then it could be because of an input data error (either land use input data or trip rates) or a model processing error. The Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, 2nd Edition recommends a preferred ratio of between 0.90 – 1.10 for unbalanced productions and attractions before trip balancing. The unbalanced trip ratios by trip purpose for the AAMPO TDM are shown in Table 6 below. Overall, productions and attractions are very close to balanced for each trip purpose, which suggests that there are not any obvious errors in the socioeconomic data or trip rates. Table 6 - Unbalanced Production and Attraction Ratios HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU COMBO Total Weekday Ratio 1.06 1.05 1.03 0.97 0.92 1.05 1.00 1.22 1.36 0.99 1.11 1.04 1.01 1.01 Weekend Ratio 0.97 1.01 0.78 1.09 0.81 1.06 0.99 0.95 0.61 0.99 1.08 1.07 1.02 0.96 Weighted Average 1.00 1.02 0.92 0.94 0.98 1.01 1.00 0.87 0.99 1.06 1.04 1.01 1.00 0.99 The final balanced trips per household are shown in Table 7 and compared to Table 5.2 from The Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual (Second Edition). 365 18 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Table 7 - Balanced Trips Per Household* Source Trips per Household Model (Weekday) 14.80 Model (Weekend) 8.18 Model (Weighted Average) 12.91 TMIP** 10.84 *Trucks not included **Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual - Second Edition Trip Distribution Validation Checks and Calibration Adjustments The trip distribution step takes the balanced trips and for each TAZ allocates them to other TAZs based on network travel times and friction factors. This is done using the gravity model within TransCAD. Replica data was processed into one minute and one mile groups based on the Fall 2023 weekday model for trips starting or ending in the model area. StreetLight data was downloaded for 2022 Location Based Service (LBS) data for the model region, including external stations as passthrough zones. An origin-destination matrix was created using StreetLight data and applied to an average weekday shortest path matrix to calculate one minute and one mile time groups. Adjustments were made to the model to better replicate both travel distances and travel times, including adjusting density values and terminal times, and adjusting trip purpose friction factors. The initial friction factor curves were borrowed from the ISMS 1.0 version of the model. Slight adjustments were made to better match StreetLight trip length frequency distribution curves for available trip purposes and to improve the ratio of count VMT to model volume VMT. The model frequency distribution curves closely align with StreetLight data for both miles and minutes. Replica data provides another dataset that can be used for comparison, however Replica data represents modeled data rather than observed data. The trip length frequency distribution curves from Replica match the model and StreetLight data closely in terms of miles, but less closely in terms of minutes. The modeled versus StreetLight and Replica trip length frequency distribution curves are shown in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8. Only the trip purposes that include both StreetLight and Replica data are shown. 366 19 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Figure 6 - Home-Based Work Trip Length Distribution Curves (Miles and Minutes) 367 20 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Figure 7 - Home-Based Other Trip Length Distribution Curves (Miles and Minutes) 368 21 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Figure 8 - Non-Home Based Trip Length Distribution Curves (Miles and Minutes) 369 22 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model A summary of the coincidence ratios, which measures the fit of two trip length frequency distribution curves is shown in Table 8 and Table 9 for miles and minutes, respectively. The five special trip purposes and truck trip purpose ratios were not calculated. A ratio over 0.70 is considered a good fit. The model trip length frequency distribution curves consistently match the StreetLight-derived distribution curves well. The model and Replica-derived trip length frequency distribution curves are also a very close match, particularly in terms of miles. Table 8 - Trip Mile Frequency Distribution Curve Coincidence Ratios Trip Purpose StreetLight Coincidence Ratio Replica Coincidence Ratio HBW (all income levels) 0.79 0.70 HBSC N/A 0.73 HBSH N/A 0.71 HBO 0.88 0.82 NHB 0.82 0.85 Table 9 - Trip Minute Frequency Distribution Curve Coincidence Ratios Trip Purpose StreetLight Coincidence Ratio Replica Coincidence Ratio HBW (all income levels) 0.55 0.46 HBSC N/A 0.45 HBSH N/A 0.56 HBO 0.71 0.51 NHB 0.78 0.48 A comparison of average travel times was made with StreetLight data. The average travel times and average travel distances are shown in Table 10 and Table 11. Modeled travel distances and durations are slightly longer than StreetLight data for all passenger trip purposes. Table 10 - Average Travel Distance (Miles) Model StreetLight HBW 4.18 3.38 HBO 3.89 2.48 NHB 3.38 2.75 Table 11 - Average Travel Time (Minutes) Model StreetLight HBW 11.13 6.69 HBO 9.69 6.83 NHB 9.11 7.11 Friction factor curves show the desirability of making trips of certain distances. The x-axis represents minutes of travel time, and the y-axis represents the friction factor, which is the utility or likelihood of making a certain distance trip. Friction factors vary by trip purpose as people will typically travel farther for a work trip than other trip purposes. The flatter a curve, the more 370 23 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model desirable longer trips are relative to a steeper curve and thus the model would produce longer average trip lengths. Figure 9–Figure 13 below show the friction factor curves used for each trip purpose. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 716 (NCHRP 716) provides typical friction factor values for HBW, HBO, and NHB trip purposes that can be used for comparison. Most friction factor curves were kept the same as the ISMS 1.0 curves and provided a good match with StreetLight and Replica trips. HBW trip purposes are the main exception. The HBW friction factor curves were made steeper to favor shorter trips to provide a better fit with the StreetLight data used for validation. Figure 9 – HBW (All Income Levels) and HBSC Friction Factor Curves 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1 11 21 31 Fr i c t i o n F a c t o r Minutes HBWL HBWM HBWH Old Model HBWL Old Model HBWM Old Model HBWH NCHRP HBW 371 24 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Figure 10 - Home-based Shopping and Other Trip Purpose Friction Factor Curves Figure 11 - NHB Friction Factor Curve Figure 12 - Special Trip Purpose Friction Factor Curves 372 25 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Figure 13 - Truck Friction Factor Curves During the trip distribution gravity model, K-Factors can be added to reduce or enhance origin and destination pairs that the gravity model does not represent accurately. K-Factors are often referred to as a “socioeconomic” factor to adjust travel propensity between origin-destination pairs that are not otherwise accounted for in the trip distribution model. In some situations, K factors may be warranted but ideally are not required (or desired) in a trip distribution model. The AAMPO TDM does not have any K-Factors. That said, the input K-Factor matrix does use K-Factor values of 0 to ensure that the gravity model does not distribute trips between external zones, which are determined outside the model. Mode Choice Validation Checks and Calibration Adjustments After all trips are distributed, they are split into trips by different modes of transportation. First, trips are split into motorized and non-motorized (walk and bike) trips. Then, the AAMPO TDM uses the ISMS Mode Choice option to split the motorized trips into auto versus transit trips. The ISMS 2.0 Manual provides more details on the model processing steps. The target number of non-motorized weekday trips by trip purpose were estimated from the Replica data and were compared with model-estimated weekday non-motorized trips by purpose. A comparison is shown in Table 12. Table 13 shows the final percentage of trips by trip purpose that are assumed to be non-motorized for all trips between TAZs that are within the distance thresholds shown. Weekend percentages were assumed to be the same as weekday percentages. These values are used to skim trips between zones within these distance thresholds. 373 26 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Table 12 – Replica versus Model -Estimated Non-motorized Trips by Purpose Replica Weekday Model Weekday HBWL 1,226 1,106 HBWM 1,244 1,224 HBWH 1,120 815 HBSC 3,582 5,673 HBSH 7,524 0 HBO 11,079 11,672 NHB 19,798 16,861 Special Trip Purposes* - 215 Sum 45,573 37,351 Table 13 - Non-Motorized.Bin File Containing Percentages by Purpose and Distance Weekday Weekend Purpose 0-0.5 Miles 0.5-1 Miles 0-0.5 Miles 0.5-1 Miles HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU COMBO The resulting weekday and weekend trips by mode (for all regional trips) are shown in the tables below and do not include intrazonal trips. Table 14 - Percent Person Trips by Mode – Weekday HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB Total Nonmotorized 5.8% 3.3% 3.2% 8.7% 4.9% 6.8% 8.1% 7.9% Transit 7.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.3% 2.6% Persons in Auto 86.5% 96.0% 96.1% 91.3% 95.1% 92.6% 90.6% 89.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 374 27 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Table 15 - Percent Person Trips by Mode – Weekend HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB Total Nonmotorized 4.6% 2.7% 1.2% 5.5% 4.0% 6.4% 7.7% 7.6% Transit 2.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 1.8% Persons in Auto 93.4% 97.1% 98.7% 94.5% 96.0% 93.3% 92.0% 90.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Monthly transit ridership data was provided by CyRide for the year 2023. Ridership for the month of March was divided by the number of weekdays and weekends to estimate weekday and weekend ridership numbers. The model-estimated ridership by route compared with observed ridership data is shown in Table 16. Figure 14 shows a scatterplot and linear trendline of observed versus modeled ridership. While ridership by route results vary for each route, the model estimates the correct magnitude of transit trips and the trendline slope of 0.99 suggests that the model does not consistently over or underestimate ridership. Table 16 - Observed versus Modeled Ridership by Route 2023 Ridership by Route Average Weekday Route Average Daily Ridership Modeled Daily Ridership Red 2,004 2,632 Green 662 903 Blue 1,601 1,424 Yellow 81 100 Brown 997 1,452 Purple 133 148 Plum 421 211 Cherry 935 494 Lilac 193 52 Peach 73 67 Cardinal 1,276 610 Orange 3,655 3,611 Gold 1,797 1,618 Moonlight Express 15 295 Sum 13,844 13,616 375 28 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Figure 14 - Observed Versus Modeled Ridership by Route Traffic Assignment Validation Checks and Calibration Adjustments The goal of a TDM is to replicate travel patterns as accurately as possible throughout each step of the model, without placing too many unreasonable constraints on its operation. Ultimately, the model-predicted volumes should have a strong correlation with observed traffic count data but not be over -calibrated and limit the sensitivity of the model to input changes. In the traffic assignment step the model attempts to minimize a trip’s cost (in ISMS, this is travel time) between its origin and destination. Travel time is a function of speed and distance traveled. Localized adjustments to centroid connectors were made during calibration to better represent how traffic flows in and out of neighborhoods. A comparison of model-estimated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to counted VMT for locations with traffic counts shows that all functionally classified road categories are largely within the validation goals provided by FHWA in 1990 (Table 17). All facility types are within the FHWA guidelines. The collector roads had a higher VMT error which can be caused because models typically estimate lower volume roads less accurately, and a portion of the error may also be a function of the estimated count data. 376 29 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Table 17 - Model -Estimated VMT by Functional Class Compared to Observed VMT Number of Counts Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Error Validation Goal* 19 286,733 284,985 1,748 0.6% 63 133,577 132,252 1,324 1.0% 42 29,048 32,358 -3,310 -10.2% 57 28,320 24,941 3,379 13.5% 33 2,603 2,445 158 6.5% 42 47,158 44,102 3,056 6.9% *FHWA-1990 goals Percent Root Mean Squared Error (%RMSE) is a standard model validation check that measures the average error between the model-estimated and counted volumes. The lower the value, the less the difference there is between the model-estimated volumes and the counts. Table 18 and Table 19 show the %RMSE stratified in two different ways: by volume groups and by functional class. The %RMSE in the AAMPO TDM is within the preferable validation target for most volume groups and well within the acceptable validation target for all volume groups. By functional class the model meets the ISMS Preferred criteria for all categories. Table 18 - Percent Root Mean Squared Error by Volume Groups Volume Range Number of Counts % RMSE Validation Goal* Acceptable Preferable 0 - 5,000 147 100% 45% 5,000 - 10,000 70 45% 35% 10,000 - 15,000 22 35% 27% 15,000 - 20,000 20 35% 27% 20,000 – 30,000 3 35% 27% 30,000 – 40,000 1 35% 27% 40,000 – 50,000 1 35% 27% 50,000 – 60,000 0 35% 27% 60,000 – 70,000 0 35% 27% *Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling Systems (FSUTMS) Table 19 - Percent Root Mean Squared Error by Functional Class Link Type Number of Counts % RMSE ISMS Acceptable ISMS Preferred Interstate 19 4.5% 30% 25% Principal Arterial 63 20.4% 35% 30% Minor Arterial 44 25.8% 45% 40% Collector 44 46.2% 65% 50% Local 36 81.9% N/A N/A Ramp 2 0.2% N/A N/A Total 250 23.9% 35% 30% 377 30 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model F uture Year While good base year model validation statistics are important, the main goal of the model is to forecast trips. Thus, the growth and future level-of-service can be reviewed for reasonableness to ensure the model is sensitive enough to be used as a forecasting tool. Forecast growth control totals were determined by MPO staff for 2035 and 2050. The MPO then allocated the growth to the TAZs where they expect growth to occur. This data was then migrated to the input parcel file for each of the two forecast years. Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the growth by TAZ in the AAMPO for households and employment. Some growth is expected to occur near the city center, but the majority of growth is on the periphery of the urbanized area. Figure 15 - Forecast Household Growth Employment growth shows a somewhat similar pattern as household growth but with higher amounts of growth in city center s rather than on the urban fringes. 378 31 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Figure 16 - Forecast Employment Growth External station growth was forecast to 2050 by the Iowa DOT for each external station. The forecast values were reviewed by the MPT. In 2035, the interim year forecasted growth at the external stations is interpolated between the base year and 2050. Figure 17 and show the model-predicted AM and PM peak period level-of -service for the model base year. Level-of -Service F represents congested roadways, while Level-of -Service D and E represent roadways that are congested, but not fully congested. There are no roads that are fully congested, operating at a LOS of D or abov e in the AM or PM peak hours in the base year. 379 32 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Figure 17 – 2023 AM Level -of-Service 380 33 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Figure 18 – 2023 PM Level -of-Service The 2050 AM and PM peak time period level-of -service maps are shown in Figure 19 and Figure 20. Both figures represent the anticipated 2050 trip generation and include both committed and planned road projects. Significantly more congestion is shown in 2050. In both the AM and PM peak times there are segments with an LOS of E and F, meaning those segments are expected to operate at capacity during the peak time periods. These segments operating with LOS F are located on Y Ave and 530th Ave. Interstate 35 is operating with a LOS of D, creating potential disruptions in free flow. 381 34 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Figure 19 – 2050 AM Level -of-Service 382 35 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Figure 20 – 2050 PM Level -of-Service A summary of growth is shown in Table 20 for interim and horizon forecast years. A 2035 scenario with only Committed Road projects is shown, as well as Planned Road network scenarios for 2035 and 2050. Households and trips grow by similar amounts. VMT grows at a faster pace than trips since much of the housing unit growth is in suburban areas where trips must travel farther to reach trip attraction locations. VHT grows at a similar pace as VMT. Average trip speeds increase slightly, because new growth is on the periphery of the model where there are higher speed roads, outweighing new congestion in the future year models. 383 36 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Including planned road projects instead of just committed road projects in the 2050 scenario shows that the planned road projects do relieve some congestion by increasing average trip speeds and reducing average trip time. Trips per household remains relatively consistent across all scenario years. Trip rates are the same, but external trip differences occur. Table 20 – Growth Summary 2023 2035 Committed 2050 Committed 2050 Planned Value Value Growth Value Growth Value Growth Households 40,047 44,628 11% 49,097 25% 49,097 25% Balanced Trips 516,975 566,679 10% 633,706 23% 633,706 23% VMT 1,746,063 2,004,486 15% 2,348,896 34% 2,345,924 34% VHT 40,547 46,061 14% 53,623 32% 53,287 31% Trips per Household 12.91 12.70 -1% 12.88 -0% 12.88 0% Average Trip Length (miles) 3.38 3.54 5% 3.71 10% 3.71 10% Average Trip Speed (mph) 43.06 43.54 1% 43.80 2% 44.02 2% Average Trip Time 4.71 4.88 4% 5.09 8% 5.05 7% Conclusions and Next Steps The major edits, updates, and adjustments that were made to the AAMPO TDM were discussed in this documentation. The ISMS Manual 2.0 can be referenced for more details about modeling procedures and data sources. The calibration process and validation results were also discussed in detail. The validation results indicate that the AAMPO TDM is an accurate and useable forecasting tool by Iowa DOT and FHWA standards. 384 37 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Appendices Appendix 1 – Future Projects Table 20- Future Projects Table Project Number Description Committed Planned Illustrative 24th St (Stange Rd - Hayes Ave) Road diet to 3 lanes 2023 2023 2023 Highway 30 - 580th Ave Interchange addition 2024 2024 2024 HWY 30 Frontage New connection 2024 2024 2024 16th St from University Blvd to Apple Place – Widen to 4 Lanes 2025 2025 2025 Stange Crescent Reduction to 2 lanes, new AWSC 2025 2025 2025 Airport Rd from Sam's Club to S Duff Ave Traffic Signal, intersection lane changes 2025 2025 2025 US-30 widening to 6 lanes - 2035 - US 30 & Duff Ave Interchange reconfiguration, DDI - 2035 - Grand Ave & 16th St Intersection improvements - 2035 - Bloomington Road from George Washington Carver Reduction to 2 lanes - 2040 - Mortensen Parkway from Welch Avenue to University - 3 way cross section - 2040 - Stange Rd extension to George Washington Carver Ave 2050 2050 - Duff Ave from 265th St - Airport Rd Urbanize to 4-lane divided section - 2050 - 260th St at I-35 New Interchange - 2050 - N Dakota Ave from Lincoln Way to Ontario Street - 3 way cross section - 2050 - Stange & 13th Addition of turn lanes - 2050 - 190th St from GW Carver - US 69 Addition of turn lanes - - 2050 Bloomington Rd from Ascension Church Drive – Hoover addition of a Center turn lane 2028 - 2028 Grand Ave from Bloomington Rd - 190th St Addition of turn lanes - - 2050 W Riverside Rd from US 69 / Grand Ave - Stagecoach Urbanize to 3-lane section with traffic g rowth - - 2050 E Riverside Rd from Stagecoach Road - Dayton Ave Urbanize to 3-lane section with traffic g rowth - - 2050 385 38 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Description Committed Planned Illustrative Dayton Ave from USDA - Riverside Rd Addition of turn lanes - - 2050 Riverside Rd from Dayton Ave - 570th Ave New connection - - 2050 Lincoln Way from X Ave - Y Ave Urbanize to 3-lane section with traffic g rowth - - 2050 S 500th Ave from Mortenson Rd - Lincoln Way Urbanize to 2-lane / 3-lane with traffic growth - - 2050 Y Ave from Lincoln Way - Ontario St Urbanize to 3-lane section with traffic g rowth - - 2050 Ontario St from Y Ave / 500th Ave - Idaho Ave Urbanize to 3-lane section with traffic g rowth - - 2050 Lincoln Way from Y Ave - Thackery Dr Urbanize to 3-lane section with traffic g rowth - - 2050 Duff Ave from UPRR - 16th Street 4-3 conversion - - 2050 S 3rd St from Current east terminus – Future new connection - - 2050 New Backage Road from Lincoln Way - S 5th Street new connection - - 2050 S 5th St from Current east terminus - Future new connection - - 2050 Dayton Ave from Lincoln Way - 13th St Urbanize to 4-lane divided - - 2050 13th St from I-35 - 570th Ave Urbanize to 4-lane divided section - - 2050 13th St from 570th St - 580th Ave Urbanize to 3-lane section - - 2050 Lincoln Way from I-35 - 580th Ave Urbanize to 3-lane section - - 2050 Sand Hill Trail from US 30 North Frontage – Lincoln Way, New Industrial Collector as development o ccurs - - 2050 580th St from US 30 - 13th St Urbanize to 3-lane - - 2050 530th Ave from Collaboration Pl - 260th St Urbanize to 3-lane section - - 2050 265th St from 260th St / 530th Ave - Duff Ave Pave to 3-lane section - - 2050 265th St from Duff Ave - 550th Ave Urbanize to 3-lane section - - 2050 550th Ave from Ken Maril Rd - 265th St New connection - - 2050 265th St from 550th Ave - 260th St Urbanize to 3-lane section - - 2050 260th St from 265th St - Sand Hill Trail Pave as 2-lane section - - 2050 260th St from Sand Hill Trail - 580th Ave Pave as 2-lane section - - 2050 Riverside Rd at I-35 New Interchange - - 2050 Lincoln way from X Ave to Y Ave Widen to 3 Lanes - - 2050 Freel Drive from Lincoln Way to SE 9th Street Add Turn Lanes - - 2050 E 13th Street from I-35 Ramp Terminal to 570th A Add Turn Lanes - - 2050 386 39 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Description Committed Planned Illustrative Duff Avenue from 265th Street to Kitty Hawk Drive - Widen to 5 Lanes - - 2050 13th Street from Hyland Avenue to Aquatic Center - 3 way cross section - - 2050 Duff Avenue from S 5th Street to Lincoln Way - Addition of a median - - 2050 Duff Avenue from Ioway Creek to S 16th Street - Addition of a median - - 2050 Dayton Avenue from Browning Street to Lincoln Way - widen to 3 lanes - - 2050 E Lincoln Way (Duff to Skunk) - Road diet to 3 lanes 2027 - 2027 13th St from I-35 - 570th Ave - Urbanize to 4-lane divided section - 2035 - 13th St from 570th St - 580th Ave Urbanize to 3-lane section - 2035 - Lincoln Way from I-35 - 580th Ave Urbanize to 3-lane section - 2035 - Duff Ave from 265th St - Airport Rd Urbanize to 4-lane divided section - 2035 - 265th St from 550th Ave - 260th St Urbanize to 3-lane section - 2035 - 260th St from 265th St - Sand Hill Trail Pave as 2-lane section - 2035 - 260th St from Sand Hill Trail - 580th Ave Pave as 2-lane section. - 2035 - E Lincoln Way (Duff to Skunk) Road diet to 3 lanes 2027 - - Highway 30 - 3 lanes from Duff to I-35 Addition of a 3rd lane 2023 2023 2023 387 40 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Appendix 2 – External Station Inputs Table 21 – External Station Inputs TAZ AADT AADT HBSCP HBSHP HBOP UNIVP HOSPP RRECP HOTP HBSCA HBSHA HBOA UNIVA HOSPA RRECA HOTA 48,300 65,346 2 50 57 3 7,000 8,890 4 60 68 5 70 79 6 40 45 7 4,340 4,926 8 30 34 9 90 102 10 710 806 11 30 34 12 110 125 13 670 760 14 50 57 15 35 40 16 40 45 17 18,400 23,368 18 90 102 19 250 284 20 50 57 21 60 68 22 1,810 2,054 23 1,560 1,771 24 70 79 25 1,340 1,521 26 30 34 388 41 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model TAZ AADT AADT HBSCP HBSHP HBOP UNIVP HOSPP RRECP HOTP HBSCA HBSHA HBOA UNIVA HOSPA RRECA HOTA 25 28 28 45 51 29 50 57 30 4,980 6,325 31 80 91 32 30 34 33 60 68 34 31,600 44,398 35 70 79 36 30 34 37 35 40 38 5 6 39 1,730 1,964 40 70 79 41 35 40 42 150 170 43 4,400 4,994 44 16,900 23,375 45 60 68 46 120 136 47 35 40 48 70 79 49 80 91 50 820 931 51 35 40 389 42 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Appendix 3 – Trip Production Rates Table 22 – Trip Production Rates Trip Purpose Household Size Income Level HBWL 1 1 1.324 0.302 0.347 0.210 0.245 0.034 0.055 0.064 0.069 HBWL 1 2 HBWL 1 3 HBWL 2 1 2.719 0.611 0.703 0.425 0.497 0.074 0.119 0.140 0.150 HBWL 2 2 HBWL 2 3 HBWL 3 1 4.400 0.909 1.046 0.632 0.739 0.164 0.265 0.312 0.333 HBWL 3 2 HBWL 3 3 HBWL 4 1 5.226 1.121 1.289 0.780 0.911 0.172 0.278 0.327 0.350 HBWL 4 2 HBWL 4 3 HBWM 1 1 HBWM 1 2 1.634 0.408 0.469 0.284 0.332 0.021 0.035 0.041 0.044 HBWM 1 3 HBWM 2 1 HBWM 2 2 2.651 0.636 0.732 0.443 0.517 0.049 0.080 0.094 0.100 HBWM 2 3 HBWM 3 1 HBWM 3 2 3.377 0.798 0.918 0.555 0.649 0.070 0.113 0.133 0.142 HBWM 3 3 HBWM 4 1 HBWM 4 2 4.182 1.018 1.171 0.708 0.827 0.070 0.113 0.133 0.142 HBWM 4 3 HBWH 1 1 HBWH 1 2 390 43 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Trip Purpose Household Size Income Level HBWH 1 3 1.664 0.408 0.469 0.284 0.332 0.026 0.042 0.050 0.053 HBWH 2 1 HBWH 2 2 HBWH 2 3 2.529 0.645 0.741 0.448 0.524 0.026 0.042 0.050 0.053 HBWH 3 1 HBWH 3 2 HBWH 3 3 3.091 0.798 0.918 0.555 0.649 0.026 0.042 0.050 0.053 HBWH 4 1 HBWH 4 2 HBWH 4 3 3.896 1.018 1.171 0.708 0.827 0.026 0.042 0.050 0.053 HBSC 1 1 0.030 0.008 0.008 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.006 HBSC 1 2 0.030 0.008 0.008 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.006 HBSC 1 3 0.030 0.008 0.008 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.006 HBSC 2 1 0.259 0.092 0.091 0.007 0.049 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.012 HBSC 2 2 0.259 0.092 0.091 0.007 0.049 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.012 HBSC 2 3 0.259 0.092 0.091 0.007 0.049 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.012 HBSC 3 1 2.018 0.757 0.755 0.057 0.406 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.027 HBSC 3 2 2.018 0.757 0.755 0.057 0.406 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.027 HBSC 3 3 2.018 0.757 0.755 0.057 0.406 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.027 HBSC 4 1 2.638 0.993 0.990 0.075 0.532 0.008 0.005 0.006 0.031 HBSC 4 2 2.638 0.993 0.990 0.075 0.532 0.008 0.005 0.006 0.031 HBSC 4 3 2.638 0.993 0.990 0.075 0.532 0.008 0.005 0.006 0.031 HBSH 1 1 2.186 0.056 0.331 0.384 0.538 0.077 0.179 0.187 0.433 HBSH 1 2 2.231 0.058 0.342 0.398 0.557 0.077 0.179 0.187 0.433 HBSH 1 3 2.467 0.068 0.402 0.467 0.654 0.077 0.179 0.187 0.433 HBSH 2 1 3.961 0.104 0.616 0.716 1.003 0.133 0.312 0.325 0.753 HBSH 2 2 3.961 0.104 0.616 0.716 1.003 0.133 0.312 0.325 0.753 HBSH 2 3 4.247 0.116 0.689 0.799 1.120 0.133 0.312 0.325 0.753 HBSH 3 1 4.518 0.116 0.689 0.799 1.120 0.157 0.367 0.383 0.887 391 44 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Trip Purpose Household Size Income Level HBSH 3 2 4.937 0.128 0.757 0.878 1.231 0.170 0.398 0.415 0.961 HBSH 3 3 5.086 0.128 0.757 0.878 1.231 0.183 0.428 0.447 1.035 HBSH 4 1 5.086 0.128 0.757 0.878 1.231 0.183 0.428 0.447 1.035 HBSH 4 2 5.385 0.132 0.782 0.907 1.271 0.201 0.469 0.490 1.133 HBSH 4 3 6.597 0.132 0.782 0.907 1.271 0.307 0.717 0.749 1.733 HBO 1 1 2.102 0.113 0.351 0.438 0.369 0.056 0.172 0.255 0.349 HBO 1 2 2.990 0.187 0.585 0.729 0.614 0.059 0.181 0.268 0.367 HBO 1 3 4.450 0.250 0.780 0.971 0.819 0.110 0.337 0.500 0.684 HBO 2 1 4.409 0.278 0.870 1.084 0.914 0.085 0.261 0.388 0.531 HBO 2 2 4.409 0.278 0.870 1.084 0.914 0.085 0.261 0.388 0.531 HBO 2 3 6.026 0.343 1.072 1.336 1.126 0.144 0.444 0.659 0.902 HBO 3 1 6.344 0.371 1.160 1.445 1.218 0.144 0.444 0.659 0.902 HBO 3 2 7.380 0.437 1.364 1.700 1.433 0.164 0.505 0.750 1.026 HBO 3 3 8.676 0.499 1.559 1.943 1.638 0.204 0.627 0.931 1.274 HBO 4 1 10.029 0.556 1.736 2.163 1.823 0.252 0.774 1.151 1.574 HBO 4 2 10.744 0.556 1.736 2.163 1.823 0.300 0.922 1.370 1.874 HBO 4 3 11.826 0.624 1.949 2.429 2.047 0.321 0.986 1.465 2.005 NHB 1 1 3.428 0.221 0.570 0.453 1.351 0.043 0.209 0.202 0.379 NHB 1 2 3.960 0.249 0.642 0.510 1.522 0.053 0.260 0.251 0.472 NHB 1 3 4.588 0.275 0.711 0.564 1.685 0.070 0.339 0.328 0.616 NHB 2 1 5.722 0.359 0.926 0.735 2.195 0.078 0.378 0.365 0.686 NHB 2 2 5.892 0.373 0.964 0.765 2.284 0.078 0.378 0.365 0.686 NHB 2 3 5.958 0.377 0.974 0.773 2.308 0.079 0.383 0.370 0.695 NHB 3 1 6.311 0.394 1.017 0.807 2.411 0.087 0.422 0.408 0.765 NHB 3 2 7.468 0.466 1.205 0.956 2.855 0.102 0.498 0.482 0.904 NHB 3 3 8.226 0.505 1.304 1.035 3.090 0.118 0.575 0.556 1.043 NHB 4 1 8.380 0.505 1.304 1.035 3.090 0.126 0.614 0.593 1.113 NHB 4 2 9.216 0.560 1.446 1.147 3.425 0.136 0.662 0.639 1.200 NHB 4 3 11.129 0.644 1.662 1.319 3.939 0.184 0.895 0.864 1.623 392 45 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Trip Purpose Household Size Income Level UNIV 1 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 UNIV 1 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 UNIV 1 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 UNIV 2 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 UNIV 2 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 UNIV 2 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 UNIV 3 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 UNIV 3 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 UNIV 3 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 UNIV 4 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 UNIV 4 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 UNIV 4 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 HOSP 1 1 0.226 0.014 0.044 0.054 0.046 0.005 0.014 0.021 0.028 HOSP 1 2 0.226 0.014 0.044 0.054 0.046 0.005 0.014 0.021 0.028 HOSP 1 3 0.226 0.014 0.044 0.054 0.046 0.005 0.014 0.021 0.028 HOSP 2 1 0.253 0.016 0.051 0.064 0.054 0.005 0.014 0.021 0.028 HOSP 2 2 0.253 0.016 0.051 0.064 0.054 0.005 0.014 0.021 0.028 HOSP 2 3 0.253 0.016 0.051 0.064 0.054 0.005 0.014 0.021 0.028 HOSP 3 1 0.359 0.022 0.070 0.086 0.073 0.007 0.022 0.033 0.045 HOSP 3 2 0.359 0.022 0.070 0.086 0.073 0.007 0.022 0.033 0.045 HOSP 3 3 0.359 0.022 0.070 0.086 0.073 0.007 0.022 0.033 0.045 HOSP 4 1 0.403 0.025 0.078 0.097 0.082 0.008 0.025 0.037 0.051 HOSP 4 2 0.403 0.025 0.078 0.097 0.082 0.008 0.025 0.037 0.051 HOSP 4 3 0.403 0.025 0.078 0.097 0.082 0.008 0.025 0.037 0.051 APRT 1 1 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 APRT 1 2 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 APRT 1 3 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 APRT 2 1 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 APRT 2 2 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 393 46 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Trip Purpose Household Size Income Level APRT 2 3 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 APRT 3 1 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 APRT 3 2 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 APRT 3 3 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 APRT 4 1 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 APRT 4 2 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 APRT 4 3 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 394 47 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model Appendix 4 – Trip Attraction Rates Table 23 – Trip Attraction Rates LUC HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum 10 RES wdam NHTS 10 RES wdmd NHTS 10 RES wdop NHTS 10 RES wdpm NHTS 10 RES weam NHTS 10 RES wemd NHTS 10 RES weop NHTS 10 RES wepm NHTS 11 SFD wdam NHTS 11 SFD wdmd NHTS 11 SFD wdop NHTS 11 SFD wdpm NHTS 11 SFD weam NHTS 11 SFD wemd NHTS 11 SFD weop NHTS 11 SFD wepm NHTS 19 MHP wdam NHTS 19 MHP wdmd NHTS 19 MHP wdop NHTS 19 MHP wdpm NHTS 19 MHP weam NHTS 19 MHP wemd NHTS 19 MHP weop NHTS 19 MHP wepm NHTS 20 SFA wdam NHTS 20 SFA wdmd NHTS 20 SFA wdop NHTS 395 48 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 20 SFA wdpm NHTS 20 SFA weam NHTS 20 SFA wemd NHTS 20 SFA weop NHTS 20 SFA wepm NHTS 21 APT wdam NHTS 21 APT wdmd NHTS 21 APT wdop NHTS 21 APT wdpm NHTS 21 APT weam NHTS 21 APT wemd NHTS 21 APT weop NHTS 21 APT wepm NHTS 22 DOR wdam Replica 22 DOR wdmd Replica 22 DOR wdop Replica 22 DOR wdpm Replica 22 DOR weam Replica 22 DOR wemd Replica 22 DOR weop Replica 22 DOR wepm Replica 23 STUD wdam Replica 23 STUD wdmd Replica 23 STUD wdop Replica 23 STUD wdpm Replica 23 STUD weam Replica 23 STUD wemd Replica 23 STUD weop Replica 23 STUD wepm Replica 24 RET wdam NHTS 396 49 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 24 RET wdmd NHTS 24 RET wdop NHTS 24 RET wdpm NHTS 24 RET weam NHTS 24 RET wemd NHTS 24 RET weop NHTS 24 RET wepm NHTS 25 SNF wdam NHTS 25 SNF wdmd NHTS 25 SNF wdop NHTS 25 SNF wdpm NHTS 25 SNF weam NHTS 25 SNF wemd NHTS 25 SNF weop NHTS 25 SNF wepm NHTS 26 HOT wdam Replica 26 HOT wdmd Replica 26 HOT wdop Replica 26 HOT wdpm Replica 26 HOT weam Replica 26 HOT wemd Replica 26 HOT weop Replica 26 HOT wepm Replica 27 GQ wdam NHTS 27 GQ wdmd NHTS 27 GQ wdop NHTS 27 GQ wdpm NHTS 27 GQ weam NHTS 27 GQ wemd NHTS 27 GQ weop NHTS 397 50 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 27 GQ wepm NHTS 28 FRAT wdam Replica 28 FRAT wdmd Replica 28 FRAT wdop Replica 28 FRAT wdpm Replica 28 FRAT weam Replica 28 FRAT wemd Replica 28 FRAT weop Replica 28 FRAT wepm Replica 30 MFG wdam NHTS 30 MFG wdmd NHTS 30 MFG wdop NHTS 30 MFG wdpm NHTS 30 MFG weam NHTS 30 MFG wemd NHTS 30 MFG weop NHTS 30 MFG wepm NHTS 31 IPK wdam NHTS 31 IPK wdmd NHTS 31 IPK wdop NHTS 31 IPK wdpm NHTS 31 IPK weam NHTS 31 IPK wemd NHTS 31 IPK weop NHTS 31 IPK wepm NHTS 32 WAR wdam NHTS 32 WAR wdmd NHTS 32 WAR wdop NHTS 32 WAR wdpm NHTS 32 WAR weam NHTS 398 51 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 32 WAR wemd NHTS 32 WAR weop NHTS 32 WAR wepm NHTS 34 STOR wdam Replica 34 STOR wdmd Replica 34 STOR wdop Replica 34 STOR wdpm Replica 34 STOR weam Replica 34 STOR wemd Replica 34 STOR weop Replica 34 STOR wepm Replica 35 EXT wdam Replica 35 EXT wdmd Replica 35 EXT wdop Replica 35 EXT wdpm Replica 35 EXT weam Replica 35 EXT wemd Replica 35 EXT weop Replica 35 EXT wepm Replica 36 LF wdam NHTS 36 LF wdmd NHTS 36 LF wdop NHTS 36 LF wdpm NHTS 36 LF weam NHTS 36 LF wemd NHTS 36 LF weop NHTS 36 LF wepm NHTS 41 GAIR wdam Replica 41 GAIR wdmd Replica 41 GAIR wdop Replica 399 52 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 41 GAIR wdpm Replica 41 GAIR weam Replica 41 GAIR wemd Replica 41 GAIR weop Replica 41 GAIR wepm Replica 42 ROW wdam NHTS 42 ROW wdmd NHTS 42 ROW wdop NHTS 42 ROW wdpm NHTS 42 ROW weam NHTS 42 ROW wemd NHTS 42 ROW weop NHTS 42 ROW wepm NHTS 43 UTL wdam NHTS 43 UTL wdmd NHTS 43 UTL wdop NHTS 43 UTL wdpm NHTS 43 UTL weam NHTS 43 UTL wemd NHTS 43 UTL weop NHTS 43 UTL wepm NHTS 44 PARK wdam NHTS 44 PARK wdmd NHTS 44 PARK wdop NHTS 44 PARK wdpm NHTS 44 PARK weam NHTS 44 PARK wemd NHTS 44 PARK weop NHTS 44 PARK wepm NHTS 45 TERM wdam Replica 400 53 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 45 TERM wdmd Replica 45 TERM wdop Replica 45 TERM wdpm Replica 45 TERM weam Replica 45 TERM wemd Replica 45 TERM weop Replica 45 TERM wepm Replica 50 SFC wdam NHTS 50 SFC wdmd NHTS 50 SFC wdop NHTS 50 SFC wdpm NHTS 50 SFC weam NHTS 50 SFC wemd NHTS 50 SFC weop NHTS 50 SFC wepm NHTS 51 NSC wdam NHTS 51 NSC wdmd NHTS 51 NSC wdop NHTS 51 NSC wdpm NHTS 51 NSC weam NHTS 51 NSC wemd NHTS 51 NSC weop NHTS 51 NSC wepm NHTS 52 CSC wdam NHTS 52 CSC wdmd NHTS 52 CSC wdop NHTS 52 CSC wdpm NHTS 52 CSC weam NHTS 52 CSC wemd NHTS 52 CSC weop NHTS 401 54 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 52 CSC wepm NHTS 53 RSC wdam NHTS 53 RSC wdmd NHTS 53 RSC wdop NHTS 53 RSC wdpm NHTS 53 RSC weam NHTS 53 RSC wemd NHTS 53 RSC weop NHTS 53 RSC wepm NHTS 55 AUC wdam NHTS 55 AUC wdmd NHTS 55 AUC wdop NHTS 55 AUC wdpm NHTS 55 AUC weam NHTS 55 AUC wemd NHTS 55 AUC weop NHTS 55 AUC wepm NHTS 56 SS wdam NHTS 56 SS wdmd NHTS 56 SS wdop NHTS 56 SS wdpm NHTS 56 SS weam NHTS 56 SS wemd NHTS 56 SS weop NHTS 56 SS wepm NHTS 57 FF wdam NHTS 57 FF wdmd NHTS 57 FF wdop NHTS 57 FF wdpm NHTS 57 FF weam NHTS 402 55 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 57 FF wemd NHTS 57 FF weop NHTS 57 FF wepm NHTS 58 SDR wdam NHTS 58 SDR wdmd NHTS 58 SDR wdop NHTS 58 SDR wdpm NHTS 58 SDR weam NHTS 58 SDR wemd NHTS 58 SDR weop NHTS 58 SDR wepm NHTS 59 ORC wdam NHTS 59 ORC wdmd NHTS 59 ORC wdop NHTS 59 ORC wdpm NHTS 59 ORC weam NHTS 59 ORC wemd NHTS 59 ORC weop NHTS 59 ORC wepm NHTS 60 GO wdam NHTS 60 GO wdmd NHTS 60 GO wdop NHTS 60 GO wdpm NHTS 60 GO weam NHTS 60 GO wemd NHTS 60 GO weop NHTS 60 GO wepm NHTS 61 GOV wdam NHTS 61 GOV wdmd NHTS 61 GOV wdop NHTS 403 56 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 61 GOV wdpm NHTS 61 GOV weam NHTS 61 GOV wemd NHTS 61 GOV weop NHTS 61 GOV wepm NHTS 63 LIB wdam NHTS 63 LIB wdmd NHTS 63 LIB wdop NHTS 63 LIB wdpm NHTS 63 LIB weam NHTS 63 LIB wemd NHTS 63 LIB weop NHTS 63 LIB wepm NHTS 64 PO wdam NHTS 64 PO wdmd NHTS 64 PO wdop NHTS 64 PO wdpm NHTS 64 PO weam NHTS 64 PO wemd NHTS 64 PO weop NHTS 64 PO wepm NHTS 65 BNK wdam Replica 65 BNK wdmd Replica 65 BNK wdop Replica 65 BNK wdpm Replica 65 BNK weam Replica 65 BNK wemd Replica 65 BNK weop Replica 65 BNK wepm Replica 66 FS wdam NHTS 404 57 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 66 FS wdmd NHTS 66 FS wdop NHTS 66 FS wdpm NHTS 66 FS weam NHTS 66 FS wemd NHTS 66 FS weop NHTS 66 FS wepm NHTS 67 CEM wdam Replica 67 CEM wdmd Replica 67 CEM wdop Replica 67 CEM wdpm Replica 67 CEM weam Replica 67 CEM wemd Replica 67 CEM weop Replica 67 CEM wepm Replica 68 RF wdam NHTS 68 RF wdmd NHTS 68 RF wdop NHTS 68 RF wdpm NHTS 68 RF weam NHTS 68 RF wemd NHTS 68 RF weop NHTS 68 RF wepm NHTS 69 OPS wdam NHTS 69 OPS wdmd NHTS 69 OPS wdop NHTS 69 OPS wdpm NHTS 69 OPS weam NHTS 69 OPS wemd NHTS 69 OPS weop NHTS 405 58 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 69 OPS wepm NHTS 70 HOSP wdam Replica 70 HOSP wdmd Replica 70 HOSP wdop Replica 70 HOSP wdpm Replica 70 HOSP weam Replica 70 HOSP wemd Replica 70 HOSP weop Replica 70 HOSP wepm Replica 71 OHC wdam NHTS 71 OHC wdmd NHTS 71 OHC wdop NHTS 71 OHC wdpm NHTS 71 OHC weam NHTS 71 OHC wemd NHTS 71 OHC weop NHTS 71 OHC wepm NHTS 73 REC wdam NHTS 73 REC wdmd NHTS 73 REC wdop NHTS 73 REC wdpm NHTS 73 REC weam NHTS 73 REC wemd NHTS 73 REC weop NHTS 73 REC wepm NHTS 74 CUL wdam NHTS 74 CUL wdmd NHTS 74 CUL wdop NHTS 74 CUL wdpm NHTS 74 CUL weam NHTS 406 59 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 74 CUL wemd NHTS 74 CUL weop NHTS 74 CUL wepm NHTS 75 CCEN wdam NHTS 75 CCEN wdmd NHTS 75 CCEN wdop NHTS 75 CCEN wdpm NHTS 75 CCEN weam NHTS 75 CCEN wemd NHTS 75 CCEN weop NHTS 75 CCEN wepm NHTS 76 PA wdam Replica 76 PA wdmd 0 0 0 0.109 0.036 1.227 0.505 0 0 0 0 0 0.076 0.01 1.963 Replica 76 PA wdop Replica 76 PA wdpm Replica 76 PA weam 0.025 0 0 0 0 0.124 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 Replica 76 PA wemd Replica 76 PA weop 0 0.014 0 0 0.011 0.46 0.064 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.549 Replica 76 PA wepm Replica 77 MIL wdam NHTS 77 MIL wdmd 0.098 0.49 0 0 1.783 0 2.047 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.417 NHTS 77 MIL wdop NHTS 77 MIL wdpm 0 0.294 0.098 0 1.783 0 0.78 0 0 0 0 0 0.084 0 3.038 NHTS 77 MIL weam NHTS 77 MIL wemd NHTS 77 MIL weop 0 0 0 0 0.343 0 0.075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.417 NHTS 407 60 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 77 MIL wepm NHTS 79 TOUR wdam Replica 79 TOUR wdmd Replica 79 TOUR wdop Replica 79 TOUR wdpm Replica 79 TOUR weam Replica 79 TOUR wemd Replica 79 TOUR weop Replica 79 TOUR wepm Replica 80 PS wdam Replica 80 PS wdmd 0.285 0.142 0.475 0 0 1.566 1.936 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.404 Replica 80 PS wdop Replica 80 PS wdpm 0 0.095 0.095 0 0 0.626 0.472 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0 1.309 Replica 80 PS weam Replica 80 PS wemd Replica 80 PS weop 0 0.027 0.008 0 0 0.349 0.018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.401 Replica 80 PS wepm Replica 81 ELEM wdam 0.019 0.042 0.078 3.064 0 0.248 0.122 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0 3.579 NHTS 81 ELEM wdmd NHTS 81 ELEM wdop NHTS 81 ELEM wdpm 0.008 0.008 0.017 0.001 0 0.082 0.103 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0 0.221 NHTS 81 ELEM weam NHTS 81 ELEM wemd 0.008 0.006 0.001 0 0 0.095 0.035 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0 0.149 NHTS 81 ELEM weop NHTS 81 ELEM wepm NHTS 82 JRHS wdam 0.019 0.031 0.044 3.03 0.005 0.28 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0 3.464 NHTS 408 61 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 82 JRHS wdmd NHTS 82 JRHS wdop NHTS 82 JRHS wdpm NHTS 82 JRHS weam NHTS 82 JRHS wemd NHTS 82 JRHS weop NHTS 82 JRHS wepm NHTS 83 SRHS wdam NHTS 83 SRHS wdmd NHTS 83 SRHS wdop NHTS 83 SRHS wdpm NHTS 83 SRHS weam NHTS 83 SRHS wemd NHTS 83 SRHS weop NHTS 83 SRHS wepm NHTS 84 COLL wdam NHTS 84 COLL wdmd NHTS 84 COLL wdop NHTS 84 COLL wdpm NHTS 84 COLL weam NHTS 84 COLL wemd NHTS 84 COLL weop NHTS 84 COLL wepm NHTS 85 MUNS wdam NHTS 85 MUNS wdmd NHTS 85 MUNS wdop NHTS 409 62 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 85 MUNS wdpm NHTS 85 MUNS weam NHTS 85 MUNS wemd NHTS 85 MUNS weop NHTS 85 MUNS wepm NHTS 90 GC wdam NHTS 90 GC wdmd NHTS 90 GC wdop NHTS 90 GC wdpm NHTS 90 GC weam NHTS 90 GC wemd NHTS 90 GC weop NHTS 90 GC wepm NHTS 92 STAD wdam Replica 92 STAD wdmd Replica 92 STAD wdop Replica 92 STAD wdpm Replica 92 STAD weam Replica 92 STAD wemd Replica 92 STAD weop Replica 92 STAD wepm Replica 93 APRK wdam NHTS 93 APRK wdmd 0.1 0.072 0.07 0.379 0.119 1.491 1.191 0 0 0 0 0 0.027 0.001 3.449 NHTS 93 APRK wdop NHTS 93 APRK wdpm NHTS 93 APRK weam 0.032 0.015 0.002 0.02 0.001 0.202 0.025 0 0 0 0 0 0.003 0 0.301 NHTS 410 63 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 93 APRK wemd NHTS 93 APRK weop NHTS 93 APRK wepm NHTS 94 PPRK wdam NHTS 94 PPRK wdmd NHTS 94 PPRK wdop NHTS 94 PPRK wdpm NHTS 94 PPRK weam NHTS 94 PPRK wemd NHTS 94 PPRK weop NHTS 94 PPRK wepm NHTS 95 IAG wdam Replica 95 IAG wdmd Replica 95 IAG wdop Replica 95 IAG wdpm Replica 95 IAG weam Replica 95 IAG wemd Replica 95 IAG weop Replica 95 IAG wepm Replica 96 AG wdam Replica 96 AG wdmd Replica 96 AG wdop Replica 96 AG wdpm Replica 96 AG weam Replica 96 AG wemd Replica 96 AG weop Replica 96 AG wepm Replica 99 VAC wdam NHTS 99 VAC wdmd NHTS 99 VAC wdop NHTS 411 64 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 99 VAC wdpm NHTS 99 VAC weam NHTS 99 VAC wemd NHTS 99 VAC weop NHTS 99 VAC wepm NHTS 303 FPUB wemd NHTS 303 FPUB weop NHTS 303 FPUB wepm NHTS 303 FPUB weam NHTS 303 FPUB wdmd NHTS 303 FPUB wdop NHTS 303 FPUB wdpm NHTS 303 FPUB wdam NHTS 304 FSPI wemd NHTS 304 FSPI weop NHTS 304 FSPI wepm NHTS 304 FSPI weam NHTS 304 FSPI wdmd NHTS 304 FSPI wdop NHTS 304 FSPI wdpm NHTS 304 FSPI wdam NHTS 305 FOFF wemd NHTS 305 FOFF weop NHTS 305 FOFF wepm NHTS 305 FOFF weam NHTS 305 FOFF wdmd NHTS 305 FOFF wdop NHTS 305 FOFF wdpm NHTS 305 FOFF wdam NHTS 306 FCOM wemd 412 65 2023-2050 Travel Demand Model LUC ME Period HBWL HBWM HBWH HBSC HBSH HBO NHB UNIV HOSP APRT RREC HOT SU Combo Sum Source 306 FCOM weop 306 FCOM wepm 306 FCOM weam 306 FCOM wdmd 306 FCOM wdop 306 FCOM wdpm 306 FCOM wdam 308 FIND wemd 308 FIND weop 308 FIND wepm 308 FIND weam 308 FIND wdmd 308 FIND wdop 308 FIND wdpm 308 FIND wdam 309 FCO wemd 309 FCO weop 309 FCO wepm 309 FCO weam 309 FCO wdmd 309 FCO wdop 309 FCO wdpm 309 FCO wdam 413 30 §¨35 10 0 20400 800 8100 1500 1000 100 30 0 10 0 10 0 0 71 0 0 10 0 10100 80 0 68 0 0 10600 11400 37 0 0 1000 80 0 7700 5000 11 3 0 0 4900 24 0 0 10 0 13 0 0 90 0 0 300 30 0 300 59 0 0 65 0 0 800 300 10 0 2900 80 0 440 0 11 6 0 0 8000 32 5 0 0 210 0 40 0 6900 11900 9900 10 0 20 8 0 0 1000 8900 10400 6200 37 0 0 800 13001200 13300 800 11100 10 0 0 5100 43 0 0 18 0 0 10700 12600 400 55 0 0 18300 50 0 2500 57 0 0 1200 30 0 96 0 0 30 0 1300 300 11600 13 0 0 59 0 0 5700 61 0 0 1600 60 0 0 100 20 0 300 15 4 0 0 48 0 0 2100 44 0 0 500 600 200 1900 800 20 0 40 0 0 40 0 80 0 3800 1300 2500 11 7 0 0 4300 16 6 0 0 30 0 40 9 0 0 60 0 0 20 0 13900 3700 68 0 0 14 0 0 42 0 0 30 0 700 60 0 7200 19 9 0 0 10100 33 0 0 1800 700 11500 60 0 34 0 0 48 0 0 40 0 11900 55 0 0 6700 20 4 0 0 11100 700 9700 18 0 0 60 0 0 16 9 0 0 5900 100 50 0 50011100 41 9 0 0 36 0 0 24 0 0 400 24 5 0 0 35 0 0 2600 7200 14 5 0 0 15 4 0 0 91 0 0 41 9 0 0 80 0 3000 18900 2600 1000 90 0 2600 100 19700 60 0 900 100 10 0 3200 48 0 0 100 100 5300 13 4 0 0 10 0 54 0 0 42 2 0 0 26 0 0 28 0 0 19700 67 0 0 18 0 0 18800 6900 6800 37 0 0 5700 2500 42 0 0 22 0 0 0 200 100 100 200 59 0 0 200 700 100 70 0 18 0 0 8800 9500 35 0 0 4600 30 0 6400 56 0 0 60 0 12 0 0 0 80 0 1400 7900 5600 5000 1200 1600 43 0 0 5400 5600 20 0 11 0 0 32 0 0 13 3 0 0 6800 3100 54 0 0 13 1 0 0 10700 3500 47 0 0 68 0 0 300 15 3 0 0 2500 6700 19 0 0 6100 15 0 0 37 0 0 1900 6500 49 0 0 2000 5800 10600 10 0 0 0 2400 20 0 90 0 200 62 0 0 55 0 0 24 0 0 80 0 1100 20 0 42 2 0 0 54 0 0 4000 800 74 0 0 3700 400 50 0 100 100 0 500 10 0 10 0 10 0 40 0 5300 3000 20 0 12 1 0 0 1000 10 0 30 0 32 0 0 90 0 200 2500 71002200 5300 1500 3900 22500 48 0 0 14 0 0 69 0 0 1600 3000 66 0 0 1300 400 100 2100 60 0 0 10 0 0 63 0 0 9700 10600 300 60 9 0 0 9300 2300 20 0 3800 29 0 0 8400 50 0 8800 25 0 0 10 0 23 7 0 0 10 0 60 8 0 0 80 0 10 0 25 4 0 0 35 0 0 800 70 0 500 700 70 0 75 0 0 100 10 0 0 53 0 0 200 100 90 0 100 16900 42 8 0 0 16900 44 4 0 0 32 4 0 0 43 8 0 0 42 0 0 0 2000 6 80 11 152 15500 6300 805 9500 12 8 0 14800 3240 69 0 50 340 400 100 60 32 0 10 1 9400 348 127 0 80 5 6000 84 0 134 13300 150 13 7 0 9100 34 0 31 6 0 0 4450 1420 80 5 2980 34 0 22 7 84508700 31 9 0 1010 1333 36 60 0 12 1 0 8100 490 1380 80 5 43 2 0 68 0 0 8200 4710 9500 8600 62 0 0 45 5 0 60 1350 680 3290 250 13 0 0 50 41 0 50 10300 364 0 777 24 1 5 0 16900 103 0 54 7 1850 1090 805 8200 13 1 0 0 12 9 0 251 50 0 70 66 0 0 33 5 0 100 75 5 0 38 0 0 36 0 0 805 5200 4860 25 0 2060 16300 6 25 0 11 3 0 12 6 0 0 4240 50 0 2750 3220 151 3100 12 3 0 0 805 220 72 0 0 805 3750 10300 7750 3060 150 51 0 620 95 0 9400 4860 805 320 33 3 0 271 0 9600 61 0 0 21 0 10000 15 8 5 0 11 4 3 7200 31 4 390 2100 17 0 72 0 2410 6400100 10 0 3230 60 7 2490 11 7 0 0 57 0 0 3850 30 11 6 0 4610 10 1 101 10 0 0 18 4 5 0 2050 24 4 0 1660 16 6 0 4470 20 27 0 4040 22 0 12 0 9200 15 1 9200 72 0 62 0 0 46 0 0 567 2050 1017 9900 100 151 50 60 0 0 4050 12 5 0 25 2 0 0 14 7 0 0 45 3 0 16 7 0 13 0 20 6 0 0 71 5 0 10 1 1392 650 22 4 0 5300 2370 120 1370 44 2 6 589 250 297 85 0 0 5100 15 8 0 0 23 2 0 152 61 5 60 7 15 0 0 14900 76 0 0 30 8 0 0 101 23 5 0 89 0 0 58 0 0 1053 21 2 0 10 0 31 6 0 0 40 805 100 33 0 10600 51 9 3540 4560 16 320 12 8 0 6100 13 7 0 9600 28 5 0 0 14 1 0 210 32 5 0 80 6800 200 2740 92 8 274 0 8700 66 0 0 7100 55 0 550 50 14 2 1 47 0 0 6100 28 9 11 4 3 77 0 10 0 0 0 90 0 0 11400 35 5000 80 5 126 0 15 6 0 3650 80 13 7 0 85 0 0 320 12100 10 4 0 0 102 0 0 35 0 18 4 5 0 6 36 9 0 0 16 5 0 520 0 5 1530 28 4 6500 4280 10500 32 5 0 0 5800 10 3 0 0 30 35 0 23 0 39 6 0 72 0 101 333 2160 6 3170 85 0 12 8 0 0 770 0 36 5 40 23 3 0 80 60 273 0 35 140 35 42 6 0 152 51 0 0 12 1 0 12650 13400 61 0 0 15 6 0 0 3750 23 7 0 2890 15 8 0 0 289 60 150 90 23 0 38 6 11 7 0 170 40 25 6800 27 2 0 1960 210 47 4 0 11 3 0 0 80 260 3630 4400 41 7 0 70 24 0 67 0 38 4 0 15 4 0 0 45 1770 31 0 0 34 0 100 15 5 0 2880 250 73 0 0 12 0 41 0 1090 81 0 19 4 5 0 32 5 0 0 50 19 4 0 5500 6300 41 8 0 1810 9600 2320 83 0 82 0 14 9 0 12 0 0 94 0 0 580 27 0 32 5 0 0 45 8 0 5600 80 23 0 100 740 260 5 80 90 30 50 60 70 210 28 0 0 19 0 60 180 210100 3500 1340 16300 40 8 9 13 8 0 10 182 0 2210 230 1670 44 6 0 49 8 0 7750 88 0 0 15200 140 48 3 0 0 140 7750 1730 60 70 20 7050 35 20 8 0 10 0 48 3 0 0 11 0 24 1 0 440 50 45 11 0 70 20 60 35 50 11 0 45 12650 12650 24 1 5 0 Legend Base Year 2023 ADTs Forecasted 2050 ADTs Growth in Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the E+C Scenario, 2023-2050 No Growth in ADT Growth of 1 - 2,500 ADT Growth of 2,501 - 5,000 ADT Growth of 5,001 - 10,000 ADT Growth of 10,000 or More ADT 0 1 mi [ 414 30 §¨35 10 0 20500 800 8100 100 30 0 10 0 2400 68 0 0 10 0 6600 10100 17 2 0 0 68 0 0 1200 11300 10200 7800 30 0 11400 35 0 0 10 0 0 1000 80 0 10 1 0 0 1000 4900 20 0 10 0 0 10 0 13 0 0 30 0 300 59 0 0 65 0 0 10 0 2900 70 0 11 0 0 420 0 91 0 0 1100 11 5 0 0 8000 30 9 0 0 210 0 60 0 11900 10 0 2200 1000 9200 480 0 10400 5800 37 0 0 800 13001200 13200 11200 280 0 7900 43 0 0 17900 16 0 0 10700 12600 400 55 0 0 18500 40 0 2500 58 0 0 20 0 500 30 0 1300 4500 40 0 10 0 11600 13 0 0 5700 5800 61 0 0 1300 30 0 60 0 0 100 300 10 0 6800 15 4 0 0 47 0 0 34 0 0 2000 3500 600 57 0 0 600 900 20 0 40 0 0 3800 1300 11 1 0 0 103004500 40 9 0 0 70 0 0 30 0 18 0 0 13500 64 0 0 14 0 0 41 0 0 30 0 700 60 0 7200 57 0 0 20 0 0 0 7900 11300 1700 800 400 100 60 0 35 0 0 40 0 11800 11000 18 0 0 62 0 0 5900 100 500 42 1 0 0 5300 510 0 37 0 0 24 0 0 4100 8900 22 1 0 0 400 27 4 0 0 24 8 0 0 9800 28 4 0 0 2600 6800 14 5 0 0 13 6 0 0 88 0 0 42 1 0 0 80 0 3000 2800 400 13 9 0 0 2700 200 18000 50 0 900 40 0 0 10 0 3200 50 0 0 100 13 2 0 0 5600 1800 56 0 0 42 3 0 0 24 0 0 29 0 0 18000 67 0 0 18 0 0 19000 6800 6700 90 0 35 0 0 16 9 0 0 2700 41 0 0 22 0 0 0 100 100 200 59 0 0 200 700 100 70 0 19 0 0 9700 9600 36 0 0 4400 300 9000 56 0 0 70 0 12 0 0 0 80 0 1400 8500 5700 5000 1100 42 0 0 5400 55 0 0 10 0 11 0 0 29 0 0 6700 3100 54 0 0 12 4 0 0 10300 3600 48 0 0 68 0 0 300 13 7 0 0 40 0 2500 6300 20 0 0 5700 13 0 0 38 0 0 200 6600 1300 60 0 6400 6700 52 0 0 2000 5800 10300 96 0 0 20 0 90 0 200 59 0 0 22 0 0 80 0 20 0 42 3 0 0 52 0 0 5400 800 74 0 0 4200 400 60 0 100 1100 600 10 0 10 0 40 0 5200 3000 20 0 11 4 0 0 1100 10 0 30 0 500 32 0 0 80 0 200 2500 71002000 5200 1500 3700 20900 48 0 0 14 0 0 69 0 0 1600 3100 66 0 0 1300 400 100 1300 60 0 0 10 0 0 63 0 0 9700 9700 300 58 5 0 0 4200 9300 10 0 2300 10 0 0 4600 28 0 0 8300 50 0 8800 25 0 0 10 0 10 0 59 3 0 0 80 0 10 0 25 8 0 0 37 0 0 800 50 0 500 600 60 0 74 0 0 100 80 0 57 0 0 200 100 50 0 100 16900 43 0 0 0 16900 44 6 0 0 32 4 0 0 32 5 0 0 43 8 0 0 42 0 0 0 2000 6 80 40 11 72 0 15500 6300 805 9500 12 8 0 3240 69 0 340 400 14900 100 60 80 5 32 0 10 1 348 80 5 6000 84 0 134 13300 150 13 7 0 34 0 31 6 0 0 127 0 4450 92 8 80 5 34 0 8450 28 9 8200 8700 10 0 8 31 9 0 1010 1333 36 12 1 0 8100 490 1380 43 2 0 68 0 0 4710 4860 9500 62 0 0 85 0 45 5 0 60 1350 680 3290 250 50 41 0 50 8900 10300 62 0 0 364 0 777 80 5 24 1 5 0 103 0 54 7 1850 1090 14800820016900 13 1 0 0 12 9 0 251 50 0 70 66 0 0 33 5 0 11 4 3 100 75 5 0 38 0 0 36 0 0 805 80 5 5200 4860 25 0 13 0 0 2060 16300 6 25 0 11 3 0 12 6 0 0 4240 50 0 10300 2750 3220 151 3100 12 3 0 0 16 5 0 805 2050 220 72 0 0 3750 7750 60 0 0 3060 150 51 0 95 0 9400 805 33 3 0 2710 9600 61 0 0 21 0 10000 15 8 5 0 11 4 3 390 9400 2100 17 0 6400100 10 0 3230 60 7 2490 11 7 0 0 57 0 0 3850 30 11 6 0 4610 10 1 10 0 0 18 4 5 0 24 4 0 1660 16 6 0 4470 2410 20 27 0 4040 200 620 22 0 5800 9200 15 1 9200 72 0 62 0 0 46 0 0 1017 9900 12 0 28 4 100 151 50 4050 12 5 0 25 2 0 0 14 7 0 0 45 3 0 13 0 20 6 0 0 71 5 0 2050 1420 101 1392 650 22 4 0 200 5300 2370 120 6 589 250 297 85 0 0 5100 15 8 0 0 8100 23 2 0 152 61 5 60 7 15 0 0 805 76 0 0 39 6 0 30 8 0 0 101 23 5 0 75 0 89 0 0 58 0 0 1053 21 2 0 77 8 31 6 0 0 40 805 100 33 0 10600 519 3540 101 4560 16 72 0 0 320 12 8 0 16 7 0 6100 9600 28 5 0 0 24 3 210 32 5 0 80 6800 14 1 0 805 27 4 0 8700 66 0 0 7100 55 0 1370 550 14 2 1 47 0 0 6100 28 9 77 0 10 0 0 0 90 0 0 11400 60 0 35 5000 126 0 15 6 0 3650 80 13 7 0 85 0 0 320 12100 8600 4240 50 10 4 0 0 102 0 0 35 0 18 4 5 0 6 36 9 0 0 520 0 5 1530 6500 10500 32 5 0 0 5800 10 3 0 0 30 35 0 23 0 72 0 101 333 6 3170 320 12 8 0 0 770 0 23 3 0 80 60 2980 273 0 35 35 42 6 0 152 51 0 0 12 1 0 12650 13400 61 0 0 2740 15 6 0 0 9100 2160 23 7 0 2890 15 8 0 0 289 60 150 90 23 0 38 6 11 7 0 170 40 25 6800 27 2 0 1960 210 47 4 0 11 3 0 0 80 260 3630 4400 580 41 7 0 70 24 0 67 0 38 4 0 15 4 0 0 45 1770 31 0 0 34 0 100 15 5 0 2880 250 73 0 0 12 0 2320 41 0 1090 81 0 19 4 5 0 140 32 5 0 0 50 19 4 0 5500 6300 41 8 0 1810 3750 9600 83 0 82 0 14 9 0 12 0 0 94 0 0 27 0 32 5 0 0 45 8 0 5600 80 23 0 100 740 260 5 80 90 30 50 60 70 210 28 0 0 19 0 60 180 210100 3500 1340 16300 40 8 9 13 8 0 10 182 0 2210 230 1670 50 44 6 0 49 8 0 7750 88 0 0 15200 140 48 3 0 0 140 7750 1730 60 70 20 7050 35 20 8 0 10 0 48 3 0 0 11 0 24 1 0 440 50 45 11 0 70 20 60 35 50 11 0 45 12650 12650 24 1 5 0 Legend Base Year 2023 ADTs Forecasted 2050 ADTs Growth in Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the E+C+P Scenario, 2023-2050 No Growth in ADT Growth of 1 - 2,500 ADT Growth of 2,501 - 5,000 ADT Growth of 5,001 - 10,000 ADT Growth of 10,001 or More ADT 0 1 mi [ 415 30 §¨35 10 0 38 0 0 20500 8600 8100 1000 20 0 100 30 0 10 0 10300 25 0 0 71 0 0 10 0 10200 510 0 11 5 0 0 68 0 0 11300 5700 30 0 20 0 11400 36 0 0 10 0 0 1000 17 7 0 0 800 7800 4100 10 0 0 0 10 0 100 30 0 300 59 0 0 65 0 0 130 0 10 0 2900 80 0 800 11 0 0 370 0 32 0 0 1400 31 3 0 0 60 0 14600 10 0 1000 100 60 0 9300 10100 1300 37 0 0 800 14001200 12700 11200 230 0 6200 3900 43 0 0 16 0 0 10500 12700 400 35 0 0 440 0 2500 20 0 2700 1300 5500 12 0 0 16500 10 0 11600 24 0 0 70 0 57 0 0 3100 700 5800 62 0 0 2300 30 0 64 0 0 300 15 4 0 0 9900 20 0 2000 500 44 0 0 900 20 0 14600 12 6 0 0 3700 1300 2600 11 8 0 0 4400 40 9 0 0 77 0 0 30 0 18 0 0 13500 1800 3800 66 0 0 13 4 0 0 14 0 0 41 0 0 30 0 17800 700 60 0 7100 52 0 0 20 0 0 0 7400 149 0 0 800 400 80 0 11400 10 0 60 0 34 0 0 4800 40 0 14800 7000 1100011100 18 0 0 65 0 0 10 0 0 17 0 0 0 5900 20 0 0 23 0 0 42 1 0 0 5300 510 0 40 0 0 32 0 0 9900 11 3 0 0 22 2 0 0 400 27 4 0 0 24 7 0 0 28 5 0 0 2600 6900 14 5 0 0 13 7 0 0 89 0 0 42 1 0 0 80 0 3000 2900 70 0 400 2600 17400 700 45 0 0 900 100 39 0 0 10 0 3200 53 0 0 100 5200 13 4 0 0 10 0 300 58 0 0 42 3 0 0 22 0 0 29 0 0 10 1 0 0 17300 67 0 0 18 0 0 18300 6900 6800 36 0 0 2800 41 0 0 22 0 0 0 900 100 17900 100 200 59 0 0 200 700 70 0 19 0 0 9700 38 0 0 4500 30 0 10700 55 0 0 70 0 12 0 0 0 80 0 10100 5700 5000 1100 42 0 0 5400 44 0 0 11 0 0 28 0 0 13 2 0 0 6700 3100 55 0 0 11 2 0 0 9400 3500 51 0 0 68 0 0 1100 300 13 8 0 0 2500 6400 20 0 0 5900 14 0 0 40 0 0 200 8100 1300 6400 6700 52 0 0 2000 5800 10300 10 4 0 0 20 0 90 0 200 62 0 0 21 0 0 70 0 20 0 42 3 0 0 52 0 0 76 0 0 400 50 0 9300 100 1100 500 10 0 10 0 40 0 5200 3000 20 0 10 3 0 0 1100 10 0 2800 30 0 80 0 200 2500 7400 13 0 0 2000 5200 1500 3800 20300 47 0 0 14 0 0 69 0 0 1400 3200 66 0 0 1300 400 100 1300 60 0 0 10 0 0 63 0 0 9700 9900 300 59 1 0 0 4300 9200 10 0 2300 30 0 4800 28 0 0 8300 50 0 8900 25 0 0 10 0 23 9 0 0 10 0 59 5 0 0 80 0 10 0 25 9 0 0 38 0 0 800 500 60 0 73 0 0 100 80 0 59 0 0 200 10 0 0 100 50 0 100 16900 43 0 0 0 16900 44 6 0 0 32 4 0 0 32 5 0 0 43 8 0 0 42 0 0 0 2000 6 80 11 2060 15500 630 0 9500 12 8 0 3240 69 0 340 400 24 3 100 60 80 5 32 0 510 0 348 80 5 6000 9400 36 5 14 2 1 84 0 134 13300 150 4710 13 7 0 80 5 34 0 31 6 0 0 127 0 101 6800 4450 142092 8 80 5 2980 34 0 54 7 84508700 10 0 8 31 9 0 1010 90 0 0 1333 85 0 0 36 12 1 0 8100 490 5000 1380 43 2 0 68 0 0 8200 4860 9500 62 0 0 45 5 0 60 680 3290 250 13 0 0 50 2380 41 0 50 10300 62 0 0 12 6 0 0 364 0 777 1350 24 1 5 0 103 0 35 0 1850 36 0 0 1090 148008200 13 1 0 0 12 9 0 251 50 0 70 66 0 0 33 5 0 11 4 3 100 75 5 0 38 0 0 16900 805 5200 4860 25 0 16300 6 25 0 11 3 0 4240 75 5 0 50 0 10300 2750 3220 151 3100 12 3 0 0 16 5 0 805 2050 220 72 0 0 805 3750 21 2 0 7750 60 0 0 3060 150 51 0 620 95 0 4610 805 33 3 0 2710 9600 21 0 10000 15 8 5 0 11 4 3 31 4 390 9400 2100 17 0 60 0 6400100 3230 60 7 2490 385011 7 0 0 30 11 6 0 10 1 18 4 5 0 24 4 0 1660 16 6 0 4470 2410 20 61 0 0 27 0 4040 200 22 0 92009200 72 0 62 0 0 46 0 0 5800 2820 81 9900 12 0 100 151 50 4050 12 5 0 14 7 0 0 45 3 0 13 0 20 6 0 0 71 5 0 2050 1020 0 101 1392 1017 650 22 4 0 5300 2370 120 6 589 250 297 14900 85 0 0 5100 15 8 0 0 8100 23 2 0 25 2 0 0 152 39 6 0 61 5 60 7 15 0 0 76 0 0 30 8 0 0 101 23 5 0 28 8 0 89 0 0 58 0 0 1053 10 0 31 6 0 0 40 805 10 1 100 33 0 10600 51 9 3540 4560 16 320 12 8 0 6100 9600 28 5 0 0 210 32 5 0 80 2740 14 1 0 805 47 0 0 27 4 0 8700 66 0 0 7100 55 0 1370 550 11400 4630 6100 80 5 28 9 77 0 10 0 0 0 35 126 0 15 6 0 72 0 3650 80 13 7 0 320 12100 8600 50 10 4 0 0 35 0 18 4 5 0 6 36 9 0 0 520 0 5 1530 28 4 6500 7700 10500 32 5 0 0 10 3 0 0 30 23 0 72 0 101 333 6 3170 320 85 0 12 8 0 0 770 0 16 7 0 80 40 23 3 0 80 60 273 0 35 35 42 6 0 152 70 12 1 0 12650 13400 61 0 0 15 6 0 0 9100 2160 23 7 0 2890 15 8 0 0 289 60 150 90 23 0 38 6 11 7 0 40 25 6800 27 2 0 1960 47 4 0 11 3 0 0 80 260 170 3630 4400 580 41 7 0 24 0 38 4 0 15 4 0 0 45 1770 31 0 0 34 0 100 15 5 0 2880 250 73 0 0 12 0 2320 41 0 1090 81 0 19 4 5 0 140 210 32 5 0 0 50 19 4 0 5500 6300 41 8 0 1810 3750 5800 9600 83 0 82 0 14 9 0 12 0 0 94 0 0 27 0 32 5 0 0 45 8 0 5600 23 0 100 740 260 5 80 90 30 50 60 70 210 28 0 0 19 0 60 180 210100 3500 1340 16300 40 8 9 13 8 0 10 182 0 2210 230 1670 50 44 6 0 49 8 0 7750 88 0 0 15200 140 48 3 0 0 140 7750 1730 60 70 20 7050 35 20 8 0 10 0 48 3 0 0 11 0 24 1 0 440 10 0 50 45 11 0 70 20 60 35 67 0 50 11 0 45 12650 12650 24 1 5 0 Legend Base Year 2023 ADTs Forecasted 2050 ADTs Growth in Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the E+C+P+D Scenario, 2023-2050 No Growth in ADT Growth of 1 - 2,500 ADT Growth of 2,501 - 5,000 ADT Growth of 5,001 - 10,000 ADT Growth of 10,001 or More ADT 0 1 mi [ 416 Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 417 2 W HA T I S A MTP? A Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is the Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (AAMPO) overall blueprint for how the multimodal system should be operated through the year 2050. A performance-based planning approach leveraging the AAMPO’s performance targets is used to ensure progress is made toward the vision and goals. The MTP must include some core federal requirements: •Updated every 5 years •Fiscally constrained •Plans for a horizon at least 20 years out •Consults local agencies, Iowa DOT, FHWA, and FTA •Is a performance-based plan promoting and supporting the region’s as well as Iowa DOT’s performance measures and targets The framework for the Connect 2050 MTP is outlined in transportation goals, with a foundation in public input and state and Federal transportation priorities. The regional goals of the Ames Area are as follows. WHAT IS FISCAL CONSTRAINT? Fiscal constraint ensures that transportation plans are financially realistic. This means that the cost of proposed projects are within expected future revenue levels. This principle is required by federal law and helps communities: •Prioritize high-impact projects •Maintain financial responsibility •Align with long-term regional goals GROWTH IN THE AAMPO REGION The AAMPO region continues to see an increase in population, households, and employment. Projected growth in employment and households was assessed to evaluate the Ames Area’s future transportation system. Utilizing results from the Travel Demand Model (TDM), with 2023 as the base year and 2050 as the scenario year, the AAMPO can expect to grow in the following categories shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Projected Regional Growth Trends, 2023-2050 +27%+27%+27% Accessibility & Connectivity Safety Sustainability Efficiency & Reliability Placemaking/ Quality of Life SUMMARY OF AAMPO FUNDING The AAMPO receives annual funding from several federal programs, and targeted amounts of funds are set by the Iowa DOT. These funds include: •Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG): Funding for roads, bridges, transit, capital improvements, and transportation planning activities. •Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP): Funding for projects such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and other non-motorized project improvements. FUNDING BREAKDOWN Connect 2050’s fiscally constrained plan balanced the needs of preserving existing transportation infrastructure with improving the region’s multimodal transportation system to address emerging safety and mobility needs. Figure 2 shows a breakdown of Preservation and Improvement funding from different perspectives. Figure 2: Funding Breakdown Short-Term (2030-2034) Mid-Term (2035-2042 Long-Term (2043-2050) $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 STBG-System Impr ovement STBG-System Preservatio n Short-Term (2030-2034) Mid-Term (2035-2042 Long-Term (2043-2050) $0 $500000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 TAP-System Preservation TAP-System Improvement SELECTING FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS Fiscally constrained projects were selected based on an exercise where projects were prioritized based on their alignment with the goals and objectives of Connect 2050 Projects were then matched with anticipated timing of the need, each project’s YOE cost, and available funding by source. Implementation timing of the fiscally constrained plan is as follows: •Short-Term: 2030-2034 •Mid-Term: 2035-2042 •Long-Term: 2043-2050 The following maps and tables show fiscally constrained street and bicycle and pedestrian projects. The table demonstrating transit fiscally constrained projects can be found within the full Connect 2050 document. The transit fiscally constrained plan focused on using future funding to replace aging vehicles, continue funding CyRide’s high service levels, and maintain capital facilities. 418 3 ID Corridor Location Project Type Short-Term Projects N-40 W Lincoln Way Y Avenue Roundabout R-52 S Duff Avenue U.S. 30 Interchange Reconfiguration N-39 Ontario Street N 500th Avenue Roundabout N-51 W 190th Street Grant Avenue / Hyde Avenue Roundabout N-75 Grand Avenue 16th Street Intersection Improvements R-51 U.S. 30 Duff Avenue to University Avenue Widen to 6-lanes Short-Term Total: $6,416,00 Mid-Term Projects R-39 Bloomington Road Valley View Road to Stange Road Lane Reconfiguration and Roundabouts N-48 W 190th Street GW Carver Avenue Roundabout R-45 Mortensen Parkway Welch Avenue to Beech Avenue Lane Reconfiguration and Roundabouts Mid-Term Total: $14,609,600 Long-Term Projects R-29a Duff Avenue Ken Maril Road Widen to 4-Lane Divided N-79 13th Street Stange Road Intersection Improvements R-46 N Dakota Avenue Lincoln Way to Ontario Street Lane Reconfiguration R-37 I-35 260th Street New Interchange Long-Term Total: $16,650,250 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED STREET PROJECTS 419 4 FIS CALLY CONSTRAINED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS ID Corridor From To Project Type Short-Term Projects B-145 Skunk River Trail Ioway Creek S 16th Street Greenbelt Trail Short-Term Total: $1,264,000 Mid-Term Projects B-60 Mortensen Road Rowling Drive S Dakota Avenue Shared Use Path B-112 S Duff Avenue Lincoln Way S 3rd Street Shared Use Path B-114 Skunk River Trail North Side Inis Grove Park Duff Avenue Greenbelt Trail Mid-Term Total: $2,008,000 Long-Term Projects B-81 13th Street Northwestern Avenue Grand Avenue Shared Use Path B-115 Duff Avenue Grand Avenue Northwood Drive Shared Use Path B-117 Grand Avenue 13th Street 6th Street Shared Use Path B-144 Lincoln Swing S Dakota Avenue Abraham Drive Shared Use Path Long-Term Total: $1,808,000 420