03-05-2019 City Council Study Session Packet
City of Grand Island
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Study Session Packet
City Council:
Jason Conley
Michelle Fitzke
Chuck Haase
Julie Hehnke
Jeremy Jones
Vaughn Minton
Mitchell Nickerson
Mike Paulick
Clay Schutz
Mark Stelk
Mayor:
Roger G. Steele
City Administrator:
Marlan Ferguson
City Clerk:
RaNae Edwards
7:00 PM
Council Chambers - City Hall
100 East 1st Street, Grand Island, NE 68801
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 1 / 225
City of Grand Island Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Call to Order
This is an open meeting of the Grand Island City Council. The City of Grand Island abides by the Open
Meetings Act in conducting business. A copy of the Open Meetings Act is displayed in the back of this room
as required by state law.
The City Council may vote to go into Closed Session on any agenda item as allowed by state law.
Invocation
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
A - SUBMITTAL OF REQUESTS FOR FUTURE ITEMS
Individuals who have appropriate items for City Council consideration should complete the Request for
Future Agenda Items form located at the Information Booth. If the issue can be handled administratively
without Council action, notification will be provided. If the item is scheduled for a meeting or study
session, notification of the date will be given.
B - RESERVE TIME TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS
This is an opportunity for individuals wishing to provide input on any of tonight's agenda items to reserve
time to speak. Please come forward, state your name and address, and the Agenda topic on which you will
be speaking.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 2 / 225
City of Grand Island
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Study Session
Item -1
Infrastructure Needs
Staff Contact: John Collins, P.E. - Public Works Director
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 3 / 225
Council Agenda Memo
From:John Collins PE, Public Works Director
Meeting:March 5, 2019
Subject:Infrastructure Needs
Presenter(s):John Collins PE, Public Works Director
Background
There is a federal requirement for transportation projects that includes a 5 year plan
(Transportation Improvement Program) and a 20 year plan (Long Range Transportation
Plan). These are prepared and approved by the federally mandated Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO). The most recent documents are attached.
The state requires an annually updated 1 & 6 year plan/report to include all work on the
City’s street network (copy attached).
Projects are selected using a combination of the Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP), as well as local need/concern. While the LRTP uses a travel demand model and
past statistics to project traffic growth, the local need/ concern addresses changing
conditions with new developments, accident increase, aging infrastructure, etc.. Projects
are then ranked to get the most benefit from the available dollars.
Once a project has been selected the location or corridor is studied to determine the best
solution, which includes:
Data collection such as individual turning movement counts, average daily traffic
(ADT), and accident history;
Computer simulation developed to determine existing operational function;
Proposed design components (number of traffic lanes, types and lengths of turn
lanes, type of intersection traffic control, roundabout, traffic signal, stop signs,
pavement types and design) are modeled to determine best operation function;
and
Existing conditionals are projected 20 to 25 years in the future (2040 to 2045) and
modelled to verify the proposed construction can continue to function well;
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 4 / 225
Discussion
Historically each budget year $4,000,000.00 is allocated to the Public Works Capital
Improvement Program for Gas Tax Funded projects. This is often supplemented with
state and federal grants. Drainage projects are mostly excluded from planning and
reporting requirements, and are rarely eligible for funding outside of General Funds.
Conclusion
This item is presented to the City Council in a Study Session to allow for any questions to
be answered and to create a greater understanding of the issue at hand.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 5 / 225
Transportation Improvement Program
Fiscal Years 2019 – 2023
Grand Island Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO)
Disclaimer
The preparation of this report has been financed in part through funds from the Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation, under the
Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f) of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
2019-2023 TIP – Approved on May 22, 2018 by the GIAMPO Policy Board (Resolution 2018-2)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 6 / 225
---------- This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ----------
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 7 / 225
Table of Contents
Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the TIP ............................................................................................................. 3
Federal Requirements for Transportation Improvement Programs............................................ 3
Time Period .................................................................................................................. 3
Public Comments ........................................................................................................... 3
Specific Project Information ............................................................................................ 3
Consistency with the Long Range Transportation Plan ....................................................... 3
Financial Constraint ....................................................................................................... 4
Process for Including Projects in the TIP........................................................................... 4
Status of Projects from the previous TIP ........................................................................... 4
Transportation Control Measures and Air Quality .............................................................. 4
The Metropolitan Planning Organization Structure ................................................................ 4
Current Membership of the Policy Board .......................................................................... 4
Current Membership of the Technical Advisory Committee ................................................ 5
Geographic Area the TIP Covers ......................................................................................... 5
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) ......................................................................... 5
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ........................................................ 6
Conformance with Long Range Transportation Plan .............................................................. 6
Types of Projects included in the TIP ................................................................................... 7
Project Selection ............................................................................................................... 7
Maintenance and Operation of Current Transportation Systems............................................... 7
Public Transportation Project Prioritization Process ............................................................... 7
Financial Plan Statement .................................................................................................... 8
Public Involvement Process ................................................................................................ 8
Annual Listing of Projects .................................................................................................. 8
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) ................................................................... 9
Performance Management .................................................................................................. 9
Revising an Approved TIP/STIP ....................................................................................... 10
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 8 / 225
Amendments ............................................................................................................... 10
Administrative Modifications ........................................................................................ 10
Appendix A – Highway Projects ....................................................................................... 13
Appendix B – Transit Projects ........................................................................................... 20
Appendix C – Self-Certification of the MPO Transportation Planning Process ........................ 25
Appendix D – Comments ................................................................................................. 27
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 9 / 225
1 | P a g e
Acronyms
AC Advanced Construction
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program
EA Earmark
GIAMPO Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NDOT Nebraska Department of Transportation
NHPP National Highway Performance Program
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TPM Transportation Performance Management
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
YOE Year of Expenditure
3-C Continuing, Cooperative, and Comprehensive
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 10 / 225
2 | P a g e
Introduction
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (GIAMPO) Metropolitan Planning Area is a staged, five-year schedule of
transportation improvements using (or expected to use) Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding, state funds, and other projects that
have significant system impacts. The TIP is developed cooperatively by the GIAMPO Technical
Advisory Committee and agencies within the GIAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area including
City of Grand Island Public Works Department, Hall County Public Works Department, Merrick
County Highway Department, Village of Alda, Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT),
and others agencies as transportation related projects are developed. The GIAMPO Metropolitan
Planning Area is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – GIAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area
Federal regulations require that each urbanized area, as a condition to receive federal capital or
operating assistance, have a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3-C) transportation
planning process. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the organization designated
to carry out the 3-C process which results in plans and programs that are consistent with the
comprehensively planned development of the urbanized area. The TIP, along with the Long
Range Transportation Plan, is a key element of this process. The Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) became law in 2012 which authorizes surface transportation
programs and continues the basic planning requirements. The Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act), became law in 2015 and continues the Metropolitan Planning
programs. These programs continue the requirement for a cooperative, continuous, and
comprehensive framework for making transportation investment decisions in metropolitan areas
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 11 / 225
3 | P a g e
and the joint oversight by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA). In order to remain eligible for federal transportation funding, the planning
process must demonstrate that the GIAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area is in compliance with
all federal requirements for metropolitan transportation planning.
Purpose of the TIP
The primary purpose of this document is to provide information to FHWA, FTA, NDOT,
transportation agencies, and citizens regarding the TIP development process which:
Depicts the GIAMPO priorities for the expenditure of federal funds for all transportation
funding categories by federal fiscal year including highway and public transportation
projects;
Provides assurance to the FHWA that the project selection process has been carried out in
accordance with federal requirements, Section 134 of Title 23, U.S. Code, as amended;
and
Demonstrates that the TIP is financially feasible.
Federal Requirements for Transportation Improvement Programs
The planning and programming regulations include specific requirements for development and
content of TIPs which are summarized below and addressed within this document.
Time Period
The TIP is to cover at least a four-year period and be updated at least every four years. The
financial and project tables included in this document cover FY 2019–2023. NDOT and the
MPOs have established an annual update cycle for the TIP. GIAMPO on an annual basis must
submit an approved TIP to NDOT prior to June 15.
Public Comments
The TIP process is to provide opportunity for public review and comment on the TIP. GIAMPO’s
transportation planning process allows for public involvement at various points within the
transportation plan and program development. GIAMPO’s Public Participation Plan was adopted
on November 24, 2015.
Specific Project Information
The TIP is to list capital and non-capital surface transportation projects to use a variety of federal
funds or regionally significant projects requiring FHWA or FTA action. For each project or
project phase the TIP shall include sufficient descriptive material including description, location,
length, total cost, amount of federal funds, and responsible agency. Line items may be used for
projects that are not considered to be of appropriate scale for individual identification. A
complete detailed project listing is organized by project type for each project.
Consistency with the Long Range Transportation Plan
Each project or project phase in the TIP is to be consistent with the Long Range Transportation
Plan, its goals, and performance measures. For each project included in the detailed project
listing, GIAMPO staff cross-checks with the Long Range Transportation Plan to ensure
consistency.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 12 / 225
4 | P a g e
Financial Constraint
The TIP is to include a financial plan including system level estimates of costs and revenue
sources that are reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain federal-
aid highways and public transportation.
Process for Including Projects in the TIP
The TIP should specify the process to identify projects for inclusion in the TIP in coordination
with the Long Range Transportation Plan. GIAMPO’s process annually coordinates with NDOT
and local agencies to program projects in the TIP.
Status of Projects from the previous TIP
The TIP should list major projects from the previous TIP that were implemented or delayed. Each
section lists projects under construction, completed, delayed, or moved out of the current
programming period.
Transportation Control Measures and Air Quality
The Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Area is in conformance for air quality and the state
does not require a State Implementation Plan for meeting Clean Air Act requirements.
The Metropolitan Planning Organization Structure
The governor designates the MPOs for urban areas in the state to be responsible for carrying out
the urban transportation planning process through the development of a Long Range
Transportation Plan and TIP. GIAMPO is the designated MPO for the Metropolitan Planning
Area which includes the City of Grand Island, Village of Alda, and portions of Hall and Merrick
Counties. The MPO is composed of elected and appointed officials representing local, state, and
federal governments and agencies having interest or responsibility in land use planning, the
quality and the location of transportation facilities, transportation safety issues on all roads, and
better planning and designs.
The Mayor of the City of Grand Island Area is the “Chair” of the GIAMPO Policy Board. Under
the Mayor, the MPO functions through a committee structure consisting of the GIAMPO Policy
Board, GIAMPO Technical Advisory Committee, subcommittees which may be created to assist
the TAC on various local transportation issues, and MPO administrative staff to establish and
approve the Long Range Transportation Plan, TIP, and other work of the MPO. The GIAMPO
Policy Board is composed of elected and appointed officials representing local, state, and federal
governments or agencies having interest or responsibility in the comprehensive transportation
planning process. Below is the current membership of the GIAMPO Policy Board and Technical
Advisory Committee.
Current Membership of the Policy Board
Jeremy L. Jensen, Mayor City of Grand Island
Linna Dee Donaldson, Councilwoman City of Grand Island
Julie Hehnke, Councilwoman City of Grand Island
Mike Paulick, Councilman City of Grand Island
Doug Lanfear, Superintendent Hall County Board
Gary Quandt, Superintendent Hall County Board
Pat O'Neill, Chairman Hall County Planning Commission
Kyle Schneweis, Director Nebraska Department of Transportation
Mokhtee Ahmad, Administrator FTA Region VII (Ex-Facto)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 13 / 225
5 | P a g e
Current Membership of the Technical Advisory Committee
Voting
Marlan Ferguson, City Administrator City of Grand Island
Chad Nabity, Director Hall County Regional Planning Dept.
John Collins, Public Works Director City of Grand Island
Keith Kurz, Director of Engineering Services City of Grand Island
Charley Falmlen, Transit Program Manager City of Grand Island
Paul Gavin, Highway Planning Manager Nebraska Department of Transportation
Wes Wahlgren, District 4 Engineer Nebraska Department of Transportation
Steve Riehle, Public Works Director Hall County
Mike Meyer, Highway Supervisor Hall County
Romana Schafer, Clerk/Treasurer Village of Alda
Mike Olson, Executive Director Central Nebraska Regional Airport
Non-Voting
Justin Luther, Trans. Planner, Realty, Civil Rights Federal Highway Administration
Logan Daniels, Transportation Program Specialist Federal Transit Administration - VII
Daniel Nguyen, Community Planner Federal Transit Administration - VII
Jodi Gibson, Local Projects Engineer Nebraska Department of Transportation
Mark Fischer, Assistant Planning Engineer Nebraska Department of Transportation
Sara Thompson Cassidy Union Pacific Railroad
Kyle Nogaard Union Pacific Railroad
Bentley Tomlin Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
Cindy Johnson Grand Island Chamber of Commerce
Mary Berlie Mary Berlie Grand Island Area Economic
Development Corporation
Shannon Callahan, Street Superintendent City of Grand Island
William Clingman, Interim Finance Director City of Grand Island
Geographic Area the TIP Covers
The Metropolitan Planning Area is the geographic area in which the metropolitan transportation
planning process must be carried out. The boundaries of the Metropolitan Planning Area are
determined by agreement between the Governor and the MPO. The GIAMPO Metropolitan
Planning Area encompasses the City of Grand Island, Village of Alda, and portions of Hall and
Merrick Counties.
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
The TIP is a programming document that identifies the timing and funding of all highway, bridge,
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation projects scheduled for implementation in the MPO
planning area over a four -year period using federal transportation funds and is annually
coordinated with the State-TIP process. According to federal regulations governing transportation
planning, the TIP is to be a staged multi-year program of transportation improvement projects
that "shall cover a period of not less than four years and be consistent with the urban area
transportation plan."
The TIP is directly related to the City’s, County's, and State’s Capital Improvement Programs
which are brought forward at this time each year. The TIP identifies funding amounts by source
of funding, jurisdictional responsibility, type of project, and year of funding for these projects.
This program is a listing of priority projects which are to be carried out within the next five fiscal
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 14 / 225
6 | P a g e
years which include FY 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023. Projects
planned for implementation beyond this time frame are not listed in this program since local
funding may be tentative and federal funds for these projects cannot be obligated.
The TIP reflects the priorities and direction of the region and its state and federal partners in the
transportation planning process. Projects identified in the TIP must be consistent with the projects
or goals and objectives identified in the current Long Range Transportation Plan for the Grand
Island metropolitan region. The TIP is part of the MPO’s effort to establish and maintain the
planning process required by the federal government as a condition for receipt of federal
transportation funding. This program of projects depicts the MPO’s priorities for the expenditure
of federal funds for all transportation funding categories by federal fiscal year including highway
and public transportation projects. The TIP document may also include, for informational
purposes, non-federally funded projects occurring in the planning area. The federal government
regulations require the TIP to be updated and adopted by the local MPO at least every four years.
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The TIP becomes part of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) by reference and
the frequency and cycle for updating the TIP is compatible with STIP development and approval
process. NDOT and the Nebraska MPOs have established an annual update cycle.
The STIP begins as a compilation of the regional TIPs that have been adopted by the MPOs and
develops into a comprehensive list of all highway (state or local) and all transit (capital or
operating) projects in urban and rural areas that propose to use federal funds. All federally funded
projects proposed to begin between October 1st and September 30th from all of the regional TIPs
across the state are included in this STIP including federally funded projects in rural areas. The
STIP is updated every year and is to include a minimum four year listing of federal-aid projects
for approval by FHWA and FTA.
Conformance with Long Range Transportation Plan
All projects were drawn from, or are consistent with, the GIAMPO Long Range Transportation
Plan (Journey 2040), Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study, State
Transportation Plans and Needs Studies, and the recommendations of local governments and
citizens for the TIP. The projects reflect community goals and objectives and are assigned to the
appropriate staging period based on the area’s priorities, the individual project urgency, and the
anticipated funding capabilities of the participating governments.
The TIP document was developed in conformance with the Long Range Transportation Plan for
GIAMPO. A review was undertaken to ensure transportation projects programmed in the TIP
were found to be consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan.
The Long Range Transportation Plan was adopted by GIAMPO on April 26, 2016. The
development of the Long Range Transportation Plan included a needs assessment and financial
analysis and discussed the social, economic, and environmental impacts to consider when
developing new transportation projects, and where environmentally sensitive areas are located in
relation to projects identified in the horizon years or 2025 and 2040. The Long Range
Transportation Plan was transmitted to NDOT and to FHWA and FTA.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 15 / 225
7 | P a g e
Types of Projects included in the TIP
Federal regulations require that any transportation project within the Metropolitan Planning Area
that is to be funded with U.S. Department of Transportation funds must be included in the TIP.
The types of projects listed below are eligible for federal funding:
a. Projects on the federal-aid system (road and bridge construction, reconstruction,
resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, etc.).
b. Public transportation (vehicle maintenance and operations, capital improvement projects,
public transit system construction, etc.).
c. Projects that are not on the federal-aid system, but may be eligible for federal funding for
other reasons (e.g., bridge projects, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, etc.). The projects,
however, must be linked to the transportation network.
d. Regional projects requiring FHWA or FTA action or projects having significant regional
impacts.
Project Selection
GIAMPO’s process for including projects in the TIP is the means by which projects move from
the current Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) into the TIP for implementation. This
process entails annual coordination with NDOT and local agencies to identify projects for
programming in the TIP. Projects listed in the TIP typically originate in the LRTP developed by
the MPO in cooperation with the respective implementing agencies involved in the planning
process. Implementing agencies carry out the LRTP’s specific elements through the TIP process.
As a result, the TIP serves as a strategic management tool to accomplish the objectives of the
Long Range Transportation Plan.
Project prioritization is an important element of the TIP, especially since the demand for federal-
aid transportation projects usually exceeds the level of federal funds available for use. State
highway projects in the TIP have been prioritized by NDOT. Local federal-aid highway
improvement projects programmed by the City of Grand Island, Hall County, Merrick County
Village of Alda, and coordinating agencies have been dependent on the availability of
competitive funding using the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program, Set Aside from
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (Transportation Alternatives), and FTA funds.
Other selected projects are accomplished through a coordinated effort among all parties to
advance projects which preserve the existing system, increase safety and efficiency of the
transportation system, improve vehicle mobility and connectivity, protect and enhance the
environment, and support quality of life. Readiness to proceed and financial capacity is also
considered in project selection.
Maintenance and Operation of Current Transportation Systems
The highest priority in the selection of projects for the TIP is to ensure the adequate
reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of the current transportation system. NDOT is
programming one (1) project for highway resurfacing, one (1) project for repairs/overlays to three
bridges, and construction of a 4-lane divided roadway on new alignment for a segment of US-30.
The City of Grand Island has one (1) project programmed for safety improvements.
Public Transportation Project Prioritization Process
Public transportation projects are funded with a mix of local, state, and federal funds. The public
transportation element of the TIP includes projects for the City of Grand Island’s Transit Program
that collectively constitutes the Program of Projects (POP) for the City of Grand Island’s Transit
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 16 / 225
8 | P a g e
Program. Approval of the TIP includes the approval of the POP for the City of Grand Island’s
Transit Program. The public involvement procedures used for TIP development and amendments
are used to satisfy the POP requirements for FTA Section 5307 (urban) funding.
In 2012, the City of Grand Island became the designated recipient to receive FTA Section 5307
funds. In 2013, the City of Grand Island and Hall County entered into an interlocal agreement for
Hall County Public Transportation (dba Senior Citizens Industries, Inc.) to continue to operate
services using unexpended FTA Section 5311(rural) funds during a transitional period. In July
2016, the City of Grand Island approved an interlocal agreement where the City of Grand Island
would provide public transit services within the City of Grand Island and Hall County through a
contract services with Hall Public County Transportation (dba Senior Citizens Industries, Inc.) up
to a three year period.
In December 2017, GIAMPO completed a Regional Transit Needs and Feasibility Study, and it
recommended a preferred alternative for a five year planning horizon within the Grand Island
urbanized area. This plan will be used by the City of Grand Island Transit Program to plan and
program transit projects in the TIP.
Financial Plan Statement
The projects identified in the TIP are financially constrained, meaning they can be implemented
using current and proposed revenue sources based on the programs contained in the TIP. The
expected and anticipated revenue sources are, therefore, reasonably expected to be in place when
needed. Revenues for federally funded projects during each year are shown in the Financial Plan
on page 12.
Public Involvement Process
The transportation planning process allows for public involvement at various points within the
transportation plan and program development. This involves a series of steps from the adoption of
the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan that is coordinated with the programming of projects
and again for the actual construction of the transportation facilities. The critical decision points in
the transportation planning process are: 1) the development of at least a 20 year transportation
plan, 2) the street improvement program which identifies priorities for planned projects, 3) the
development of capital improvement programs for a period of four to six years, 4) Project Design
and Project Construction. The first two steps are included in the long range planning process, the
third step consolidates the capital improvement programs of the City of Grand Island, Hall
County, Merrick County, Village of Alda, and NDOT with the MPO TIP and the last step is the
specific project design and development.
The City of Grand Island, Hall County, Merrick County, and Village of Alda each have an
established procedure for adopting improvement programs. Their processes include review by the
County Planning Commission for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and formal
advertised public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council or County Board.
The consolidation of these improvement programs is coordinated in the TIP as reviewed by the
GIAMPO Technical Advisory Committee before it is released for the public review and comment
period. The public comments are summarized, including how the comments were addressed, and
incorporated in the TIP. The GIAMPO Policy Board reviews, approves, and submits the TIP to
NDOT for inclusion in the STIP.
Annual Listing of Projects
Pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(7)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(c)(5)(B), the MPO has
published an annual listing of projects for which federal funds have been obligated in the
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 17 / 225
9 | P a g e
preceding year. These are listed in the TIP by jurisdiction within each section. The published
document is available for public review from the MPO and on the MPO website under the TIP
Section.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
Federal legislation provides funds to be utilized in the Clean Air Act for non-attainment and
maintenance areas for transportation programs and projects that contribute to attainment of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since the GIAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area is in
compliance with the latest air quality standards, the MPO does not specifically program for
CMAQ funding.
Performance Management
When Congress passed the federal transportation bill MAP-21 in July 2012, it included a series of
provisions for Transportation Performance Management (TPM). In the intervening years,
Congress passed the FAST Act in December 2015, which essentially maintained and reaffirmed
the performance management provisions of MAP-21. Since the passage of MAP-21, USDOT has
worked through the federal rulemaking process to establish a series of performance measures and
corresponding target setting requirements. Generally, the performance measures relate to national
goals of safety, infrastructure condition, air quality, and transportation system performance.
On May 20, 2017, USDOT implemented the final two performance measures rules, which
effectively completes the rulemaking process for federally defined performance measures. With
this implementation, the national performance measures and target setting requirements are final
and work at the state DOT/transit provider level has begun. Once the states have set targets,
MPOs like GIAMPO must establish performance targets at the regional level within 180 days.
MPOs have the option to set its own regional targets, or to support the targets established by State
DOTs/transit providers. Figure 2 provides the timeline for each of the performance areas
established by MAP-21 and the FAST Act.
Figure 2 – Deadlines for Setting Performance Measures Targets
State DOT/Transit Provider MPO
Transit State of Good Repair 4 January 1, 2017 June 30, 2017
Safety 5 August 31, 2017 February 27, 2018
Pavement and Bridge Condition 6 May 20, 2018 November 16, 2018
System Performance / Freight /
CMAQ*6 May 20, 2018 November 16, 2018
* CMAQ is not applicable to GIAMPO.
Deadline for Setting Targets# of
MeasuresPerformance Area
As indicated in Figure 2, the Transit State of Good Repair (i.e. infrastructure condition) is the
first performance area for which an MPO must establish targets. Based on collaboration with the
City of Grand Island (transit operator) and NDOT, GIAMPO agreed to support the transit asset
management targets established by the City which are the same targets as the State. GIAMPO
supports those targets by programming all transit projects relating to capital improvements within
the metropolitan planning area that are included in the TIP.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 18 / 225
10 | P a g e
The second performance measure is safety for which an MPO must establish targets. GIAMPO
has chosen to support NDOT’s 2014-2018 safety targets as published in the NDOT Highway
Safety Improvement Program 2017 Annual Report. GIAMPO supports those targets by reviewing
and programming all Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) projects within the MPO
boundary that are included in GIAMPO’s Transportation Improvement Program. Any NDOT
sponsored HSIP projects within the MPO metropolitan planning area were selected based on
safety performance measures and were approved by the Nebraska State Highway Commission.
NDOT conferred with numerous stakeholder groups, including GIAMPO, as part of its target
setting process. Working in partnership with local agencies, NDOT safety investments were
identified and programmed which will construct effective countermeasures to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries. NDOT projects chosen for HSIP investment are based on crash
history, roadway characteristics, and the existence of infrastructure countermeasures that can
address the types of crashes present. NDOT continues to utilize a systemic safety improvement
process rather than relying on “hot spot” safety improvements.
Revising an Approved TIP/STIP
Revisions are changes to a TIP/STIP that occur between their annual publications. There are two
types of changes that occur under the umbrella of revision. The first is a major revision or
“Amendment”. The second is a minor revision or “Administrative Modification”.
Amendments
An amendment is a revision to a TIP/STIP that involves a major change to a project included in
the TIP/STIP. Amendments requires public review and comment and demonstration of fiscal
constraint.
There are four main components that can be used to determine whether a project change rises to
the level of an amendment:
Project costs: Amendments are required whenever the federal-aid amount changes by
20% or $2 million, whichever is greater. For computing the % change, standard rounding
procedures will be used; 19.50% and greater is considered to be 20% and therefore would
require an amendment.
Additions/Deletions: Projects or phases of projects which are added or deleted from the
first four years of the TIP/STIP will be processed as amendments (excluding grouped
projects).
Funding sources: Adding federal funding sources or changing from one federal funding
category to another (including converting advanced construction) will require an
amendment.
Scope and termini changes: Substantial changes to project scope shown in the approved
STIP or project termini changes greater than 0.25 mile will require an amendment.
Administrative Modifications
A minor revision to a TIP or STIP is an administrative modification. It includes minor changes to
projects, including projects using advanced construction (AC) procedures, already included in the
TIP. Administrative modifications may be made at any time and do not require public review or
Policy Board action. However, GIAMPO must demonstrate financial constraint. This includes
changes such as clarifying project descriptions, reducing project costs, minor adjustments to
project budgets or clerical mistakes.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 19 / 225
11 | P a g e
The following components should be used to determine if a change can be processed as an
administrative modification:
Project costs: Projects in which the federal-aid and/or AC amount has been changed by
less than 20% or $2 million, whichever is greater, can be processed with an
administrative modification. For purposes of this calculation federal-aid and AC amounts
will be combined.
Additions/Deletions: Projects or phases of projects added to group listings explained
earlier will be processed as administrative modifications.
Schedule changes: Changes in schedules to projects which are included in the first four
years of the TIP/STIP will be considered administrative modifications
Funding sources: Redistribution of federal funding or AC among funding sources already
listed with the project can be done with an administrative modification.
Scope and termini changes: Minor changes to project scope and termini changes of less
than 0.25 mi. can be made with an administrative modification. Project termini not
consistent with the Long Range Transportation will require an amendment.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 20 / 225
12 | P a g e
Federal Highway Administration 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)$0 $0 $7,292 $3,420 $0 $10,712
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)$581 $0 $1,119 $0 $0 $1,700
Earmark (EM)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nebraska Department of Transportation $26,686 $10 $1,667 $936 $0 $29,299
City of Grand Island $2,178 $0 $618 $60 $0 $2,856
$29,445 $10 $10,696 $4,416 $0 $44,567
Federal Transit Administration 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
Section 5307 $408 $454 $1,189 $0 $0 $2,052
Section 5311 $18 $18 $19 $0 $0 $55
Section 5339 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nebraska Department of Transportation $7 $7 $8 $0 $0 $22
City of Grand Island $286 $302 $493 $0 $0 $1,081
Hall County $7 $7 $8 $0 $0 $22
$726 $789 $1,717 $0 $0 $3,232
NOTE: The financial table above illustrates the identified funding for the projects included in the tables for FY
2019-2023.
Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO)
Transportation Improvement Program
Fiscal Years 2019-2023
Financial Constraint Projects
($1,000's)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 21 / 225
13 | P a g e
Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement Program
FY 2019-2023
Appendix A – Highway Projects
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 22 / 225
GIAMPO Transportation Improvement Program 2019-2023
State Agency Sponsored Projects
TIP #:2016-004 State ID:41704 Project #:S-30-4(1046)Project Name:US-281 West, Grand Island
Description
4 lane divided roadway on new alignment
HWY: US-30
Length (SLM): 3.9
Project Sponsor: NDOT
District #: 4
A/Q Status: Exempt
YOE Fund Type Fund Description Estimate ($1,000)
2018 Local Grand Island $158
2018 State NDOT $2,096
2019 Local Grand Island $508
2019 State NDOT $3,863
2019 Local Grand Island $1,525
2019 State NDOT $22,543
Total Project Estimate $30,693
Notes:PE in YOE 2018 is not reflected in Financial Constraint Table. This project is in progress.
Location: US-30 from 1.4 mi west of Grand Island to 0.4
mi west of US-281. Begin RP - 308.64
Phase
PE
PE
ROW
ROW
CONST/CE
CONST/CE
______________________
14 | Page
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 23 / 225
GIAMPO Transportation Improvement Program 2019-2023
State Agency Sponsored Projects
TIP #:2016-008 State ID:42776 Project #:NH-30-4(162)Project Name:In Grand Island Bridges
Description
HWY: US-30
Length (SLM): 0.4
Project Sponsor: NDOT
District #: 4
A/Q Status: Exempt
YOE Fund Type Fund Description Estimate ($1,000)
2019 State NDOT $227
2021 State NDOT $5
2022 Local Grand Island $60
2022 Federal NHPP $3,420
2022 State NDOT $936
Total Project Estimate $4,648
Notes:
Location: Three US-30 Bridges in Grand Island (Jct US-
30/US-281/N-2 bridge and from Old Lincoln Hwy to
Grand St), RP - 313.66
PE
ROW
CONST/CE
CONST/CE
Phase
CONST/CE
3-bridge repair/overlays, sealing, new approach slabs,
mill, resurface roadway
______________________
15 | Page
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 24 / 225
GIAMPO Transportation Improvement Program 2019-2023
State Agency Sponsored Projects
TIP #:2018-001 State ID:42787 Project #:NH-2-4(112)Project Name:Cairo - Grand Island
Description
Resurfacing
HWY: N-2
Length (SLM): 12.3
Project Sponsor: NDOT
District #: 4
A/Q Status: Exempt
YOE Fund Type Fund Description Estimate ($1,000)
2019 State NDOT $53
2020 State NDOT $10
2021 Local Grand Island $198
2021 Federal NHPP $7,292
2021 State NDOT $1,662
Total Project Estimate $9,215
Notes:
CONST/CE
CONST/CE
Location: N-2 from Cairo southeast to US-281 in Grand
Island, RP - 343.73
Phase
PE
ROW
CONST/CE
______________________
16 | Page
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 25 / 225
Status of Previous State Agency Sponsored Projects
Project Sponsor TIP ID Project Name Location Description YOE Phase
Federal
Program
Federal
($1,000)Status
NDOT 2016-005 Platte River - Phillips I-80 from Platte River west of
Grand Island to Phillips.
Begin RP - 310.88
Mill, concrete repair, resurface 4-lane dual
roadway and shoulder, bridge repair
2018 CONST/CE NHPP $11,396 Let
NHPP $949
EM $355
Complete2017CONST/CENDOT2016-007 Grand Island - Waco At several I-80 interchanges
in District 4
Deploy automated gate systems and CCTV
Cameras
______________________
17 | Page
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 26 / 225
GIAMPO Transportation Improvement Program 2019-2023
Local Agency Sponsored Projects
TIP #:2018-003 State ID:42863 Project #:HSIP-5409(3)Project Name:5-Points Intersection Improvements
Description
Intersection Improvements
HWY: Broadwell Avenue
Length (SLM): 0.4
Project Sponsor: Grand Island
District #: 4
A/Q Status: Exempt
YOE Fund Type Fund Description Estimate ($1,000)
2019 Local Grand Island $44
2019 Federal HSIP $175
2019 Local Grand Island $101
2019 Federal HSIP $406
2021 Local Grand Island $420
2021 Federal HSIP $1,119
Total Project Estimate $2,265
Notes:
Phase
Location: Broadwell Avenue, State Street, and Eddy
Street intersection
CONST/CE
ROW
CONST/CE
PE
PE
ROW
______________________
18 | Page
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 27 / 225
Status of Previous Locally Agency Sponsored Projects
Project Sponsor TIP ID Project Name Location Description YOE Phase
Federal
Program
Federal
($1,000)Status
Grand Island 2016-010 Grand Island - Stolley
Park Reconfiguration
From Webb Road to S.
Locust Street
Reconfigure Stolley Park Road to 3, 4, and 5
lane sections - FHWA Road Diet Initiative
2018 CONST/CE HSIP $1,115 Let
Grand Island 2018-003 5-Points Intersection
Improvements
Broadwell Avenue, State
Street, and Eddy Street
intersection
Reconstruction of intersection to a
roundabout
2018 PE HSIP $175 Delayed to YOE
2019
______________________
19 | Page
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 28 / 225
20 | P a g e
Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement Program
FY 2019-2023
Appendix B – Transit Projects
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 29 / 225
TIP #:2019-001 State ID:N/A Project Name:Operations - Urban Transit Operating Assistance Length (SLM):N/A
Project #:2018-004 Project Sponsor:Grand Island District #:4 A/Q Status:Exempt
HWY:N/A Location:Grand Island Urbanized Area
YOE Phase Fund Type Estimate ($1,000)Description:
2019 OPR Federal 5307 $408
2019 OPR Local Grand island $286 *
2020 OPR Federal 5307 $416
2020 OPR Local Grand island $292 *
2021 OPR Federal 5307 $429
2021 OPR Local Grand island $303 *
Total Project Estimate $2,134
Notes:
* This amount is subject to decrease because the City of Grand Island may receive state funds from the Nebraska Public Transportation Assistance Program.
(Includes the Program of Projects for the City of Grand Transit Program)
Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement Program
FY 2019-2023
Local Agency Sponsored Projects
Fund Description Operating assistance for transit services in
the Grand Island Urbanized Area. Includes
costs associated with operating, bus
support equipment/facilities (i.e., admin
building, rideshare, vehicle equipment), and
other capital items relating to bus activities
(i.e., preventative maintenance, third-party
contracting, federal administration (City
Transit Program Manager), training
expenses)
YOE 2019: FTA 5307 - $408 (Operating - $245, Bus Support Equipment/Facilities - $38, Other Capital Items (Bus) - $125) and Local - $286 (Operating - $245, Bus Support
Equipment/Facilities - $9, Other Capital Items (Bus) - $32)
YOE 2020: FTA 5307 - $416 (Operating - $252, Bus Support Equipment/Facilities - $39, Other Capital Items (Bus) - $125) and Local - $292 (Operating - $252, Bus Support
Equipment/Facilities - $9, Other Capital Items (Bus) - $31)
YOE 2021: FTA 5307 - $429 (Operating - $260, Bus Support Equipment/Facilities - $40, Other Capital Items (Bus) - $129) and Local - $303 (Operating - $260, Bus Support
Equipment/Facilities - $10, Other Capital Items (Bus) - $33)
______________________
21 | Page
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 30 / 225
(Includes the Program of Projects for the City of Grand Transit Program)
Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement Program
FY 2019-2023
Local Agency Sponsored Projects
TIP #:2019-002 State ID:N/A Project Name:Operations - Rural Transit Operating Assistance Length (SLM):N/A
Project #:2018-005 Project Sponsor:Hall County District #:4 A/Q Status:Exempt
HWY:N/A Location:Areas outside of the Grand Island Urbanized area in Hall County
YOE Phase Fund Type Estimate ($1,000)Description:
2019 OPR Federal 5311 $18
2019 OPR State NDOT $7
2019 OPR Local Hall County $7
2020 OPR Federal 5311 $18
2020 OPR State NDOT $7
2020 OPR Local Hall County $7
2021 OPR Federal 5311 $19
2021 OPR State NDOT $8
2021 OPR Local Hall County $8
Total Project Estimate $99
Notes:
Fund Description Operating assistance for transit services in
areas outside of the Grand Island Urbanized
Area
______________________
22 | Page
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 31 / 225
(Includes the Program of Projects for the City of Grand Transit Program)
Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement Program
FY 2019-2023
Local Agency Sponsored Projects
TIP #:2019-003 State ID:N/A Project Name:Transit Facility Length (SLM):N/A
Project #:2018-006 Project Sponsor:Grand Island District #:4 A/Q Status:Exempt
HWY:N/A Location:Grand Island Urbanized Area
YOE Phase Fund Type Estimate ($1,000)Description:
2020 PLANNING Federal 5307 $38
2020 PLANNING Local Grand Island $10
2021 CAP Federal 5307 $760
2021 CAP Local Grand island $190
Total Project Estimate $998
Notes:
Fund Description Facility planning and acquisition of facility
for transit operations and vehicle storage
______________________
23 | Page
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 32 / 225
Status of Previous Local Agency Sponsored Projects
Project Sponsor TIP ID Project Name Location Description YOE Phase
Federal
Program
Federal
($1,000)Status
Grand Island 2016-001 Operations - Urban
Transit Operating
Assistance
Grand Island Urbanized UZA Operating assistance for transit services in
the Grand Island Urbanized Area.
2018 OPR 5307 $439 In Progress
Grand Island 2018-002 Vehicle Replacement Grand Island Urbanized UZA Replace two buses 2018 OPR 5339 $104 In Progress
______________________
24 | Page
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 33 / 225
25 | P a g e
Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement Program
FY 2019-2023
Appendix C – Self-Certification of the
MPO Transportation Planning Process
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 34 / 225
MPO Self-Certification
The Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) and the Grand Island Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO) hereby certify that the transportation planning process is addressing the major issues in the metropolitan planning area and is being conducted in accordance with all the applicable requirements of:
1)23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303 and this subpart;GIAMPO collaborates with local, State and public transportation agencies to carry
out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3-C) metropolitan planning
process through its Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), and othertransportation planning activities.
2)In nonattainment and maintenance areas, sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d} of
the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d) and 40 CFRpart 93;
GIAMPO is designated as an attainment area.
3)Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) and 49CFR part 21;GIAMPO completed its MPO Title VI Implementation Plan. The GIAMPO Policy
Board approved this plan on May 23, 2017.
4)49 U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed,national origin, sex, or age in employment or business opportunity;
GIAMPO's Public Participation Plan together with the MPO Title VI Implementation
Plan and the City of Grand Island's Title VI Nondiscrimination Agreement ensuresthat no person will excluded from participation in the planning process. This appliesto GIAMPO's LRTP, TIP, UPWP, and other transportation planning activities.
5)Section 1101(b) of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94) and 49 CFR part 26 regardingthe involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in USDOT fundedplanning projects;
The City of Grand Transit Program maintains the Disadvantaged Business Program
that was to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in 2017 that includes a
Fostering Small Business Participation element and continues to meet therequirements of FT A
6)23 CFR part 230, regarding the implementation of an equal employment
opportunity program on Federal and Federal-aid highway constructioncontracts;
GIAMPO does not receive Federal-aid highway construction funds and does not let
construction contracts. With regard to transportation planning activities related to
contracts utilizing FHWA and FTA PL funds, the selection of private consultants iscoordinated by and adheres to NDOT and City of Grand Island Procurement
guidelines.
NDOT Agreement #PH1801
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 35 / 225
NDOT AGREEMENT #PH1801Grand IslandStudy Session - 3/5/2019Page 36 / 225
27 | P a g e
Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement Program
FY 2019-2023
Appendix D – Comments
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 37 / 225
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 38 / 225
City Hall ∙ 100 East First Street ∙ PO Box 1968 ∙ Grand Island, Nebraska 68802-1968
(308) 385-5455 ∙ Fax: (308) 385-5488 ∙ Emergency: (308) 385-5432 ∙ www.grand-island.com
Public Works Department
Working Together for a
Better Tomorrow, Today
April 10, 2018
Re: Public Comment Period—“DRAFT” Fiscal Years 2019-2023 Transportation
Improvement Program
The Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO) has released the
“DRAFT” Fiscal Years 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for public
review and comment. The TIP is a short range-program identifying transportation
projects that are regionally significant or reasonably expected to be federally funded
through the year 2023. The TIP also serves as the Program of Projects (POP) for the
City of Grand Island’s Transit Program.
An electronic copy of the “DRAFT” FY 2019-2023 TIP document can be found on the
City of Grand Island’s Public Works web site at www.grand-island.com/GIAMPO, and
hard copies are also available in the Public Works Department Office, City Hall, 100
East First Street, Grand Island, NE, 68801. The comment period will conclude May 11,
2018.
Written comments on the “DRAFT” FY 2019-2023 TIP should be submitted to Allan
Zafft, MPO Program Manager at Public Works Department, P.O. Box 1968, Grand
Island, NE 68802 or by email at allanz@grand-island.com, and will be accepted if
received on or before May 11, 2018.
Questions concerning the “DRAFT” FY 2019-2023 TIP should be directed to Allan Zafft
by phone at 308-389-0273 or by email at allanz@grand-island.com.
Sincerely,
Allan Zafft, AICP
MPO Program Manager
Enclosure: “DRAFT” FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 39 / 225
Metropolitan Planning Organization | City of Grand Island, NE
http://www.grand-island.com/your-government/public-works/metropolitan-planning-organization[5/7/2018 9:23:15 AM]
Calendar News Jobs Document Central Contact Us Employee Login Translate
Quick Links
Monday, May 7, 2018
PrintFeedbackFont Size:
Metropolitan Planning Organization
The Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO) serves as the
formal transportation planning body for the greater Grand Island, Nebraska
metropolitan area. In 2013 the Governor of Nebraska designated the GIAMPO as the
official Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Grand Island Urbanized
Area. The GIAMPO is the first MPO designated by the State of Nebraska in over three
(3) decades. Federal law requires any Urbanized Area population exceeding 50,000
persons to create a MPO to carry out the multi-modal transportation planning for the
metropolitan area. The Grand Island Urbanized Area exceeded this population
threshold in the 2010 Census.
The City of Grand Island's City Engineer/Public Works Director serves as the MPO
Director. The MPO staff is comprised of the MPO Program Manager, who reports to
the City Engineer/Public Works Director, and receives support from others in the
Public Works and Planning Departments.
The GIAMPO Policy Board is the regional legislative body governing the MPO. The City
of Grand Island's Mayor serves as the Chair, and the MPO Director serves as Secretary.
The Vice-Chair is elected from the voting membership of the Policy Board. The
membership of this board is established by an agreement with the State of Nebraska.
The GIAMPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is a staff-level committee, which
provides technical support and recommendations to the Policy Board. The Chair and
Vice-Chair are elected from the voting membership of the TAC.
The MPO Program Manager is responsible for researching and preparing all of the
documents necessary for the MPO and transit programs, as well as assignments
originating from both the Policy Board and TAC as directed by the MPO Director.
Allan Zafft, AICP
MPO Program Manager
Phone: 308-389-0273
100 E 1st Street, Grand Island, NE
68803
P.O. Box 1968, Grand Island, NE
68802-1968
E-mail GIAMPO
Upcoming Events
Technical Advisory Committee on
Monday, April 9th from 10 to 11 am
at Grand Island City Hall.
Policy Board Meeting on Tuesday,
May 22nd from 4 to 5 pm at Grand
Island City Hall.
Public Notices
FY 2019-2023 Transportation
Improvement Program (accepting
comments through May 11, 2018)
Long Range Transportation Plan
Amendment No. 4 (accepting
comments through May 11, 2018)
FY 2019 Unified Planning Work
Program (accepting comments
through April 26, 2018)
Your Government » Public Works
Share & Bookmark
Public Works
Cone Zone
Engineering
Roundabout Information
Maps of Grand Island
Metropolitan Planning
Organization
What the Heck IS an MPO?
GIAMPO Policy Board
GIAMPO Technical Advisory
Committee
GIAMPO Long Range
Transportation Plan
Bike / Ped Master Plan
Public Participation Plan
Transit Study
Transportation Improvement
Program
Unified Planning Work Program
(UPWP)
Solid Waste
Stormwater
Street
Fleet Services
Transit
Volunteer to Adopt a Road
Wastewater
Applications / General
Information
City of Grand Island Standard
Plans and Specifications
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 40 / 225
Public Comment Period
A 30-day public comment period was held from April 10, 2018 to May 11, 2018.
No public comments were received.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 41 / 225
GRAND ISLAND AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GIAMPO)
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MINUTES
April 9, 2018 at 10:00 am
Grand Island City Hall – Community Meeting Room
100 E 1st Street, Grand Island, NE 68801
Voting Members in Attendance:
Keith Kurz, City of Grand Island, Assistant Public Works Director Present
John Collins, City of Grand Island, Public Works Director Present
Marlan Ferguson, City of Grand Island, City Administrator Present
Chad Nabity, Hall County Regional Planning Director Present
Steve Riehle, Hall County Public Works Director Present
Mike Meyer, Merrick County Hwy Superintendent Present
Wes Wahlgren, NDOT District 4 Engineer Present
Paul Gavin, NDOT Highway Planning Manager Present
Ramona Schafer, Village of Alda Absent
Mike Olson, Central Nebraska Regional Airport Present
Charley Falmlen, City of Grand Island Transit Program Manager Present
Non-Voting Members in Attendance:
Bentley Tomlin, Burling Northern Santa Fe Railroad Absent
Allan Zafft, City of Grand Island MPO Program Manager Present
Shannon Callahan, City of Grand Island Street Superintendent Absent
VACANT, City of Grand Island Finance Director Absent
William Clingman, City of Grand Island Asst. Finance Director Absent
Catrina DeLosh, City of Grand Island Public Works Admin Assistant Present
Tim Golka, City of Grand Island Project Manager Present
Jerry Janulewicz, City of Grand Island City Attorney Present
VACANT, City of Grand Island Assistant to the City Administrator Absent
Erich Hines, FHWA, Transportation Planner, Realty Civil Rights Absent
Justin Luther, FHWA, Transportation Planner, Realty, Civil Rights Absent
VACANT, FTA Community Planner Absent
Logan Daniels, FTA Transportation Program Specialist Absent
Daniel Nguyen, FTA Community Planner Absent
Cindy Johnson, Grand Island Area Chamber of Commerce Present
Mary Berlie, Grand Island Area Economic Development Corporation Absent
VACANT, NDOT Local Projects Engineer Absent
Kaine McClelland, NDOT State Modeler Absent
Mark Fischer, NDOT Assistant Planning Engineer Present
Jeff Soula, NDOT Local Projects Urban Engineer Absent
Kyle Nodgaard, Union Pacific Railroad Absent
Kelli O’Brien, Union Pacific Railroad Absent
Others in Attendance:
Rashad Moxey, City of Grand Island Planning Technician
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 42 / 225
2 | P a g e
2018 / 4 / 9 T A C M e e t i n g M i n u t e s
Call to Order
Nabity called the meeting to order at 10:00 am. The Nebraska Open Meetings Act was
acknowledged.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken.
Approval of Minutes from the February 12, 2018 Technical Advisory Committee
Motion by Olson to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2018 meeting, seconded by Wahlgren.
Riehle questioned the proper name of the City’s Transit Program Manager; Charlene Falmlen or
Charley Falmlen. Falmlen confirmed Charley Falmlen is the appropriate name to be used for all
purposes. Upon voice vote, all voted aye; with the correction of Charlene Falmlen to Charley
Falmlen. Motion adopted.
Approval Recommendation of Final Draft FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Zafft provided a copy of the Draft FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for
review and noted this is updated every year with a thirty (30) day public comment period. Public
outreach consists of publication in the Grand Island Independent, posting on the City of Grand Island
Public Works Facebook, Twitter, and website, and by providing paper copies at Grand Island City Hall.
Projects of note in the TIP are US Highway 30 West Realignment, US Highway 30 Bridges, US Highway
2 Resurfacing Cairo-Grand Island, and 5 Points Intersection Improvements; as well as Transit projects
of Urban Transit Operating Assistance, Rural Transit Operating Assistance, and Transit Facility.
Motion by Wahlgren to approve the Final Draft FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), seconded by Collins. Upon voice vote, all voted aye. Motion adopted.
Approval Recommendation of MPO Self-Certification
Zafft informed TAC that GIAMPO must comply with federal requirements regarding the metropolitan
planning process to continue receiving federal transportation funds. The MPO Self-Certification
confirms that the planning process is being carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements
set forth in 23 CFR 450.336. There is no separate public comment period for this item, as it is
included in the Draft FY 2019-2023 TIP notice.
Motion by Riehle to approve MPO Self-Certification, seconded by Ferguson. Upon voice vote, all vote
aye. Motion adopted.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 43 / 225
3 | P a g e
2018 / 4 / 9 T A C M e e t i n g M i n u t e s
Approval Recommendation Final Draft Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment No. 4
Zafft updated TAC on adjusted total estimates for three (3) NDOT projects, which consist of US
Highway 30 Bridges (increased from $2.924M to $4.648M), US Highway 2 Resurfacing Cairo-Grand
Island (increased from $3.754M to $9.215M) and US Highway 30 West Realignment (increased from
$29.681M to $30.693M). In particular, the increase in the federal-aid amount of the total estimate
for the Hwy 2 resurfacing project triggered an amendment to the Long Range Transportation Plan. In
addition to accounting for project cost increases Amendment No. 4 also addresses modifications in
Chapter 7 – Financial Plan, Chapter 9 – Recommended Plan, and a new section in Chapter 3 (Section
3.4) relating to performance management. There will be a thirty (30) day public comment period for
Amendment No. 4.
Motion by Collins to approve the Final Draft Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment No. 4, with
Olson seconding. Upon voice vote, all voted aye. Motion adopted.
Approval Recommendation of Final Draft FY 2019 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)
Zafft presented the Draft FY 2019 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), which identifies planning
priorities and activities to be carried out within GIAMPO’s metropolitan planning area. There will be
a fifteen (15) day public comment period.
Motion by Riehle to approve Final Draft FY 2019 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), seconded
by Olson. Upon voice vote, all vote aye. Motion adopted.
Bike/Ped Plan Update
Nabity informed TAC that City staff has reviewed and commented on the initial Bike/Ped Plan, with a
revised plan expected from the consultant by mid-April 2018. A public open house is planned for late
May 2018 at the City Library.
Next Meeting Date
The next Meeting of the TAC will be on June 11, 2018 at 10:00 am.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Nabity adjourned the meeting at 10:44 am.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 44 / 225
City Hall ∙ 100 East First Street ∙ PO Box 1968 ∙ Grand Island, Nebraska 68802-1968
(308) 385-5455 ∙ Fax: (308) 385-5488 ∙ Emergency: (308) 385-5432 ∙ www.grand-island.com
Public Works Department
Working Together for a
Better Tomorrow, Today
April 10, 2018
Mr. Justin K. Luther, AICP
Transportation Planner & Realty Officer
Federal Highway Administration
100 Centennial Mall North, Room 220
Lincoln, NE 68508-3803
RE: Draft FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program
Dear Mr. Luther:
As specified in the Nebraska Department of Transportation’s (NDOT) Operating Manual for
MPO Transportation Planning, an MPO is to send copies of the draft Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) to the various state and Federal agencies with a letter
requesting comments.
Enclosed for your review is the draft FY 2019-2023 TIP for the Grand Island Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO). Thank you for submitting to me any
comments you have no later than May 11, 2018.
The draft FY 2019-2023 TIP was approved by the GIAMPO Technical Advisory Committee
on April 9, 2018 and it has been released for the 30-day public comment period. The
GIAMPO Policy Board is scheduled to approve the FY 2019-2023 TIP on May 22, 2018.
Please contact me at 308-389-0273 or allanz@grand-island.com if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Allan Zafft, AICP
MPO Program Manager
Enclosure
cc: John Collins, City of Grand Island
Paul Gavin, Nebraska Department of Transportation
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 45 / 225
City Hall ∙ 100 East First Street ∙ PO Box 1968 ∙ Grand Island, Nebraska 68802-1968
(308) 385-5455 ∙ Fax: (308) 385-5488 ∙ Emergency: (308) 385-5432 ∙ www.grand-island.com
Public Works Department
Working Together for a
Better Tomorrow, Today
April 10, 2018
Mr. Daniel Nguyen
Community Planner
Federal Transit Administration - Region 7
901 Locust Street, Suite 404
Kansas City, MO 64106
RE: Draft FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program
Dear Mr. Nguyen:
As specified in the Nebraska Department of Transportation’s (NDOT) Operating Manual for
MPO Transportation Planning, an MPO is to send copies of the draft Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) to the various state and Federal agencies with a letter
requesting comments.
Enclosed for your review is the draft FY 2019-2023 TIP for the Grand Island Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO). Thank you for submitting to me any
comments you have no later than May 11, 2018.
The draft FY 2019-2023 TIP was approved by the GIAMPO Technical Advisory Committee
on April 9, 2018 and it has been released for the 30-day public comment period. The
GIAMPO Policy Board is scheduled to approve the FY 2019-2023 TIP on May 22, 2018.
Please contact me at 308-389-0273 or allanz@grand-island.com if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Allan Zafft, AICP
MPO Program Manager
Enclosure
cc: John Collins, City of Grand Island
Paul Gavin, Nebraska Department of Transportation
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 46 / 225
GRAND ISLAND AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GIAMPO)
MINUTES OF POLICY BOARD MEETING
Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 4:00 pm
Grand Island City Hall – Community Meeting Room
100 E 1st Street, Grand Island, NE 68801
VOTING MEMBERS ATTENDANCE:
Jeremy Jensen, Mayor, City of Grand Island Present
Linna Dee Donaldson, City of Grand Island, Council Member Absent
Julie Hehnke, City of Grand Island, Council Member Absent
Mike Paulick, City of Grand Island, Council Member Present
Wes Wahlgren (Kyle Schneweis designee) NDOT District 4 Engineer Present
Gary Quandt, Hall County Board Present
Doug Lanfear, Hall County Board Absent
Pat O’Neill, Hall County Planning Commission Chairman Present
NON-VOTING MEMBERS ATTENDANCE:
Marlan Ferguson, City of Grand Island City Administrator Present
Keith Kurz, City of Grand Island Assistant Public Works Director Absent
Allan Zafft, City of Grand Island MPO Program Manager Present
Catrina DeLosh, City of Grand Island Public Works Admin Assistant Absent
Patrick Brown, City of Grand Island Finance Director Present
William Clingman, City of Grand Island Asst. Finance Director Absent
Jerry Janulewicz, City of Grand Island Attorney Absent
John Collins, City of Grand Island Public Works Director Absent
Tim Golka, City of Grand Island Project Manager Absent
Chad Nabity, Regional Planning Director Present
Joseph Werning, Administrator, FHWA NE Division Absent
Mokhtee Ahmad, Administrator, FTA Region VII Absent
Wes Wahlgren, NDOT District 4 Engineer Present
Justin Luther, Transportation Planner, Realty, Civil Rights FHWA Absent
Logan Daniels, FTA Transportation Program Specialist Absent
Mark Bechtel, FTA Community Planner Absent
Daniel Nguyen, FTA Community Planner Absent
Mark Fischer, NDOT Assistant Planning Engineer Absent
Others in Attendance:
Amy Haase, RDG Planning & Design
Call to Order
Mayor Jensen called the meeting to order at 4:02 pm. The Nebraska Open Meetings Act was
acknowledged.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken. Mayor Jensen acknowledged the fact that Wes Wahlgren, NDOT District 4
Engineer, was the designee for Kyle Schneweis, Director of the Nebraska Department of
Transportation (NDOT).
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 47 / 225
2 | P a g e
2018/8/28 P o l i c y B o a r d M e e t i n g M i n u t e s
Approval of Minutes from the May 22, 2018 Policy Board Meeting
Motion by Quandt to approve the minutes from the May 22, 2018 meeting, seconded by
Wahlgren. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion adopted.
MPO Financial Update
Zafft provided an update for State Fiscal Year 2018 - Fourth Quarter (April 1, 2018 – June 30,
2018).
Long Range Transportation Plan Revisions Update
Zafft updated the Policy Board about the revisions relating to highway funding projections and
fiscally constrained highway projects. At the May 21, 2018 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
meeting, the committee was informed about the updated highway financial projections and
expenditure projections. In summary, the anticipated expenditures exceed the anticipated
revenue. Therefore, several projects need to be removed from the Fiscally Constrained
Highway Project Listing to balance the LRTP. At the July 9 TAC meeting, the committee
completed an exercise to prioritize the fiscally constrained highway projects. The TAC approved
a recommendation at its August 13 meeting to keep the Old Potash Highway widening from
Claude Road to Webb Road and North Road widening from Highway 2 to Capital Avenue along
with the TIP projects on the Fiscally Constrained Highway Project Listing. The remaining fiscally
constrained highway projects will be moved to the Illustrative Project Listing. The next step is
preparing LRTP Amendment No. 5 to reflect the revisions to the funding projections and
projects. The schedule is take this amendment to the October TAC meeting for approval, 30-
day public comment period, and November Policy Board meeting for approval.
It was asked about the status of Broadwell over UPRR and Broadwell from Anna Street to
Adams Street. Zafft noted these projects will be moved to the Illustrative Project Listing.
Approval of MPO Targets for NHS Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures
Zafft informed the Policy Board of the requirement to establish performance targets for NHS
Pavement and Bridge Condition within 180 days of the State establishing such. The State
submitted its targets to the Federal Highway Administration on May 21, 2018, with 180 days
allowed from the establishment of state targets for the MPO to establish theirs, putting the
deadline for GIAMPO at November 17, 2018. GIAMPO staff recommends supporting the NDOT
NHS Pavement and Bridge Condition performance targets as the most prudent alternative. The
TAC approved this recommendation on August 13, 2018.
Motion by Paulick to adopt the Nebraska Department of Transportation NHS Pavement and
Bridge Condition Performance Targets, seconded by O’Neill. Upon roll call vote, all voted in
favor. Motion adopted.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 48 / 225
3 | P a g e
2018/8/28 P o l i c y B o a r d M e e t i n g M i n u t e s
Approval of MPO Targets for NHS Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability Performance
Measures
Zafft informed the Policy Board of the requirement to establish performance targets for NHS
Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability within 180 days of the State establishing such. The
State submitted its targets to the Federal Highway Administration on May 21, 2018, with 180
days allowed from the establishment of state targets for the MPO to establish theirs, putting
the deadline for GIAMPO at November 17, 2018. GIAMPO staff recommends supporting the
NDOT NHS Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability performance targets as the most
prudent alternative. The TAC approved this recommendation on July 9, 2018.
Motion by Quandt to adopt the Nebraska Department of Transportation NHS Travel Time
Reliability and Freight Reliability Performance Targets, seconded by O’Neill. Upon roll call vote,
all voted in favor. Motion adopted.
Approval Recommendation of Final Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Zafft indicated the Long Range Transportation Plan made a recommendation for a pedestrian
and bicycle study to be conducted for the Grand Island region. He also noted a Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan would better position the City of Grand Island in getting federal grants
for projects such as trail extensions. RDG Planning and Design was retained by the City to
develop a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for the Grand Island region.
The Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan had an 18-day public comment period from May
24 to June 11, 2018, which included a public meeting on May 29, 2018.
Amy Haase of RDG Planning & Design gave a presentation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan, which covered items such as public involvement efforts, guiding principles, bicycle and
pedestrian network, barrier locations, and phasing of projects. Mayor Jensen asked what is
next after the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Zafft noted the Nebraska Department of
Transportation will have a call for TAP grant applications (federal funds) later this year. The City
of Grand Island will submit an application for a trail project.
Motion by Wahlgren to approve Recommendation of Final Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan, seconded by Paulick. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion adopted.
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting of the Policy Board will be on November 27, 2018 at 4:00 pm at City Hall.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Jensen adjourned the meeting at 4:58 pm.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 49 / 225
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 50 / 225
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 51 / 225
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 52 / 225
GIAMPO
City Hall - Public Works Department
100 East First Street
P.O. Box 1968
Grand Island, NE 68802-1968
308-385-5455
www.grand-island.com/GIAMPO
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 53 / 225
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 54 / 225
i
Contents
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
Federal Transportation Planning Process ............................................................................... 1
1.1 Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO) ................................... 2
Responsibilities ....................................................................................................................... 3
Organization ............................................................................................................................ 3
GIAMPO Policy Board ............................................................................................................. 3
Technical Advisory Committee ................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Journey 2040 .................................................................................................................... 5
Plan Requirements .................................................................................................................. 5
Plan Consistency .................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Plan Adoption ................................................................................................................... 5
Implementation Procedures .................................................................................................... 6
Amendments and Revisions .................................................................................................... 6
Updates .................................................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Plan Organization ............................................................................................................. 6
1 – Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6
2 – Growth and Forecasts ....................................................................................................... 6
3 – Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures ................................................................. 7
4 – Existing Transportation System ......................................................................................... 7
5 – Analyze Transportation System ......................................................................................... 7
6 – Public Involvement ............................................................................................................ 7
7 – Financial Plan.................................................................................................................... 7
8– Environmental Review ........................................................................................................ 7
9– Recommended Plan ........................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2 GROWTH AND FORECASTS..................................................................................................8
2.1 History .............................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Existing Demographic Data .............................................................................................. 8
Population Change .................................................................................................................. 8
Race/Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................10
Age ........................................................................................................................................10
Income ...................................................................................................................................12
2.3 Future Demographic Data ...............................................................................................12
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 55 / 225
ii
Population and Households ...................................................................................................12
Future Employment ................................................................................................................16
Chapter 3 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES ....................................................... 22
3.1 National Transportation Goals .........................................................................................22
3.2 FAST Act Planning Factors .............................................................................................23
3.3 Journey 2040 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................24
Goal 1: Increase Safety and Efficiency of Transportation System ..........................................24
Goal 2: Improve Vehicle Mobility and Connectivity .................................................................25
Goal 3: Provide accessibility to destinations for all population groups ....................................26
Goal 4: Environmental protection and the preservation of important natural assets ................26
Goal 5: Further the health and well-being of all residents in the region ...................................27
Chapter 4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM................................................................................ 28
4.1 Streets and Highways ......................................................................................................28
Functional Classification .........................................................................................................28
Access Control .......................................................................................................................32
Pavement Type and Condition ...............................................................................................34
Traffic Volume ........................................................................................................................36
Congestion/LOS .....................................................................................................................38
Safety Analysis ......................................................................................................................41
Bridges ...................................................................................................................................47
4.2 Rail ..................................................................................................................................49
4.3 Freight .............................................................................................................................52
Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) Data ................................................................................52
Export in Grand Island ...........................................................................................................56
Freight Network in Grand Island .............................................................................................57
4.4 Transit .............................................................................................................................60
Public Transportation Service ................................................................................................60
Intercity Transportation ..........................................................................................................62
Transit Dependent Demographics ..........................................................................................64
4.5 Bicycle & Pedestrian Network ..........................................................................................68
Definitions of Types of Facilities .............................................................................................73
Facilities .................................................................................................................................77
Scenic Bicycle Byways ...........................................................................................................79
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 56 / 225
iii
4.6 Aviation ...........................................................................................................................79
Central Nebraska Regional Airport .........................................................................................79
Existing Facilities....................................................................................................................80
Chapter 5 ANANLYZE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS .......................................................................... 84
5.1 Committed Projects .........................................................................................................84
5.2 Travel Forecasts ..............................................................................................................86
5.3 Future Roadway Scenarios .............................................................................................89
Future Year Safety and Efficiency Network ............................................................................89
Future Year Connectivity ........................................................................................................93
5.4 Analysis of Scenario Projects ..........................................................................................99
Safety and Efficiency Scenario Evaluation .............................................................................99
Future Year Connectivity Evaluation .................................................................................... 101
5.5 Accessibility Scenario .................................................................................................... 104
Public Transit ....................................................................................................................... 104
Bicycle and Pedestrian ......................................................................................................... 106
Recommended Projects ....................................................................................................... 108
Chapter 6 PUBILC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................... 109
Stakeholders Engaged ......................................................................................................... 109
Survey .................................................................................................................................. 115
Chapter 7 FINANCIAL CAPACITY ...................................................................................................... 118
7.1 Local Revenues ............................................................................................................. 118
Property Tax ........................................................................................................................ 119
Sales and Use Tax ............................................................................................................... 119
Motor Vehicle Tax ................................................................................................................ 119
7.2 State Funding ................................................................................................................ 120
Highway Allocation Funds .................................................................................................... 120
Motor Vehicle Fee ................................................................................................................ 120
Build Nebraska Act ............................................................................................................... 121
LB-610 ................................................................................................................................. 121
Federal Funds Purchase Program ....................................................................................... 121
7.3 Federal Funding ............................................................................................................ 121
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) Funds ...................................................... 122
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) Funds .................................................. 122
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 57 / 225
iv
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds .......................................................... 122
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Funds .......................................................... 122
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) .......................................................................... 123
7.4 Federal Transit Funding ................................................................................................. 123
Federal Transit Assistance (Title 49) .................................................................................... 123
Metropolitan Planning Program (Section 5303) and Statewide Transportation Planning Program
(Section 5304) /FAST Section 3003 Metropolitan & Statewide Transportation Planning....... 123
Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307 and 5340)/ FAST Sections 3004 and 3016
............................................................................................................................................. 124
Capital Investment Program (Section 5309)/FAST Section 3005. ........................................ 124
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310)/FAST Act Section
3006. .................................................................................................................................... 125
Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5311)/FAST Act Section 3007. ................. 125
Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339)/FAST Act Section 3017. ........................................... 125
State Transit Assistance (STA). ........................................................................................... 125
7.5 Available Funding .......................................................................................................... 126
7.6 Additional Sources of Funding During the Planning Period ............................................ 129
Build Nebraska Act ............................................................................................................... 129
Bonds ................................................................................................................................... 129
Sales and Use Tax ............................................................................................................... 129
TIGER Funds ....................................................................................................................... 129
Railroad Transportation Safety District ................................................................................. 129
Chapter 8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .............................................................................................. 130
8.1 Connection to LRTP Goals ............................................................................................ 130
8.2 Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 130
Noise .................................................................................................................................... 131
Historical and Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 131
Environmental Justice .......................................................................................................... 131
Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 133
Endangered and Threatened Species .................................................................................. 133
Parklands, Recreational Areas and Wildlife Refuges ............................................................ 134
Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 134
Chapter 9 RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PLAN ...................................................................... 138
9.1 Process to Identify Fiscally Constrained Projects……………………………………………139
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 58 / 225
v
Available Funds ................................................................................................................... 139
Committed Costs.................................................................................................................. 140
Operation & Maintenance & Reconstruction Costs ............................................................... 141
9.2 Project Priority Process ................................................................................................. 142
Project Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 142
Public Input .......................................................................................................................... 142
9.3 Fiscally Constrained Project Plan .................................................................................. 143
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 143
Public Transportation ........................................................................................................... 143
9.4 Projects Not Fiscally Constrained .................................................................................. 144
9.5 Implementation .............................................................................................................. 144
Figures
Figure 1-1: Grand Island Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) ...................................................... 4
Figure 2-1: Hall County Population Change (1990 - 2014) ......................................................... 9
Figure 2-2: Grand Island Age Pyramid (2013) ...........................................................................11
Figure 2-3: Hall County Age Pyramid (2013) .............................................................................11
Figure 2-4: Residential Future Land Use ...................................................................................13
Figure 2-5: Future Household Distribution .................................................................................13
Figure 2-6: New Households 2025 ............................................................................................14
Figure 2-7: New Households 2040 ............................................................................................15
Figure 2-8: Hall County Future Socio-Economic Forecast .........................................................17
Figure 2-9: Future Commercial Land Uses ................................................................................19
Figure 2-10: Employment Density 2025 ....................................................................................20
Figure 2-11: Employment Density 2040 ....................................................................................21
Figure 4-1: Relationship between Mobility and Access on Roadways .......................................30
Figure 4-2: Federal Functional Classification ............................................................................31
Figure 4-3: Existing Pavement Condition in Grand Island MPO Area (2014) .............................35
Figure 4-4: Daily Traffic Count in Grand Island MPA .................................................................37
Figure 4-5: Description of Different Levels of service ................................................................38
Figure 4-6: Existing Level of Congestion on the Street System .................................................40
Figure 4-7: Crashes by Type .....................................................................................................42
Figure 4-8: Crash Locations in Grand Island MPA ....................................................................43
Figure 4-9: Crash by Severity ....................................................................................................44
Figure 4-10: Crashes by Time of Day ........................................................................................45
Figure 4-11: Crashes by Road Condition ..................................................................................46
Figure 4-12: Existing Bridge Condition in Grand Island MPA .....................................................48
Figure 4-13: Rail Network in Grand Island .................................................................................50
Figure 4-14: FAF Truck Tonnage Assignment Grand Island Regional Road Network – 2007....54
Figure 4-15: FAF Truck Tonnage Assignment Grand Island Regional Road Network - 2040 ....55
Figure 4-16: Annual Growth in Goods Exports (Grand Island) ...................................................56
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 59 / 225
vi
Figure 4-17: Grand Island Freight Network Map ........................................................................58
Figure 4-18 Average Daily Truck Counts from Statewide ADT Map ..........................................59
Figure 4-19: Indicators of Market Need for Transit ....................................................................67
Figure 4-20: Bicycle and Pedestrian Propensity ........................................................................72
Figure 4-21 South Locust and Fonner Park Road .....................................................................74
Figure 4-22 3765 South Locust Street .......................................................................................74
Figure 4-23 John Brownell Trail ................................................................................................74
Figure 4-24 Example of Shared Streets ....................................................................................75
Figure 4-25 Example of Paved Shoulders .................................................................................75
Figure 4-26 Example of Bike Lane ............................................................................................75
Figure 4-27 Buffered Bike Lane ................................................................................................75
Figure 4-28 Example of Multi-Use Trail .....................................................................................76
Figure 4-29 Example of Multi-Use Trail .....................................................................................76
Figure 4-30 Example of Cycle Track .........................................................................................76
Figure 4-31 Example of Sidewalk ..............................................................................................76
Figure 4-32: Recreational Trails in Grand Island 2012 ..............................................................78
Figure 4-33: Air Lines in Grand Island .......................................................................................80
Figure 4-34: Airplane Enplanement Increase from 2003 to 2014 ...............................................82
Figure 5-1: Committed Projects ................................................................................................85
Figure 5-2: Traffic Congestion on Year 2025 Existing Plus Committed Network .......................87
Figure 5-3: Traffic Congestion on Year 2040 Existing Plus Committed Network .......................88
Figure 5-4: Safety and Efficiency Projects (Intersections) .........................................................90
Figure 5-5: Safety and Efficiency Projects – Street Segments ...................................................92
Figure 5-6: Connectivity Scenario Projects ................................................................................98
Figure 5-7: Travel Time Saved per Day (hours) ...................................................................... 103
Figure 5-8: Miles of Travel Saved per Day ............................................................................. 103
Figure 5-9: Benefits of Travel Compared to Cost ................................................................... 104
Figure 5-10: Bicycle or Pedestrian Trip Origins from Public Input ........................................... 107
Figure 6-1: Project and Public Involvement Schedule ............................................................. 109
Figure 8-1: Proposed Projects & Environmental Justice Areas...................................................136
Figure 8-2: Proposed Projects with Flood Zones, Wetlands & Public Use Areas………………137
Figure 9-1: Financial Analysis Process ................................................................................... 139
Figure 9-2: Fiscally Constrained Plan ...................................................................................... 145
Figure 9-3: Illustrative Projects (Not Included in the Fiscally Constrained Plan) ...................... 146
Tables
Table 2-1: Population Growth by Time Period ............................................................................ 9
Table 2-2: Hall County Historical Population Summary .............................................................. 9
Table 2-3: Population by Ethnicity .............................................................................................10
Table 2-4: Household Income Summary ...................................................................................12
Table 2-5: Future Population and Households Summary ..........................................................13
Table 2-6: Projected Regional and Statewide Long-Term Job Growth by Industry ....................16
Table 2-7: Hall County Future Socio-Economic Forecast Summary ..........................................17
Table 2-8: Industry Employment Forecast for Grand Island (Hall County) 2013 to 2040 ...........18
Table 3-1: Comparison of Journey 2040 Goals with FAST Act Planning Factors ......................24
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 60 / 225
vii
Table 3-2: Goal 1 Performance Measures .................................................................................25
Table 3-3: Goal 2 Performance Measurements .........................................................................25
Table 3-4: Goal 3 Performance Measures .................................................................................26
Table 3-5: Goal 4 Performance Measures .................................................................................27
Table 3-6: Goal 5 Performance Measures .................................................................................27
Table 4-1: General Federal Functional Classifications ..............................................................29
Table 4-2: Functional Classification Miles (Grand Island MPA) .................................................30
Table 4-3: Access Control Policy to the State Highway System in Nebraska ............................33
Table 4-4: Pavement Condition Rating Scores ..........................................................................34
Table 4-5: Volume-Capacity Ratio Ranges for Roadway LOS ...................................................39
Table 4-6: LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersection ....................................................................41
Table 4-7: Calculated Crash Rates for the Top 10 Intersections ...............................................47
Table 4-8: Rail Lines in Grand Island ........................................................................................49
Table 4-9: Grade Crossing Exposure Factor Calculation ..........................................................51
Table 4-10: Domestic Freight Shipment Distribution by Mode in Nebraska ...............................53
Table 4-11: Domestic Mode Distribution for Imported/Exported Goods with Destination/Origin in
Nebraska ..................................................................................................................................53
Table 4-12: Top Grand Island Export Industries in 2014 ...........................................................56
Table 4-13 Fleet Information (Senior Citizens Industries, Inc.) ..................................................60
Table 4-14 Hall County Public Transportation – Agency Data ...................................................61
Table 4-15 Central City Mini Bus – Financial Data ....................................................................62
Table 4-16 Dashabout Agency Data (FY2010-2014) .................................................................62
Table 4-17: Disabled Population (2013) ....................................................................................65
Table 4-18: Population over 65 Years (2013) ............................................................................65
Table 4-19: Population below the Poverty Level (2013) ............................................................65
Table 4-20: Vehicle Ownership by Household (2013)................................................................66
Table 4-21: Existing Trails .........................................................................................................77
Table 4-22: Trails under Study ..................................................................................................77
Table 4-23: Byways near Grand Island .....................................................................................79
Table 4-24: CNRA Runway Information ....................................................................................81
Table 5-1: Committed Projects .................................................................................................84
Table 5-2: Intersection Projects Addressing Efficiency ..............................................................89
Table 5-3: Roadway Projects Addressing Efficiency ................................................................91
Table 5-4: Major At-Grade Crossings of the UP and BNSF ......................................................94
Table 5-5: Connectivity Scenario Projects ................................................................................97
Table 5-6: Safety and Efficiency Intersection Projects ............................................................ 100
Table 5-7: Efficiency Road Segment Priority Listing ............................................................... 101
Table 5-8: Connectivity Project Priority Listing ....................................................................... 102
Table 7-1: Total Available Roadway Funds (2016-2040) ......................................................... 127
Table 7-2: Funds Available for New Roadway Projects ........................................................... 128
Table 7-3: Transit Revenue and Expenditures (2016-2040) ……………………………………....128
Table 9-1: Total Available Roadway Revenue (2016-2040) .................................................... 140
Table 9-2: Committed Project Cost ......................................................................................... 141
Table 9-3: Operation and Maintenance Budget ....................................................................... 141
Table 9-4: Available Roadway Revenue.................................................................................. 142
Table 9-5: Fiscally Constrained Project Plan ........................................................................... 147
Table 9-6: Illustrative Project Plan ........................................................................................... 152
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 61 / 225
1
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
A metropolitan area’s transportation system is vital for the movement of people and goods to,
through, from, and within the metropolitan area. A transportation system takes on two principal
roles: the movement of people and the movement of goods.
Congress passed the Federal Highway Act of 1962 requiring regional agencies to conduct a
"continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated" transportation planning process. Congress took
additional steps in drafting the 1973 Highway Act by establishing Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPO) in urbanized areas over 50,000 persons in population. The Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) empowered MPOs and provided for
flexibility in the use of funding, improved State regional cooperation, and enhanced public
participation. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) legislation of 1998
expanded the role and responsibilities of metropolitan areas exceeding 200,000 persons in
population with the designation of Transportation Management Areas (TMA). In 2005, Congress
further enhanced the planning process by passing the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). This plan has been completed
consistent with MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141)
and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or "FAST Act." MAP-21 and FAST have
created a streamlined and performance-based surface transportation program and builds on
many of the highway, transit, bike, and pedestrian programs and policies established with earlier
transportation acts.
On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act, or "FAST Act." The FAST Act authorizes $305 billion over fiscal years 2016
through 2020 for the Department's highway, highway and motor vehicle safety, public
transportation, motor carrier safety, hazardous materials safety, rail, and research, technology
and statistics programs.
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 450, (23 CFR 450) states that MPOs are to
carry out:
“…a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive multimodal transportation
planning process, including the development of a metropolitan transportation plan,
that encourages and promotes the safe and efficient development, management,
and operation of surface transportation systems to serve the mobility needs of
people and freight and foster economic growth and development, while minimizing
transportation related fuel consumption and air pollution.”
23 CFR Section 450.306 identified eight planning factors to identify the “scope of the metropolitan
transportation planning process.” Two additional factors were added in FAST. These 10 planning
factors include:
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 62 / 225
2
1. Supporting the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by
enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
2. Increasing the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-
motorized users;
3. Increasing the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-
motorized users;
4. Increasing accessibility and mobility of people and freight;
5. Protecting and enhancing the environment, promote energy conservation,
and improve consistency between transportation improvements and state
and local planned growth and economic patterns;
6. Enhancing the integration and connectivity of the transportation system,
across and between modes, for people and freight;
7. Promoting efficient system management and operation;
8. Emphasizing the preservation of the existing transportation system;
9. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce
or mitigate storm water impacts of surface transportation (FAST);
10. Enhance travel and tourism (FAST).
A key feature of this plan, Journey 2040, is that it follows the federal requirement to provide a
reasonable expectation of revenue to fund transportation policies and projects. This is called
fiscally-constrained, which means that the plan must show how the expense of accomplishing the
projects identified in the plan does not exceed expected revenues available in the Grand Island
planning area.
The development of Journey 2040 was conducted with a pro-active public involvement process.
Information was provided to the public through newsletters, direct mailings, internet postings and
public meetings. Input was received from the public via public workshops held throughout the
planning process, from surveys, and from internet comment postings. MPO staff also worked
cooperatively with its member jurisdictions, the FHWA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
NDOR, and the public.
1.1 Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO)
The Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO), established in 2013, and
serves as the formal transportation planning body for the greater Grand Island, Nebraska
metropolitan area, carrying out the intent of 23 CFR 450. The Governor of Nebraska designated
the GIAMPO as the official MPO for the Grand Island Urbanized Area, as defined by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau).
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 63 / 225
3
The GIAMPO provides a regional forum to assure local, state, and federal agencies and the public
coordinate transportation planning issues, and prepare transportation plans and programs. The
GIAMPO develops both long-range and short-range multimodal transportation plans, selects and
approves projects for federal funding based on regional priorities, and develops ways to reduce
traffic congestion.
The GIAMPO is responsible for these transportation planning activities within a geographic area
identified as the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). The GIAMPO approved its current MPA in
May 2014. Included in the MPA is the City of Grand Island, the Village of Alda, portions of Hall
County, a portion of west Merrick County, and includes, at a minimum, the anticipated urbanized
area for Journey 2040. The MPA is shown in Figure 1-1.
Two designated committees form the structure of the GIAMPO:
· Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
· GIAMPO Policy Committee.
The GIAMPO member governments’ and agencies’ respective boards and councils appoint
respective representatives to the TAC and to the GIAMPO.
The Policy Board is the governing body of GIAMPO. It is comprised of nine voting members that
establish the overall policy direction for the MPO’s planning activities. There are also non-voting
members who participate on the Policy Board. The Policy Board has the final responsibility of the
activities of the MPO, and it approves the work program that determines the activities undertaken
by the MPO, and has the responsibility for approving work products, including this LRTP.
The Technical Advisory Committee advises the Policy Board on technical matters related to the
work products, transportation policies, and other technical studies and plans considered by the
MPO. The Technical Advisory Committee has the oversight for development and annual review
of the long range transportation plan. The Committee is comprised of planning, engineering,
transit, and other civic professionals. It includes representation from local, state and federal
officials. There are nine designated voting members, as well as additional non-voting members.
Additionally, the GIAMPO establishes and supports, as needed, other subcommittees,
roundtables, working groups, and advisory committees on various transportation-related issues
relevant to the GIAMPO's responsibilities. The GIAMPO requests stakeholder organizations and
citizens to serve on these committees, as appropriate. As part of an adopted public participation
process, the GIAMPO strongly encourages input and communication from citizens.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 64 / 225
4
Figure 1-1: Grand Island Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 65 / 225
5
1.2 Journey 2040
Journey 2040 is the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) that serves as a guide for the
transportation system decision making process for the greater Grand Island metropolitan area.
23 CFR 450 indicates the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) must cover no less than a 20-
year planning horizon, shall include both short- and long-range strategies/actions, and must be
updated, at a minimum, every five years.
Journey 2040 is the MTP for the GIAMPO planning area. Journey 2040 has been prepared to
identify current and future transportation needs, to develop policies and projects to meet these
needs, and to gauge the success of these efforts with established performance measures. The
MTP is designed to guide the development of the street and highway system, transit services,
examine freight movement and aviation services, and consider the movement of pedestrians and
bicyclists on the transportation system.
Transportation has an interaction with other concerns and regional priorities, such as impact upon
the environment, land use and economic development, and quality of life considerations, in
addition to traditional transportation-related issues, such as mobility and safety. While the year
2040 may extend beyond what can be accurately predicted, a long-range plan’s value lies in
assessing the region’s current transportation system, and then working together to determine a
course of action to follow for the next 10 and 20 years. Journey 2040 creates a vision and
implementation plan that assists in guiding future decisions toward the goal of a safe and efficient
transportation system.
The Journey 2040 must be consistent with other GIAMPO plans, including the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and other modal plans. In addition, the GIAMPO requires
consistency among the Journey 2040 and member governments’ and participating agencies’
short- and long-range planning documents. In particular, the GIAMPO requires consistency
among proposed short- and long-range projects, strategies, plans, and programs contained in the
GIAMPO member governments’ and participating agencies’ comprehensive plans.
1.3 Plan Adoption
The Metro 2040 plan is to be adopted by the GIAMPO Policy Board and is provided for information
purposes to the Governor of Nebraska through NDOR. Once the Plan is approved, projects
identified in the plan are eligible for federal and state funding. Projects included in the project lists
will be scheduled for funding and construction within GIAMPO’s Transportation Improvement Plan
(TIP). The TIP is updated each year and describes projects to be constructed or provided within
the next four years. The TIP is used to program federal transportation funds for federal aid-eligible
and regionally significant projects. All projects programmed in the TIP must be included in Journey
2040 or be part of a future amendment to the plan.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 66 / 225
6
Implementation of the Journey 2040 occurs through a series of short- and long-range strategies,
plans, and programs. The GIAMPO’s Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) identifies fiscal
year work activities and anticipated work products. The UPWP is the guide to the GIAMPO’s
planning activities. The TIP identifies all transportation projects programmed with federal funds
for the upcoming four federal fiscal years.
The GIAMPO considers the following criteria when amending and revising the Journey 2040, and
believes these criteria to be consistent with Federal and Nebraska Department of Roads
requirements.
· Changes in socioeconomic projections;
· Addition of a project to the plan in any year increment;
· Movement of a project between any year increment in the plan; or,
· Major changes in a project’s scope, where the recalculated project
costs increase federal funding by more than 20 percent or increase
federal funding by more than $2,000,000 whichever is greater.
As a new MPO, Journey 2040 is the first long-range transportation plan for the Grand Island
designated metropolitan area. In accordance with federal law, Journey 2040 will be updated every
five years to accommodate the changing needs of the area and to reflect changes in the socio-
economic composition of the area, as well as changes in local transportation policy. The plan
must be maintained, current and valid before local jurisdictions receive federal funding for
transportation improvements.
1.4 Plan Organization
The Journey 2040 has nine chapters. Each chapter builds upon the preceding chapter to develop
the complete document.
The Introduction explains federal transportation planning guidelines and provides background
information on the GIAMPO’s responsibilities, representatives, and committees. In addition, the
chapter provides an overview of the plan, including its purpose, requirements, and methodology
to adopt, implement, amend, or revise Journey 2040.
The Future Conditions chapter forecasts growth in travel on the existing transportation system
through anticipated changes to land use. In addition, the chapter presents the forecasted
socioeconomic composition of the GIAMPO MPA through Journey 2040.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 67 / 225
7
The Goals, Objectives, and Performance chapter identifies goals, objectives, and Performance
Measures for the Grand Island region transportation system.
The Existing Transportation System chapter inventories the existing elements of the multimodal
transportation system, and presents the socioeconomic composition of the GIAMPO MPA. It also
discusses and inventories the human and natural environments.
The Analyze Transportation System chapter provides an analysis of the existing transportation
system in comparison to the identified goals, objectives, and performance measures identified in
the preceding chapters.
This chapter provides a summary of the public involvement plan and input gathered during the
study process.
The Financial Plan chapter presents the GIAMPO’s estimated future funding revenues and
identifies future improvement cost estimates, to ensure the region has the fiscal capacity to
implement the planned improvements.
The Environmental Review chapter provides a preliminary environmental impact assessment of
the planned infrastructure improvements. The assessment takes into consideration the natural
and human environment, as well as an environmental justice review.
The conclusion chapter, Recommended Plan, presents the financially constrained plan, and
includes projects identified in the plan that do not have identified funding. The chapter discusses
steps for the GIAMPO to implement, monitor, and update the Journey 2040; and identifies
potential challenges and potential opportunities for the GIAMPO in the future.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 68 / 225
8
Chapter 2 GROWTH AND FORECASTS
Many factors will affect the transportation system over the next 25 years. More people, more jobs
and the development of new areas will impact travel. The potential growth of population and
employment in the GIAMPO area, as well as a summary of past trends, are described within this
chapter.
2.1 History
Before the City of Grand Island was incorporated in 1872, the term Grand Island was originally
referred to as the French La Grande Isle, an island located in the Platte River where a narrow
channel separated from the river. Settlement of the area took place in 1857 when German settlers
travelled from Davenport, Iowa and saw the potential for economic prosperity in a town near the
Grand Island of the Platte River.
As more travelers headed west in search of gold in 1858, the eventual City of Grand Island thrived
as a place where people could stop and replenish supplies and other daily needs. Beginning in
1866, surveyors from Union Pacific Railroad platted the town of 500 people, which was known as
Grand Island Station at the time. With the help of the railroad and the Union Pacific Overland
Route, population quickly grew to over 1,000 people by 1870. In 1872, the town was formally
incorporated, thus, the name was shortened to Grand Island. In the late 1880s, Burlington
Railroad completed a branch line that created access to the coast via the Northern Pacific and
the Great Northern lines. While the railroads helped develop the city outward, the 1916 completion
of the first transcontinental highway, Lincoln Highway, brought Grand Island into the 20th century.
Major military investments also encouraged further development of the city, including the Grand
Island Army Air Base, originally housing thousands of troops during World War II (WWII), and the
Cornhusker Army Ammunitions Plant, employing as many as 4,000 people during WWII and the
Korean and Vietnam Wars. To this day, Grand Island has continued to grow and prosper as a
major transportation hub and a place with a rich history.
2.2 Existing Demographic Data
In the 24 years between 1990 and 2014, the U.S. Census estimated Hall County population grew
by approximately 12,000 people to an estimated population of 61,592, a 25 percent increase.
Three individual periods were identified with distinct population growth patterns. These patterns
can be distinguished by their compound annual growth rates listed in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 69 / 225
9
Table 2-1: Population Growth by Time Period
Time Period Additional
Population
Compound Annual
Growth Rate
1990 to 1998 4,215 1.03%
1999 to 2005 982 0.30%
2006 to 2014 6,302 1.36%
The year-to-year patterns in population growth are also shown in Table 2-2 and Figure 2-1. Table
2-2 displays population estimates every five years and the rate of growth experienced in each
decade from 1970 to 2010. Figure 2-1 illustrates this growth pattern.
Table 2-2: Hall County Historical Population Summary
Year Total
Population
Additional
Population
5-year
% Change
10-year
% Change
1990 49,118 -/- -/- -/-
1995 52,115 2,997 6.1% -/-
2000 53,569 1,454 2.8% -/-
2005 54,535 966 1.8% -/-
2010 58,797 4,262 7.8% -/-
1990 to 2000 -/- 4,451 -/- 9.1%
2000 to 2010 -/- 5,228 -/- 9.8%
Sources: (1990 - 2010) U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population.
-0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
1990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014Annual Growth RateTotal PopulationYear
Hall County Population Change
Annual % Change Population
Sources: (1990 - 2014) U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates
of the Resident Population.
Figure 2-1: Hall County Population Change (1990 - 2014)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 70 / 225
10
Table 2-3 shows the ethnic composition of Grand Island and Hall County in year 2000 and 2010.
The highest percentage by race is the White population with over 80 percent. This segment
decreased for both the City of Grand Island and Hall County over the 10-year period. The
population segment that increased the most in percentage from 2000 to 2010 was ‘Some Other
Race.’ The Census also reports demographic data by Hispanic or Latino Origin. In 2000, 16
percent of the total population for Grand Island were of Hispanic or Latino origin. This percent
increased to 27 percent in 2010. For Hall County in 2000, 14 percent of the total population were
from Hispanic or Latino origin. This increased to 23 percent in 2010.
Table 2-3: Population by Ethnicity
Grand Island Hall County
2000 2010 2000 2010
Total Population 42,940 -/- 48,520 -/- 53,534 -/- 58,607 -/-
White 37,237 86.7% 38,839 80.0% 47,467 88.7% 48,413 82.6%
Black or African American 180 0.4% 1,002 2.1% 195 0.4% 1,023 1.7%
American Indian and
Alaska Native 143 0.3% 503 1.0% 164 0.3% 529 0.9%
Asian 562 1.3% 584 1.2% 586 1.1% 607 1.0%
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander 71 0.2% 110 0.2% 73 0.1% 112 0.2%
Some Other Race 4,139 9.6% 6,338 13.1% 4,384 8.2% 6,701 11.4%
Two or More Races 608 1.4% 1,144 2.4% 665 1.2% 1,222 2.1%
Source: U.S. Census 2000 and 2010 Summary File 1.
As the baby boomer generation continues to age, the base of the population pyramid has been
redistributed towards the top of the pyramid which shows the elderly population growth. This influx
of older adults is shown below in Figure 2-2 and 2-3. As a large portion of the population continues
to get closer to retirement, greater demand will be placed on the social, medical, and
transportation services that address the needs of older adults.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 71 / 225
11
Figure 2-2: Grand Island Age Pyramid (2013)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 – 2013 5-year estimates.
Figure 2-3: Hall County Age Pyramid (2013)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 – 2013 5-year estimates.
10% 5% 0% 5% 10%
< 5
5 - 9
10 - 14
15 - 19
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 - 34
35 - 39
40 - 44
45 - 49
50 - 54
55 - 59
60 - 64
65 - 69
70 - 74
75 - 79
80 - 84
< 85
Percent of PopulationAge Female
Male
10% 5% 0% 5% 10%
< 5
5 - 9
10 - 14
15 - 19
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 - 34
35 - 39
40 - 44
45 - 49
50 - 54
55 - 59
60 - 64
65 - 69
70 - 74
75 - 79
80 - 84
< 85
Percent of PopulationAge Female
Male
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 72 / 225
12
Table 2-4 shows the household median income for Grand Island and Hall County is between
$46,000 and $48,000. While the percentages are relatively similar between the County and Grand
Island, it should be noted that the urbanized area of the county experiences a lower median
income than the county as a whole.
Table 2-4: Household Income Summary
Grand Island Hall County
Total Households
18,463
22,168
Less than $10,000 7.2% 6.6%
$10,000 to $14,999 5.1% 4.7%
$15,000 to $24,999 12.3% 11.4%
$25,000 to $34,999 12.4% 11.7%
$35,000 to $49,999 18.1% 17.3%
$50,000 to $74,999 22.1% 22.4%
$75,000 to $99,999 10.7% 12.4%
$100,000 to $149,999 8.2% 8.9%
$150,000 to $199,999 3.0% 2.6%
$200,000 or more 1.7% 1.9%
Median income (dollars) $46,192 $48,712
Mean income (dollars) $57,116 $60,255
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS),
2009 – 2013 5-year estimates.
2.3 Future Demographic Data
After determining the base year population and households for the region, future population
growth was established. Beginning with the Hall County population projections from the University
of Nebraska, Bureau of Business Research, population was anticipated to grow at an average
annual rate of 0.58 percent from 2010 to 2030. After discussing growth rates with officials from
the City of Grand Island and GIAMPO, and reviewing the recent historical growth rate of 1.3
percent, it was decided to use a compound annual growth rate of 1.1 percent. This rate was
continued through the Long-Range Transportation Plan 2040 horizon year. The applied growth
rate translated into an additional 6,186 households in Grand Island, a 33 percent increase from
2014, based on the most recent 2014 total of 18,801 households, reported in the Grand Island
Community Housing Study. The population and households projections from 2015 through 2040
are listed in Table 2-5.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 73 / 225
13
Table 2-5: Future Population and Households Summary
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Hall County
Population 58,607 61,902 65,382 69,058 72,941 77,042 81,374
Households 22,196 22,440 23,702 25,034 26,442 27,929 29,499
Grand Island
Population 48,520 51,248 54,129 57,173 60,387 63,782 67,368
Households 18,326 19,008 20,076 21,205 22,397 23,657 24,987
Sources: 2010 U.S. Census. Remaining figures are calculated using a 1.1 percent growth rate.
Various tools were used to distribute the expected future households. The 2004 Grand Island
Comprehensive Transportation Plan’s expected household distribution was initially used as a
basis for distributing future households, as displayed in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5. These general
areas of expected growth were discussed further with city staff. Future household growth was
then applied relative to the extent of water and sewer lines and local knowledge of where there is
trending growth. Finally, an aerial analysis was performed by analyzing available land, permitted
densities and land uses, and neighboring developments during the distribution of new
households.
50% 15%
15% 20%
Figure 2-5: Future Household Distribution Figure 2-4: Residential Future Land Use
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 74 / 225
14
As a result of the aerial analysis and the interpretation of the future household distribution rates,
the results for new household growth by 2025 and 2040 are shown respectively in
Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7.
Figure 2-6: New Households 2025
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 75 / 225
15
Figure 2-7: New Households 2040
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 76 / 225
16
Future employment forecasts were based on region-specific employment projection growth rates,
shown in Table 2-6, provided by the Nebraska Department of Economic Development for 2010 to
2020. Hall County is 1 of 22 counties located in the Central Economic Region of Nebraska, so the
Central Region’s growth rates were applied to Hall County’s future employment forecasts.
Table 2-6: Projected Regional and Statewide Long-Term Job Growth by Industry
Central Region
(Including Hall County)
(2010 to 2020)
Nebraska Statewide
(2010 to 2020)
Industry
(NAICS Code)
Annual %
Growth Rate
Percent
Change
Annual %
Growth Rate
Percent
Change
Professional, scientific, and
technical services 1.6% 16.1% 1.7% 16.9%
Construction 1.4% 14.5% 2.1% 22.5%
Manufacturing 1.1% 11.9% 1.0% 10.6%
Health care and social assistance 1.0% 10.5% 1.3% 13.7%
Other services, except public
administration 1.0% 10.1% 0.6% 6.5%
Educational services 1.0% 10.5% 1.3% 13.7%
Transportation and warehousing 0.8% 7.8% 0.9% 9.1%
Wholesale trade 0.8% 7.8% 0.9% 9.1%
Utilities 0.8% 7.8% 0.9% 9.1%
Finance and insurance 0.7% 7.6% 0.7% 7.1%
Real estate and rental and leasing 0.7% 7.6% 0.7% 7.1%
Retail trade 0.6% 6.0% 0.7% 7.0%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 0.5% 4.6% 0.7% 7.3%
Administrative and waste
management services 0.4% 3.7% 0.6% 5.8%
Accommodation and food services 0.2% 2.3% 0.7% 7.5%
Management of companies and
enterprises 0.1% 1.3% 0.4% 3.9%
Mining 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% -1.6%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and
related activities 0.0% -0.3% -0.2% -1.8%
Government and government
enterprises -0.1% -1.0% 0.2% 1.7%
Information -0.3% -3.0% 0.3% 3.4%
Total Employment 0.8% 8.0% 1.0% 10.0%
Sources: Produced by The Nebraska Department of Labor, Office of Labor Market Information, 2013.
Notes: Total Employment includes all employment sectors.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 77 / 225
17
After applying the annual projected regional growth rate of each industry to the Hall County
existing employment base provided by the Grand Island Chamber of Commerce, a total of 8,087
new jobs were estimated by the year 2040, a 21 percent increase from 2013. The growth patterns
for each industry category are shown in Table 2-7 on the following page.
Before distribution of the future employees could be made, employment sectors were first
separated into four distinct categories, including retail, service, industrial, and healthcare.
Allocation of these employment sectors were based on discussions with city and MPO staff, the
2004 Grand Island Comprehensive Transportation Plan, as well as further analysis of available
land, permitted densities, future land uses, and neighboring developments. The sector of
employment and where they locate has significant impact on the needs of the region’s
transportation network.
Figure 2-10 and Figure 2-11 demonstrate future employment growth for 2025 and 2040 and socio-
economic projections. A summary table and chart demonstrating both the total forecasted
population and employment growth for Hall County are shown below in Table 2-8 and Figure 2-
11.
Table 2-7: Hall County Future Socio-Economic Forecast Summary
Year 2013 2025 +/- 2013 2040 +/- 2013 % Total
Growth
Population 59,431 69,058 9,627 81,374 21,943 37%
Households 22,168 25,034 2,838 29,499 7,303 33%
Employment 38,450 41,854 3,404 46,537 8,087 21%
Figure 2-8: Hall County Future Socio-Economic Forecast
59,431
69,058
81,374
22,168 25,034 29,499
38,450 41,854 46,537
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Year
Socio-Economic Forecast
Population Households Employment
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 78 / 225
18
Table 2-8: Industry Employment Forecast for Grand Island (Hall County) 2013 to 2040
Industry
(NAICS Code)
Current
Year
2013
% of 2013
Employment
Forecasted
Growth Rate
2040
Employment
Forecast
% of 2040
Employment
Manufacturing 7,324 19.0% 1.1% 9,841 21.1%
Retail trade 5,116 13.3% 0.6% 6,013 12.9%
Health care and social assistance 4,227 11.0% 1.0% 5,530 11.9%
Accommodation and food
services 2,856 7.4% 0.2% 3,014 6.5%
Construction 1,983 5.2% 1.4% 2,886 6.2%
Administrative and waste
management services 1,902 4.9% 0.4% 2,101 4.5%
Other services, except public
administration 1,923 5.0% 1.0% 2,516 5.4%
Finance and insurance 1,317 3.4% 0.7% 1,590 3.4%
Transportation and warehousing 1,652 4.3% 0.8% 2,049 4.4%
Wholesale trade 1,492 3.9% 0.8% 1,850 4.0%
Professional, scientific, and
technical services 839 2.2% 1.6% 1,288 2.8%
Real estate and rental and
leasing 310 0.8% 0.7% 374 0.8%
Arts, entertainment, and
recreation 395 1.0% 0.5% 447 1.0%
Management of companies and
enterprises 433 1.1% 0.1% 448 1.0%
Forestry, fishing, and related
activities 800 2.1% 0.0% 794 1.7%
Information 288 0.7% -0.3% 266 0.6%
Educational services 232 0.6% 1.0% 304 0.7%
Mining 17 0.0% 0.0% 17 0.0%
Utilities 31 0.1% 0.8% 38 0.1%
Government and government
enterprises 5,313 13.8% -0.1% 5,171 11.1%
Total 38,450 n/a n/a 46,537 n/a
Overall 2014 to 2040 AGR 0.71%
Source: Growth rates taken from 2010 to 2020 forecast for the Nebraska Department of Labor, Office of
Labor Market Information, 2013. Existing employment figures taken from the Grand Island Chamber of
Commerce.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 79 / 225
19
Figure 2-9: Future Commercial Land Uses
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 80 / 225
20
Figure 2-10: Employment Density 2025
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 81 / 225
21
Figure 2-11: Employment Density 2040
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 82 / 225
22
Chapter 3 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The federal transportation bill, Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) requires
performance measures to be incorporated into the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP). The performance measures must support the national goals established by FAST. Part
of the performance measures must clearly identify goals and objectives within the MPO’s
transportation plan, which play a critical role in driving a performance-based approach to decision
making.
Performance-based planning begins by defining goals and objectives for the transportation
system. Performance measures are developed to assess the progress toward accomplishing
these goals and objectives.
· Goals are broad statements that describes a desired end state.
o Objectives are specific, measurable statements that support achievement of a
goal. Objectives lead to development of a performance measure in order to support
decisions necessary to help achieve each goal.
Performance measures then serve as a basis for comparing alternative
improvement strategies and for tracking performance over time.
The locally developed performance measures are based on the region's vision and support the
national goals as set forth in the current transportation bill, FAST Act.
3.1 National Transportation Goals
The FAST Act continues with the seven national performance goals established in MAP-21.
These seven national performance goals are as follows:
1. Safety – To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all
public roads.
2. Infrastructure Condition – To maintain the highway infrastructure assets in a state of
good repair.
3. Congestion Reduction – To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the
National Highway System.
4. System Reliability – To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system.
5. Freight Movement and Economic Vitality – To improve the national freight network,
strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade
markets, and support regional economic development.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 83 / 225
23
6. Environmental Sustainability – To enhance the performance of the transportation
system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment.
7. Reduced Project Delivery Delays – To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the
economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project
completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process,
including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies’ work practices.
3.2 FAST Act Planning Factors
There are ten planning factors to be considered in the development of long-range transportation
plans that were part of the previous transportation law were continued as part of the FAST Act.
The FAST planning factors are listed below:
1. Economic Vitality – Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially
by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
2. Safety – Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-
motorized users.
3. Security – Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-
motorized users.
4. Accessibility – Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight.
5. Environment – 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. Connectivity Across Modes – Enhance the integration and connectivity of the
transportation system, across and between modes, people, and freight.
7. System Management and Operation – Promote efficient system management and
operation.
8. System Preservation – Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation
system.
9. Resiliency and reliability –reduce or mitigate storm water impacts of surface
transportation.
10. Travel and tourism – Examine how transportation can support these activities.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 84 / 225
24
3.3 Journey 2040 Goals and Objectives
The Journey 2040 goals, objectives, and performance measures reflect the national priorities, but
also reflect local input from local stakeholders and the general public. A comparison of the Journey
2040 goals developed as part of this plan and the national goals is provided in Table 3-1. The
Journey 2040 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures are also described in this section.
Table 3-1: Comparison of Journey 2040 Goals with FAST Act Planning Factors
FAST Planning Factors Provide accessibility Improve vehicle mobility and connectivity Increase safety and efficiency Environmental Health & Well-being Economic Vitality X X X
Safety X X
Security X
Accessibility X X X X
Environment X
Connectivity Across Modes X X X X
System Management and Operation X X X
System Preservation X
System Resiliency X
Enhance Travel and Tourism X X X
The purpose of this goal is to promote efficient management and operation, and the maintenance
and preservation of the existing transportation system. Table 3-2 presents the performance
measures for Goal 1.
Objectives:
· Promotes efficient management and operation of the transportation system.
· System preservation of roadways and bridges.
· Addresses the safety of streets, intersections, and railroad crossings.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 85 / 225
25
Table 3-2: Goal 1 Performance Measures
Performance Measures Points
(Total = 100)
Project improves traffic operation and reduces delay 5
Project addresses major maintenance
(e.g. bridge repair, aging transit facilities, pavement, etc.) 5
Improves vehicle flow on existing roadways 5
Project addresses location with high level of crashes
(corridor or intersection) 5
Subtotal 20
The purpose of this goal is to support the economic vitality of Grand Island by improving the freight
network, addressing modal conflicts, and improving corridor connections within the metropolitan
area. Table 3-3 presents the performance measures for Goal 2.
Objectives:
· Reduces travel delays in congested corridors.
· Provides improved connection between areas of the community.
· Improves north-south connectivity.
· Reduces regional freight impediments.
Table 3-3: Goal 2 Performance Measurements
Performance Measures Points
(Total = 100)
Project reduces system-wide travel time 5
Project improves corridor volume/capacity ratio 5
Route addresses designated freight impediment 5
Project reduces modal conflict
(e.g. grade separation, dedicated lanes) 5
Subtotal 20
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 86 / 225
26
The purpose of this goal is to increase the accessibility and mobility of people. Table 3-4 presents
the performance measures for Goal 3.
Objectives:
· Creates more opportunities to use a variety of travel modes to travel to respective
destinations.
· Connects/completes gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian system.
· Develops major areas to be walkable and connected to one another by multimodal
corridors.
Table 3-4: Goal 3 Performance Measures
Performance Measures Points
(Total = 100)
Route includes existing or planned bicycle facilities 5
Project addresses a critical gap in a pedestrian corridor
and/or bikeway corridor 5
Project located within or along a designated node/corridor 5
Project Improves a connection across the metropolitan
area 5
Subtotal 20
The purpose of this goal is to 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. Table 3-5 presents the
performance measures for Goal 4.
Objectives:
· Promotes energy conservation, especially for non-renewable energy sources.
· Minimizes impacts to the Platte River and other natural areas.
· Invests in alternative and renewable fuel infrastructure when practical.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 87 / 225
27
Table 3-5: Goal 4 Performance Measures
Performance Measures Points
(Total = 100)
Project overlaps environmentally sensitive area -5
Project contributes to improved water quality and/or
habitat 5
Reduces fuel consumption 5
Reduce impacts to archeological site or floodplain
(within 500 foot buffer) 5
Consistency with land use plan 5
Subtotal 20
The purpose of this goal is to make transportation investments that are consistent with supporting
a healthy lifestyle and support quality of life. Table 3-6 presents the performance measures for
Goal 5.
Objectives:
· Create more opportunities for everyone to walk or bike to their respective destinations.
· Decrease the number of fatalities and serious injuries across all modes of transportation.
· Maintain air quality levels.
· Connect/complete gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian system.
Table 3-6: Goal 5 Performance Measures
Performance Measures Points
(Total = 100)
Project provides alternative transportation to
environmental justice area 5
Number of development areas with pedestrian/bicycle
access 5
Conforms to regional complete streets principals 5
Connects to top origin/destinations with bike/pedestrian
facility – commuting network 5
Subtotal 20
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 88 / 225
28
Chapter 4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The transportation system supports the movement of people and goods, both internally and
externally, in the Grand Island metropolitan area. Typical transportation systems include streets,
highways, paratransit services, public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, airports, and rail
facilities. The existing transportation system provides the baseline from where we can build to
provide additional or improved transportation options for residents and visitors, and to facilitate
the movement of freight within, to, from, and through the Grand Island area. This chapter provides
an overview of the existing transportation system.
4.1 Streets and Highways
The street and highway system is the backbone of the modern-day Grand Island transportation
system. The street and highway system provides connections within the city, connections to other
populated areas, and connections between various modes of travel within the metropolitan area.
This section provides an overview of the various components of the street and highway system.
A well laid-out and well designated roadway network is essential for safe and efficient surface
transportation. A primary way transportation networks are organized and described is by
functional classification. The basic concept of functional classification is that travel involves the
use of many roads that should be channeled in an efficient manner.
Functional classification is a process by which roadways are grouped into classes according to
the service they provide. This service ranges from a high degree of travel mobility (interstates and
freeways) to land access functions (local roads). Federal regulations require that each state
classify roadways in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Functional
Classification: Concepts, Criteria, and Procedures document. The primary criteria for defining
functional classification generally includes average daily traffic volumes, posted and observed
travel speeds, and access control.
There are three basic highway classifications: Arterial, Collector, and Local. All streets and
highways are grouped into one of these classes, depending on the character of the traffic and the
degree of land access allowed, as shown in Table 4-1.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 89 / 225
29
Table 4-1: General Federal Functional Classifications
Functional
Category
Sub-Category Characteristics/Services
Arterial Interstate The highest classification of arterials were designed and
constructed with mobility and long-distance travel in mind.
Freeways/
Expressways
· Maximizes mobility function with limited accesses.
· Abutting land uses not directly served.
· Have directional travel lanes separated by physical barriers.
Other Principle
Arterial
· Serve major activity centers with a high degree of mobility.
· Abutting land uses can be served directly, but with access
control.
Minor Arterial · Serve trips of moderate length
· Serve geographic areas smaller than their higher arterial
counterparts.
· Offer connectivity to the higher Arterial system.
Collector · Gathers traffic from local roads and funnels them to the
arterial network.
Local · Consists of all the roads not identified as arterials or
collectors.
· Account for the largest percentage of all roadways in terms
of mileage.
· Provide direct access to abutting land.
· Discourage through traffic.
Source: Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and Procedures (Section 3).
An efficient transportation system requires a balance between the two primary transportation
functions of roadways – “access to property” and “travel mobility”. Access to property is important
for people to get to destinations and travel mobility is important to allow for movement around the
area without having high amounts of delay.
It is the roadway’s primary purpose that defines the classification category that a given roadway
belongs. For example, freeways emphasize mobility and have complete access control that allow
for higher speeds and capacities. Conversely, facilities such as local streets and minor arterials
allow for greater access, but have reduced mobility due to lower speeds and capacities. A system
becomes less efficient when the mobility function of arterials is reduced by increased access,
resulting in lower travel speeds and greater safety considerations. The opposite problem can
occur when high capacity roadways are located in areas where access is needed. The
development and adherence to a system of functional classification seeks to provide this balance.
The relationship is shown in Figure 4-1.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 90 / 225
30
Figure 4-1: Relationship between Mobility and Access on Roadways
Source: FHWA
The total miles of federally-classified arterials and collectors are totaled by county for urban and
rural portions. The urban area includes roadways that are completely within the Metropolitan
Planning Area (MPA), while the rural area includes a small portion in the MPA and a larger portion
in the remainder of Hall County. Table 4-2 lists the number of miles for modeled roadways in the
Grand Island MPA (GIMPA) classified as arterials and collectors. Figure 4-2 displays the federal
functional classification map for the roadway network within the Grand Island MPO boundary.
Table 4-2: Functional Classification Miles (Grand Island MPA)
Functional Classification Miles
Arterials 117.8
Interstate 4.2
Principal Arterial 39.3
Minor Arterial 56.9
Collectors 82.3
Source: NDOR
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 91 / 225
31
Figure 4-2: Federal Functional Classification
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 92 / 225
32
Access management is a process to preserve traffic flow while providing adequate access to
development. It is a process used to maintain the designated roadway function as adjacent
development occurs. The goal of access management is to balance the needs of motorists,
pedestrians, and bicyclists who are using the roadway and to enable them to travel safely and
efficiently, while meeting the needs of the abutting property owners.
Good access management is a cost-effective approach to managing the current system, reducing
congestion and crashes, and possibly reducing the need for roadway widening or new
construction. Poor access management can discourage potential customers from entering the
area and, therefore, negatively affect the livability and economic vitality of communities around
the roadways. Corridors with poor access management can lead to increased crashes between
motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists; spillover cut-through traffic on adjacent residential streets;
and reduced property values on adjacent commercial development.
Standards have been developed by the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) for federal and
state routes that are classified as principal arterials. Table 4-3 shows the control policy used by
NDOR for expressways and highways. For expressways, minimum spacing is no more than three
access locations per mile with 1,000 feet as the minimum distance between access locations.
Minimum spacing should only be used for access to developed properties, such as occupied
farmsteads, residences, businesses, and landlocked parcels.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 93 / 225
33
Table 4-3: Access Control Policy to the State Highway System in Nebraska
Expressway and Other Multi-lane Divided Highways,
Including Non Multi-lane Highways with Future ADT Over 6,000
Desirable Minimum
Type
Number of
access locations
per mile
Spacing
Number of
access locations
per mile
Spacing
Rural and
Undeveloped
Urban
1 2,000 feet 3 1,000 feet*
Developed
Urban
Consider
consolidation of
drives
2 blocks
Consider
consolidation of
drives
Consider street
system and/or
development
Table II
All Other Controlled Highways
Desirable Minimum
Type
Number of
access locations
per mile
Spacing
Number of
access locations
per mile
Spacing
Rural 3** 1,000 feet Provide access
to all properties**
Consider
consolidation of
drives
Undeveloped
Urban 7** 600 feet Provide access
to all properties**
Consider
consolidation of
drives
Urban Provide access
to all properties**
Consider
consolidation
of drives
Provide access
to all properties**
Consider
consolidation of
drives
Source: Access Control Policy to the State Highway System, NDOR, 2006.
**: Future access openings should be provided for each property, where warranted, to provide for possible future
development.
The City of Grand Island, Hall County, and Merrick County do not have access management
policies or guidelines. A number of sources are available that describe guidelines for intersection
and driveway spacing on arterial streets. There are a number of sources and examples of local
access management policies. The Institute of Transportation Engineers is one source for access
management guidelines.1 Other examples from cities in Nebraska come from Omaha and Lincoln.
1 Access Management, ITE, 2004
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 94 / 225
34
The City of Omaha provides an example of a policy, based on basic principles, related to the
spacing of traffic signals and the location of driveways near intersections. The city uses the
following as a guide:
· 1/4-mile (1,320 feet) spacing of signals on arterials
· 1/8-mile (660 feet) spacing of right-turn-in and right-turn-out on arterials
· 500-feet in intersection influence areas, where no driveways permitted approaching
intersections
· One driveway per property
The City of Lincoln has a more complex set of access management guidelines. The City of Lincoln
establishes categories of roadways that include freeways, arterials, collectors, and locals. There
are policies and specific distance requirements related to location of intersections, location of
signals, and location of median breaks for the combination of these classifications. The policy
also specifies where left turn and right turn lanes need to be constructed.
Roadway surfaces in the Grand Island MPA are mostly comprised of paved surface. Of the paved
surface roadways, the surface types include bituminous, composite (asphaltic concrete over
Portland Cement Concrete), Portland Cement Concrete (PCC), and so on.
A spatial mapping system has been developed by NDOR, which illustrates current pavement
conditions. Existing and future projects are delivered to the NDOR District offices on an annual
basis to assist them in their decision making processes. The Nebraska Pavement Management
System evaluates pavement conditions based on multiple indicators. The Nebraska Serviceability
Index (NSI) is one of the indicators to evaluate the overall pavement condition. NSI is a value
ranging from 0 to 100, with 0 being the worst and 100 the best condition. It represents the
condition of the pavement at the time of measurement and is used for determining remaining life
values.
The City of Grand Island uses Overall Condition Index (OCI) to assess the pavement condition of
the city’s roadway system. The values of NSI and OCI are normalized into one of the overall rating
scores: Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, and Very Poor, as shown in Table 4-4. This enables the
general assessment of pavement condition in the Grand Island MPA, as shown in Figure 4-3.
Table 4-4: Pavement Condition Rating Scores
Rating Score NSI / OCI
Very Good 91 thru 100
Good 71 to 90
Fair 51 to 70
Poor 31 to 50
Very Poor 0 to 30
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 95 / 225
35
Figure 4-3: Existing Pavement Condition in Grand Island MPO Area (2014)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 96 / 225
36
Figure 4-4 displays the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts taken for the Grand Island
MPA. The traffic counts are from the most recent NDOR traffic data and City of Grand Island
counts conducted in 2012 and 2013. The Traffic Data Projection Program, developed by NDOR,
was used to factor year 2012 and 2013 counts to year 2015 count values. The program is
wxTDPP.exe which uses historical count data from 1980 – 2013 to develop annual growth factors
for each NDOR count location. The highest daily traffic volumes are on U.S.-281 between State
Street and Highway 2. For this section, volumes range between 18,000 and 24,600 AADT. The
highest traffic count in Grand Island of 24,600 is located on U.S.-281 between Old Potash
Highway and U.S.-30. Other higher count locations are on U.S.-30 in the central area of Grand
Island, where volumes for both directions of travel are approximately 20,000 AADT. Walnut Street,
north of Stolley Park Road, is 16,000. Volumes on Webb Road range between 12,000 and 14,500
AADT.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 97 / 225
37
Figure 4-4: Daily Traffic Count in Grand Island MPA
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 98 / 225
38
One of the main assessments of the street and highway system is an analysis of congested
roadways. Congestion occurs when traffic demand approaches or exceeds the available capacity
of the system. Traffic demands vary significantly depending on the season of the year, the day of
the week, and even the time of day. Congestion can be classified as either recurring or non-
recurring. Recurring congestion most often occurs when the volume of traffic on a facility becomes
more than that facility can handle. Nonrecurring congestion is usually short in duration and is
caused by such things as incidents, weather, construction, or special events. One way to gauge
the level of congestion is grading a facility on its level of service.
Level of Service (LOS) is a letter designation that describes a range of rating conditions on a
particular type of facility. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) defines levels of service as
“qualitative measures that characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream and their
perception by motorists and passengers.” LOS can be measured in a number of ways that vary
in complexity. LOS is measured differently for the link level and the intersection level.
Link-level LOS
At the planning level, LOS is a qualitative analysis that compares the vehicle flow of traffic on a
particular roadway with the vehicle flow capacity of that roadway. The resulting ratio, or the
volume-to-capacity (V-C) ratio, is then used to classify the LOS from “A”, the best traffic operation,
to “F,” the worst. General level of service definitions based on V-C ratios are illustrated in Figure
4-5.
Figure 4-5: Description of Different Levels of service
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 99 / 225
39
An assessment of the level of traffic congestion on street segments was completed by comparing
daily traffic counts with estimates of daily capacity factored to represent peak hour travel
conditions. Table 4-5 shows the volume-to-capacity ratios used to define different levels of
service. This provides an overview used to identify traffic congestion levels on corridors. The
resulting figure is shown in Figure 4-6.
Table 4-5: Volume-Capacity Ratio Ranges for Roadway LOS
LOS
Uncongested
Becoming
Congested Congested
A B C D E F
Upper Limit V/C 0.25 0.45 0.70 0.85 1.00 n/a
Freeway/Interstate (Daily Capacity Per Lane - 20100)
4 Lane 20,100 36,180 56,280 68,340 80,400 n/a
6 Lane 28,550 51,390 79,940 97,070 114,200 n/a
Principal Arterial (Daily Capacity Per Lane - 7900)
2 Lane 3,950 7,110 11,060 13,430 15,800 n/a
4 Lane 7,250 13,050 20,300 24,650 29,000 n/a
6 Lane 9,850 17,730 27,580 33,490 39,400 n/a
Minor Arterial (Daily Capacity Per Lane - 6300)
2 Lane 3,150 5,670 8,820 10,710 12,600 n/a
4 Lane 6,050 10,890 16,940 20,570 24,200 n/a
Collector (Daily Capacity Per Lane - 6200)
2 Lane 2,700 4,860 7,560 9,180 10,800 n/a
4 Lane 5,150 9,270 14,420 17,510 20,600 n/a
Overall, the LOS in the Grand Island area is good. There are very few areas where the LOS nears
congested levels. As identified in Figure 4-6, the majority of the street and highway network is
uncongested. There are a few segments on Stuhr Road, Stolley Park Road, Diers Avenue, and
within the city area that are congested (LOS E/F), indicated in brown.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 100 / 225
40
Figure 4-6: Existing Level of Congestion on the Street System
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 101 / 225
41
Intersection LOS
Understanding how intersections operate is also important when assessing the street and
highway network. Intersection LOS provides enough detail to assess intersection operation in
order to identify potential intersection needs. The operating characteristics of intersections were
analyzed using the HCM method. This method defines signalized intersection LOS in terms of the
average total vehicle delay of all movements through an intersection. Vehicle delay is a parameter
for quantifying several intangible factors such as driver discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time.
Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of average delay per vehicle during a specified time
period (for example, the PM peak hour in this study).
The HCM method calculates vehicle delay based on many variables, including signal phasing
(i.e., progression of movements through the intersection), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes
with respect to intersection capacity. Table 4-6 lists the LOS criteria and description.
The intersection congestion level is also shown in Figure 4-6. There are five congested
intersections during the PM peak hour. They are: Capital Avenue and U.S.-281 intersection, Old
Potash Highway and U.S.-281 intersection, 2nd Street and Broadwell Avenue intersection, Blaine
Street and Stolley Park Road intersection, and the five-leg intersection at Broadwell Avenue and
State Street.
Table 4-6: LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersection
LOS
Average
Control Delay
(sec)
General Description Level of
Congestion
A <=10 Free Flow
Uncongested B >10 - 20 Stable Flow (slight delays)
C >20 - 35 Stable Flow (acceptable delays)
D >35 - 55
Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally
wait through more than one signal cycle before
proceeding)
Near Congestion
E >55 - 80 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) Congested F >80 Forced flow (jammed)
A review of historical accident data provided by the Nebraska Department of Roads has been
conducted to reveal locations with potential safety issues. Over 7,300 crash records in Grand
Island from 2009 through 2013 were reviewed to determine the following accident characteristics
in the Grand Island area:
· Location (on roadway and at rail crossings)
· Type: angled, backing, head-on, left-turn leaving, rear-end, sideswipe (opposite/same
direction).
· Severity (fatality, injury, or property damage only)
· Time of Day (Peak vs. Non-Peak)
· Road condition (dry, wet, ice, snow or slush, mud, or sand)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 102 / 225
42
High Crash Locations
Information on the number and location of vehicle crashes was obtained from NDOR for the five
year period from 2009 through 2013. After reviewing the data, the locations that had a higher
number of crashes were mapped. The number of railroad related crashes at railway-highway
crossings was also mapped.
Figure 4-7 shows the location of intersections and the highway-railway crossings with crashes. It
also shows the location of fatal accidents during this period. The intersection with the highest
number of crashes (141) is at U.S.-281 and Old Potash Highway. The intersection of U.S.-281
and W 13th St had two fatal accidents during this five year period. The highway-railway at-grade
crossing of Broadwell Avenue and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) had the highest number of
rail/vehicle crashes (17). The only fatal accident at rail crossings occurred at Husker Highway and
UPRR.
Crash Type
Crash type detail is illustrated in Figure 4-8. The largest percentage of crashes was rear-end (37
percent) followed by angled (34 percent) and sideswipe (16 percent) crashes. Crashes due to
left-turn and backing maneuver occupy 6 percent and 7 percent, respectively. Rear-end accidents
are the most common crash type. As compared to the national data in Traffic Safety Facts 2013,
Grand Island tended to have a higher percent of rear-end crashes, and slightly lower sideswipe
and head-on percentage than the national average. The higher percent of rear-end crashes could
be related to vehicles approaching intersections and traffic signals.
Figure 4-7: Crashes by Type
Angle
(1,522, 33.3%)
Backing
(288, 6.3%)
Head-on
(11, 0.2%)
Left-turn leaving
(316, 6.9%)
Rear-end
(1,697, 37.1%)
Sideswipe
(opposite)
(89, 1.9%)
Sideswipe
(same)
(646, 14.1%)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 103 / 225
43
Figure 4-8: Crash Locations in Grand Island MPA
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 104 / 225
44
Crash Severity
The crash dataset was further analyzed to determine the number of crashes that were property
damage only (PDO), possible injury, visible injury, disabling injury, and fatality. The distribution of
the crash data by severity is illustrated in Figure 4-9. Approximately 65 percent of crashes were
PDO, while approximately 34 percent resulted in various levels of injuries. As compared to
statewide crash data, the percentage of fatalities was similar and the percentage of injury crashes
were lower.
Figure 4-9: Crash by Severity
Crash by Time of Day
The crash data was also analyzed to determine the concentration of crashes at different time
periods throughout the day. The higher number of crashes is shown to occur in the late afternoon.
The results of this analysis are illustrated in Figure 4-10. This pattern is similar to the statewide
time of day pattern.
Property Damage
Only
(3,313, 65.2%)
Possible Injury
(930, 18.3%)
Visible Injury
(572, 11.3%)
Disabling Injury
(237, 4.7%)
Fatal
(26, 0.5%)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 105 / 225
45
Figure 4-10: Crashes by Time of Day
Crash by Road Condition
The crash data was analyzed to determine the number of crashes that occurred on roads that
were dry, wet, icy, had snow or slush, and had mud or sand. The distribution of the crashes by
road conditions during the three year period is illustrated in Figure 4-11. Approximately 76 percent
of the accidents occurred on a dry roadway and approximately 8.7 percent occurred on a wet
roadway. The crash experience for Grand Island showed a higher percentage of crashes related
to snow and ice as compared to that for the state of Nebraska. Crashes on wet pavement were
lower than the statewide percentage.
136113
57 45 42 77 90
423
253242267
427
573
491
585
783
679
628
354
236 211211
147 118117
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Number of CrashesTime of Day
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 106 / 225
46
Figure 4-11: Crashes by Road Condition
Intersection Crash Rates
Crash rates were calculated for the 10 highest crash locations to see how traffic volumes affected
the crash locations. The calculated intersection crash rate is based on the number of observed
crashes at each intersection from 2009 to 2013 in conjunction with the total entering vehicles at
each respective location. The 2013 vehicular volumes were estimated from available information,
including NDOR and city daily volumes, where available. These counts were used to determine
the number of entering vehicles at each location; multiplied by 5 to represent the crashes over a
five year period. The crash rate equation for an intersection is as follows:
10,000,000 5 365
The calculated crash rate from this formula is expressed in terms of crash per ten million entering
vehicles (TMEV). Table 4-7 shows the calculated crash rates, ordered according to the highest
crash rate.
Dry
(5458, 76.0%)
Ice
(582, 8.1%)
Sand,mud
(29, 0.4%)
Snow, Slush
(483, 6.7%)
Water, Wet
(626, 8.7%)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 107 / 225
47
Table 4-7: Calculated Crash Rates for the Top 10 Intersections
Rank
Location Observed
Crash
2013 Total
Entering
Vehicles
(TEV/day)
Entering
Vehicles
5-year Period
(10 million)
Crash Rate
(per TMEV)
1 U.S.-281 & Old Potash
Highway 141 32,209 5.9 23.99
2 U.S.-281 & Capital Avenue 56 17,192 3.1 17.85
3 U.S.-281 & W Stolley Park
Road 73 26,620 4.9 15.03
4 U.S.-281 & State Street 72 31,178 5.7 12.65
5 U.S.-281 & W 13th Street 60 26,049 4.8 12.62
6 U.S.-30 & Webb Road 53 23,575 4.3 12.32
7 Locust Street & W Stolley
Park Road 53 23,683 4.3 12.26
8 Broadwell Avenue & State
Street 30 19,037 3.5 8.63
9 U.S.-281 & Faidley Avenue 41 27,443 5.0 8.19
10 Husker Highway (U.S.-34)
& U.S.-281 31 24,246 4.4 7.01
Bridges and underpasses have been added over the years at some locations to make travel safer
and more convenient. Separating cars and trains reduces the potential for crashes, as well as
reducing the time spent by motorists waiting for passing trains. Spanning the region’s numerous
rivers and streams with permanent structures has allowed people and vehicles to move more
easily.
There are 99 bridges within Grand Island, including 37 state structures, 37 county structures, and
25 urban/municipal structures. These bridges include structures ranging in size from a river bridge
to a culvert under a roadway. Among the 99 structures, there are 8 bridges that are not included
in the assessment below due to data availability.
Area bridges are inspected on a regular basis by the NDOR and local governments. The bridge
condition rating is determined by an inspection conducted in accordance with the national bridge
inventory (NBI), which inspects items such as deck, superstructure, substructure and culvert.
Given these condition ratings, the most recent notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for MAP-
21 proposes national performance management measures for bridge condition assessment.
Based on the NPRM measures, there are three classifications for the purpose of assessing bridge
condition: Good, Fair, and Poor. There are 56 bridges in Good condition, 33 bridges in Fair
condition, and 3 bridge in Poor condition. Figure 4-12 displays the condition and locations of the
bridges in Grand Island MPA.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 108 / 225
48
Figure 4-12: Existing Bridge Condition in Grand Island MPA
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 109 / 225
49
4.2 Rail
The Grand Island MPA is served by three rail lines, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
railway, the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and the Nebraska Central Railroad Company
(NCRC). According to the classification system by the Association of American Railroads (AAR),
the BNSF and UPRR are Class I railroads and the NCRC is classified as a Class III (Short-Line)
railroad. The NCRC rail is a previous UPRR branch track and has direct interchange with UPRR.
The UPRR operates through the heart of the city along the original transcontinental mainline
route. UPRR has a classification yard within Grand Island and all rail freight with an origin or
destination in Grand Island is transported via the UPRR and NCRC systems. The BNSF has little
local access to Grand Island and mainly serves through traffic, 25 percent of which is composed
of intermodal double stacks, unit grain, and manifest trains. The BNSF and UPRR intersect at the
eastern edge of the city through a grade-separated structure. Both railroads have the capabilities
of transporting products across the continental USA and access to major ports, which provides
an avenue to export product to international markets.
The number of trains per day for each railroad, as well as grade-separated and at-grade crossings
for each is identified in Table 4-8. The UPRR has an estimated 75 through trains per day in the
Grand Island MPA on the double mainline tracks. These trains travel at a maximum speed of 70
miles per hour (mph) at the west city limits, slowing to 50 mph within the downtown commercial
area. The BNSF operates approximately 60 through trains per day in the Grand Island MPA on a
single mainline track. These trains travel at maximum speeds of 60 mph on the fringe areas of
the city and 45 mph on the elevated portion of the corridor in the central part of the city.
Table 4-8: Rail Lines in Grand Island
Railroad Trains Per Day2 Length of Track (mile) At-Grade
Crossings
Grade
Separations
BNSF 59 through trains 11.4 14 6
UPRR 75 through trains 18.4 24 4
NCRC 3 local trains;
2 switch trains
4.4 7 0
The interaction between rail traffic and other transportation modes, i.e. motorized vehicles and
pedestrians, causes an impact on the transportation system. At-grade crossings are where such
interactions occur. At-grade crossings can cause temporary congestion on city streets as motor
vehicles, pedestrians, and other forms of transportation must wait for a train to clear. Grade-
separated facilities do not have this problem as there is no conflict between rail traffic and other
traffic. Figure 4-13 shows the rail lines that serve the Grand Island metropolitan area, along with
the at-grade railroad crossings.
2 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 110 / 225
50
Figure 4-13: Rail Network in Grand Island
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 111 / 225
51
Grade separation can reduce the conflicts between trains and vehicles/pedestrians. NDOR
generally identifies potential locations for new grade separation structures based on exposure
factor (daily trains vehicles), crash costs, elimination of vehicular delay, and other appropriate
factors. NDOR uses a minimum exposure factor of 50,000 for a single crossing to warrant
consideration of grade separation funding. Other MPOs have used higher factors in the range of
300,000 to 500,000 as a grade crossing warrant. Table 4-9 lists the exposure factor for 18 railway-
highway crossings with available ADT information.
Table 4-9: Grade Crossing Exposure Factor Calculation
Roadway Note Rail
ADT
(2015)
Trains/
Day
Exposure
Factor
Broadwell Avenue North of US-30 UPRR 12,036 75 902,700
Blaine-Custer Avenue UPRR 8,430 75 632,250
Webb Road UPRR 6,283 75 471,225
US-34/Husker Highway West at US-30 UPRR 5,460 75 409,500
Capital Avenue East at US-30 UPRR 4800 75 360,000
Walnut Street UPRR 4,375 75 328,125
Stuhr Street BNSF 4,830 59 284,970
Broadwell Avenue North of W Capital
Avenue BNSF 4,733 59 279,247
North Road/
W Stolley Park Road West of US-281 UPRR 3,700 75 277,500
Shady Bend Road UPRR 2,922 75 219,150
Pine Street UPRR 1,750 75 131,250
Bismark Road BNSF 2,138 59 126,142
Engleman Road South of US-30 UPRR 1,473 75 110,475
Lincoln Avenue UPRR 1,302 75 97,650
Webb Road BNSF 1,413 59 83,367
North Road BNSF 1,341 59 79,119
Engleman Road North of Highway 2 BNSF 839 59 49,501
Capital Avenue East of St. Paul Road NCRC 5,300 5 26,500
4th Street NCRC 2,565 5 12,825
W Stolley Park Road West of Grand Island
Cemetery
UPRR
Spur 11,659 1 11,659
US-34 Highway East of US-281 UPRR
Spur 8,532 1 8,532
2nd Street UPRR
Spur 2,203 1 2,203
Rail source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 112 / 225
52
The safety and noise issues associated with HRGCs are the two main concerns within the Grand
Island MPA, according to the Grand Island Railroad Corridor Safety Study in 2006. This study
conducted a Quiet Zone Study for the City of Grand Island, indicating a need to address the
increasing complaints from area residents from the constant sounding of railroad related horns
and warnings along the railroad corridors. The study identified several measures to reduce the
noise level around at-grade rail crossings until grade separations can be constructed. These
measures included:
1) permanent or temporary closure (nighttime closure),
2) four-quadrant gate systems,
3) gates with medians or channelization devices (traffic separators),
4) conversion of a two-way street to a one-way street,
5) wayside horns.
The study also prioritized locations for rail grade separation. The need and priority for new railroad
grade separation will be further analyzed in this plan.
4.3 Freight
Freight demand is driven by trade in support of population concentrations or concentrations of
industry; and in most cases by both. The freight in Nebraska is mainly transported and distributed
through truck and rail.
The Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) Data Tabulation Tool is a web tool designed by FHWA to
create a comprehensive picture of freight movement among states and major metropolitan areas
by all modes of transportation. With data from the 2007 Commodity Flow Survey and additional
sources, FAF version 3 (FAF3) provides estimates for tonnage, value, and domestic ton-miles by
region of origin and destination, commodity type, and mode for 2007, and forecasts through 2040.
In 2007, over $242 billion in domestic freight was moved within, from, and to Nebraska; over $7
billion in foreign freight was exported from and imported to Nebraska. The total value was
forecasted to be over $298 billion in 2015 and $553 billion in 2040. The total domestic tonnage
within, from and to Nebraska in 2007 was over 702 million tons. The FAF3 projected this will
increase to over 770 million tons for 2015 and will increase to over 1 billion tons in 2040.
Table 4-10 summarizes the percentages by truck and rail for domestic freight shipments within,
from, and to Nebraska using FAF data. Truck is the dominating mode for domestic transportation
of goods. Table 4-11 lists the percentages by truck, rail, and multiple modes & mail for exported
and imported goods. FAF3 and the Commodity Flow Survey use Multiple Modes and Mail to
represent commodities that move by more than one mode. Shipments reported as Multiple
Modes can include anything from containerized cargo to coal moving from mine to railhead by
truck and rail to harbor. The “Mail” component recognizes that shippers who use parcel delivery
services typically do not know what modes were involved after the shipment was picked up.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 113 / 225
53
Table 4-10: Domestic Freight Shipment Distribution by Mode in Nebraska
Direction Year Truck (%) Rail (%) Total (K tons)
Within
2007 99% 0.4% 195,856
2015 99% 1% 212,577
2040 99% 1% 343,222
From
2007 89% 9% 248,637
2015 90% 8% 266,598
2040 93% 5% 413,087
To
2007 89% 9% 251,906
2015 89% 9% 281,111
2040 91% 7% 449,147
Table 4-11: Domestic Mode Distribution for Imported/Exported Goods with Destination/Origin in Nebraska
Foreign Freight Domestic Mode 2007 2015 2040
Imports Truck (%) 57% 80% 76%
Rail (%) 36% 16% 18%
Multiple modes & mail (%) 8% 12% 12%
Total (1000 tons) 3,810 4,425 9,961
Exports Truck (%) 33% 36% 42%
Rail (%) 52% 48% 44%
Multiple modes & mail (%) 7% 4% 5%
Total (1000 tons) 2,093 5,956 12,708
One of the products available through the FAF-3 data resources is the ability to assign estimates
of annual freight movement volumes to specific links and routes across major U.S. transportation
networks. Figure 4-14 shows the FAF assignment of regional freight tonnage upon Grand Island’s
regional highway network in 2007. Not surprisingly, I-80 carries the highest volume of freight,
followed by the section of U.S.-281/U.S.-34 linking Grand Island to I-80. U.S.-30 east of Grand
Island was also estimated to have carried in excess of 15 million tons of freight in 2007. The
subsequent map in Figure 4-15 displays the estimated freight volume on Grand Island’s regional
roadway network in 2040. By 2040, U.S.-281/U.S.-34 is estimated to carry in excess of 50 million
tons, as is a section of U.S.-30 in downtown Grand Island.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 114 / 225
54
Figure 4-14: FAF Truck Tonnage Assignment Grand Island Regional Road Network – 2007
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 115 / 225
55
Figure 4-15: FAF Truck Tonnage Assignment Grand Island Regional Road Network - 2040
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 116 / 225
56
The key industries driving the Grand Island/Hall County regional economy: manufacturing;
transportation and warehousing; retail trade; agriculture; and, construction are all freight intensive
industries (Transportation Satellite Accounts).
A data series produced by the Brookings Institution examines the impact of foreign trade on state
and local economies. Figure 4-16 shows the growth in foreign exports from Grand Island between
2003 and 2012. During this 10 year period, the value of Grand Island’s foreign exports has grown
by 210 percent. According to the Brookings Institute, in 2014 the total value of exports from Grand
Island reached $960 million.
Figure 4-16: Annual Growth in Goods Exports (Grand Island)
Source: Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program: Global Cities Initiative (Excludes service exports).
Grand Island’s leading export industries by total value in 2014 are shown in Table 4-12. In 2014,
exports contributed an estimated 19.4 percent of the Grand Island regional economy and
supported 6,599 jobs.
Table 4-12: Top Grand Island Export Industries in 2014
Industry 2014 Export value
(millions of $)
Annualized Growth Rate
(2003-2014)
Agriculture, Construction, Mining
Machinery
$209.0 +10.6%
Agriculture $144.0 +3.0%
Meat & Poultry Products $116.1 16.3%
Basic Chemicals $76.6 9.7%
Misc. Fabricated Metal Products $61.9 13.9%
Source: Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program: Global Cities Initiative.
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year-to-Year Goods Exports
(nominal U.S. Dollars in millions)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 117 / 225
57
There are several freight generators in the Grand Island area. Truck and rail are the major modes
for freight transportation. Freight generators are sites that generate or receive regular loads of
freight, such as factories, grain elevators, and large retailers. Figure 4-17 combines freight-related
information in Grand Island in terms of truck route, rail lines, and land use related to freight
generators. Three grain generators are shown as red circles. Areas in brown are the traffic
analysis zones with industrial workers higher than 100. Freight-oriented employment types such
as transportation, trade, construction, and agriculture are symbolized based on the amount of
jobs. The truck route and rail networks have a good coverage to serve these freight generators.
Figure 4-18 displays the number of trucks on major truck routes within the Grand Island area in
2012. The information is obtained from the statewide average daily traffic (ADT) map downloaded
from the NDOR website.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 118 / 225
58
Figure 4-17: Grand Island Freight Network Map
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 119 / 225
59
Figure 4-18 Average Daily Truck Counts from Statewide ADT Map
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 120 / 225
60
4.4 Transit
Within the City of Grand Island, Hall County, and Merrick County, alternative transportation services are
provided by general public demand-response bus service, senior transportation provided by Senior
Citizens Industries, Inc., taxi service, and various intercity bus routes.
Hall County Public Transportation is the main public transit provider within the MPO region, offering
demand-response service to all persons living in Hall County, including the communities of Alda, Cairo,
Doniphan, Grand Island, and Wood River. Hall County’s service is general public transportation, with no
eligibility restrictions related to age or disability status. The Senior Citizens Industries, Inc. organization
is the current provider and recipient of federal and state transportation funds. The agency oversees Hall
County Public Transportation.
Trips within Hall County are available Monday through Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Reservations
are required 24 hours in advance and fares are $1.50 per one-way trip. Hall County’s vehicle fleet
includes 11 lift-equipped buses with a capacity of 12 passengers, two wheelchairs, and a driver. There
is also a program offering discounted taxi cab tickets with the City Cab Company. This service is available
to county residents who are disabled or 60 years and older, and operates 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.
Existing fleet information for Senior Citizens Industries, Inc. is shown in Table 4-13.
Table 4-13 Fleet Information (Senior Citizens Industries, Inc.)
Vehicle Type Vin Year Condition of
Vehicle
12-pass Van 78818 2012 Very Good
Small Bus, 12+2 44732 2013 Very Good
Small Bus, 12+2 62983 2010 Good
Small Bus 12+2, Star Trans 46538 2010 Good
Small Bus 12+2, Star Trans 46539 2010 Good
Cutaway Van 45963 2006 Fair
Starcraft Allstar 25184 2006 Fair
Lowered floor minivan 20355 2014 Excellent
Lowered floor minivan 20356 2014 Excellent
Goshen Coach 84974 2008 Good
Goshen Coach 09020 2009 Poor
Cutaway Van 04495 2004 Fair
Supreme 78770 2014 Excellent
Note: NDOR, April 2015.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 121 / 225
61
In FY2015, Hall County Public Transportation provided approximately 36,400 annual trips, with
approximately 14,377 annual revenue hours. The agency transportation operating costs were recorded
at $258,570. The agency reports approximately 10 percent of total trips are to the rural areas.
The agency received $264,053 FTA 5311 funding in FY2015. The local and state match for the funds
were $55,669 each. In FY2016, the agency received $353,108 in 5311 operating funds, with a local
match of $96,619 and a state match of $98,618. In addition, the agency received $88,000 from the 5311
funds for capital purchases, with a local match of $22,000. As of July 1, 2016, 5311 funding will be only
available to the agency for rural trips, and the agency will need to apply for FTA 5307 urban-area funds
to receive federal funding for public transportation services. Table 4-14 provides a summary of the agency
services.
Table 4-14 Hall County Public Transportation – Agency Data
Year 2013 2014 2015
Ridership 32,521 32,492 36,394
Revenue Vehicle Hours n/a 13,626 14,377
Miles Traveled 172,419 170,940 170,497
Fares Collected $125,347 $125,148 $137,707
Operating Costs $464,540 $337,550 $258,570
Non-Operating Costs Combined $144,756 $254,528
Total Costs $339,193 $357,158 $513,098
NOTE: NDOR, March 2016.
Located in Merrick County, Central City Mini Bus offers general public transportation demand-response
service to residents within Merrick County, pending a 24-hour advance notice. Service is available
weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. For medical trips, Merrick County residents are eligible for service
to most medical destinations in Nebraska at a rate of $0.575 per mile. Central City Mini Bus currently has
two lift-equipped vans. While one van operates primarily within Central City, the second bus is designated
for medical-related trips. In addition to the service within Merrick County, there is also a monthly trip
scheduled from Central City to Grand Island, located in Hall County, on the first Monday of each month.
Riders can make the trip to Grand Island for a $10 round-trip fare. These trips are typically shopping or
medical-related. The bus leaves Central City for Grand Island at 9:00 a.m. and returns to Central City
around 3:00 p.m.
The agency provided 6,420 annual trips in FY2013-14, with an increase to 7,224 annual trips in FY2014-
15. Annual operating costs for Central City Mini Bus were $57,531 in FY2013-14 and $43,374 in FY2014-
2015.3 The agency provided in FY2014-2015 approximately 1,200 annual vehicle revenue hours with
approximately 10,591 miles. Funding for the agency comes from federal, state, local and fare revenues,
as shown below in Table 4-15 for FY2013-2015.
3 NDOR, March 2016.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 122 / 225
62
Table 4-15 Central City Mini Bus – Financial Data
Fiscal Year Federal State Local Operating
Revenue Total Costs
FY2013-2014 $31,411 $13,530 $69,441 $6,316 $58,471
FY2014-2015 $37,347 $11,658 $11,658 $6,098 $66,760
NOTE: NDOR, March 2016.
Intercity transportation services provide connections to other destinations outside Grand Island.
Operating characteristics of each provider is further described in this section.
Dashabout Shuttle
The Dashabout Shuttle is a scheduled van service operating intercity routes across Nebraska travelling
as far west as Colorado and as far east as Omaha. Two routes stop in Grand Island. One route travels
between McCook and Grand Island, where riders can eventually transfer to another route enroute to
Colorado. The second route stopping in Grand Island travels from North Platte to Omaha. This route
allows riders to either travel west towards North Platte or east to Lincoln or Omaha. Both services operate
Monday through Friday, offering a single same-day round trip.
Table 4-16 presents agency statistics for FY2010-2014.
Table 4-16 Dashabout Agency Data (FY2010-2014)
Fiscal
Year
Vehicles
in
Service
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Boardings
Federal
Funds
Paid
State
Funds
Paid
Operating
Deficit
Total
Operating
Costs
FY2010 2 166,112 859 $55,813 $37,210 $93,023 $93,023
FY2011 2 166,112 784 $55,813 $35,589 $93,023 $93,023
FY2012 2 166,148 790 $56,125 $32,226 $93,542 $93,542
FY2013 2 167,046 551 $55,813 $29,462 $93,542 $93,542
FY2014 2 161,472 479 $45,211 $33,536 $90,424 $90,424
NOTE: NDOR, March 2016.
Navigator Airport Express
The Navigator Airport Express is a van service between Kearney and Omaha’s Eppley Airfield. Grand
Island passengers can take the van service for a one-way trip for $62.
Burlington Trailways
Burlington Trailways operates a route between Ogallala and Omaha, with a stop in Grand Island. They
offer a westbound and eastbound trip Monday through Saturday, except for holidays. The eastbound bus
departs from Grand Island at 3:05 a.m. and a westbound bus departs at 12:50 a.m. Other stops along
the route include the cities of Ogallala, North Platte, Lexington, Kearney, Lincoln, and Omaha. Fares from
Grand Island range from $18 to $52 each way. In FY2015, the agency received federal funds for the first
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 123 / 225
63
time, which was $33,372. Annual passenger boardings are 26,540, with 271,246 annual miles. The
agency is not eligible to receive state funding.
Ponca Express
Ponca Express is a public transportation agency operated by the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, which
includes 15 federally-designated counties, including Hall County, located in Nebraska, South Dakota,
and Iowa, as part of the Ponca Restoration Act of 1990. The Ponca Express, an FTA 5311 grantee,
serves rural communities within a three-hour radius of Ponca Transit facilities in either Niobrara or Norfolk
for appointments, meetings, or gatherings with the tribe. On-demand service is available on a first-
come/first-serve basis from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Round-trip fares for
passengers originating from Grand Island are $5 for adults and $3 for children and seniors. Additional
fares are required if other stops are needed en route to the intended destination.
In 2014, Ponca Express completed a new 15,000 square-foot transit facility in Norfolk for $3.5M, which
is the headquarters for the tribal transit program. The facility was funded partially from the Federal Transit
Administration. The building houses Ponca Express, garage storage for 16 vehicles, a training area, and
a conference room.
The Ponca Tribe received $97,500 for FY2014 and FY2015 for transit expansion and capital projects
from the FTA Tribal Transit Program for discretionary projects with earmarks.4 The Tribe received funding
to puchase accessible vans to enhance their ability to provide elderly, disabled and tribal and community
members in Northeastern Nebraska with access to jobs, health care and social service appointments. In
FY2014, the agency received $68,344 FTA Section 5311 (c) formula-based funds. In FY13, the agency
received approximately $3,700 for to purchase GPS equipment to monitor vehicle locations, and $51,594
from the FTA 5311 (c) formula-based funds.
Amtrak
While there is currently no Amtrak service stopping in Grand Island, the California Zephyr route stops in
Hastings, 25 miles south of Grand Island, on its way towards Chicago, Illinois, on its eastbound route and
San Francisco, California, on its westbound route. Other stops in Nebraska include McCook, Holdrege,
Lincoln, and Omaha. During FY2014, Amtrak reported boarding and alighting data for the Hastings stop
at 5,601, which is down from 5,865 for FY2013.5 Other FY2014 activity includes:
· Holdrege – 2,247 Boardings and Alightings
· Lincoln – 13,313 Boardings and Alightings
· McCook – 3,414 Boardings and Alightings
· Omaha – 24,336 Boardings and Alightings
The total FY2014 boardings and alightings for the state were 48,911, which is down one percent from
FY2013 at 49,408.
4 http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Larger_Font-Earmark_IDs_Project_Selection_List-TTP_FY14-15.pdf
5 https://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/NEBRASKA14.pdf
https://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/NEBRASKA13.pdf
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 124 / 225
64
Fares from Hastings to Lincoln are as low as $21 for a one-way fare and $28 to Omaha. If riders are
without access to a car for their connection to Hastings from Grand Island, taxi cab service or the
Dashabout Shuttle, described earlier in this section, could be used to deliver passengers between Grand
Island and Hastings.
The demographics in this section describe the portions of Grand Island and Hall County residents with
socio-economic characteristics that would make them more likely to have a need for public transportation
services. These populations include people who may be disabled or elderly, have low-incomes, and
households with limited access to cars. This information is summarized in Table 4-17 through Table 4-
20. The location of people more likely to have a need for public transportation services are displayed in
Figure 4-19.
There is a concentration of persons which could be served by expanded transit services. As the tables
and figure show, nearly 5,500 people in Grand Island have some form of disability. In addition, 6,200
Grand Island residents are over the age of 65, and 3,200 are over age 75. Persons in this age group are
sometimes categorized as “frail elderly”, and are more likely to suffer from activity or cognitive
impairments that may make driving difficult. This could also be true for persons with disabilities. In the
broader Grand Island population, 7,200 residents are below poverty level, and 7,500 households have
either none or only one vehicle available for use. Residents below poverty level or residents without a
vehicle or with only one vehicle in their household are more likely to have a need for alternative
transportation options due to the cost of owning and maintaining a car or multiple cars within a household.
Transit riders may also be people who have access to private vehicles but choose to use transit in order
to save money, for the convenience of not having to drive, for environmental reason or other reasons.
These riders and the need to serve major employment areas, shopping area, medical and government
centers should be considered in the Transit Feasibility Study that is listed in the TIP for release in 2016
to be completed in 2017.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 125 / 225
65
Table 4-17: Disabled Population (2013)
Grand Island Hall County
Total population 48,617 58,648
Total with a disability 5,458 6,735
Percent with a disability 11% 12%
Total population with a disability under 5 years 51 51
% of population with a disability under 5 years 1% 1%
Total population with a disability 5 to 17 years 529 703
% of population with a disability 5 to 17 years 6% 6%
Total population with a disability 18 to 64 years 2,855 3,430
% of population with a disability 18 to 64 years 10% 10%
Total population with a disability 65 years and over 2,023 2,551
% of Population with a disability 65 years and over 35% 35%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 – 2013 5-year estimates.
Table 4-18: Population over 65 Years (2013)
Grand Island Hall County
Age Total % Total Total % Total
65 years and over 6,249 12.7% 7,919 13.3%
65 and 66 years 852 1.7% 1,030 1.7%
67 to 69 years 993 2.0% 1,309 2.2%
70 to 74 years 1,122 2.3% 1,565 2.6%
75 to 79 years 1,065 2.2% 1,429 2.4%
80 to 84 years 1,085 2.2% 1,266 2.1%
85 years and over 1,132 2.3% 1,320 2.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 – 2013 5-year
estimates.
Table 4-19: Population below the Poverty Level (2013)
Grand Island Hall County
Total Population 48,364 58,265
Population below poverty level 7,232 8,007
% below poverty level 15.0% 13.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 – 2013 5-
year estimates.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 126 / 225
66
Table 4-20: Vehicle Ownership by Household (2013)
Grand Island Hall County
Total % of Total Total % of Total
Total Households 18,463 -/- 22,168 -/-
No vehicles available 1,274 6.9% 1,371 6.2%
1 or 0 vehicles available 7,581 41.1% 8,235 37.1%
2 or less vehicles available 14,379 77.9% 16,463 74.3%
3 or more vehicles available 4,084 22.1% 5,705 25.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2009 – 2013 5-year estimates.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 127 / 225
67
Figure 4-19: Indicators of Market Need for Transit
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 128 / 225
68
4.5 Bicycle & Pedestrian Network
The Grand Island and Hall County area has numerous bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including
sidewalks, on-street bicycle routes, off-street multi-use paths, and scenic byways. Each facility type has
certain characteristics that dictate how the facility is used and the level of safety perceived by users.
Pedestrians and bicyclists rely on these characteristics, as well as the connectivity between their
origin/destination(s), to decide whether to bike/walk instead of using their car, if available. This section of
the report describes the street network of Grand Island that provides the underlying structure for an active
transportation network, a review of how the Grand Island street network addresses bicycle and pedestrian
movement, a description of typical bicycle and pedestrian facilities, existing supply of trails in Grand
Island, bicycle user types, and the support for future trail investments.
The street systems, and thus the underlying structure of any pedestrian network, are representative of
street systems designed across a variety of time periods. The traditional grid system is evident in much
of the city, including downtown and the surrounding areas. The traditional grid system “contains the most
amount of street frontage, the greatest number of intersections, the greatest number of blocks, the greater
number of access points, and the total absence of loops and cul-de-sacs6” as compared to other street
patterns. These characteristics of short block lengths and a high number of access points have typically
encouraged walking and biking as it allows travelers to access their destinations through a wide variety
of paths based on personal preference, perception of safety, directness of route, and variety of
experience. Other street patterns began to take shape as Grand Island’s street network expanded
outward from downtown, although a grid pattern remains prevalent. These other patterns include a
fragmented parallel network (circa 1950’s), which lays streets generally in a grid, but limits cross-traffic
opportunities, and a warped parallel network (circa 1960s), that introduces a patterned and curvilinear
aspect to the street network. In the more recent additions to the Grand Island street network, cul-de-sacs
within a loop network, and cul-de-sacs within a very wide or loose grid appear. As the street network
progresses further away from a grid structure, generally the number of blocks and intersections decrease
and reduce the attractiveness of walking to nearby destinations.
6 Frank, L., Engleke, P. (undated). How Land Use and Transportation Systems Impact Public Health: A Literature
Review of the Relationship Between Physical Activity and Built Form. City and Regional Planning Program College
of Architecture. Georgia Institute of Technology.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 129 / 225
69
Grid
(Cedar Street and 12th Street)
Fragmented Parallel
(Rosemont Ave and Apache
Road)
Warped Parallel
(Oklahoma Avenue and
Arthur Street)
Cul-de-sacs within loops
(Morrison Drive and Allen Avenue)
Cul-de-sacs
(Warbler Circle and Summerfield Avenue)
A system-wide analysis identified areas of the Grand Island MPO that demonstrate a high propensity for
walking and bicycling. These areas had above average rates of either persons under the age of 18,
elderly population, or low-income population. These areas were compared against areas with higher
intersection densities, which could serve as a proxy for walkability. The LEED 2009 for Neighborhood
Development Rating System has a prerequisite under its Neighborhood Pattern and Design (NPD)
section that requires at least 90 intersections per square mile to be considered as a “Connected and
Open” community. Areas with both a higher density street network and a population more likely to walk
or bike, could be areas where addressing sidewalk or bike network gaps could return a large investment
in terms of attracting more pedestrians and investments.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 130 / 225
70
In addition to a system-wide analysis, three areas of Grand Island were further reviewed for challenges
and opportunities within Grand Island’s existing sidewalk system. These four areas are downtown, the
retail area along Highway 281, the area south of downtown, and along Locust Street.
Downtown Grand Island benefits from the grid system discussed above, and generally has wide
sidewalks on both sides of the street, frequent and defined street crossings, and a generous distribution
of deciduous street trees that filter sunlight by providing shade in the summer and sunlight in the winter.
The combination of short blocks, frequent intersections, and in most cases a solid streetwall made up of
human-scale buildings built to the parcel line present a diverse and engaging walking and biking
environment.
The area around Conestoga Mall is indicative of an auto-orientated retail environment built after World
War II. Sidewalks are somewhat intermittent, and may require pedestrians to cross busy major arterials
to continue their journey on a sidewalk. Development in the area typically utilizes large setbacks with
parking lots separating buildings from the street, and may not have a direct pedestrian connection
between the sidewalk and buildings. East-West blocks in the area are shorter than their north-south
counterparts, but typically have a greater level of access for vehicles than for pedestrians.
The pedestrian environment along South Locust Street is similar to that environment around Conestoga
Mall in terms of long blocks and limited pedestrian crossing opportunities. However, the sidewalk network
along Locust Street is generally more complete, with fewer gaps. The walking environment is still
characterized as walking relatively close to heavy traffic, and past buildings with large setbacks.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 131 / 225
71
Figure 4-20 shows that areas between Stolley Park Road and Capital Avenue, and east U.S.-281
generally have a higher intersection density and are more conducive to taking trips by walking or biking.
This is also an area with higher than average rates of either youth, elderly, or low-income.
There is support from the community to develop new facilities in the future. In Grand Island’s Grander
Vision document, action items related to bicyclists and pedestrians include developing a pedestrian and
bicycle plan and completing a regional or county-wide parks and recreation system. By implementing
these actions in Grand Island, future roadway construction would look to accommodate bicycling and
walking, as well as establish priority corridors for bicyclists and pedestrians.
In addition to a system-wide analysis, three areas of Grand Island were further reviewed for challenges
and opportunities within Grand Island’s existing sidewalk system. These four areas are downtown, the
retail area along Highway 281, the area south of downtown, and along Locust Street.
Downtown Grand Island benefits from the grid system discussed above, and generally has wide
sidewalks on both sides of the street, frequent and defined street crossings, and a generous distribution
of deciduous street trees that filter sunlight by providing shade in the summer and sunlight in the winter.
The combination of short blocks, frequent intersections, and in most cases a solid streetwall made up of
human-scale buildings built to the parcel line present a diverse and engaging walking and biking
environment.
The area around Conestoga Mall is indicative of an auto-orientated retail environment built after World
War II. Sidewalks are somewhat intermittent, and may require pedestrians to cross busy major arterials
to continue their journey on a sidewalk. Development in the area typically utilizes large setbacks with
parking lots separating buildings from the street, and may not have a direct pedestrian connection
between the sidewalk and buildings. East-West blocks in the area are shorter than their north-south
counterparts, but typically have a greater level of access for vehicles than for pedestrians.
The pedestrian environment along South Locust Street is similar to that environment around Conestoga
Mall in terms of long blocks and limited pedestrian crossing opportunities. However, the sidewalk network
along Locust Street is generally more complete, with fewer gaps. The walking environment is still
characterized as walking relatively close to heavy traffic, and past buildings with large setbacks.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 132 / 225
72
Figure 4-20: Bicycle and Pedestrian Propensity
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 133 / 225
73
There are a range of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that could be implemented in Grand Island. These
facilities commonly break down into two categories: on-street and off-street.
On-street facilities share the roadway with vehicular traffic, but vary in the level of buffering depending
on the facility. In any case, facilities located on-street include primarily bicyclists.
Shared Streets – Shared streets allow for bicyclists and motorists to operate in the same right-of-way. The
typical accommodation for bicyclists is either sharrows or a bike route sign placed on the side of the
roadway. Grand Island’s existing on-street facilities use the bike route signs rather than pavement
markings.
Paved Shoulders – Paved shoulders provide sufficient space, 4-5 feet, for bicycling on mostly rural roads.
Shoulders are outside the vehicular travel-way, but do accommodate vehicles in moments of need.
Bike Lanes – Bike lanes accommodate bicyclists by using a painted lane, which takes up a portion of the
roadway from 4-5 feet wide. While bicyclists use bike lanes, they are subject to similar regulations
practiced by vehicles. Buffers can also be added with additional pavement markers to increase the safety
of all users of the roadway.
Cycle Tracks – Cycle tracks are similar to bike lanes in that they are located within the roadway, but the
buffer between traffic is physically separated by structures rather than pavement markings.
Off-street facilities primarily include multiple types of users and are buffered by an open space or barrier.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 134 / 225
74
Sidewalks – Sidewalks are paved walkways typically three
to five feet wide and designed to accommodate non-
motorized traffic. While younger bicyclists may use
sidewalks, this type of facility is best suited for pedestrian
traffic. A sidewalk is shown in Figure 4-21.
Multi-use paths – Multi-use paths, or shared-use paths, can
accommodate only non-motorized users. These facilities
most often connect neighborhoods through exclusive
rights-of-way apart from the streets, and often run along
waterways, greenways, parks, and reclaimed railways. In
general, multi-use paths are typically 10 feet wide. Many
of the off-street trails in Grand Island fall under the multi-
use category.
Examples of Grand Island multi-use paths are shown in
Figures 4-22 and 4-23.
Figure 4-22 3765 South Locust Street
Figure 4-23 John Brownell Trail
Sidepaths – Sidepaths are multi-use paths that run parallel to a street, often in the same right-of-way, and
in place of a sidewalk. Sidepaths are typically 10 feet wide, and can serve both bicyclists and pedestrians.
Sidepaths are typically separated from the street by a wide vegetation buffer or in areas with constrained
right-of-way, by a barrier. The images on the following pages represent examples of the previously
defined bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Figures 4-24 – 31 are some examples of the facility types defined in this section.
Figure 4-21 South Locust and Fonner Park
Road
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 135 / 225
75
Source: www.pedbikeimages.org/Jennifer Campos
Figure 4-26 Example of Bike Lane Figure 4-27 Buffered Bike Lane
Source: www.pedbikeimages.org/Steven Faust
Figure 4-24 Example of Shared Streets
Source: www.pedbikeimages.org / Lyubov
Figure 4-25 Example of Paved Shoulders
Source: www.pedbikeimages.org / Bob Boyce
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 136 / 225
76
Source: www.pedbikeimages.org/Laura Sandt
Figure 4-28 Example of Multi-Use Trail
Source: www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden
Figure 4-29 Example of Multi-Use Trail
Source: www.pedbikeimages.org/Bill Daly
Figure 4-30 Example of Cycle Track
Source: www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden
Figure 4-31 Example of Sidewalk
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 137 / 225
77
The Grand Island area’s existing 30-mile network of trails can be found on-street or off-street in either
parks, alongside neighborhoods, or local streets. Tables 4-21 and 4-22 show the existing and proposed
trails in each of these categories and the length of each segment. The trail system is shown in Figure 4-
32.
Table 4-21: Existing Trails
Existing Trails Miles
On Street Trails 8.25
Parkside Trails
Cedar Hills Park Trail 0.45
Cemetery Trail 1.25
Eagle Scout Park Trail 1.05
Hall County Park Trail 1.00
Pier Lake Trail 0.46
Sucks Lake Trail 0.50
Total Parkside Trail Miles 4.71
Neighborhood Trails
Crosslinks Trail 4.60
John Brownell Beltline Trail 2.72
Riverway Trail 4.30
Shoemaker Trail 1.94
South Locust Trail 0.60
St. Joe Trail 2.91
State Street Trail 0.80
Total Neighborhood Trail Miles 17.87
Total Existing Trails 30.83
Source: <http://www.grand-island.com/your-government/parks-
and-recreation/hike-and-bike-trail-map>
Table 4-22: Trails under Study
Trail Name Miles
Burlington Trail 1.80
Eagle Scout Trail 1.70
East Lakes Trail 3.00
Mormon Island Trail 5.40
Total Planned Trails 11.80
Source: <http://www.grand-island.com/your-government/parks-and-
recreation/hike-and-bike-trail-map>
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 138 / 225
78
Figure 4-32: Recreational Trails in Grand Island 2012
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 139 / 225
79
There are also three scenic byways accessible from Grand Island, including the Lincoln Highway Historic
Byway, Loup Rivers Scenic Byway, and Sandhills Journey Scenic Byway. These corridors contribute to
not only the region’s tourism, but also gives local residents opportunities for recreation. The table below
describes the three byways further.
Table 4-23: Byways near Grand Island
Byway Label Alignment
Lincoln Highway Historic Byway From Omaha to Kimball, along U.S.-30
Loup Rivers Scenic Byway From Dunning to Wood River along State
Highways 11 and 91
Sandhills Journey Scenic Byway From Grand Island to Alliance along Highway 2
Types of Bicyclists
Not only do bicycle facilities vary in design, but they also differ in who uses them. Bicyclist types range
from advanced to basic, depending on their experience and willingness to travel along with vehicular
traffic. Advanced bicyclists are more prone to bicycling in areas without non-motorized accommodations,
as well as using on-street facilities. The advanced group, in general, is more frequent bicycle users than
the basic group. As for the basic bicyclists/children group, they prefer facilities with a larger buffer
between them and vehicle traffic and may choose not to ride where accommodations are lacking. Before
investing in future accommodations for bicyclists, all groups of users and the connectivity to nearby
facilities should be considered.
4.6 Aviation
Both general aviation and commercial aviation services are provided by the Central Nebraska Regional
Airport (CNRA). The CNRA is owned and operated by the Hall County Airport Authority (HCAA). It is
located three miles northeast of the City of Grand Island and is situated on approximately 2,200 acres. It
is classified as a Non-Hub Commercial Service Airport by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
currently serves three commercial carriers:
· Allegiant
· American
· Charters
Figure 4-33 shows the aviation service provided by each carrier as of March, 2016.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 140 / 225
80
Figure 4-33: Air Lines in Grand Island
Note: http://www.flygrandisland.com/, March 2016.
Airfield
CNRA currently has two runways; the primary runway and a crosswind runway. The primary runway is
7,000 feet long and it is primarily designed to accommodate aircraft within the FAA Aircraft Approach
Category C and Airplane Design Group III. Connecting the airport system are six taxiways. The crosswind
runway is 6,600 feet long and serves C-II aircraft. The general characteristics of the runways are listed
in Table 4-24.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 141 / 225
81
Table 4-24: CNRA Runway Information
Airport Runway
Runway
Dimension
(feet)
Runway
Surface/
Condition
Maximum
Runway Load
(aircraft type:
pounds)
Control
Tower
Runway
Edge
Lights
Total
Operations
Central
Nebraska
Regional
Airport
17/35 7,002 ×
150
Concrete /
Good
Single wheel:
75,000
Dual wheel:
110,000
Dual Tandem:
185,000
Yes High
Intensity
27,196
13/31 6,608 ×
100
Concrete /
Good
Single wheel:
45,000
Dual wheel:
60,000
Yes Medium
Intensity
Source: CNRA website
Buildings
The commercial airline passenger terminal building is 8,800 square feet in size. It includes an airline
ticket office, Budget and Thrifty rental car services, passenger boarding and waiting areas, restrooms,
and a restaurant. Located to the north of the terminal is the air traffic control tower. South of the terminal
is the Airport Authority offices. The Airport also operates five storage buildings, a car wash near the
terminal, a maintenance building, and has an Air Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility.
There are a combination of T-hangars and freestanding hangar units. There are six old Air Force Hangars
and three Fixed Based Operator (FBO) hangars. There is also one large private hangar.
Access and Parking
The main terminal parking area is accessed by a divided two-lane airport entrance road with direct access
from Sky Park Road. The majority of the available parking is located adjacent to the terminal building.
The airport terminal auto area has 300 paved and lighted public use parking spaces. The airline terminal
building also has 184 parking spaces. Other parking is provided for the Airport Authority, fixed based
operators, and for private hangars.
Additional auto parking is available on the north side of the airport for public and private use, adjacent to
the terminal area freight line with direct access to Sky Park Road. Most tenants maintain controlled gate
access to the secured terminal area facilities. Gate-secured access is also provided to the north side of
the apron area, which provides an entry/exit point to the airport’s fuel facilities. South side auto parking
areas are entered through the south-side general aviation area.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 142 / 225
82
Tenants
The CNRA has several tenants. One major Fixed Base Operator (FBO) is Trego Duncan. Trego Duncan
specializes in aviation services, including jet management, private jet charter, aircraft acquisition, jet and
turboprop maintenance, avionics, and other FBO services, including the following:
· Aircraft Deicing Type 1 & 4
· Lavatory Service
· Catering
· Hangar up to G-IV
· Hotel Reservations
· Transportation Services
Other tenants of the airport include the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), which is responsible for
security services for the commercial flights that depart from
CNRA; as well as the ticketing areas for US Airways Express.
In addition, the Nebraska Army National Guard operates a
Chinook Helicopter Base at the Airport.
Source: CNRA website
Passenger Enplanements
A passenger enplanement occurs when an air traveler boards a plane for departure. Historic records
below show a large increase in total enplanements since the early 2000s. In 2003, the airport had 5,908
enplanements and by 2014 the enplanements increased to 60,947, as shown in Figure 4-34. This is an
average increase of 85 percent and an overall increase of 930 percent.
Figure 4-34: Airplane Enplanement Increase from 2003 to 2014
Source: CNRA website
Completed Projects
5,908 6,781 7,617 8,506 9,127 7,961
20,137
37,371
47,090
56,059 56,902
60,947
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Enplanements - Central Nebraska Regional Airport
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 143 / 225
83
Listed below are the recently completed airport projects:
· 531 new parking stalls west of Sky Park Road, 119 new parking stalls to the east of Sky Park
Road, and a 25,700 SF addition to the apron - completed in June 2014.
· New 5-Unit Aircraft Hangar – completed in June 2014.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 144 / 225
84
Chapter 5 ANANLYZE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
Developing and implementing a performance management approach to transportation planning and
programming includes:
· Transportation performance measures,
· Target setting,
· Performance reporting, and
· Transportation investments that support the achievement of performance targets.
5.1 Committed Projects
The list of committed projects includes those projects in the City of Grand Island Capital Improvement
Program, the County Capital Improvement Program, the GIAMPO Transportation Improvement Program,
or in the State Transportation Improvement Program. That list of projects is shown in Table 5-1 and in
Figure 5-1.
Table 5-1: Committed Projects
ID-2 Project Name From To Description Cost
Primary
Jurisdiction Year
1 Capital Avenue
Webb
Road
Broadwell
Avenue Widen to 5 lanes $10,157,126
Grand
Island 2016
2
US-30
Realignment US-281
Engleman
Road New 4 lane road $25,978,000 NDOR 2020
3 Stolley Park
Locust
Street Webb Road Restripe as 3 lanes $1,349,000
Grand
Island 2017
4
Several I-80
Interchanges District 4
Deploy automated
gate systems and
CCTV cameras $1,094,000 NDOR
2016-
2017
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 145 / 225
85
Figure 5-1: Committed Projects
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 146 / 225
86
5.2 Travel Forecasts
The travel demand model was used to estimate the traffic levels and identify locations of traffic congestion
that could be expected in the year 2025 and 2040, if only the committed projects were constructed. The
locations of expected traffic congestion are shown in Figure 5-2 for year 2025 and Figure 5-3 for year
2040. The model was then used to test projects and scenarios to address project goals.
Travel Demand Model
A travel demand model uses estimates of household and employment data and the existing roadway
network as input assumptions. Household and employment data is estimated in areas, called Traffic
Analysis Zones (TAZ), which are subsets of census tracts. A separate travel demand model document
that further describes the model can be found in on the GIAMPO website.
The model utilizes these basic steps:
· Trip Generation: Based on existing (2015) and forecasted 2025 and 2040 socioeconomic data,
including the number of dwelling units and jobs, the model estimates trips by trip type, such as
work trips, shopping trips, or service trips. The number of trips taken are calculated for the existing
year, the interim year 2025 and the forecast year 2040. The growth in the number of trips is shown
by comparing the trip generation totals.
· External Travel: The number of trips traveling through the region were identified using a cell
phone tracking process provided by a firm called Air Sage.
· Trip Distribution: The trip distribution process examines the relationship between where trips
begin and end. As an example, a Home Based Work trip begins at the residence and ends at the
place of work. This process of distributing trips is conducted for each trip type and for each trip
generated throughout the modeling area.
· Trip Assignment: Trip distribution patterns are assigned to various routes between trip origins
and destinations. The modeling software recognizes the travel speeds of the roadway network to
identify the shortest distance and time paths. The model also recognizes that as the roadways fill
up, congestion might occur making alternate routes more attractive.
The GIAMPO travel model forecasts daily traffic, but can also produce volume estimates for peak hours.
The model’s accuracy is refined through a model calibration process, where estimated existing trips are
compared to actual traffic counts. The calibration process is documented in a separate document entitled
Travel Demand Model Technical Report which can be found on the GIAMPO website. The travel model
is useful throughout the transportation planning process. It is used as a tool to identify where future traffic
volumes would exceed available road capacity. It also can be used to compare the effectiveness of
projects to reduce travel delay and provide more direct travel routing. All candidate projects were modeled
to determine congestion relief, reduced delay, vehicle miles of travel and other modeling parameters.
The modeling data were used to determine which projects faired the best and provides information into
the performance-based planning process.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 147 / 225
87
Figure 5-2: Traffic Congestion on Year 2025 Existing Plus Committed Network
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 148 / 225
88
Figure 5-3: Traffic Congestion on Year 2040 Existing Plus Committed Network
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 149 / 225
89
5.3 Future Roadway Scenarios
Based upon needs identified in the Existing plus Committed (E+C) network, roadway projects were
identified. The projects were grouped into scenarios, based upon how they addressed project goals. The
two roadway scenarios were:
· Safety and Efficiency; and
· Connectivity.
The purpose of these scenario projects is to promote efficient management and operation, and the
maintenance and preservation of the existing transportation system.
Objectives:
· Promote efficient management and operation of the transportation system
· System preservation of roadways and bridges
· Address the safety of streets, intersections and railroad crossings
Projects were developed that addressed operational/safety projects and smaller capacity projects that
address spot congested locations. The projects were tested in the travel demand model. The projects
were evaluated using the performance measures described in Chapter 3. The project evaluation is
provided in Appendix A. Project have been prioritized based upon those performance ratings for
intersection capacity or safety needs are listed in Table 5-2 and shown in Figure 5-4.
Table 5-2: Intersection Projects Addressing Efficiency
ID-
2 Operation Project Name Description
1 US-281 Corridor Intersection/Operational Improvement Intersection improvements
2 Stuhr Road & US-30 Intersection Dual left-turn lanes
3 Locust Street & State Fair Boulevard Traffic signal
4 Custer Avenue & State Intersection improvements (near High School)
5 Custer Avenue & 13th Intersection Intersection improvements
6 Custer Avenue & Faidley Avenue Intersection Geometrics and Lighting; safety/roundabout
7 Broadwell Avenue & State Street & Eddy Street Five point intersection improvement
8 US-281 & Wildwood Road Intersection Signal control
9 Locust Street & Anna Street Safety enhancement; Geometrics
10 NB Walnut Street & WB US-30 St Intersection Dual left-turn lanes
11 Husker Highway at Heartland Lutheran High School Add a left turn lane
12 North Road at Northwest High School Add a left turn lane
13 Stolley Park Road & North Road Intersection Intersection improvements
14 10th and Broadwell Signal and left turn lane
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 150 / 225
90
Figure 5-4: Safety and Efficiency Projects (Intersections)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 151 / 225
91
Projects capacity in spot locations or to upgrade rural roads to urban standards as the GIAMPO area
grows are listed in Table 5-2 and shown in Figure 5-4. These projects were also tested in the travel
demand model and were evaluated using the performance measures described in Chapter 3. The project
evaluation is provided in Appendix A.
Table 5-3: Roadway Projects Addressing Efficiency
ID-2 Project Name from to Description
1 Capital Avenue
Broadwell Avenue BNSF RR/Oak Street Widen to 5 lanes
BNSF RR/Oak Street St Paul Road Widen to 3 lanes
DQ Engleman Road Widen to 3 lanes
2 Old Potash
Highway
Claude Road Webb Road Widen to 5 lanes
Engleman Road Claude Road Widen to 3 lanes/turn bays
3 Stuhr Road South of US-30 Near BNSF RR Widen to 3 lanes/turn bays
BNSF RR US-34 Reconstruct Bismark south/turn bays
4 North Road N-2 Old Potash Highway Widen to 3 lanes/turn bays
5 Swift Road Talc Road Shady Bend Road New 2-lane road
6 13th Street West of US-281 Independence
Avenue Widen to 3 lanes/turn bays
7 Stolley Park Road Locust Stuhr Widen to 3 lanes
8 Husker Highway US-281 North Road Widen to 3 lanes/turn bays
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 152 / 225
92
Figure 5-5: Safety and Efficiency Projects – Street Segments
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 153 / 225
93
A second roadway scenario was developed to further support the economic vitality of Grand Island by
improving the freight network, addressing modal conflicts, and improving corridor connections within the
metropolitan area.
Objectives:
· Reduce travel delays in congested corridors
· Provides improved connection between areas of the community
· Improve north-south connectivity
· Reduce regional freight impediments
Projects included in this scenario included:
· Railroad grade separation projects
· Constructing new road segments
· Corridor widening or improvement
Railroad Crossings
A major factor affecting connectivity in the GIAMPO area is the number of railroad crossings of two of the
busiest rail routes in the United States. On a typical day, seventy-five Union Pacific trains per day roll
through Grand Island on the double mainline tracks. These trains can travel as fast as 50 mph within the
downtown commercial area. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) operates approximately 60
through trains per day in the Grand Island on a single mainline track. These trains travel at maximum
speeds 45 mph on the elevated portion of the corridor in the central part of the city. Between the two
major railroads and the short line railroad, there are 45 at-grade crossings and 10 grade separations
providing traffic movement across the railroads. With the length of trains increasing up to 120 cars in
length, the delay per train is approximately three minutes if trains maintain the 50 mph speed. At lower
speeds, delay time could be up to six minutes.
A grade separated crossing of the UP Railroad is provided at US-281. Two other underpasses are
provided in the downtown Grand Island area at Eddy Street and Sycamore Street. Other street crossings
are at grade or have been closed. The need to improve connectivity was investigated by looking at
specific areas within the GIAMPO region as listed in Table 5-4. The areas include the downtown area,
immediately west of downtown, on the east side of town, or west of US-281. The at-grade crossing
locations that were further studied are highlighted.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 154 / 225
94
Table 5-4: Major At-Grade Crossings of the UP and BNSF
Route Location RR
Broadwell Avenue West of Downtown UPRR
Blaine-Custer Avenue West of Downtown UPRR
Webb Road West of Downtown UPRR
US-34/Husker Highway West Area UPRR
Capital Avenue East Area UPRR
Walnut Street Downtown UPRR
Stuhr Street East Area BNSF
Broadwell Avenue North Area BNSF
North Road/ West Area UPRR W Stolley Park Road
Shady Bend Road East Area UPRR
Pine Street Downtown UPRR
Bismark Road East Area BNSF
Engleman Road South of US-30 UPRR
Lincoln Avenue Downtown UPRR
Alda Road West UPRR
Webb Road West of Downtown BNSF
North Road West Area BNSF
Engleman Road West Area BNSF
Shady Bend Road East Area BNSF
Capital Avenue North Area NCRC
4th Street North Area NCRC
W Stolley Park Road South Central UPRR
Spur
US-34 Highway South Central UPRR
Spur
2nd Street South Central UPRR
Spur
Downtown
These at-grade crossings are directly in the central business district of Grand Island. Grade separation
crossings are provided at Eddy Street and Sycamore Street. At grade crossings with the highest existing
traffic use downtown include Walnut Street and Pine Street. Since there are two grade separations in
downtown, and both locations would impact existing buildings, neither Walnut Street nor Pine Street were
evaluated further for grade separation.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 155 / 225
95
West of Downtown
This area is located between the grade crossings of Eddy and US-281. Within this distance, there are a
number of higher utilized at-grade crossings of the UPRR. This includes Broadwell Avenue, Blaine-Custer
Avenue, and Webb Road. Of these three locations, Broadwell Avenue carries the most traffic and has
the highest railroad – traffic exposure. Because of the close proximity of the U.S.-30 viaduct, Blaine-
Custer Road is a difficult location for a grade crossing. Webb Road is located close to U.S.-281, so that
an investment in that location would provide two grade crossings within a half mile of each other. For
these reasons, Broadwell Avenue was considered to be the location in the west of the downtown area
that would receive additional study.
West Area
There are three locations west of U.S.-281 that have at-grade crossings of over 1,000 vehicles per day.
These locations include Husker Highway, North Road/Stolley Park Road, and Engelman Road. Because
these crossing are located close together, any one location would provide support to the other two
locations. Engelman Road and North Road were selected for additional consideration due to the desire
to create north-south corridors. In addition, the crossing of Alda Road of the UP Railroad is included in
the evaluation.
East Area
This area includes two high volume at-grade crossings of the UPRR. The locations include Shady Bend
Road and Capital Avenue. Another potential location is at Stuhr Road, where no crossing is currently
available. One difficulty with this location is that the distance for a crossing would need to be longer to
cross over additional tracks used for rail car switching. Also, in this area are at-grade crossing of the
BNSF. In this area, the BNSF has at-grade crossings with Stuhr Road, Shady Bend Road, and Bismark
Road.
North Area
There are a number of at-grade crossings with the BNSF that parallel N-2. The location with the highest
exposure is at Broadwell Street.
South Central Area
Train frequency is approximately one train per day, so these locations were not considered further.
Road Segments
A second factor impacting connectivity is the difficulty in traveling north-south through downtown Grand
Island particularly where the initial street pattern meets the street pattern laid out in the section line grid
system. By reviewing the system, three projects were identified that would provide for more continuous
travel into and from downtown Grand Island.
Sycamore Connection – this would involve improving existing streets and potentially constructing a new
street segment to provide an improved connection from Walnut Street to Sycamore Street, creating a
continuous route for north-south travel.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 156 / 225
96
Eddy Connection - this would involve improving existing streets and potentially constructing a new street
segment to provide an improved connection from Walnut Street to Eddy Street, creating a continuous
route for north-south travel, and includes minor widening of the existing underpass with the UPRR.
Broadwell Extension to Adams/Fonner Park – this would involve constructing a new street segment
that would connect Adams Street at the Fonner Park intersection with Broadwell Street at Anna Street.
This would provide for Broadwell Street to be used to connect from the north end of Grand Island through
downtown and south to Stolley Park via Adams. It would provide improved access to the new grade
school located on Adams.
Addition roadways were identified to address potential future year traffic congestion and provide for
connectivity between major destination points:
· North Road –widen additional segments beyond those previously identified to urban three-lane
roadway
· Stolley Park – widen to four lanes between Walnut Street and US-281
· Cornhusker Highway - widen to four lanes between Walnut Street and U.S.-281
· Engleman Road- widen to urban three-lane roadway
· Extension of the U.S.-30 re-alignment to continue past the City of Alda.The above projects
addressing connectivity were presented to the public and stakeholders. Following input, the
projects shown in Figure 5-6 and listed in Table 5-5 were defined to be part of the Connectivity
Scenario.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 157 / 225
97
Table 5-5: Connectivity Scenario Projects
ID-
2 Connectivity Project Name From To Description
1
Shady Bend Road Bridges
over UPRR and BNSF
Two new 4-lane
projects
2
Stuhr Road bridges over
BNSF and UPRR
Two new 4-lane
projects
3 Eddy Street Extension
Phoenix
Avenue Locust Street New 2-lane Road
4
Broadwell Avenue
Widening
Faidley
Avenue Third Street
Widen to 5 lanes/turn
bays
5 Broadwell UPRR bridge New 4-lane bridge
6 Broadwell Extension Anna Street
Stolly Park via Adams
Street
Widen to 3 lanes/turn
bays
7
North Road and UPRR
Bridge
Old Potash
Road Husker Highway
Widen to 3 lanes/turn
bays; new 2-lane
bridge
8
Engleman Road and UPRR
Bridge
Old Potash
Road Husker Highway
Widen to 3 lanes/turn
bays; new 2-lane
bridge
9 Broadwell over BNSF
BNSF RR South of Airport Road
Widen to 5 lanes/turn
bays;
Realign Old Highway
2 to connect Custer
Avenue;
New 4-lane bridge
10
Locust - Sycamore
Connection Locust Street Sycamore Street Reconstruct
11
13th St. - 10th St.
Connector W 13th Street 10th Street Reconstruct
12
Alda Road and UPRR
Bridge Apollo Hwy 30 New 2-lane bridge
13 Husker Highway Stuhr US-281 5-lane
14 Stuhr Road US-30 US-34 5-lane
15 East By-Pass I-80 US-281 5-lane
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 158 / 225
98
Figure 5-6: Connectivity Scenario Projects
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 159 / 225
99
5.4 Analysis of Scenario Projects
The projects included in the Safety and Efficiency and with the Connectivity Scenario were evaluated
using the travel demand model and other performance factors. The performance measures were
developed for the goals of:
· Safety and efficiency
· Mobility and Connectivity
· Accessibility
· Environmental protection
· Health and well-being
A more detailed description of the performance measures, project scoring, and weighting is provided in
the appendix.
Intersections
Because these projects are small scale and do not impact many of the performance measure criteria, the
individual operational and safety projects were evaluated based upon safety and traffic capacity
considerations in order to develop a list of priorities. The scenario projects were also coded into the travel
demand model to generate some of the performance measures. This evaluation is included in the
appendix. The prioritized list of projects is shown in Table 5-6.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 160 / 225
100
Table 5-6: Safety and Efficiency Intersection Projects
Priority Operation Project Name Description
Estimated
Cost
($1,000)
Total
Score
1 US-281 Corridor
Intersection/Operational Improvement Intersection improvements $3,500 16
2 Broadwell Avenue & State Street &
Eddy Street
Five point intersection
improvement $1,500 11
3 Stuhr Road & US-30 Intersection Dual left-turn lanes $500 8.5
4 US-281 & Wildwood Road
Intersection Signal control $250 7
5 Locust Street & Anna Street Safety enhancement; Geometrics $250 7
6 10th and Broadwell Signal and left turn lane $150 6.5
7 NB Walnut Street & WB US-30 St
Intersection Dual left-turn lanes $150 6
8 Locust Street & State Fair Boulevard Traffic signal $250 5.5
9 Husker Highway at Heartland
Lutheran High School Add a left turn lane $162 5.5
10 North Road at Northwest High School Add a left turn lane $156 5.5
11 Custer Avenue & State Intersection improvements, near
High School $200 5
12 Stolley Park Road & North Road
Intersection Intersection improvements $146 5
13 Custer Avenue & 13th Intersection Intersection improvements $200 4
14 Custer Avenue & Faidley Avenue
Intersection
Geometrics and Lighting;
safety/roundabout $500 4
Road Segments
Road segments were evaluated using the performance-based evaluation process described in Chapter
3. The rankings from the evaluation are summarized in Table 5-7. A full listing of the performance-based
evaluation is included in the Appendix.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 161 / 225
101
Table 5-7: Efficiency Road Segment Priority Listing
Priority Project Name Description From To
Estimated
Cost
($1,000)
Total
Score
Weighted
Total*10
1 Stuhr Road Widen to 3 lanes South of US-
30
Near BNSF
RR $2,964 48 108
2 Old Potash
Highway Widen to 5 lanes Claude Road Webb Road $4,307 44 104
3 Husker
Highway Widen to 3 lanes US-281 North Road $4,947 43 102
4 North Road Widen to 3 lanes Capital Road Old Potash
Highway $11,081 45 100
5 Stolley Park
Road Widen to 3 lanes Fair Entrance Stuhr Road $4,365 45 99
6 Capital
Avenue Widen to 5 lanes Broadwell
Avenue
BNSF RR/Oak
Street $3,438 37 91
7 13th Street Widen to 3 lanes West of US-
281
Independence
Avenue $4,193 39 87
8 Stuhr Road Widen to 3 lanes BNSF RR US-34 $9,656 35 79
9 Capital
Avenue Widen to 3 lanes DQ store Engleman
Road $5,700 34 79
10 Capital
Avenue Widen to 3 lanes
BNSF
RR/Oak
Street
St Paul Road
$1,781
33 78
11 Old Potash
Highway Widen to 3 lanes Engleman
Road Claude Road $5,269 32 71
12 Swift Road New 2-lane road Talc Road Shady Bend
Road $3,150 22 48
Connectivity projects were also evaluated using the performance-based evaluation process described in
Chapter 3. The rankings from the evaluation are summarized in Table 5-8. A full listing of the
performance-based evaluation is included in the Appendix A.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 162 / 225
102
Table 5-8: Connectivity Project Priority Listing
Priority Project Name Description From To
Estimated
Cost
($1,000)
Total Weighted
Total*10
1
Broadwell over
UPRR and Broadwell
Extension
Broadwell Avenue
Widening (5-lane)
Faidley
Avenue 3rd Street
$21,800 72 152
Broadwell UPRR
bridge
Broadwell Extension
(3-lane)
Anna
Street
Stolley
Park
Road
2
Stuhr Road bridges
over BNSF and
UPRR
Two new 4-lane
projects
$35,000 54 108
3 North Road and
UPRR Bridge
Widen to 3
lanes/turn bays;
new 2-lane bridge
Old
Potash
Highway
Husker
Highway $16,200 53 101
4 Engleman Road and
UPRR Bridge
Widen to 3
lanes/turn bays;
new 2-lane bridge
Old
Potash
Highway
Husker
Highway $16,200 39 78
5
Shady Bend Road
Bridges over UPRR
and BNSF
Two new 4-lane
projects
$22,200 30 77
6 Broadwell over BNSF
Widen to 5
lanes/turn bays;
BNSF
Railroad
crossing
South of
Airport
Road
$14,300 34 77
Realign Old
Highway 2 to
connect Custer
Avenue;
New 4-lane bridge
7 Eddy Street
Extension New 2-lane Road Phoenix
Avenue
Locust
Street $3,300 34 73
8 Locust - Sycamore
Connection Reconstruct Locust
Street
Sycamor
e Street $3,300 19 60
9 Alda Road and
UPRR Bridge New 2-lane bridge Apollo
Road US-30 $11,300 26 56
10 13th St. - 10th St.
Connector Reconstruct W 13th
Street
10th
Street $1,800 22 45
A number of the performance metrics are graphically presented in Figures 5-7 through 5-9. These
measures include comparisons of Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) saved, Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
saved, and Cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness is a ratio of the dollar value of hours and miles saved
over a 30-year period, divided by the project cost.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 163 / 225
103
Figure 5-7: Travel Time Saved per Day (hours)
Figure 5-8: Miles of Travel Saved per Day
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Shady UP + BNStuhr UP + BNEddy XBroadwell UPBroadwell XBroadwell UP + XNorth UPEngleman UPAlda UPBroadwell BNSycamore C13th-10th C5-lane East BypassFuture East BypassReduced Daily VMT
Reduced VMT
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 164 / 225
104
Figure 5-9: Benefits of Travel Compared to Cost
Based on the evaluation of performance measures, the following Connectivity projects were identified as
the projects to be included in the Long-Range Transportation Plan:
· Stuhr Road was shown to provide greater travel benefits than Shady Bend Road, so Stuhr Road
was chosen to be part of the final Connectivity Scenario recommendations.
· The Broadwell Avenue grade crossing was shown to be effective, but much more so when
combined with the Broadwell Extension project that would provide improved connectivity to-and-
from the south part of Grand Island.
· North Road was shown to have higher travel benefits than Engleman Road.
· Alda Road was shown to provide travel benefits to that area, as well as respond to other
performance measures.
5.5 Accessibility Scenario
A Transit Feasibility Study for the GIAMPO area is programmed for 2016 in order to plan transportation
services in the future, including the challenges of moving from a designated rural to urban community.
The study will identify public transportation needs, goals and objectives of the community, future
alternatives, governance of the public transit agency, and identify specific transit recommendations. The
Feasibility Study should be completed prior to the next update to the GIAMPO long-range transportation
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Shady UP + BNStuhr UP + BNEddy XBroadwell UPBroadwell XBroadwell UP + XNorth UPEngleman UPAlda UPBroadwell BNSycamore C13th-10th C5-lane East BypassFuture East BypassCost Effectiveness
Cost Effectiveness
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 165 / 225
105
plan. The Study will include a description of existing transit services, coordination of services, future
alternatives for Grand Island, capital and operations projections, and funding sources available.
In addition, the purpose of the Feasibility Study is to provide more specific recommendations on how to
address mobility and access challenges for persons that may have limited ability to own or drive a
personal vehicle either for financial, health, age, or personal-preference related reasons. This plan should
also identify specific ways that a transit system can cost-effectively meet the needs of the transit
dependent population, in addition to meeting transportation needs for all residents in the region.
As previously described, Grand Island has nearly 5,500 people with some form of disability, along with
6,200 residents over the age of 65. Approximately 7,200 residents are below the poverty level, and 7,500
households have none or only one vehicle available. Further descriptions of transit dependent
populations are included in Chapter 8 of this report. Much of this population lives in the core of Grand
Island, west of Custer Avenue, with pockets extending to US 281. As Grand Island’s population grows,
the current demand-response and subsidized taxi service may be increasingly challenged to meet the
needs of those needing access to public transportation.
The Transit Feasibility Study will identify specific needs of the community, as well as identify different
modes of transit to meet the public transportation needs. These different modes could include demand
response, such as the services operated today; point deviated service where vehicles can use multiple
routes to go between scheduled stops; or fixed route where vehicles following a fixed alignment following
a standard schedule. The Study will address the benefits of making transit equally available to everyone
in the city or MPO area, or concentrating service to those areas of the city with higher levels of transit
dependent population.
The Feasibility Study will look at the growing community of Grand Island and present different alternatives
for future public transportation services. The basis for the Study is to develop an effective and appropriate
public transportation service strategy that meets the needs. The term “public transportation”
encompasses a wide range of alternatives. Traditionally, people think of transit service as vehicles
operating on a strict schedule over a predetermined route. A number of other transit service types exist,
including traditional fixed-route, demand-response, and route-deviation, as mentioned above. The
Feasibility Study will explore the applicability of each service type for the region.
The logical starting point for future alternatives is to remain as status quo, in which no new services would
be implemented in the future. For any community with limited resources, a ‘status quo’ option may
represent a careful and prudent approach. However, there are some indications that with the regional
growth in the area, the current transit service will likely not meet all the needs of the community in the
future. Generally, the community of Grand Island expressed support for public transportation services for
low-income persons, seniors, children, and persons with disabilities, many also expressed concerns over
funding issues.
Other options that will likely be analyzed in the Feasibility Study include fixed route transit service, real-
time demand response service, route-deviation services, rideshare services, and Uber-type services. The
key to the study will be to develop the long-range vision for public transportation in Grand Island. Once
the vision is known, a budget and implementation plan will guide local entities in the first steps. In addition,
the Study will review governing structures for future public transportation services.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 166 / 225
106
A bicycle and pedestrian plan for the GIAMPO area is needed to be completed in order to identify
additional information on existing conditions, issues, goal, objectives, and then to develop specific bicycle
and pedestrian project recommendations. This plan should be developed in advance of the next update
to the GIAMPO long-range transportation plan.
The purpose of completing a bicycle and pedestrian plan would be to provide more specific
recommendations to mitigate local bicycle and pedestrian gaps and barriers that could then be included
in the long-range plan. The plan should also identify specific bicycle and pedestrian network gaps within
the system.
The need for additional bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure was a consistent theme expressed by
participants throughout Journey 2040’s public input process. Figure 5-10 illustrates the road network
where Journey 2040 participants indicated they use as a pedestrian or bicycle path to reach destinations,
along with locations that participants saw as needing improvement. This public input illustration
expresses the desire of some Grand Island residents to have safe, convenient access across Grand
Island using walking or biking, as provided by private motorized vehicles.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 167 / 225
107
Figure 5-10: Bicycle or Pedestrian Trip Origins from Public Input
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 168 / 225
108
Major Barriers
Based on public input, a number of regionally-significant gaps were identified that would prevent a
bicyclist or pedestrian from reaching a major trip generator or group of trip generators. The review of the
public input and of existing conditions led to identifying these major barriers, which should be reviewed
while developing a bicycle and pedestrian plan:
1. Union Pacific Railroad – crossing is possible at the at-grade crossing locations, but more
limited at underpasses or overpasses.
2. U.S.-281- this five-lane high speed route is a barrier. Pedestrian crossing buttons and phases
should be studied as part of future traffic operations analysis. Sidewalks should be provided on
major cross streets, and along Diers Road and Webb Road for movement along U.S.-281.
3. Lack of facilities in new residential area located west of U.S.-281. As roadways are upgraded to
urban standards, sidewalks should be provided. Additional width for bicycle lanes on 13th Street,
Faidley Avenue, and possibly other streets should be considered
4. Along Husker Highway near schools – pedestrian facilities should be provided along routes
where schools are located, including Husker Highway.
5. Limited crossings of the BNSF Railroad and the industrial area near Stuhr Road. As Stuhr Road
is improved, consideration of providing sidewalks should be made.
6. Lack of city sidewalk information. The city and MPO lack information on the current sidewalk
network’s extent and condition, which increases the challenge of analyzing the existing walking
environment or prioritizing future improvements. Consideration of developing a sidewalk
database should be made.
7. The Grand Island “Hike and Bike Trail Map” is inconsistent with actual biking or hiking
infrastructure. Updating the map should be considered as part of a biking and pedestrian plan.
Local Network Gaps
Local bicycle and pedestrian network gaps are gaps within the system that would make good connections
to existing and future planned facilities. The Journey2040 effort has identified large gaps in the system
where future connections have been identified, but none constructed. These connections should be
completed. Other gaps at a finer level within the network will need to be identified in a future bicycle and
pedestrian study as well. Areas where existing or programmed facilities are not connected or encounters
a barrier should be designated as a network gap.
The following projects have been identified for inclusion in the long-range transportation plan.
Pedestrian elements (bike lane or wide sidewalk or trail) part of capacity projects:
o Broadwell bridge and adjacent roadway
o Stuhr Road bridge and adjacent roadway
o 13th Street from west of U.S.-281 to Independence Avenue
o North Avenue from N-2 to Old Potash Highway
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 169 / 225
109
Chapter 6 PUBILC INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement was essential to the success of JOURNEY 2040. Public meetings, workshops, online
surveys, and other methods were provided to obtain input on the transportation issues, improvement
strategies, and other items discussed during the planning process. Four themed workshops and two
online surveys were conducted to provide a means for participants to share their ideas about how to
better accommodate the different types of traffic (from motorists, cyclists, walkers, and others) in the
Grand Island area. To keep them engaged and spread the word about JOURNEY 2040, the study team
used a targeted combination of press releases, e-blasts, letters, phone calls, social media, and
English/Spanish materials. JOURNEY 2040 partners, such as advocacy groups, business organizations,
and the Grand Island Independent also helped with meeting notice. Ultimately, JOURNEY 2040 was
shared with thousands of Grand Island area stakeholders.
Figure 6-1: Project and Public Involvement Schedule
A wide variety of stakeholder groups were interested in the multimodal, transportation issues,
improvement strategies, and other items that were discussed during the JOURNEY 2040 planning
process. Special care was taken to provide input opportunities for low income, minority and those who
may not be able to attend public meetings throughout the plan’s development. Two online public
involvement surveys were provided via journey2040.digicate.com in both English and Spanish.
Advertising e-blasts for workshops 1 and 4 were provided in both English and Spanish. Spanish language
translators were present at the public. Workshops were held after typical employment hours in order to
provide the opportunity for working persons to attend the sessions. Finally, advocacy groups that service
protected classes of persons were engaged in order to more specifically target low income and
underserved populations. A list of specific stakeholder groups that were engaged during this process is
as follows:
· GIAMPO’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) with representation from the following
partnering agencies:
o City of Grand Island
o Village of Alda
o Grand Island Area Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Corporation
o Hall and Merrick Counties
o Central Nebraska Airport
o Nebraska Department of Roads
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 170 / 225
110
o Union Pacific Railroad
o Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
o Federal Highway Administration
o Federal Transit Administration
· Transportation stakeholders, e.g. elected and/or appointed officials, trucking/freight, rail, transit
providers, those who use transit, pedestrian walkways, and/or bicycle facilities,
business/economic development organizations, faith-based institutions, schools, plus advocacy
and/or umbrella groups, including:
o Project Reconstitution
o Goodwill
o Central Northeast Community Services
o Heartland United Way
o Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services
o Central District Health Department
o GROW GRAND ISLAND
· General public
o Residents
o Property owners
· News outlets
o Grand Island Independent
o NTV News
o NBC Nebraska
o KRGI News
· Social media followers and fans who are connected to:
o Facebook.com/GI.PublicWorks
o Twitter.com/GIPublicWorks
· Others
Outcomes
The first JOURNEY 2040 workshop took place on June 29, 2015, at the Bossleman Conference Center
and was themed “outcomes”. The 43 residents, public officials, transportation stakeholders, and others
who participated were organized into five small groups to discuss ideal outcomes (vision, goals, and
objectives) for JOURNEY 2040. The meeting included discussion on:
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 171 / 225
111
· Key issues, problems and/or concerns with traveling (as a motorist, pedestrian, cyclist and/or
transit rider) around and through the Grand Island area
· Strategies that might help improve identified problems
· Top priorities and other comments
Participants used markers, sticky dots, and aerial maps of the Grand Island area to identify important
destinations, routes, or paths that could be taken to reach identified destinations, needed improvements
along the routes, priority problems to improve, and the biggest issues facing travel. In addition, 673 people
provided similar feedback through a web-based survey journey2040.digicate.com that was conducted
from June 8 through July 31, 2015.
When asked about the mode of transportation that needed to be addressed or improved most, “public
transit” was selected most often. Community members commented that “congestion at busy intersections
or streets” was the top issue affecting transportation and listed public transit as the most important
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 172 / 225
112
transportation improvement strategy. They also commented that access to multiple transportation
options, coordinating transportation improvements with development, improving biking/walking areas,
and increasing transportation funding was “very important” or “somewhat important”. A summary of key
issues is included in the Appendix.
Important needs involved making intersections safer, reducing traffic congestion, and increasing
transportation options (walking, biking, and transit). Highway 281, Diers Avenue, Webb Road, Old Potash
Highway, and Stolley Park Road were listed as the most congested routes in the community.
Conditions and Measures
The second public involvement phase was “conditions and
measures”. A workshop open to stakeholders7 was held on
August 10, 2015 at the Grand Island Public Library. During the
meeting, 34 persons shared their opinions about how the
Grand Island area’s network of roads, trails, and rail should
perform for its users over the coming 25 years based on
existing conditions and initial goals. To help them express their
views of the existing transportation system and aspirations for
its future performance, workshop participants were organized
into small groups and encouraged to use four, goal-related
transportation continuums: Accessibility and Mobility, Safety
and Security, Environmental Considerations, and Health and
Well-being.
7 Stakeholders included members of local, state and federal organizations, plus any member of the public who
expressed interest in attending.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 173 / 225
113
At the conclusion of the meeting, the stakeholders’ consensus was:
Consensus on Transportation Performance in the Grand Island Area
Goal/Topic Where We Are TODAY Where We Want to be in the FUTURE
Accessibility and Mobility Low (transit and bicycle/pedestrian) to
high (vehicles) performance
Average to high performance
Safety and Security Average performance High performance
Environmental
Considerations
Average performance Average performance with slight
improvement over existing conditions
Health and Well-being Low to average performance High performance
Workshop participants also discussed the importance of developing goals and performance measures
by mode of transportation, local initiatives for creating healthy communities, and the impact funding may
have on the area’s transportation aspirations.
Scenarios
The third Journey 2040 workshop was “scenarios.” It was held on November 17, 2015, at the Grand
Island Public Library. As part of the workshop, 32 transportation stakeholders reviewed a set of potential
improvement scenarios and corresponding projects related to Safety and Efficiency, Mobility and
Connectivity, and Accessibility. The scenarios were inter-related and designed to reflect the feedback
received and performance measures discussed during the second workshop.
The following three scenarios were presented to the group to begin discussions of projects and policies
that would respond to project goals.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 174 / 225
114
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 175 / 225
115
Participants discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the potential improvement scenarios and said
that the preferred improvement scenario should:
· Create a well-integrated trail system and better pedestrian crossings
· Provide a transit solution that helps those without a car reach jobs and schools
· Provide grade separations that also include bicycle/pedestrian accommodations
· Prioritized and designated bypass routes
· Avoid bringing large amounts of traffic into residential and school areas
· Designate external versus internal truck routes
· Include improvements for congested intersections and signalization for major routes, such as
Highway 30 and Highway 281
Because the scenarios also reflected the revised list of Journey 2040 goals, workshop participants were
asked to allocate 100 points worth of priorities among the revised goals. The combined totals resulted in
the following point allocations per goal:
100 Points with of Priorities
Goal Total Points Percent of Total
Increase safety and efficiency of the transportation system 610 28%
Improve vehicle mobility and connectivity 475 22%
Provide accessibility to destinations for all population groups 587 27%
Environmental protection and the preservation of important natural
assets
188 9%
Further the health and well-begin of all residents in the region 239 15%
Priorities
The fourth public involvement phase for Journey 2040 is a public meeting to present plan
recommendations and to identify “priorities” from the public. The meeting was held on February 18, 2016,
at the Grand Island Public Library. Residents, transportation stakeholders, public officials, and others are
invited to attend the workshop to review the preferred transportation improvement scenario for the Grand
Island area. The scenario included a range of projects and responded to the goals, objectives,
performance measures, and improvement scenarios discussed via previous workshops.
Approximately 30 participants shared thoughts on the overall draft Journey 2040 plan and, specifically,
its list of fiscally constrained and non-fiscally constrained projects. As part of the commenting process,
large-scale maps of the scenarios were made available for comments. All comments will be collected via
journey2040.digicate.com from February 2015 through March 2016.
A project survey that consisted mostly of multiple choice questions was open to the public from the week
of June 8 through July 31, 2015, and yielded 673 respondents. Survey topics were similar to those
discussed during the TAC and community workshops, but also included questions about the importance
of providing walking and biking opportunities, funding the future transportation system, and other items.
The survey results are included in the Appendix.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 176 / 225
116
Most survey respondents classified themselves as residents, employees, and/or motorists. When asked
about the mode of transportation that needs to be addressed or improved most, “public transit” was
selected most often. Respondents selected “congestion at busy intersections or streets” as the top issue
affecting transportation and “public transit” as the most important transportation improvement strategy.
Most respondents commented that access to multiple transportation options, coordinating transportation
improvements with development, improving biking/walking areas, and increasing transportation funding
was “very important” or “somewhat important.” Respondents indicated that important needs involved
making intersections safer, reducing traffic congestion, and increasing transportation options (walking,
biking, and transit).
When asked via open-ended questions about why they selected particular issues and or improvement
strategies, which route was most congested, or what additional transportation needs were important,
survey respondents provided 1,413 responses.
Residents commented that future performance measures should not only respond to needs for improved
accessibility, multimodal transportation options (mobility), safety, security, and environmental concerns,
but also health and well-being considerations. Doing so would enable the Grand Island area to be a safer
driving, walking and/or biking community that has lower crash rates, bridges, and roads that are in good
or excellent condition, and an efficient signal system. The future transportation system’s impact on natural
areas would also be minimized and new energy infrastructure could be leveraged as appropriate.
· The biggest issue affecting travel in the Grand Island area (526 responses): :
o Congestion at busy intersections or streets and need for signal improvement
o More transit for persons who do not have a vehicle available
o Train movements cut area in half and result in delays
o Need safer environment for walking and bicycling
o Address the U.S.-281 corridor
o Need to accommodate growth with improvements in the street system
· Most Congested Routes (664 responses): In your opinion, what’s the most congested route
in the Grand Island area?
o By far, it is the U.S.-281 corridor, but within that includes Diers Road and Old Potash
Road
o Five Points intersections is next on the list
o Other locations include rail crossings, near schools, Stolley Park Road, Broadwell at
2nd Street, North and 13th Street, Webb Road near railroad crossing, Stuhr from U.S.-
30 to the railroad, and Eddy at 3rd Street.
· Other Needs (223 responses): Is there a transportation need that was not mentioned in the
previous question that should be prioritized? Many of the responses included these needs:
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 177 / 225
117
o Airport considerations
o Need for public transportation
o Affordable transportation options
o Need for more through routes in town
o Support a better bicycling environment
o Rail traffic is a concern
With these ideas in mind, community members commented that Journey 2040 transportation
improvement scenarios and projects should relate to:
· Safety along Highway 281
· Congestion on Old Potash Road
· Better ways to get through town
· Concerns about trucks traveling through the center of the city and rail crossings
· Safe, walkable routes that are well lit and integrated into the road and trail network
· Areas where people do not have cars and need to travel
· Provision of public transit that fits the needs of the Grand Island area
· Not bringing high amounts of traffic through residential neighborhoods and school areas
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 178 / 225
118
Chapter 7 FINANCIAL CAPACITY
The analysis of financial resources is an important element of a long-range transportation plan. The
purpose of this section is to provide an overview of transportation funds available for the Grand Island
metropolitan area over the time horizon of the plan. It also explains the key elements of the financial plan,
the data collected, and the assumptions made about future revenue and expenditures. The forecasts of
future transportation revenues and costs are presented and summarized, including the discussion of both
costs for new construction and operations and maintenance. Once these estimates are in place, GIAMPO
and its planning partners can determine which improvements submitted for inclusion in the plan are
financially feasible.
The funding of transportation projects and services has grown more difficult over the last 10 and even 20
years. The population has increased along with the use of private vehicles. Inflation of construction
materials has also increased costs. At the same time, revenues have not grown. The federal gas tax has
remained constant since 1993. Some additional funding has been made possible at the state level with
the passing of LB-610 which provides a gradual increase in the tax on motor fuels.
The federal government addressed funding transportation in December 2015 when the President signed
into law the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, or “FAST Act.” It is the first law enacted in over
10 years that provides long-term funding certainty for surface transportation. Overall, the FAST Act
largely maintains current program structures and funding shares between highways and transit. The bill
increases funding by 11 percent over 5 years, but does not change the federal gas tax rate.
This plan includes estimates for the amount of revenues for funding elements of this transportation plan.
The revenues are categorized at three different levels: federal, state, and local. Many federal-aid projects,
those projects that receive federal transportation funds, require some form of local match. As a newly
formed MPO, historical information on past revenue trends was not as available, as with longer standing
MPOs. For the purposes of this plan, past revenue data was obtained from the City of Grand Island,
NDOR, and the counties. Based on these assumptions, $432.5 million is anticipated to be available for
transportation in the GIAMPO area for all purposes over the 25-year planning period.
7.1 Local Revenues
Local funding comes from various sources of taxing and bonding abilities afforded to local jurisdictions.
These can include property and sales tax, special tax levies, special assessments for transportation,
general fund, bonds, or other sources unique to local jurisdictions. These funds finance local
transportation improvements, as well as provide a local match for federal and state transportation funds.
Local revenue forecasts, including locally-collected revenue and state aid, were created based on
historical trends to gain an average percent projection. Since these forecasts are based solely on historic
revenue, they could change as funding mechanisms are shifted and as populations shift and affect the
tax base. Sales Tax Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Tax revenues are not mandated by the state to be
used for transportation related expenditures; however, these revenue sources are listed separately from
general fund revenues because it may make administrative sense to obligate these revenue sources to
local match funding for state and federal funding.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 179 / 225
119
Local funding has historically been used as local match for federal and state transportation funds.
Specifically, Nebraska Revised Statute, 39-2519 provides, “city of the first or second class or village or
successor municipal county shall be entitled to one-half of its annual allocation with no requirement of
matching, but shall be required to match the second one-half on the basis of one dollar for each two
dollars it receives, with any available funds.”
Property tax is levied only by local governments in Nebraska. Revised State Statute 77-3442 states,
“incorporated cities and villages which are not within the boundaries of a municipal county may levy a
maximum levy of forty-five cents per one hundred dollars of taxable valuation of property subject to the
levy plus an additional five cents per one hundred dollars of taxable valuation to provide financing for the
municipality's share of revenue required under an agreement or agreements executed pursuant to the
Interlocal Cooperation Act or the Joint Public Agency Act.”
Also, Revised State Statute 18-2107 states, the governing body may “levied for the succeeding fiscal
year for community redevelopment purposes, not to exceed two and six-tenths cents on each one
hundred dollars upon the taxable value of the taxable property in such city.”
Grand Island’s FY2014-15 total property tax rate is $0.36 per $100 of assessed valuation. The City of
Grand Island’s budgeted property tax mill levy is comprised of six separate levy rates:
· General Fund
· Debt Service
· Interlocal Agreements with Hall County, Central Nebraska Health District, and the Human
Society
· Community Redevelopment Authority
· Lincoln Pool Fund
· Parking Ramp Fund
The state of Nebraska grants cities an option to levy up to 1.5% sales tax on retail sales and services.
Also, in 2012 the Nebraska Legislature passed LB-357, which allows cities to increase local option sales
tax levy up to 2.0% under certain requirements. Grand Island’s sales tax history is:
Effective Date Sales Tax
Rate
Oct 1, 2004 1.5%
Apr 1, 1990 1.0%
The Nebraska Department of Revenue refunds sales tax revenues to cities in the form of sales and use
tax, consumers use tax, and motor vehicle sales tax. For the purposes of this Financial Forecast and
Funding portion of the LRTP, sales and use tax and consumers use tax are combined (sales tax) and
motor vehicle sales tax is separate.
The motor vehicle tax replaced the property tax levied on motor vehicles beginning January 1, 1998.
Under the pre-1998 system, motor vehicles were assigned a value by the Tax Commissioner based on
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 180 / 225
120
average sales price for vehicles of that make, age, and model. The local property taxing units of
government assessed the rate against that value. Property taxes were paid by the owner at registration
based on the rate assessed for the previous property tax year. Under LB-271, passed in 1997 (Neb. R.
S. S., Section 60-3001 et. seq.), the motor vehicle tax is still paid at the time of registration.
7.2 State Funding
The State of Nebraska utilizes various federal and state revenue sources to fund transportation projects
and maintenance in the state. The state receives state revenue from taxes, sales taxes on new and used
motor vehicles, and motor vehicle registration fees. Two recent measures increase the amount of
revenue available for transportation.
· The Build Nebraska Act became effective July 1, 2013. The Bill designates one quarter of one
percent of general fund sales tax revenue (0.25 cents of the state’s existing 5.5-cent sales tax)
for Nebraska roadways. Eighty-five percent is for the state highway system and 15 percent is for
local roads and streets.
· LB 610 increases the fixed motor fuels tax rate by 1.5 cents every year for four years. Of the two
components of the fixed rate, the portion allocated to the NDOR increases ½-cent every year,
from 7.5 cents to 9.5 cents. The portion allocated to cities and counties increases one cent
every year from 2.8 cents to 6.8 cents. Beginning January 2019, the total fixed rate motor fuels
tax would be 16.3 cents per gallon.
The Highway Allocation Fund consists of revenues generated from the collection of Motor Fuel Taxes,
Motor Vehicle Registration Fees, Motor Vehicle Sales Tax, and Investment Earnings. The municipalities’
of the state share the Highway Allocation Fund, including the City and County Road Fund. The Fund is
currently 50 percent and is distributed based on the following factors:
· Total Population (50%)
· Total Motor Vehicle Registrations (30%)
· Miles of Traffic Lanes of Streets (20%)
These funds are designed for projects throughout the city to rehabilitate, construct and improve streets,
intersections/interchange, sidewalks, bikeways and trails, safety projects, intelligent transportation
infrastructure, and landscaping in connection with street improvement projects. The Highway Allocation
Fund requires local match funding.
The Motor Vehicle Fee Fund is distributed as follows:
· 50 percent to the county treasurer of each county, amounts in the same proportion as the most
recent allocation received by each county from the highway allocation fund
· 50% to the treasurer of each municipality amounts in the same proportion as the most recent
allocation received by each municipality from the highway allocation fund
Funds from the Motor Vehicle Fee Fund are considered local revenue available for matching state
sources. All receipts by counties and municipalities from the Motor Vehicle Fee Fund shall be used for
road, bridge, and street purposes.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 181 / 225
121
The Build Nebraska Act became effective July 1, 2013, which designates one quarter of one percent of
general fund sales tax revenue (0.25 cents of the state’s existing 5.5-cent sales tax) for Nebraska
roadways. Eighty-five percent is for the state highway system and 15 percent is for local roads and
streets. The local share is distributed through the Highway Allocation Fund based on the established
factors. Local governments are required to use their allotment of the revenue for road and street
purposes. The Build Nebraska Act sunsets in 2033.
LB 610 increases the fixed motor fuels tax rate by 1.5 cents every year for four years. Of the two
components of the fixed rate, the portion allocated to the NDOR increases ½-cent every year, from 7.5
cents to 9.5 cents. The portion that is allocated to cities and counties would increase one cent every year
from 2.8 cents to 6.8 cents. Beginning January 2019, the total fixed rate motor fuels tax would be 16.3
cents per gallon. The local share is distributed through the Highway Allocation Fund based on the
established factors.
The fixed fuel tax revenue distributed to cities and counties will increase as shown in the following table.
The fiscal impact is based on one cent of the fuel tax, generating $12,700,000 per year, and a two-month
lag in receipts when the tax rate changes on January 1st of each year.
LB 98 (2011) authorized the Nebraska Department of Roads to implement a federal buyback program.
Federal funding included in the buyback program includes the Surface Transportation Program (STP) for
counties and first class cities and the Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (BRRP). STP
originates as federal funding designated by a formula for urbanized areas with under 200,000 population
and over 5,000 population. The federal funds purchase program involves the state purchasing the local
government's share of federal highway funds at a discounted rate (i.e. 90 cents on the dollar). This
funding is distributed based on population. Such an exchange allows the local government to use its
dollars on street and road projects in a more efficient and timely manner as it is free of additional federal
requirements.
The BRRP funding originates as federal funding designed by a formula for the state of Nebraska. This
funding is distributed to counties, first class cities, the City of Omaha, and the City of Lincoln with deficient
bridges and is prioritized based on annual bridge inspection data.
7.3 Federal Funding
Federal funding for transportation in the State of Nebraska consists primarily of fuel tax and other user
fees collected by the federal government and placed in the Federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The
federal government imposes an 18.4 cent tax per gallon of gasoline and a 24.4 cent per gallon tax on
diesel to support the HTF. These funds are allocated to the states per provisions of MAP-21/FAST Act.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 182 / 225
122
MAP-21 expanded the National Highway System (NHS) to include principal arterial roadways that were
not originally part of the NHS. The Enhanced National Highway System is now comprised of the interstate
system, all principal arterials, and bridges on the NHS. The NHPP provides funding for:
· construction, reconstruction, or operational improvement of portions of the highway
· inspection costs for NHS infrastructure including bridges
· bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
· safety improvements on the NHS
· environmental restoration within NHS corridors
· intelligent transportation system (ITS) improvements
· the construction of bus terminals servicing the NHS
The FAST act converts the Surface Transportation Program (STP) to a block grant program. STP
provides a primary source of financial support to local agencies. Projects eligible for funding include, but
are not limited to:
· construction, reconstruction, or operational improvement for highways and local access roads
· bridge projects on public roads and construction of bridges on federal-aid highways
· highway and transit safety infrastructure improvements
· bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure including recreational trails
· environmental restoration
As mentioned in the state funding portion, the STP funds for communities under 200,000 population and
over 5,000 population are purchased by the state of Nebraska for 90 cents on the dollar. This transaction
occurs as the state of Nebraska utilizes the STP funds and then passes on 90 percent of the funds for
allocation to first class cities. This funding is distributed based on population.
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program continues to provide funding to state and local
governments for areas that are not in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter or for areas that were previously nonattainment areas, but
are now in compliance. The Grand Island MPO is eligible for this funding if a project is submitted to NDOR
as this is administered to MPO’s in Nebraska at a “grant” program.
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) allocates funds to decrease the number of traffic
fatalities and injuries on public roads. Projects eligible for this funding include public road strategies,
activities or projects that align with the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to mitigate hazardous
roads or resolve highway safety problems.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 183 / 225
123
FAST Act deletes the existing federal authorization for TAP and moves it into the STBGP as a set-
aside. MAP-21 had created the Transportation Alternatives Program to encompass preceding
programs, including Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and Recreational Trails.
Projects eligible for this funding include, but are not limited to, the planning, design, and construction of
on- and off-road trails for non-motorized transportation; converting abandoned railroad corridors for
non-motorized trails; and environmental mitigation activities.
The FAST Act creates two new programs designed to help states and local governments plan for and
fund freight mobility projects:
• National Highway Freight Program: This is a formula program that will provide a new annual
funding stream to states for addressing freight projects on portions of the highway system. States will
be required to develop a detailed freight plan that meets several requirements in order to receive
funding under this new program.
• Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program: This is a new competitive grant
program designed to fund large projects. Eligible applicants include states, large Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), local governments, ports, tribal governments, or combinations of these
organizations.
7.4 Federal Transit Funding
Federal-aid transit projects are funded through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of the USDOT.
Similar to estimates of Federal Highway Administration funding, GIAMPO utilized historical trends of FTA
funding to estimate future anticipated revenues based upon a 2.5 percent growth rate.
A portion of federal fuel tax revenue is placed in the Mass Transit Account of the Federal Highway Trust
Fund. These funds, and General Fund appropriations, are reserved for transit purposes and are
administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA.) Similar to the FHWA programs, the transit
funding authorized by the FAST Act is managed in several ways. The largest amount is distributed to the
states or to large metropolitan areas by formula. Other program funds are discretionary and some are
earmarked for specific projects.8
FTA provides funding for this program to the state based on urbanized area population. The funds are
dedicated to support transportation planning projects in urbanized areas with more than 50,000
8 http://www.fta.dot.gov/FAST_16653.html
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 184 / 225
124
population. The statewide funds come to the states based on population and are used to support
transportation planning projects in non-urbanized areas. The FAST Act has a new emphasis on intercity
transportation, as well as tourism and the reduction of risk from natural disasters. In addition, statewide
transportation plans must include descriptions of performance targets and measures, and a system report
evaluating the condition and performance of the transportation system.
FTA provides transit operating, planning, and capital assistance funds directly to local recipients in
urbanized areas with populations between 50,000 and 200,000, based on population and density figures,
plus transit performance factors for larger areas. Local recipients, for whom projects are programmed by
the MPO, must apply directly to FTA. A Special Rule in the FAST Act relating to operating costs for “100
bus providers” has been expanded to include demand response public transportation service operated
by state or local governmental authorities, excluding ADA complementary paratransit service. A provision
has been added that directs recipients to maintain equipment and facilities in accordance with their transit
asset management plan. Grantees may use up to 0.5 percent of their 5307 allocation on Workforce
Development activities. Eligible projects may receive funding for transportation services in urban,
suburban, and rural areas to assist welfare recipients and low-income individuals access to employment
opportunities and support services.
Because Grand Island is an urbanized area, transit funding will not be available within the FTA 5311
program, except for those trips in the rural areas. The NDOR reported available funding within the 5307
urban program in FY2016 at $715,000. This amount is available with the appropriate local match for
operating and capital projects.
The transit discretionary program provides federal assistance for major capital needs in four categories:
· New Starts projects are new fixed guideway projects or extensions to existing fixed guideway
systems with a total estimated capital cost of $300 million or more, or that are seeking $100 million
or more in Section 5309 program funds.
· Small Starts projects are new fixed guideway projects, extensions to existing fixed guideway
systems, or corridor-based bus rapid transit projects with a total estimated capital cost of less
than $300 million and that are seeking less than $100 million in Section 5309 program funds.
· Core Capacity projects are substantial corridor-based capital investments in existing fixed
guideway systems that increase capacity by not less than 10 percent in corridors that are at
capacity today or will be in five years. Core capacity projects may not include elements designed
to maintain a state of good repair.
· Programs of Interrelated Projects are comprised of any combination of two or more New Starts,
Small Starts, or Core Capacity projects. The projects in the program must have logical
connectivity to one another and all must begin construction within a reasonable timeframe.
Each type of project has a unique set of requirements in the FAST Act, although many similarities exist
among them. All projects must be evaluated and rated by the FTA in accordance with statutorily-defined
criteria at various points in the development process.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 185 / 225
125
Funding is provided through this program to increase the mobility for the elderly and persons with
disabilities by removing barriers to transportation services and expanding mobility options. Funds are
used to purchase transportation services or vehicles to meet the special transportation needs of seniors
and individuals with disabilities in all areas, urban or rural. Eligible projects include both traditional capital
investment and nontraditional investment beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
complementary paratransit services.
The previous New Freedoms Program (Section 5317) is not a stand-alone program within the FAST Act.
Under the new guidelines and upon the discretion of the grantee, New Freedoms Programming is an
eligible activity under Section 5310. This eligible activity supports services and facility improvements to
address the transportation needs of persons with disabilities that are new since the signing of SAFETEA-
LU and that go beyond what is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Approximately $100,000
annually is available for Grand Island based on historic allocations.
This program provides capital, planning, and operating assistance for rural and small urban transit
systems, with populations less than 50,000. Up to 15 percent of these funds are allocated to intercity bus
projects. The Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP – Section 5311(b)(3)) is also available for state
and national training and technical assistance for agencies, along with transit training scholarships for
rural transit managers and drivers and to support the State Transit Association. The previous Job Access
Reverse Commute Program (Section 5316) is not a stand-alone program within the FAST Act. There is
funding within the Section 5311 program that supports eligible activities for transportation services in
urban, suburban, and rural areas to assist welfare recipients and low-income individuals access to
employment opportunities and support services. After July 1, 2016, Grand Island will be eligible for 5311
funds ONLY for transit services outside the urban boundary.
This program focuses on the rehabilitation and purchase of buses and related equipment and to construct
bus-related facilities, including technological changes or innovations to modify low or no emission
vehicles or facilities. Funding is provided through formula allocations and competitive grants. A sub-
program provides competitive grants for bus and bus facility projects that support low and zero-emission
vehicles.
A new pilot program allows designated recipients in in urbanized areas between 200,000 and 999,999 in
population to participate in voluntary state pools to allow transfers of formula funds between designated
recipients from FY 2016 through FY 2020. States are allowed to submit statewide applications for bus
needs. Grand Island anticipates approximately $90,000 annually from the 5339 program.
All Public Transit Systems are eligible for funding. These funds can be used by the public transit system
for operating expenses related to the provision of open-to-the-public passenger transportation. A
separate allocation of state funding is available to match the federal Intercity Bus funds. The NDOR
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 186 / 225
126
contributes approximately $100,000 in state funds for public transportation services. In the future, this
allocation will change due to the change to an urbanized area. It is anticipated the state funding will
decrease due to the funding category regulations for local match.
7.5 Available Funding
Transportation revenues pay for the new construction and ongoing operations, maintenance, and
reconstruction costs. The revenue element is an estimate of how much money will be available to spend
on new transportation projects in the GIAMPO area between 2016 and 2040. Between 2016 and 2040,
GIAMPO forecasts that approximately $432.5 million in transportation revenue will be available to fund
operations and maintenance, reconstruction, new projects, and expanded capacity.
The list of available funds from traditional roadway sources is shown in Table 7-1. The revenue estimates
are based upon trends for local funds, state funds and federal funds that are expected to be obligated in
the MPO area. The funding trends are based upon examining funding sources between the years 2005
through 2015. The assumption for federal funds has been limited, with federal funds shown as only the
committed projects in FY2016-2025 and as TBD in the FY2026. A detailed breakdown by year and
individual funding source is provided in Appendix C.
Generally, federal funding from the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program(STBGP), Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (BRRP) and National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)
are deemed not to be available to local partners in the Grand Island Area MPO jurisdiction. These funding
sources are assumed to be available only by the Nebraska Department of Roads throughout the duration
of this planning document. Funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) programs may be available to local partners on a limited
basis for specific projects that address safety concerns, congestion issues, or projects that improve the
air quality in the Grand Island Area MPO planning area.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 187 / 225
127
Table 7-1: Total Available Roadway Funds (2016-2040)
Total Available Roadway Funds ($1,000)
Time
Period Federal State Local Total
Revenues
2016-2025 $21,250 $109,366 $42,430 $173,046
2026-2040 TBD9 $169,495 $89,952 $259,447
Total $21,250 $278,861 $132,382 $432,493
Table 7-2 on the following page shows the amount of funding available for constructing new projects after
the costs for personnel, operations, maintenance, reconstruction, and equipment, plus projects that have
already been programed, are subtracted. This funding balance is assumed to be available to construct
new projects in the GIAMPO Area based upon a conservative forecast of future operations and
maintenance costs and revenue generation. Assumptions relating to the forecasts and detailed tables
are shown in Appendix C.
9 To Be determined (TBD): Federal revenue estimates for NDOR projects in the GIAMPO planning area will be
determined as the MPO’s needs are assessed and funding targets are established. At this time, NDOR is still
assessing the need for specific projects of regional significance in the Grand Island Area MPO planning area for
the period of 2020-2040. NDOR has established revenue projections within the timeframe of the NDOR Surface
Transportation Program Book, a six-year document that outlines NDOR’s projects and future expenditures. NDOR
recognizes an ongoing and long-term need to monitor, evaluate and upgrade the state highway and interstate
highway system in the Grand Island Area MPO planning area as well as the State of Nebraska at large.
NDOR will continue to monitor the existing conditions and proposed future changes to the state highway system
with the continuing cooperation, coordination and assistance of GIAMPO and local partners. As future needs are
identified with regard to infrastructure condition, safety, roadway capacity or transit service, NDOR will work to
address these needs and include them through update or amendment in the GIAMPO Long Range Plan, TIP and
the NDOR Surface Transportation Program Book and STIP as required by State and Federal regulation.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 188 / 225
128
Table 7-2: Funds Available for New Roadway Projects
New Roadway Project Revenue ($1,000)
Time
Period Federal Local / State Total
Revenues
2016-2025 $0 $57,839 $57,839
2026-2040 TBD10 $113,236 $113,236
Total $0 $171,075 $171,075
Funding for transit service was also examined through the 2040 horizon year. Transit service in the
GIAMPO area is expected to continue but will be subject to the availability of local matching funds. A
detailed breakdown of transit funding sources, assumptions and year-to-year forecasts for available
revenue is shown in Appendix C. It is assumed that Grand Island will provide service only up to the budget
that is available through a combination of Federal Transit funding and local matching dollars. A summary
of the available transit revenue is shown below in Table 7-3.
Table 7-3: Transit Revenue and Expenditures (2016-2040)
Transit Revenue/Expenditure ($1,000)
Time Period Federal Local / State Total Revenue
2016-2025 $5,762 $2,839 $8,602
2026-2040 $11,193 $5,765 $16,958
Total $16,956 $8,604 $25,560
10 To Be determined (TBD): Federal revenue estimates for NDOR projects in the GIAMPO planning area will be
determined as the MPO’s needs are assessed and funding targets are established. At this time, NDOR is still
assessing the need for specific projects of regional significance in the Grand Island Area MPO planning area for
the period of 2020-2040. NDOR has established revenue projections within the timeframe of the NDOR Surface
Transportation Program Book, a six-year document that outlines NDOR’s projects and future expenditures. NDOR
recognizes an ongoing and long-term need to monitor, evaluate and upgrade the state highway and interstate
highway system in the Grand Island Area MPO planning area as well as the State of Nebraska at large.
NDOR will continue to monitor the existing conditions and proposed future changes to the state highway system
with the continuing cooperation, coordination and assistance of GIAMPO and local partners. As future needs are
identified with regard to infrastructure condition, safety, roadway capacity or transit service, NDOR will work to
address these needs and include them through update or amendment in the GIAMPO Long Range Plan, TIP and
the NDOR Surface Transportation Program Book and STIP as required by State and Federal regulation.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 189 / 225
129
7.6 Additional Sources of Funding During the Planning Period
One of the mandates of 23 CFR 450.322(f) is to identify potential funding sources or funding strategies
that may be used to fund transportation projects. Such funds may be used to advance projects from the
illustrative list to the eligible for funding list. In some cases, the City of Grand Island, Hall County, or
Merrick County must determine the level of funding for transportation assets they are willing to support.
In addition, there are federal and state funds administered at the state level that GIAMPO may be eligible
to receive. A number of funding and financing strategies are listed below, which show potential options
that have been used or could be used to further fund transportation projects.
Through the Build Nebraska Act, NDOR will invest $600 million statewide over the next 10 (2016-26)
years. NDOR is looking for input into the project prioritization process and for projects identified by local
governments. Capital projects may include adding new lanes, building new expressways, or constructing
new viaducts.
The City of Grand Island has authority to borrow money in the exercise of its powers and duties to fund
or refund any bonds or interest or other indebtedness it may have outstanding. The principal and interest
of bond or other indebtedness shall be payable only out of the revenue, income, and money of the
authority.
The City of Grand Island has levied 1.5 percent sales tax on retail sales and services since 2004.The 1.5
percent has, on average, resulted in the collection of $15,320,500 on a calendar year since 2012. As a
source of additional sales tax revenue, the City of Grand Island may increase the local option sales tax
levy to 2.0 percent, under certain requirements, which would potentially provide an additional $5,100,000
for a specific project that has been approved by a vote of the people.
In 2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act appropriated $500 million for an eighth round of the Transportation
Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) competitive grant program. Similar to previous
rounds of TIGER, the Department of Transportation (DOT) is authorized to award up to $500 million to
road, rail, transit, and port projects that will have a significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area,
or a region.
A BILL for an act to amend sections 74-1306 and 77-1601.02. The amendment will increase the levy
authority of railroad transportation safety districts by providing for an increase in property tax.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 190 / 225
130
Chapter 8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The transportation enhancements proposed in Journey 2040 are required to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) if federal funds are used to complete the project. This chapter
explains the background of potential environmental consequences to consider when developing new
transportation projects, and where environmentally sensitive areas are located in relation to the projects
identified in the horizon years or 2025 and 2040.
The environmental review also evaluates the connection between the GIAMPO LRTP goals and
environmental stewardship, the inventory of environmental resources, the applicable legislation, and
the currently employed mitigation process. This section reflects the desire to take environmental factors
into consideration when developing projects.
8.1 Connection to LRTP Goals
The consideration of environmental factors relates to the following Journey 2040 goal:
The purpose of this goal is to 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.
Strategies to address this goal include:
· Avoid, minimize, and mitigate the negative environmental impacts of the
transportation system.
· Retain attainment air-quality status, as designated by the EPA.
· Promote energy conservation through the transportation system.
· Invest in alternative and renewable fuel infrastructure
· Increase the mode share of alternative modes of transportation (transit, bicycle,
pedestrian) to ten percent of all trips by 2040.
· Consider aesthetics and urban form in the design process.
· Coordinate transportation investments with land use policies to minimize
environmental costs.
· Preserve cultural, scenic and historic resources.
8.2 Impacts
Potential impacts of projects can range from affecting the cultural heritage of a community to threatening
the habitats of endangered or threatened species. The impacts below are followed by an additional
explanation of their specific significance.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 191 / 225
131
A noise analysis is required for federally funded Type I Projects. These project typically include
capacity adding such as lane additions, a new roadway on new alignment and substantial changes in
vertical or horizontal alignment (see Nebraska Noise and Analysis Abatement Policy or 23 CFR 772 for
complete definition of a Type I project). If noise impacts are identified, noise abatement is considered.
Noise abatement must meet feasibility and reasonableness goals as outlined in the Nebraska Noise
Policy in order to be constructed. Best Management Practices shall be used to control and mitigate
construction noise. It is important for local planning agencies to coordinate with developers in order to
recommend setbacks for new or changed developments to prevent future noise impacts.
Cultural resources would be considered under this category of environmental impact.11 If, in
consultation with the Nebraska State Historic Preservation (NESHPO), it is determined that a historic
resource would be adversely affected by a federal undertaking, efforts to avoid and or minimize the
adverse effect would be necessary. If avoidance and minimization are not effective, then mitigation of
the adverse effect would be completed.
Environment Justice Areas can be described as areas where a significant portion of minority and/or low-
income people live. Executive Order on Environmental Justice 12898 requires all federal agencies,
including both the FHWA and FTA, to address the impact of their programs with respect to Environmental
Justice. To the extent practicable and permitted by law, the Executive Order states that neither minority
nor low-income populations may receive disproportionately high or adverse impacts as a result of a
proposed project.
In order to classify a census block group as an Environmental Justice Area, the population must have a
high percentage of minority populations and/or a high percentage of low-income households when
compared to the larger surrounding area. Environmental Justice Areas are considered to be areas
where the minority and/or low-income population percentage is meaningfully greater than the minority
and/or low-income population percentages in the larger surrounding area.
The DOT-based guidelines, established from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
poverty guidelines12, were used to determine which households are low-income in the region. An
Environmental Justice analysis is to compare areas within the community at-large. For this overview,
11 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Section 106 Identification, Evaluation and Project
Effect Recommendations
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 192 / 225
132
low-income households are shown to provide a general overview of areas where the rate of low-income
households comprise than 20 percent of a census block group.
A total of 19 out of 55 block groups are considered to have a high rate of low-income households, while
10 block groups have both high levels of minority populations and low-income households. Figure 8-1
displays the environmental justice areas in Grand Island and the proposed transportation projects by
2040. These areas show locations were a separate environmental justice analysis may need to be
completed as project are developed.
A system level review of environmental justice impacts was conducted for projects with defined locations.
To conduct this review, the following methodology was applied. Future project investments that were
located entirely inside an environmental justice area was determined to have 100 percent impact in that
location. Projects that abutted or crossed into environmental justice areas were assigned 50 percent to
those areas. Projects that are not located adjacent to or inside areas identified as environmental justice
sensitive areas were assigned zero percent impact on environmental justice areas.
For the intersection improvement groupings shown in the FY2016-2025 and FY2026-2040 periods an
average percentage impact was calculated based upon the location impact methodology above and then
projected based upon the number of intersection improvement projects listed in the fiscally constrained
program (for reference this percentage is 64 percent and 17 percent for the respective periods). Total
investment impact from the intersection improvement projects was then determined by multiplying the
grouped project budget by the environmental justice percentage.
The individual project assignment of investment and impact percentage for individual projects is shown
in Appendix F. A summary table of investment in environmental justice areas as compared total regional
investment is shown on the following page in Table 8-1. As previously stated, several 2016-2020 projects
are listed with various locations that cannot be accurately mapped and assigned to reasonable locations
for assessment of impact. Project locations are also shown in Figure 8-1 with the project identification
numbers corresponding to the project listing shown in Appendix F.
Projects located in environmental justice areas account for 52.9 percent of the total funding to be spent
for the duration of this plan. Due to the large number of projects that occur in environmental justice areas,
project owners are encouraged to take steps to avoid, minimize or mitigate any potential negative impacts
of specific projects. Due to the small scope of many of these projects and the enhanced connectivity and
access that will result at their completion it is assumed that overall the benefits of the program outweigh
the burdens that may occur during project development. Special care should be taken to accommodate
low income and minority persons during the development of the individual projects to ensure that project
sponsors are acting in the best interest of the public.
Table 8-1: Investment in Environmental Justice Areas (2016-2040)
12 In 2013, the average household size in Grand Island, 2.6 persons, was used to determine the most a household
could earn and still be considered low-income. The income levels for 2-person, $15,510, and 3-person households,
$19,530, were found and multiplied by 0.6 in order to find the low-income threshold for Grand Island’s average
household size, $17,922. Because the American Community Survey only provides household income data in $5,000
increments, low-income households are considered to be households earning less than $20,000.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 193 / 225
133
Environmental Justice Investment
Time
Period
Total
Projects
Total Project Cost in
YOE
($1,000)
Projects
Impacting
Environmental
Justice Areas
Environmental
Justice
Investment in
YOE
($1,000)
Percentage of
Total
Investment in
Environmental
Justice Areas
2016-2020 3 $ 46,521 2 $ 32,178 69.2%
2016-2025 14 $ 44,064 11 $ 18,609 42.2%
2026-2040 7 $ 26,024 4 $ 10,943 42.1%
Total 24 $ 116,609 17 $ 61,730 52.9%
According to the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2013, nearly one-
third of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions come from transportation, or the second largest single source.
Transportation infrastructure inherently generates pollution from burning fossil fuels from automobiles,
air travel, marine transportation, and rail. Of those sectors, farming, trucking, personal vehicles, and rail
traffic are most prevalent in Grand Island. Efforts to reducing global greenhouse emissions include
reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), reducing traffic congestion, and by driving more fuel efficient
vehicles or drive vehicles that emit lower levels of pollution.
The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for pollutants deemed harmful to humans and the environment. The EPA lists the following
seven pollutants as harmful.
· PM10: Fine Particulates less than 10 microns in diameter.
· PM2.5: Fine Particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter.
· O3: Ground level Ozone gas.
· CO: Carbon Monoxide gas.
· SO2: Sulfur Dioxide gas.
· TRS: Total Reduced Sulfur.
· NO2: Nitrogen Dioxide gas.
With federal regulations, the state of Nebraska is required to monitor the ambient air quality inside its
borders. Air quality sensors in both Nebraska monitor the levels of harmful gasses, particulates, and
elements contained in the ambient air of the GIAMPO area. Currently, the GIAMPO area is in attainment
for the above air quality standards. Should the Grand Island area be designated as non-attainment in the
future, GIAMPO would need to work with the local governments and with the Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality (NDEQ) to address potential issues. In other areas, local stakeholder groups have
been formed to identify ways local businesses and households to voluntarily reduce emissions.
While it is possible for endangered or threatened species to appear in nearly any given location, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service gathers a list of species, flora, and fauna, believed to or known to occur in each
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 194 / 225
134
state, including Nebraska. If plants or animals are officially listed, they are regarded as either endangered,
threatened, or a candidate for an official listing. The species below are officially listed and located within
the City of Grand Island as of February, 2015.13
Species: Status
Hall County:
Interior least tern: Endangered
Northern long-eared bat: Threatened
Piping plover: Threatened
Western prairie fringed orchid: Threatened
Whooping crane: Endangered
River otter: Threatened
Small white lady’s slipper: Threatened
Merrick County:
Finescale dace: Threatened
Northern long-eared bat: Threatened
Interior least tern: Endangered
Piping plover: Threatened River otter: Threatened
Small white lady’s slipper: Threatened
Whooping crane: Endangered
Federally-funded transportation projects that impact parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife refuges
are subject to additional federal scrutiny. This would apply to resources that designated as Section 4(f)
resources (49 US Code 303 Section 4(f)). Figure 8-2 displays the location of these sensitive areas in
Grand Island and are overlaid by the proposed transportation projects by 2040. Projects falling near
these identified areas may result in the need to consider these environmental factors.
The most significant water feature in the GIAMPO area is the Platte River. The GIAMPO area is also
home to a multitude of lakes, ponds, creeks and streams. Included in this watershed are wetlands.
Wetlands are defined by the EPA as areas in which water covers the soil, or is present at or near the
surface of the soil during varying times of the year (including the growing season). These areas of
hydrologic soil are found most commonly around lakes, rivers, and streams (riparian wetlands); isolated
wetlands can also be evident in depressions surrounded by dry land. In many cases, wetlands can be
dry for much of the year. These vernal wetlands are important because they offer specialized breeding
habitat for many plants and animals.
Inside of the above classifications, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) identifies jurisdictional and
non-jurisdictional wetlands. The determination of a jurisdictional wetland or waterway is conducted by the
Corps of Engineers. Generally, jurisdictional wetlands are under the protection and control of the EPA
13 http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species-listed-by-state-report?state=NE&status=listed
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 195 / 225
135
and USACE. Where applicable, projects in the GIAMPO region will comply with all necessary FHWA,
USACE, and EPA regulations in dealing with the region’s water resources. Water resources in the
GIAMPO area are also shown in Figure 8-2. It should be noted that all wetlands are not delineated in the
Figure. Wetlands delineation shall take place as part of the NEPA process for individual applicable
projects.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 196 / 225
136
Figure 8-1: Proposed Projects & Environmental Justice Areas
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 197 / 225
137
Figure 8-2: Proposed Projects with Flood Zones, Wetlands, and Public Use Areas
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 198 / 225
138
Chapter 9 RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Journey 2040 is a plan to guide the future development of the transportation system. This is the initial
Metropolitan Transportation Plan completed for the Grand Island region following federal guidance. This
chapter outlines policy recommendations and capital projects to move the region towards achieving the
goals and performance targets outlined in this plan. MPO member governments have a prime opportunity
to mold the transportation network into a transportation system that addresses the needs and goals of
the region. The following section identifies transportation projects and policies that GIAMPO member
organizations can adopt to improve the transportation system.
Looking forward to year 2040, the Grand Island area will experience growth and demographic changes.
The area is projected to experience a growth of 20,000 persons by the year 2040. The number of elderly
will increase, as well as the number of persons in the 25-40 age range. The urban area will expand to
accommodate the increase in people and jobs. With these anticipated demographic shifts, creating a
region where vehicle trips can be made efficiently, as well as accommodating walking, biking, and using
public transportation will be imperative. This plan addresses safety of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle
travel. It addresses security so the transportation system provides an environment where travel is not
susceptible to real or perceived robberies or other crimes.
As noted in Chapter 4 (Existing Conditions) and in Chapter 5 (Future Conditions), a number of congested
roadway intersections and segments were identified. Traffic forecasts indicate a number of new
transportation investments are needed to maintain travel mobility and improve traffic safety. The region
should:
· Invest in rehabilitating existing infrastructure in order to maintain regional traffic operations and to
make the most of significant investments made over the past decades.
· Implement the roadway projects identified in this plan that will best serve the future mobility needs
of the Grand Island area. An analysis of financial resources has also been completed. The
recommended investments are described in the following sections of this chapter.
· In addition to these recommended transportation investments, the GIAMPO region should:
· Conduct an engineering study to optimize signal timing, particularly in the U.S.-281 corridor to
fully realize benefits to traffic capacity, safety, and air quality since safety and efficiency was
identified as a key project goal for this plan. Projects have been identified to address this need.
· Ensure available transportation funding is used to maintain the current transportation
infrastructure, but also to make the needed transportation investments and implement the
recommendations of this plan. New sources of funding should also be explored.
· Complete a Grand Island area Transit Feasibility Study to analyze public transportation options
and costs in order to provide additional transit options for people who are without access to private
vehicles or prefer not to drive. The long-range transportation plan would be amended with any
goals, objectives, performance measures and projects that would be identified in that study.
· Conduct a pedestrian and bicycle study for the Grand Island area that identifies a walking and
biking network that meets Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standard. This study will further
community health, exercise, well-being, and social interaction opportunities for all residents in the
community. The long-range transportation plan would also be amended with any goals,
objectives, performance measures and projects that would be identified in that study.9.1 Process
to Identify Fiscally Constrained Projects
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 199 / 225
139
9.1 Process to Identify Fiscally Constrained Projects
This chapter presents the projects anticipated to be constructed based on funding projections and those
projects in which additional funding is needed. The chapter includes consideration of funding for
Operations and Maintenance, the Rehabilitation of existing streets and highways, and includes
consideration of Committed Project lists presented in this report. Projects from the Safety and Efficiency
Scenario, the Connectivity Scenario, and Accessibility Scenario have been evaluated based upon the
funding limits described in Chapter 7. From these inputs and considerations, the Fiscally Constrained
GIAMPO 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan was developed.
This Fiscally Constrained Plan is limited to projects that can be funded with available revenues based
upon year of expenditure (YOE) costs. A project cost inflation factor of four percent per year was used
for year of expenditure cost as recommended by US DOT. The plan has flexibility in that projects are
prioritized and grouped by mid- and long-term horizon years, and GIAMPO has the opportunity to
reprioritize the project list within these time periods. Short-term projects have been identified and are
shown as committed projects, which are included in the region’s Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
This Chapter begins with a summary of the Fiscally Constrained Plan process, the prioritization of
roadway projects, the allocation of available funds, and then a summary of projects included in a Fiscally
Constrained Plan. The overall process is shown in Figure 9-1.
Figure 9-1: Financial Analysis Process
The amounts of available funding for all projects are shown in Table 9-1 on the following page. This table
represents the estimate of revenues for transportation for the years 2016 – 2040.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 200 / 225
140
Table 9-1: Total Available Roadway Revenue (2016-2040)
Total Available Roadway Funds ($1,000)
Time
Period Federal State Local Total
Revenues
2016-2025 $21,250 $109,366 $42,430 $173,046
2026-2040 TBD14 $169,495 $89,952 $259,447
Total $21,250 $278,861 $132,382 $432,493
Committed projects are defined to include those projects currently programmed or now under
construction. The first step in identifying the amount of funds available for new construction was to
subtract the cost of these projects from the estimated total revenues from 2016 through 2040. A number
of major projects have been programmed for the Grand Island area. Many of the committed projects are
being completed by NDOR utilizing federal funding from a number of sources. The specific construction
year and funding by source can be found in the GIAMPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
2016-20.
Between 2016 and 2020, NDOR will complete a major reconstruction on I-80 in the GIAMPO study area,
the reconstruction of U.S.-281 between U.S.-30 and Broadwell, and replacement of three bridges on
U.S.-30. NDOR has also committed to construct a U.S.-30 west bypass from west of US-281 to near
County Road 20 and then also install automated gates at I-80 interchanges. The total cost of these
projects, shown in Table 9-2, is estimated at $53 million.
14 To Be determined (TBD): Federal revenue estimates for NDOR projects in the GIAMPO planning area will be
determined as the MPO’s needs are assessed and funding targets are established. At this time, NDOR is still
assessing the need for specific projects of regional significance in the Grand Island Area MPO planning area for
the period of 2020-2040. NDOR has established revenue projections within the timeframe of the NDOR Surface
Transportation Program Book, a six-year document that outlines NDOR’s projects and future expenditures. NDOR
recognizes an ongoing and long-term need to monitor, evaluate and upgrade the state highway and interstate
highway system in the Grand Island Area MPO planning area as well as the State of Nebraska at large.
NDOR will continue to monitor the existing conditions and proposed future changes to the state highway system
with the continuing cooperation, coordination and assistance of GIAMPO and local partners. As future needs are
identified with regard to infrastructure condition, safety, roadway capacity or transit service, NDOR will work to
address these needs and include them through update or amendment in the GIAMPO Long Range Plan, TIP and
the NDOR Surface Transportation Program Book and STIP as required by State and Federal regulation.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 201 / 225
141
Table 9-2: Committed Project Cost
Committed Project Cost ($1,000)
Time
Period Federal State Local Total Costs
2016-2025 $21,250 $28,153 $3,595 $52,998
Note: Project Costs have been inflated to Year of Expenditure by sponsoring jurisdictions at a 4 percent
increase per year per US DOT recommendations.
The City of Grand Island and Hall County in the GIAMPO study area have an annual Operation and
Maintenance budget to maintain the existing transportation infrastructure. It includes personnel,
equipment, and materials cost of maintenance. It also includes funds for more extensive maintenance
projects such as resurfacing, replacing curbs, signs, signal maintenance, and other similar activities.
NDOR contracts with the local governments to complete routine maintenance. Table 9-3 presents the
combined local and state maintenance costs. Operation and Maintenance costs, also presented in Table
9-3, were projected for the next 25 years. These costs are shown on an annual basis in Appendix C. In
addition, a general estimate of reconstruction costs for projects not yet determined was included in these
cost estimates. The funds for operations, maintenance, and reconstruction are shown in Table 9-3. The
inflation rate for the future year of expenditure is based upon past trends for each specific line item. These
assumptions and rates are documented in Appendix C.
Table 9-3: Operation and Maintenance Budget
Operation & Maintenance
Expenditures ($1,000)
Time Period
Local Operation &
Maintenance
2016-2025 $62,209
2026-2040 $146,211
Total $208,420
Table 9-4 on the following page shows the remaining funds available after committed project costs,
operations and maintenance costs are subtracted from the total revenues. In summary, the table shows
anticipated revenues for available for programming new construction projects in the GIAMPO area for
the remaining portion of the plan.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 202 / 225
142
Table 9-4: Available Roadway Revenue
Available New Project Revenue ($1,000)
Time
Period Federal Local / State Total
Revenue
2016-2025 $0 $57,839 $57,839
2026-2040 TBD15 $113,236 $113,236
Total $0 $171,075 $171,075
9.2 Project Priority Process
The projects were evaluated and prioritized based upon the funds and in what time period the project
would be proposed. This process took three steps: project evaluation, public input, and MPO Technical
Committee review.
Each of the proposed projects presented in the Long-Range Transportation Plan was evaluated based
on the GIAMPO 2040 project goals and evaluation criteria presented in Chapter 3. Each criterion was
transparent. Base factors and criteria were developed for each project goal. A composite score was
calculated for each project based on the goal score multiplied by the goal weight, which was developed
as part of the public involvement process. The priorities are discussed in Chapter 5, with detailed project
scoring shown in the Appendices.
Public input was sought on project priorities. As part of the second public meeting, participants scored a
high, medium, or low prioritization to each project type. They also provided input on specific projects
within each type. In general, there was strong support for the overall process for the prioritization of
projects.
15 To Be determined (TBD): Federal revenue estimates for NDOR projects in the GIAMPO planning area
will be determined as the MPO’s needs are assessed and funding targets are established. At this time,
NDOR is still assessing the need for specific projects of regional significance in the Grand Island Area
MPO planning area for the period of 2020-2040. NDOR has established revenue projections within the
timeframe of the NDOR Surface Transportation Program Book, a six-year document that outlines
NDOR’s projects and future expenditures. NDOR recognizes an ongoing and long-term need to monitor,
evaluate and upgrade the state highway and interstate highway system in the Grand Island Area MPO
planning area as well as the State of Nebraska at large.
NDOR will continue to monitor the existing conditions and proposed future changes to the state highway
system with the continuing cooperation, coordination and assistance of GIAMPO and local partners. As
future needs are identified with regard to infrastructure condition, safety, roadway capacity or transit
service, NDOR will work to address these needs and include them through update or amendment in the
GIAMPO Long Range Plan, TIP and the NDOR Surface Transportation Program Book and STIP as
required by State and Federal regulation.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 203 / 225
143
9.3 Fiscally Constrained Project Plan
The Fiscally Constrained Plan is presented in Figure 9-2 and in Table 9-5. This Fiscally Constrained Plan
is comprehensive and includes both projects to be partially funded through federal and state revenue
forecasts, as well as projects to be funded through local resources.
The following assumptions were used in the development of the Fiscally Constrained Plan.
· The Fiscally Constrained Plan assumes all operating and maintenance needs are covered first
with local funding.
· Secondly, the Fiscally Constrained Plan takes into consideration major rehabilitation and
preservation projects throughout the GIAMPO area. These funds are considered prior to new
construction or capacity projects.
· Traffic operations and efficiency projects are considered the next priority after the above
assumptions.
· Locally funded improvements shown in the Fiscally Constrained Plan in this Long-Range
Transportation Plan are constrained by reasonably anticipated local revenues. Potential new
local revenue sources are supported in this plan, but are not included as part of the Fiscally
Constrained Plan.
· State funds are based upon historical trends, plus a minimal increase related to the recently
approved Build Nebraska Act that provides additional revenues for transportation.
· NDOR federal fund expenditures were tracked over the 2011-2015 period and categorized into a
three main categories based on the past type of work and current FAST Act eligibilities: NHPP,
STP and ITS program funds. These expenditures were projected forward based upon a 5 year
rolling average to develop a conservative future funding scenario. Available federal revenue
during the first horizon year period (FY2016-FY2025) reflects the current Grand Island Area MPO
TIP. It is assumed that NDOR will not be spending any additional Federal-Aid in the MPO area
during this period. The 5 year rolling average moves forward from FY2026-FY2040 to account for
any future NDOR Federal-Aid projects that are not currently under development.
The Federal Transit Administration funding programs were previously discussed in detail, including the
different program types and eligibility in Chapter 7. The following table illustrates the public transportation
funding program for the future. The federal funding category includes Section 5307, 5310, 5311, and
5339 monies. Appendix C includes the detailed funding anticipated to be available by year.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 204 / 225
144
Table 9-5 Transit Revenues
Public Transportation Funding Estimates ($1,000) –
Maintain Exiting Services
Time
Period Federal Local / State Total Revenues
2016-2025 $5,762 $2,839 $8,602
2026-2040 $11,193 $5,765 $16,958
Total $16,956 $8,604 $25,560
Note: Line item revenue and cost for transit services are shown in Appendix C and have been inflated to reflect
anticipated revenue growth and year of expenditure dollars.
9.4 Projects Not Fiscally Constrained
Financial resources are not large enough to fund all of the projects identified in this transportation plan.
Those projects outside the anticipated revenues are described as “Illustrative Projects”. The Illustrative
Projects are shown in Figure 9-3 and in Table 9-6.
9.5 Implementation
The analysis of existing revenue sources shows the financial capacity to complete the fiscally constrained
projects. However, the revenue streams are gradual and the project costs typically occur in large amounts
at one time. Often local communities face difficulty in developing resource reserves over time to be able
to undertake larger projects. To address this potential difficulty, the following financial steps can be
considered:
1) Provide a dedicated amount of funding for transportation by local governments, rather than
using annual allocations of general fund revenues.
2) Consider additional resources to obtain needed revenues for the major investments identified in
this plan.
3) Consider the use of bonding for one or more transportation projects identified in this plan. The
existing revenue stream for transportation or use of new resources could be used as debt
service for the bonds.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 205 / 225
145
Figure 9-2: Fiscally Constrained Plan
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 206 / 225
146
Figure 9-3: Illustrative Projects (Not Included in the Fiscally Constrained Plan)
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 207 / 225
147 Table 9-5: Fiscally Constrained Project Plan Grand Island Area MPO Transportation Improvement Program FY 2016-2020 State ID Project Name Project Description A/Q Status Length (SLM) Total Project Est. Phase YOE Fund Type Fund Description TIP Estimate by Phase Amount ($1,000) PE 2016 City Grand Island $115 PE 2016 State Build Nebraska $1,735 ROW 2018 City Grand Island $10 Construct 4-Lane Divided Highway ROW 2018 State Build Nebraska $2,129 US-30, from US 281 in Grand Island Const/CE 2020 City Grand Island $1,262 41704 US-281 West, Grand Island West to City Limits - Beg RP 309.15 Exempt 3.5 mi $25,978 Const/CE 2020 State Build Nebraska $20,727 PE 2017 State NDOR $31 ROW 2018 State NDOR $1 Mill, Concrete repair, resurface 4-lane dual Roadway and Shoulders, Bridge repair Const/CE 2019 NHPP National Highway Performance Program $7,300 42674 Platte River - Phillips I-80 from Platte River west of Grand to Phillips, Beginning RP 310.88 Exempt 7.7 mi $8,144 Const/CE 2019 State NDOR $812 Grand IslandStudy Session - 3/5/2019Page 208 / 225
148 State ID Project Name Project Description A/Q Status Length (SLM) Total Project Est. Phase YOE Fund Type Fund Description TIP Estimate by Phase Amount ($1,000) PE 2015 State NDOR $779 Const/CE 2017 City Grand Island $2,074 Resurf existing roadway & US-281/N-2 ramps, concrete repair, brdge repair, add subdrains Const/CE 2017 NHPP National Highway Performance Program $7,854 US-281 from Old US-30 Viaduct over UPRR, North to 1.8 mi South of Howard County Line Const/CE 2017 SFTY Nation Safety Improve. Program $595 42690 In Grand Island & North Beginning RP - 69.90 Exempt 9.6 mi $12,399 Const/CE 2017 State NDOR $1,097 PE 2016 State NDOR $39 Deploy automated gate systems and COTV Cameras Const/CE 2017 ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems $949 42773 Grand Island - WACO Several I-80 interchages in District 4 Exempt 0 $1,094 Const/CE 2017 State NDOR $106 Bridge repair/overlay,sealing, approach slabs Const/CE 2018 NHPP National Highway Performance Program $2,339 42776 In Grand Island Bridges Three Bridges in Grand Island Beginning NP 312.93 Exempt 0 $2,924 Const/CE 2018 State NDOR $585 Grand IslandStudy Session - 3/5/2019Page 209 / 225
149 State ID Project Name Project Description A/Q Status Length (SLM) Total Project Est. Phase YOE Fund Type Fund Description TIP Estimate by Phase Amount ($1,000) PE 2016 SFTY Nation Safety Improve. Program $100 PE 2016 Local Grand Island $10 Reconfigure Stolley Park Road to 3,4 and 5 lane sections - FHWA Road Diet Initiative Const./CE 2017 SFTY Nation Safety Improve. Program $1,115 42812 Grand Island-Stolley Park Reconfiguration From Webb Road to S. Locust St Exempt 2.04 mi $1,349 Const./CE 2017 Local Grand Island $124 PE 2016 State NDOR $1 Const/CE 2016 State NDOR $111 42828 District 4 -Districtwide striping Install durable pavement markings Exempt 0 $1,110 Const/CE 2016 SFTY Nation Safety Improve. Program $998 FTA Sec. 5307 $100 Transit Needs Analysis Feasibility Study to identify Transit Needs Exempt $125 2016 Local Grand Island $25 Total $53,123 Grand IslandStudy Session - 3/5/2019Page 210 / 225
150 Table 9-5: Fiscally Constrained Project Plan (Continued) GIAMPO Project Listing 2021-2025 Project ID Project Name Project Description From To Jurisdiction Total Cost ($1,000) Current Year Total Cost ($1,000) Future Year Available Fiscal Constrained ($1,000) 2016 - 2025 $57,839 Intersection Improvements Improvements at various intersections Various Various Grand Island $3,500 $4,606 $53,233 B-3a Stuhr Road Widen to 3 lanes US-30 BNSF RR Grand Island $9,656 $12,707 $40,526 B-2a Old Potash Highway Widen to 5 lanes Claude Road Webb Road Grand Island $4,307 $5,668 $34,858 B-8 Husker Highway Widen to 3 lanes US-281 North Road Grand Island $4,947 $6,510 $28,348 B-4 North Road Widen to 3 lanes Highway 2 Old Potash Highway Grand Island $11,081 $14,582 $13,766 B-7 Stolley Park Road Widen to 3 lanes Fair Ground Entrance Stuhr Road Grand Island $2,183 $2,872 $10,894 B-1a Capital Avenue Widen to 5 lanes Broadwell Avenue BNSF RR/Oak Street Grand Island $3,438 $4,524 $6,371 B-6 13th Street Widen to 3 lanes West of US-281 Independence Avenue Grand Island $4,193 $5,517 $853 Total 2021-2025$43,304 $56,985 $853 Grand IslandStudy Session - 3/5/2019Page 211 / 225
151 Table 9-5 Fiscally Constrained Project Plan continued GIAMPO Project Listing 2026-2040 Project ID Project Name Project Description From To Jurisdiction Total Cost ($1,000) Current Year Total Cost ($1,000) Future Year Available Fiscal Constrained ($1,000) 2026-2040 $114,089* Intersection Improvements Improvements at various intersections Various Various Grand Island $3,764 $7,332 $106,758 2 Stuhr Bridges over BNSF and UPRR Engineering Grand Island $2,048 $3,989 $102,768 B-3b Stuhr Road Widen to 3 lanes BNSF RR US-34 Grand Island $9,656 $18,809 $83,959 B-1b Capital Avenue Widen to 3 lanes BNSF RR/Oak Street St Paul Road Grand Island $1,781 $3,470 $80,490 B-1c Capital Avenue Widen to 3 lanes Dairy Queen Engleman Road Grand Island $5,700 $11,103 $69,387 B-2b Old Potash Highway Widen to 3 lanes Engleman Road Claude Road Grand Island $5,269 $10,264 $59,123 B-5 Swift Road New 2-lane road Talc Road Shady Bend Road Grand Island $3,150 $6,136 $52,987 4 Broadwell over UPRR and Broadwell Extension Broadwell Avenue Widening (5-lane) Faidley Avenue Third Street Grand Island $3,900 $7,597 $45,390 5 Broadwell UPRR bridge $13,000 $25,323 $20,068 6 Broadwell Extension (3-lane) Anna Street Adams Street $4,900 $9,545 $10,523 11 13th St. - 10th St. Connector Reconstruct W 13th Street 10th Street Grand Island $600 $1,169 $9,354 Total 2026-2040 $53,768 $104,735 $9,352 *Note: includes $853 of FY2016-2025 carryover plus forecast $113,236. Grand IslandStudy Session - 3/5/2019Page 212 / 225
152 Table 9-6: Illustrative Project Plan GIAMPO Illustrative Projects Project ID Project Name Project Description From To Jurisdiction Total Cost ($1,000) Current Year Total Cost ($1,000) Future Year Available Fiscal Constrained ($1,000) Illustrative Project 2040+ $9,352 7 North Road and UPRR Bridge Widen to 3 lanes; new 2-lane bridge Old Potash Hwy Husker Hwy Grand Island $16,200 $26,776 9 Broadwell over BNSF Widen to 5 lanes Capital Avenue Airport Road Grand Island $14,300 $23,636 Realign Old Highway 2 to connect Custer Avenue; New 4-lane bridge 3 Eddy Street Extension New 2-lane Road Phoenix Avenue Locust Street Grand Island $3,300 $5,454 12 Alda Road and UPRR Bridge New 2-lane bridge Apollo Street Hwy 30 Grand Island $11,300 $18,677 15 East Bypass (5-lanes) 5-lane Stolley Park Road * Locust Street Stuhr Road Grand Island $2,500 $4,132 5-Lane Stuhr Road / Sky Park Road * US-34 Capital Avenue $11,875 $19,628 5-lane Husker Hwy US-281 Stuhr Road $18,750 $30,991 5=lane Captial Avenue BNSF RR/Oak Street Sky Park Road $20,375 $33,677 16 East Bypass US-281 to I-80 4-lane Expressway I-80 US 281 Grand Island $78,750 $130,162 2 Stuhr Road bridge over UPRR New 4-lane bridges Highway 30 4th Street Grand Island $15,952 $26,366 Stuhr Road bridge over BNSF New 4-lane bridge Grand Island $11,000 $18,181 *expand 3-lane to 5-lane Grand IslandStudy Session - 3/5/2019Page 213 / 225
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 214 / 225
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 215 / 225
US HWY 281
R R
CROSS INGASPHALT MAINTENANCE PROJECT
CURB RAMP PROJECT NO. 2019-CR-1
CURB RAMP PROJECT NO. 2019-CR-2-CDBG
HIGHWAY 30 REALIGNMENT (NDOT PROJECT)
STOLLEY PARK ROAD RECONFIGURATION
MOORES CREEK DRAIN EXTENSION
NORTH BROADWELL DITCH DRAINAGE
OLD POTASH FINAL DESIGN; NORTH ROAD TO WEBB ROAD
PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEYSUGAR BEET DITCH HARRISON TRAIL
US HIGHWAY 281 CORRIDOR SIGNAL TIMING
ABBOTT RD
WHITECLOUD RD
AIRPORT RD
ABBOTT RD US HWY 281AIRPORT RD
CAPITAL AVE
US H
W
Y
3
0
STOLLEY PARK RD
OLD POTASH HWY
US H
W
Y
3
0
US HWY 28113TH ST
HUSKER HWY
LOCUST STST. PAUL RDNORTH RDENGLEMAN RDSTUHR RDMONITOR RDR RUS HIGHWAY 281 LIGHTING
NORTH ROAD (NORTH-SOUTH)
2 0 1 9 P A V I N G & D R A I N A G E P R O J E C T S
SOUTH FRONT STREET OVER
SYCAMORE UNDERPASS PROJECT
BROADWELL/UPRR GRADE SEPARATION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
WILLIAM STREET PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
FIVE POINTS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
KAUFMAN DETENTION CELL OUTLET
TRAFFIC STUDIES VARIOUS LOCATIONS
UPPER PRAIRIE/SILVER/MOORES CREEK
NORTHWEST FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT (NRD PROJECT)
LEGEND
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 216 / 225
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
NORTHSEWERSHED
SOUTHSEWERSHED
WESTSEWERSHED WWTP
23 28
24
17
7
1
11
4
6
27
18
J02
H1
J1
22
26
25
WOOD RIVER RD.
SCHIMMER DR.
HUSKER HWY.
STOLLEY PARK RD.
OLD POTASH HWY.
13TH ST.
CAPITAL AVE.
ABBOTT RD.ENGLEMAN RD.NORTH RD.U.S. HWY. 281BLAINE ST.LOCUST ST.STHUR RD.SHADY BEND RD.AIRPORT RD.
U.S. HWY. 34
BISMARK RD.
STOLLEY PARK RD.U.S. H W Y . 30U .S. H W Y . 30SKY PARK RD.ST. PAUL RD.U.S. HWY. 281WEBB RD.NORTH RD.HWY. 2
WILDWOOD RD.
AA2
LOCUST ST.µ0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles DECEMBER 2018
LENGTHPIPELENGTH
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
WWTP
TOTAL
1,937
1,893
1,167
33
5,030
519,518
466,846
316,134
2,801
1,305,299
98.39
88.42
59.87
0.53
247.2
SUMMARY - SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEMLIFT STATIONMILESCOUNTFEETCOUNT
8.0
6.5
3.5
0.0
18.0
NORTH SEWER SHED AREA
SOUTH SEWER SHED AREA
WEST SEWER SHED AREA
POTENTIAL DEWATERING BOUNDARY
"
CITY OWNED PUMPING STATIONWITH STATION IDENTIFIER
"
PRIVATE OWNED PUMPING STATIONWITH STATION INDENTIFIER
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
SMALL DIAMETERSANITARY PIPE
RE-UTILIZED NE INTERCEPTORSANITARY PIPE
FORCEDPUMPING MAIN
INTERCEPTOR PLANNING
PHASE I
PHASE II
PHASE III
LARGE DIAMETERINTERCEPTORSANITARY PIPE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
#7FLOW MONITORING STATION
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 217 / 225
Estimate
Relocate WWTP Entrance ‐ Museum Drive $875,000
Concrete Pad Upgrade $50,000
Facility Security $50,000
Fill in Building 5 (Old Headworks) $180,000
Building 2 Renovation (Adsmin Bldg) $4,250,000
Collection System Office and Equipment Warm Storage $1,000,000
Process modification from MLE to A2O
Micro C Pumping Modifications $237,500
Internal Recycle Pumps & Piping $2,250,000
Aeration Basin Influent flow improvements $3,750,000
Tank Baffle in Aeration Basin $600,000
Online Monitoring $250,000
Blower Modifications $1,070,000
RAS Fermenter $4,412,500
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic Digestion Study $300,000
Anaerobic Digestion Pilot Project $300,000
Silo Anaerobic Digester & Digester Building $14,500,000
Biomethane Facility $13,500,000
Sludge Drying Building (Solar) $9,500,000
Chloride Reduction $8,000,000
Revise Flow & Rate Study $540,000
Downtown System Rehabilitation (2019‐S‐1) $850,000
Riverside West Dewatering Project $4,000,000
Riverside East Dewatering Project $2,000,000
Riverside Area Rehabilitation $1,450,000
Senior High School Area $1,000,000
Pier Park Area $1,680,000
Airport Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation $3,000,000
Riverside Area ‐ Sump Pump Pilot Program $600,000
Lift Station 6 Abandonment/6th & Market Inverted Siphon $4,800,000
Lift Station 11 Upgrade $1,941,855
South Interceptor ‐ Phase 1A (Bismark/Fonner Park) $10,500,000
South Interceptor ‐ Phase 1B (Bismark/Fonner Park) $12,000,000
South Interceptor ‐ Phase 2 (To Lift Station 20) $50,000,000
Upgrade LS 17 ‐ Rehab $3,600,000
Sanitary Sewer District (Willow Street) $400,000
Sanitary Sewer District (Hanover Subd) Unknown
Sanitary Sewer District (E 15th St) $500,000
Sanitary Sewer District (E Seedling Mile Road) $1,000,000
Sanitary Sewer District (Claude Road) $450,000
Sanitary Sewer District (Adams & Phoenix) $150,000
Sanitary Sewer District (E. Stolley Park Road) $255,000
Sanitary Sewer District (800 Lincoln, 1218 & 1204) $150,000
Sanitary Sewer District (Schroeder Sub/Husker Hwy Tap) $1,200,000
Sanitary Sewer District (Pioneer Blvd) $30,000
Sanitary Sewer District (Scheel Road) $80,000
Sanitary Sewer District (3630 S. Locust) $225,000
Sanitary Sewer District (Wetzel) $180,000
Sanitary Sewer District (Villa Mar Dee ‐ S. Side) $50,000
Sanitary Sewer District (Doniphan) $4,000,000
Sanitary Sewer District (East Lakes ‐ eone) $2,000,000
Sanitary Sewer District (North Rd. ‐ State St. to Hwy 2) $1,000,000
Sanitary Sewer Conflicts with Storm Sewers
5th and Vine Unknown
9th and Vine Unknown
Home Depot Detention Cell Unknown
$174,706,855
Lift Stations and System Upgrades
Storm Sewer Upgrades
Assessment or Tap Districts
Totals
Capital Projects
Physical Facilities
Plant Operations
Planning and Engineering
Collection System Rehabilitation
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 218 / 225
City of Grand Island
Wheel Fee Revenue Analysis
2017 - Current
Page 1 of 1
Month 2017-2018 Wheel Fee 2018-2019 Wheel Fee
2018-2019 Wheel Fee
ends May 31, 2019 Difference
October $0 $84,863 $84,863
November $0 $91,464 $91,464
December $105,858 $75,063 $75,063
January $116,107 $82,714 $82,714
February $147,949 $107,843 $107,843
March $88,085 $100,000 $100,000 Avg of last 15 mos.
April $110,050 $100,000 $100,000 Avg of last 15 mos.
May $93,686 $100,000 $100,000 Avg of last 15 mos.
June $105,839 $100,000 $0
July $99,823 $100,000 $0
August $98,222 $100,000 $0
September $101,954 $100,000 $0
Total Wheel Fee $1,067,573 $1,141,947 $741,947 $400,000
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 219 / 225
City of Grand Island
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Study Session
Item -2
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Group Discussion
Staff Contact: Brent Clark
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 220 / 225
Council Agenda Memo
From:Chad Nabity, AICP, CRA Director
Meeting:March 5, 2019
Subject:Ad Hoc Committee to Review TIF Usage and Methods in
Grand Island
Presenter(s):Chad Nabity, AICP, CRA Director
Background
On January 15, 2019 the Grand Island City Council held a study session at on the topic of
Tax Increment Financing and how it is used in and by the City of Grand Island. The
Community Redevelopment Authority Director, Chad Nabity, presented a TIF basics
presentation and provided examples of how TIF has been used in Grand Island along with
the process for applying for TIF. At the end of this discussion, Council Member Haase
suggested that it would be helpful for a smaller subcommittee of the Council including
himself, Council Members Paulick and Minton along with the CRA Chair Tom Gdowski
and staff members Patrick Brown and Chad Nabity to take a deeper look at how TIF is
used in Grand Island and how applications are approved and report back to the full
Council at the Council retreat in February.
Discussion
Over four weeks between the Study Session and the Retreat this committee met on four
occasions to review the processes and procedures that lead to a completed TIF
application and potential approval of that application. Information from these meetings
was included in the Council Retreat Packet and that same information is included with
this study session packet. This information includes a memo from Council Member
Haase, along with a map of the blighted and substandard areas, a list of questions that can
be provided to developers to help them identify how their project benefits the community
and a list of all of the approved TIF projects with projected payoff timelines and
additional tax base for the City.
The committee reviewed past project and considered if there were specific uses that
should not be eligible for TIF. It was decided by the committee that hard and fast rules
would not be in the best interest of the community and that Council had a responsibility
to consider every application and weigh the merits of each application. The committee
reviewed the fees that the city collects for TIF projects and most likely the finance and
planning departments will suggest a new fee structure along with the new fee schedule
adopted with the 2019-20 budget.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 221 / 225
TIF Group Discussion
Summary Statement – The intent of this discussion group was to review the TIF
process and see if there are opportunities to enhance the public accountability,
with a Council recommendation and policy. Over the years, there have been
significant questions and concerns from the public and Council, regarding the use
and application of the TIF process in Grand Island. The result of the discussion is
support and approval of the TIF process historically and the following comments,
guidelines and application materials presented to Council to help promote
openness in our continued support of using TIF to remove and remediate blighted
and substandard conditions and promote economic development opportunities
within the City of Grand Island and the jurisdiction of the Grand Island City
Council and Community Development Authority.
I want to especially thank the 7 group members, Councilmember’s Paulick,
Minton and myself, CRA Chairman Tom Gdowski, and Staff members, Brent Clark,
Chad Nabity and Patrick Brown. Each member contributed significantly in the
discussion on the complexity and community benefit of the TIF program.
Guidelines –
The use of TIF financing is intended to spur economic development that
supports the Council’s objectives.
o Commercial
Job Creation
Enhance City Revenue Stream – sales & use tax, occupation tax
Special Needs in the Highway 281 and South Locust Corridors,
the Downtown and the Veterans Home Property.
o Residential
Address recognized housing shortages
Reverse Blighting – we support a policy where the CRA is directed to review
all TIF blighted areas and submit their recommendation to Council every 5
years, beginning in 2020.
Transparency –
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 222 / 225
o On line mapping (available April 1, 2019)
o Annual report to Council
Calendar year additions to assessed valuation of TIF projects
Calendar year removals from TIF assessed valuation
Provide a Y2Y (year to year) of assessed valuations, along with
the changes listed above provided by TIF, separating out
residential revaluation (non growth increases), with the
balance in changes would, by default, be considered the
annual growth not using TIF or revaluation.
TIF Project information presented to Council
o We support Chad’s inclusion of the questionnaire as in the Council
packet.
o Including a disclosure of the TIF percentage of the Total project,
along with a list of all other known government economic
development subsidies such as, façade improvement or Life Safety
grants.
o Include an executive summary, including a statement as to the
City/Neighborhood benefits if the project is approved.
But For Clause – While this is a statutory requirement to fulfill, there are
too many variables to each project for us to suggest anything particular at
this time.
15 Year TIF Project -
o While we had varying discussion about the number of years, again, to
many variable for us to suggest anything particular at this time.
o While 49 states have a TIF program, Nebraska is the only one with 15
years, while the other 48 have longer deferred project lengths.
Attachments:
Pat’s worksheet
Chad’s questionnaire
Chad’s map
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 223 / 225
DESCRIPTION SUB NAME TIF TOTAL TIF BASE TIF EXCESS
YEAR
BEGAN TIF Years
TIF Excess
Available Category
Year (delay 1
yr)TIF Excess Available2018 City Mill Levy City Tax
Cummulative
City Tax
WALNUT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WALNUT CONDO PROJECT $2,308,030 $107,150 $2,200,880 2004 15 2019 RES 2020 $ 2,200,880 0.375504 $8,264 $8,264
CENTURA HILLS EAST PROJECT CENTURA HILLS EAST PROJ $3,825,785 $103,448 $3,722,337 2007 15 2022 COM 2021 $ -0.375504 $0 $8,264
GIRARD VET CLINIC GIRARD VET CLINIC PROJ $570,284 $78,431 $491,853 2007 15 2022 COM 2022 $ -0.375504 $0 $8,264
SOUTHEAST CROSSINGS PROJECT SOUTHEAST CROSSINGS PROJ $962,089 $232,690 $729,399 2007 15 2022 COM 2023 $ 1,221,252 0.375504 $4,586 $12,850
GEDDES STREET APARTMENTS GEDDES ST APTS PROJECT $1,498,754 $27,498 $1,471,256 2008 15 2023 RES 2024 $ 1,471,256 0.375504 $5,525 $18,375
SOUTH POINTE HOTEL PROJECT SOUTH POINTE HOTEL PROJ $4,124,418 $234,722 $3,889,696 2009 15 2024 COM 2025 $ 4,180,168 0.375504 $15,697 $34,072
TODD ENCK PROJECT TODD ENCK PROJECT $310,939 $20,467 $290,472 2009 15 2024 RES 2026 $ 653,121 0.375504 $2,452 $36,524
CASEY'S AT FIVE POINTS PROJECT CASEY'S AT FIVE POINTS $825,834 $172,713 $653,121 2010 15 2025 COM 2027 $ 3,685,617 0.375504 $13,840 $50,364
U-SAVE 4TH ST PHARMACY PROJECT U-SAVE 4TH ST PHARMACY $589,090 $39,495 $549,595 2011 15 2026 COM 2028 $ 346,280 0.375504 $1,300 $51,664
JOHN SCHULTE PROJECT JOHN SCHULTE PROJECT $424,703 $63,684 $361,019 2011 15 2026 RES 2029 $ 8,875,237 0.375504 $33,327 $84,991
POPLAR ST WATER LINE PROJECT POPLAR ST WATER LINE $1,781,326 $1,155,016 $626,310 2011 15 2026 RES 2030 $ 5,975,803 0.375504 $22,439 $107,430
WOOD RIVER ETHANOL PROJECT WOOD RIVER ETHANOL PROJ $29,247,418 $238,679 $29,008,739 2007 15 2022 COM 2031 $ 17,363,329 0.375504 $65,200 $172,630
WENN HOUSING PROJECT WENN HOUSING PROJECT $230,691 $19,523 $211,168 2012 15 2027 RES 2032 $ 29,996,713 0.375504 $112,639 $285,269
TOKEN PROPERTIES LLC TOKEN PROPERTIES LLC $149,619 $14,507 $135,112 2012 15 2027 RES 2033 $ 20,363,135 0.375504 $76,464 $361,733
KEN-RAY LLC PROJECT KEN-RAY LLC PROJECT $3,005,312 $856,619 $2,148,693 2011 15 2026 COM 2034 $ 7,962,684 0.375504 $29,900 $391,634
STRATFORD PLAZA LLC STRATFORD PLAZA LLC $3,628,593 $2,095,733 $1,532,860 2013 15 2028 COM
GORDMAN GRAND ISLAND GORDMAN GRAND ISLAND $5,472,235 $2,187,305 $3,284,930 2013 15 2028 COM
TOKEN PROPERTIES CAREY ST TOKEN PROPERTIES CAREY $402,271 $38,645 $363,626 2013 15 2028 RES Category TIF Base TIF Excess
EIG GRAND ISLAND EIG GRAND ISLAND $7,444,084 $4,126,140 $3,317,944 2013 15 2028 COM Residential $3,416,649 $53,284,991
AUTO ONE INC PROJECT AUTO ONE INC $737,148 $90,194 $646,954 2014 15 2029 MIX Commercial $18,277,303 $77,744,961
GI AREA HABITAT GI AREA HABITAT $248,769 $46,851 $201,918 2013 15 2028 RES Mix-Use $3,315,633 $6,185,348
TOKEN LLC KIMBALL ST PROJECT TOKEN LLC KIMBALL ST $145,117 $17,475 $127,642 2014 15 2029 RES $25,009,585 $137,215,300
BAKER DEVELOPMENT 18TH ST BAKER DEVELOPMENT 18TH S $194,868 $20,909 $173,959 2013 15 2028 RES
COPPER CREEK COPPER CREEK $3,585,131 $134,194 $3,450,937 2014 15 2029 RES
CHIEF INDUSTRIES AURORA COOP CHIEF INDUSTRIES AURORA $3,933,593 $2,183,323 $1,750,270 2014 15 2029 COM
MAINSTAY SUITES PROJECT MAINSTAY SUITES PROJECT $3,232,406 $263,105 $2,969,301 2015 15 2030 COM Year City's Assessed Valuation Increase Average
TOWER 217 PROJECT TOWER 217 PROJECT $1,324,924 $99,655 $1,225,269 2015 15 2030 MIX 2018 $3,126,408,875 4.56%4.14%
COPPER CREEK II COPPER CREEK II $13,974,138 $805,379 $13,168,759 2015 15 2030 RES 2017 $2,990,112,619 2.10%
HABITAT 8TH & SUPERIOR HABITAT 8TH & SUPERIOR $520,227 $14,125 $506,102 2016 15 2031 RES 2016 $2,928,500,044 3.80%
TC BUILDERS - EDDY STREET T C BUILDERS - EDDY ST $167,351 $9,460 $157,891 2016 15 2031 RES 2015 $2,821,224,691 6.11%
SUPER MARKET DEVELOPERS SUPER MARKET DEVELOPERS $6,578,238 $915,957 $5,662,281 2016 15 2031 COM 2014 $2,658,704,370
NORTHWEST COMMONS NORTHWEST COMMONS $10,981,778 $2,044,857 $8,936,921 2016 15 2031 COM
COPPER CREEK III COPPER CREEK III $12,754,331 $390,617 $12,363,714 2016 15 2031 RES
KAUFMAN BUILDING KAUFMAN BUILDING $945,448 $353,827 $591,621 2016 15 2031 COM
PRIDON VICTORY VILLAGE PRIDON VICTORY VILLAGE $1,778,184 $1 $1,778,183 2016 15 2031 RES
BOSSELMAN REAL ESTATE PROJECT BOSSELMAN $6,836,888 $2,652,701 $4,184,187 2017 15 2032 MIX
TALON APT PROJECT TALON APARTMENT PROJECT $3,504,162 $33,545 $3,470,617 2017 15 2032 RES
COPPER CREEK IV COPPER CREEK IV PROJECT $4,098,495 $170,294 $3,928,201 2017 15 2032 RES
MIDDLETON PROPERTIES MIDDLETON PROPERTIES II $1,545,811 $886,524 $659,287 2017 15 2032 COM
FEDERATION LABOR TEMPLE FEDERATION LABOR TEMPLE $399,169 $64,628 $334,541 2017 15 2032 RES
HATCHERY HOLDINGS LLC HATCHERY HOLDINGS LLC $7,780,366 $123,002 $7,657,364 2017 15 2032 COM
WING PROPERTIES INC (WILLIAMSON'S BLD)WILLIAMSON'S BLD $200,322 $71,384 $128,938 2017 15 2032 MIX
WEINRICH DEVELOPMENT WEINRICH DEVELOPMENT $104,404 $39,149 $65,255 2018 15 2033 RES
PEACEFULL ROOT LLC PEACEFULL ROOT LLC $140,447 $140,447 $0 2018 15 2033 MIX
THINK SMART THINK SMART $95,213 $8,400 $86,813 2018 15 2033 RES
URBAN ISLAND LLC URBAN ISLAND LLC $150,688 $150,688 $0 2018 15 2033 MIX
CAIRO BUSINESS PARK PROJECT CAIRO BUSINESS PARK PROJ $408,822 $220,073 $188,749 2018 15 2033 COM
TALON APT PROJECT TALON APT PROJ PHASE 2 $2,775,459 $10,800 $2,764,659 2018 15 2033 RES
EAST PARK ON STUHR EAST PARK ON STUHR $5,212,135 $166,178 $5,045,957 2018 15 2033 RES
O'NEILL WOOD RESOURCES O'NEILL WOOD - CAAP PROJ $203,570 $203,570 $0 2018 15 2033 COM
TAKE FLIGHT INVESTMENTS TAKE FLIGHT INVESTMENTS $110,564 $110,564 $0 2018 15 2033 MIX
MENDEZ ENTERPRISES LLC (PHASE 1)MENDEZ ENT - PHASE 1 $717,090 $717,090 $0 2018 15 2033 COM
COPPER CREEK - 2017 LOOK BACK COPPER CREEK '17 LOOK BK $17,737 $17,737 $0 2018 15 2033 RES
COPPER CREEK PHASE 2 - 2017 LOOK BACK COPPER CREEK-2 '17 LOOK $20,417 $20,417 $0 2018 15 2033 RES
$162,224,885 $25,009,585 $137,215,300
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 224 / 225
Questions that would aid in evaluating TIF Projects:
These could be questions asked of the developer before and during the TIF
Process.
Some questions like #7 may have to be answered in conjunction with City Staff.
Other questions could be addressed directly by the applicant.
1.Is it a new use to the community/neighborhood?
2.Does it add to the community/neighborhood?
3.Does it provide base employment?
4.Will it create more than x(10?) housing units and what type?
a.Does the elementary school in that area have additional capacity and
what is the projected enrollment over the build out period of the
project?
5.Will it rehabilitate an existing building?
6.Will it remove/replace a building that is ready to be removed?
7.Does it promote other goals of the City? (e.g. adding residential units
downtown, extending the city limits toward I-80, converting gravel streets
to paved streets, extending sewer and/or water to unserved areas of the
community, providing workforce housing, promote area plans as approved
by Council)
8.Will the project generate sales/use taxes? If so what are the projected
amounts?
9.Is this a catalyst project in an area?
10.What percent of the TIF Dollars will be spent on public improvements as
opposed to other eligible activities such as acquisition, demolition and
rehabilitation.
Grand Island Study Session - 3/5/2019 Page 225 / 225