five year plan 2012

7/22/2019 Five Year Plan 2012

1/64

November 2012


2/64

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Funding Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Funding Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Data-Driven Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Project Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

PROJECT LISTS

District 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

District 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

District 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

District 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

District 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

District 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Statewide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53


3/64

Thank you for your interest in the departments Five-Year Transportation Investment Plan. This plan allows citizens to see, in

non-technical terms, the transportation projects we plan to deliver over the next five years. It provides project information to our

customers and partners in a clear, concise manner. This allows us to increase our transparency and allows you to hold us accountable

for delivering on our promises. The 2013 - 2017 five-year plan shows:

The departments funding challenges and assumptions

The transportation systems needs and ITDs strategies to meet them

How projects are prioritized and selected

Which projects have been selected, how much they will cost, and when they will be completed

How ITD will measure its progress

Unlike the transportation-investment plans we published before 2011, this plan shows how we balance capital-investment decisions

with our commitment to performance and economic opportunity. It also includes information about our dashboard indicators of

pavement condition, bridge condition, safety, and six other performance measures to allow you to track our progress and see how

we are doing.

The 2013 - 2017 plan reflects our commitment to customer service. It provides quick and easy access to valuable information

about how we invest the publics money to drive economic opportunity. This plan shows we are committed to becoming the best

transportation department in the country.

Sincerely,

Brian W. Ness

Director

Five-Year Transportation Investment Plan


4/64

Chairman

Jerry Whitehead, Boise

District 2Jan Vassar, Lewiston

Counties:

Clearwater, Idaho, Latah, Lewis,Nez Perce

District 3Julie DeLorenzo, Boise

Counties:Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon,

Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette,

Valley, Washington

District 4

Jim Kempton, Albion

Counties:Blaine, Camas, Cassia,

Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln,Minidoka, Twin Falls

District 5

Dwight Horsch, Pocatello

Counties:Bannock, Bear Lake, Bingham,

Caribou, Franklin, Oneida, Power

District 6

Lee Gagner, Idaho Falls

Counties:Bonneville, Butte, Clark, Custer,

Fremont, Jefferson, Lemhi,Madison, Teton

District 1, Vice ChairmanJames Coleman, Coeur d!Alene

Counties:Benewah, Bonner, Boundary,

Kootenai, Shoshone

Idaho Transportation Board


5/64

Five-Year Plan Shows How ITD

Delivers on its Promises

Publishing the Five-Year Idaho TransportationInvestment Plan allows elected officials and

taxpayers to track ITDs progress. The plan in-cludes projects for highways, bridges, publictransportation, railroad crossings, aviation, andnon-motorized transportation.

Publishing the costs and scheduled beginning

and completion dates of every project allows

elected officials and the public to see how the

department delivers on its promises. The five-

year plan also shows the departments funding

assumptions and needs, and explains how trans-

portation projects are prioritized and selected.

Delivering projects on time is important to the

departments credibility and customer service.

Stakeholders depend on the department to de-

liver projects to construction in the year they

were intended.

In 2002, the department delivered 65 percent of

its projects on time. In 2012, the department

used new streamlined processes and major effi-ciency improvements implemented under Di-

rector Ness to deliver 91 percent of its projects

on time.

Using Management Systemsto Maximize Funding EfficiencyThe departments integrated management sys-tems provide the data required to manage infra-structure investments and improve the ability tomeasure and adjust performance.

These systems allow the Idaho TransportationBoard and the department to more effectivelymanage transportation investments. Perform-ance management and data-driven decisions are

vital to the departments success.

Achieving State and Local

Transportation ObjectivesState Highway System projects are selected to

achieve state and local goals and objectives.The department supports a transportation sys-tem that links state and local roads with multi-ple freight and commerce modes.

The 2013 to 2017 Five-Year Transportation

Investment Plan invests more than $2 billion inthe following categories:

Highways $1.7 billion Bridges $262 million Aeronautics* $186 million Public Transportation* $81 million

TOTAL $2.2 billion

* Most of these funds do not pass through ITD.

The department strategically targets invest-ments to improve safety, enhance mobility, andprovide economic opportunity.

ITD uses integrated management systems to en-sure transportation investments align withIdahos transportation vision.

Balancing Needed Projects with

Available Revenue

ITD schedules projects to balance available rev-enue with the need to improve or maintain the

system. The departments investment strategiesaddress safety needs, coordinate road and bridgework, maintain and operate the existing system,and make the most efficient use of forecastedrevenue.

Energizing the Economy

Idahos gross domestic product and transporta-tion system are inextricably linked. Improving

and maintaining Idahos transportation infra-structure is a key component of Governor C.L.

Butch Otters vision to strengthen the stateseconomy through his Project 60 Initiative. Proj-ect 60 is a plan to grow Idahos gross domesticproduct from $51.5 billion to $60 billion.

In the past, ITD and most other transportation

departments in the country used project lists tocalculate how many jobs were created by eachproject. ITDs new strategic plan invests trans-portation funds to support Governor OttersProject 60 goals. This is a major cultural shift forthe department and distinguishes ITD from most

of the transportation departments in the country.An efficient, reliable transportation system en-ables economic opportunity.

How to Comment

If you would like to comment on this five-yearplan, call Adam Rush, ITD Public Involvement

Coordinator, at (208) 334-8005 or e-mail yourcomments to [email protected].

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYFive-Year Transportation Investment Plan

2013 - 2017 Five-Year Idaho Transportation Investment Plan 1


6/64

The Transportation System Powers

Idahos Economic Opportunity

With Idaho on the verge of economic recovery

and expansion, maintaining a safe, efficient

transportation system has never been more im-portant. That requires Idaho to make the right

decisions at the right time. ITD continues to

look for lean, efficient ways to manage limited

resources. The primary goal is to drive the

states economic opportunity.

Recognizing that revenue and funding are tight,

ITD will continue to seek innovative ways to

save money and invest its resources as wisely as

possible to drive Idahos economic opportunity.

Todays investment decisions will stimulate

tomorrows economic growth.

Idahos Roads and Bridges are Aging

More than one-third of bridges on the State

Highway System are more than 50 years old.

Many of them were built during the interstate-

construction era of the 1950s and 1960s. These

bridges were designed to last 40 to 60 years be-

fore being replaced. At current funding levels,

they will have to last 120 years.

The State Highway System has approximately

12,000 lane miles of paved highway. These

pavements were designed to last 20 years,

which requires the department to pave an aver-

age of 600 lane miles per year to keep the per-

centage of deficient pavement in Idaho from

increasing.

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act

stimulus funds and GARVEE investments

helped the department reduce the amount of de-

ficient pavement from 20 percent in 2008 to 13

percent in 2011.

Governors Transportation TaskForce Identifies Funding Gap

In 2009, Governor Otter formed the Governors

Task Force on Modernizing Transportation

Funding in Idaho. The task force met nine times

during 15 months, completing its work and is-

suing its findings in December 2010.

Lieutenant Governor Brad Little chaired the

task force. In the cover letter he wrote to Gover-nor Otter that accompanied the task forces

findings, he stated First and perhaps foremost,

the Task Force members solidly confirmed

Idahos real and significant transportation

funding shortfall .

The task force affirmed a growing funding

shortfall for both the state and local highway

systems. The task forces final report stated the

following amounts are needed for the state andlocal transportation systemsin addition to cur-

rent funding levels:

$543 million annually to expand and operate

the system, or

$262 million annually to operate, preserve,

restore, and maintain the existing system.

FUNDINGCHALLENGESFive-Year Transportation Investment Plan

Federal Funding for Idaho

Highways Reduced by Six Percent

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

(MAP-21), the current federal transportation au-

thorization bill, became law July 6, 2012, andcovers a 27-month period. Nationwide, FY13

highway funding is $37.5 billion and $10.6 bil-

lion for transit projects.

MAP-21 maintained funding for Idahos transit

program at previous levels, but reduced Idahos

highway budget by six percent. If Congress

does not balance transportation revenues with

current funding levels, Idahos future trans-

portation funds may be further reduced.

The law eliminated many programs. There are

now only six core funding programs. Funding is

based on 2009 levels. A lump sum will be pro-

vided for each core program.

MAP-21 requires states to set performance tar-

gets that support national performance meas-

ures, and expands safety efforts.

Congress passed Map-21 too late for ITD toadjust funding for FY15 through FY17. Idahos

FY14 - FY18 program update will reflectactual MAP-21 funding levels and programs.



7/64

State Funding Projected to Grow

Less Than One Percent Per Year

Idahos transportation needs and the projects in-

cluded in the five-year plan require accurate,

long-term assumptions for state and federalfunds.

The investment levels shown are based on the

assumptions that there will be no downturn in

the state economy, recovery from the existing

recession will be slow but continue to improve,

fuel prices will stabilize through FY17, and

ITDs state funds will increase approximately

one percent per year through FY17 and con-

tinue to be distributed as currently defined in

Idaho Code.

Federal Funding May Decrease

ITDs federal funding is authorized under Mov-

ing Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

(MAP-21), the most recent federal transporta-

tion authorization bill enacted in 2012. The bill

will expire at the end of FY14.

The federal government currently spends more

on transportation than it receives in transporta-

tion revenue, and plans to fill the funding gap

with federal revenues taken from the General

Fund.

As mentioned previously, MAP-21 reduced

Idahos highway apportionments by six percent.

If Congress does not act to balance transporta-

tion revenues with current spending levels,

Idahos future federal funding may be further

reduced.

FUNDINGASSUMPTIONSFive-Year Transportation Investment Plan

$277

FEDERALHIGHWAYAPPORTIONMENTSTOIDAHO(dollars in millions and rounded)

$279 $297 $297 $297

The projects included in the 2013 - 2017

five-year plan are based on the following

federal-funding assumptions:

FY13 $277 million

FY14 $279 million

FY15 - FY17 $297 million*

The funding assumptions for FY15 through

FY17 were in place before passage of MAP-21.

The funding levels for FY15 through FY17 will

likely be adjusted in the 2014 - 2017 Five-Year

Plan to reflect anticipated lower MAP-21 fund-

ing levels.

The plan does not include year-end redistribu-

tion of federal funding not used by other states.

It also does not include discretionary funds

Congress may provide to the states.

$278$298$303

The funding assumptions for FY15 through FY17

were in place before passage of MAP-21.

FY15 through FY17 funding will likely beadjusted in the 2014 - 2017 Five-Year Planto reflect anticipated lower MAP-21

funding levels.



8/64

Making Data-Driven Decisions toMeet State and Local NeedsAfter the department makes its funding assump-tions, it begins working closely with local trans-portation agencies and municipal planningorganizations to develop a data-driven trans-portation program. This brings broad commu-nity representation and input into thedecision-making process.

State Highway System projects are designed tomeet both state and local needs. The depart-ments investment strategy is to provide com-plete transportation systems that link local roadsand bridges with multiple modes of freight andcommerce.

ITD strategically targets its resources to providetransportation infrastructure and services thatcontribute to and enhance Idahos economicopportunity.

Management Systems AllowAccurate Targeting of InvestmentsThe department uses integrated, state-of-the-artmanagement systems to ensure all transporta-tion investments align with ITDs long-rangevison for the transportation system.

These management systems provide the infor-mation required to track performance measures,allow better planning and management of infra-structure investments, and improve the depart-ments ability to met the states transportationneeds.

Performance management is vital to the depart-ments success.

New Strategic Plan Drives

Investment Strategies

The department developed a new strategic plan

in 2011. The plan has three primary goals that

drive the departments investment strategies:

Commit to having the safest transportation

system possible

Provide a mobility-focused transportation

system that drives economic opportunity

Become the best organization by continually

developing employees and implementing in-

novative business practices

To achieve its performance goals with a flat

revenue stream, the department uses the follow-

ing investment strategies:

Invest for Performance The department

targets investments to maximize the impact of

available resources.

Preserve the Current System Timely

preservation and restoration projects extendthe useful lives of roads and bridges. Current

revenue levels do not allow the department to

fund expansion projects.

ITD forecasts its future revenue stream and con-tinuously reviews actual receipts against therevenue forecast in all major funding sources.Revenue streams are tracked monthly. If pro-gram adjustments are necessary, they are actedupon immediately.

DATA-DRIVEN SYSTEMSFive-Year Transportation Investment Plan



9/64

Data-Driven Decisions DriveProject Selection and PrioritizationIdahos Five-Year Transportation Plan includesprojects for highways, bridges, public trans-

portation, and aeronautics. The transportationboard and department select projects to furtherthe departments mission of improving safety,enhancing mobility, and providing economicopportunity. The first step in the process occurswhen the departments management team estab-lishes program performance measures, priori-ties, and funding levels. Teams for eachprogram area (roads, bridges, etc.) then meet to:

Collect and analyze data to make project-tim-

ing decisions, such as determining the idealtime to perform a pavement-preservation or abridge-rehabilitation project.

Review and prioritize system needs to pro-vide the highest return on investment and thegreatest benefit to Idahos economy

Recommend projects to meet the states

transportation needs within fiscal constraints.

Collaboration Gathers Input andProject RecommendationsThe department collaborates with the statesmetropolitan planning organizations and localgovernments to gather input and project recom-mendations. ITDs management team reviews

the recommendations and forwards approvedprojects to the Idaho Transportation Board.

Following the boards review, the public is in-vited to comment. After the comment period

ends, the board again reviews the selected proj-ects and approves a transportation program.

PROJECT SELECTIONFive-Year Transportation Investment Plan

January ITD makes federal and state revenue forecasts.

February ITD provides federal and state revenue forecasts tometropolitan planning organizations, the Local HighwayTechnical Assistance Council, and ITD!s six district offices.

April/May ITD receives project requests from transportation agencies andprepares a draft Idaho Transportation Investment Program (ITIP).

June Draft ITIP submitted to the Idaho Transportation Board for

review.

July Draft ITIP available for public review and comment.

August ITDdevelops final recommended ITIP.

September Final ITIP submitted to the Idaho Transportation Boardfor approval.

October Board-approved ITIP submitted to the Federal Highway

Administration and the Federal Transit Administration forapproval.

November Federal Highway Administration and the Federal TransitAdministration approve ITIPFederal Submittal Document.

Ongoing ITD obtains input from citizens, elected officials, tribalgovernments, state and federal agencies, metropolitanplanning organizations, the Local Highway TechnicalAssistance Council, and other interested public and private

organizations.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CALENDAR



10/64

Promises MadePromises Kept

To assure success in achieving its strategic goals

and delivering on the promises made in the prioryear, ITD monitors the nine performance meas-

ures shown on this page. Plans to achieve eachperformance measure cascade down into the or-

ganization business plans, work plans, and indi-

vidual employee performance plans.

______________________________________Five-Year Fatality Rate______________________________________

The five-year fatality rate per 100,000 vehicle

miles traveled decreased from 1.86 in 2006 to

1.40 in 2011. Fatalities decreased from 267 in

2006 to 167 in 2011, the lowest number of

fatalities in Idaho since 1956.

Goal: Reduce the five-year fatality rate to

1.38 per 100 million vehicle miles

traveled by 2012

______________________________________Percent of Pavement in Good

or Fair Condition______________________________________

The percent of pavement in good or fair condi-

tion increased from 80% in 2006 to 87% in 2011.

Goal: Maintain at least 82% of all state high-

ways in good or fair condition.

______________________________________Percent of Bridges in Good Condition______________________________________

The percent of bridges in good condition in-

creased from 67% in 2006 to 74% in 2011.

Goal: Maintain at least 80% of all

bridges in the State Highway System

in good condition.

DELIVERING ONPROMISESFive-Year Transportation Investment Plan

______________________________________Percent of Highway Projects

Developed on Time______________________________________

In 2002, the department delivered 65% of its

projects on time. In 2012, the department used

new streamlined processes and major efficiency

improvements implemented under Director

Ness to deliver 91% of its projects on time.

Goal: Have 100% of the current year highway

projects ready for bid by September 30.

______________________________________Construction Cost at Award

as a Percent of Budget______________________________________

The percent of construction cost at award

as a percent of budget increased from 76% in2009 to 81% in 2012.

Goal: Maintain Cumulative Construction Cost

at Award within 10% of Budget.

______________________________________Final Construction Cost

as a Percent of Contract Award______________________________________

The final construction cost as a percent of con-

tract award increased from 106% in 2009 to

107% in 2011.

Goal: Maintain Final Cost within +/-5%

of the Contract.

______________________________________Administration & Planning Expenditures

as a Percent of Total Expenditures______________________________________

The administration and planning expenditures

as a percent of total expenditures decreased

from 5.5% in 2006 to 4.7% in 2011.

Goal: Maintain Administration and Planning

Expenditures within 4.5% to 5.5% of

the total.

______________________________________Days to Process Vehicle Titles______________________________________

The average days to process a vehicle title de-

creased from seven days in 2006 to six days in

2011.

Goal: Maintain an average seven-day process-

ing cycle including transit time from

county offices.

______________________________________DMV Transactions Processed

on the Internet______________________________________

The number of DMV transactions processed on

the Internet increased from approximately

111,600 in 2006 to approximately 210,900 in

2011.

Goal: Process 225,000 on-line transactions

annually by 2015.

To view the current status of ITDs

performance measures and see how the

department is delivering on its promises,

visit itd.idaho.gov/dashboard.



11/64

District 1 has five counties (Boundary, Bonner, Kootenai,

Benewah, and Shoshone), has a U.S. Navy submarine base,

and is Idahos only district with an international border.

The district is mountainous with numerous rivers, streams, and

lakes, and is home to approximately 212,000 residents (14% of

the states total population).

PROJECT LISTSFive-Year Transportation Investment Plan

District 1Damon L. Al len, District Engineer Idaho Transportat ion Board600 W. Prairie Ave. Vice ChairmanCoeur d!Alene, Idaho 83815-8764 JamesColeman(208) 772-1200 Coeur d!Alene

Land area: 7,752 sq. miles

Lane miles: 1,495

Centerline miles: 597

Bridges: 275



12/64


13/64


14/64


15/64


16/64

District 1 Aeronautics Project List

Scheduled Costs (Dollars in Thousands with Match)

PROJECT NAME/LOCATION 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

SUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR REASONS SUCH AS FUNDING, PROJECT SCOPE, COST, AND POLICY/REGULATION/RULE CHANGES

PRELPROGRAM

FY 2013 - 2017 ITIP

COUNTY CITYAERO, ST MARIES, LAND ACQUISITION 250 - - - - -New Airport FacilityBENEWAH COUNTY Saint Maries

AERO, ST MARIES, CONSTRUCT TAXIWAY - 500 - - - -New Airport FacilityBENEWAH COUNTY Saint Maries

AERO, ST MARIES, CONSTRUCT RUNWAY - - - 158 - -New Airport FacilityBENEWAH COUNTY Saint Maries

AERO, PRIEST RIVER, REHAB APRON/ROAD, CONSTRUCT APRON/TA 569 - - - - -New Airport FacilityBONNER COUNTY Priest River

AERO, PRIEST RIVER, ACQUIRE LAND, FENCING - - 1,667 - - -New Airport FacilityBONNER COUNTY Priest River

AERO, SANDPOINT, LAND ACQUISION - 4,444 - - - -New Airport FacilityBONNER COUNTY Sandpoint

AERO, SANDPOINT, RELOCATE RUNWAY - - 3,900 - - -New Airport FacilityBONNER COUNTY Sandpoint

AERO, SANDPOINT, APRON REHABILITATION 1,056 - - - - -Airport Facility MaintenanceBONNER COUNTY Sandpoint

AERO, BONNERS FERRY, EXTEND RUNWAY- - - 950 - -

New Airport FacilityBOUNDARY COUNTY Bonners Ferry

AERO, BONNERS FERRY, CONSTRUCT TAXIWAY - - - - 333 -New Airport FacilityBOUNDARY COUNTY Bonners Ferry

AERO, BONNERS FERRY, REHAB. RUNWAY, ACQUIRE LAND 637 - - - - -Airport Facility MaintenanceBOUNDARY COUNTY Bonners Ferry

AERO, BONNERS FERRY, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & MASTER - 261 - - - -Airport PlanningBOUNDARY COUNTY Bonners Ferry

AERO, COEUR D'ALENE, CONSTRUCT TAXIWAY - 1,250 - - - -New Airport FacilityKOOTENAI COUNTY Coeur d'Alene

AERO, COEUR D'ALENE, REHAB. TAXIWAY - - 416 - - -Airport Facility MaintenanceKOOTENAI COUNTY Coeur d'Alene

AERO, COEUR D'ALENE, REHAB. TAXIWAY - - - 416 - -Airport Facility MaintenanceKOOTENAI COUNTY Coeur d'Alene

AERO, COEUR D'ALENE, REHAB. APRON - - - - 520 -Airport Facility MaintenanceKOOTENAI COUNTY Coeur d'Alene

AERO, COEUR D'ALENE, WILDLIFE HAZARD, TAXIWAY DESIGN 333 - - - - -Airport PlanningKOOTENAI COUNTY Coeur d'Alene

AERO, KELLOGG, ACQUIRE LAND, RUNWAY REHAB. - - 333 - - -New Airport FacilitySHOSHONE COUNTY Kellogg (Kellogg-WaAERO, KELLOGG, EXPAND APRON - - - - 833 -New Airport FacilitySHOSHONE COUNTY Kellogg (Kellogg-Wa

AERO, KELLOGG, AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 89 - - - - -Airport PlanningSHOSHONE COUNTY Kellogg (Kellogg-Wa

AERO, KELLOGG, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - 111 - - - -Airport PlanningSHOSHONE COUNTY Kellogg (Kellogg-Wa

2,934 6,566 6,316 1,524 1,686 -Report Sums



17/64


District 2James F. Carpenter, District Engineer District 2 Board Member2600 Frontage Road Jan VasserP.O. Box 837 LewistonLewiston, Idaho 83501-0837

(208) 799-5090


Lane miles: 1,500


Bridges: 173

District 2 has five counties (Clearwater, Idaho, Latah, Lewis, andNez Perce), and is Idahos only district with a seaport, which is the

west coasts most inland port. This is also Idahos only district

without an interstate highway.

The topography varies from highly productive rolling hills of the

agricultural Palouse Region to the mountains of the

Continental Divide, and is a destination for outdoor

enthusiasts. District 2 is home to approximately 128,000 residents

(8% of the states total population).



18/64


19/64


20/64

FY12-16 Costs (Dollars in Thousands with Match)

District 2 Highways Project List

PROJECT NAME/LOCATION Year Development Right-Of-Way


ConstructionPROGRAM

FY 2013 - 2017 ITIP

COUNTY CITY

SH 128, 18TH ST TO JCT US 12, LEWISTON PREL - - UnfundedNEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston Early Development

LOCAL, STOP BAR INT IMPR, LEWISTON 2014 4 - 49NEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston Safety

LOCAL, INT FLASHING ARROW SIGNALS, LEWISTON 2014 5 - 68NEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston Safety

OFFSYS, GRELLE AVE SIDEWALK, LEWISTON SR2S 2013 - - 99NEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston Safe Routes to School

OFFSYS, LEWISTON SR2S COORDINATOR 2013 - - 18NEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston Safe Routes to School

STC-4759, WEBB RD, NEZ PERCE CO 2013 - 150 4,717NEZ PERCE COUNTY STP - Local Rural

SMA-7384, INT THAIN RD & POWERS AVE, LEWISTON 2015 35 - 965NEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston STP - Local Urban

STC-7334, GUN CLUB RD & VINEYARD DR, LEWISTON PREL 7 - 95NEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston STP - Local Urban

SMA-7254, 18TH ST; INT IDAHO AVE & G ST, LEWISTON PREL 11 - 65NEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston STP - Local Urban

SMA-7254, INT 17TH ST & 16TH AVE, LEWISTON PREL 60 - 490NEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston STP - Local Urban

SMA-7014, SNAKE RV AVE; 15TH TO 11TH AVE, LEWISTON PREL 160 - 880NEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston STP - Local Urban

LOCAL, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, LAPWAI 2013 71 - 646NEZ PERCE COUNTY Lapwai Public Lands (L)

OFFSYS, CHERRY LANE BR, NEZ PERCE CO 2013 - - 15,000NEZ PERCE COUNTY Other (L)

OFFSYS, CHERRY LANE BR, NEZ PERCE CO 2013 - - 15,000NEZ PERCE COUNTY Local Participation

LOCAL, FY13 LCVMPO METRO PLANNING 2013 - - 73NEZ PERCE COUNTY Metro Planning





2,207 704 151,108Report Sums



21/64

District 2 Public Transit Project List

Scheduled Costs (Dollars in Thousands with Match)Scheduled Costs (Dollars in Thousands FA Only)



PRELPROGRAM

FY 2013 - 2017 ITIP

COUNTY CITY

2A.D005, D2 Volunteer Network, Demand Response 30 - - - - -OperationsDISTRICT 2 (No County



2A.L004, North/South Moscow, Fixed Route 92 - - - - -OperationsLATAH COUNTY Moscow

2A.L002, Moscow, Elderly & Disabled, Demand Response 136 - - - - -OperationsLATAH COUNTY Moscow

2A.L001, Moscow, Fixed Route 277 - - - - -OperationsLATAH COUNTY Moscow

TRANSIT, LEWISTON URBANIZED AREA 40 - - - - -CapitalNEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston

TRANSIT, LEWISTON URBANIZED AREA 315 315 315 315 - -OperationsNEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston

TRANSIT, LEWISTON URBANIZED AREA - 60 - 60 - -OperationsNEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston

TRANSIT, LEWISTON URBANIZED AREA - 400 - 400 - -OperationsNEZ PERCE COUNTY Lewiston




2A.L001, McCall & Surrounding Area, Fixed Route 8 - - - - -OperationsVALLEY COUNTY McCall

1,163 865 405 865 - -Report Sums



22/64

PROJECT LISTS


23/64


District 3

Dave Jones, District Engineer District 3 Board Member8150 Chinden Boulevard Julie DeLorenzoP.O. Box 8028 BoiseBoise, Idaho 83714-8028

(208) 334-8300


Lane miles: 2,603

Centerline miles: 1,024

Bridges: 397

District 3 has 10 counties (Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon,

Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, and Washington),

is Idahos most populated district, and also has the most

lane miles and bridges of Idahos six districts.

The districts terrain varies from high desert to agricultural

to rugged mountains, and is home to approximately

668,000 residents (43% of the states total population).



24/64


25/64


26/64


27/64


28/64


29/64


30/64


31/64


32/64


33/64





PRELPROGRAM

FY 2013 - 2017 ITIP

COUNTY CITY

TRANSIT, NAMPA URBANIZED AREA - - - - 309 -OperationsCANYON COUNTY Nampa

3C.L003, SW Idaho Cos, Rural Deviated Fixed Route 34 - - - - -OperationsDISTRICT 3 (No County

3C.L003, SW Idaho Cos, Deviated Fixed Route 182 - - - - -OperationsDISTRICT 3 (No County

TRANSIT, VRT - MOBILITY MGMT SRVS ADA/CANYON 21 - - - - -OperationsDISTRICT 3 (No County

TRANSIT, VRT - MOBILITY MANAGEMENT SRVS ADA & CANYON CTYS 10 - - - - -OperationsDISTRICT 3 (No County

TRANSIT, VRT - MOBILITY MANAGEMENT SRVS ADA & CANYON CTYS 21 - - - - -OperationsDISTRICT 3 (No County

3C.L003, SW Idaho Cos, Demand Response 344 - - - - -OperationsDISTRICT 3 (No County

3C.L008, SW Idaho Mobility Awareness 80 - - - - -OperationsDISTRICT 3 (No County

3C.L014, SW Idaho Cos Commuter Expansion & Coordination 33 - - - - -OperationsDISTRICT 3 (No County


3C.L009, Improve safety, security, connectivity & efficienc 64 - - - - -OperationsDISTRICT 3 (No County


3C.L013, Gem County Park & Ride, Capital purchase 78 - - - - -CapitalGEM COUNTY Emmett

3B.L001, Weiser/Payette/Ontario & Vicinity, Fixed Route 20 - - - - -OperationsPAYETTE COUNTY Payette

3B.L001, Weiser/Payette/Ontario & Vicinity, Fixed Route 116 - - - - -OperationsPAYETTE COUNTY Payette

3B.L001, Weiser/Payette/Ontario & Vicinty, Demand Response 40 - - - - -OperationsPAYETTE COUNTY Payette

3A.L001, McCall & Vicinity, Deviated Fixed Route 33 - - - - -OperationsVALLEY COUNTY McCall

3A.L001, McCall & Vicinity, Fixed Route 52 - - - - -OperationsVALLEY COUNTY McCall

3A.L001, McCall & Surrounding Area, Fixed Route 181 - - - - -OperationsVALLEY COUNTY McCall

3A.L001, McCall & Surrounding Area, Dev. Fixed Route 208 - - - - -OperationsVALLEY COUNTY McCall

3A.L001, McCall & Surrounding Area, Demand Response 32 - - - - -OperationsVALLEY COUNTY McCall

3A.L002, Hwy 55/95 Sidewalk, Bike Lane, Pathway Improvement 16 - - - - -OperationsVALLEY COUNTY McCall

3B.L004, Weiser, Capital purchase 24 - - - - -CapitalWASHINGTON COUNTY Weiser

8,177 4,164 4,305 4,238 4,282 -Report Sums



34/64


35/64

District 3 Aeronautics Project List

Scheduled Costs (Dollars in Thousands with Match)



PRELPROGRAM

FY 2013 - 2017 ITIP

COUNTY CITY

AERO, WEISER, ACQUIRE LAND, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - - 667 - - -New Airport FacilityWASHINGTON COUNTY Weiser

AERO, WEISER, CONSTRUCT TAXIWAY - - - - 417 -New Airport FacilityWASHINGTON COUNTY Weiser

AERO, MIDVALE, PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - 30 - - - -Airport Facility MaintenanceWASHINGTON COUNTY Midvale

AERO, MIDVALE, PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - - - - 20 -Airport Facility MaintenanceWASHINGTON COUNTY Midvale

AERO, WEISER, REHAB. APRON/TAXIWAYS 187 - - - - -Airport Facility MaintenanceWASHINGTON COUNTY Weiser

AERO, WEISER, MASTER PLAN - 158 - - - -Airport PlanningWASHINGTON COUNTY Weiser

10,980 14,923 11,240 8,396 3,174 -Report Sums




36/64

District 4Devin O. Rigby, District Engineer District 4 Board Member

216 S. Date Street Jim KemptonP.O. Box 2-A AlbionShoshone, Idaho 83352-0820

(208) 886-7800


Lane miles: 2,427


Bridges: 297

District 4 has eight counties (Blaine, Camas, Cassia, Gooding,

Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Twin Falls), is a rural agricultural

area, the worlds largest producer of Rainbow Trout, and is home

to the Sawtooth!Recreational Area.The district varies from mountains in the north to high desert in the

south, and is home to approximately 186,000 residents (12% of

the states total population).



37/64


38/64


39/64



40/64





ConstructionPROGRAM

FY 2013 - 2017 ITIP

COUNTY CITY

OFFSYS, MAIN ST SIDEWALK & SR2S COORDINATOR, KIMBERLY 2014 17 - 101TWIN FALLS COUNTY Kimberly Safe Routes to School

OFFSYS, CHENEY DR; WASHINGTON ST to N COLLEGE RD, CSI 2013 - - 442TWIN FALLS COUNTY Twin Falls Appropriation Earmarks

OFFSYS, CHENEY DR; WASHINGTON ST to N COLLEGE RD, CSI 2013 - - 1,661TWIN FALLS COUNTY Twin Falls Non-Participating (L)

6,211 3,348 255,959Report Sums



41/64


42/64


43/64


44/64


45/64

District 5 Highways Project List FY 2013 - 2017 ITIP


46/64


g y j



ConstructionPROGRAM

FY 2013 2017 ITIP

COUNTY CITY

STATE, FY14 D5 PAVEMENT STRIPING 2014 40 - 460DISTRICT 5 (No County Traffic Operations

STATE, FY15 D5 PAVEMENT STRIPING 2015 40 - 460DISTRICT 5 (No County Traffic Operations

SH 34, 4800 N RD TO 7400 N RD, FRANKLIN CO 2016 12 - 135FRANKLIN COUNTY Pavement Preservation

SH 36, WESTON CL TO ONEIDA & 8TH W ST 2017 38 - 375FRANKLIN COUNTY Dayton Pavement Preservation

SH 36, MINK CR BR, FRANKLIN CO 2015 100 100 575FRANKLIN COUNTY Bridge Replacement

SH 36, BEAR RV BR, FRANKLIN CO 2017 360 - 3,600FRANKLIN COUNTY Bridge Rehabilitation

US 91, PRESTON SCL TO JCT SH 34 2014 260 - 1,580FRANKLIN COUNTY Preston Restoration

US 91, UT ST LN TO PRESTON PREL 78 - UnfundedFRANKLIN COUNTY Franklin Early Development

STC-1739, E ONEIDA ST, PRESTON 2016 - 520 5,738FRANKLIN COUNTY Preston STP - Local Rural

SH 38, MALAD CL TO PLEASANTVIEW 2016 15 - 165ONEIDA COUNTY Malad (Malad City) Pavement Preservation

I 15, DEVILS CR TO MARSH VALLEY RD OPASS 2015 120 - 13,985ONEIDA COUNTY Restoration

STC-1701, OLD HWY 37,THE NARROWS, ONEIDA CO 2014 - 54 6,143ONEIDA COUNTY STP - Local Rural

STC-1701, OLD HWY 37,THE NARROWS, ONEIDA CO 2014 43 4 343ONEIDA COUNTY Public Lands (L)

SH 39, IDAHO ST TO STERLING N RD, POWER/BINGHAM CO 2016 75 - 805POWER COUNTY Aberdeen Pavement Preservation

I 86B, JCT I 86 IC # 36 TO IDAHO ST, AMERICAN FALLS 2014 10 - 110POWER COUNTY American Falls Pavement Preservation

I 86, AIRPORT IC & W POCATELLO IC #58 2014 40 - 2,589POWER COUNTY Pocatello Restoration

I 86, DAIRY CANYON RD TO IC 36, POWER CO PREL 140 - UnfundedPOWER COUNTY Early Development

LOCAL, SIGNAGE IMPR, POWER CO HD 2014 5 - 53POWER COUNTY Safety

STC-1718, ARBON VALLEY GUARDRAIL IMPR, POWER CO HD 2014 9 - 300POWER COUNTY Safety

OFFSYS, FALLS & LINCOLN SIDEWALKS, AMERICAN FALLS SR2 2013 - - 100POWER COUNTY American Falls Safe Routes to School

OFFSYS, BANNOCK AVE SIDEWALK & SR2S COOR, AMER FALLS 2014 15 - 84POWER COUNTY American Falls Safe Routes to School

LOCAL, AMERICAN FALLS DOWNTOWN STREETS 2013 - - 774POWER COUNTY American Falls Public Lands (L)

6,839 2,403 134,943Report Sums



47/64


48/64


49/64


50/64


51/64


52/64

District 6 Highways Project ListSUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR REASONS SUCH AS FUNDING, PROJECT SCOPE, COST, AND POLICY/REGULATION/RULE CHANGES

FY 2013 - 2017 ITIP


53/64



, , ,

ConstructionPROGRAMCOUNTY CITY

2,120 6,013 169,170Report Sums



54/64


SUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR REASONS SUCH AS FUNDING PROJECT SCOPE COST AND POLICY/REGULATION/RULE CHANGES

FY 2013 - 2017 ITIP


55/64




PRELPROGRAMCOUNTY CITY

TRANSIT, IDAHO FALLS/AMMON URBANIZED AREA - - - 135 - -OperationsBONNEVILLE COUNTY Idaho Falls6A.L014, US 93 & SH 75 to Thompson CR Mine, Fixed Route 65 - - - - -OperationsCUSTER COUNTY Challis

6A.D001, D6 Communities Capital Purchases 47 - - - - -CapitalDISTRICT 6 (No County

6A.L004, Salmon Area Off-Hrs, Demand Response 12 - - - - -OperationsLEMHI COUNTY Salmon

6A.L004, Salmon Area Off-Hrs, Demand Response 4 - - - - -OperationsLEMHI COUNTY Salmon

6A.L001, Salmon Area US-93 and SH 28, Demand Response 50 - - - - -OperationsLEMHI COUNTY Salmon

6B.L019, Rexburg to Driggs, Demand Response 10 - - - - -OperationsMADISON COUNTY Rexburg

6B.L024, Rexburg/Madison Co, Daytime Demand Response 187 - - - - -OperationsMADISON COUNTY Rexburg

6B.L041, Driggs Bus Storage Facility, Capital Purchases 245 - - - - -CapitalTETON COUNTY Driggs

TRANSIT, DRIGGS TRANSIT CENTER 830 - - - - -CapitalTETON COUNTY Driggs6B.L026, Victor/Driggs/Grand Targhee, Fixed Route 50 - - - - -OperationsTETON COUNTY Driggs

6B.L023, Driggs to Jackson, Fixed Route 26 - - - - -OperationsTETON COUNTY Driggs

6B.L022, Teton Valley, Demand Response 50 - - - - -OperationsTETON COUNTY Driggs

3,115 1,061 1,061 1,061 - -Report Sums



56/64


57/64


58/64


59/64


60/64


61/64


62/64


63/64


64/64

five year plan 2012

Documents