2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (2040 Plan) - MVRPC

2040
LONG RANGE
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
MAY 2016
MVRPC BOARD OF DIRECTORS*
BeavercreekTownship
GreaterDaytonRegionalTransitAuthority
BethelTownship
GreeneCounty
CityofBeavercreek
GreeneCountyEngineer
CityofBellbrook
GreeneCountyTransitBoard
CityofBrookville
HarrisonTownship
CityofCenterville
JeffersonTownship
CityofClayton
MiamiConservancyDistrict
CityofDayton
MiamiCounty
CityofEnglewood
MiamiCountyEngineer
CityofFairborn
MiamiCountyTransit
CityofFranklin
MiamiTownship,GreeneCounty
CityofHuberHeights
MiamiTownship,MontgomeryCounty
CityofKettering
MonroeTownship
CityofMiamisburg
MontgomeryCounty
CityofMoraine
MontgomeryCountyEngineer
CityofOakwood
MunicipalityofCarlisle
CityofPiqua
MunicipalityofGermantown
CityofRiverside
MunicipalityofNewLebanon
CityofSpringboro
ODOTDistrict7
CityofTippCity
ODOTDistrict8
CityofTrotwood
PerryTownship
CityofTroy
VectrenEnergyDeliveryofOhio
CityofUnion
VillageofCovington
CityofVandalia
VillageofFarmersville
CityofWestCarrollton
VillageofPhillipsburg
CityofXenia
VillageofWestMilton
ClayTownship
VillageofYellowSprings
ConcordTownship
WashingtonTownship
FiveRiversMetroParks
*ListincludesmembersofBoardofDirectorslocatedwithintheMetropolitanPlanningOrganization
Boundary
2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Adopted: May 5, 2016
MiamiValleyRegionalPlanningCommission
10NorthLudlowStreet
Suite700
Dayton,Ohio45402
This document is the product of a study financed by the U.S. Department of Transportation
(U.S. DOT), the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), and the Miami Valley Regional
PlanningCommission.
The contents of this document reflect the views of the Miami Valley Regional Planning
Commission,whichisresponsibleforthefactsandaccuracyofthedatapresentedherein.The
contentsdonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheU.S.DOTorODOT.Thisdocumentdoesnot
constituteastandard,specification,orregulation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter1:Introduction.................................................................................................................1
TransportationProgramStructure....................................................................................................1
LongRangeTransportationPlanOverview.......................................................................................3
TransportationGoalsandObjectives................................................................................................5
FiscalConstraints...............................................................................................................................7
AirQualityConformity.......................................................................................................................7
ProjectImplementation.....................................................................................................................8
ProcessforAmendingandUpdatingtheLongRangeTransportationPlan......................................8
Chapter2:Federal,State,andLocalPlanningRequirements.......................................................11
Overview..........................................................................................................................................11
TheFixingAmericasSurfaceTransportationAct(FASTAct)..........................................................11
DevelopmentandContentoftheRegionalTransportationPlan....................................................14
Chapter3:StateoftheRegion.....................................................................................................19
Overview..........................................................................................................................................19
TheMiamiValleyRegionToday......................................................................................................19
TheMiamiValleyRegionintheYear2040......................................................................................33
TravelDemandForecastingModel..................................................................................................43
Chapter4:LongRangeTransportationPlanning&TheCongestionManagementProcess..........47
Overview..........................................................................................................................................47
RoadwayCongestionintheMiamiValleyRegion...........................................................................48
CongestionandSafety.....................................................................................................................60
PublicTransportation......................................................................................................................62
RegionalIntelligentTransportationSystems...................................................................................64
CongestionManagementStrategies...............................................................................................65
Chapter5:CongestionManagementStrategiesHighway.......................................................69
Overview..........................................................................................................................................69
ProcessOverview.............................................................................................................................69
WorkGroupMeetings.....................................................................................................................70
PublicParticipation..........................................................................................................................71
ProjectEvaluation............................................................................................................................73
CongestionManagementProjects..................................................................................................74
StatusofRecentlyCompletedandUnderConstructionProjects....................................................75
MVRPC2040LongRangeTransportationPlan(May2016)
Pagei
FiscalConstraint...............................................................................................................................77
Chapter6:CongestionManagementStrategiesTransit........................................................107
Overview........................................................................................................................................107
GreaterDaytonRegionalTransitAuthority...................................................................................109
GreeneCountyTransitBoard........................................................................................................115
MiamiCountyTransitSystem........................................................................................................116
PublicTransitHumanServicesTransportation..............................................................................118
Chapter7:AlternativeModesandDevelopmentChoices..........................................................121
Overview........................................................................................................................................121
FundingOutlook............................................................................................................................122
RidesharingPrograms....................................................................................................................123
AirQualityProgram.......................................................................................................................124
BikewayandPedestrianProgramandProjects.............................................................................125
DevelopmentChoicesGoingPlaces............................................................................................136
Chapter8:EnvironmentalPlanning...........................................................................................141
AirQualityPlanning.......................................................................................................................141
TransportationandClimateChange..............................................................................................144
EnvironmentalMitigationinSAFETEA LU/FASTAct......................................................................144
Chapter9:CommunityImpactAssessment................................................................................155
Overview........................................................................................................................................155
Background....................................................................................................................................155
MVRPCsApproachtoEnvironmentalJustice...............................................................................157
DefiningEnvironmentalJusticePopulations.................................................................................157
IdentifyingEnvironmentalJusticeTargetAreas............................................................................159
CommunityImpactAnalysis..........................................................................................................161
EnvironmentalJusticeandPublicParticipation............................................................................172
Chapter10:PublicParticipationandConsultation.....................................................................175
Overview........................................................................................................................................175
Plan2040.mvrpc.orgWebpage......................................................................................................175
PublicParticipationMeetings........................................................................................................176
CommunityOutreachandPublicParticipation.............................................................................179
ParticipationinOtherPublicOutreachEfforts..............................................................................180
ConsultationRequirementsintheFASTAct..................................................................................181
Pageii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1.1MVRPCTransportationPlanningArea............................................................................2
Figure1.2MVRPCTransportationProgramStructure.....................................................................3
Figure1.32040LongRangeTransportationPlanUpdateProcessOverview..................................5
Figure2.1OrganizationofMAP 21Performance RelatedProvisions...........................................13
Figure3.1UrbanizationTrends:1950 2010..................................................................................21
Figure3.2GeneralizedLandUse/LandCoverin2007...................................................................22
Figure3.3PopulationDistribution:PopulationDensitybyBlockGroup.......................................24
Figure3.4HighwayFunctionalClassification.................................................................................26
Figure3.5MultimodalPassengerFacilities....................................................................................29
Figure3.6MultimodalFreightFacilities.........................................................................................31
Figure3.7Journey to WorkCharacteristics...................................................................................35
Figure3.8AdoptedLandUsePlans................................................................................................37
Figure3.9ProjectedAreasofConcentratedGrowth:20102040...............................................38
Figure3.10PopulationChanges:20102040...............................................................................41
Figure3.11BasicModelStructure.................................................................................................44
Figure4.1LevelofService:Existing(2010)....................................................................................51
Figure4.2LevelofService:Existing+Committed(2040)................................................................53
Figure4.3LevelofService:LongRangePlan(2040)......................................................................55
Figure4.4MapofCorridors...........................................................................................................58
Figure4.5RegionalPublicTransitUse...........................................................................................64
Figure5.1CongestionManagementProjectsDevelopmentProcessOverview...........................70
Figure5.2LRTPWorkGroupMeetings..........................................................................................72
Figure5.3ProjectEvaluationSystemDesignConcept..................................................................73
Figure5.4CongestionManagementProjects:GreeneCounty.....................................................99
Figure5.5CongestionManagementProjects:MiamiCounty.....................................................101
Figure5.6CongestionManagementProjects:MontgomeryCounty,Carlisle,Franklinand
Springboro...................................................................................................................103
Figure5.7CongestionManagementProjects:MontgomeryCountyInsets................................105
Figure6.1TransitAgencyServiceAreas......................................................................................108
Figure6.2GDRTATrolleybusService...........................................................................................110
Pageiii
Figure7.1BikewayLevelofStressAnalysis.................................................................................127
Figure7.2RegionalBikewayNetwork.........................................................................................137
Figure7.3ConcentratedDevelopmentVision.............................................................................139
Figure8.1AirQualityStandardsDesignations.............................................................................141
Figure8.2SignificantProjects......................................................................................................148
Figure8.3EnvironmentalMitigationAnalysis.............................................................................149
Figure9.1EnvironmentalJusticeTargetGroupPopulations.......................................................163
Figure9.2MajorFacilitiesintheDaytonRegion.........................................................................165
Figure9.3TransitAccessibilityinMontgomeryCounty..............................................................168
Figure9.4RegionalBikewayAccessibility....................................................................................171
Figure9.5PedestrianActivityCentersbySidewalkAvailability..................................................173
Figure9.6SidewalkGapAnalysis.................................................................................................174
Figure10.1FeaturesandContent:plan2040.mvrpc.org.............................................................176
Pageiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table1.1FiscalConstraintsofthe2040LRTPProjects...................................................................7
Table2.1RequiredTransportationPlanElements........................................................................14
Table3.12010SocioeconomicData..............................................................................................23
Table3.2FunctionalClassificationSystem....................................................................................27
Table3.3PopulationProjections:20102040.............................................................................40
Table3.4PopulationDensitybyAreaType:20102040(PersonsperAcre)..............................42
Table3.5EmploymentProjections:20102040..........................................................................42
Table3.6EmploymentDensitybyAreaType:20102040(JobsperAcre).................................43
Table3.7EmploymentClassificationbySICCode.........................................................................45
Table3.8Year2010and2040ForecastedSocioeconomicVariables............................................45
Table3.9TypicalWeekdayTripSummary.....................................................................................46
Table4.1RegionalReportCard......................................................................................................49
Table4.2CorridorPerformanceComparison................................................................................59
Table4.3TransitVehicleLOSandLoadFactor.............................................................................62
Table4.4MaximumLoadFactorLevelofService..........................................................................63
Table4.5SampleCongestionMitigationStrategies......................................................................67
Table5.1CongestionManagementProjectsCostsandRevenues................................................77
Table5.2CongestionManagementProjects.................................................................................78
Table5.3CongestionManagementProjectsVisionList................................................................98
Table6.1GDRTA2040LRTPProjects...........................................................................................114
Table6.2GreeneCATS2040LRTPOperatingStatistics...............................................................116
Table6.3GreeneCATS2040LRTPExpensesSummary...............................................................116
Table6.4MiamiCountyTransit2040LRTPProjects...................................................................117
Table7.12040ForecastedCostandRevenuesforAlternativeModes.......................................122
Table7.2ShortRangeRegionalBikewayandPedestrianProjects(Funded)..............................129
Table7.3LongRangeRegionalBikewayandPedestrianProjects(Unfunded)...........................130
Table8.1Dayton/SpringfieldRegionPM2.5RegionalEmissionsAnalysis.................................143
Table8.2CincinnatiRegion8 HourOzoneRegionalEmissionsAnalysis.....................................143
Table8.3CincinnatiRegionPM2.5RegionalEmissionsAnalysis................................................143
Table8.4EnvironmentalResourcesforMitigation.....................................................................146
Pagev
Table8.5SuperfundSitesonFinalNPL........................................................................................151
Table8.6EnvironmentalConservationOrganizationsintheRegion..........................................153
Table9.1TargetPopulationThresholds......................................................................................160
Table9.2AverageTravelTimetoMajorFacilitiesbyEJStatusinMinutes.................................162
Table9.3AverageTravelTimetoWorkbyEJStatusinMinutes.................................................167
Table10.1PublicParticipationMeetingSummary......................................................................177
Pagevi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Transportation Program Structure
TheMiamiValleyRegionalPlanningCommission(MVRPC)istheRegionalPlanningCommissionfor
Darke,Greene,Miami,Montgomery,Preble,andnorthernWarrencountiesinwest centralOhio.
MVRPCisalsotheMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(MPO)forGreene,Miami,andMontgomery
countiesandthecitiesofCarlisle,Franklin,andSpringboroinWarrenCounty(hereafterreferredto
as northern Warren County) (see Figure 1.1). As such, MVRPC is responsible for developing,
implementing, monitoring, and updating a variety of transportation plans that are designed to
enhancetheRegionscompetitiveposition,promoteregionalgrowth, improvepersonalmobility,
andpreservetheenvironment.
Figure1.2givesabriefoverviewofthetransportationprogramstructureatMVRPC.TheMVRPC
BoardofDirectorsisthepolicy makingbodyandconsistsoflocalelectedofficialsfromthemember
jurisdictions throughout the Region. The Board also includes representation from corporate and
civicleaders,theOhioDepartmentofTransportation(ODOT),andtheregionaltransitsystems.The
BoardofDirectorsmeetsregularlyandreceivesinputfromtheTechnicalAdvisoryCommittee(TAC)
and/or other special committees to make decisions regarding the Regional Planning Commission
andtheMPO.OnlythosemembersoftheBoardofDirectorsthataremembersoftheMPOcanact
onMPO relatedissues,suchastheadoptionoftheLongRangeTransportationPlan.
TheTACisapermanentcommitteecomposedprimarilyoftransportationprofessionalsfromlocal
jurisdictionsandcounties,ODOT,transitsystems,andothergovernmentdistricts.Togetherthey
review and provide technical assistance and make recommendations to the Board on
transportation related projects and programs planned for the Miami Valley Region. Special task
forces serve a specific purpose by examining requests for modifications to previously adopted
access control plans, thoroughfare plans, and other plans. Technical representatives from the
jurisdictions that are likely to be affected by the modification(s) use input from these groups to
makewell informeddecisionsontransportationplansthatwillaffecttheRegionforyearstocome.
MVRPC technical staff (planning, engineering, and GIS) generate forecasts, system alternatives,
recommendations,andreportsforsubsequentreviewandactionbytheBoardofDirectors.
Page1
Newberry
Township
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
Figure 1.1
MVRPC Transportation
Planning Area Map
FLETCHER
BRADFORD
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Lostcreek
Township
Newton
Township
MI
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
PA
TROY
Elizabeth
Township
MetropolitanPlanning
OrganizationBoundary
IN
LUDLOW FALLS
LAURA
Union
Township
WEST
MILTON
TIPP
CITY
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
MIAMI
WV
Bethel
Township
KY
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
VANDALIA
Butler
ENGLEWOOD Township
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
Bath
Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
CLIFTON
Miami
Township
RIVERSIDE
CEDARVILLE
NEW
LEBANON
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
KETTERING
GREENE
Xenia
Township
Beavercreek
Township
XENIA
Source:MVRPC
WEST CARROLLTON
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
BELLBROOK
Sugarcreek
Township
MONTGOMERY
Miami
Township
CARLISLE
Washington
Township
SPRINGBORO
May2016
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
WARREN
0
Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission
Miles
8
10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org
Figure 1.2 MVRPC Transportation Program Structure
1.2 Long Range Transportation Plan Overview

The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is a long range (20+ year), multimodal strategy and
capital improvement program developed to guide the effective investment of public funds in
transportationfacilities.TheLRTPisupdatedeveryfouryears,andmaybeamendedasaresultof
changes in projected Federal, State, and local funding; major investment studies; the congestion
management process; interstate interchange justification/modification studies; environmental
impact studies; and federal or state legislation. The LRTP provides the context from which the
Regions Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), a capital improvement program for
implementinghighway,transit,andothermultimodalprojects,isdrawn.
MVRPClastconductedacomprehensiveupdateofitsLRTPin2012,focusingonhighway,transit,
and bicycle/pedestrian transportation improvements desired between 2012 and 2040. Since the
adoptionoftheLRTPinMay2012,MVRPCstaffhasworkedonthedatacollection,analysis,and
programdevelopmentnecessarytoupdateit.Thenewplan,titledthe2016Updatetothe2040
LongRangeTransportationPlan(hereafter2040LRTPorthePlan),adoptedonMay5,2016,isa
25 year multimodal transportation plan with a base year of 2010 and a planning horizon year of
2040.The2040LRTPreflectsactiveinvolvementbytheelectedofficials,engineersandplannersof
the MPO's jurisdictions and member agencies, as well as extensive input from the business
community, general public, and special interest groups. This update also reflects current and
projected land uses, demographics, economic conditions, traffic conditions, environmental
analyses,andlocal/State/Federalpriorities,sothatthePlancanbeactivelyusedandreferredtoby
localdecisionmakers.
There have been numerous new initiatives incorporated into the 2040 LRTP update. MVRPC
developed a regional report card and incorporated a corridor level analysis into the Congestion
ManagementProcess(CMP)basedonsafety,congestion,mobility,andlandusedata.Theanalysis
Page3
is incorporated into the CMP and the Plan. The Plan includes a discussion on the latest Federal
TransportationlawtheFASTActanditscompliancerequirements.Finally,thePlanalsoincludes
the recently updated roadway functional class, and a discussion on climate change in the
environmentalplanningsection.
The process for preparing the 2040 LRTP included several steps as shown in Figure 1.3. MVRPC
started the update process by collecting data for the base year transportation and land use
conditionstobeusedfortransportationmodelingandanalysispurposes.Datacollectionwasan
on going process throughout the update and included gathering several types of data highway
and transit transportation networks, socioeconomic data, traffic counts, and major studies
conductedintheRegion.
Following the data collection effort, MVRPC prepared exhibits displaying background
transportation, socioeconomic and land use information for the 2040 LRTP Update. The
socioeconomic and land use data analysis is presented in Chapter 3 of this report. A public
participationmeetingwasheldinAugust2015topresentthebackgroundinformationpertaining
tothePlan.
Between September and December of 2015, MVRPC carried out the projects, programs, and
strategies development process whereby MVRPC conducted 2040 LRTP Update Work Group
meetingsandsolicitedprojectsfromlocaljurisdictions.Thedraft(not fiscally constrained)project
listthatresultedfromthesolicitationprocesswaspresentedtothepublicinaseriesofopenhouse
meetingsinOctoberof2015.Aftertakingnoteofpublicinputandworkingwithprojectsponsors,
MVRPCstaffcompletedtheprojectevaluationprocesstodevelopafiscally constrainedproposed
projectlist.TheproposedprojectlistwasadoptedbytheBoardinDecember2015.Chapters4to
7ofthisreportprovidedetailedinformationonprojects,programs,andstrategies.
Basedontheproposedprojectlistandthepreviouslygatheredtransportation,socioeconomic,and
land use data, MVRPC completed the required plan analyses between January 2016 and March
2016.Traveldemandforecastsand/orairqualityconformityanalyseswereproducedforvarious
scenarios, including: the base year (2010); the horizon year assuming implementation of existing
andcommittedprojectsonly(2040E+C);andthehorizonyearassumingtheimplementationofall
congestion management projects in the Plan (2040 Plan). All regionally significant congestion
managementprojectswereanalyzedforpotentialenvironmentalimpactsandpossiblemitigation
measuresweresuggested.Communityimpactanalysiswasalsoconductedtoidentifyandaddress
environmentaljusticeissues.Analysesconductedaspartofthe2040LRTPupdateareexplainedin
furtherdetailinChapters4,8and9.
MVRPC held a final public participation meeting in April 2016 to present the draft 2040 LRTP
updatetothepublicfortheirinputandcomments.ThedraftPlanwasalsopresentedtotheTAC
for their recommendations and comments. The 2016 Update to the Long Range Transportation
PlanwasadoptedonMay5,2016bytheMVRPCBoardofDirectors.Followingtheadoptionofthe
PlanbytheBoard,thedraftreportwassubmittedtoODOT,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
(U.S. EPA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Federal Transit Agency (FTA) for their
reviewandapprovalinJune2016.
Page4
Figure 1.3 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Update Process Overview
Asdescribedabove,MVRPCmadeextensivepublicoutreacheffortsineverystepofthe2040LRTP
update process to increase the likelihood of public participation. Public participation efforts are
summarizedinChapter10ofthisreport.
1.3 Transportation Goals and Objectives

MVRPCstransportationgoalsandobjectiveswereredefinedin2003asaresultofacommunity
based visioning process known as TransAction 2030. The objectivewas to identifythe collective
transportationvaluesofthecommunitiesintheRegionanddevelopasharedtransportationvision,
along with measurable criteria that could be applied to potential projects to gauge their
consistency with the vision. TransAction 2030 involved soliciting input from stakeholders in the
Region by applying various tools and methods. Based on this input, transportation goals were
identified and incorporated into the MVRPC Strategic Plan. In May of 2007, MVRPC revised the
Plans goals and objectives to incorporate security into its transportation system management
objectiveasperSAFETEA LUrequirements.
Page5
The Board of Directors reaffirmed the goals and objectives for use in the 2016 LRTP update in
September2015.ThetransportationgoalsareincludedinMVRPCsStrategicPlanunderthelarger
umbrella of Regional Stewardship, Vibrant Communities, Partnerships (Vigorous Economy), and
SustainableSolutions.

Develop Regional Priorities Continue to address regional transportation needs that

furtherthesharedsocial,economic,transportation,andenvironmentalgoalsoftheRegion.

Transportation Choices Encourage a stronger multi modal network in the Region to

ensurethatpeopleandgoodsreachtheirdestinationsafely,efficiently,andconveniently.
Transportation System Management Continue to maintain and upgrade the regional
transportationsystembyprovidingsafety,security,aesthetic,andcapacityimprovements
asneeded.
Transportation and Land Use Incorporate regional land use strategies into the
transportationpolicyandtheinvestmentdecisionmakingprocess.

TransportationContinuetoaddressregionaltransportationneedstoenhanceeconomic
development in order to attract and retain businesses in the Region while improving the
qualityoflifeofitsresidents.

Clean Air Encourage the pursuit of alternative fuels and transportation to reduce
emissionsandourrelianceonpetroleum basedproducts.
1.4 Federal, State, and Local Requirements for the Long Range
Transportation Plan
MVRPC complies with Federally mandated planning requirements that the Long Range
TransportationPlanismeanttosatisfy.AnexplanationoftherequirementsisprovidedinChapter
2.
Page6
1.5 Fiscal Constraints

Fiscallyconstrainedlistsforhighways,transit,andsustainablegrowthstrategiesforthe2040LRTP
weredevelopedbasedon:
LRTPWorkGroups;
Publiccommentsontransportationsystemneedsandopportunities;
Review by the local jurisdictions engineers and planners, ODOT Districts, and Transit
Agencies;and
ReviewbyMVRPCstaff.
Foreachmode,thecostsofthe2016through2040planprojectsarebalancedagainstprojected
revenuesand,followingtheFASTActrequirements,areexpressedinyearofexpendituredollars.
The fiscal constraints for each transportation mode are summarized in Table 1.1. Extensive
documentation of project costs, revenues, and fiscal constraints for highway, transit, and
Bikeway/PedestrianstrategiesisprovidedinChapters5,6,and7,respectively.
Table 1.1 Fiscal Constraints of the 2040 LRTP Projects
(in millions of Year of Expenditure dollars)
ProjectType
Highway
Transit
Ridesharing/AirQuality
Bikeway/Pedestrian
TotalRevenues
TotalCost
TotalRevenuesTotalCost
2,783.37
2,954.88
33.02
4.89
1,971.15
2,954.88
33.02
4.89
812.22(FiscallyConstrained)
Source:MVRPC
1.6 Air Quality Conformity

Theprojectsinthe2040LRTPweremodeledforairqualityconformityinaccordancewiththeU.S.
EPATransportationConformityRegulations,issuedinApril2012andinaccordancewiththeOhio
TransportationAirQualityConformityProcedures,seeMemorandaofUnderstandingAmongThe
MiamiValleyRegionalPlanningCommission,etal.1
TheconformityanalysisdemonstratesthatthetransportationprogramsintheDayton/Springfield
and northern Warren County areas conform to applicable air quality standards. The current air
quality status and the associated requirement and procedures by which MVRPC performed the
2040LRTPupdatetransportationconformityanalysisarediscussedindetailinChapter8.
Technical Memorandum: MVRPC/Clark County Springfield TCC Long Range Transportation Plan Update Mobile
EmissionsEstimate,March2016.
Page7
1.7 Project Implementation

All federally and non federally funded surface transportation projects (that are regionally
significant and that increase capacity, extend roadways, or add new roadways) are implemented
viathefollowingsteps:
TheprojectmustbeintheLongRangeTransportationPlan;
The Long Range Transportation Plan must continue to meet financial constraints and air
qualityconformity;
TheprojectmustbeplacedonMVRPCsTIP(forairqualityconformitydetermination);
Theprojectisimplemented.
It is important to note that non federally funded
projects (that are regionally significant and that
increase capacity, extend roadways, or add new
roadways) are treated the same as federally funded
projectsbecauseoftheirpotentialairqualityimpacts.
Further,ODOT,localjurisdictions,andmodalagencies
might need to work to break up large projects into
smaller, more manageable components (i.e.,
preliminary engineering, environmental, right of way,
construction,aswellassmallersegments)inorderto
improve project funding capability and facilitate
projectdevelopmentandimplementation.
1.8 Process for Amending and Updating the Long Range

Transportation Plan
AmendmentstothePlanmayoccureitheraspartofthecomprehensiveupdate(everyfouryears),
annual TIP related update, or at other times as needed. The comprehensive update is a federal
mandate and consists of re examining the basic assumptions behind the Plan and the resulting
projects and strategies. Amendments to the Plan requiring a comprehensive update consist of
reassessing:
Landuse,demographic,andeconomicforecasts;
Projectedtrafficandtraveldeficiencies;
FinancialAnalyses(Cost/Revenues);
Regional(AirQuality)EmissionsAnalyses;and
Otheraspectsofthevisionandplan.
AmendmentstothePlanrequiringacomprehensiveupdatewouldneedtobeadoptedbyMVRPC's
BoardofDirectors,aftertheopportunityforgeneralpublicreviewandcomment.
Page8
Acomprehensiveupdateisnormallyinitiatedbystaffonatimetablethatensuresthecontinuation
ofa20yearhorizonforthePlanandthatmeetsthefederalupdatetimeframerequirements.On
those other rare occasions when a comprehensive or major update might be requested by a
jurisdictionduetounforeseenchangestoamajorprojectorduetodrasticandimmediatechanges
inlanduses/demographics/economics,staffwoulddevelopatimelinetoconducttheupdateina
timelymanner.
ThefollowingoutlinestheanticipatedprocessforPlanamendments:
ReceiveaformaljurisdictionalrequestforaPlanamendment;
CompletetheProjectProfileandEvaluationForms;
Determineifadditionalrevenuesareavailabletocovertheprojectormodifiedproject;
If sufficient additional revenues cannot be projected, submit recommendations to
redesignateLongRangeTransportationPlanprojectsasnon planprojects;anyagreements
withotherjurisdictionsoragenciestoredesignateprojectsshouldbesonoted;
Submitjustificationfortheamendment.
MVRPC staff would then finalize the project evaluation, review the appropriateness of the
proposedamendment,reviewthefinancialconstraints,conducttheairqualityconformityanalysis,
andmakearecommendationfortheBoardsaction.
Page9
(Thispageintentionallyleftblank)
Page10
CHAPTER 2
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Overview
The 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) update, developed in cooperation with local
jurisdictions, the general public, and special interest groups, meets federal, state, and local
planningrequirements.ThePlanisfiscallyconstrained,meetsairqualityrequirements,andisin
conformance with applicable State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The following sections of this
Chapteraddresshowthe2040LRTPsatisfiestheseplanningrequirements.
2.2 The Fixing Americas Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act)

On December 4, 2015, the new federal surface transportation bill, theFAST Act, was signed into
law. The new bill follows its predecessors, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient,
Transportation,EquityAct,aLegacyforUsers(SAFETEA LU),andtheMovingAheadforProgressin
the 21st Century Act (MAP 21). Both Acts made important contributions to the metropolitan
planningprocess.SAFETEA LUisthelastactwithcurrentapprovedmetropolitanplanningrulesas
describedin23CFRpart450andMAP 21setthestageforperformancebasedplanning.
Themetropolitanplanningrulesstatethattheplanningprocessshallbecontinuous,cooperative,
andcomprehensive,andprovideforconsiderationandimplementationofprojects,strategies,and
servicesthatwilladdressthefollowingplanningfactors:
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness,productivity,andefficiency;
2. Increasethesafetyofthetransportationsystemformotorizedandnon motorizedusers;
3. Increasethesecurityofthetransportationsystemformotorizedandnon motorizedusers;
4. Increasetheaccessibilityandmobilityofpeopleandforfreight;
5. Protectandenhancetheenvironment,promoteenergyconservation,improvethequality
oflife,andpromoteconsistencybetweentransportationimprovementsandStateandlocal
plannedgrowthandeconomicdevelopmentpatterns;
6. Enhancetheintegrationandconnectivityofthetransportationsystem,acrossandbetween
modes,forpeopleandfreight;
7. Promoteefficientsystemmanagementandoperation;
8. Emphasizethepreservationoftheexistingtransportationsystem;
9. Improve the resilience and reliability of the transportation system andreduce ormitigate
stormwaterimpactsofsurfacetransportation;and
10. Enhancetravelandtourism.
ThelasttwofactorsareadditionsoftheFASTAct,thoughtheyhavenotyetbeencodifiedinthe
metropolitan planning rules. The planning factors are addressed by MVRPC in our numerous
planningprogramsandaresummarizedthroughoutthereport.
Page11
ThecornerstoneofMAP 21,continuedintheFASTAct,wasthetransitiontoaperformanceand
outcome basedprogram.Aspartofthisprogram,recipientsofFederal aidhighwayfundswould
invest resources in projects to achieve individual targets that collectively would make progress
toward national goals. The FHWA organized the many performance related provisions within
MAP 21intosixelementsasdefinedinFigure2.1.Performancemeasuresandstandardsoutlined
inMAP 21areasfollows:
Minimumstandardsforbridgeandpavementmanagementsystemstobeusedbystates;
PerformancemeasuresforpavementconditionontheInterstatesystem;
Performancemeasuresforpavementconditiononthenon Interstatesystem;
PerformancemeasuresforbridgeconditionsontheNHS;
PerformancemeasuresfortheperformanceoftheInterstateSystem;
Performancemeasuresforperformanceofthenon InterstateNHSsystem;
PerformancemeasurestoassessseriousinjuriesandfatalitiesperVMT;
Performancemeasurestoassessthenumberforseriousinjuriesandfatalities;
Performancemeasuresfortrafficcongestion;
Performancemeasuresforon roadmobilesourceemissions;and
PerformancemeasurestoassessfreightmovementontheInterstateSystem.
Followingrule making,MPOsarerequiredtoestablishperformancetargetsthataddressnational
performance measures established by the Secretary. These targets must be set in coordination
with the state and public transportation providers, within 180 days after the relevant state or
publictransportationprovidersetsperformancetargets.
The performance measures and standards are based on national goals and aligned to various
programandpolicyareasincludingtheNationalHighwayPerformanceProgram(NHPP),Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program(CMAQ),andtheNationalFreightPolicy.
TheMAP 21provisionsthatfocusontheachievementofperformanceoutcomesarecontainedina
numberofsectionsofthelawthatareadministeredbydifferentDOTagencies.Section1203of
MAP21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a rule to establish performance measures in
specifiedFederal aidhighwayprogramareas,including:
Propose and define national measures for the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP);
Propose and define national measures for the condition of NHS pavements and bridges;
and,
Proposeanddefinenationalmeasuresfortheremainingareasunder23U.S.C.150(c)that
require measures and are not discussed under the first and second measure rules, which
includes the following: National Performance Measures for Performance of the Interstate
Systemandnon InterstateNationalHighwaySystem;CMAQTrafficCongestion;CMAQ
On RoadMobileSourceEmissions;andFreightMovementontheInterstateSystem.
Page12
Figure 2.1 Organization of MAP 21 Performance Related Provisions
National Goals
GoalsorprogrampurposeestablishedintheMAP 21
tofocusthefederal aidhighwayprogramonspecific
areasofperformance.
Measures
EstablishmentofmeasuresbyFHWAtoassess
performanceandconditioninordertocarryout
performance basedFederal aidhighwayprograms.
Targets
Establishmentoftargetsbyrecipientsoffederal aid
highwayfundingforeachofthemeasuresto
documentexpectationsoffutureperformance.
Plans
Developmentofstrategicand/ortacticalplansby
recipientsoffederalfundingtoidentifystrategiesand
investmentsthatwilladdressperformanceneeds.
Reports
Developmentofreportsbyrecipientsoffederal
fundingthatwoulddocumentprogresstowardthe
achievementoftargets,includingtheeffectivenessof
federal aidhighwayinvestments.
Accountability
RequirementsdevelopedbyFHWAforrecipientsof
federalfundingtousetoachieveormakesignificant
progresstowardachievingtargetsestablishedfor
performance.
Source:FHWA
TheFHWAhascurrentlyissuedfirsttwoofthethreeproposedseparateNoticeofProposedRule
Makings(NPRMs)tomeetthisrequirement.
Page13
MAP 21 also furthers several important goals with respect to public transportation, including
safety, state of good repair, performance, and program efficiency. MAP 21 gives the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) significant new authority to strengthen the safety of public
transportation systems throughout the United States. MAP 21 also puts new emphasis on
restoring and replacing aging public transportation infrastructure by establishing a new needs
based formula program and new asset management requirements. In addition, it establishes
performance based planning requirements that align federal funding with key goals and tracks
progress towards these goals. Finally, MAP 21 improves the efficiency of administering grant
programs and streamlining the major capital investment grant program known as New Starts.
MAP 21 also requires that MPOs in urbanized areas designated as transportation management
areasmustincludetransitofficialsontheirpolicyboards.
The 2015 Congestion Management Process update was MVRPCs first foray into performance
basedplanning,asubsetofthemeasuresincludedinthereportaresummarizedinChapter4.
2.3 Development and Content of the Regional Transportation

Plan
The 2040 LRTP was developed in accordance with 23 CFR 450.322, the required elements are
detailedinTable2.1.
Table 2.1 Required Transportation Plan Elements
ContentandDevelopmentRequirements:
Howthe2040LRTPAddresses
(a)Themetropolitantransportationplanningprocess
shallincludethedevelopmentofatransportationplan
addressingnolessthana20 yearplanninghorizonasof
theeffectivedate.
(b)Thetransportationplanshallincludebothlong range
andshort rangestrategies/actionsthatleadtothe
developmentofanintegratedmultimodaltransportation
systemtofacilitatethesafeandefficientmovementof
peopleandgoodsinaddressingcurrentandfuture
transportationdemand.
ThePlanhasa25 yearplanninghorizon,totheyear2040.
(c)TheMPOshallreviewandupdatethetransportation
planatleasteveryfouryearsinairqualitynonattainment
andmaintenanceareas.
(d)Inmetropolitanareasthatareinnonattainmentfor
ozoneorcarbonmonoxide,theMPOshallcoordinatethe
developmentofthemetropolitantransportationplan
withtheprocessfordevelopingtransportationcontrol
measures(TCMs)inaStateImplementationPlan(SIP).
ThefirstfouryearsofPlanprojectsarereferredtoasthe
TransportationImprovementProgram(TIP).BoththeTIPand
theremainderoftheLRTPprojectsincludehighway,transit,and
bikeway/pedestrianprojects,aswellastraveldemand
managementstrategies.Theneedsoffreighttransportationare
alsoconsideredduringtheprojectdevelopmentprocessas
freightdependentindustriesareheavilyrepresentedinthe
economyoftheMiamiValleyandOhio.
ThePlanwillbereviewedandupdatedatleasteveryfouryears.
WhilemanyTransportationControlMeasures(TCMs)suchas
signalizationimprovementsandrideshareprogramshavebeen
implementedintheRegion,therearenoTCMsincludedfor
creditintheapplicableSIPs.
Page14
Thelatestplanningassumptionsasagreedthroughthe
interagencyconsultationprocessareusedinthedevelopment
ofthe2040LRTP.Thosesameassumptionswerepresentedto
thepublicandtheBoardofDirectorsintheearlystagesofthe
Plandevelopmentprocess.Additionaldetailsareprovidedin
Chapter3.
(f)Themetropolitantransportationplanshall,ataminimum,include:
(1)Theprojectedtransportationdemandofpersonsand
MVRPChascoordinateditsforecastingmethodologyand
goodsinthemetropolitanplanningareaovertheperiod
processcloselywithODOTsModelingandForecastingSection.
ofthetransportationplan;
Basedonthelatestplanningassumptions,thetraveldemand
modelforecastspassengervehicles,commercialvehicles,and
transitdemand.AdditionaldetailsareprovidedinChapter3.
(2)Existingandproposedtransportationfacilities
Adiscussionofexistingtransportationfacilitiesisincludedin
(includingmajorroadways,transit,multimodaland
Chapter3ofthePlan.Specificstrategiesandprojectsare
intermodalfacilities,pedestrianwalkwaysandbicycle
presentedinChapters4to7.
facilities,andintermodalconnectors)thatshouldfunction
asanintegratedmetropolitantransportationsystem,
givingemphasistothosefacilitiesthatserveimportant
nationalandregionaltransportationfunctionsoverthe
periodofthetransportationplan;
TheCongestionManagementProcess(CMP),whichidentifies
(3)Operationalandmanagementstrategiestoimprove
theperformanceofexistingtransportationfacilitiesto
operationalandmanagementstrategiestoreducecongestion,
relievevehicularcongestionandmaximizethesafetyand hasbeenincorporatedintothePlan.TheCMPalsoassesses
mobilityofpeopleandgoods;
strategiesnotcurrentlyimplementedintheRegionaccordingto
theirsuitabilityforfutureuse.
TheresultsoftheregionalCMPandothermanagementsystems
(4)Considerationoftheresultsofthecongestion
managementprocessinTMAsincludingtheidentification implementedbytheStatehavebeenincorporatedintothePlan.
ofSOVprojectsthatresultfromacongestion
managementprocessinTMAsthatarenonattainmentfor
ozoneorcarbonmonoxide;
(5)Assessmentofcapitalinvestmentandotherstrategies Maintenanceandoperationsoftheexistingsystem(plus
topreservetheexistingandprojectedfuture
additionstothesystem)havebeenidentifiedascrucialtothe
metropolitantransportationinfrastructureandprovide
Plan.ItisassumedinthePlanthatthecurrentrealvalueof
formultimodalcapacityincreasesbasedonregional
expendituresforroadwaymaintenanceandoperationswill
prioritiesandneeds;
continueintothefuture.Thefiscallyconstrainedrevenue
forecastsfortheroadwayssystemoutline
operations/maintenanceandcapacityenhancingprojects.The
transitprojectlistsincludeoperations/maintenanceand
capacityenhancements.
The2040LRTPprojectlistsprovidesufficientdetailforthe
(6)Designconceptanddesignscopedescriptionsofall
existingandproposedtransportationfacilitiesinsufficient modelingoftraveldemand,airqualityconformity,andfiscal
detail,regardlessoffundingsource,innonattainmentand constraints;oneexceptionisprojectsidentifiedasstudiessince
maintenanceareasforconformitydeterminationsunder
theoutcomeandparticularscopeisdependentonthestudy
theEPA'stransportationconformityrule;
recommendations.
(7)Adiscussionoftypesofpotentialenvironmental
Chapter8inthePlanincludesadiscussionoftheenvironmental
mitigationactivitiesandpotentialareastocarryoutthese analysisandpotentialenvironmentalmitigationactivities,
activities,includingactivitiesthatmayhavethegreatest
includingstormwaterimpactsofsurfacetransportation.
potentialtorestoreandmaintaintheenvironmental
functionsaffectedbythemetropolitantransportation
plan;
(e)TheMPO,theState(s),andthepublictransportation
operator(s)shallvalidatedatautilizedinpreparingother
existingmodalplansforprovidinginputtothe
transportationplan.
Page15
(8)Pedestrianwalkwayandbicycletransportation
facilities;
Specificregionalbicycleandpedestrianprojectsarelistedin
Chapter7butsincethepassingoftheRegionalCompleteStreets
Policyin2011,manyroadwayprojectsnowincludebikeand
pedestrianelements.
TheTIPincludesallfundedtransportationalternativeprojectsin
theMPO.
Aconservativefinancialplanhasbeendevelopedforeachofthe
2040LRTPmodalstrategies.Onlyhistoricalandclearly
dependablefundingsourceassumptionshavebeenmade.The
PlanwasdevelopedcooperativelywithODOTandtheregional
transitagencies.
AsdiscussedinChapters1,5,6,and7,andindetailinthe
FinancialSummarydocument,thePlanmeetstheFASTAct
mandatedfiscalconstraintrequirementwithcostsandrevenues
inyearofexpendituredollars.
MVRPCspublicparticipationlisthasbeenexpandedtoinclude
agencieswithaninterestintheareasoflandusemanagement,
environmentalresources,environmentalprotection,
conservation,andhistoricpreservation.Asaresult,thelistnow
includesnearly600agenciesandindividuals.Contactsare
notifiedandgiventheopportunitytocommentonany
transportationprogramthatrequiresactionbytheMVRPC
BoardofDirectors,suchastheLRTPandtheTIP.A
representativesub groupoftheseagencieswasinvitedto
participateintheLRTPworkgroups,seeChapter5.Chapter8in
thePlanincludesadiscussionoftheenvironmentalanalysis
comparingLRTPprojectstoknowninventoriesofnaturaland
historicresources.
Safetyisabigcomponentofthetransportationplanning
programatMVRPC.InadditiontocoordinatingwithODOTto
ensureconsistencywiththeOhioStrategicHighwaySafetyPlan
andparticipatingintheannualODOTDistrictprioritysafety
locations,MVRPCmaintainsaregionalprioritylist(updated
every3years)whichisusedtoprioritizefundingrequests.
Safetydataand/orsafetystudyassistanceisalsoprovidedto
localjurisdictionsuponrequest.Chapter4ofthisreport
includesasummaryofMVRPCsSafetyInitiative.
MVRPCspublicparticipationlisthasbeenexpandedtoinclude
nearly600agenciesandindividualsincludingallstakeholders,
suchasaffectedpublicagencies,representativesofpublic
transportationemployees,freightshippers,providersoffreight
transportation,representativesofusersofpublictransportation,
representativesofusersofpedestrianwalkwaysandbicycle
transportationfacilities,representativesofthedisabled,and
otherinterestedparties.Contactsarenotifiedwellinadvance
andgiventheopportunitytocommentontheLRTPboth
electronicallyaswellasthroughmail incommentcardsovera
onemonthperiod.Representativeswithfreight,public
transportation,humanservices,andpedestriantransportation
interestswereinvitedtotheLRTPWorkgroups.
(9)Transportationandtransitenhancementactivities,
includingtransportationalternatives,and
(10)Afinancialplanthatdemonstrateshowtheadopted
transportationplancanbeimplemented.
(g)TheMPOshallconsult,asappropriate,withStateand
localagenciesresponsibleforlandusemanagement,
naturalresources,environmentalprotection,
conservation,andhistoricpreservationconcerningthe
developmentofthetransportationplan.
(h)Themetropolitantransportationplanshouldincludea
safetyelementthatincorporatesorsummarizesthe
priorities,goals,countermeasures,orprojectsforthe
MPAcontainedintheStrategicHighwaySafetyPlan.
(i)TheMPOshallprovidecitizens,affectedpublic
agencies,representativesofpublictransportation
employees,freightshippers,providersoffreight
transportationservices,privateprovidersof
transportation,representativesofusersofpublic
transportation,representativesofusersofpedestrian
walkwaysandbicycletransportationfacilities,
representativesofthedisabled,andotherinterested
partieswithareasonableopportunitytocommentonthe
transportationplanusingtheMPOsparticipationplan.
Page16
(j)Themetropolitantransportationplanshallbe
publishedorotherwisemadereadilyavailablebythe
MPOforpublicreview,including(tothemaximumextent
practicable)inelectronicallyaccessibleformatsand
means,suchastheWorldWideWeb.
Auserfriendlywebsite,plan2040.mvrpc.org,focusingentirely
onthePlanupdate,wasavailablethroughouttheupdate
processtofocusattentionontheinformationmostrelevantat
eachstageoftheprocessincludingallexhibitsthatwere
presentedateachpublicparticipationmeetingaswellasthe
abilitytocommentontheinformation.Incontinuationofpast
trends,theentireLongRangeTransportationPlanwillbe
publishedelectronicallyonMVRPCswebsiteinpdfformatand
thefinalcongestionmanagementprojectlistwillbemade
availableinaninteractivemapformat.
TwoprojectsareidentifiedinthePlanaspotentialneeds
beyondthe2040timeframeorincaseadditionalfundsbecome
available;neitherprojectisincludedinthefiscalconstraint
analysisforthe2016Update.
Theadoptingresolutionof the2040Planupdateincludesa
conformitydeterminationbytheMVRPCBoardofDirectors.
(k)AStateorMPOshallnotberequiredtoselectany
projectfromtheillustrativelistofadditionalprojects
includedinthefinancialplan.
(l)Innonattainmentandmaintenanceareasfor
transportation relatedpollutants,theMPO,aswellasthe
FHWAandtheFTA,mustmakeaconformity
determinationonanyupdatedoramended
transportationplaninaccordancewiththeCleanAirAct
andtheEPAtransportationconformityregulations.
Source:MVRPC
MVRPCworkedverycloselywithODOTsModelingandForecastingsectionregardingmodelingand
relatedactivities,includingtransportationconformity.MVRPCalsocoordinatedcloselywithODOT
Districtofficesregardingprojectsunderdevelopment.Overall,thePlanwasdevelopedconsistent
withODOTsplanningrequirements.
The Plan was developed with extensive coordination with the general public, ODOT, and local
jurisdictions,includingelectedofficials,agencydirectors,planners,andengineers.
MVRPC'sLongRangeTransportationPlanisimportanttotheRegionbecause:
Allfederally fundedsurfacetransportationprojectsneedtobedrawnorbeconsistentwith
theLRTPviaMVRPCsTransportationImprovementProgram(TIP);and
TheupdatedLongRangeTransportationPlanshouldbeusedbylocaljurisdictions,agencies,
and groups to help provide a regional context within which to conduct their long range
transportationplanning.
It should be understood that local jurisdictions, agencies, and groups developed the 2040 LRTP
cooperativelyandinaregionalfashion.Itishopedthatthisregionalinitiativewillbeincorporated
intotheplanningeffortsofthelocalentities,andthattherewillbeacontinuing,cooperative,and
comprehensivestrategicefforttousethePlanasaguidetootherlocalplanningendeavors.
Page17
Page18
CHAPTER 3
STATE OF THE REGION
3.1 Overview
TheMiamiValleyRegion(hereaftertheRegion),locatedinsouthwestOhio,isdefinedasGreene,
Miami, and Montgomery counties and the cities of Franklin, Carlisle, and Springboro in northern
WarrenCounty.TheRegionissituatedapproximately50milesnorthofCincinnati,70mileswestof
Columbus,and90mileseastofIndianapolis.
As of 2010, the Region is home to approximately 839,000 people in 1,300 square miles with 81
units of county, city, village, and township governments. Montgomery County is the largest
county,with67%oftheRegionstotalpopulation,andtheCityofDaytonisthelargestcitywith
approximately 141,500 residents. The Region is also home to Wright Patterson Air Force Base
(WPAFB),thelargestsingle siteemployerinOhio.
The Region is served by a variety of transportation modal choices. The Dayton International
Airport is located in the northern part of Montgomery County and a Greyhound bus terminal is
located in Trotwood. Further, an extensive network of roads, transit services, bikeways, and
pedestrianfacilitiesprovidemobility,accessibility,andconnectivitywithinandoutsidetheRegion.
Freightinfrastructureandfacilitiessupporttheefficientmovementoffreightpassingthroughand
movingwithintheMiamiValley.
According to the 2010 Census, the majority of residents in the Region live and work within the
samecounty,althoughMontgomeryCountyattractsasignificantnumberofitsworkersfromthe
surrounding counties. The Region is also heavily dependent on personal vehicles, with
approximately93%ofworktripsmadebyautomobilesaveraginga20.6minutecommutetowork.
Undertheassumptionthatthedevelopmentpatternsofthepastwillremainpredominantinthe
future,itisanticipatedthattheRegionwillcontinuetodevelopalongfreewaycorridorsandtheir
fringes.Overall,theRegionisexpectedtoincreaseinpopulationbyapproximately2.6%,withthe
eventualstabilizationofpopulationlossintheolderurbanareas,continuedgrowthinthesuburbs,
and some spillover of that growth into the surrounding rural areas. On the other hand,
employmentisexpectedtogrowby5%overthenext30years.
TheregionalTravelDemandForecastingModelthatpredictstransportationassignmentforecasts
based on future assumptions of development patterns has been updated for use in the
transportationplanningprocess.
3.2 The Miami Valley Region Today

When the Region was first settled in the late 1700s, urban land uses followed the river valleys,
which were the main transportation arteries prior to the development of mechanized forms of
transportation. Most of the heavy industries were located along the rivers, which also provided
themajorsourceofwater.
Page19
Today,employmentisstillconcentratedinsomeoftheoriginallocationseventhoughtheRegion's
economyhassincediversifiedfromitsindustrialbase.Althoughthecurrentlandusepatternsin
the Region have been shaped more by history than by any inherent physical limitations or
advantages, the development patterns of the Miami Valley Region can be characterized as
followingthemaintransportationnetwork.
Over the past 50 years, the Region has experienced a drastic change in developed areas
characterized by an outward movement from the central city to the suburban areas following
InterstatesI 75,I 70,andI 675andUS35,asseeninFigure3.1.Accordingtothe2010Census,the
urbanizedareaextendsnorthfor20milesintotheCityofTroyinMiamiCounty;eastfor15miles
intotheCityofXeniainGreeneCounty;southfor15milestonorthernWarrenCounty;andwest
for 8 miles from the Dayton Central Business District (CBD). Further, the 2010 Census indicates
thatdenselysettledareashaveemergedscatteredlocationsthroughouttheRegion.
MVRPCuseditsGIScapabilitiesalongwiththelatestaerialphotographytoexaminehowtheland
wasutilizedintheyear2007.Figure3.2showsthegeneralizedlanduse/landcoverin2007.
Figure3.2showsthatresidentialdevelopmentintheRegionisspreadfairlyevenlythroughoutthe
urbanized area, with high concentrations between the eastern half of Montgomery County and
westernpartofGreeneCountyandalongI 75inMiamiCounty.Since2000,increasedresidential
development has occurred in northern Warren County as well. The Regions residential
developmentislargelylow densityincharacter.
Commercial development is spread
somewhat less evenly, with
concentrations
around
three
suburban malls and in the Dayton
CBD. Additional commercial areas
are found along the major
transportation routes, such as
Interstates, US Routes, and State
Routes, and at the junctions of
major roadways, such as the
intersection of I 75/I 675, I 70/SR
202, and I 675/SR 48. However,
outsideofthesehighlyconcentrated
locations, there is still a mixture of
shopping centers, strip center
development, and neighborhood
shoppingdistricts,withseveralrural
and suburban municipalities also
retainingrecognizabledowntown commercialdistricts.Asaresult,mostparts oftheRegionare
wellservedbyretailandservicefacilities.
Page20
Figure 3.1
Urbanization Trends:
1950 2010
75
MIAMI
70
70
CLARK
1950UrbanizedArea
1960UrbanizedArea
675
MONTGOMERY
1970UrbanizedArea
1980UrbanizedArea
1990UrbanizedArea
2000UrbanizedArea
2010UrbanizedArea
GREENE
BUTLER
75
Source:Census1950 2010
May2016
WARREN
HAMILTON
275
CLERMONT
Miles
12
Newberry
Township
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
Figure 3.2
Generalized Land Use
In 2007
FLETCHER
BRADFORD
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
DowntownDayton
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Lostcreek
Township
Newton
Township
Commercial
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
Industrial
TROY
Elizabeth
Township
Institutional
LUDLOW FALLS
LAURA
Union
Township
Residential
WEST
MILTON
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
Agricultural/OpenSpace
TIPP
CITY
Bethel
Township
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
VANDALIA
Butler
ENGLEWOOD Township
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
Bath
Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
Miami
Township
CLIFTON
RIVERSIDE
CEDARVILLE
NEW
LEBANON
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
Xenia
Township
Beavercreek
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
KETTERING
Source:MVRPC
XENIA
WEST CARROLLTON
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
CARLISLE
Washington
Township
SPRINGBORO
May2016
BELLBROOK
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
Miles
8
IndustrialdevelopmentintheRegiongenerallyfollowstheI 75corridor,whichparallelstheGreat
MiamiRiverandprovidesaccesstomajorfactoriesandofficeclustersstretchingfromtheCityof
PiquaatthenorthernedgeoftheRegiontothesouthernMontgomeryCountyborder.Themost
important concentration of employment outside the I 75 corridor is located along the
Greene/MontgomeryCountyborder,neartheintersectionofI 70withSR4,andalongI 675.
Three main sources of information were utilized to produce socioeconomic variables. For
residence related variables, the Census was the sole source. For employment, MVRPC used a
combinationofCoveredEmploymentandWagesbyIndustrydataknownasES202preparedbythe
Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services and obtained from the Ohio Department of
Transportation,aswellasacommerciallyavailableemploymentdatabase(AmeriList)purchasedby
MVRPC.
Residence relateddatawereextracteddirectlyfromthe2010Censusattheblocklevelandthen
aggregated to the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). In addition, the 2006 2010 American Community
Survey(ACS)datawasusedforvariablesunavailablefromthe2010Censusproducts,forexample,
automobile availability. For employment related variables, several steps were taken in order to
developbaseyeardata.First,theES202dataobtainedfromODOTwasgeocodedtotheTAZlevel.
Second,theAmeriListemploymentdatabaseandotherin housedatabaseswereusedassecondary
datasourcestocomplementtheES202dataandfine tuneemploymentfigures.Third,extensive
field reviews were conducted throughout the Region for areas with high employment
concentrationstoverifythelocationsofindividualbusinesses.Finally,thetotalemploymentand
employment by 10 industry sectors were generated at the TAZ level following Standard Industry
Classification (SIC) codes. The 2000 data were then updated to 2005 and 2010 based on known
developmentpatterns.AsummaryoftheRegionssocioeconomicdataandthepercentageshare
bycountyisshowninTable3.1below.
Table 3.1 2010 Socioeconomic Data
County
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Warren*
Total
Population1
Households1
Employment2
161,573(20.2%)
102,506(12.8%)
535,153(66.9%)
39,780(4.7%)
839,012
62,770(18.5%)
40,917(12.0%)
223,943(65.8%)
12,529(3.7%)
340,159
88,282(20.0%)
53,256(12.1%)
299,855(67.9%)
11,041*(2.5%)
441,393
Note: *WarrenCountyincludesonlytheCitiesofFranklin,CarlisleandSpringboro.Theemploymentnumberfor
WarrenCountyisanaggregateofTAZsbecausetheemploymentnumbersweredevelopedattheTAZlevel.
TheareacoveredbytheseTAZsisslightlylargerthantheareacoveredbythecitiesofFranklin,Carlisleand
Springboro.
Source:12010CensusSummaryFile1;2MVRPC;
Page23
Newberry
Township
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
Figure 3.3
Population Distribution Population
Density by Block Group
FLETCHER
BRADFORD
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
DowntownDayton
Lostcreek
Township
Newton
Township
PopulationperSquareMile
Low(0 300)
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
TROY
MediumLow(300 1,700)
Elizabeth
Township
Medium(1,700 3,000)
LUDLOW FALLS
LAURA
Union
Township
MediumHigh(3,000 5,000)
WEST
MILTON
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
High(5,000+)
TIPP
CITY
Bethel
Township
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
VANDALIA
ENGLEWOOD
Butler
Township
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
Bath
Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
CLIFTON
Miami
Township
RIVERSIDE
CEDARVILLE
NEW
LEBANON
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
Xenia
Township
Beavercreek
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
KETTERING
XENIA
Source:Census2010
WEST CARROLLTON
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
CARLISLE
Washington
Township
SPRINGBORO
May2016
BELLBROOK
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
Miles
8
The Region is home to a population of 839,012. The majority of the population, (67%), lives in
MontgomeryCounty.However,acloserlookatthepopulationdensitydistributionindicatesthat
theRegionhassignificantvariationsasshowninFigure3.3.Ingeneral,higherpopulationdensityis
observedaroundtheCityofDaytonwiththedensitydecreasingawayfromthecenterandintothe
surrounding rural areas. Nonetheless, some of the municipalities in the rural areas also have
populationdensitiessimilartothosefoundinsidetheurbanizedarea.
There are approximately 340,000 households in the Region, with 65.8% located in Montgomery
County. The household density distribution is similar to the population density distribution;
household density is highest in the developed areas in the City of Dayton and in the immediate
suburbs,andgraduallydecreasesoutwardintotheruralareas.
The Region is also home to nearly 442,000 jobs. Similar to the population and household
distributions,MontgomeryCountyhasthelargestemploymentshare,with67.9%oftheRegions
total employment, followed by Greene (20%), Miami (12.1%), and northern Warren (2.5%)
counties.
Approximatelyeverytenyears,MVRPC,incooperationwithODOT,conductsamajorreviewofthe
existing Functional Classification System following the urbanized area changes made by the
Decennial Census. MVRPC carried out the most recent update to the functional class system in
2015.MVRPCsproposedregionalfunctionalclassificationsystemcanbeseeninFigure3.4.
According to FHWA, Functional Classification is the grouping of roads, streets, and highwaysin a
hierarchybasedonthetypeofservicetheyprovide.Typeofserviceisdefinedbycombinationsof
mobilityandlandaccessasfollows:
Arterials include those classes of highway emphasizing a high level of mobility for the
throughmovementoftraffic,withlandaccessbeingasecondaryfunction.Interstatesand
freewaysrepresentthehighestclassofarterials.
As their name indicates, collectors collect traffic from the lower class facilities and
distributeittothehigherclassfacilities.Theirfunctionisdividedequallybetweenmobility
andlandaccess.
Local streets are located at the bottom of the hierarchy, their primary function being to
provideaccesstoadjacentlanduses.
Usingthesethreemajorcategoriesasthebase,roadsarethensubdividedintoruralorurbanas
showninTable3.2.
It should also be noted that only roadways that are functionally classified above the rural minor
collectorcategoryareeligibletousefederalfunds,theexceptionbeingbridgesonnon classified
roads.
Page25
Newberry
Township
Figure 3.4
Highway Functional Classification
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
FLETCHER
BRADFORD
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Lostcreek
Township
Newton
Township
DowntownDayton
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
PrincipalArterial Interstate
TROY
PrincipalArterial FreewayandExpressway
Elizabeth
Township
PrincipalArterial Other
LUDLOW FALLS
LAURA
MinorArterial
Union
Township
WEST
MILTON
Collector Major
TIPP
CITY
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
Collector Minor
LocalRoads
Bethel
Township
UNION
TransportationUrbanizedArea
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
VANDALIA
ENGLEWOOD
Butler
Township
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
Bath
Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
CLIFTON
Miami
Township
RIVERSIDE
CEDARVILLE
NEW
LEBANON
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
Xenia
Township
Beavercreek
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
KETTERING
XENIA
Source:FHWA,
ODOT&MVRPC
WEST CARROLLTON
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
BELLBROOK
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
CARLISLE
Washington
Township
SPRINGBORO
Silvercreek
Township
May2016
Spring
Valley
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
Miles
0
Table 3.2 Functional Classification System

Rural
Urban
PrincipalArterial(Interstate)
PrincipalArterial(Interstate)
PrincipalArterial(Other)
PrincipalArterial(Freeway/Expressway)
MinorArterial
PrincipalArterial(Other)
MajorCollector
MinorArterial
MinorCollector
Collector(MajorandMinor)
Source:FHWA
The Region offers a variety of multimodal

transportation opportunities as seen in Figure 3.5.
The Region is served by the Dayton International
AirportlocatedinthenorthernpartofMontgomery
County,threeInterstatehighways,andaGreyhound
busterminallocatedinTrotwood.
Together they connect the Miami Valley Region to
otherregionsintheU.S.byairandground.Within
theRegion,avarietyofintermodalfacilities,suchas
anextensivetransportationnetworkofroads,transit,bikeways,andpedestrianfacilities,provide
multi faceted transportation options for better mobility, accessibility, and connectivity. The
Regionsroadwaynetworksincludethreeinterstates(I 70,I 75,andI 675),freeways,andprincipal
arterials,includingtheintersectionofI 70/I 75,amajorfocalpointforintermodaltraffic.
Figure 3.6 illustrates multimodal freight infrastructure and facilities located in the Region.
Networks of railroads, pipelines, and roadways, along with facilities such as the Dayton
International Airport and truck terminals, support the efficient movement of raw materials,
manufactured items, merchandise, and/or other material goods passing through and moving
withintheRegion.
The Region is also served by four transit agencies. The Greater
Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA) serves Montgomery
County residents with an extensive network of seven different
types of fixed routes covering nearly 1,000 miles of directional
roadways serving approximately 9 million passenger trips per
year. Further, GDRTAs Transit Hubs, located throughout
Montgomery County, connect the central city and the suburban
areaswithbusservicesatcentralizedlocations.
Page27
Greene County is served by the Greene County Transit Board (Greene CATS) on a demand
responsivebasis,providingover185,000one waypassengertripsperyear.Recently,GreeneCATS
introducedflex routeservicefromFairborntoBeavercreek,fromXeniatodowntownDayton,and
toprovideeast westtransitserviceswithinXeniaandFairborn.TheMiamiCountyTransitSystem
which consolidated with the City of Piqua Transit System in 2007, provides demand responsive
transit service for Miami County residents including residents of the City of Piqua, with
approximately 62,300 passenger trips per year. The Warren
County Transit System provides demand responsive services in
WarrenCountyandprovides66,000passengertripsperyear.
The Region offers excellent opportunities for pedestrians and
bikers, with an extensive network of bikeways and sidewalks.
Further, intermodal facilities such as Park N Bike and Park N Ride
arelocatedthroughouttheRegion.

The Miami Valley has a long aviation history since the ideas of two young bicycle shop owners
becamearealitywiththefirstflightoftheWright BFlyerin1903.Thistraditioniscontinuedtoday
atWright PattersonAirForceBase,oneofthepremieraviationresearchanddevelopmentcenters
in the world, and also at the Dayton International Airport, the United States top 90 minute air
market. In addition to the Dayton International Airport, the Region is served by four general
aviation airports eligible for funding by the ODOT (see Figure 3.5). The Dayton International
AirportisthefocalpointoftheRegionsairtransportationnetwork,includingfreight.Theother
airports in the Region are mainly general aviation airports that serve small private planes for
personalandagriculturaluses.

The James M. Cox Dayton International Airport (DAY) serves as the primary commercial service
airport for the MVRPC Region. The Dayton Airport is located approximately 11 miles north of
downtownDaytoninnorthernMontgomeryCountyon3,870acres.TheDaytonAirportislessthan
fiveminutesfromtheI 70/I 75interchangeandhasthreerunways:a10,900 footprimary,a7,000
foot parallel with operations on a parallel runway when necessary, and an 8,500 foot crosswind
runway. The dual runway system allows simultaneous operations on parallel runways with
landingsanddeparturesonthecrosswindrunway.
There were five airlines serving the airport in 2015, with Delta Airlines as the single largest
passengercarrier.Forthe12 monthperiodendingDecember31,2014,theairporthadanaverage
of 147 aircraft operations per day, 48% of which were air taxi, 29% commercial, 22% general
aviation and less than 1% were military. There are 31 aircrafts based at this airport. There are
morethan85passengerflightsadaywithnonstopserviceto12majordomesticmarketscarrying
over a million passengers annually. In 2015, total passenger enplanements at the Dayton
InternationalAirportwere1,072,620.Thatisadecreaseof6.2percentfromthetotalpassenger
enplanementsin2014.
Page28
Figure 3.5
Multimodal
Passenger Facilities
"
)"
)
Newberry
Township
" "
")
)
)
PIQUA
"
)
)
"
) "
BRADFORD
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
FLETCHER
"
)
"
)
DowntownDayton
#
*
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
"
)
"
)
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Lostcreek
Township
"
)
Newton
Township
"
)
"
)
"
)
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
TROY
"
)
"
)
Elizabeth
Township
LUDLOW FALLS
Y
X
LAURA
Union
Township
WEST
MILTON
"
)
TIPP
)
CITY"
"
)
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
X
Y
Y
Y X
X
Y X
X
Y
Y
X
"
)
#
*
"
)
"
)
PHILLIPSBURG
#
*
#
*") ")")
"
)#
*
* ")
#
* #
"
)
ENGLEWOOD
"
)"
)
#
*
#
*
BROOKVILLE
"
)#
*
_
^
"
)
"
) TROTWOOD
"
)
#
*
Perry Township
#
*
#
*
VANDALIA
"
)
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
* ")
#
"
)
*
#
* ")
"
)
"
)
RIVERSIDE
"
)
MORAINE
#
*
"
)
#
*
"
)
"
)
#
*
GERMANTOWN
"
)
#
*
"
)
#
*
"
)
Miami
"
)
Township
CARLISLE
!
.
RegionalBikewayHub
"
)
Park N Bike
GDRTATransitExpressRoute
Sidewalk
CLIFTON
Miami
Township
#
*
#
*
Beavercreek
Township
BEAVERCREEK
"
)
!
.
"
)
"
)
Washington
Township
SPRINGBORO
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
"
)
XENIA
CENTERVILLE
"
)
Xenia
Township
Sources:GDRTA,
GreeneCATS,andMVRPC
"
)
"
)
!
.
#
*
#
*
#
*
"
)
BikeShareStations
CEDARVILLE
"
)"
)
"
)
MIAMISBURG
"
)
YELLOW
SPRINGS
KETTERING
"
)
WEST CARROLLTON
German Township
Y
X
"
)
OAKWOOD
FARMERSVILLE
Park N Ride
RIVERSIDE
"
)
X
Y
Y
X
Y
X
Y
X
Y
YX
"
)X
YX
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
FAIRBORN
Bath
Township
"
)
Y
X
!
.
YY
X
YX
X
Y
X
"
)
Y
X
Y
#
*X
YX
X
Y
YX
Y#
*X
Y
X
#
*
"
)
#
*
GreeneCATS"NoStops"AlongFlexRoute
WPAFB
"
)
Y")
XX
Y
#
*
GDRTAHub
RegionalBikeway
Harrison
Township
DAYTON
#
*
HUBER
HEIGHTS
#
*
"
)
NEW
LEBANON
"
)
GreeneCATSFlexRoute
#
*
Butler
Township
Greyhound
GDRTATransitRoute
"
)
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
_
^
Y
X
Bethel
Township
UNION
Airport
"
)
X !
YY
X
"
)
X
Y
YX
X
Y.X
Y
X
Y
X
"
)Y
Y
X
Y
X
Y
#
*X
YX
YX
Y X
Y X
Y#
* X
"
)
New Jasper
Township
"
)
BELLBROOK
Sugarcreek
Township
JAMESTOWN
May2016
Silvercreek
Township
"
)
Spring
Valley
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
"
)
0
2.5
7.5
Miles
10
Newberry
Township
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
BRADFORD
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
!
(PIQUA
!
(
!
(!
(
Figure 3.6
Multimodal Freight Facilities
FLETCHER
!
(
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
Downtown Dayton
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Newton
Township
!
(
PLEASANT
HILL
!
(
TROY!
(
!
!
( (
!
(
LUDLOW FALLS
Elizabeth
!
( Township
!
(
TIPP
CITY
!
(
!
!
( (
!
(
!
(
!
(!
(
!
(
!
(
! !
(
(
!
(
(
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
( !
(!
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
(!
(VANDALIA
!
(
!
(
!
(
CLAYTON
(
!
( !
(!
(!
!
(
(
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
HUBER
(
HEIGHTS !
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
(!
(!
Harrison
(!
Township
!
(
!
(!
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
Bath
(
WPAFB
Township
!
(
!
(
!
(
FAIRBORN
!
!
(
( !
(
(
!
(
!
( !
!
(!
YELLOW
(
(!
SPRINGS
!
(!
!
(!
!
((
(
!
(!
!
(!
(
(
(
!
(!
!
(
!
( !
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( DAYTON
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
(
(
!
(!
!
(
(!
!
(
!
(!
(!
( !
!
(!
(!
!
(!
( RIVERSIDE
!
((
!
(
!
(
!
(!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
Xenia
!
(!
!
(!
Beavercreek
Township
( !
(
( BEAVERCREEK
!
!
(!
( !
(
(!
Township
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
OAKWOOD
!
( !
Jefferson
(
(!
!
(!
Township
(
!
!
(
!
(!
((
(
!
(
!
(!
(!
!
(!
(
MORAINE
(
(!
!
(!
KETTERING
!
(
XENIA
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
WEST CARROLLTON
!
!
(
(!
(
!
(
Butler
ENGLEWOOD Township
(BROOKVILLE
!!
(
!
(
!
(
Perry Township
NEW
LEBANON
Jackson
Township
FARMERSVILLE
(
!
( !
!
(
!
(
!
( MIAMISBURG !
(
(!
!
(
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
CARLISLE
!
(
DaytonInternationalAirport
DaytonWrightBrothersAirport
LewisAJacksonRegionalAirport
MoraineAirPark
TruckTerminal
PiquaAirport HartzellField
CLIFTON
Miami
Township
!
(
CEDARVILLE
!
(
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
Source:MVRPC
!
(
May2016
Silvercreek
Township
!
(
Washington
Township
SPRINGBORO
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
BELLBROOK
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
Railroad
!
(
German Township
TruckRoute
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
Bethel
Township
Clay
Township
(
!!
(
!
(
(
(!
(!
!
(!
!
(
Monroe
Township
UNION
!
(
!
(!
(
(
!
(!
!
(
WEST
MILTON
POTSDAM
CASSTOWN
!
(
LAURA
Union
Township
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
PHILLIPSBURG
Pipeline
!
(
Lostcreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
SPRING VALLEY
!
(
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
!
(BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
Miles
8
Atlanta, Chicago and Dallas, respectively, are the three busiest domestic routes for the airport
betweenDecember2014andNovember2015.
Overall, passenger traffic continues to decrease at the Dayton airport. Passenger traffic at the
airport dropped from 162,311 in the first two months of 2014 to 152,061 during the same time
periodin2015.In2015,Daytonairportcarriedover8,540tonsofaircargo,adecreaseof6.5%over
2014.Themajority(90%)ofaircargothroughtheDaytonairportisFedExfreight.
TheCityofDaytoncontinuestopursueastrategyforre useoftheformerUPSCargoHubatthe
airport.ThefacilitywasacquiredbytheIndustrialRealtyGroup,aspecialistinre usingoldsites.It
is marketing the building to potential tenants for uses that could include air freight and cargo
sorting, manufacturing, storage, bulk commodity distribution, and even an office call center.
Because of the buildings size 1.2 million square feet its managers envision it as home for
multipletenantsandmixeduses.Aproject,currentlyunderdevelopment,couldextendrailservice
tothefacility.

The Greene County Lewis A. Jackson Regional Airport (I19), situated 8 miles east of Dayton in
Beavercreek Township., is undergoing numerous improvements to support increasing general
aviation needs in eastern Montgomery County and Greene County. The airport underwent a
significantexpansionin2005,addingrunwayandtaxilengthaswellasservicebuildingsandroads.
The Greene County Regional Airport Authority owns the airport and is comprised of seven
membersofthecommunity.
The 3,975 feet of paved runway at the airport was extended to 4,500 feet with FAA and local
funding.Forthe12 monthperiodendingSeptember10,2015,theairporthadanaverageof117
aircraftoperationsperday,100%ofwhichweregeneralaviation.Thereare56aircraftsbasedat
thisairport.

TheDayton WrightBrothersAirport(MGY)isageneralaviationairportlocatedapproximately12
miles south of the City of Dayton, on State Route 741. I 75 allows easy access to and from the
airport. The Dayton Wright Brothers Airport covers an area of 541 acres which contains one
asphaltpavedrunway(2/20)measuring5,000feet.
For the 12 month period ending August 2, 2013, the airport had 89,060 aircraft operations, an
averageof244perday:93%generalaviation,7%airtaxi,and<1%military.Thereare73aircraft
basedatthisairport.

The Piqua Airport Hartzell Field, home to 27 aircrafts, is located approximately 3 miles from
downtownPiqua.Theairporthasa4,000 footrunwayandisthehomeoftheHartzellPropeller
FactoryServiceCenter.Forthe12 monthperiodendingSeptember25,2015,theairporthadan
average of 28 aircraft operations per day: 59% transient general aviation, 39% local general
aviation,and2%airtaxi.
Page32
TheRegionsjourney to workcharacteristicswereexaminedforGreene,Miami,Montgomery,and
Warren counties using data from the 2006 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5 year
estimates. Warren County was included as a whole for journey to work analysis purposes since
detailedplacecityleveldataisunavailableforthecitiesofFranklin,Carlisle,andSpringboroin
the Region. However, an examination of available data indicates that over 60% of Franklin,
Springboro, and Carlisle residents worked outside Warren County. This is consistent with the
locationofthesemunicipalitiesattheedgeoftheMontgomery/WarrenCountyborder.
Worktripcharacteristicswereexaminedbecause,althoughworktripsmakeuponly10%ofperson
trips during peak commute hours2, that increment often makes the difference in straining the
capacity of the transportation system. Figure 3.7 summarizes journey to work characteristics,
including commuting patterns, means of transportation, and average travel time to work for
Greene,Miami,Montgomery,andWarrencounties.
The ACS data revealed that, although the majority of Greene, Miami, Montgomery, and Warren
county residents work in the same county in which they live, Montgomery County was a major
work destination for commuters living in the surrounding counties. Significant portions of
GreeneandMiamiCountyresidentswerefoundtobetravelingtoMontgomeryCountyforwork.
Nearlyone thirdofGreeneCountyresidents(31.2%),and20.7%ofMiamiCountyresidentsworked
inMontgomeryCountyaccordingtothe2006 2010ACSdata.
AveragetraveltimetoworkwasanalyzedfortheRegionusingtheACSdata.Thedatarevealedthe
averagecommutetimeintheMiamiValleyRegiontobe21.3minutes.Theaveragecommutetime
was20.8minutesforMontgomeryCountyworkers,19.5minutesforGreeneCountyworkers,and
20.7minutesforMiamiCountyworkers.
TraveltrendsintheMiamiValleyRegionfollownationalpatterns.AsisthecasewiththeU.S.,the
automobile represents the preferred mode of travel. According to the 2006 2010 ACS,
approximately84%oftheRegionsresidentsdrovetheirautomobilealonetowork.
3.3 The Miami Valley Region in the Year 2040

ThePlanassumesthatthedevelopmentpatternsofthepastwillremainpredominantinthefuture.
TheRegionwillspreadfurtherawayfromthecentralcityandbeyondtheboundariesofexisting
suburbs. The future of the Region will be characterized by less concentrated, low density
development patterns, away from existing urban centers, and by fragmented land uses where
complementary developments are not always in close proximity. However, it is expected that
therewillbeacloserelationshipbetweentransportationandlanduse,asfuturedevelopmentis
likelytooccuralongfreewaycorridors.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA),1995NationalPersonalTransportationSurvey.
Page33
MVRPC, as a regional agency, maintains locally adopted

futurelanduseplansforjurisdictionslocatedintheRegion
and constantly updates the data as jurisdictional updates
become available. Although future land use plan horizon
yearsvaryamongjurisdictions,theyaregoodindicatorsof
futuregrowthpatterns(seeFigure3.8).
As illustrated in Figure3.8, residential areasare to remain
intheeasternpartofMontgomeryCounty,westernpartof
Greene County, and along the I 75 corridor in Miami
County.However,itisobservedthatadditionalresidential
developments are planned beyond what is currently
developedthroughouttheRegion.
Industrial and commercial areas are planned for the western part of the City of Dayton in the
vicinityofSR49andsouthernpartofMontgomeryCountynearthecountyline.InGreeneCounty,
commercial areas are planned in the vicinity of the I 675/US 35 interchange and industrial areas
alongtheUS35bypasssouthoftheCityofXenia.InMiamiCounty,industrialareasareplannedon
theoutskirtsoftheCitiesofTippCity,Troy,andPiqua.
Inadditiontotheexpansionofresidential,commercial,and
industrial areas, it is expected that a certain level of infill
development will occur over the next 30 years. For
instance, the greater Downtown Dayton area is attracting
morebusinessesandpeople;severalresearchfacilitieshave
been planned in the vicinity of the University of Dayton,
Downtown Daytonandsurroundingareasarewitnessinga
spurt in residential development, the inner suburb of
Kettering is attracting office and other retail
establishments,andinMoraine,thevacantformerGeneral
Motors plant complex has been reinhabited by a large
overseasautomotiveglassmanufacturingcompanyandseveralothersmallercompanies.
Insummary,MVRPCanticipatesthatmuchofthegrowthintheRegion,asillustratedinFigure3.9,
will continue to occur along the fringes of the I 675 corridor in both Greene and Montgomery
counties, the I 70 corridor in Montgomery County, the I 75 corridor in Miami County, and the
southernportionofI 75inMontgomeryCounty.FurtherdevelopmentwilloccuralongUS35from
theMontgomery/GreeneCountyborder,stretchingaroundtheeasternedgeoftheCityofXenia,
and along SR 49 in western Montgomery County. Northern Warren County is also projected to
experiencenewdevelopment.
Page34
Total Working Residents
Total Workers
300,000
250,000
250,000
200,000
200,000
150,000
150,000
100,000
100,000
50,000
50,000
Figure 3.7
Regionwide
Journey-to-Work
*
300,000
Regionwide Commuter Mode Share

Public Transit
1.5%
Walk
2.2%
Bike
0.2%
Work at Home
3.2%
Other
0.6%
Carpool
8.2%
Drive Alone
84.0%
Average Commute Time

(Minutes)
24.4
25.0
19.5
20.7
21.3
20.8
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Warren
Region
Source: American Community Survey 2006-2010
May 2016
* Only outside residents working inside the region are considered.
Figure 3.8
Adopted Land Use Plans
Newberry
Township
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
FLETCHER
BRADFORD
COVINGTON
DowntownDayton
Washington
Township
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Business,Mixed
Lostcreek
Township
Newton
Township
Industrial
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
Residential
TROY
Public/Institutional
Elizabeth
Township
OpenSpace/Recreation
LUDLOW FALLS
LAURA
Union
Township
Agriculture;RuralCenter
WEST
MILTON
TIPP
CITY
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
Municipal
Bethel
Township
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
VANDALIA
Butler
ENGLEWOOD Township
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
Bath
Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
Miami
Township
CLIFTON
Sources:CityandCounty
ComprehensivePlans
RIVERSIDE
CEDARVILLE
NEW
LEBANON
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
Xenia
Township
Beavercreek
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
KETTERING
GreeneCounty:1974 2007
MiamiCounty:2003 2007
MontgomeryCounty:1970 2006
WarrenCounty:1981 1999
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
XENIA
WEST CARROLLTON
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
CARLISLE
Washington
Township
SPRINGBORO
May2016
BELLBROOK
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
Miles
8
Newberry
Township
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
Figure 3.9
Projected Areas of Concentrated
Growth: 2010 2040
FLETCHER
BRADFORD
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Lostcreek
Township
Newton
Township
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
TROY
1970DevelopedAreas
Elizabeth
Township
LUDLOW FALLS
2010DevelopedAreas
LAURA
Union
Township
WEST
MILTON
ProbableGrowthAreas:2010 2040
TIPP
CITY
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
Bethel
Township
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
VANDALIA
Butler
ENGLEWOOD Township
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
Bath
Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
Miami
Township
CLIFTON
RIVERSIDE
CEDARVILLE
NEW
LEBANON
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
Xenia
Township
Beavercreek
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
KETTERING
XENIA
Source:MVRPC
WEST CARROLLTON
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
BELLBROOK
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
CARLISLE
Washington
Township
SPRINGBORO
May2016
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
Miles
8
MVRPC developed 2040 population and employment projections to identify the Regions future
socioeconomiccharacteristicsandforsubsequentusebythetraveldemandforecastingmodeland
LRTPanalyses.ProjectionsweregeneratedforGreene,Miami,andMontgomerycounties.
For the 2016 update of the 2040 LRTP, MVRPC used the forecasts developed for the 2012 LRTP
basedonthe2010Censuspopulationrelease.SincethelastPlanupdate,theOhioDevelopment
Services Agency (ODSA) had also updated its long range population forecast. MVRPC compared
2015 projections from ODSA and the MVRPC 2012 LRTP to an extrapolated 2015 Census by
extending the 2010 2014 growth based on the population estimates program for an additional
year.TheODSA2040projectionsforGreeneandMiamicountiesshowedhardlyanygrowth,while
MVRPCsprojectionsappeartobetrackingbetterwiththeCensusPopulationEstimatesProgram.
Recognizing this, MVRPC worked with ODOT and other interagency consultation partners to be
allowedtocontinuetouseits2012LRTPpopulationforecastforthe2016updateoftheLRTP.
Basedonthecountylevelpopulationforecasts,MVRPCestimatedcountylevelhouseholdchanges
using the assumption that the group quarter population will remain constant over the planning
periodandthatyear2010householdcharacteristicswillapplythroughtheyear2040.Thecounty
level data were then disaggregated to the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level by assigning known
and/orexpectedgrowthordecline.
For employment, MVRPC identified several data sources to examine historical trends: Bureau of
LaborMarketInformationoftheOhioDepartmentofJobandFamilyServices(ODJFS),U.S.Bureau
of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and Census County Business Patterns.
MVRPCthenusedtheES202historicaldatafromODJFSasthebasistogenerate2040employment
forecaststoensureconsistencybetweenthe2010baseyearand2040horizonyeardatasources.
Adjustments were also made (at the TAZ level) to the base year employment to account for
manufacturing job loses between 2000 and 2010, recognizing that the local economy is moving
awayfromamanufacturingbase.Thesameadjustmentswereappliedtothe2040projections.
The county level data was disaggregated to the TAZ level by examining a variety of GIS data
including:
Populationandurbanizedareatrendsfrom1970to2010;
Currentlyavailabledevelopablelandbasedon2007landuseinformation;
TAZproximitytowaterandsewerservice;
Areasplannedfordevelopmentfromlocaljurisdictionlanduseplans;
Areaszonedfordevelopmentfromlocaljurisdictionzoningplans;
Areasoutsideofthe100 yearfloodplain;
Subdivisionplansacquiredfromlocaljurisdictionsand/ornewspaperdevelopmentarticles;
and
Aerialphotography.
Page39
Overall,thepopulationoftheRegionisexpectedtoslightlyincrease2.63%overthenext30years
as shown in Table 3.3. However, Miami and Greene counties are expected to gain while
MontgomeryCountyisexpectedtolosepopulation.
Table 3.3 Population Projections: 2010 2040
County
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Total
Census
2010
161,573
(19.2%)
102,506
(12.9%)
535,153
(67.9%)
799,232
MVRPC
2040
191,945
(23.4%)
109,494
(13.3%)
518,788
(63.2%)
820,227
%Change
(20102040)
18.80%
6.82%
3.06%
2.63%
Source:2010Census/MVRPC
Figure 3.10 shows the population percentage changes from 2010 to 2040 at the TAZ level,
illustratingwherethepopulationgrowthanddeclineareexpectedtooccur.Itisanticipatedthat
there will be a continuing outward movementof population characterized by thestabilization of
population losses in the older urban areas, continued growth in the newer suburbs, and some
spillover of that growth into the surrounding rural areas. Thus, the central city and suburbs are
expected to experience the highest population declines while the outlying areas, such as
southeastern Montgomery County, areas along the I 75 corridor in Miami County and areas
between the City of Beavercreek and along US 35, are expected to experience the highest
populationgains.AreasinandaroundthenewAustinPikeInterchangeareprojectedtoseestrong
growth, including areas in northern Warren County. Further, downtown Dayton is expected to
moderatelyoffsetthetrendofpopulationdeclineinthecentralcitywhenconsideringcontinued
redevelopmentefforts.
Table 3.4 summarizes population density by area type between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the
densitiesfortheCBD,suburban,andruralareasareanticipatedtobehigherin2040thanin2010,
while the urban area is expected to experience lower density in 2040. Specifically, both Greene
andMiamicountieswillhaveslightlyhigherdensitiesin2040thanin2010forbothsuburbanand
ruralareasbecauseoftheoutwardmovementofpopulation.Conversely,MontgomeryCountyis
expected to experience a slightly different pattern. As a result of the downtown revitalization
efforts,theCBDareawillhavehigherdensityintheyear2040thanintheyear2010.However,
urbanandsuburbanareasareexpectedtohavelowerdensitiesinthefuture,primarilybecauseof
thepopulationlossthatisforecastedtooccuroverthenext30years.
Page40
Newberry
Township
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
Figure 3.10
2010 2040 Population Change Projection
by Traffic Analysis Zone
FLETCHER
BRADFORD
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
DowntownDayton
Lostcreek
Township
Newton
Township
PopulationChange
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
Below 5.0%
TROY
4.9% +5.0%
Elizabeth
Township
LUDLOW FALLS
5.1% 25.0%
LAURA
Union
Township
WEST
MILTON
25.1% 50.0%
TIPP
CITY
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
Over50.1%
Bethel
Township
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
VANDALIA
Butler
ENGLEWOOD Township
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
Bath
Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
Miami
Township
CLIFTON
RIVERSIDE
CEDARVILLE
NEW
LEBANON
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
Xenia
Township
Beavercreek
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
KETTERING
XENIA
Source:MVRPC
WEST CARROLLTON
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
BELLBROOK
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
CARLISLE
Washington
Township
SPRINGBORO
May2016
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
Miles
8
Table 3.4 Population Density by Area Type: 2010 2040 (Persons per Acre)
AreaType
CBD
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Total
2010
2040
2010
2040
2010
2040
2010
2040
5.63
1.90
0.14
5.63
2.35
0.19
7.89
1.04
0.15
7.89
1.31
0.16
4.48
5.99
1.99
0.17
4.73
5.40
1.83
0.17
4.47
6.10
1.79
0.15
4.73
5.55
1.87
0.17
Source:MVRPC
Overall, employment in the Region is expected to grow over the next30 years by approximately
5%.TheemploymentprojectionsbycountyaresummarizedinTable3.5.BothGreeneandMiami
counties are expected to experience moderate employment growth between 2010 and 2040
(18.81% in Greene County and 7.16% in Miami County). Montgomery County employment is
expectedtofluctuate.Employmentdeclinedfrom2005to2010mirroringpopulationlossesbutis
expected to slightly rebound even as it continues to slide as a percentage of the regional
employment.
Table 3.5 Employment Projections: 2010 2040
County
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Total
2010
2040
88,282
(20.0%)
53,256
(12.1%)
299,855
(67.9%)
441,393
104,887
(22.6%)
57,068
(12.3%)
301,668
(65.0%)
463,633
%Change
(20102040)
18.81%
7.16%
0.61%
5.03%
Source:MVRPC
In general, it is anticipated that the urbanized areas will experience minor employment decline,
while outlying areas will experience slight employment growth through 2040. The greater
DowntownDaytonareaisprojectedtoexperienceamoderateresurgenceinemploymentdueto
variousrevitalizationefforts.However,theemploymentgrowthismainlyexpectedtooccuralong
majorroadcorridorssuchasInterstateI 75,I 70,US35,SR4,andSR49.
Employmentdensitychangesoverthenext30yearsaresummarizedinTable3.6.AsaRegion,the
greater Downtown Dayton Areas and suburban areas are expected to gain employment density
between 2010 and 2040 due to downtown redevelopment efforts and the anticipation of jobs
followingpopulationtotheoutlyingareasoftheRegion.UrbanandsuburbanareasinGreeneand
Miami counties are expected to experience the highest employment density growth, while rural
area densities will remain constant. Overall, the urban area is the only area expected to have a
loweremploymentdensityby2040(3.07in2010and2.86in2040).
Page42
Table 3.6 Employment Density by Area Type: 2010 2040 (Jobs per Acre)
Greene
AreaType
CBD
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Miami
Montgomery
Total
2010
2040
2010
2040
2010
2040
2010
2040
5.45
1.17
0.02
5.60
1.42
0.04
4.88
0.67
0.04
5.06
0.89
0.04
31.87
2.91
1.07
0.03
33.70
2.67
1.04
0.04
31.75
3.07
1.02
0.03
33.70
2.86
1.11
0.03
Source:MVRPC
3.4 Travel Demand Forecasting Model

ODOT and MVRPC have worked closely together to establish and maintain a regional travel
demandforecastingmodelsincethe1960s(lastupdatedin2007,withavalidationyearof2005).
Themodelisaseriesofcomputerizedmathematicalprogramsusingdatabasestorationalizethe
social,physical,andpsychologicalconstraintsoftravelpatterns.
TheOKI/MVRPCTravelDemandForecastingModel(TDFM)includesthecombinedplanningregions
under the jurisdictions of the Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) and
MVRPC. The combined OKI/MVRPC TDFM was developed as part of the North South
TransportationInitiativewhichextendedtheOKImodeltothecombinedOKI/MVRPCsuper region.
ForMVRPC,thecombinedmodelprovidesadditionalmodelingcapabilitiesincludingtheabilityto
model and forecast mode choice and the addition of a truck model component. Further, the
combinedmodelalsoincorporatedtheresultsofa1995externaltravelsurveybyODOT.In2005,
thecombinedmodelwasupdatedagaintoincorporatetheresultsofahouseholdinterviewsurvey
in the MVRPC Region, change the model interface to Cube Voyager, and improve model
functionality.ThechangesprimarilyaffectedtripgenerationdistributionfunctionsintheMVRPC
Region. In 2007, in preparation for the 2008 LRTP update, the model was validated using circa
2005trafficcountsandsocioeconomicdataandin2011thehorizonyearwasextendedto2040.
TheremainderofthediscussioninthissectionfocusesontheMVRPCRegion.
Figure 3.11 shows the basic model structure and how different components interact with one
another. Data inputs are shown in green and the various model steps are shown in pink. The
resultsofthemodelarethenusedinmodelapplications(violet)suchascongestionmanagement,
airquality,orasneededbyon goingregionaltransportationstudies.
TheOKI/MVRPCRegionalTravelDemandModelisbasedontheconventionaltrip basedfour step
modelingapproach.Themainmodelcomponentsfallwithinthefollowingfivecategories:
DataInputsdatainputsincludethesocioeconomicvariablesusedintripgeneration,as
wellasthetransitandhighwaynetworks;
Trip Generation the process of estimating the number of person trip productions and
attractionsineachTrafficAnalysisZone(TAZ);
Page43
Trip Distribution the process of creating joined person trips by linking trip productions
andattractionsacrossthecombinedsuper region;
Modal Choice the process of estimating the number of person trips using a particular
modeforeachorigin/destinationinterchange;and
TripAssignmenttheprocessofaccumulatingautoandtransittripsontospecifichighway
andtransitfacilitiesintheRegion.
Figure 3.11 Basic Model Structure
Model data inputs fall into two main categories: socioeconomic variables and transportation
networks.
SocioeconomicvariablesattheTAZlevelareusedasaninputtotripgenerationandcanbebroadly
divided between households and related variables (persons, workers, and autos per household)
andemploymentclassifiedintothreecategories(low,medium,andhigh)basedontheabilityofan
establishmenttoattracttrips.EmploymentwassubdividedbycategoryusingSICcodes.Table3.7
showstheindustrysectorsthatcompriseeachcategory.
Three main sources of information were utilized to produce the 2010 base year model. For
residence related variables, the 2010 Decennial Census was the sole source. For employment,
MVRPC used a combination of ES202 data prepared by the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family
Services as well as a commercially available employment database (AmeriList) purchased by
MVRPC.
Page44
Table 3.7 Employment Classification by SIC Code

EmploymentCategory
Low
Medium
High
IndustrySectors
Agricultural,Construction,Mining,Manufacturing,andTransportation
Fire Insurance RealEstate,Public,Service,andWholesaleRetail
Retail
Source:U.S.OfficeofManagementandBudget
Householdsandemploymentareforecastedforyear2040.Forintermediateyears,themodelhas
thebuilt incapabilityofinterpolatingbetweenavailabledatasets,2010 2040.Informationonthe
forecastingmethodologyanddatasourcesisavailableinSection3.3.2ofthischapter.Table3.8
summarizes2010and2040Census/forecastedsocioeconomicvariables.
Table 3.8 Year 2010 and 2040 Forecasted Socioeconomic Variables
Variable
#ofTAZs
Acres
2010CensusPopulation
2010Households
2010Employment
2040Population
2040Households
2040Employment
2010PersonsperHousehold
2010WorkersperHousehold
2010AutosperHousehold
AreaType
CBD
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Total
65
880
2,151
28,042
2,280
29,653
1.30
0.61
0.63
209
30,675
77,584
94,306
70,336
87,835
2.33
1.11
1.42
413
297,967
220,039
303,504
229,678
329,415
2.41
1.27
1.82
130
495,879
27,856
15,541
32,550
16,730
2.66
1.41
2.26
817
825,401
799,232
327,630
441,393
820,227
334,844
463,633
2.40
1.22
1.74
Source:2010Census/MVRPC
The base year transportation network is based on the existing year 2010 roadway facilities and
availablefixedtransitroutes.Thenetworkisupdatedonanannualbasisusingacombinationof
fieldsurveysandorthophotos.Roadwayinventoryinformation,suchasnumberoflanes,isthen
coded in the format required by the model, along with all other relevant information such as
roadway capacity and speeds. A transit network, based on the 2010 GDRTA fixed transit routes
(local and express), was also developed for two different time periods: peak and off peak. The
travel demand model does not have the capability of forecasting demand responsive transit
services;therefore,modechoiceisonlyavailableinMontgomeryCounty.
Future yearhighwaynetworksaredevelopedforthefollowingyears(2019E+C,2020,2030,and
2040) based on the feasibility period in the congestion management project list provided in
Chapter 5 and also include completed projects between 2010 and 2015. The 2019 E+C (Existing
plus Committed) network includes all projects that are currently funded in the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). On the transit side, all future year networks are based on current
(2015)transitroutes,sincetransitservicelevelsareexpectedtoremainconstantthroughoutthe
planningperiod.
Page45
The forecasting model and methodology first replicated existing (2010) conditions. The network
was then used to forecast traffic for year 2040 based on the Existing plus Committed
transportation system (2040 E+C) and for the year 2040 based on all the projects in the CM list
(2040Plan).Intermediateyearforecastswerealsoproducedforyears2020,2022,2030,and2040
foruseintheairqualityconformityanalysis.
Table3.9showstripsbytrippurposeandmodeforyear2010and2040Plan.Thetableshowstrips
increasingbyapproximately6%from2010to2040.
Table 3.9 Typical Weekday Trip Summary
PersonTrips
Analysis
Period
Auto
HBW
2010
Peak
2010
Off Peak
2010
Total
2040
Peak
2040
Off Peak
2040
Total
HBU
VehicleTrips
Transit
HBO
NHB
HBW
HBU
HBO
NHB
Truck
326,621 12,926
597,517
403,619
36,496
116,203 19,886
214,682 22,400
824,946
451,672
73,845
107,309 19,886
541,303 35,326 1,422,463 855,291 16,018
209
EI
EE
11,206 5,083 110,341 223,512 39,772
327,633 13,090
595,058
420,235
54,249
215,140 22,672
821,290
455,272
109,848 156,938 30,456
542,773 35,762 1,416,348 875,507 15,548
193
169,997 30,456
10,388 4,862 164,097 326,935 60,912
Source:MVRPC
Page46
CHAPTER 4
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING &
THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS
4.1 Overview
MVRPChasassimilatedmanyofthestateandfederalgoals,strategies,andprogramstomanage
congestion through its Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Transportation Improvement
Program(TIP),andvariousregionalprojects,strategies,andinitiatives.Thischapterfocusesonthe
evaluation of the existing regional multimodal transportation network and the overall impact of
the approved 2040 LRTP Congestion Management (CM) project list on managing regional
congestion. In addition, the chapter documents how congestion evaluation and management
serves as input to a number of MVRPC planning processes and programs. Other relevant
congestion management efforts undertaken as part of the on going transportation planning
processes at MVRPC are also addressed, including public transportation, alternative modes, and
technology relatedsolutionssuchastheFreewayManagementSystem.
Congestion is generally defined from the perspective of the roadway user. The publics
perceptionofcongestionreliesprimarilyontheirownexperienceswhentravelingonthenations
roadways. However, an engineer would describe congestion as the condition where traffic
demand approaches and/or exceeds the roadways ability to facilitate travel at normal speeds.
Typically,roadwaycongestionmanifestsitselfasstop and gotrafficconditions.
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), roadway congestion consists of three
key elements: severity, extent, and duration. The blending of these elements determines the
overall effect of congestion on roadway users. Roadway congestion occurs due to a number of
planned and unplanned events either in isolation or in tandem. In some cases, the clockwork
natureofrecurringcongestioncanbethesoleevent.Forexample,upto40percentofroadway
congestioncanbeattributedtophysicalbottlenecks(i.e.sectionsoftheroadwaysystemthathave
reachedtheiroperationalcapacity).However,presentedbelow,researchbyFHWAhasidentified
several additional root causes for roadway congestion along with their percent contribution as a
causeofnationalroadwaycongestion.Collectively,theseeventscancausewhatisknownasnon
recurringcongestion:
Traffic Incidents (25%) Random events occurring in the travel lanes that disrupt
otherwisenormaltrafficflow,suchascrashes,disabledvehicles,orroadwaydebris;
Weather(15%)Environmentalconditionscanaffectdriverbehavior,causingmotoriststo
drivemoreslowlyand/orallowforlargergapsbetweencars;
WorkZones(10%)Constructionactivitiesthataltertrafficflowduetolaneorshoulder
restrictions,laneshifts,ortemporaryclosures;
Page47
Traffic Control Devices (5%) Poorly timed or spaced signals and railroad crossings can
causeintermittentdisruptionsintrafficflow;
Special Events (5%) Sudden increases in traffic demand due to planned or unplanned
events,particularlyinruralareas,cantemporarilyoverburdentheroadwaysystem;
FluctuationsinNormalTrafficFlow(Unknown)Day to daychangesinthetrafficdemand
placedonthesystemduetorandomunknowncauses.
Otherthanbottlenecksresultingfrommaximizedroadwaycapacity,theabovelistedeventstake
placewithirregularitythroughouttheday.Therefore,accuratelypredictingtraveltimesbetween
two points becomes increasingly difficult as irregular congestion disrupts the transportation
network over longer periods of time and larger sections of roadway, leading to frustration for
commuters,commercialoperators,andpublicofficials.

MVRPChasundertakenthedevelopmentofaperformancemeasurementandreportingprogram
toevaluatetheimpactandeffectivenessofcongestionstrategiesintheRegion(seeTable4.1).The
performance measures help evaluate various parameters including transportation system
conditions, transportation system safety and incidence response, as well as accessibility to
alternativemodesoftransportationsuchastransit,biking,andwalking.
4.2 Roadway Congestion in the Miami Valley Region

MVRPCuseditsregionaltraveldemandmodeltodevelopscenariosconsistentwiththecongestion
management projects proposed by the 2040 Plan (see Table 5.2 in Chapter 5). Three scenarios
weredeveloped:2010Baseconditions,2040ExistingplusCommitted(E+C),and2040Plan. The
2040 Plan scenario includes all projects in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), while the
E+C scenario includes only projects that are funded in the SFY 2016 2019 Transportation
Improvement Program(TIP). Socioeconomic data from 2010 is used on theBasescenario, while
2040 forecasted socioeconomic data is used on the 2040 E+C and Plan scenarios. Detailed
informationonsocioeconomicdataassumptionsisavailableinChapter3.
Performance measure statistics for the base and future year scenarios were generated for each
roadwaysegmentbyusingCMAQTsoftwaredevelopedbytheOhioDepartmentofTransportation
(ODOT). Systemwide congestion was identified by location and quantified by severity using the
level of service (LOS) performance measure. Ten freeway corridors were identified for further
study and a variety of congestion performance measures were utilized to compare the corridors
including volume to capacity ratios, average speeds, cost of vehicle delay, travel time index, and
crashrates.
Page48
Table 4.1 Regional Report Card

Measure
SystemPerformance
Safety
AverageFreewaySpeed
(mph)
Data1
Description
Source:INRIX
NA
60.2
(2013)
CongestedLane Miles;
Source:TexasTransportationInstitute
29.0%
(2007)
24.0%
(2011)
Inhours;Source:INRIX
NA
AnnualCostofVehicle
DelayonFreeways
Inmillions;Source:INRIX
AnnualCostofTruck
DelayonFreeways
Inmillions;Source:INRIX
Trend
696,167
(2013)
NA
$24.33
(2013)
NA
$12.82
(2013)
Averagedurationofmajorfreewayincidents in
minutes;Source:INRIX
NA
98
(2013)
MeanDistanceBetween
Calls
Milesbetweenservicecalls;Source:GDRTA
NA
15,813
(2013)
RateofFatalities
Totalfatalitiesper100millionDailyVehicle
MilesTraveled;Source:ODPS
0.82
(2008 10)
0.88
(2011 13)
Totalincapacitatinginjuriesper100MDVMT
Source:ODPS
8.39
(2008 10)
7.88
(2011 13)
TransitIncidents
Transitincidentsper100,000trips;
Source:NTD
0.28
(2008 10)
0.27
(2011 13)
MilesofRegional
Bikeway
AdditionstoRegionalBikewaySystem
Inmiles;Source:MVRPC
165
(2010)
198
(2014)
PopulationwithinmileofaRegionalBikeway;
Source:U.S.Census,MVRPC
28.3%
(2000)
28.8%
(2010)
EmploymentwithinmileofaRegional
Bikeway;Source:QCEW,MVRPC
43.2%
(2000)
43.8%
(2010)
PopulationwithinmileofaGDRTABusRoute;
Source:U.S.Census,MVRPC
79.8%
(2000)
79.5%
(2010)
EmploymentServedby
Transit
EmploymentwithinmileofaGDRTABus
Route;Source:QCEW,MVRPC
85.4%
(2000)
89.3%
(2010)
Worktripsbybikeand
walking
WorktripsintheRegionbybikingandwalking;
Source:U.S.Census,ACS2006 2010
2.55%
(2000)
2.79%
(2010)
Populationlivingin
mixedlandusedistrict
Populationlivingindistrictsintegratedwith
residentialandemploymentlanduses;Source:
U.S.Census,QCEW,MVRPC
NA
36%
(2010)
CongestedSystem
AnnualFreewayVehicle
HoursofDelay
IncidentResponse
PopulationServedby
Bikeway
Accessibility
Actual
RateofSeriousInjuries
Goal
EmploymentServedby
Bikeway
PopulationServedby
Transit
5%
9%
65%
20%
4.5%
FordatacellsmarkedNA,comparabledataisnotavailableforanearlierperiod.2013datawillbeusedtoestablish
a baseline for future updates of the Report. 2Incidents are any major collision, occasional roadwork, obstruction,
inclementweather,etc..3MillionDailyVehicleMilesTraveled.
Page49
LevelofService(LOS)isdefinedasaqualitativemeasuredescribingoperationalconditionswithina
traffic stream and their perception by motorists. Volume to capacity (V/C) ratio is a measure of
thetrafficvolumeonaroadcomparedtothecapacityoftheroad.Thecapacityofaroaddepends
on its physical and operational characteristics and varies by functional class. A higher V/C ratio
indicatesthatthetrafficvolumeoftheroadisnearingitscapacityandisbecomingcongested.
The analyses presented in this section are based on calculations by CMAQT software and its
definitionofLOSandV/Cratio.LOSisbrokendownintosixlevels(AthroughF),withsignificant
traveler delay and recurring congestion occurring at LOS D, E, and F. LOS was used to identify
specific locations of congestion in the Base (2010), Existing plus Committed (2040 E+C) and the
Long Range Transportation Plan (2040 LRTP) networks. Figures 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 identify roads
havingLOSD(V/C>0.751)orworse.

In the Base (2010) network, roadway congestion is located mainly on I 75 and US 35 in

Montgomery County, particularly in the downtown Dayton area. Roadway congestion is also
presentonsurfaceroadwaysnearlocal accessinterchanges.

Roadway congestion is increasingly present in the 2040 E+C network. The majority of freeway
sections in Montgomery County will operate at LOS E or F, with significant roadway congestion
along I 75 through downtown Dayton, in Miami County, and near the Warren County border in
MontgomeryCounty.CongestionwillalsospreadtoI 70andonsurfaceroadwaysinruralsections
of Greene County, particularly US 42 and US 68. Various projects, including interchange and
freewayreconstruction,areincludedinthe2040LRTPtoimprovethefreewayperformance;thisis
reflectedinFigure4.3representingthe2040Planscenario.

Underthe2040LRTPscenario,thelevelofservicegenerallyimprovesevenasdemandgrows,but
themajorityoftheI 75corridorinMontgomeryCountyisstillexpectedtooperateatLOSF.Since
theadditionofanotherlaneineachdirectionwasdeemedfinanciallyunfeasiblewithinthe2040
timeframe, and given the importance of the corridor to the regional economy, MVRPC
recommends continued monitoring and potential implementation of additional travel demand
managementstrategiesalongthecorridorinthemediumtolong termtimeframe.
Page50
Newberry
Township
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
Figure 4.1
Level of Service
2010 Base
FLETCHER
BRADFORD
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
I 70/I 75Interchange
DowntownDayton
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Lostcreek
Township
Newton
Township
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
TROY
Elizabeth
Township
LUDLOW FALLS
LAURA
Union
Township
WEST
MILTON
TIPP
CITY
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
Bethel
Township
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
VANDALIA
ENGLEWOOD
Butler
Township
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
Bath
Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
Miami
Township
CLIFTON
RIVERSIDE
CEDARVILLE
NEW
LEBANON
BEAVERCREEK
Beavercreek
Township
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
Xenia
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
KETTERING
XENIA
WEST CARROLLTON
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
BELLBROOK
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
CARLISLE
Washington
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
SPRINGBORO
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
LevelofService
Jefferson
Township
2.5
7.5
Miles
10
Boundary
County
City
Township
D
E
F
Source:MVRPC
May2016
Newberry
Township
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
Figure 4.2
Level of Service
2040 Existing + Committed
FLETCHER
BRADFORD
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
DowntownDayton
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Lostcreek
Township
Newton
Township
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
TROY
Elizabeth
Township
LUDLOW FALLS
LAURA
Union
Township
WEST
MILTON
TIPP
CITY
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
Bethel
Township
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
VANDALIA
ENGLEWOOD
Butler
Township
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
Bath
Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
Miami
Township
CLIFTON
RIVERSIDE
CEDARVILLE
NEW
LEBANON
Beavercreek
Township
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
Xenia
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
KETTERING
XENIA
WEST CARROLLTON
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
BELLBROOK
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
CARLISLE
Washington
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
SPRINGBORO
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
Miles
8
Boundary
LOS
Jefferson
Township
County
City
Township
D
E
F
Source:MVRPC
May2016
Newberry
Township
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
Figure 4.3
Level of Service
2040 Plan
FLETCHER
BRADFORD
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
DowntownDayton
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Lostcreek
Township
Newton
Township
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
TROY
Elizabeth
Township
LUDLOW FALLS
LAURA
Union
Township
WEST
MILTON
TIPP
CITY
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
Bethel
Township
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
VANDALIA
ENGLEWOOD
Butler
Township
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
Bath
Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
Miami
Township
CLIFTON
RIVERSIDE
CEDARVILLE
NEW
LEBANON
Beavercreek
Township
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
Xenia
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
KETTERING
XENIA
WEST CARROLLTON
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
BELLBROOK
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
CARLISLE
Washington
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
SPRINGBORO
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
LevelofService
Jefferson
Township
Miles
8
Boundary
County
City
Township
D
E
F
Source:MVRPC
May2016
In the Dayton Region, freeway travelers experience some of the worst congestion levels in the
area. As part of the congestion management process, ten freeway corridors in the Region were
identifiedfordetailedcongestionstudyandanalyses(Figure4.4).Table4.2comparesthecorridors
to each other. MVRPCs 2015 Congestion Management Process Technical Report includes a
detailedcorridorprofileandcorridorperformancedataforeachofthecorridorsmappedinFigure
4.4.Eachcorridorprofileincludes:

Eachcorridorprofilehasalocationmapofthecorridorthatprovidesaclose upviewofwherethe
corridorislocatedintheRegionandthesurroundinglanduses.Thelandusesarebasedonthe
existinglandcoverintheRegion(asof2007).

MVRPC utilized third party vendor INRIXs3 website to generate congestion scan charts that
providedarobustvisualizationofcongestionoccurrencesalongacorridorandallowedfordetailed
exploration of each corridor. The congestion scan chart, based on average raw speeds along a
corridor,providesaconsolidatedviewoftheextentofslowtrafficspecifictoeachlocationalonga
corridor,ineachdirectionovera24 hourperiod.Thecongestionscanchartswereplottedasraw
speedsonweekdaysfortheyear2013.

Each corridor profile figure includes descriptive statistics such as the length, number of lanes,
functional class, access control, presence of intelligent transportation systems and deployment,
transit service and whether the corridor is part of the nationally designated primary freight
network.

Allcorridorcongestionperformancestatistics,suchas,dailyvolume,truckvolume,v/cratio,travel
timeindex,costofvehicledelay,totalcrashesandcrashrates,aresummarizedinthistableonthe
profilepageofeachcorridor.
The congestion corridors listed in Table 4.2 are used to identify current and future deficiencies
relatedtotraveltimeand/orlevelofservicefordevelopmentofprojectsorprogramsthatcanbe
funded through various funding programs such as Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ),
SurfaceTransportationProgram(STP)orthroughtheFederalTransitAdministration(FTA).
INRIXisacommerciallyavailabledatabasethatprovidesavarietyoftravelreliabilityandcongestionmeasuresforan
extensive roadway network based on cellphone, other vehicle probes, and traditional road sensors. INRIX can be
accessedbytheOhioMPOsthroughanODOTcontract.
Page57
Figure 4.4 Map of Corridors
Page58
54,500
95,400
96,000
53,000
65,700
72,300
39,600
21,600
DailyVolume
(2040Estimated)
103,700
77,200
105,000 127,300 136,800
69,800
81,200
81,100
52,100
28,700
TruckVolume
(2010)
14,800
17,200
12,100
14,000
15,400
7,900
4,500
4,600
4,100
1,700
TruckVolume
(2040Estimated)
28,300
26,200
21,100
25,200
27,500
11,200
7,000
5,600
6,600
4,700
65
6570
6570
5565
5565
65
65
55
5055
5060
AverageSpeed
(AMPeakHour:78AM)
66.8
65.9
67.2
62.3
65.8
67.1
67.1
58.6
58.6
61.5
AverageSpeed
(PMPeakHour:45PM)
66.9
66.1
67.2
61.3
62.8
67.1
67.3
58.5
53.4
61.6
V/CRatio
(2010AMPeak)
0.71
0.63
0.64
0.93
0.84
0.44
0.53
0.87
0.48
0.39
V/CRatio
(2040Est.AMPeak)
0.92
0.90
0.91
0.99
1.10
0.57
0.65
0.97
0.62
0.39
V/CRatio
2010PMPeak
0.70
0.66
0.71
0.93
0.83
0.44
0.52
0.85
0.62
0.42
V/CRatio
(2040Est.PMPeak)
0.92
0.95
1.01
0.99
1.09
0.57
0.65
0.94
0.79
0.45
TravelTimeIndex
2013PeakHours
0.96
0.98
0.96
1.00
1.06
0.97
0.97
1.01
1.07
0.99
CostofVehicleDelay
(In000sof2013dollars)
$436
$3,039
$3,341
$3,236
$10,700
$349
$573
$1,147
$1,399
$114
TotalCrashes
(2011 2013)
242
710
1,037
974
1,781
578
757
467
462
152
CrashRate
(InMVMT;2011 2013)
0.55
0.77
0.75
0.93
1.01
0.90
0.82
0.94
1.61
0.58
PostedSpeed
(inmph)
Corridor10:SR4I 75toI 70
49,400
Corridor9:US35EastofI 675
62,200
Corridor8:US35I 75toI 675
DailyVolume
(2010)
Corridor1:I 70EastofI 75
Corridor5:I 75SouthofUS35
Corridor4:I 75US35toI 70
Corridor3:I 75NorthofI 70
Corridor2:I 70WestofI 75
Corridor7:I 675SouthofUS35
Congestion
Performance
Corridor6:I 675NorthofUS35
Table 4.2 Corridor Performance Comparison
Page59

Congestion is most noticeable on I 75 and US 35, reaching its highest levels during the evening
peak period. On I 75, congestion levels are the highest between the Grand Avenue and Dryden
Roadexitsinthenorthbounddirectionintheeveningpeakperiods.Thisisprimarilyowingtothe
constructionimpactsoftheongoingphase2ofthedowntownsubcorridorreconstructionproject.
TheI 75corridor,southofUS35,hasthehighestnumberoftotalcrashesamongstallfreewaysin
the Region as well as the largest cost associated with vehicle delays. On US 35, east of I 675,
congestion is spread out over a larger daily time window in both directions primarily along the
section in the corridor that has three at grade intersections. This corridor also has the highest
crashrateof1.61perMVMTofallanalyzedcorridorsintheRegion.
Overthepastdecade,MVRPChasfundedanumberofstudiestoaddresscongestiononfreeways.
Severalprojects,includinginterchangemodificationsandfreewaywideningandreconstruction,are
included in the LRTP to improve freeway performance. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS),
havealsobeendeployedtoimprovefreewayperformance.Eachcorridorprofileprovidesabrief
mentionofrecentlycompletedorongoingprojectsalongthatcorridortoaddresscongestion.
4.3 Congestion and Safety

The Dayton Regional Safety Initiative (DaRSI) began in SFY 2006 as a response to the emphasis
placed on roadway safety by the 2005 Federal Transportation Bill known as SAFETEA LU (Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users). In an effort to
reduceroadwayfatalitiesandinjuriesthroughouttheMiamiValley,theoriginalsafetyanalysiswas
initiated in SFY 2006. The goal of DaRSI is to generate a list of locations in need of safety
countermeasurestoreducethefrequencyorseverityofaccidents.
MVRPCanalyzescrashdatatohelpimprovetransportationsafetyandinformtheplanningprocess.
Anumberofstatisticalandcomparativeanalysesareperformedontheregionalcrashdata,which
iscollectedfromOhio Departmentof Transportation(ODOT)andtheOhioDepartmentofPublic
Safety (ODPS) in three year intervals. MVRPC analyzes crash trends and generates a list of high
crashlocationsthatidentifyroadwaysthatmayneedfurtherexaminationtodetermineneedfor
improvement.
TheSFY2015HighCrashLocationAnalysisusedtheroadwaycrashdatafortheyears20112013
to rank intersections and roadway segments based on the frequency and severity of crashes.
These high crash locations were prioritized as low, medium, and high priority, and include 157
intersections and 221 segments. A few excerpts from the 20112013 Crash Data Report for the
MiamiValleyRegionarepresentedinthefollowingparagraphs.
Over the past ten years, the number of crashes reported annually in the Miami Valley has
decreased.From2004to2013,totalreportedcrashesdecreasedby30%.In2004,23,626crashes
were reported, compared to 16,506 in 2013. This decline was noticeable despite fluctuations in
vehiclemilestraveled(VMT)experiencedduringthesameperiod.
Page60
Serious crashes are those that lead to an incapacitating injury or loss of life. Although, serious
crashes represented a small percent of total crashes (3%), a total of 1,245 serious injury crashes
and170fatalcrashesoccurredbetween2011 2013.Theremainingcrashesledtominorinjuriesor
propertydamageonly(PDO).
Twenty seven percent (27%) of serious crashes were fixed object crashes, and 19% were angle.
Thesecrashesvariedbyagegroupofdriversinvolved.Thirty sevenpercent(37%)offixed object
crashesinvolvedyouth,ages16to25.Similarly,23%ofanglecrashesinvolvedseniors,ages66and
above.
Percent Total Crashes by Severity
Top Crash Types Leading to Serious Crashes

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
3%
26%
71%
PDO
InSFY2013,lawenforcementofficerswererequiredtoincludedetailedinformationondistracted
drivingincrashreports.Therefore,onlypreliminarydataisavailable.Thisearlydataindicatesthat
in2012and2013,1,208crashesinvolvingadistracteddriveroccurred.Theseincludedistractions
inside the vehicle (internal), external distractions, phones and other electronic devices. People
aged 16 to 25 were most frequently reported in distracted driving. The top crashtype reported
withdistracteddrivingwasrearends.Fifty twopercent(52%)ofdistracteddrivingcrasheswere
rearends.
Age Groups of Distracted Drivers
Types of Crashes Involving Distractions
30%
Other
18%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Fixed
Object
17%
0%
16 25
26 35
36 45
46 55
56 65
66+
Rear
End
52%
Angle
12%
Page61
This analysis platform allows comparisons between the SFY 2015 update and past and future
iterationsoftheRegionalSafetyAnalysis.Asfutureanalysesarecompleted,MVRPCcanworkwith
ourregionalpartnerstoidentifylocationswherearoadwaysafetycontinuestobeapublichazard.
Pre andpost implementationdatacanalsobecomparedusingtheanalysisplatformtodetermine
if implemented safety countermeasures are achieving noticeable reductions in crash frequency
and/orseverity.FormoreinformationontheDaytonRegionalSafetyInitiativeandSFY2015High
Crash Locations Analysis, please access http://www.mvrpc.org/transportation/long range
planning lrtp/transportation safety.
4.4 Public Transportation

An important tool to manage recurring and non recurring congestion is the regional public
transportation system. Public transportation provides people with mobility and access to
employment, community resources, medical care, and recreational opportunities in communities
across the Region. It also has the potential to significantly reduce congestion on the regional
roadway network. The role of public transit in roadway congestion management is to give
commutersanalternativetotheautomobileforlocaltrips.TheMiamiValleyRegionisservedby
four transit agencies including the Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA), offering
fixedrouteservices;GreeneCATS,offeringdeviatedfixedrouteanddemandresponsiveservices;
and Miami County Public Transit (MCPT) and Warren County Transit Service (WCTS) offering
demandresponsiveservicesonly(seeChapter6 Figure6.1).
Transit is less attractive when passengers must stand for long periods of time, especially when
transitvehiclesarehighlycrowded.Whenpassengersmuststand,itbecomesdifficultforthemto
use their travel time productively, which eliminates a potential advantage of transit over the
privateautomobile.Crowdedvehiclesalsoslowdowntransitoperations,asittakesmoretimefor
passengerstogetonandoff4.Loadfactorisameasureofridershipcomparedtoseatingcapacity
ofarouteforagivenperiodoftime.Similartolevelofserviceonroadways,therelativecomfort
thatapassengermayexperiencewhileseatedonatransitvehicleisgivenalevelofservicelabelof
AthroughFasseeninTable4.3.Aloadfactorof1.0meansthatallseatsaretaken.
Table 4.3 Transit Vehicle LOS and Load Factor 5
LOS
LoadFactor
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 0.50
0.51 0.75
0.76 1.00
1.01 1.25
1.26 1.50
>1.50
PassengerConditions
Nopassengerneedstositnexttoanother
Somepassengersmayneedtosittogether,butnotall
Allpassengersmaysittogether,limitedseatchoice
Somepassengerswillneedtostand
Fullvehicle,spacingbetweenpassengersatmaximumleveloftolerability
Crushload,extremelyintolerable
4
5
TransitCapacityandQualityofServiceManual2ndEdition
TCRPReport100:TransitCapacityandLevelofServiceManual2003
Page62
Table4.4showsallGDRTAfixedroutesthatexperiencedaLOSDorworseforeachspecifictime
period.
Table 4.4 Maximum Load Factor Level of Service
MaximumLoadFactorLevelofServiceAMPeak(4:30AM 9:30AM)
RouteName
12N
8N
9S
9N
7N
17N
RouteName
FiveOaks
SalemAve. NorthwestHub
MiamiChapel
GreenwichVillage
N.MainSt.
Vandalia
Peak
Headway
LoadFactor
AMPeak
LOS
AMPeak
30
15
25
25
15
30
1.48
1.41
1.24
1.11
1.05
1.03
E
E
D
D
D
D
MaximumLoadFactorLevelofServicePMPeak(2:30PM 6:30PM)
RouteName
8N
12N
8S
9N
1W
7N
9S
RouteName
SalemAve. NorthwestHub
FiveOaks
Nicholas WestownHub
GreenwichVillage
W.Third Drexel
N.MainSt.
MiamiChapel
Peak
Headway
LoadFactor
PMPeak
LOS
PMPeak
15
30
15
25
20
15
25
1.85
1.72
1.68
1.47
1.26
1.17
1.03
F
F
F
E
E
D
D
MaximumLoadFactorLevelofServiceOffPeak(9:30AM 2:30PM,6:30PM 1:00AM)

RouteName
12N
9S
9N
19S
14N
7N
16N
19N
7S
14S
RouteName
FiveOaks
MiamiChapel
GreenwichVillage
Moraine SouthHub
Trotwood
N.MainSt.
Union
HuberHeights
Watervliet
Centerville
OffPeak
Headway
LoadFactor
OffPeak
LOS
OffPeak
25
25
25
60
60
20
60
60
20
60
1.38
1.29
1.21
1.18
1.16
1.12
1.08
1.08
1.05
1.05
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Source:GDRTA
The results of the load factor analysis indicate that the majority of the GDRTA routes are
experiencingLevelsofServicelessthan1.0withacceptablelevelsofpassengercongestions.Only
routes 1W, 7N/S, 8N/S, 9N/S, 12N, 14N/S, 17N, 19N/S experience passenger congestion greater
than1.0duringoneormoretimeperiods.Mostoftheseroutescorrelatedirectlywithroutesthat
Page63
experienced the highest average daily ridership and operate in the Regions most transit
dependentareas.
The vast majority of the Miami Valley Region population commutes by single occupancy vehicle.
Transit remains a very small portion of the regional commuting profile. Being that Montgomery
Countyisservedbythelargestandonlyfixed routesystem,itsresidentsusepublictransitmore
than any other county in the Region. About 2.5% of Montgomery County residents use public
transitonadailybasiscomparedtolessthan1%forGreene,Miami,andWarrenCounties.While
all counties in the Region use public transit less than the United States average, Montgomery
CountyresidentsusepublictransitingreaternumbersthanOhioresidentsasawhole.Figure4.5
displayspublictransitusageforallcountiesintheRegioncomparedtoboththeOhioandUnited
Statesaverages.
Figure 4.5 Regional Public Transit Use
Public Transit Use
2000
2010
4.6%
5%
4.9%
4%
2.6% 2.5%
3%
2.0%
2%
1%
0.2% 0.3%
1.8%
0.8% 0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0%
Source:CTTP2000;AmericanCommunitySurvey2006 2010
4.5 Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems

ITS(IntelligentTransportationSystems)continuestobeattheforefrontoftransportationplanning
as MVRPC proceeds with the Region's Early Deployment Plan. The plan focuses on making the
transportation system more efficient and responsive to drivers by using technological
improvements instead of making major road capacity expansions. In addition to many signal
coordination systems implemented throughout the years, the Freeway Management System was
completedin2012andprovidestimelyandaccuratetravelerinformationtomotoriststhatcanbe
accessedthroughwww.ohgo.comormobileapplications.
Page64
To maintain and build upon the Regions strong ITS foundation, the Miami Valley Region ITS
stakeholders initiated the development of the Miami Valley ITS Regional Architecture in 2003.
Simply put, the regional architecture defines the framework on which to build the ITS system. It
functionally defines what the pieces of the system are and the information that is exchanged
between them. A regional architecture is required by both the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to qualify ITS projects for federal funding
afterApril2005.TheITSarchitecturewasupdatedin2008andagainin2013andismaintainedas
neededbyMVRPCstaff.
4.6 Congestion Management Strategies

Currently,thereareanumberofstrategiesthattransportationplannersandengineersimplement
to reduce the geographic and temporal extent of roadway congestion. These countermeasures
includebothphysicalandoperationalroadwayimprovements.Moreoften,twoormoreofthese
strategiesarecombinedtoprovideformaximumcongestionrelief.Belowisanabbreviatedlistof
potentialroadwaycongestioncountermeasures:

These physical roadway treatments attempt to regulate the
mannerinwhichmotoristsaccessadjacentlandusesbyconsolidatingmultipledriveways,
providingexclusiveturninglanes,and/orincorporatingvariousmediantreatmentsincluding
two wayleft turnlanesandnon traversablebarriers.

Adjustingsignaltimesforcurrentroadwaydemandcanbeacost
effective way to increase roadway capacity and is one of the most basic roadway
congestioncountermeasures.

These systems integrate a number of operational
enhancements,suchascameras,dynamicmessagesigns,andhighwayadvisoryradio,intoa
traffic management center which provides the motoring public with up to the minute
updates on current traffic conditions, allowing them to bypass areas with roadway
congestion.

Atransportationpolicythataimstospreadtransportation
demand amongst numerous modes, including carpooling, transit, and bikeway/pedestrian
pathways,toreducedependenceontheautomobile.

A program that encourages the quick, safe, and
coordinatedremovaloftrafficincidentstorestorenormaltrafficflow.

Astrategythatchargestravelersauserfeetoaccesscongestedcorridors
duringpre determinedperiodsofhighdemand.

By increasing the carrying capacity of a roadway, the growth of
congestionmaybealleviated.
Page65
MVRPCs 2015 Congestion Management Process Technical Report includes a matrix describing a
toolbox of congestion countermeasures either currently implemented in the Region or their
suitability for application in the Region in the future. Table 4.5 includes some congestion
mitigationstrategyexamplesfromthetoolbox.Astechnologiesemergeandourunderstandingof
roadwaycongestionexpands,theuseoftheseandotherstrategieswillhaveasignificanteffecton
reducingroadwaycongestion,thusprovidingasaferandmorereliabletransportationnetwork.

Page66
Table 4.5 Sample* Congestion Mitigation Strategies

CongestionMitigation
Strategy
Description
CurrentlyImplementedinDayton
Suitabilityof
ApplicationtoMPO
Region
Illustration/Photograph
Highway Capacity Addition Strategies
HighwayCapacityExpansion
Thisstrategyinvolvesincreasingthecapacityofcongestedroadwaysthrough
additionalgeneralpurposetravellanesand/orupgradinginterchangeson
freeways.Strategiestoaddcapacityarethemostcostlyandleastdesirable
strategies.Theyshouldonlybeconsideredafterexhaustingallfeasibledemand
andoperationalmanagementstrategies.
Yes;DowntownDaytonSubcorridorReconstructionProject;I 70/I 75Interchange

Modification,UpgradeofSouthDixieInterchangefromPartialtoFullInterchange;Various
I 70WideningProjects.
Medium Selectedlocations
only.
Alternative Transportation Mode Strategies

Investmentsinthesemodescanincreasesafetyandmobilityinacost efficient
manner,whileprovidingazero emissionalternativetomotorizedmodes.Inmany
BicycleandPedestrianProjects
cases,bicyclelanescanbeaddedtoexistingroadwaysthroughrestriping.
IncludingExclusiveNon Motorized
Abandonedrailrights of wayandexistingparklandcanbeusedformedium to
ROWandNewSidewalkConnections
longdistancebicycletrails,improvingsafety,andreducingtraveltimes.Increasing
sidewalkconnectivityencouragespedestriantrafficforshorttrips.
Yes.ImplementationofnewRegionalBikewaysandTrailsaswellasDesignatedBicycle
LanesonFacilitiesandRoutesatthelocallevel.Implementationofthefederally funded
SafeRoutestoSchoolprogramprovides100percentfundingtocommunitiestoinvestin
pedestrianandbicycleinfrastructuresurroundingelementaryschools.ABikeshare
programisbeingimplementedinDaytoninspringof2015.
High.
Travel Demand Management Strategies

Transportationdemandmanagement(TDM)strategiesareusedtoreducetravelduringthepeak,commuteperiod.Theyarealsousedtohelpagenciesmeetairqualityconformitystandards,andareintendedtoprovidewaystoprovidecongestionrelief/mobilityimprovementswithout
highcostinfrastructureprojects.
AlternativeWorkHours
Therearethreemainvariations:staggeredhours,flex time,andcompressedwork Yes;AlternativeWorkHoursarebecomingmorecommon.WPAFB,theRegion'slargest

weeks.
employer,allowsavarietyofworkschedules.
MediumtoHigh.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Strategies

ThestrategiesinITSusenewandemergingtechnologiestomitigatecongestionwhileimprovingsafetyandenvironmentalimpacts.Typically,thesesystemsaremadeupofmanycomponents,includingtrafficsensors,electronicsigns,cameras,controls,andcommunicationtechnologies.
DynamicMessaging
AdvancedTravelerInformation
Systems(ATIS)
DynamicMessaginguseschangeablemessagesignstowarnmotoristsof
TheDayton/SpringfieldFreewayManagementSystem
downstreamqueues;itprovidestraveltimeestimates,alternaterouteinformation, (http://www.mvrpc.org/transportation/long range/its),combinestechnologicaland
andinformationonspecialevents,weather,oraccidents.
operationalsolutionstomanagecongestiongrowth.Italsoenhancesexistingincidentand
trafficmanagementactivitiesontheregionalfreewaynetworkandprovidetimelyand
accuratetravelerinformationtomotorists.In2013,ODOTlaunchedanewwebsite
(www.ohgo.com)designedtoprovidemotoristswithreal timetravelinformationusingITS
ATIStechnologyprovidesaccesstoanextensiveamountofdatatotravelers,such technologyonOhiosroadways.GDRTAisintheprocessofimplementingamobileapp
projectwhichwouldallowappuserstoselecttheirroutetoseereal timetrackingdataon
asreal timespeedestimatesandinformationonalternaterouteoptions.
allrunningbuses.Theappisexpectedtobeimplementedin2015.
High.
High.
Transportation System Management Strategies
TrafficSignalCoordination
Signalscanbepre timedandisolated,pre timedandsynchronized,actuatedby

Yes.TherearenumerousexamplesthroughouttheRegion.Thisstrategyisparticularlywell
events,settoadoptoneofseveralpre definedphasingplansorsettocalculatean
suitedforbuilt upurbanareaswherecapacityexpansionisdifficultorunfeasible.
optimalphasingplanbasedoncurrentconditions.
High.
Other Miscellaneous Strategies
TrafficIncidentManagement
Yes;ODOT,incollaboration,withStateFarm,launchedtheStateFarmSafetyPatrol
Thisstrategyaddressesprimarilynon recurringcongestion,typicallyincludesvideo
Programthatprovidesforfreewayincidenceresponsevehiclestoimprovetrafficflowand
monitoringanddispatchsystems,andmayalsoincluderovingservicepatrol
reducetrafficcongestionduetostalledvehiclesaswellasoffersroadwayassistanceto
vehicles.
mortoristsinneed.
High.
*Toviewthecompletecongestionmitigationmatrix,seeTable5.1inMVRPC's2015CongestionManagementProcessTechnicalReport.
(http://www.mvrpc.org/transportation/long range planning lrtp/congestion management process)
Page67
Page68
CHAPTER 5
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES HIGHWAY
5.1 Overview
Following the Long Range Transportation Plan kick off meeting in August 2015, MVRPC worked
withstakeholdersintheRegiontodevelopCongestionManagement(CM)highwayprojectsforthe
period between SFY 2016 and 2040, including all roadwaycapacity expansion projects and other
projectsnotcoveredundertheoperationsandmaintenanceprogram.
Inordertodevelopthefinalcongestionmanagementprojectlistforthe2040LRTPupdate,MVRPC
hosted a series of work group meetings, followed by regional open house public participation
meetings. The process continued by identifying future revenue capacity and conducting a
systematicevaluationofprojects.
As a result, the 2040 LRTP includes 235 projects with a total cost of $1,971.15 million. The
congestionmanagementlistisfiscallyconstrained,withaprojectedrevenueof$2,783.37million.
AsrequiredbytheFASTAct,bothcostsandrevenuesareexpressedinyearofexpendituredollars.
5.2 Process Overview

MVRPCdevelopedthefinalCMprojectsfollowingseveralinteractivestepsinconjunctionwithlocal
stakeholdersintheRegionasillustratedinFigure5.1.Representativesofallstakeholdersinthe
Region, from local jurisdictions to the general public, were also involved in every step of the
process.
MVRPC first invited stakeholders to the 2040 LRTP work group meetings to solicit and discuss
projects.MVRPCstaffthencompiledthedraft,not fiscally constrained,projectlistandmodifiedit
asnecessarytomakethelistofprojectsconsistent.MVRPChostedpublicparticipationmeetings
topresentthedraftCMlistandtosolicitcommentsfromthegeneralpublic.Afterthemeetings,
applicablecommentsreceivedfromthepublicwereforwardedtotheappropriateprojectsponsor
and, if necessary, the projects were modified. Next, the financial analysis was conducted to
determinetheavailable25 yearrevenue.Staffthencompletedtheprojectevaluationprocessand
developed a fiscally constrained proposed project list. Finally, the proposed project list was
presentedattheMVRPCcommitteemeetingsandadoptedbytheBoardofDirectorsinDecember,
2015,whichthendirectedstafftobegintheanalysespertainingtothePlanupdate.
Thefollowingsectionsofthischapterprovidein depthinformationoneachstepofthecongestion
managementprojectdevelopmentprocess.
Page69
Figure 5.1 Congestion Management Projects Development Process Overview
5.3 Work Group Meetings

MVRPC invited both governmental and non governmental organizations to the 2040 LRTP work
groupmeetingstosolicitprojectsbysendinganinvitationletter.Inaddition,ProjectProfileand
Evaluation Forms, along with pertinent background information materials on the state of the
transportationsystem,weremailedpriortothemeetingsandmadeavailableontheworkgroup
meetingwebpage.
Projectsponsorswereencouragedtosubmitformselectronically,usingauserfriendlypointand
clickforms.ItisimportanttonotethatProjectProfileandEvaluationFormsweresubmittedforall
projects, not just new (not in the previous Plan) projects, to ensure that the project evaluation
couldbecompletedfortheentirerosterofprojects.
Thebackgroundinformationmaterialsattachedwiththeinvitationletterandavailableonthework
groupwebpageincluded:
ListandmapsofCongestionManagementProjectsinthecurrentLRTP;
Project Evaluation System, including project profile and evaluation forms, criteria
definitions,andmaps;
TipsforProjectSubmissionandGuidetoWorkGroupWebpage.
A seminar for jurisdictions on how to submit LRTP projects, was held following the August 2015
TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee(TAC)meeting.
Page70
FivemeetingswereheldattheMVRPCofficeonthefollowingdatesandtimes.Figure5.2contains
thelistofinviteestoeachmeeting.
MiamiCounty:9:30amonTuesday,September8,2015
MontgomeryCounty:NorthernArea 2:00pmonTuesday,September8,2015
SouthernArea 9:30amonWednesday,September9,2015
CentralArea 2:00pmonWednesday,September9,2015
GreeneandWarrenCounties:9:30amonThursday,September10,2015
At the meetings, CM projects included in the previous LRTP were reviewed and discussed to
identifythosethathavebeencompletedorareunderconstruction,toupdatethecurrentstatusof
remainingprojects(includingdeletionofprojects),andtoidentifynewprojects.TheProjectProfile
FormandtheProjectEvaluationFormwerethenturnedinbytheprojectsponsorsattheendof
themeetingorsubmittedelectronically.
MVRPC received a total of 237 CM projects. Once all the projects were submitted, the staff
compiledtheprojectsandworkedwiththeappropriateprojectsponsortofine tunetheprojectsin
terms of scope, feasibility, and cost to develop a draft, not fiscally constrained, CM project list.
Further, the draft project list was sent to project sponsors for their review prior to the public
participationmeetingsinOctober.
In general, project cost was estimated by the project sponsor and included in the Project Profile
Form.However,othersourcessuchastheTIPandrelevanttransportationstudieswerealsoused
when necessary. Due to recent trends in construction related inflation, project sponsors were
encouragedtore estimatethecostofallprojectsbeingsubmittedtotheLRTPprocessusingup to
dateassumptions.
5.4 Public Participation

Three open house public participation meetings were held on October 20, 21, and 22, 2016, to
presentthedraftCMprojectsandtosolicitcommentsfromthegeneralpublicandotherinterested
parties. Comments received regarding the draft CM projects were reviewed by MVRPC staff,
forwarded to the appropriate project sponsor and, if necessary, projects were modified
accordingly. All comments were also presented to the TAC and Board of Directors prior to the
adoption of the draft congestion management project list. Please refer to Chapter 10 Public
Participation and Consultation for more information regarding the October public participation
meetings.
Page71
Newberry
Township
Figure 5.2
LRTP Work Group Meetings
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
FLETCHER
BRADFORD
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
Group 1
Concord
Township
Newton
Township
Staunton
Township
Group5
09/10/2015
9:30a.m.
Lostcreek
Township
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
TROY
GreeneCounty
BathTwp
BeavercreekTwp
CedarvilleTwp
CaesarsCreekTwp
JeffersonTwp
MiamiTwp
NewJasperTwp
RossTwp
SilverCreekTwp
Elizabeth
Township
LUDLOW FALLS
LAURA
Union
Township
WEST
MILTON
TIPP
CITY
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
Bethel
Township
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
Group 2
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
Non JurisdictionalGroupsInvited:
VANDALIA
Butler
ENGLEWOOD Township
HUBER
HEIGHTS
SpringValleyTwp
JamestownVillage
SugarCreekTwp
SpringValleyVillage
XeniaTwp
CityofXenia
CityofFairborn
CityofCarlisle
CityofBeavercreek CityofFranklin
CityofBellbrook
CityofSpringboro
BowersvilleVillage WPAFB
CedarvilleVilage
ODOTDistrict8
CliftonVillage
YellowSpringsVillage
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
Bath
Township
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
Group 4
CLIFTON
Miami
Township
RIVERSIDE
NEW
LEBANON
CEDARVILLE
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
Group 3
German Township
XENIA
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
CENTERVILLE
Group 5
BELLBROOK
CARLISLE
FRANKLIN
Washington
Township
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
SPRINGBORO
Group 5
Group1
09/08/2015
9:30a.m.
MiamiCounty
BethelTwp
BrownTwp
ConcordTwp
ElizabethTwp
LostcreekTwp
MonroeTwp
NewberryTwp
NewtonTwp
SpringcreekTwp
StauntonTwp
UnionTwp
WashingtonTwp
BradfordVillage
CasstownVillage
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
KETTERING
WEST CARROLLTON
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
Xenia
Township
Beavercreek
Township
CovingtonVillage
FletcherVillage
LauraVillage
LudlowFallsVillage
CityofPiqua
PleasantHillVillage
PotsdamVillage
CityofTippCity
CityofTroy
WestMiltonVillage
ODOTDistrict7
BOWERSVILLE
Group2
09/08/2015
2:00p.m.
Group3
09/09/2015
9:30a.m.
Group4
09/09/2015
2:00p.m.
MontgomeryCounty
GreeneCounty
MiamiCounty
ButlerTwp
ClayTwp
PerryTwp
CityofBrookville
CityofClayton
CityofEnglewood
CityofHuberHeights
PhillipsburgVillage
CityofTrotwood
CityofUnion
CityofVandalia
VeronaVillage
ODOTDistrict7
MontgomeryCounty
GreeneCounty
GermanTwp
JacksonTwp
JeffersonTwp
MiamiTwp
WashingtonTwp
CityofCenterville
FarmersvilleVillage
GermantownVillage
CityofKettering
CityofMiamisburg
CityofMoraine
NewLebanonVillage
CityofOakwood
CityofWestCarrolton
ODOTDistrict7
MontgomeryCounty
HarrisonTwp
CityofDayton
CityofRiverside
ODOTDistrict7
Source:MVRPC
May2016
Miles
12
B WGreenwayCommunity
CentralStateUniversity
CityWideDevelopmentCorporation
CSXTransportation
DaytonAreaBoardofRealtors
DaytonAreaChamberofCommerce
DaytonCyclingClub
DaytonDevelopmentCoalition
DaytonHistory
DaytonInternationalAirport
DaytonPower&Light
FHWA,Ohio
FiveRiversMetroPark
FTA,Region5
GDRTA
GreaterDaytonAreaHospitalAssociation
GreeneCATS
GreeneCountyAirport
GreeneCountyEconomicDevelopment
GreeneCountyParkDistrict
GreeneSoil&WaterConservationDistrict
GreenwaysofGreaterDayton
JetExpress
MeijerWarehouse
MiamiConservancyDistrict
MiamiCountyEconomicDevelopment
MiamiCountyParkDistrict
MiamiCountySoil&WaterConservationDistrict
MiamiCountyTransit
MiamiLibertyCabCompany
MillerValentineGroup
MontgomeryCountyEconomicDevelopment
MontgomeryCo.Soil&WaterConservationDistrict
MontgomeryCo.TransportationImprovementDistrict
NatureConservancy,OhioChapter
NorfolkSouthernRailroad
OhioDevelopmentServicesAgency
OhioRailDevelopmentCommission
PreservationDaytonInc.
RAPCA
SinclairCommunityCollege
SouthMetroRegionalChamberofCommerce
TecumsehLandTrust
ThreeValleyConservationTrust
TroyAreaChamberofCommerce
UniversityofDayton
USFHolland
WrightStateUniversity
Note:Groupinviteesarewelcometoinviteany
otherpersons/organizationsasnecessary
5.5 Project Evaluation

MVRPC developed the Project Evaluation System (PES) for the 2004 LRTP in order to advance
transportation projects that are consistent with regional transportation priorities. The PES was
basedonthecommonthemesandtransportationvaluesidentifiedbythe2003visioningprocess
TransAction2030andreflectedunderthePlangoalsandobjectivesdescribedinChapter1.
In 2006, MVRPC undertook a major review of the project evaluation system to ensure that the
process is a more collaborative, transparent, and interactive way to work with member
jurisdictions.Asaresult,somecriteriaweremodified,additionalexplanationandexampleswere
provided,andacompletesetofmapsanddataweremadeavailabletoprojectsponsorstoaidin
theself scoringprocess.ThePESisnowavailableontheMVRPCwebsitealongwithallrelevant
information and the MVRPC staff works with participants to ensure a full understanding of the
process, including hosting a seminar for project sponsors. PES maps and criteria are updated as
neededtoensurethattheyarebasedonthemostrecentinformation.
Figure5.3illustratestheconceptualdesignstructureofMVRPCsPES.
Figure 5.3 Project Evaluation System Design Concept
Complete
Streets
ThePESisbothexhaustiveandequitable,whilealsobeingeasytounderstand.Althoughsomeof
thecriteriaunderthedifferentcategoriesmayappeartooverlap,theattributesthattheymeasure
foreachprojectremaindistinctandunique.Specifically,thePESforhighwayprojectsmeasures20
Page73
indicators,withamaximumtotalof70pointsgroupedby6themes.Thesethemesare:Regional
Context/Coordination; Transportation Choices; Transportation System Management; Land Use;
Economic Development; and Environment. Based on the PES, a Project Evaluation Form was
developed so that a project sponsor could complete the project evaluation and attach it to the
ProjectProfileFormatthetimeofprojectsubmission.
Once all Project Evaluation Forms were received, MVRPC staff reviewed them for consistency,
accuracy,andcompletenessofdataforeachindividualproject.Across examinationofallprojects
was also conducted to ensure that the evaluation remained equitable. Other factors such as
existing traffic counts, future projected traffic volumes, future land use plans, and corridor
completion were incorporated into the evaluation process to determine the proposed fiscally
constrainedprojectlist.
5.6 Congestion Management Projects

Based on public input, future revenue projections by timeframe, and the project evaluation
process,MVRPCproposed235projectswithatotalcostof$1,971.15millionforthe2040LRTP.In
general,themajority(235outof237)oftheprojectssubmittedtotheLRTPprocessareincludedin
thefinalCMlist.However,duetoadditionalrequirementsregardingtheLRTPfinancialplan,some
projects were moved to later years of the Plan where financial capacity was expected to be
available.Decisionsaboutwhatprojectstocutormovetoalaterperiodweremadebasedonthe
PESscore,publicinput,andconsultationwiththeprojectsponsor.Twoprojectsweremovedtoa
visionlistthatincludesprojectsthatareproposedtobeimplementedbeyondthe2040horizon
yearofthePlan.MVRPCpresentedtheproposedprojectlisttoitscommitteesandtheBoardof
Directors adopted it on December 3, 2015, making the proposed project list the final draft list.
MinorchangestothelistoccurredbetweenDecember3,2015,andtheplanadoptiononMay5,
2016andthelistwasagainpresentedtothepublicinApril2016.Thefinal2040LRTPCMprojects
are included in Table 5.2. Figures 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7 illustrate locations of CM projects in the
Region.ThevisionlistisprovidedinTable5.3.
Table5.2includesthefollowinginformationabouteachproject:
ProjectIDNumber;
County;
RoadwayName;
Assumedfeasibleimplementationperiod;
Mileage(lengthofprojectinmiles);
Cost (in millions of 2015/YOE dollars; TIP project costs in the year inwhich the funds are
committed);
TIP (Yes = in TIP, YP = partiallyin TIP (e.g. PE/ROW Phases only), NF = committed project
withlocalfundsorfederalfundsoutsidetheTIPyears,No=notinTIP/notfunded);and
Descriptionofproject.
Page74
All235CMprojectscanbecategorizedbyprojecttypeasfollows:
Studies2projects;
RoadorBridgeWidening35projects;
Interchange,IntersectionImprovement,TurnLaneAdditions134projects;
Road/BridgeReplacement,Realignment,orReconstruction20projects;
SignalImprovementorSignalInterconnect2projects;
Bike/Pedestrian7projects;
NewRoad,NewInterchange,orRoadExtension22projects;
RoadDiets11projects;and
Miscellaneous2projects.
5.7 Status of Recently Completed and Under Construction

Projects

The I 70 Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS) was completed in 1998 to address congested
travelconditionsontheI 70corridorinMontgomeryCountyandtoaccommodatecapacityneeds
resultingfromtheproposedredesignoftheI 70/I 75interchange.Theadditionofathirdlanewas
recommendedasthepreferredalternativeduetothelargepercentageofthroughtripswithinthe
corridor.Sincethenvariousphaseshavebeencompletedandthelatestphase,thewideningofI
70 between Airport Access Road and SR 48, is currently under construction with an expected
completiondatein2017.

Originally developed as part of the North South

Transportation Initiative, this project will improve I 75
betweenKeoweeStreetandEdwinC.MosesBoulevardin
Downtown Dayton to address safety and capacity
concernsbyaddingcontinuousthroughlanes,eliminating
left entrance and exit ramps, and increasing the spacing
between interchanges. The projectis divided into three
phasesPhase1Awascompletedin2011andPhase1B
in 2014. The final phase, Phase 2, is also under
constructionandexpectedtobecompletedin2017.
Phase1A:InterchangeupgradesatSR4andMainStreet GrandAvenue;
Phase1B:AdditionofthirdlaneonI 75attheUS35interchange;and
Phase2:Re designoftheI 75andrampsinDowntownDayton.

Page75
In2004,MVRPCincooperationwithODOT,conductedtheUS35CorridorMajorInvestmentStudy
(MIS),toidentifyimprovementstotheUS35corridorfromI 75toI 675.ThissectionofUS35is
one of the oldest sections of freeway in Ohio and needs geometric improvements to address
safety, congestion, and accessibility issues resulting from increased traffic and changing traffic
characteristics over the last 50 years. The goal of the study was to address these issues while
meeting the economic and environmental constraints of the implementing agencies and
neighborhoods.
The project design and the first two phases including replacing mainline bridges and addressing
designdeficienciesattheSmithvilleRoadandWoodmanDriveinterchangeshavebeencompleted.
FundingiscurrentlybeingsoughtforwideningUS35betweenSteveWhalenBoulevardandI 675,
toaddalaneineachdirection.Whencompleted,theproject(154C GinthePlan)willreducepeak
hourcongestionandimprovesafetythroughoutthecorridorbycorrectinggeometricdeficiencies,
improvinglanecontinuity,andreducingcrashes.

Completed in 2004, the Major Investment Study (MIS) evaluated the conversion of US 35 from
North Fairfield Road to the Xenia Bypass to a limited access facility by eliminating the at grade
intersectionsatShakertownRoad,FactoryRoad,AlphaRoad,OrchardLane,andValleyRoad.
BasedonconcernsandgoalsidentifiedbytheSteeringCommittee,thepurposeofthestudywas
outlinedas:
Recommending an acceptable strategy for converting this section of US 35 to a limited
accessfacility;
Addressingimpactstoregionalmobility,thelocalroadnetwork,andtheenvironment;and
Identifying a comprehensive, cost effective package of transportation solutions consistent
withpublicneedandtheareaslong termtransportationplanninggoals.
The currently recommended alternative combines interchanges at Factory/Orchard and Valley
Roads with modified local access for Shakertown and Alpha Roads. The project has completed
environmental review, and is currently in the preliminary engineering phases, represented by
Project9A BinthePlan.TherelocationofShakertownRoadisfundedinSFY2020.
Recently,anewalternativedesignofmakingUS35asuperstreethasbeenproposed.Withthe
proposednewsuperstreetredesign,driverstravelingnorthonFactoryRoadorOrchardLanewould
notbeabletoturnleftonUS35.Theywouldturnrightanddriveashortdistancebeforemakinga
U turn on US 35 to travel west or to continue on FactoryRoad or Orchard Lane.The proposal is
currentlybeingevaluatedbyODOTandthelocaljurisdictionsforitsfeasibility,anditspotentialin
addressingsafetyandtransportationissuesidentifiedintheStudy.

This project involves improving US 40 from Airpark Boulevard to Peters Pike to a five lane cross
section and improve the interchange at the Airport Access Road and US 40. The preliminary
engineering,design,andright of wayphasesarecurrentlyfundedintheTIP.
Page76
5.8 Fiscal Constraint

TheCMprojectsinthe2040LRTParefiscallyconstrained,withatotalcostof$1,971.15millionand
a total projected revenue of $2,783.37 million when expressed in year of expenditure dollars.
Table5.1showsasummaryofcostsandrevenuesbytimeframe.Projectcosts,forprojectsoutside
theTIP,wereinflatedusingFY2016,U.S.OfficeofManagementandBudget,U.S.BudgetEconomic
Assumptions for Consumer Price Index for FY 2019 or 2.3 percent per year. This resulted in
inflationfactorsof1.13,1.26,and1.58foryears2020,2025,and2035,themid yearsofthePlan
periods (2020), (2021 2030), and (2031 2040). A few projects outside the TIP years were not
inflated because their cost estimates reflect ODOTs Ellis and are already inflated according to
ODOTguidelines.TheseprojectsareidentifiedinTable5.2asTIP:NF.Completedocumentationof
therevenueforecast,canbefoundintheFinancialSummaryReport.
Table 5.1 Congestion Management Projects Costs and Revenues
(in millions of 2015 / Year of Expenditure dollars)
Costs/
Revenues
2015
Cost
Revenues
YOE
Cost
Revenues
ShortTermPlan
(2016 2020)
MediumTermPlan
(2021 2030)
LongTermPlan
(2031 2040)
ForFull25
YearPlan
170.82
323.95
177.10
335.06
611.57
861.57
769.83
1,087.73
648.57
861.57
1,024.44
1,360.58
1,430.96
2,047.08
1,971.15
2,783.37
Source:MVRPC
Page77
Table 5.2 Proposed Congestion Management Projects

(Cost is in Millions of 2015 / Year of Expenditure Dollars)
5 GRE
I 675/GrangeHallRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: NA
AddfullmovementsatGrangeHallRoadinterchange.
9A GRE
Cost: $24.37 / $38.49
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
US35PhaseI
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.50
Cost: $82.80 / $104.54
TIP: YP
Proposed: Yes
EliminatetheexistingatgradeintersectionsatFactoryRoad,AlphaRoad,andOrchardLaneandreplacethemwithfullaccess
interchangeatFactoryRoad.PreliminaryengineeringispartiallyfundedintheSFY2016 2019TIP.
9B GRE
US35PhaseII
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $24.60 / $31.06
TIP: YP
EliminatetheexistingatgradeintersectionatTrebein/ValleyRoadandreplacewithfullaccessinterchangesatTrebein/Valley
Road.PreliminaryengineeringispartiallyfundedintheSFY2016 2019TIP.
9C GRE
ShakertownRoad
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: NA
Cost: $3.41 / $3.41
TIP: NF
Proposed: Yes
RelocationandextensionofShakertownRoadandrealignmentofAlphaBellbrookRoadtointersectShakertownRoad,westof
FactoryRoadtoeliminatetheintersectionofShakertownRoadandUS35.
10A GRE
US42
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.40
Cost: $3.75 / $4.73
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromStevensonRoadtoBickettRoad.
10B GRE
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
US42
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.57
Cost: $5.33 / $6.73
WidenUS42fromChurchStreettoStevensonRoadfrom2to3lanes.
17B GRE
Proposed: Yes
US42
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 0.98
Cost: $2.60 / $4.11
Upgradetostandard2 lanewidthfromHickmanRoadtoNash/CharletonRoad.
10D GRE
TIP: No
US42
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.62
Cost: $1.65 / $2.08
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromBickettRoadtoHickmanRoad.
10C GRE
Proposed: Yes
SR72
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 4.20
Cost: $4.04 / $5.10
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Widenatintersections,safetyupgradesandroadwayrealignmentasneededfromnorthofKlontzRoadtoonemilenorthof
FederalRoad.
21 GRE
SR235
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.00
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromI 675toByronRoad.
24A GRE
Cost: $3.90 / $4.92
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Cost: $1.75 / $1.75
Proposed: Yes
TIP: Yes
SR444
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.60
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSandhillRoadtoI 675.
MVRPC 2040LongRangeTransportationPlan(May2016)
78

24B GRE
SR444PhaseIII
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2026 2030
Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $3.80 / $4.80
TIP: No
Narrowthewesternportionandwidentheeasternportiontocreateauniform3 lanesectionfromCentralAvenuetoSandhill
Road.
24C GRE
SR444PhaseII
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.10
Cost: $4.70 / $5.93
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Narrowtheroadwayto3lanesandinstallbikelanesandaccessmanagementtechniquesfromDaytonDrivetoCentralAvenue.
32A GRE
BickettRoad
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2026 2030
Mileage: 1.25
Cost: $17.68 / $22.32
TIP: No
RelocatefromjustnorthofLittleMiamiScenicTrailtojustnorthofWilberforce SwitchRoad;includingaroundaboutatthe
CampusDrive/US42intersection,anextensionofBrushRowRoadtoWilberforce SwitchRoad,andaroundaboutatthenew
intersection.
34C GRE
DaytonDrive
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.29
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSR235toMapleAvenue.
39A GRE
Cost: $1.20 / $1.20
Proposed: Yes
TIP: Yes
Dayton XeniaRoad
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 1.50
Cost: $3.58 / $3.58
TIP: Yes
Proposed: Yes
WidenfromE.LynnDrivetoWoodsDrivetoprovideacentertwowayleftturnlane,addsidewalksalongbothsidesofthe
roadway,installcurbandgutterandstormsewerimprovement,possiblyaddon streetparking.
39B GRE
Dayton XeniaRoad
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 1.50
Cost: $3.79 / $3.79
Proposed: Yes
TIP: Yes
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromWoodsDrivetoWallabyDrivetoprovideacentertwo wayleftturnlane.Inaddition,theproject
willaddan8'widesidepathonbothsidesoftheroadway,improvedshoulders,andinstallationofcurbandgutterandstorm
sewerimprovements.
48 GRE
GrangeHallRoad/ShakertownRoad
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: NA
Cost: $1.40 / $1.58
Improveintersectionbyaddingleftandrightturnlanesandinstallingasignal.
50 GRE
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
GarlandExtension West
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 0.70
Cost: $3.00 / $4.74
Extendas2lanesfromitseasternterminusatMapleAvenuetoMeadowlandsDrive.
53B GRE
Proposed: Yes
GrangeHallRoad
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 2.30
Cost: $6.90 / $8.71
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
WidenfromKempRoadtoSouthviewDriveandSR835toPattersonRoadfrom2lanesto3lanesandaddpedestrianandbicycle
amenities.
54D GRE
Hawkins SchoolhouseRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 0.40
Cost: $1.03 / $1.63
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
WidenHawkins SchoolhouseRoadfromFairgroundRoadtowesternterminusfrom2to3laneswithturninglanestoserveas
thefutureextensionofProgressDrive.
54E GRE
HollywoodBoulevardExtension
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.40
Cost: $1.44 / $1.82
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
ExtendHollywoodBoulevardas2laneswithturnlanesfromwesternterminustoFairgroundRoad;includetrafficsignalsat
FairgroundRoad.
79

58C GRE
KempRoad
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.45
Cost: $1.84 / $1.84
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromGrangeHallRoadtoMeadowcourtRoad.
58D GRE
TIP: NF
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
KempRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $2.40 / $3.03
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromN.FairfieldRoadtoHiddenWoodsBoulevard.
58E GRE
Proposed: Yes
KempRoad
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.55
Cost: $3.56 / $4.50
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromMeadowcourtDrivetoGerspacherRoad,thentransitiontomeetexisting5 lanesectionatN.
FairfieldRoad.
66C GRE
NewGermany TrebeinRoad
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.35
Cost: $1.80 / $2.27
Widenfrom3to5lanesfromLillianLanetoBigWoodsDrive.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 3.80
Cost: $12.00 / $18.95
Proposed: Yes
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromCountyLineRoadtorelocatedShakertownRoad,seeproject9A.
TIP: No
70B GRE
ProgressDriveExtension North
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $3.57 / $5.64
ExtendProgressDrivefromDayton XeniaRoadtoHawkinsSchoolhouseRoadas3lanes.
74 GRE
78C GRE
ShakertownRoad
TrebeinRoad
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 2.00
Cost: $6.20 / $9.79
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Widenfrom2to3lanesfomDayton YellowSpringsRoadtoXeniaDrive;addbikeandpedestrianfacilities,widenculverts,and
improvesafetyofverticalandhorizontalcurves.
340A GRE
US42AccessRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $3.73 / $4.71
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
ExtendRegencyDrivefromCountryClubDrivetoUS42as2lanes;includingconnectingRegencyDrivewithWilsonDriveand
MarshallDrive.
343 GRE
US42/EastChurchStreet
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: NA
Cost: $1.44 / $1.44
Proposed: Yes
Reconstructaskewedintersectionintoaperpendicularintersectionwithanewtrafficsignal.
344 GRE
TIP: Yes
Sheelin/MassieDriveConnector
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 0.38
Cost: $1.44 / $1.82
TIP: No
Extend2lanesofSheelinDriveacrossUS35fromReidAvenuetoJuneDrive;includingtrafficsignalsatW.MainStreet.
345 GRE
IndustrialBoulevardExtension
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.47
Cost: $0.93 / $1.17
Extendas3lanesfromitsnorthernterminusatLowerBellbrookRoadtoW.SecondStreet.
407 GRE
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
I 675
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: NA
Cost: $0.50 / $0.63
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
FeasibilitystudytoconstructnewinterchangeonI 675inthevicinityofShakertownRoadtoimprovejobaccesstolandin
BeavercreekandKettering.
80

411 GRE
NorthFairfieldRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $3.30 / $4.17
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromShakertownRoadtoIndianRippleRoad.
414 GRE
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
GarlandAvenueExtension
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 0.90
Extendas2lanesfromTrebeinRoadtoSR235.
417 GRE
TIP: No
FunderburgRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.30
Cost: $3.40 / $5.37
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromColonelGlennRoadtoDaytonYellowSpringsRoad.
415 GRE
Proposed: Yes
Cost: $4.50 / $7.11
SchwermanDrive
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $2.70 / $4.26
Proposed: Yes
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromAdamsStreettoSR444;includingimprovementstotheSandhillRoadintersection.
418 GRE
BeaverValleyRoadExtension
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2031 2035
Mileage: 0.30
Cost: $1.50 / $2.37
ExtensionofBeaverValleyRoadtobypassintersectionofDayton XeniaRoadwithFactoryRoad.
425 GRE
TIP: No
UpperBellbrookRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.38
Cost: $1.44 / $1.82
Proposed: Yes
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromColoradoDrivetoProgressDrive;includingapedestrianpath.
426 GRE
TIP: No
TIP: No
GreeneCountyIndustrialParkRoadExtension
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.41
Cost: $1.76 / $2.22
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Extend3 laneroadfromGreeneCountyIndustrialParksouthofUS35By passtoUS68;includingappropriateturninglaneson
US68.
431 GRE
ValleySpringsConnectorRoad
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 0.82
Cost: $2.50 / $3.16
Providea3 laneconnectorroadfromOrchardLanetotheproposedValleyRoad/US35interchange.
433 GRE
TIP: No
US35
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $9.00 / $11.36
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
ReconfiguretheUS35andBusiness35interchangelocatedonthewestsideofXeniaforsafetyandoperationalpurposes.
434 GRE
WestMainStreet/HospitalityDrive
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.20
Cost: $0.79 / $0.79
TIP: Yes
Proposed: Yes
Constructionofa"T"intersectionatBy pass35andUS35alongwiththeconstructionofatrafficsignalattheintersectionof
HospitalityDr.andW.MainSt.toallowforallturningmovements.
443 GRE
IndianRippleRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $4.00 / $6.32
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Wideningfrom3to5lanesfromDarsttoGrangeHallRoadsandwideningfrom2to3lanesfromGrangeHalltoN.Fairfield
RoadsandextensionofsidepathsystemfromDarsttoN.FairfieldRoads.
451 GRE
FairbornSchoolsStreetUpgrades
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 2.00
Cost: $5.20 / $6.57
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
WideningGarlandandTrebeinRoadsfrom2to3lanes,andaddingturnlanesonCommerceCenterforfutureschoolexpansion
ontheadjacentproperty.
81

452 GRE
MapleAvenuePhaseII
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 1.10
Cost: $2.90 / $3.66
Widenfrom2lanesto3andaddbikelanesfromDorisDrivetoDayton YellowSpringsRoad.
453 GRE
TIP: No
KauffmanAvenue
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 2.00
Cost: $5.20 / $6.57
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
LeftturnlanesandrightturndroplaneswillbeaddedatintersectionsfromNationalRoadtoColonelGlennHighway.
454 GRE
GarlandAvenueBikePath
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.05
Cost: $0.92 / $1.16
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
InstallabikepathonCity ownedpropertyfromtheproposedbikelanesonMapleAvenuetotheexistingpathonGarland
AvenuenearI 675.
455 GRE
VanEatonRoad/HedgesRoadIntersection
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: NA
Intersectionre alignmenttoeliminateoffsetintersection.
456 GRE
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
EastMainStreet/NorthPattonStreet/JasperRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: NA
Reconstructafive(5)pointintersectionwitharoundabout.
89A MIA
Cost: $1.32 / $2.08
Cost: $1.67 / $2.64
I 75PhaseI
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 2.89
Cost: $41.15 / $64.98
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Rehabilitateandwidenfrom4to6lanesfrom1.13milesnorthofSR41to0.42milesnorthofCR15(Piqua TroyRoad).
89B MIA
I 75PhaseII
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 4.04
Cost: $37.75 / $59.61
Proposed: Yes
Rehabilitateandwidenfrom4to6lanesfrom0.42milesnorthofCR15(PiquaTroyRoad)toCR25A.
92B MIA
TIP: No
US36Reconstruction
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2036 2040
Mileage: 0.70
Cost: $5.75 / $9.08
TIP: No
Reconstructionandwideningfrom2to3lanesandupgradefromruralcrosssectiontourbancrosssectionwithcurbandgutter
andutilityupgradesfromSunsetDrivetoRMDavisParkway.
96 MIA
SR41
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.60
Cost: $2.03 / $2.56
Widenfrom2to5lanesfromjustwestofKingsChapelDrivetoWashingtonRoad.
98 MIA
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
SR48
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.30
Cost: $8.00 / $12.63
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Widenfrom2to3lanesbeginningatPinewoodDrive,goingsouthtotheMontgomeryCountyline;improvetheintersectionsat
Frederick GarlandRoadandEmerickRoad.
103 MIA
CommerceBoulevardPhaseIII
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.60
Cost: $3.60 / $4.55
Proposed: Yes
ExtendCommerceCenterBoulevardfromitseasternterminustointersectSR718atBarnhardRoad.
105A MIA
TIP: No
CountyRoad25A
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.70
Cost: $4.30 / $4.30
Widenfrom2to4/5lanesfromSR571toMichaelsRoad.(ProjectSold).
Proposed: Yes
TIP: Yes
82

105B MIA
CountyRoad25APhaseV
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.51
Cost: $6.04 / $9.54
Widenfrom2to4/5lanesfromtheMontgomeryCountylinetoEvanstonRoad.
105C MIA
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
CountyRoad25A
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.50
Cost: $3.05 / $3.05
Proposed: Yes
TIP: Yes
Widenfrom2to4/5lanesfromMichaelsRoadtoEvanstonRoadtocoordinatewithMiamiCountyproject105Band
MontgomeryCountyproject272B.
108 MIA
DonnDavisWayConnection
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $4.30 / $6.79
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Extendas3/4lanesfromKessler CowlesvilleRoadtotheexistingDonnDavisWayatParkwoodAvenue,crossingNorthHyatt
StreetnorthofArapahoTrail.
112 MIA
EvanstonRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.82
Cost: $4.90 / $6.19
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromCR25AtoTipp CanalRoad;includingaproposedbike/pedestriancrossingoverI 75(attachedto
existingoverpass)andconstructionofeitheranon oroff streetbike/pedestrianpath.
113 MIA
ExperimentFarmRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 0.33
Cost: $1.56 / $2.46
Widenfrom2to5lanesfromjustnorthofCorporateDrivetoEldeanRoad.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Cost: $1.75 / $2.21
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.40
Cost: $2.02 / $2.55
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromDorsetRoadtoCartwrightCourt.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
113A MIA
EldeanRoad/ExperimentFarmRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Realigntheoffsetintersection.
121 MIA
139A MIA
Mileage: 0.33
McKaigRoad
WashingtonRoad/WilsonRoad
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.74
Cost: $1.35 / $1.70
RealignWashingtonRoadtointersectWilsonRoadatMcKaigRoad.
351 MIA
SR571
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.50
Cost: $7.50 / $9.47
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromMainStreettoDavisRoad;includingintersectionandsignalimprovementsatStoneMeadows
Boulevard.
354 MIA
RailroadOverpass/NewConnectorRoad
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2036 2040
Mileage: 0.70
Cost: $8.00 / $12.63
TIP: No
Constructnew2/3laneroadwayfromDonnDavisWaytoNorthThirdStreetinTippCity;includingarailroadgradeseparationat
theCSXrailroadline.
371 MIA
SR41
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.51
Widenfrom5to7lanesfromExperimentFarmRoadtoI 75.
501 MIA
Cost: $1.13 / $1.43
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Cost: $3.50 / $4.42
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Tipp CowlesvilleRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.31
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromCraneRoadtoCR25A.
83

503A MIA
StatlerRoadPhaseI
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2031 2035
Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $4.00 / $6.32
TIP: No
Reconstructionandwideningfrom2to3lanesandupgradefromruralcrosssectiontourbancrosssectionwithcurbandgutter
andutilityupgradesfromtheGreatMiamiRivertoI 75(westside).
503B MIA
StatlerRoadPhaseII
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $4.60 / $7.26
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
ReconstructionandwideningfromI 75toTroy SidneyRoadtoindustrialdevelopmentstandardswithcurbandgutterandutility
extensions.
506A MIA
GarbryRoadPhaseI
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.90
Cost: $4.60 / $5.81
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Reconstructionandwideningfrom2lanesto3lanesandupgradefromruralcrosssectiontourbancrosssectionwithcurband
gutter,sidewalks,andutilityupgradesfromCSXRailroadCrossingtoKienleDrive.
506B MIA
GarbryRoadPhaseII
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.50
Cost: $2.30 / $2.90
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Reconstruction,widening,andupgradefromruralcrosssectiontourbancrosssectionwithcurbandgutter,sidewalks,andutility
upgradesfromKienleDrivetoUS36.
506C MIA
LooneyRoad/GarbryRoadIntersection
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: NA
Cost: $1.63 / $1.63
ConstructionofaroundaboutattheintersectionofGarbryRoadandLooneyRoad.
507 MIA
Proposed: Yes
SwailesRoadExtension
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2036 2040
Mileage: 0.70
Cost: $1.35 / $2.13
NewroadwayextensionfromthewesternterminiofSwailesRoadatNashvilleRoadtoWilsonRoadatSR55.
508A MIA
TIP: Yes
TIP: No
PetersRoadPhaseI
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.41
Cost: $1.24 / $1.57
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromDickersonDrivetoPremwoodRoad.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Cost: $3.49 / $5.51
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 1.70
Cost: $3.60 / $5.69
New3 laneroadwayfromTroySidneyRoadtoTroyUrbanaRoad.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
508B MIA
PetersRoadPhaseII
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 0.80
Cost: $1.96 / $3.10
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromPremwoodRoadtoSwailesRoad.
509A MIA
NorthernConnectorPhaseI
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 1.30
New3 laneroadwayfromCR25AtoTroy SidneyRoad.
509B MIA
509C MIA
NorthernConnectorPhaseII
NorthernConnectorPhaseIII
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 1.68
Cost: $3.94 / $6.22
New3 laneroadwayfromTroyUrbanaRoadCrossingSR55toSR202.
512A MIA
EldeanRoadPhaseI
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.20
Cost: $3.00 / $3.79
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromExperimentFarmRoadtoCR25A.
84

512B MIA
EldeanRoadPhaseII
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.03
Cost: $2.57 / $3.24
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromWashingtonRoadtoExperimentFarmRoad.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Cost: $2.85 / $4.50
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.19
Cost: $2.98 / $3.76
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromtheTroynorthcorporationlimittoTroy SidneyRoad.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Cost: $2.03 / $3.21
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 1.94
Cost: $4.85 / $7.66
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromEldeanRoadtoFarringtonRoad.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.03
Cost: $2.58 / $3.26
Proposed: Yes
WidenFarringtonRoadfrom2to3lanesfromWashingtonRoadtoExperimentFarmRoad.
TIP: No
512C MIA
EldeanRoadPhaseIII
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.14
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSR41toWashingtonRoad.
514 MIA
516A MIA
Piqua TroyRoad
WashingtonRoadPhaseI
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.87
Cost: $4.68 / $5.91
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSR718to0.6milessouthofSR41.
516B MIA
WashingtonRoadPhaseII
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 0.81
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSR41toEldeanRoad.
516C MIA
517B MIA
518B MIA
WashingtonRoadPhaseIII
FarringtonRoadPhaseII
KinnaDriveSouth
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.70
Constructa3 laneextensionfromSR571toEvanstonRoad.
Cost: $2.20 / $2.78
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 2.09
Cost: $5.23 / $6.60
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromKessler CowlesvilleRoadtoSwailesRoad.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
520A MIA
520B MIA
PetersRoadPhaseI
PetersRoadPhaseII
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.10
Cost: $2.75 / $4.34
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSR571toKessler CowlesvilleRoad.
528 MIA
I 75/SR571
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: NA
Cost: $1.61 / $2.54
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Interchangemodificationtoimprovecapacityofexistingrampsandreplacestructurewith5 lanecapacitystructure.
530 MIA
RiversideDrive
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.46
Cost: $1.94 / $2.19
Proposed: Yes
Widenfrom2to3lanesfrom600feetnorthofAdamsStreettotheDukeParknorthboundary.
TIP: No
85

531C MIA
MainStreetStreetscape
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 0.20
Cost: $1.70 / $2.15
TIP: No
RehabilitateandimproveEastMainStreet/SR571fromFirstStreeteastwardtoandincludingthecrossingoftheGreatMiami
RiverBikeway(GMRB).
531D MIA
MainStreetStreetscape
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.25
Cost: $1.50 / $1.89
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
RehabilitateandimproveWestMainStreet/SR571fromHyattStreeteastwardtotheCSXRailroadTracks;includingan
interconnectionamongtheexistingtrafficsignals.
532 MIA
ExperimentFarmRoad
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 1.96
Cost: $4.90 / $7.74
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromEldeanRoadtoFarringtonRoad.
533 MIA
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
NorthernAccessInterchangeFeasibilityStudy
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: NA
Cost: $0.42 / $0.53
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
TrafficstudytolookatfutureimprovementsneededtoimprovevehicularaccessbetweenSR41andCR25Aincludingpotential
foranEldeanRoadInterchangeatI 75.
535 MIA
SR571
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 1.50
Widenfrom2to5lanesfromPetersRoadtoCR25A.
537A MIA
Cost: $10.00 / $15.79
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
SR41TrafficSignalInterconnect
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: NA
Cost: $0.75 / $0.95
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
ExtendcommunicationbackbonetoallowtrafficsignalstooperateasaclosedloopsystemattheintersectionswithDorsetRoad
andMarybillDrive.
540 MIA
Troy SidneyRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $4.00 / $5.05
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
ReconstructionandwideningofTroy SidneyRoadfromUS36toStatlerRoad.Theprojectwillconsistofroadwayreconstruction
toindustrialdevelopmentstandardswithcurbandgutterandutilityextensions.
541 MIA
KyleParkDrive
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.33
Cost: $2.00 / $2.53
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
ConstructKyleParkDriveasa3 laneroadwayfromS.HyattStreeteasterlytoS.FirstStreetincludingasidewalkononesideof
KyleParkDriveanda10'widebikewayontheother.
542 MIA
CR25A YMCABikeway
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $1.00 / $1.26
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Constructanew10'bikewayfromtheRobinsonBranchYMCAsoutherlytoandcrossingattheintersectionofDonnDavisWay
andCR25A,connectingtotheexistingbikewayonDonnDavisWay,andcontinuingfromexistingbikewayonDonnDavisWayat
Tipp CowlesvilleRoadeasterlyonCraneRoadtotheGreatMiamiRiverBikeTrail,justeastofNorthThirdStreet.
543 MIA
CountyRoad25A
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 0.50
Cost: $1.10 / $1.39
TIP: No
Upgradeandwidenfrom4to5lanes,andenhanceCR25AbetweentheMeijerDistributionCenternortherlytoExit69atI 75.
544 MIA
CraneRoadBikeway
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.40
Cost: $0.90 / $1.14
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Constructanew10'bikeway/multi userecreationaltrailfromintersectionofN.HyattStreetandCraneRoadeasterlycrossing
theCSXrailroadtrackstotheGreatMiamiRiverBikeway.
86

545 MIA
CSXRailSpur
Proposed: Yes
Mileage: 0.38
Cost: $4.00 / $6.32
TIP: No
Feasible: 2036 2040
Constructa2,000footrailspuronthewestsideoftheCSXrailroadtrackswithinandproximatetothe113acrePrillproperty
boundedonthenorthbyCraneRoad,onthesouthbyParkwoodDrive,N.HyattStreetonthewest,andtheCSXtracksonthe
east.
643 MIA
SR201PhaseVIII
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.16
Cost: $1.70 / $2.15
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Widenfrom2to4lanesfromMontgomeryCountylinetoSingerRoad;includingagrassmedianisland,curb,gutter,storm
drainagesystem,andlandscapingenhancements.
144C MOT
I 70
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 7.70
Cost: $53.31 / $84.19
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Rehabilitateandwiden4to6lanes;beginningatArlingtonRoadtoSR 48.(Interchangeimprovementswillbeincludedonthis
projectiftheInterchangeModificationStudyrequiresanyimprovements.)
154E MOT
US35PhaseIIB
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 3.16
Cost: $30.39 / $38.37
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
US35fromLivingstonAvenuetoI 675,majorrehabilitationofexistingpavement,constructionofanadditionallaneineach
direction,andbridgework.Constructionplansfortheprojectarecomplete.
154F MOT
US35PhaseIII
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 0.78
Cost: $16.36 / $20.65
US35atWoodmanDrive/SR835interchangemodification.Constructionplansfortheprojectarecomplete.
154G MOT
US35PhaseIV
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.73
Cost: $15.41 / $19.46
Proposed: Yes
US35atSmithvilleRoadinterchangemodification.Constructionplansfortheprojectarecomplete.
155D MOT
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
SR725
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $7.20 / $9.09
Widenfrom2to5lanesfromBiggerRoadtoWilmingtonPike.
202E MOT
Proposed: Yes
SR48
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.67
Cost: $3.01 / $4.75
Widenfrom2to5lanesfromtheWarrenCountylinetoSheehanRoad.
184B MOT
TIP: No
SR48
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.10
Cost: $5.55 / $7.01
Widenfrom2to5lanesfromPhillisburg UnionRoadtoMiamiCountyline.
167 MOT
Proposed: Yes
US35
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $2.73 / $3.45
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromLutheranChurchRoadtoDiamondMillRoad.
166 MOT
TIP: No
US35
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 2.00
Cost: $5.95 / $7.51
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromUnionRoadtoLutheranChurchRoad.
155E MOT
TIP: No
SocialRowRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.70
Cost: $11.00 / $13.89
Widenfrom2to5lanesfrom2000'eastofYankeeStreettoSR48.
87

209A MOT
ArlingtonRoad
Cost: $6.30 / $7.95
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Cost: $10.93 / $10.93
Proposed: Yes
TIP: Yes
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 2.42
Cost: $8.50 / $10.73
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSpringValleyRoadtoSocialRowRoad.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.20
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromI 70toUS40.
209C MOT
ArlingtonRoad
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: NA
ReplaceandwidenbridgeoverI 70from2to3lanes.
220 MOT
221B MOT
ClyoRoad
ClyoRoad
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $3.00 / $3.79
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSt.Leonard'sWaytoSpringValleyPike.
229 MOT
EdwinC.MosesBoulevard
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 0.59
Widenfrom2to5lanesfromBroadwayStreettoI 75.
238 MOT
Cost: $50.00 / $78.96
HarshmanRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.40
Cost: $7.25 / $9.15
Widenfrom4to5lanesfromEastwoodMetroparkentrancetoSR4.
244C MOT
HokeRoad
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.28
Cost: $6.50 / $8.21
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromUS40toSmithDrive;includingintersectionimprovementsandtrafficsignalsatWengerRoad.
248B MOT
Dayton KeoweeStreetBridge
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.10
Cost: $13.40 / $13.40
Rehabilitate/replaceandwidenbridgeovertheGreatMiamiRiver.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: Yes
Cost: $1.15 / $1.82
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: NA
Cost: $3.50 / $4.42
ImproveandrealignintersectionsofYankeeStreetandMungerRoad.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.80
Cost: $2.50 / $3.16
Proposed: Yes
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromtheVandalianorthcorporationlimittotheMiamiCountyline.
TIP: No
253 MOT
LittleRichmondRoad/DiamondMillRoad
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: NA
Correctthesplit TintersectionatDiamondMillRoad.
260 MOT
272B MOT
293A MOT
MadRiverRoad
NorthDixieDrive
Phillisburg UnionRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.80
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSR48toHaberRoad.
298 MOT
Cost: $3.00 / $4.74
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
SalemAvenue
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.10
Cost: $8.00 / $12.63
Widenfrom4to5lanesfromHillcrestAvenuetoCurunduAvenue.
88

301 MOT
SeyboldRoad/Crestway
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.55
Cost: $3.40 / $3.40
Proposed: Yes
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSocialRowRoad/AustinBoulevardtoWindingGreenWay.(ProjectSold).
TIP: Yes
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.00
RealignthesplitT intersectionatWestbrookRoad.
335A MOT
335B MOT
Cost: $1.13 / $1.43
YankeeStreetPhaseII
YankeeStreetPhaseIII
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.75
Cost: $6.00 / $7.58
Widenfrom2to5lanesfromWindingGreenWaytoSpringValleyPike.
335C MOT
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Cost: $10.00 / $10.00
Proposed: Yes
TIP: Yes
Cost: $7.80 / $7.80
Proposed: Yes
TIP: Yes
Cost: $4.50 / $7.11
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
YankeeStreetPhaseIV
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.55
Cost: $2.45 / $3.09
Widenfrom3to5lanesfromSocialRowRoad/AustinPiketoWindingGreenWay.
336 MOT
YankeeStreet
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.60
Cost: $2.20 / $2.78
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSocialRowRoad/AustinBoulevardtoWarrenCountyLine.
338C MOT
Miamisburg SpringboroPike,Section1PhaseII
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 0.50
Widenfrom3to5lanesfromPeacockLanetoMedlarRoad.
338D MOT
Miamisburg SpringboroPike,Section2PhaseI
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.90
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromMedlarRoadtoBennerRoad.
338E MOT
Cost: $8.70 / $8.70
Miamisburg SpringboroPike,Section2PhaseII
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 0.90
Widenfrom3to5lanesfromMedlarRoadtoBennerRoad.
338F MOT
Cost: $1.85 / $2.92
Cost: $3.50 / $5.53
BennerRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.40
Cost: $8.53 / $10.77
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromDayton CincinnatiPiketoMiamisburg SpringboroPike.
338G MOT
I 75
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 2.62
Cost: $22.18 / $35.03
Widenfrom6to8lanesfromapproximatelyPennyroyalLanetoI 675.
368 MOT
WebsterStreetBridgeReplacement
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.13
Replaceandwidenfrom4to5lanes.(ProjectSold).
369 MOT
HelenaStreetBridgeReplacement
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.09
Replaceandwidenfrom2to3lanes.
372A MOT
SpringValleyRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.40
Widenfrom2/3to5lanesfromSR48toClyoRoad.
89

372B MOT
SpringValleyRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 2.10
Widenfrom3to5lanesfromYankeeStreettoSR48.
603B MOT
Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $1.00 / $1.26
Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $1.00 / $1.26
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Brookville SalemRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 2.10
Cost: $7.20 / $11.37
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSR49toBrookville PhillipsburgRoad.
611A MOT
TIP: No
LutheranChurchRoad/LittleRichmondRoad
Feasible: 2026 2030

608 MOT
Proposed: Yes
WolfCreekPike/LutheranChurchRoad/SeyboldRoad
Feasible: 2026 2030

603D MOT
Cost: $9.80 / $15.48
HokeRoadSouth
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2031 2035
Mileage: 0.60
Cost: $1.60 / $2.53
TIP: No
WidenHokeRoadtothree(3)lanesfromsouthofCareerDrivetoWestbrookRoadandaddtrafficsignalsattheWestbrook
intersection.
613B MOT
UnionRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: NA
Cost: $1.42 / $2.24
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
WidenfromWestbrookRoadtoUS35toaddleftturnlanesattheShilohSpringsRoadandLittleRichmondRoadintersections.
613C MOT
UnionRoad
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2036 2040
Mileage: 6.50
Cost: $4.19 / $6.62
TIP: No
ImprovegeometryfromSR4toFairviewDrivebyeliminatingthehorizontalcurves/offsetsattheLowerMiamisburgRoad
intersections;includinganextensionofUnionRoadalongthecurrentnorth/southalignmentthroughLowerMiamisburgRoad,
creatinganewfour legintersection.
614A MOT
BasoreRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.50
Cost: $1.06 / $1.33
Proposed: Yes
Widenandextendfrom2to3lanesfromTurnerRoadtoShilohSpringsRoad;includingcurb.
615A MOT
WestbrookRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 6.30
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromSR48toDiamondMillRoad.
626 MOT
TIP: No
Cost: $24.00 / $37.90
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
OliveRoad/TaywoodRoadConnector
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.36
Cost: $2.00 / $2.53
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
NewroadwayconnectingthesouthernterminusofTaywoodRoadatWestbrookRoadtothenorthernterminusofOliveRoadat
SalemBendRoad.
628A MOT
DiamondMillRoad
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2036 2040
Mileage: 7.80
Cost: $5.86 / $9.25
TIP: No
ImproveroadwaygeometryandleftturnlanesonDiamondMillRoadattheUpperLewisburg SalemRoad,WestbrookRoad,Air
Hill/ShilohSpringsRoad,WolfCreekPike,andOldDaytonRoadintersections;includingarealignmentoftheShilohSprings
Road/AirHillRoadintersection.
90

628B MOT
DiamondMillRoad
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2036 2040
Mileage: 8.10
Cost: $3.55 / $5.61
TIP: No
ImproveroadwaygeometryandaddleftturnlanesonDiamondMillRoadfromtheGermantownnorthcorporationlimittoUS
35attheDayton FarmersvilleRoad,HempleRoad,Farmersville WestCarrolltonRoad,andManningRoadintersections;
includingarealignmentoftheHempleRoadintersection.
631 MOT
UpperLewisburg SalemRoad
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.4
Cost: $6.60 / $8.33
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromArlingtonRoadtoBrookville SalemRoad.
633 MOT
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Farmersville WestCarrolltonRoad
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2026 2030
Mileage: 1.50
Cost: $3.75 / $4.73
TIP: No
Widenfrom2to4lanesfromCentralAvenuetoInfirmaryRoad,includingdedicatedrightandleftturnlanesatintersections.
635 MOT
Farmersville WestCarrolltonRoad
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.90
Cost: $4.75 / $6.00
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
ProvidegradeseparationoverCSXRailroadtracks,includingarelocationofapproximately1,500feetofInfirmaryRoadtothe
westoftheCSXRailroadtracks.
636 MOT
CentralAvenue/MiamiAvenue
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.25
Cost: $0.85 / $0.96
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Upgradeexistingintersectionbyimprovingturningradiiforwestboundtonorthboundtraffic,includingadedicatedleftturnlane
forsouthboundtoeastboundtraffic.
637 MOT
LittleYorkRoadPhaseI
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.45
Cost: $5.00 / $6.31
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromMillerLanetoNorthDixieDrive.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Cost: $7.30 / $11.53
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Cost: $6.60 / $10.42
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $5.75 / $7.26
Proposed: Yes
Realignandwidenroadwayfrom2to3lanesfromGermantownStreettoEdwinC.MosesBoulevard.
TIP: No
647 MOT
LittleYorkRoadPhaseII
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.50
Cost: $5.40 / $6.82
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromNorthDixieDrivetoPetersPike.
648 MOT
LittleYorkRoadPhaseIII
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.50
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromPetersPiketoFrederickPike.
650 MOT
FrederickPike
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 2.00
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromLittleYorkRoadtoUS40.
654 MOT
656 MOT
BroadwayStreet
SmithvilleRoad
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.00
Widenfrom2/4to3/5lanesfromUS35toFourthStreet.
Cost: $6.32 / $7.98
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.30
Cost: $3.45 / $4.36
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromPerryStreettoVeteran'sParkway.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
661 MOT
WashingtonStreet
91

665 MOT
SheehanRoad
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 1.50
Cost: $4.00 / $6.32
WidenSheehanRoadfromSocialRowRoadtoBonnieAnnePlacefrom2to3lanes.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2031 2035
Mileage: 0.45
Cost: $1.10 / $1.74
WidenCentervilleStationRoadfromBrainardWoodsDrivetoParkEastCourtfrom2to3lanes.
TIP: No
668 MOT
KitridgeRoad
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.60
Cost: $2.88 / $3.64
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromGanderRoadtotheDaytoneastcorportationlimit.
669 MOT
SpringValleyPike
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.20
Cost: $4.60 / $7.26
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromClyoRoadtotheGreeneCountyLine.
670A MOT
CentervilleStationRoadPhaseI
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.61
Cost: $3.60 / $4.55
WidenCentervilleStationRoadfromParkEastCourttoWilmingtonPikefrom2to3lanes.
670B MOT
676 MOT
CentervilleStationRoadPhaseII
I 75/NeedmoreRoadInterchange
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: NA
Cost: $31.99 / $50.52
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Interchangemodificationtoimprovecapacityofexistingramps;widenNeedmoreRoadbridgeoverI 75to8lanes.
677 MOT
I 75/EdwinC.MosesBoulevard
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: NA
Cost: $19.80 / $31.27
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Shorttermimprovementsattheinterchangeandnearbyaccesspointstoimprovetrafficflowduringspecialevents.
678 MOT
I 75/WagnerFordRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: NA
Cost: $54.46 / $86.00
Interchangemodificationtoaddressgeometricandoperationaldeficiencies.
679 MOT
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
I 75/US40/NorthwoodsBoulevard
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: NA
Interchangemodificationstoreduceweavingmovements.
800A MOT
TIP: No
I 75/SR725
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: NA
Cost: $5.00 / $6.31
Modifytherampterminalstoimprovetrafficflowandsafety.
680 MOT
Proposed: Yes
Cost: $38.08 / $60.14
WestMoraineConnectorPhaseI
Proposed: Yes
Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $8.25 / $10.42
TIP: No
Feasible: 2026 2030
WidenPinnacleRoadfromMoraine/JeffersonTownshipboundarytoInfirmaryRoad,InfirmaryRoadfromPinnacleRoadto
HempleRoad,andHempleRoadfromInfirmaryRoadto800feetwestofInfirmaryRoad;includingnewdrainageculverts,side
roaddrainage,bike/pedestrianpaths,andrealignmentoftheintersectionatInfirmaryRoadandHempleRoad.
800B MOT
WestMoraineConnectorPhaseII
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.00
Cost: $2.70 / $4.26
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
WidenHempleRoadfrom800feetwestofInfirmaryRoadtoSR4;includingnewdrainageculverts,sideroaddrainage,
bike/pedestrianpaths,andrealignmentoftheintersectionatHempleRoadandSR4.
92

803A MOT
US40
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 0.30
Cost: $1.45 / $1.83
TIP: No
WidenUS40tothreelanesfromHaberRoadtothemainentranceoftheNorthmontSchoolCampusandaddatrafficsignaland
rightturnlaneonHaberRoad.
803B MOT
US40
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: NA
WidentoprovideleftturnlanesatArlingtonRoad.
804 MOT
Cost: $1.00 / $1.26
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
SR48
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 0.50
Cost: $2.80 / $4.42
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Trafficsignalupgrades,streetlighting,sidewalks,curbandgutter,anddrainageissuesonSR48fromWestbrookRoadtoHacker
Road.
808 MOT
SR4
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 2.00
Cost: $7.09 / $8.95
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
UpgradeintersectionsatManningRoad/JamaicaRoad,UnionRoad,andInfirmaryRoadinthecommunitiesofMoraineand
Germantown;includingturnlanesandtrafficsignals.
810 MOT
HelenaStreet
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.25
Cost: $2.88 / $3.64
Realignandwidenfrom2to3lanesfromRiversideDrivetoForestAvenue.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Cost: $1.75 / $2.76
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Cost: $1.50 / $1.89
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: NA
Cost: $0.87 / $1.10
Proposed: Yes
Improvetheintersectionbyaddingturnlanesandimprovingsignaltimingandprogression.
TIP: No
815 MOT
DogLegRoad/FrederickPike/MeekerRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 0.50
Installroundabouttoconsolidatethreeintersections.
816 MOT
Alex BellRoadandMadRiverRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Installroundaboutortrafficsignal.
818 MOT
820 MOT
Mileage: 0.50
US35/SR49
Farmersville JohnsvilleRoad
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 10.50
Cost: $3.49 / $5.51
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
ImproveroadwaygeometryfromtheFarmersvillenorthcorporationlimittoWestbrookRoad;includingimprovementsatthe
WestbrookRoad,Brookville PyrmontPike,andUS35offsetinterections,withnewturnlanesatUS35.
821 MOT
AlexRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.25
Cost: $0.85 / $1.07
WidentoaddsouthboundrightturnlaneonAlexRoadfromWatertowerLanetoSR725.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.68
Cost: $3.20 / $3.61
Proposed: Yes
WidenWilmingtonPikefromI 675toBrownRoadfrom4to6throughlaneswithturnlanesasneeded.
TIP: No
822A MOT
822B MOT
WilmingtonPikePhaseII
WilmingtonPikePhaseIII
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.37
Cost: $2.50 / $3.16
Proposed: Yes
WidenWilmingtonPikefromClyoRoadtoI 675from4to6throughlaneswithturnlanesasneeded.
TIP: No
93

823B MOT
I 675/WilmingtonPikeInterchange
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2026 2030
Mileage: NA
Cost: $30.00 / $37.88
LongterminterchangemodificationstoincreasethecapacityofWilmingtonPikeandtheexistingramps.
830 MOT
EastThirdStreet
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 2.21
Cost: $2.30 / $3.63
Proposed: Yes
WideningofEastThirdStreetatFindlayandIrwinStreetsfortheinstallationofleftturnlanes.
831 MOT
TIP: No
KeoweeStreet
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.78
Cost: $5.00 / $5.00
Proposed: Yes
WideningofKeoweeStreetfrom4to5lanesfromSR4toHelenaStreetfortheinstallationofleftturnlanes.
832 MOT
TIP: No
TIP: Yes
NorthMainStreet
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 2.15
Cost: $3.50 / $4.42
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
WideningofNorthMainStreetfrom4to5lanesattheintersectionswithRidgeAvenue,ParkwoodDrive,andSantaClara
Avenuefortheinstallationofleftturnlanes.
833 MOT
PattersonBoulevard
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.78
Cost: $2.70 / $3.41
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
InstallationofleftturnlanesonPattersonBoulevardattheintersectionswithAutoClubDrive,LincolnStreet,StoutStreet,and
AppleStreet.
834 MOT
RiverviewAvenue
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.38
Cost: $1.40 / $1.77
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Wideningto5lanesfromEdwinC.MosesBoulevardtoGreatMiamiBoulevardfortheinstallationofleftturnlanes.
835 MOT
SalemAvenue
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.80
Cost: $4.20 / $5.30
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
WideningofSalemAvenuefrom4to5lanesattheintersectionswithKenwood,Emerson,Wabash,andElsmereAvenuesforthe
installationofleftturnlanes.
837B MOT
FirstStreet
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.12
Cost: $5.76 / $7.27
InstallationofleftturnlanesonEastFirstStreetfromKeoweeStreettoSpringfieldStreet.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: Yes
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2016 2020
Mileage: 0.35
Cost: $2.43 / $2.43
InstallationofleftturnlanesandbikelanesonWashingtonStreetfromPerryStreettoJeffersonStreet.
TIP: Yes
837C MOT
SpringfieldStreet
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 1.80
Cost: $2.65 / $2.65
InstallationofleftturnlanesonSpringfieldStreetfromFirstStreettoLonokeAvenue.
837D MOT
837E MOT
WashingtonStreet
SpringfieldStreet
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 1.80
Cost: $2.33 / $2.33
Proposed: Yes
InstallationofleftturnlanesonSpringfieldStreetfromLonokeAvenuetoMcFaddenAvenue.
837F MOT
TIP: Yes
SpringfieldStreet
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 1.80
Cost: $2.00 / $2.00
Proposed: Yes
InstallationofleftturnlanesonSpringfieldStreetfromMcFaddenAvenuetoSmithvilleRoad.
TIP: Yes
94

838 MOT
WayneAvenue
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 0.56
Cost: $2.00 / $2.53
TIP: No
WideningofWayneAvenuefrom4to5lanesfromWyomingStreettoAndersonStreetfortheinstallationofleftturnlanes.
839 MOT
WebsterStreet
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 0.50
Cost: $2.50 / $3.95
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
WideningofWebsterStreetto5lanesfromDeedsParkDrivetoKeoweeStreetfortheinstallationofleftturnlanes.
840 MOT
HarshmanRoadBridge
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.50
Cost: $10.00 / $10.00
Proposed: Yes
ReplacebridgeovertheMadRiver.Provideleftturnlanesandbikewayonthebridge.(ProjectSold).
841 MOT
Dayton ThirdStreetBridge
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.25
Cost: $20.00 / $20.00
Proposed: Yes
ReplacebridgeovertheGreatMiamiRiver.Provideleftturnlaneandsharedusepathonthebridge.
842 MOT
TIP: Yes
TIP: NF
Multi ModalRailExtension
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2016 2020
Mileage: 4.54
Cost: $19.80 / $22.35
TIP: YP
MultiphaseprojecttoconnectCSXTmainlinetoDaytonInternationalAirport.PhaseIwillincludetheimprovementofexisting
trackspurandPhaseIIwillincludetheconstructionofnewtrackfromtheI 75bridgetravellingwesttotheeasternproperty
boundarylineoftheDaytonInternationalAirport.TheEnvironmentalStudyforthisprojectisfundedintheTIP.
844 MOT
CountyLineRoad
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 0.68
Cost: $3.00 / $3.79
TIP: No
WideningofCountyLineRoadbetweenValeDriveandEastDorothyLane.Roadwayiscurrentlya3 lanesectioninthisareaand
theproposedprojectwillwidenCountyLineRoadtoa4 lanesection,with2southboundlanes,asinglenorthboundlane,anda
centertwo way left turnlane.AdditionalimprovementsincludeatrafficsignalmodificationattheintersectionwithTonawanda
Trail,modifiedstreetlighting,andtheconstructionofa10 feetwidemulti usesidepathalongthewestsideoftheroad.
849 MOT
SouthElmStreetIntersectionImprovements
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.90
Cost: $2.25 / $2.84
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
RealignfourpoorlydesignedintersectionsalongS.ElmStreettocorrectintersectionsightdistancedeficienciesatHazelwood
Circle,BlossomHillRoad,IronwoodDrive,andBlackForestDrive.
851 MOT
WashingtonChurchRoad
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 1.02
Cost: $2.84 / $4.48
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Widento3lanesfromAustinBoulevardto500feetnorthofSpringValleyPikewithcombinationcurbandgutter,concretewalk,
andamulti usepath.
855 MOT
SR4/HarshmanRoadInterchange
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: NA
Cost: $4.24 / $5.35
ReconfigureSR4exitrampsatHarshmanRoadtoimprovesafety.
856 MOT
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
SpringfieldStreet
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 1.30
Cost: $1.52 / $1.72
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
ReconstructionofSpringfieldStreettoaddadedicatedturnlanetotheproposedAirForceMuseumentrancegate,with
combinedcurbandgutter,sidewalks,stormsewersystem,andutilityrelocations/adjustments.
857A MOT
ValleyPikePhaseII
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.28
Cost: $1.80 / $2.03
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
ReconstructValleyPiketoanurban3 lanesectionwithcombinedcurbandgutter,sidewalks,stormsewersystem,andutility
relocationsfromBroadmeadBoulevardtoPleasantValleyAvenue.
95

858 MOT
WolfCreekPikeImprovements
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 2.00
Cost: $6.00 / $7.58
TIP: No
WolfCreekPikefromLittleRichmondRoadtoSR49,constructconcretecurbandgutter,stormdrainage,sidewalk,and
pavementforbikelanesonbothsides.
859 MOT
DrydenRoadMulti ModalPathPhaseI
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 1.40
Cost: $0.75 / $0.95
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Constructmultimodal(bike,skate,walk)pathalongDrydenRoadinfrontofformerGMpropertytoNorthlawnAvenueto
connectindustrialpropertyandWestMoraineresidentialareastotheRiverCorridorbikepath.
860 MOT
DrydenRoadMulti ModalPathPhaseII
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.40
Cost: $0.85 / $1.07
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Constructmultimodal(bike,skate,walk)pathalongDrydenRoadfromArborBoulevardtoEastRiverRoadtoloopthrough
industrialareasandconnecttotheRiverCorridorbikepath.
862 MOT
WilmingtonPikeTrafficSignalSystemUpgrade
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 2.11
Cost: $1.89 / $1.89
TIP: Yes
Proposed: Yes
Provideupgradedcommunicationbetweentrafficsignalsandincluderebuildingorequipmentupgradesattheindividual
intersectionsasneededtoimprovesafetyandoperations.
863 MOT
SR49
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 1.27
Cost: $0.75 / $1.18
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Corridorimprovement alternativewillincludeaddressingtheSR49/I 70interchange;SR49/Brookville Salemintersection;
andtheSR49/US40intersection.Possibleroaddiet.
864 MOT
I 75/AustinBoulevardInterchange
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.75
Cost: $1.00 / $1.13
Proposed: Yes
ImplementfindingsfromcurrentIOStoaddanadditionalrightturnlanefromAustinBoulevardWBtoI 75NB.
865 MOT
TIP: No
EastThirdStreet
Feasible: 2036 2040

Mileage: 0.65
Cost: $5.75 / $9.08
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
RoadwaynarrowingonEastThirdStreetfromKeoweeStreettoSpringfieldStreettoreducetravellanesfrom3/4to3.
866 MOT
GermantownStreet
Feasible: 2031 2035

Mileage: 0.78
Cost: $3.80 / $6.00
Proposed: Yes
InstallationofaleftturnlaneonGermantownStreetfromWashingtonStreettoJamesH.McGeeBoulevard.
867 MOT
TIP: No
HudsonAvenue/MainStreet
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2026 2030
Mileage: 0.24
Cost: $1.20 / $1.52
TIP: No
RealignmentofHudsonAvenueatMainStreetincludingwideningMainStreetfrom4to5lanestoinstallaleftturnlanefrom
SantaClaraAvenuetoNormanStreet.
868 MOT
MonumentAvenue
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 1.08
Cost: $4.10 / $5.18
InstallationofaleftturnlaneonMonumentAvenuefromKeoweeStreettoFindlayStreet.
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2031 2035
Mileage: 0.72
Cost: $3.50 / $5.53
InstallationofaleftturnlaneonWestThirdStreetfromAbbeyAvenuetoGettysburgAvenue.
TIP: No
869 MOT
WebsterStreet
Feasible: 2026 2030

Mileage: 0.83
Cost: $4.10 / $5.18
InstallationofaleftturnlaneonWebsterStreetfromKeoweeStreettoStanleyAvenue.
870 MOT
WestThirdStreet
96

871 MOT
LyonsRoadPedestrianPath
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2016 2020
Mileage: 0.80
Cost: $1.56 / $1.56
TIP: NF
ConstructnewpedestrianpathwayfromByersRoadeastalongLyonsRoadtoapproximately1,200feetnorthalongSpringboro
Pike.
872 MOT
WashingtonChurchRoadExtension
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.63
Cost: $1.56 / $1.96
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Constructnew2/3landroadwayapproximately3,300feetsouthfromintersectionofWashingtonChurchRoadandAustin
BoulevardtoMontgomery/WarrenCountyline.
874 MOT
AirwayRoad
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.86
Cost: $1.90 / $2.14
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Resurfacewithcurb,gutter,sidewalk,storminfrastructure,andlightingfromWoodmanDriveeasttoCityLimit.Intersection
improvementsatSpinningRoadandAirwayRoadandtrafficsignalatWoodmanDriveandASCaccessdrive.
875 MOT
SpringfieldStreet
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.69
Cost: $1.44 / $1.63
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Resurfacewithcurb,gutter,sidewalk,storminfrastructure,andlightingfromWoodmanDrivetowestCityLimit.Includeaccess
managementimprovementsandincorporatebikelanebychangingcrosssectionfrom4to2laneswithturnlane.
876 MOT
NeedmoreRoad
Feasible: 2021 2025

Mileage: 0.65
Cost: $1.36 / $1.72
TIP: No
Proposed: Yes
Resurface,re establishditchline,updatestorminfrastructure,andprovidestreetlightingbetweenSR201andSR202.Increase
roadwidthandaccommodatenewleftturnforNB/WBtraffic.
877 MOT
US40LogisticsImprovements
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 1.5
Cost: $12.71 / $14.35
Proposed: Yes
TIP: YP
ImproveUS40fromAirparkBoulevardtoPetersPiketoafive lanecrosssectionandimprovetheinterchangeattheAirport
AccessRoadandUS40.Preliminaryengineering,designandright of wayphasesarecurrentlyfundedintheTIP.
878 MOT
ShroyerRoadImprovements
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2016 2020
Mileage: 2.1
Cost: $1.90 / $1.90
TIP: Yes
ShroyerRoadfromtheCityofOakwoodNorthCorp.limittoDorothylaneAvenue,resurfaceroadandimplementroaddietto
reducelanesfrom4to2laneswithturnlanesandbikelanestoimprovesafety,thentransitiontoexisting5 lanesectionatthe
intersectionwithDorothyLaneAvenue.ShroyerRoadfromDorothyLaneAvenuetoStroopRoad,resurfaceroadusingexisting
configuration.
710C WAR
SR73/I 75PhaseIII
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 1.04
Cost: $2.60 / $3.28
TIP: No
ReconstructSR73withoverlayandwideningforapproximately4,000feet;includinganewsignalattheintersectionofSR73
andGreenwoodLane/ShartsRoadandreconstructionofbothGreenwoodLaneandShartsRoadwithoverlayandwideningfor
approximately1,500feet.ConstructanewsignalattheintersectionofSR73andGreenwood/Sharts.
710D WAR
SR73/I 75PhaseIV
Proposed: Yes
Feasible: 2021 2025
Mileage: 1.08
Cost: $3.50 / $4.42
TIP: No
ReconstructRampDasatwo laneexitrampfromSR73southuntiltheproposededgeofpavementintersectswithexistingI 75
edgeofpavementandtheRampEloopentrancerampfromSR73totheexistingramppavementattheI 75bridge;includinga
newtrafficsignalattheintersectionofRampDandSR73.
715 WAR
ClearcreekFranklinRoad
Feasible: 2016 2020

Mileage: 0.70
Cost: $1.20 / $1.35
Proposed: Yes
TIP: No
Widenfrom2to3lanesfromWhisperingPinestoPennyroyalRoadaddingcurbandguttersandstormsewers.Re profile
roadwaytocorrectverticaldeficienciesandre striperoadwaytoincludebikelanes.
Source:MVRPC
97
Table 5.3 Congestion Management Projects Vision List

Project
147EonI 75in
MontgomeryCounty
147FonI 75in
MontgomeryCounty
Description
SafetyupgradeandmodernizationofI
75fromI 675toEdwinC.Moses
Boulevard;includingwideningfrom6
to8lanes.
SafetyupgradeandmodernizationofI
75fromWagnerFordRoadto
BenchwoodWyseRoad;including
wideningfrom6to8lanes.
Mileage
Cost(millionsof
2015dollars)
8.8miles
225.43
2.7miles
79.21
Source:MVRPC
Page98
39
2040+
418
48
!
(
74
!
(
HUBER
HEIGHTS
443
RIVERSIDE
656
! (
(
!
154G
YELLOW
SPRINGS
78C
45 1
415
!
(
!
!(
(
844
Inset 1 431
10A
9B
!*
(
#
Cedarville
Township
XENIA
#(
*
!
!
(
455
Inset 3
D
54
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
BELLBROOK
220
SPRING VALLEY
Source:MVRPC
Miles
0
Caesarscreek
Township
54E
10
434
#
*
425
Spring
Valley
Township
#343 (
*
!
456
XENIA
Jefferson
Township
BOWERSVILLE
May2016
!
(
Silvercreek
Township
Sugarcreek
Township
58D
822A
Ross
Township
433
!
(
862
1
B
10
0C
58 E
5
34
22 1
Washington
Township
BEAVERCREEK
0
34
433
669
66C
58C
Xenia
Township
Beavercreek
Township
9A
!
(
B
17
!
(
ERING
372A
32A
!
(
184
B
ENTERVILLE
670B 670A
CLIFTON
CEDARVILLE
OOD
823B
Miami
Township
Inset 2
BEAVERCREEK
414
453
Bath
Township
FAIRBORN
!*
(
#
50
FAIRBORN
21
WPAFB
855
7A
5
8
840
6
5
87
85
C
7
874
83
830
154F
154
417
87
6
24C
34
C
668
454
W.P.A.F.B.
A
24
24
9A
431
411
844
9C
452
2026 2030
2031 2035
2036 2040
34
4
!
!
!
2016 2020
2021 2025
70 B
#
*
!
!
!
Figure 5.4
Congestion Management
Projects:
Greene County
BEAVERCREEK
39A
53B
No
15
4E
407
Yes
Feasibility
53B
TIPStatus
!
(
455
426
Note:RefertoTableforprojectdescriptions.
532
!533
!(
(
89A
113
96
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
TIPP
!CITY
(
508A
54 0
52
108
544
545
Source:MVRPC
5 3 1C
354
May2016
105B
535
643
VANDALIA
Miles
0
528 531D
!
(
518B
105A
105B 105C
842
Bethel
Township
680
272B
! Valley Regional Planning Commission

(
Miami
542
520A
520B
98
166
803A
877
0
65
CLAYTON
503B
501
543
LLIPSBURG
Note:RefertoTable
forprojectdescriptions
Inset 3
Monroe 535
Township
293A UNION
Elizabeth
Township
520A
Inset 1
WEST
MILTON
POTSDAM
503A
TROY
LAURA
508B
CASSTOWN
!
(
LUDLOW FALLS
Union
Township 35
#
*
PIQUA
!
(
PLEASANT
HILL
B
506C 506
506A
89B
!
(
Clay
ownship
Lostcreek
Township
!
!(
(
Newton
Township
520A
532
516C
Washington
Township 517B
507
89B
COVINGTON
FLETCHER
89A
BRADFORD
Township
#
*
TROY
Brown
Township
Inset 2
Springcreek
PIQUA
B
2
9
121
103
516A
Newberry
Township
Figure 5.5
Projects:
Miami County
!
(
139A
!
(
537A
509
537A
37
1
!
(
53 0
2040+
509A
512A
2026 2030
516B
512B
113A
9
50
#
*
512C
2031 2035
2036 2040
No
!
!
!
2016 2020
2021 2025
51
Yes
!
!
!
516C
Feasibility
TIPStatus
541
112
531C
TIPP CITY
105B
98
244C
Jefferson
Township
FARMERSVILLE
628B
Jackson
Township
!
(
818
643
680
!
!(
(
830
MORAINE
KETTERING
417
45 1
#
*
78C
!
!
!
Beavercreek
Township
418
74
!
(
9C
54E
9A
54D
9B
4 31
70B
XENIA
433
434
344
343
425
!*
(
#
!
!
!
2016 2020
2021 2025
2026 2030
2031 2035
2036 2040
2040+
#
*
455
862
!
(
BELLBROOK
Sugarcreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
Source:MVRPC
SPRING VALLEY
May2016
!(
(
!
0
No
SPRINGBORO
CARLISLE
FRANKLIN
48
Yes
220
202E
669
Washington
Township
167
!
(
66
5
613C
Miami
Township
372B 372A
22 1
Inset 6
415
Feasibility
39A
39
B
BEAVERCREEK
!
(
184
B
CENTERVILLE
670B 670A
!
(
58E
TIPStatus
Bath
Township
66C
58D
443
823B
21
5
34
MIAMISBURG
! Inset 5
(
!
(
58C
!
(
WEST CARROLLTON
GERMANTOWN
! (
(
!
Inset 4
! !
(
(
!
(
!
(
RIVERSIDE
154F
154E
154G
OAKWOOD
800B
633
German Township
34
8
874
7C
83 830
!
(
453
411
NEW
LEBANON
870
Inset 3
844
155D
855
840
!*
(
#
5
7
56
8
878
155E
80
8
80
0A
820
!
! (
(
!
(
#
*
!
(
!(
(
!
(
!(
!
(
#
!
! *
(
DAYTON
#
*
!
(
53 B
A
24
454
FAIRBORN
50
WPAFB
4 07
29
876
RIVERSIDE
822A
253 603D
!
(
Harrison
Township
!603B
(
613B
Perry Township
85
628A
TROTWOOD
668
Inset 2
24
C
24
656
615A
626
!
(
4
80
BROOKVILLE 301
HUBER
HEIGHTS
Inset 1
!
(815
614A
144C
608
Butler
ENGLEWOOD Township
648
611A
!
(
VANDALIA
0
65
803B
209A
877
CLAYTON
803A
Clay
Township
#
*
272B
166
PHILLIPSBURG
209C
842
293A UNION
Figure 5.6
Projects:
Montgomery County,
Carlisle, Franklin, and
Springboro
Bethel
Township
1.5
4.5
Miles
6
!
(
VANDALIA
HUBER
HEIGHTS
HARRISON
TWP.
661
15
837D
4E
No
#
*
154G
800B
Feasibility
86
0
MORAINE
!
(
833
!677
(
14 7 E
830
865
229
80
8
!
!(
(
830
83
654
866
229
Yes
859
!
(
DAYTON
869
839
7
83
83
870
TIPStatus
!
(
!
(
B
868 837
#
*
368
!
(
875
1
83
841
DAYTON
65 6
#
! 832 *
(
867 !
832
!
(
! 835(
!
(
835 (
#369
!
(
10*
8
DAYTON (
! 835
7
85
654
248B
832
RIVERSIDE
678
BUTLER TWP.
!
(
876
637
647
835
!
(
800A
648
676
Figure 5.7
Projects:
Montgomery County
Insets
HUBER
HEIGHTS
147F
680 6
877
KETTERING
677
!
(
!
!
!
!
!
!
2016 2020
2021 2025
2026 2030
2031 2035
2036 2040
2040+
4
260
!
!(
(
MIAMI TWP.
679
!
(
5
66
May2016
167
335B
335A
335C
85 1
Source:MVRPC
202E
715
821
147E
MIAMISBURG
MIAMI TWP.
816
!864
(
3 36
! 849
(
872
338
!
(
WEST CARROLLTON
372A 3
372B
338G
636
D
338
!
(
338F
635
E
338
633
710D
!(
(
!710C
SPRINGBORO
6
CHAPTER 6
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TRANSIT
6.1 Overview
For the Region to progress, it must have a comprehensive transportation system that serves the
needs of travelers using all modes of transportation with reasonable mobility options for all
residents including those using public and human services transportation. The 2040 Long Range
Transportation Plan addresses future mobility needs by including transit programs and projects
thatprovidealternativestotheprivateautomobile.
AsdiscussedinSection3.2.4,fourtransitagenciesservetheRegion(seeFigure6.1).TheGreater
DaytonRegionalTransitAuthorityprovidesfixed routeserviceinMontgomeryCounty.TheGreene
County Transit Board (Greene CATS) provides flex route service as well as demand responsive
serviceinGreeneCounty.TheMiamiCountyTransitSystemandtheWarrenCountyTransitSystem
providedemand responsiveserviceinMiamiandWarrencounties,respectively.
As part of the 2000 Census, the Dayton Urbanized Area boundary was redrawn, resulting in the
reclassification of the transit systems in Miami County and Greene County from rural to urban
systems. This means that the rural program funding source will no longer be available for the
newlydesignatedurbantransitsystemsandthatfundingforthesetransitsystemswillnowcome
fromtheFederalTransitAdministrations(5307)BusTierUrbanTransitFunding.
InDecemberof2002,ODOTaskedMVRPCtoplayaleadroleincraftingafundingagreementto
suballocate the FTAs 5307 funding between the urban transit operators annually. At ODOTs
request, MVRPC formed a sub committee consisting of officials from GDRTA, the Greene County
Board of Commissioners, and the Miami County Commission. The funding agreement has been
approvedandsignedbyallthreeorganizations/entities,andisadministeredbyMVRPCannually.
MVRPCandthetransitagenciesarecurrentlydevelopingaprocesstoallocateFTAs5339funding.
Financial forecasts for the regional transit agencies were provided by each agency in year of
expenditure dollars for the same periods, using the, FY 2016, U.S. Office of Management and
Budget,U.S.BudgetEconomicAssumptionsforConsumerPriceIndexforFY2019(2.3percentper
year)toprojectinflationintothefuture.Theanalysisshowsthatthevarioustransitprogramsare
fiscallyconstrainedthroughoutthelifeofthePlanandthecompletefinancialanalysiscanbefound
intheLRTPFinancialSummaryReport.
Page107
Newberry
Township
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
Figure 6.1
Transit Agency Service Areas
FLETCHER
BRADFORD
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
Miami County
Transit System
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Newton
Township
Lostcreek
Township
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
PassengersServedbyTransitAgency
TROY
(PassengerTripsPerYear)
Elizabeth
Township
LUDLOW FALLS
GreaterDaytonRegionalTransitAuthority9,000,000
GreeneCATS185,000
MiamiCountyTransitSystem62,300
WarrenCountyTransitSystem52,000
LAURA
Union
Township
WEST
MILTON
TIPP
CITY
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
Bethel
Township
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
GDRTAFixedTransitRoutes
VANDALIA
ENGLEWOOD
Butler
Township
GreeneCATSFlexRoutes
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Greater Dayton
Regional Transit
Authority
TROTWOOD
Harrison
Township
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
Bath
Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
CLIFTON
Miami
Township
RIVERSIDE
CEDARVILLE
NEW
LEBANON
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
Greene CATS
Xenia
Township
Beavercreek
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
KETTERING
XENIA
WEST CARROLLTON
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
BELLBROOK
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
CARLISLE
Washington
Township
SPRINGBORO
Source:GDRTA,GreeneCATS,
MiamiCountyTransitSystem,and
WarrenCountyTransitSystem
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
SPRING VALLEY
May2016
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
Warren County
Transit System
Miles
8
6.2 Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority

ThelongrangeplanningprocessusedbyGDRTAisbaseduponstrategicplanpriorities,aswellas
federaldirectives.Thisplanningprocesshasledtothecurrenttransitsystemandhasalsoassisted
inthedevelopmentofthe2040LRTP.
GDRTAprovidesapproximately9millionpassenger tripsperyearthroughanextensivenetworkof
fixed routes, covering nearly 1,000 miles of directional roadways. Further, GDRTAs Transit
Centers,locatedthroughoutMontgomeryCounty,connectthecentralcityandthesuburbanareas
withbusservicesatcentralizedlocations.

GDRTAservesMontgomeryCountyandWrightPattersonAirForceBase(WPAFB)andWrightState
University(WSU)inGreeneCountythroughanetworkof31busroutes.Thereare10localroutes
that provide downtown based service, mostly within the City of Dayton; 6 suburban routes that
provide downtown based service for 18 suburban jurisdictions; 3 cross town routes that provide
service between nine jurisdictions; 4 express routes serving nine jurisdictions, with service to
downtown;2feederroutesthatprovideintra neighborhoodservicewithin4jurisdictions;3Senior
Mobilityroutes;and3Ruralroutes.

GDRTA also provides paratransit service for people with disabilities through Project Mobility.
IndividualswhoarecertifiedasbeingADA eligibleforparatransitservicecanutilizethisgenerally
door through door service, available seven days a week. In accordance with ADA regulations,
serviceisprovidedfortripsthatbeginandendwithinmileofGDRTAsregularfixedroutes.

A majority of RTA riders (62%) use the RTA to get to jobs another 15% use the service for
shopping/socialpurposesand13%foreducationaltrips.Thiscreatesaneconomicengineforthe
communityandresultsin$4ofeconomicreturnforevery$1investedinpublictransportation.
TheRTAscommunitygrantsprogramhascontributedfederaldollarsintheamountof$2.3million
to 21 jurisdictions. This has helped leverage support for $2.9 million of transit related capital
improvementsinourcommunity.
To benefit the community, the RTA has invested in environmentally friendly technology using
electric trolley and hybrid diesel vehicles. In 2010, RTA was designated the highest possible
certification as a five star Ohio Green Fleet byClean Fuels Ohio. GDRTA is also currently testing
DualModevehiclesthatoperateonandofftheelectrictrolleywire.
Page109
AshiftinthecommutertravelofMiamiValleyresidentsfromthecentralcitytothesuburbshas
challenged the GDRTA mission. GDRTA is poised to offer customers flexible, broad based public
transportation and has outlined the following programs that will address the communitys
changingtransportationneeds.

GDRTAiscommittedtocleanairmethodsoftransportationwithits
electrictrolleybuses.Fifty sevenelectrictrolleybuseswerepurchasedfrom1996through1998as
a replacement of the old electric fleet. In 2010, RTA conducted a cost/benefit analysis which
recommended continued operation of trolley buses along with community support from those
benefitting communities. It also recommended a future procurement plan that meets budget
constraintsandachangetoA/Cpropulsion.Inaddition,GDRTAiscurrentlytestingtheuseofnew
technologies in dual mode trolley buses that could operate with off wire capabilities including
hybrid dieselsandbatterypoweredvehicles.Figure6.2depictsGDRTAscurrentelectrictrolleybus
servicesystem.
Figure 6.2 GDRTA Trolleybus Service
Page110

Withinitsfinancialcapabilities,GDRTAwillcontinuetoresearchand
implement more specialized and targeted services to address the needs of special populations
within the community. Becoming more demand driven and being more responsive to individual
populationswillbeafocus.Oneexampleistheimplementationofcommunity basedroutesthat
aretargetedtotheever increasingseniorpopulation.Thisserviceprovidescurbaccessforthose
seniorswhocanstillutilizefixed routeservicebutfinditmoredifficulttoaccessthemainlinebus
stopsalongafixedroute.Transportationisprovidedbysmallervehiclesthatallowsaferaccessto
thesmallerparkinglotsatretirementcommunities,givingaccesstoshopping,medical,andsocial
facilities.Currentlythereare3SeniorMobilityroutesinoperation.
GDRTAwillalsoinvestigatepossiblepartnershipsandsponsorshipsofroutesdesignedtoaddress
the transportation needs of companies who have relocated or are locating to outlying areas.
GDRTA will work with area chambers of commerce and major employers to develop rider
incentivesforemployerstouseasemployeebenefits.Therewillalsobethepossibledevelopment
ofafairshareridershipprogramforemployersasacontributiontocleanair.

Due to the shift in commuter travel patterns and the communitys
supportandpartnership,GDRTAimplementedtheRegionalHubNetwork.Benefitsrealizedare:
Improved regional mobility by providing a variety of route options including crosstown,
express,anddowntown basedservice;
Maximized service efficiency by reducing duplicated vehicle miles, and instead providing
neighborhoodfeederroutesinselectedareas;
Enhanced rider comfort and security by providing climate controlled passenger waiting
areas,security,publicrestrooms,androute/scheduleinformation;
Improved electric trolleybus system with extended select trolley routes to logical termini,
suchasregionalhubs;and
Promotionofeconomicdevelopmentbyprovidingalinkbetweensurroundingcommunities
toretailandservicefunctionsnearthehubs.

GDRTAwillcontinuetoinvestigatewaystoimprovecross town
service, to provide direct community to community service, and enhance possible connections
betweencountiessurroundingthecurrentGDRTAservicearea.

GDRTA will continue to focus on the latest ITS
technologies available to assist in providing more cost effective, safe,and reliable transportation
services. Automatic Vehicle Locators and Automatic Passenger Counters are installed, as well as
fareboxesfortheentirefleet.GDRTAredesigneditswebsitetogreatlyenhanceinformationtothe
customerincludingautomaticnotificationofchangestoserviceviatextalertsandanon linetrip
planner.GDRTAwillcontinuetosearchforimprovedpaymentsystemsforcustomersaswellas
providing real time information using smartphone technology to improve the customer travel
experience.
Inaddition,signalizationchangesanddedicatedbuslaneswillbepursued,aswellasanyregional
ITSarchitecturethatwillallowuniversalnotificationofaccidentsandcongestion.
Page111

GDRTA will continue to investigate the
transportation needs of our areas universities and regional school districts. Programs such as
universitypassesandsubsidizedintra campusshuttleservicewillberesearched.

tovariouscommunityevents.
GDRTAwillcontinuetosupporttourismbyprovidingservice

GDRTA will continue to
participate in regional projects that strengthen the link
between transit and community planning. GDRTA has
been able to leverage federal funding support for
community projects involved with the revitalization of
downtown Dayton and the Region. Support for the
downtownbaseballstadium,theRiverScapeProject,the
Schuster Performing Arts Center and the Wright Stop
Transit Plaza, is consistent with GDRTAs goal of
improvingthequalityoflifeintheolder,built upportionofourcommunity.Tofurtherimprove
Wright Stop Plaza, GDRTA used a federal earmark and other funds to demolish a derelict hotel
buildingandconstructedacoveredtransithubwith10turn inlanesforconvenientboardingand
transferwaitsaswellasanindoorwaitingarea,conveniencestores,andafreshfoodmarket.

JobsarebeingcreatedorrelocatedinareaswithintheRegionwherepublictransit
does not presently exist. GDRTA will continue its efforts in providing access to jobs to improve
opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed. GDRTA recently implemented new job
accessservicetotheP&GFacilityintheCityofUnion,developmentsintheNorthwoodsBoulevard
area,andtheAustinLandingdevelopment.

GDRTAanticipatesservicelevels(vehiclehoursandvehiclemiles)toremain
constant. GDRTA will address growing transportation needs by reallocating resources where
possible,andseekinnovativerevenuesourcestoassistwithfutureoperatingexpenses.

Continuingitseffortstoaddressfederalemphasisareasinplanning,
GDRTA will target and study promising transit markets (e.g., employment centers, day care
facilities, tourist attractions, etc.) and identify traditional and non traditional transit options to
encourage new and increased ridership. Planning efforts will include analysis of innovative
services,whichmaybecommunity based,employer based,ororganization based,andanannual
planning seminar sponsored in conjunction with the Ohio Planning Conference with nationally
recognizedspeakersontopicsofregionalsignificance.
Planningfundswillbeusedtosupporteffortstoimproveridership,addressqualityoflifeissues,
updateananalysisofthehubsystem,aswellassupportinitiativesthatwillstressthemostrecent
emphasisareas.
Page112
The following assumptions were made in developing the GDRTA Long Range Transportation Plan
projectlists,costs,andrevenues:

GDRTALongRangeTransportationPlanprojectlistisfiscallyconstrained.

Servicearearemainsapproximatelythesame.However,newmarkets
willcontinuetobeexplored(e.g.,additionalexpansionintowesternGreeneCounty)andpossible
extensionsintonorthernWarrenandsouthernMiamiCounties.

Servicearearemainsapproximatelythesame.However,newmarketswillcontinuetobe
explored(e.g.,additionalexpansionintowesternGreeneCounty.Possibleextensionsinto
northernWarrenandsouthernMiamiCounties).
GDRTAwillcontinuetooperateasamultiplehub/transfersystem.
GDRTAwillpursuedual modevehicletechnologyforserviceextensionsoffexistingelectric
trolleywire.
GDRTA is in compliance with ADA and will continue to work with human services
transportationcoordinationefforts.
Annualvehiclehoursandvehiclemileswillslightlyincrease.
Annualridershipwillslightlyincrease.
Averagefarewillbeconsistentwithinflation.

GDRTAanticipatesafleetsizeasfollows:
ElectricTrolleys45;
Diesels30to40111;
ProjectMobilityVehicles75;and
Contingency35to40Dieselsremainat20percent.

Thefollowingvehicleswillbepurchased:
86newelectrictrolleybuses,
218newlargedieselbuses,and
70newProjectMobility/NewMarketvehicles.

distributionsystem.
Continued maintenance of substation and overhead

Utilityvehiclefleettobereplacedseveraltimesoverthe2016 2040period;
Vehicleequipment;
Upgradestoourfacilitiesandhubs;
Office/shopequipment;
Capitalizedleases;
Page113
Planningprojects;and
Communityprojects.
AsummaryofGDRTAsLongRangeprojectlistispresentedinTable6.1.
Table 6.1 GDRTA 2040 LRTP Projects
Project
CapitalProjects
RevenueVehicles&Equipment
ElectricBuses 86(Fleetof45)
Diesel 218(Fleetof111)
ProjectMobilityBuses 70(Fleetof75)
VehicleEquipment
ElectricSystemInfrastructure
TransitHubs&FacilityImprovements
LongworthCampus
DowntownCampus
CountywideTransitHubs
FacilitywideSecurityItems
Equipment
MaintenanceEquipment
OfficeEquipment&Furnishings
ComputerEquipment&Software
Support/UtilityVehicles
PassengerAmenities
GeneralTransitEnhancements
CommunitySpecificTEProjects
PlanningProjects
CapitalTireLease
Operating/MaintenanceProjects
Total
Cost
521.17
105.40
111.66
38.19
9.54
92.63
33.42
18.58
16.42
3.94
6.34
3.28
19.32
4.14
8.31
33.39
0.15
16.46
2,233.00
2,754.17
Source:GDRTA
Page114
6.3 Greene County Transit Board

The Greene County Transit Board is a public body that was formed to provide public transit for
GreeneCountyandtohelpcoordinatesocialservicestransportationintheCounty.Thecommonly
known name of the transit service is Greene CATS. The Board contracts out the day to day
operationsofthetransitservicetoaprivatecompanycurrentlyFirstTransit.
The service is a combination of traditional demand

responsive and flex route services. It is wheelchair
accessibleandservesamixoffare payingandcontract
riders.ThetransitserviceareaisGreeneCountywith
tripstoMontgomeryCountyandsurroundingcounties
as needed. In addition, the Greene County Transit
Boardworkswithlocalsocialservicesagenciestohelp
coordinate social services transportation and to
provide a wider range of transportation options to
riders.
ThefollowingassumptionsweremadeindevelopingtheGreeneCATSprojectlists,expenses,and
revenuesforthe2040LRTP:
Addingpeak,evening,andweekend,flexrouteservicebeginningin2016;
No change in fares 2016: traditional demand responsive service $3.00 each one way in
GreeneCounty;$6eachwaytoandfromMontgomeryCounty;$0.75forchildren13and
under; flex services $1.50 each way, $0.75 for elderly, disabled, and children (13 and
under);
NochangeinFTAorODOTformulafundingorlocalrevenuesources;and
Continue to work with social services agencies to foster coordination and brokerage
programs.
Page115
Table 6.2 Greene CATS 2040 LRTP Operating Statistics
ShortTerm
Plan5years
(2016 2020)
Vehicle miles
1,400,000/yr
Vehicle hours
75,000/yr
Fleetsize
Passenger trips
185,000/yr
LongTerm
Plan10years
(2021 2030)
LongTerm
Plan10years
(2021 2030)
Full25Year
Plan
7,000,000
14,000,000
14,000,000
35,000,000
375,000
750,000
750,000
1,875,000
42
42
42
925,000
1,850,000
1,850,000
4,625,000
Source:GreeneCATS
AsummaryoftheGreeneCATS2040LRTPprojectlistispresentedinTable6.3.
Table 6.3 Greene CATS 2040 LRTP Expenses Summary
MajorProjects
Capital
BusPurchase175(Fleetof42)
Shop/OfficeEquipment
PlanningProjects
OtherCapitalProjects
Operating/Maintenance
Total(2015dollars)
Total(YOEdollars)
Cost
12.5
8.75
0.13
2.25
1.37
82.37
94.87
127.30
Source:GreeneCATS
6.4 Miami County Transit System

As a result of the 2000 Census classifying Miami County as an urbanized area, the Board of
Commissioners established a Miami County Transit Department effective January 2, 2004. The
MiamiCountyTransitstaffisresponsibleforthegrowth,financial,andoperationalaspectsofthe
department.OperationsandMaintenancearecurrentlycontractedtoFirstTransit.
Miami County Transit System provides demand responsive transit services within the geographic
areaofMiamiCounty.TheserviceareawasexpandedinJanuary2007toincludetheCityofPiqua,
whichoperatedaruraltransitsystemthrough2006.FundingfortheruraltransitsystemintheCity
ofPiquawaseliminatedeffectiveJanuary1,2007,atwhichtimethemergerofthePiquaTransit
ServiceandtheMiamiCountyTransitSystemconcluded.
Page116
MiamiCountyTransitoffersaconnectionwithGDRTAintwoareas(oneonRoute17Vandaliaand
oneonRoute18HuberHeights).
MiamiCountyTransitprovidesservicesixdaysaweek.MondaythroughFridayfrom5:00AMto
6:00PM,andSaturdayfrom8:00AMto2:00PM.
The County anticipates continued increases in benefits for local human service organizations.
ManyoftheseorganizationshavetheopportunitytoutilizeMiamiCountyTransitasamethodof
expandingexistingprograms.
In limited cases, special transit trips may have trip ends (such as major employers, medical
facilities,etc.)outsideofMiamiCounty,butwithinODOTs50 mileradiusconstraint.Thesystem
providesapproximately62,300tripsannually.Annualincreasesinpassengercountsareexpected.
Theseincreaseswillrequireathoughtfulapproachinordertoabsorbnewridersintotheexisting
infrastructureofthesystemandoperatewithinavailableresources.Thecurrentfleetconsistsof
eighteensmalltransitbuses,allareliftequippedandADAaccessible.
AsummaryoftheMiamiCountyTransitSystems2040LRTPprojectlistispresentedinTable6.4
below.
Table 6.4 Miami County Transit 2040 LRTP Projects
Project
Cost(YOE)
Capital
SmallBuses 75(Fleetof18)
Shop/OfficeEquipment
SecurityEquipment
PlanningProjects
Operating/Maintenance
Total
6.91
6.49
0.08
0.17
0.17
34.13
41.04
Source:MiamiCountyTransit
Page117
6.5 Public Transit Human Services Transportation

SAFETEA LU required that proposed projects under three FTA formula programs (the Specialized
NeedsofElderlyIndividualsandIndividualswithDisabilitiesProgramSection5310,JobAccess
andReverseCommuteSection5316,andtheNewFreedomSection5317)bederivedfroma
locally developed coordinated public transit/human services transportation plan. MAP 21/FAST
Act has maintained the coordinated planning requirement, but has changed specific programs
governed by that requirement. Specifically, Section 5316 (New Freedom) fundingwas combined
with Section 5310 to create a revamped program now called
Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities
Program. The Section 5316 program (Job Access and Reverse
Commute or JARC) ended and the funding was redirected to
regionaltransitagenciestoenhancetransitservicesforjobaccess.
TheCoordinatedPlanmustbedevelopedandmanagedthrougha
processthatincludesrepresentativesofpublic,private,andnon
profittransportationandhumanservicesproviders,aswellasthe
public including; non drivers, people with disabilities, and the
elderly.
IntheDaytonurbanizedarea,MVRPC,incooperationwiththeregionaltransitagencies,tookthe
leadindevelopingtheCoordinatedPublicTransitHumanServicesTransportationPlanwhichwas
endorsed by the MVRPC Board of Directors in April 2008. Summaries of the Plan findings and
recommendations are included below with the recommendations listed in order of priority. In
2012,theHSTCplanwasupdateddocumentingprogressoftheinitialfindingsandidentifyingnew
focus areas. Most of these findings remain true in 2016, largely due to underlying demographic
trends, such as the aging of the Regions population and the related increase in people with
disabilities. In addition, lack of local operatingfunding to expand transportation services for the
elderlyandthedisabledhasbeenanimpedimenttomakingsignificantprogressonmanyissues.

Needforbetterpublictransitconnectionsacrosscountyboundaries;
Lackoftransportationoptionsatnightandonweekends;
Difficultyoffindinginformationonavailableservices;
Infrequenttransitserviceonsomeroutes;
Needforadvanceschedulingdecreasingpotentialdemand;
Increasing demand for dialysis related transportation and transportation for other
repetitivemedicaltreatments;
AgingoftheRegionspopulationandthegrowingtransportationneedsofseniors;
Need to complete essential sidewalks, curb cuts, and other elements of the pedestrian
infrastructure,especiallyalongfixedandflex routetransitlines;
Growingnumberoflow incomeresidentslivinginsuburbanandruralsettingswithlimited
transportationoptions;
Page118
Recognition that lack of transportation options for non drivers is a high priority, regional
issue;and
An overarching emphasis on coordination among agencies, funders, and users to ensure
cost effectiveuseoftheRegionstransportationassets.

Coordinatedtravelinformationattheregionalorcountylevel;
Connectingexistingpublictransitservices;
Developingagencycoordinationagreements;
Taxisubsidyoptionsforprojectmobilitytrips;
Vanpoolsforworkandothertrips;
Expansionofcurrentpublictransportationservices;
Brokeringtransportationoperations;
Additionallocalfundingsupportfortransportationoptions;
Multi countytransportationservices;and
Regionaltransportationcoordination.

Cross county connections of transit agencies have improved significantly, Greene County
flexservicenowconnectsfromXeniatotheGDRTAEastownandDowntownDaytonHubs
as well as direct Greene CATS service to Sinclair Community College. In addition, GDRTA
has added direct service to the Fairfield Mall area in Greene County and Miami County
Transit has added connections to GDRTA in Montgomery County (Vandalia and Huber
Heights).
In2012,theRegionalDirectoryofTransitandHumanServicestransportationwasconverted
to a website: www.miamivalleyridefinder.org. This website lists contact information and
services for public and non profit transportation providers throughout Greene, Miami,
MontgomeryandnorthernWarrencounties.
AmobilitymanagerisnowhousedatGreeneCATS.Whiletheprimaryfocusofthisposition
isonGreeneCountyresidents,themobilitymanagerassistswithregionalissuesincluding
providing administration of the www.miamivalleyridefinder.org website. The mobility
manageralsoprovidestraveltrainingandreferralsandotherservicestonon drivers.
Job related transit service connects residents of the mens homeless shelter with the
MontgomeryCountyJobCenterandthedowntownGDRTAhub.
ContinuationoftheSeniorTransportationExpansionProjectinMontgomeryCountywhich
provides funding to support transportation services provided by senior centers in various
communities.
Improvement of sidewalk infrastructure, including the addition of concrete passenger
landing pads and ADA curb cuts in multiple jurisdictions, improving access to fixed route
transitforpeoplewithdisabilitiesandtheelderly.
Hosting of coordinated driver training events by GDRTA and Goodwill Easter Seals of the
MiamiValley.
Page119
MAP 21/FAST Act changed the long established FTA Section 5310 program from a statewide
allocationtoaregionalallocationinlargeurbanizedareasliketheGreaterDaytonUrbanizedArea.
TheRegionnowreceivesanannualallocationoffundstosupportthespecialtransportationneeds
ofseniorsandindividualswithdisabilities.
The Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission has been named the Designated Recipient for
Section5310fundsinGreene,Montgomery,MiamiandnorthernWarrenCountiesbytheGovernor
oftheStateOhio.Inthatrole,MVRPCisresponsibleforawardingprogramfundstoensurethat
transportation options for seniors and people with disabilities will be maintained and improved.
Theprimarymethodforachievingthisgoalistoprovidefinancialsupportforaccessiblevehiclesto
non profitagenciesandgovernmententitieswhichsupplementtheserviceavailablethroughthe
publictransitsystemsinthosecounties.
The Greater Dayton Regional Transit Agency (GDRTA) is a partner in administering the 5310
program and acts as the purchasing agent for the program. In addition, GDRTA will maintain
continuous controlofSection5310vehiclesthroughouttheusefullifeofthevehiclebywayofa
leasearrangementwithparticipatingagencies.Participatingagencieswillmakeaone timelease
paymentequalto20%ofthevalueofthevehiclebeingpurchased.Thelocalmatchwillneedtobe
paidinfullwhentheleaseissigned.Whenavehiclereachestheusefullifecriteriaestablishedby
FTA,thevehiclewillbetitledovertotheoperatingagencywhichcancontinueusingthevehicleor
properlydisposeofsaidvehicle.
Under current law, competitive selection is allowed, but not required. A decision will be made
annuallywhethercompetitiveselectionisappropriateforthecurrentcycleoffunding.Inaddition
toaccessiblevehicles,othereligibleprojectswillincludepedestrianinfrastructureimprovements,
whenthoseimprovementsenhanceaccesstofixedroutetransit,preventivemaintenanceprojects
for vehicles that have been awarded through the 5310 process, and mobility management
activities.
Agencies which request 5310 funding are required to be, or to become, active members of the
Regional Transportation Coordination Council and to track and report certain performance
indicators.
Page120
CHAPTER 7
ALTERNATIVE MODES AND DEVELOPMENT CHOICES
7.1 Overview
AstheRegiongrows,itisessentialtoplanacomprehensivetransportationsystemthatservesthe
needsoftravelersusingallmodesoftransportation,allowingforreasonablemobilitychoicesforall
residents. The 2040 LRTP addresses future transportation needs by including programs and
projects that provide alternatives to traditional forms of transportation and thereby aid in
curtailingthedemandforsingleoccupancyvehicletravel,reducingcongestion,harmfulemissions,
and the reliance on petroleum based products. Alternative modes and development choice
strategiescanalsospureconomicdevelopmentinexistingcommunities,createstrongplaceswith
asenseofcommunity,andhelppreserveopenspaceandenvironmentallysensitiveareas.

Between 2000 and 2010, the Regions elderly population (older than 65 years) increased by 16
percent while also experiencing a subtle increase in the amount of that population that lives in
suburbanandruralareas.Atthesametime,youngerpeopleareincreasinglydelayingtheageat
which they get their first drivers license. In 2013, approximately 62 percent of the population
betweentheagesof15to24yearshaddriverslicensesintheMiamiValley,andwhilethisrateis
higherthanthenationalaverage,itisstilllowerthanpreviousdecades.Youngerdriversarealso
morelikelytodrivelessifdrivingcostsincreaseandgenerallyhaveahigherpreferenceforliving
closetowork.Itisalsoimportantforelderlyresidentstoliveinanenvironmentinwhichtheyare
notbeingpushedtodrivebeyondtheagesatwhichitissafetodoso.
Page121
Onthehouseholdfront,40percentofthehouseholdpopulationintheRegionnowlivesina1or2
person household, a 9 percent increase since 2000. Younger generations are also choosing to
postpone homeownership; as a result, the region experienced a 10 percent increase in the
populationlivinginrentalhousingunitsbetween2000and2010.
Population changes, transportation, and living preference shifts are combining into a non
traditionaldemandforvariedlivingarrangementsandtransportationchoices.Onthehousingend
thereisstrongdemandforsenior/elderlyhousingaswellasinfillandurbanhousing.Thereisalso
interestindevelopmentofsuburbanareasneartransitandotheramenities.Successfulregionswill
needtoaddressthesepreferencestoretainexistingresidentsandattractnewones.
Improvements in transportation technologies are addressing some of these challenges. Car
sharing,bike sharing,andride sharingservices,suchasUberandLyft,areprovidingareasonable
alternative/supplement to automobile ownership with new models, such as GetAround (car
sharingofprivatelyownedautomobiles),alsoemerging.Onalongerhorizon,emergingself driving
and autonomous vehicle technologies will also impact congestion, mobility, safety, and
development patterns. Additional information about Daytons Bike Share program, Link, is
providedlaterinthischapter.
Thesedemographic,socio economic,andtechnology orientedshiftsareexpectedtocontinueinto
thefuturesoitisincreasinglyimportantforregionstoplanforandprovidealternatives.
7.2 Funding Outlook

Financial forecasts for the programs and projects described in this chapter are based on annual
averages as shown in the current SFY 2016 2019 TIP and are assumed to be in 2015 dollars. A
summary is provided in Table 7.1 below and additional details can be found in the Financial
AnalysisSummary.
Table 7.1 2040 Forecasted Cost and Revenues for Alternative Modes
Cost/Revenues
Program
RIDESHARE
VanpoolSubsidy
AirQuality
Bikeway/Pedestrian
Total(2015dollars)
Total(YOEdollars)
FourYear
TIP(2016
2019)
1.73
0.56
1.65
4.89
8.83
8.83
LongTerm
ShortTerm
Annual
Plan 5years Plan 10years
Average
(2016 2020) (2021 2030)
0.43
0.14
0.41
2.16
0.70
2.06
4.89
9.81
9.94
4.32
1.40
4.12
9.84
12.43
LongTerm
Plan 10
years
(2031 2040)
4.32
1.40
4.12
9.84
15.54
ForFull
25Year
Plan
10.81
3.50
10.30
4.89
29.50
37.91
Source:MVRPC
Page122
7.3 Ridesharing Programs

Ridesharing and other travel demand management strategies are expected to continue to be
importantelementsintheefforttoreduceground levelozone(smog)andparticlepollution.The
RIDESHAREProgramcelebratedits35thanniversaryin2014.
MVRPCs RIDESHARE Program is available for free to anyone who lives, works or attends
college/school in Montgomery, Greene, Miami, Preble, Darke, and Clinton counties. When
commutersregisterforRIDESHARE,thematchingsoftwaretriestolinkthemwithotherswholive
and/orwork/attendcollegenearthem.Theythenreceiveamatchlistofpeoplewhohavesimilar
schedulesanddestinations.Commuterscancallthoseonthelistandmakearrangementstoform
acarpoolorvanpool.
MVRPC teamed up with CCSTCC and developed aCommuter Club Card whichincluded year long
discountstolocalandnationalretailersthroughouttheMiamiValley.Thecardsweredevelopedas
awaytosayThankYoutoresidentsparticipatingintheprogramandalongwithashortsurvey
regarding commuting, were sent to everyone in the RIDESHARE database and distributed
throughouttheyearatspecialevents.
Additionally, as a way to encourage ridesharing, MVRPC coordinates with the Dayton Dragons
minor league baseball team and the City of Ketterings Fraze Pavilion to offer special carpool
parking at specific home games and concerts. Attendees can pre register for the parking if they
intendtoridesharetotheeventasacarpoolof4people.Thedesignatedparkingisconveniently
locatedandspecificallyreservedforthem.Specialpromotions,suchasthese,allowresidentsthe
opportunity to be rewarded for using alternative modes and to get used to thinking about
ridesharingnomatterwheretheyneedtogo.
Therewillbeacontinuedefforttoincorporateinnovativepromotionsandincentivestoencourage
the use of alternative transportation including construction awareness campaigns like the I 75
ModernizationProjectandotherplanned,large scaled,reconstructionprojects.
Overtheyears,rideshareserviceimprovementshaveincluded:
The development of a Guaranteed Ride Home
Programthatallowscommuterstotakeataxicab
orrentacarforoneday,uptofourtimesayear,
andarereimbursed80%ofthefullfare/rentalfee.
Improvements to www.miamivalleyrideshare.org
that allow commuters to register for the service
on line. The RIDESHARE hotline, 1 800 743 SAVE
and 937 223 SAVE, is available to those without
Internetaccess.BothareontheRIDESHAREroad
signs, which continue to be one of the top three
waysthatpeoplelearnabouttheprogram(behind
televisionandradioadvertising).
Theadditionoflocalbikeroutes/pathssocyclistscouldbematchedwithotherswhowant
tobiketoworkorcollege(PedalPalsProgram).
Page123
AnewfeaturewasenabledontheRIDESHAREwebsitetoallowuserstoreceiveanemail
notification to alert them when new users match their commuting parameters (route,
destination,start/endtimeframe,etc.).
The vanpool program continues to be a very attractive commuting option for people traveling
longerdistancestowork.Tworecognizedvanpoolproviders,vRide(formerlyVPSI)andEnterprise
Holdings, Inc., work with local businesses, most notably, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, to
present vanpooling information to their employees. Generally, anyone travelling more than 25
miles one way can benefit by joining a vanpool. Vans are available in seven, nine, and fifteen
passenger models and made available for lease on a monthly basis to groups traveling longer
distances. MVRPC has applied for and received CMAQ funds to offer vanpool lease subsidies of
$500permonth,forupto36 months,toencouragevanpooling.
7.4 Air Quality Program

The Regional Ozone Action Program was developed in
1994 as a public information/behavior modification
campaign to inform Dayton/Springfield residents about
ground level ozone issues and how the general publics
behavior can impact not only air quality, but also the
Regions economy. In 2004, it was expanded to include
particle pollution and renamed the Miami Valley Air
QualityProgram.RAPCAmonitorstheMiamiValleysair
pollution levels year round and MVRPC, in coordination
with RAPCA, issues Air Pollution Advisory (APA) notices
whenairpollutionlevelsbegintorise.Thegeneralpublic,thetop100localbusinesses,member
jurisdictions,daycarecenters,seniorcitizencenters,Ear,NoseandThroatdoctors,andlocalmedia
are alerted, and citizens are encouraged to take action to reduce air pollution. The website,
www.miamivalleyair.org,includesinformationaboutairqualityandpollutionprevention.
In 2011, an Air Pollution Advisory logo was developed for Dayton/Springfield, Columbus, and
Cleveland and it is distributed to the media. In addition, the Dayton Daily News and Springfield
Daily Sun feature the words An Air Pollution Advisory has been issued for today on the front
page, above the masthead, of both papers on days when an APA is in effect and tips on how to
reduce air pollution are included on the newspapers local pages. The logo is featured in a 30
secondtelevisioncommercialexplainingwhatanAPAis,howitrelatestotheAirQualityIndex
(AQI),andsuggestedairpollutionreductionstrategies.
Extensiveadvertising,focusingonactionsthatthegeneralpubliccantaketoreduceairpollution
andincorporatingFHWAsslogan,ItAllAddsUptoCleanerAirinclude:
Page124
Drivinglessbycarpooling,vanpooling,takingthebus,riding
a bike or walking (coordination with MVRPCs RIDESHARE/
AlternativeTransportationProgramisemphasized);
Keepingvehiclesproperlytuned,nottoppingoffthetank,
making sure the gas cap fits tightly, and refueling in the
eveningwhensmogislesslikelytoform;
Mowing lawns after 6:00 pm and limiting the use of
gasoline poweredlawnequipmentsuchasweed whackers,
leafblowers,snowblowers,andchainsaws;and
Eliminating outdoor burning, including leaves, wood, or
trash; mulching or composting leaves/yard waste; reducing
or eliminating fireplace and wood stove use consider
retrofittingwoodstoveswithafilterorusegaslogsinstead.
MVRPC partnered with RAPCA in 2015 to develop an Idle Free Education Campaign. The two
agenciesdevelopedatoolkittoprovidetolocalschools,libraries,daycarecenters,hospitals,parks
andmunicipalities,toinformvisitorsthattheircampusisanIdle FreeZone.Outdoorsignageand
informational brochures were made available free of charge to any organization wanting to
implement the program. This campaign received funding through the Ohio Environmental
EducationFundMiniGrant.
7.5 Bikeway and Pedestrian Program and Projects

Bikewaysandsidewalksarebothimportantcomponentsofanintermodaltransportationnetwork
since all transportation trips contain a pedestrian element at some point. In addition to
maintaining a project listing of actual projects being implemented or planned for the future,
MVRPCalsoconductsextensiveoutreachandplanningeffortsrelatedtobikewayandpedestrian
mobility.
This plan, originally adopted by the Board of Directors in December 2008, and updated in 2015,
inventories bicycle facilities and identifies future bikeway connections at both the regional and
local network levels. The purposeof the planis to createa completesystem of bicycle facilities
thatconnectpeopletodesireddestinationsincludingtheirhomes.Further,theplanencourages
policiesandprogramsthatwillfosterincreasedbicycleuseacrosstheMiamiValleyRegion.The
2015 Update assesses both national and regional data regarding safety, barriers to cycling, and
preferred cycling environments to highlight the general support for bike facilities that provide
greaterdegreesofphysicalseparationfrommotortraffic.
AdaptingtheLevelofTrafficStress(LTS)analysismethodology6foraregional(versusmunicipal)
scale,the2015Updateidentifieslocationswherenewlowstresslocationscouldimprovebicycle
connectivityforall.MVRPCstaffmappedtheentireRegiontoidentifywherethelow stressislands
MinetaTransportationInstitute,2012
Page125
alreadyexist.TheinitialpremisewasthattheMiamiValleyTrailsnetworkisalargelow stress(LTS
1) set of facilities as are residential streets. Roads that are federally functionally classified were
assessedusingthescaledevelopedbytheMinetaInstitute.MostwerefoundtobeLTS4facilities
( 35mphspeeds),withasmallminorityfoundtobeLTS3( 30mphspeedsand/or4lanes).Using
GISanalysis,thelargestlowstressislandswereidentifiedintermsofpopulationandvisualreview
was applied to the largest islands to identify potential projects that would provide low stress
connectionsfromthoseislandstoeitherthetrailsnetworkorneighboringislands.
Figure 7.1 illustrates the LTS analysis using the transportation network in the
Kettering/Beavercreek area. The complete regional maps can be found at
http://www.mvrpc.org/transportation/bikeways pedestrians/mvrpc bikeways plan.
The 2015 Update does not alter MVRPCs regional focus to bikeway infrastructure in the Miami
Valley and completing key regional bikeways connections and filling gaps in existing corridors
remainsaprimaryfocusfortheagency.Butinaddition,the2015Updatecallsonjurisdictionsin
the Region to identify and build safe, convenient, and low stress, connections from the regional
bikewaystoneighborhoods,parks,commercialcenters,anddowntownsthatwillenlargethereach
oftheregionalbicyclenetwork.Eachconnectionmakesthewholesystemmorevaluable.
Since2008,significantprogresshasbeenmadetoimplementtherecommendationsofthePlan.In
addition to bicycle infrastructure, a number of non infrastructure strategies have been initiated
acrosstheregionbyMVRPCand/orpartneragenciesincluding:

MVRPC adopted its Regional Complete Streets
PolicyinJanuary2011.ThecitiesofDayton,RiversideandPiquahavealsoadoptedsimilarpolicies
fortheirjurisdictions.

The committee evolved from an existing
committee of trail managing agencies, with the significant inclusion of member jurisdictions
interested in adding on street bike infrastructure to their communities. Active participants have
includedDayton,Kettering,Riverside,Springboro,Troy,andYellowSprings.

Withthecooperation
ofthetrailmanagingagencies,comprehensiveTrailUser
Surveys were completed in 2009 and 2013. MVRPC
initiated a multi faceted bicycle count program in 2015
including aggregations of trail counter data and use of
on roadbicyclecounters.

MVRPC and partner agencies last updated the regional
bikewaysmapin2014.Inaddition,thecitiesofDayton,
Piqua, Kettering, and Springboro, and the village of
Covington developed and distributed their own map of
bikeroutesandbike friendlystreets.
Page126
Figure 7.1 Bikeway Level of Stress Analysis
Development of Public Service Announcements (PSAs) Two safety PSAs were developed
featuring the executive directors of both MVRPC and Bike Miami Valley regarding cycling with
motor traffic on the regionals roads. Bike Miami Valley is the regional cycling advocacy
organization.

MVRPC, Bike Miami Valley, and numerous regional partners
haveheldfourSummitsinDayton(2009and2011),Springfield(2013),andPiqua(2015).Planning
isunderwayforthe2017SummittobeheldinFairborn.
Page127
MVRPC and regional partners Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority, Five
Rivers MetroParks, and the Miami Conservancy District have continued the Drive Less Live More
campaigneachyearsinceitsinceptionin2007.

MVRPCandtheDriveLessLiveMoreprogramcontinued
thedowntownDaytonBiketoWorkDayprogramandsawsignificant
growth in attendance over the last seven years. With the event at
RiverScapeMetroPark,morethan700ridersattendedin2015.

Inearly2012,MVRPCandaconsortiumof
partners,includingparkdistricts,transitagencies,andconventionand
visitors bureaus re launched a one stop cycling information web site
for the Miami Valley, www.miamivalleytrails.org. The 2015 Bikeway
Plan Update also includes a number of policy recommendations to
developasupportivecyclingecosystemintheMiamiValleyincluding:
Continued support for funding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, at the federal, state,
regional,andlocallevels.
Promotion of the Miami Valley Trails as a regional transportation asset, a business
developmentopportunity,andadrawforout of regiontourists.
Enhanced partnerships: Continue to develop relationships with Bike Miami Valley to
amplify the agencys voice and increase the reach of the agencys messages. Develop
connectionstotheLeagueofAmericanBicyclistsandcontinuetoencouragejurisdictionsin
theareatoseekBikeFriendlyCommunitystatus.
The 2015 plan also lists numerous program suggestions under the other Es: Education,
Encouragement, Enforcement, Equity, and Evaluation. The plan recognizes that effective
implementation of these non engineering programs is essential to achieving the success of the
Regionsbicycletransportationgoals.
Table7.2listsprojectswithlocal,state,orfederal
funds committed for implementation. These
projects represent approximately $4.27 million of
investment.TheLongRangeRegionalBikewayand
Pedestrian Project list presented in Table 7.3
includes proposed long range regional bikeway
and pedestrian projects for the east west and
north south corridors, with a total cost of $97.19
million. Figure 7.2, Regional Bikeway and
Pedestrian Projects, shows the location of all
existing and proposed regional bicycle/pedestrian
ways.
Page128
Table 7.2 Funded Regional Bikeway and Pedestrian Projects

(Cost in year of expenditure dollars)
Corridor
Direction
Map
Corridor Name Label
North South
Dayton Kettering
Connector
North South GreatMiamiRiver

Trail
J1
Bikeway Limits
Owner /
Maint.
Type of Width Length

Facility (feet) (miles)
Cost
Installationofbikelaneson
JeffersonStreetfromBuckeye
StreettoE.FifthStreet.
Dayton
On Street
NA
0.3
$627,000
K10b
Constructtrailonthewestbankof
theGreatMiamiRiverfromcurrent
trailterminusatCourtyardHotelto
W.RiverRoad.
Dayton
Off Street
12
1.0
$481,000
Clayton
On/Off
Street
10
1.0
$635,000
12
2.3
$3,150,000
4.6
$4,893,000
East West
OldNationalRoad
Trail
Z1b
ConstructabikewayparallelingUS
40fromNorthmontSchools
PropertytoHokeRoadinClayton.
East West
OldNationalRoad
Trail
Z2
Constructabikewaythrough
EnglewoodMetroParkusingmarked
parkroads,newsharedusepath,
andanewcoveredbridge.
RegionalTotalsforShortRangeProjects
FiveRivers Off Street

MetroParks/
Englewood
Source:MVRPC
129
Table 7.3 Long Range Regional Bikeway and Pedestrian Projects (Unfunded Cost in 2015 dollars)
Corridor
Direction
Map
Corridor Name Label
Bikeway Limits
Owner /
Maint.

Cost
East West
Ohio to Indiana
Trail
A1
FromtheexistingCardinalTrailbike
route,travelingnorthonHighSt.to
abandonedConrailROW,theneast
alongConrailROW.
MiamiCounty Off Street
10
3.5
$778,179
East West
Ohio to Indiana
Trail
A2
Constructsharedusepathbetween MiamiCounty Off Street

PiquaandMiami/Champaigncounty
lineviaGarbrysBigWoods
Reserve/Sanctuary.
10
9.0
$1,878,626
East West
PossumCreek
Jefferson
Township
Connector
AA1
Constructtrailon/alongWestRiver
RoadtoSunWatchVillageand
GuthrieRoadtoPossumCreek
MetroPark.
On/Off
Street
Varies
3.6
$895,277
East West
PossumCreek
Jefferson
Township
Connector
AA2
ConstructtrailfromPossumCreek
Jefferson
MetroParktoArthurFisherParkand
Twp.,
alongDayton LibertyRoadtoUnion Montgomery
Road.
County
On/Off
Street
Varies
3.8
$570,000
East West
Fairborn Yellow
Springs Cedarville
ConnectorTrail
B1
Constructsharedusepathbetween
SouthSt.andXeniaDr.;addbike
lanesonXeniaDr.betweenshared
usepathandYellowSprings
FairfieldRd.
Off Street
10
1.6
$471,892
East West
Fairborn Yellow
Springs Cedarville
ConnectorTrail
B3
Widen/addshouldersonBlackLane,
Greene
On Street
ArmstrongRoad,WEnonRoad,N
County,
EnonRoadandYellowSprings
Fairborn,
FairfieldRoadtotheLittleMiami
YellowSprings
ScenicTrail.
8.2
$3,295,240
East West
Fairborn Yellow
Springs Cedarville
ConnectorTrail
B4
WidenshouldersonSR343andSR
72betweenYellowSpringsand
Cedarville.
On Street
7.7
$2,633,212
East West
Germantown
SpringValley
Bowersville
ConnectorTrail
C1
Constructsharedusepathalong
TwinCreekbetweenMainSt.and
SR4/SR725intersection.
Germantown Off Street
10
1.0
$286,691
East West
Germantown
SpringValley
Bowersville
ConnectorTrail
C10
FromSackett WrightParkin
BellbrooktotheLittleMiamiScenic
Trail.
Greene
County
Off Street
10
4.6
$1,100,000
East West
Germantown
SpringValley
Bowersville
ConnectorTrail
C11
WidenshouldersbetweenSpring
ValleyandBowersvilleviaSpring
Valley PointersvilleRd.andHussey
Rd.
Greene
County
On Street
16.3
$5,512,398
East West
Germantown
SpringValley
Bowersville
ConnectorTrail
C2
WidenshouldersonLower
MiamisburgRd./Riverview
Ave./MaueRd.betweenSR4and
AlexandersvilleRd.
Varies
6.8
$2,837,899
Dayton
Fairborn
Greene
County
Montgomery On Street
County,
Miamisburg
130
Corridor
Direction
Map
Corridor Name Label
Bikeway Limits
Owner /
Maint.

Cost
East West
Germantown
SpringValley
Bowersville
ConnectorTrail
C4
RetrofitSpringValleyPiketoinclude
bikelanesbetweenYankeeSt.and
McEwenRd.
Washington
Township
On Street
0.4
$123,532
East West
Germantown
SpringValley
Bowersville
ConnectorTrail
C5
TravelingeastfromMcEwenRd.,
alongresidentialstreets,to
Alexandersville BellbrookPike.
Washington
Township,
Centerville
On Street
NA
5.0
$1,432,103
East West
Germantown
SpringValley
Bowersville
ConnectorTrail
C7
FromexistingSR725bikeway,
travelingeastfromMarwyckDr.to
WilmingtonPike.
Centerville
Off Street
12
0.7
$253,113
East West
Germantown
SpringValley
Bowersville
ConnectorTrail
C8
TravelingeastalongSR725,from
WilmingtonPiketo0.02mileseast.
Bellbrook
Off Street
12
0.0
$25,000
East West
Germantown
SpringValley
Bowersville
ConnectorTrail
C9
TravelingeastalongSR725,from
BellevueDr.toRosecrestDr.
Bellbrook
Off Street
12
0.5
$123,127
East West
IronHorseTrail
D1
Sign/stripebikefacilityalong
ValleywoodDrivefromDorothy
LanetoWilmingtonPike(.89mi)
andthenconstructa.25mile
bikewayalongWilmingtonPiketo
theWilmington/StroopIntersection.
Kettering
On/Off
Street
Varies
1.2
$80,000
East West
IronHorseTrail
D2
Constructanewbikewayfrom
GalewoodSt.alongLittleBeaver
CreekandWoodmanBlvd.toVale
Dr.
Kettering
Off Street
12
0.4
$99,475
East West
MadRiverTrail
E4
NortheastfromexistingMadRiver
CorridorBikewayalongformer
railroadtoEnon.
Greene
CountyPark
District
Off Street
10
2.8
$599,592
East West
GreatMiami Little
MiamiConnector
Trail
F1
ConstructsharedusepathalongSR
123betweendowntownFranklin
andClearCreek;constructshared
usepathalongClearCreekbetween
SR123andLowerSpringboroRd.
Warren
County
Off Street
12
3.6
$971,212
East West
GreatMiami Little
MiamiConnector
Trail
F2
WidenshouldersonLower
SpringboroRd.betweenproposed
ClearCreekTrailandUS42.
Warren
County
On Street
8.7
$2,984,977
East West
WolfCreekTrail
G2a
Cityof
Trotwood
Off Street
10
1.6
$6,383,000
Constructmulti usepathonthe
eastsideoftheroadway.
131
Corridor
Direction
Map
Corridor Name Label
Bikeway Limits
Owner /
Maint.

Cost
East West
WolfCreekTrail
G2b
Installationof6,550'ofbikepathto
connectWolfCreekTrailnearthe
intersectionofWolfCreekPikeand
NWConnector(SR49)andthe
intersectionofOliveRoadand
ModernWayintheCityof
Trotwood.
Cityof
Trotwood
Off Street
10
1.3
$191,000
East West
WolfCreekTrail
G3
ConstructSharedusepathbetween
existingWolfCreekTrail(near
Dodson)andMontgomery/Preble
Countyline.
FiveRivers
MetroParks
Off Street
12
2.2
$532,040
North South
Bellbrook
Fairborn
ConnectorTrail
I1
SignedsharedroadwayfromSR725
alongW.WalnutSt.toexisting
bikewayatBellbrookPark.
Cityof
Bellbrook
On Street
Varies
0.3
$135,402
North South
Bellbrook
Fairborn
ConnectorTrail
I4
WSUtoKauffmanAve.Bikeway
travelingnorthfromColonelGlenn
Hwy.toWrightStateRoad.
WrightState Off Street

University
10
1.0
$231,788
North South
Bellbrook
Fairborn
ConnectorTrail
I5
ConstructsidepathfromOldMill
LanetoKempRd.
Beavercreek
Off Street
2.5
$1,000,000
North South
IronHorseTrail
J3a
Constructabicycle/pedestrian
crossingatI 675,0.33mieastof
LoopRdandextendthetrailtoAlex
BellRd.(SeeJ3bforalternate
alignment.)
Centerville
On/Off
Street
Varies
0.5
$5,000,000
North South
IronHorseTrail
J3b
Constructabicyclefacilityalong
WhippandHewitttotheexisting
SidepathonBiggerRd,crossingI
675toClyoRd.(SeeJ3afor
alternatealignment.)
Centerville/
Kettering
On/Off
Street
Varies
1.5
$250,000
North South
IronHorseTrail
J4
ExtendIronHorseTrailfromBoyce
RoadtoSocialRowRoadusing
ClareridgeLane,SpringValleyand
AtchisonRoads.
Centerville
On Street
Varies
2.4
$675,493

Trail
K12
ReplaceBridgeinPiquawithADA
CompliantStructure.

ParkDistrict
10
0.5
$3,124,885

Trail
K7
TravelingnorthfromJohnstonFarm MiamiCounty Off Street

totheCountyLine.
ParkDistrict
10
2.1
$456,557

Trail
K9
ConstructGreatMiamiRiverTrail
betweenBaxterDriveandMiami
RiverPreservePark.
Franklin,
Off Street
Middletown,
Miami
Conservancy
District
12
2.0
$1,386,572
North South
L1
FromexistingbikewayatSinclair
Park,travelingnorthtoGrossnickle
Park.
FiveRivers Off Street

Metro
Parks/Various
10
4.7
$2,990,725
StillwaterRiver
Trail
132
Corridor
Direction
Map
Corridor Name Label
Bikeway Limits
Owner /
Maint.

Cost
North South
StillwaterRiver
Trail
L3
FromtheexistingEnglewood
ReserveBikeway,travelingnorth
alongtheStillwaterRivercorridor,
toSR55.

ParkDistrict
10
10.4
$3,413,921
North South
StillwaterRiver
Trail
L5
Constructsharedusepathroughly
parallelingSR48between
CovingtonandLudlowFalls.

ParkDistrict
10
10.0
$2,051,460
North South
WolfCreek
ConnectorTrail
M1
WidenshouldersalongUnionRd.
fromtheWolfCreekBikewaytothe
existingpathatI 70.
Englewood,
Trotwood
On Street
4.1
$1,688,055
North South
WolfCreek
ConnectorTrail
M2
WidenshouldersalongUS40from
UnionBlvd.totheEnglewood
Reserve(alsoservestheOld
NationalRoadTrail).
Englewood
On Street
0.6
$249,370
North South
WolfCreek
ConnectorTrail
M3
WidenshouldersonUnionRd.
betweenExistingWolfCreekTrailin
TrotwoodandSR725.
County
11.6
$3,975,305
East West
Great LittleTrail
N1
Miamisburg SpringboroRd./Austin
Pike/SocialRowRd.between
MedlarRd.andWilmington Dayton
Rd.;widenshouldersonFerry
Rd./LytleRd.betweenWilmington
DaytonRd.andNorthSt.inCorwin;
developsignedon streetbikeway.
Mont.
County,
Centerville
Washington
On/Off
Street
Varies
10.7
$2,491,329
North South
Bowersville
Jamestown
CliftonConnector
Trail
O1
WidenshouldersonSR72between
BowersvilleandJamestown.
Greene
County
On Street
5.4
$1,842,903
North South
Bowersville
Jamestown
CliftonConnector
Trail
O2
WidenshouldersonCharlestonRd.
andSelma JamestownRd.between
JamestownandGreene/Clark
Countyline.
Greene
County
On Street
10.4
$3,506,843
North South
Troy Fletcher
ConnectorTrail
P1
WidenshouldersalongSR55andSR
589,providinganon streetbikeway
linkingTroy,Casstown,andFletcher.
Troy,Miami
County
On Street
10.6
$3,596,324
East West
CardinalTrail
Q1
Widenroadwayshouldersalongthe MiamiCounty On Street

CardinalTrailroute(Covington
GettysburgRd.)betweenCovington
andtheMiami/DarkeCountyline.
4.7
$1,564,309
East West
CardinalTrail
Q2
Widenroadwayshouldersalongthe MiamiCounty On Street

CardinalTrailroutebetween
Covingtonandthe
Miami/ChampaignCountyline.
(SpringSt.,CR30,FarringtonRd.,
PetersonRd.,Alcony CanoverRd.,
LoyRd.)
20.1
$6,722,240
133
Corridor
Direction
Map
Corridor Name Label
Bikeway Limits
Owner /
Maint.

Cost
East West
Laura Troy
ConnectorTrail
R1
formerrailroadcorridorbetween
LauraandLudlowFalls.
10
6.6
$1,388,219
East West
Laura Troy
ConnectorTrail
R2
Constructsharedusepathroughly
parallelingSR55andalongformer
PennCentralRailroadbetween
LudlowFallsandTroy.
12
7.6
$1,920,678
North South
SR741Bikeway
T1a
ConstructbikefacilityalongSR741
fromtheCoxArboretumentrance
tothenorthterminusofthefacility
constructedunderPID#90289.
Montgomery
County
On/Off
Street
Varies
0.5
$183,000
North South
SR741Bikeway
T1b
ConstructbikefacilityalongSR741
betweenMallParkDriveand
FerndownDrive.
Montgomery
County
On/Off
Street
Varies
1.7
$623,000
North South
SR741Bikeway
T1c
ConstructabikefacilityalongSR
741fromentrancetoWaldruhe
ParktoAustinPike.
Montgomery
County
On/Off
Street
Varies
0.6
$220,000
North South
SR741Bikeway
T2a
ConstructbikelanesonSR741
betweenAustinPikeandthe
currentterminusofthebikelanes
approx.1,000feetsouthofW.Tech
Drive.
Springboro,
Warren
County
On Street
6.0
0.2
$56,000
East West
CarriageHills
ConnectorTrail
U1
ConnectGreatMiamiRiverTrailand
CarriageHillsMetroParkviashared
usepaththroughCarriageTrails
development.
Various
Off Street
12
4.2
$1,063,000
North South
CarriageHills
ConnectorTrail
U2
ConnectCarriageHillsMetroPark
andNewCarlisleviawidened
shouldersonSR202,SingerRd.,
PalmerRd.,SR571,Dayton Brandt
Rd.,andsharedusepathonformer
railroadcorridorbetweenDayton
BrandtRd.andNewCarlisle.
Miami
County,
Montgomery
County
On/Off
Street
Varies
8.0
$2,431,000
North South
CarriageHills
ConnectorTrail
U3
ConnectHuffmanMetroParkand
CarriageHillMetroParkviaUnion
SchoolHouse,Baker,Kitridge,and
BellefontaineRoads.
County,Five
Rivers
MetroParks
Varies
8.3
$2,302,289
East West
GreatMiamiRiver
Centerville
ConnectorTrail
V1
Constructtrailfollowinglocal
streetsandsharedusepaths
connectingMoraine,West
Carrollton,WashingtonTownship,
Centerville,andBellbrookviaCox
Arboretum,YankeePark,GrantPark
andPleasantHillPark.
Various
On/Off
Street
Varies
8.2
$1,881,895
East West
GreatMiamiRiver
Creekside
ConnectorTrail
X1
Constructtrailextensionroughly
parallelingUS35to4thSt.alongRR
ROWthenwesttoKeoweeStand
northtoMonumentAvenue.
Dayton,Five
Rivers
MetroParks
Off Street
12
3.1
$770,679
134
Corridor
Direction
Map
Corridor Name Label
Bikeway Limits
Owner /
Maint.

Cost
NA
TroyBikewayHub
Y1
ConstructTroyBikeHubstructure.
Troy
NA
NA
0.0
$200,000
NA
PiquaBikeway
Hub
Y2
Redevelopahistoricalbuildinginto
aBikeHubattheintersectionofthe
GMRtrailandthePiqua Covington
FletcherTrail.
Piqua
NA
NA
0.0
$500,000
East West
OldNationalRoad
Trail
Z1a
40fromtheintersectionwithThe
WolfCreekTrailtoNorthmont
Schoolsproperty.
Montgomery
County,Five
Rivers
MetroParks
On/Off
Street
Varies
5.9
$1,467,259
East West
OldNationalRoad
Trail
Z1c
40fromCentenialParkin
EnglewoodtoEnglewood
MetroPark.
Englewood
On/Off
Street
Varies
0.8
$106,400
East West
OldNationalRoad
Trail
Z3
ConstructbikewayparallelingUS40
fromFrederickPiketothe
TaylorsvilleDam(GreatMiamiTrail)
throughDaytonAirportproperty
andCityofVandalia.
Vandalia,
Dayton
On/Off
Street
Varies
6.3
$1,894,334
RegionalTotalsforLongRangeProjects
272.62 $97,418,820
Source:MVRPC
135
TheDaytonBikeShareprogram,Link,openedforoperationonMay5,
2015andwasmadepossiblebyastrategicpartnershipofmorethana
dozen entities. The original capital improvements were funded by
MVRPCsSurfaceTransportationProgram(STP).TheGreaterDayton
RTAmaintainsthebikeshareequipmentandbalancesthedistribution
ofbikesacrossthenetworkandBikeMiamiValleyhandlescustomer
memberships, organizational partnerships, education, as well as
marketing and promotions. Bike sharing offers several economic,
livability, transportation, environmental, and health benefits to the
businesses, employees, visitors, and residents of downtown Dayton
andsurroundingneighborhoods.Itreducesthecarbonfootprintand
frustration with moving a car and parking. Link features 24
strategically located stations, within an approximate two mile radius of downtown Dayton. In
2015, users took over 26,000 trips, rode over 65,000 miles, and burned over 2,500,000 calories.
Theprogramattractedover4,000uniqueusersandsoldover450annualmembershipsand6,800
24 Hourmemberships.
7.6 Development Choices Going Places

In April 2012, the MVRPC Board of Directors endorsed the Concentrated Development Vision
resulting from the Going Places initiative. In this Vision, development would be concentrated
around regional assets and in areas that already have infrastructure; rehabilitation and/or
repurposing of vacant and underused structures would be encouraged; and the preservation of
agricultural land and other open space would be a priority. More specific characteristics are
detailedbelowandillustratedinFigure7.3.
Encouragetherehabilitationand/orrepurposingofexistingstructures.
Focusonthemaintenanceofexistinginfrastructure.
Locateanynewdevelopmentinareaswithexistinginfrastructure.
RevivetheRegionsoldercommunities.
Preserveprimefarmlandandsupportagriculturalenterprise.
ImprovethequalityofeducationalopportunitiesthroughouttheRegion.
FosterasenseofconnectionandcooperationbetweentheRegionscommunities.
Increasethenumberandqualityoftransportationoptions.
EncouragedevelopmentaroundtheRegionsassets.
Encouragetherehabilitationand/orreuseofvacantindustrialsites.
Encourage energy efficient building practices and the retrofitting of older structures for
energyefficiency.
Uselandinawaythatbuildsasenseofcommunity.
MaintainandexpandtheRegionsparks,naturalareas,andrecreationamenities.
Encouragethedevelopmentofquality,realistic,affordablehousingthroughouttheRegion.
RevivetheRegionscorecitytheCityofDayton.
Page136
Figure 7.2
Regional Bikeway & Pedestrian Network
K7
Newberry
Township
!
(
_
^
PIQUA
BRADFORD
Q1
A1
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
FLETCHER
A2
M3
K12
COVINGTON
Washington
Township
_
^
Concord
Township
Lostcreek
Township
R2
R1
_
^
_
^
T1a
C4
Miami
Township
Bethel
Township
U2
UNION
CLAYTON
Z1b
Z2
Z1c
C10
Washington
Township
Great Miami-Little Miami Connector (F)

Great-Little Trail (N - Updated)
T2
Iron Horse Trail (J)

Laura-Troy Connector (R)
U3
HUBER
HEIGHTS
Little Miami Scenic Trail
BROOKVILLE
E4
Perry Township
Harrison
Township
RIVERSIDE
G2b
WPAFB
_
^
G2a
DAYTON
AA2
NEW
LEBANON
!
.
_
^
AA1
_^
^
_
German Township
GERMANTOWN
C2
C1
Beavercreek
Township
!
.
K9
Simon Kenton Trail
O2
Stillwater River Trail (L)

Troy-Fletcher Connector (P)
_
^
JAMESTOWN
BELLBROOK
I1
Washington
Township
C10
Wolf Creek Connector (M)

Wolf Creek Trail (G)
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
O1
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
C11
SPRINGBORO
FRANKLIN
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
T2a
CARLISLE
SR 741 Corridor (T)
_
^
I2
Sugarcreek
Township
N1
Possum Creek Jefferson Township Connector (AA)
Xenia
Township
New Jasper
Township
C7
T1c
Miami
Township
Old National Road Trail (Z - New)

CEDARVILLE
BEAVERCREEK
J3b
CENTERVILLE
T1b
B4
XENIA
_
^
MIAMISBURG
Ohio-to-Erie Trail
CLIFTON
Miami
Township
I5
D1
J3a
V1
YELLOW
SPRINGS
I4
!
.
WEST CARROLLTON
T1a
Ohio to Indiana Trail (A)
Bath
Township
RIVERSIDE
KETTERING
M3
B3
B1
FAIRBORN
OAKWOOD
MORAINE
Mad River Trail
_
^
X1
J1
K10b
Jefferson
Township
FARMERSVILLE
Great Miami River-Centerville Connector (V)

Great Miami River-Creekside Connector (X)
Butler
G3
Jackson
Township
Sugarcreek
Township
VANDALIA
ENGLEWOOD Township
TROTWOOD
Germantown-Bowersville Connector (C)

Great Miami River Trail (K - Updated)
I1
J4
N1
T2a
FRANKLIN
U1
Z3
T1c
BELLBROOK
SPRINGBORO
LISLE
PHILLIPSBURG
Z1a
C5
T1b
L3
C7
CENTERVILLE
MIAMISBURG
TIPP
CITY
Fairborn-Yellow Springs-Cedarville Connector (B)
J3a
C2
Monroe
Township
Cardinal Trail (Q)
Dayton-Kettering Connector (J - Updated)

V1
Elizabeth
Township
Bowersville-Jamestown-Selma Connector (O)
Creekside Trail
J3b
WEST
MILTON
POTSDAM
D1
WEST CARROLLTON
LAURA
Clay
Township
KETTERING
I2
LUDLOW FALLS
Union
Township
!
.
CASSTOWN
!
(
TROY
BEAVERCREEK
Carriage Hills Connector (U)
MORAINE
P1
PLEASANT
HILL
Bellbrook-Fairborn Connector (I)

I5
OAKWOOD
erson
nship
Newton
Township
L5
J1
AA1
AA2
Q2
Staunton
Township
_^
^
_
K10b
Wright Brothers-Huffman Prairie Trail (E)

Xenia-Jamestown Connector
Jefferson
Township
BOWERSVILLE
F2
T2b
May2016
F1
!
.
!
(
ExistingBikewayHub
ProposedBikewayHub
_
^
_
^
ExistingBikewayBridges/Tunnels
ExistingTrail
ProposedBikewayBridges/Tunnels
ProposedTrail
0
Miles
8
Going Places committees also identified a set of eleven implementation tools to support the
ConcentratedDevelopmentVision.Thetoolsaddressthefollowingmajorneeds:
Providingbetterinformationforstrongdecisionmaking,
Strengtheningregionalcollaboration,and
BuildingtheRegionscapacityforsolutions.
Figure 7.3 Concentrated Development Vision
Page139
Page140
CHAPTER 8
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
8.1 Air Quality Planning

MVRPC is comprised of the counties of Greene, Miami, and Montgomery as wellas the Cities of
Franklin, Carlisle, and Springboro in northern Warren County. Warren County is located in the
CincinnatiairqualityRegion(CincinnatiRegion),withtheremaindercountiesintheMPOlocatedin
theDayton/SpringfieldairqualityRegion(D/SRegion).TheD/SRegionalsoincludesClarkCounty,
whichisrepresentedbyadifferentMPO,theClarkCountySpringfieldTransportationCoordinating
Committee (CCSTCC). Due to multiple air quality regions and MPOs, conformity is closely
coordinatedwithneighboringorganizations,withMVRPCbeingtheleadagencyintheD/SRegion
andtheOhio Kentucky IndianaRegionalCouncilofGovernments(OKI)beingtheleadagencyinthe
CincinnatiRegion.Figure8.1illustratesthiscomplexsituation.
Figure 8.1 Air Quality Standards Designations
Page141
MVRPCconductstransportationconformityinaccordancewiththeCleanAirActAmendmentsof
1990 which expanded transportations role in contributing to national clean air goals. The 1990
amendmentsexpandedthedefinitionoftransportationconformityto:
Conformity to the (air quality implementation) plans purpose of eliminating or reducing the
severityandnumberofviolationsofthenationalambientairqualitystandardsandachieving
expeditiousattainmentofsuchstandards;andthatsuchactivitieswillnot(i)causeorcontribute
toanynewviolationsofanystandardsinanyarea,(ii)increasethefrequencyorseverityofany
existingviolationofanystandardinanyareas,or(iii)delaytimelyattainmentofanystandard
oranyrequiredinterimemissionreductionsorothermilestonesinanyarea.
In April 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) issued final
designations regarding the 1997 8 hour ozone standard. The 1997 8 hour standard is violated
when the 3 year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8 hour ozone average
concentrationexceeds0.08ppm(partspermillion).Allfourcounties(Clark,Greene,Miami,and
Montgomery)intheDayton/SpringfieldRegion(D/SRegion)andWarrenCountyintheCincinnati
Region were designated as basic non attainment for ozone. The D/S Region was designated to
attainment/maintenancefor1997ozoneinAugust2007.TheCincinnatiRegionwasdesignatedto
attainment/maintenance for 1997 ozone in May 2010. The Cincinnati Region is also designated
marginalnon attainmentforthe2008ozonestandard,exceededwhenthe3 yearaverageofthe
annualfourthhighestdailymaximum8 hourozoneaverageconcentrationisover0.075ppm.On
March 6, 2015, U.S. EPA published the final rule for the Implementation of the 2008 NAAQS for
Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements, 80 FR 12264, effective April 6, 2015. The final
rulerevokesthe1997ozonestandardforallpurposesincludingtransportationconformity.
In December 2004, the U.S. EPA issued air quality designations regarding the fine particulate (or
PM 2.5) standard. Clark, Greene, Montgomery, and Warren counties were designated non
attainmentfortheannualPM2.5standard.Theannualstandardisexceededifthe3 yearaverage
of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations is greater than 15 micrograms per cubic meter. The
CincinnatiRegionwasdesignatedattainment/maintenanceinDecember2011.TheD/SRegionwas
also re designated to attainment/maintenance for PM 2.5 on September 26, 2013 and approved
budgetsareusedtodemonstrateconformitytothePM2.5standard.
For the 2016 update of the Long Range Transportation Plan update MVRPC followed the latest
transportation conformity regulations (April 2012) and worked in coordination with State and
Federal partners through the interagency consultation process (See Appendix A on technical
document). Detailed documentation of the socio economic assumptions, emission factors, and
analyzed years can be found at the links below for each respective Region. The D/S Region
approvedmaintenanceplansdonotincludetransportationcontrolmeasures.
http://www.oki.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/DraftFY16-19TIPConformity.pdf
http://www.mvrpc.org/sites/default/files/dayspr_lrtp_2016_draft.pdf
Page142
AsummaryoftheregionalemissionanalysesispresentedinTables8.1to8.3.Theresultsindicate
that the 2040 Plans demonstrate conformity to the PM2.5 and 8 hour ozone standards State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) consistent with the April 2012 U.S. EPA Transportation Conformity
Regulations.
Table 8.1 Dayton/Springfield Region PM 2.5 Regional Emissions Analysis
(Tons per Year)
GRE/MOT
PM2.5
NOx
CLA
PM2.5
NOx
Totals
PM2.5
NOx
2015
Budget
2020
Emissions
2022
Budget
2022
2030
2040
Emissions Emissions Emissions
404.43
12,865.54
192.65
4,991.81
45.59
1,292.76
238.24
6,284.57
261.33
6,270.64
174.47
4,152.57
41.46
1,093.76
215.93
5,246.33
152.94
2,859.05
37.67
803.55
190.60
3,662.59
154.94
2,526.90
38.47
724.53
193.41
3,251.42
Table 8.2 Cincinnati Region 8 Hour Ozone Regional Emissions Analysis

(Tons per Day)
OhioandIndianaMaintenanceArea
2020
2030
2040
Ohio/IndianaVOCBudget
42.81
42.81
42.81
PendingOhio/IndianaVOCBudget
30.00
18.22
18.22
Ohio/IndianaVOCEmissions
Ohio/IndianaNOxBudget
24.15
73.13
14.78
73.13
10.52
73.13
PendingOhio/IndianaNOxBudget
30.79
16.22
16.22
Ohio/IndianaNOxEmissions
23.95
12.92
10.04
Table 8.3 Cincinnati Region PM 2.5 Regional Emissions Analysis

(Tons per Year)
OhioandIndianaMaintenanceArea
Ohio/IndianaPM2.5Budget
Ohio/IndianaPM2.5Emissions
Ohio/IndianaNOxBudget
Ohio/IndianaNOxEmissions
2021
2030
2040
1,241.19
238.67
21,747.71
7,570.54
1,241.19
186.71
21,747.71
4,519.39
1,241.19
163.68
21,747.71
3,637.11
Page143
8.2 Transportation and Climate Change

Climatechangereferstothechangesintemperaturesandweatherpatternsresultingfromsystems
suchasthegreenhouseeffect.Thetransportationsystemsrelationtoclimatechangeistwo fold;
one as a major contributor of greenhouse gases and two because of the potential impact that
climate change can have on transportation infrastructure (e.g. more frequent or more severe
floodingofroads).
Both nationally and in Ohio, power plants contribute the most to greenhouse gas emissions.
However, as the economy of the State transitions away from manufacturing, transportation
emissionscontinuetoincreaseasapercentageofthetotal.InOhio,theyarethesecondlargest
contributing sector. The chart at right
shows the 2013 distribution of CO2
emissionsinOhio.7
7.75% 4.69%
ElectricPower
Transportation sources and transportation

42.79%
Transportation
16.28%
plans can also play a role in addressing
Industrial
climate change through improved vehicle
28.48%
Residential
technology, alternative energy sources,
encouraging and promoting transportation
Commercial
alternatives to the single occupancy
automobile, and roadway infrastructure
that accommodates various transportation
users.Chapter7documentsMVRPCsstrategiestowardamoresustainabletransportationsystem,
includingtheRegionsCompleteStreetsPolicy,adoptedin2011.
8.3 Environmental Mitigation in SAFETEA LU/FAST Act

The final metropolitan transportation planning rules state that metropolitan
transportation plans shall include a discussion of types of potential environmental
mitigationactivitiesandpotentialareastocarryouttheseactivities,includingactivities
that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental
functions affected by the metropolitan TPlan. Discussion may focus on policies,
programs,orstrategies.ThediscussionshallbedevelopedinconsultationwithFederal,
State,andTriballandmanagement,wildlife,andregulatoryagencies.
UsingguidanceanddatabasesfromODOTEnvironmentalServices(OES)asastartingpoint,MVRPC
analyzed the Long Range Transportation Plan projects for potential environmental impacts using
GISoverlaytechniques.Whenavailable,OESdatabaseswereenhancedwithlocalorinternaldata
sources.Mitigationtechniquesforvarioustypesofenvironmentaleffectsarealsodiscussedalong
withanyapplicablelocalmitigationresources.
EPA2015.InventoryofU.S.GreenhouseGasEmissionsandSinks1990 2013.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,
Washington,D.C.April2015.EPA430 R 15 004
Page144
Identification of possible projects with impacts to environmental resources began with the
congestion management projects in the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. These projects
wereclassifiedintotwocategories:SignificantProjectsandNon SignificantProjects.Projectswere
classifiedasSignificantif,byvirtueoftheirimplementation/construction,therewasaprobability
of potential impacts to the Regions natural resources. Such projects were typically capacity
projects such as road widening, lane additions, and interchange addition/modification projects.
ProjectswereclassifiedasNotSignificantiftheirimplementationwasunlikelytoresultinmajor
impacts to the Regions environmental resources. These projects were typically non capacity
adding intersection improvement projects such as the addition of a turn lane and/or signal
coordinationprojects.
Basedontheaboveclassification,potentialenvironmentalimpactswereonlydeterminedforthe
significant projects. A few of the significant projects are already included in MVRPCs current
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and have environmental documentation in place.
These were excluded from the list of analyzed projects since their environmental effects are
already well documented. Figure 8.2 shows projects classified according to their potential
environmentalimpact.
A separate map was created using GIS for each of the Regions environmental resources:
endangered species habitats; cultural, historic and archaeological resources; wetlands, rivers and
streams; total maximum daily load; superfund sites; and parklands. The remaining significant
projects were evaluated for potential environmental impacts by overlaying them on various
environmentalresourcemapsusingGIS.ProjectsindirectconflictwiththeRegionsendangered
species habitats, wetlands, parklands etc. were identified as potentially affecting these
environmentalresourcesanddisplayedonmapsinFigure8.3.
Table 8.4 describes mitigation guidelines and strategies designed to address potential project
impactstoenvironmentalresources.Though notresourcesperse,thisincludessuperfundsites,
andthosewhichareontheNationalPrioritiesListaredescribedinthenextsectioninmoredetail.
Since the projects were evaluated for impacts at a macro level rather than determining specific
impacts, the mitigation strategies encompass a menu of options to address a wide range of
potentialimpactsandarenotproject specific.Detailedassessmentofindividualprojectsinfuture
stagesofprojectdevelopmentmayemphasizetheimportanceofcertainmitigationefforts,where
needed,whilerenderingothersredundant.ItisthepolicyofMVRPCtorequirethatallfederally
fundedprojectscomplywithapplicableenvironmentalstatutesasaconditiontoreceivingfunding.
Thetablealsolistsagencieswithwhichtocoordinateandconsultonconservationoftheresources.
Finally, a discussion on the various locally available mitigation resources and locally functioning
environmental conservation organizations is provided at the end of this section. These agencies
havealsobeenaddedtoMVRPCspublicparticipationlist.
Page145
Table 8.4 Environmental Resources for Mitigation

Resource
Wetlands,
Rivers,and
Streams
Statute
RegionalResources
TheRegi onha s a pproxi ma tel y35s qua reml es ofwetl a nds ,ofwhi ch
Wetlands:U.S.ACEmi ti ga ti ongui del i nes a reoutl i nedi nthe
Regul a toryGui da nceLetter02 02,da tedDecember24,2002.TheOhi o a bout6%a rewoodywetl a nds .TheRegi onconta i ns a l l orpa rtof
Envi ronmenta l Protecti onAgencyha s s peci fi cgui del i nes forwetl a nd ma nyri vers a nds trea ms ,i ncl udi ngdes i gna teds ceni cri vers :the
Li ttl eMi a mi Ri ver,theSti l l wa terRi ver,a ndtheGreenvi l l eCreek.
mi ti ga ti oni ncl udedi ntheOhi oAdmi ni s tra ti veCode3745 1 50 54.
Rivers&Streams:Noforma l rul es i nOhi o,butmi ti ga ti oni s requi red Therea rea l s os evera l ma jorl a kes .MuchoftheRegi oni s conta i ned
foruna voi da bl ei mpa cts .Ca s e by ca s erequi rements negoti a ted
i ntheGrea tMi a mi Ri verWa ters hed.Thes ehea l thywa terwa ys
wi thOEPAa ndU.S.ACEbytheODOTOffi ceofEnvi ronmenta l Servi ces . provi dema nyopportuni ti es forwa ter ba s edrecrea ti on,a nd
ha bi ta ts forfi s h.
TheRegi oni s boundbyregul a ti ons tobui l da ndopera tei ts roa dwa y La nd us echa nges ha vebeenthemos tcommonca us efordecl i nei n
projects wi thno,ormi ni ma l ,i mpa cts toprotecteds peci es a ndthei r s peci es ra ngea nddi vers i ty.Conta mi na ti ona nddegra da ti onof
ha bi ta ts .Sta tutes provi di nga nddefi ni ngthes eregul a ti ons i ncl ude: na tura l wa ters ha s a l s ocontri butedtol os s ofha bi ta t.TheMi a mi
Threatenedand
theNa ti ona l Envi ronmenta l Pol i cyAct,theEnda ngeredSpeci es Act, Va l l eyha s wetl a nds ,ri vercorri dors ,moi s ta nddrywoods ,fa rml a nd,
Endangered
theCl ea nWa terAct,a ndtheOhi oRevi s edCode.
a ndpra i ri es tha ts ervea s ha bi ta tfornumerourpl a nts a nda ni ma l
Species/Fishand
s peci es .TheRegi oni s pa rtofthel a rges tha rdwoodfores ti nthe
Wildlife
worl d,a nda ni mporta ntfl ywa yformi gra ti ngbi rds .
Hi s tori ca ndcul tura l res ourcerevi ews fora l l federa l a nds ta te

TheRegi onha s numerous cul tura l ,a rcha eol ogi ca l ,a ndNa ti ona l
fundedprojects i ntheRegi ona repl a nneda nddes i gnedtocompl y Regi s terhi s tori cs i tes .As ofOctober2011,235s i tes i ntheRegi on
werel i s tedontheNa ti ona l Regi s terofHi s tori cPl a ces (NRHP).
wi ththeNa ti ona l Envi ronmenta l Pol i cyAct,theNa ti ona l Hi s tori c
Addi ti ona l l y,4undi s turbeda rcha eol ogi ca l s i tes a rel oca ted
Historic,Cultural, Pres erva ti onAct,Secti on4(f)oftheDepa rtmentofTra ns porta ti on
throughoutthea rea .Thes es i tes a rei mporta nttoourcommuni ti es
orArchaeological Act,theOhi oRevi s edCode,a nd36CFRPa rt800(thei mpl ementi ng
regul a ti ons forSecti on106oftheNa ti ona l Hi s tori cPres erva ti onAct). a ndheri ta ge.
Resources
Al l a cts requi retha thi s tori ca ndcul tura l res ources becons i dered
duri ngthedevel opmentofa l l tra ns porta ti onprojects i nOhi o.
Parklands
Hazardous
Materials
Secti on4(f)oftheDepa rtmentofTra ns porta ti onActrequi res tha t

s peci a l effortbema detopres ervepubl i cpa rka ndrecrea ti onl a nds ,
wi l dl i fea ndwa terfowl refuges ,a ndhi s tori ca l s i tes .Secti on4(f)
s peci fi es tha tfedera l l y fundedtra ns porta ti onprojects requi ri ngthe
us eofl a ndfroma publ i cpa rk,recrea ti ona rea ,wi l dl i fea nd
wa terfowl refuge,orl a ndofs i gni fi ca nthi s tori cs i teca nonl yoccuri f
therei s nofea s i bl ea ndprudenta l terna ti ve.Us i ngSecti on4(f)l a nd
requi res a l l pos s i bl epl a nni ngtomi ni mi zeha rm.
TheRegi onha s onena ti ona l pa rk,s evera l s ta tea ndl oca l pa rks ,
a ndwi l dl i fea ndwa terfowl refuges .Thepa rkl a nds a res ubdi vi ded
i ntona tura l protecti ona rea s a ndrecrea ti ona l a rea s .Thes es i tes
a rei mporta nttoourcommuni ti es forthei rpromoti onofhea l thy
a cti vel i fes tyl es ,connecti ontona tura l envi ronments a nd
pres erva ti on.
TheComprehens i veEnvi ronmenta l Res pons e,Compens a ti on,a nd

Li a bi l i tyAct(CERCLA)a ndi ts SuperfundAmendments a nd
Rea uthori za ti onAct(SARA)a mendmentes ta bl i s hna ti ona l pol i cy
a ndprocedures fori denti fyi nga ndcl ea ni ngups i tes foundtobe
conta mi na tedwi thha za rdous s ubs ta nces .TheActs crea tedthe
Ha za rdRa nki ngSys tem(HRS),whi chdetermi nes thel i kel yl evel of
threa ttohuma nhea l tha ndtheenvi ronmentuponi ni ti a l
i nves ti ga ti on.Hi gh ra nki ngprojects a reel i gi bl etobepl a cedonthe
Na ti ona l Pri ori tyLi s t,whi chena bl es a ppl i ca ti onforenvi ronmenta l
cl ea n upfunds .
El evens i tes i ntheRegi ona reontheNPL.Another40s i tes ,though

notcurrentl yontheNPL,a repotenti a l l yconta mi na teds i tes a nd
s ources ofconcern.Ta bl e8.5provi des a s umma ryoftheNPLs i tes ,
HRSs cores ,a nds ta geofcl ea nup.Addi ti ona l l y,a bri efs umma ryof
ea chs i tei s provi dedbel ow.
CERCLAi s i mporta nttothehi ghwa ypl a nni ngproces s pri ma ri l yi nthe

a cqui s i ti onofri ght of wa y.Accepti ngfi na nci a l l i a bi l i tyfor
conta mi na tedpropertyma ya dvers l ya ffectthefi na nci a l fea s i bi l i ty
ofa project.Addi ti ona l l y,s i gni fi ca ntneedforcl ea n upma yca us e
projectdel a ys .
Page146
CoordinationandConsultation
Mitigation
TheODOTOffi ceofEnvi ronmenta l Servi ces i ncoopera ti onwi thODOT Mi ti ga ti onneeds a redetermi ned,a nda na na l ys i s i s performedto
Di s tri cts ,theODOT Offi ceofRea l Es ta te,theODOT Offi ceofAeri a l devel opmi ti ga ti onopportuni ti es .Apl a nofa cti oni s devel opedi n
Engi neeri ng,a ndprojectcons ul ta nts coordi na tetodevel opa l l
coordi na ti onwi thres ourcea ndregul a torya genci es ,a l ongwi tha
s trea ma ndwetl a ndmi ti ga ti onprojects .
report.Thereporti s s ubmi ttedwi thpermi ta ppl i ca ti ons ,wi th
revi s i ons beforepermi ta pprova l .Cons erva ti onea s ements a re
procured.Fundi ngi s recei veda ndcredi ts obta i ned.Cons tructi on
pl a ns a redevel opeda ndca rri edoutwi thmoni tori nga ndpos t
cons tructi onmoni tori ngbyODOT.
TheFi s ha ndWi l dl i feCoordi na ti onAct(16U.S.C.661 666)requi res AHa bi ta tCons erva ti onPl a n,a s requi redbytheEnda ngeredSpeci es
coordi na ti ona mong(1)thea gencypropos i ngthehi ghwa yproject,(2) Act,ma yi ncl ude:
theU.S.Fi s ha ndWi l dl i feServi ceoftheDepa rtmentoftheInteri or, Pres ervi ngha bi ta tthrougha na cqui s i ti onora cons erva ti on
a nd(3)thes ta tea gencyres pons i bl eforprotecti ngwi l dl i fe
ea s ement;
res ources wheneverthewa ters ofa nys trea morotherwa terbody
Enha nci ngorres tori ngdegra dedorformerha bi ta t;
a repropos edtobei mpounded,di verted,orotherwi s emodi fi ed.
Crea ti ngnewha bi ta t;
Es ta bl i s hi ngbuffera rea s a roundexi s ti ngha bi ta t;
Modi fyi ngl a nd us epra cti ces ;a nd
Res tri cti nga cces s toha bi ta t.
Cons ul ta ti onwi thva ri ous enti ti es ,i ncl udi ngtheFedera l Hi ghwa y
Admi ni s tra ti on(FHWA),theSta teHi s tori cPres erva ti onOffi ce(SHPO),
theAdvi s oryCounci l onHi s tori cPres erva ti on(ACHP),ci tyhi s tori c
pres erva ti onoffi ces ,l oca l publ i coffi ci a l s ,l oca l orgi ni za ti ons ,a nd
thepubl i c,i s requi redduri ngtheprojectdevel opmentproces s .
Ami ti ga ti onpl a ni s devel opedwi ths ta kehol ders (e.g.ODOT,SHPO,

FHWA,l oca l offi ci a l s ,orga ni za ti ons ,a ndthepubl i c)throughthe
Secti on106Memora ndumofAgreement(MOA)cons ul ta ti onproces s .
Mea s ures va rydependi ngontheprojectedi mpa cta ndma yi ncl ude
a es theti ctrea tments ,a voi da nce,a rcha eol ogi ca l da ta recovery,
s a l va ge/re us eofhi s tori cma teri a l s ,a ndothermethods .Mea s ures
mus tbecompl eteda nda ccountedforwi thSHPOa ndFHWA.
Thecos tofmi ti ga ti ons houl dbea rea s ona bl epubl i cexpendi turei n
l i ghtofthes everi tyofthei mpa ctontheSecti on4(f)res ourcei n
a ccorda ncewi thfedera l requi rements .Mi ti ga ti onforcommon
Secti on4(f)res ourcei mpa cts ma ybe:
Improvi nga cces s orexpa ns i on/pa vementofpa rki nga rea ;
La nds ca peors creeni ngofres ource;
Ins ta l l a ti onofbea uti fi ca ti onenha ncements s ucha s pa rk
benches ,tra s hrecepta cl es ,s i gna ge,etc.;
Ma i ntena nceoftra ffi ca ccommoda ti onorrerouti ngoftra ffi c;
Mi ni mi zi ngcons tructi onnoi s eorl i mi ti ngcons tructi ontos peci fi c
ti mes ;
Di rectcompens a ti onfori mprovements toon s i teres ources ;
a nd
Des i gnrefi nements .
TheU.S.EPAprovi des gui del i nes a ndHa za rdRa nki ngSys tems cores . Ifa nyi ni ti a l s tudi es orprel i mi na ryenvi ronmenta l eva l ua ti ons
i denti fyknownorpotenti a l ha za rdous wa s tes ources ,a l terna ti ves
Therei s a s evens ta geproces s :
toa voi dthes i temus tbeexpl ored.Ifthes i teca nnotbea voi ded,a n
a s s es s menti ncl udi ngs a mpl i nga ndpos s i bl ya cha ra cteri za ti onof
1)Newl i s ti ng
2)Remedi a l a s s es s mentnotbegun
theprobl ems houl dbeconducted.Whena ha za rdous wa s tes i tei s
3)Remedi a l a s s es s mentnotbegunwi thremova l
i denti fi ed,thetypeofregul a torya cti ons i ti s s ubjecttoa nda ny
envi ronmenta l da ta ba s es orl i s ts tha ti ta ppea rs ona l ongwi th
4)StudyUnderwa y
regul a toryi denti fi ca ti onnumbers s houl dbes peci fi ed.Ina ddi ti on:
5)RemedySel ected
Envi ronmenta l s i tea s s es s ments creeni ngs (a nda nyother
6)Des i ngUnderwa y
requi reda s s es s ments )wi l l beconductedona project by project
7)Cons tructi onUnderwa y
ba s i s ;a nd
8)Cons tructi onCompl ete
Una voi da bl eencroa chmentona ni denti fi edha za rdous s i tewi l l
bemi ti ga teda ccordi ngtoa l l a ppl i ca bl efedera l ,s ta te,a nd
Notetha t,i nma nyca s es ,"cons tructi oncompl ete"does notmea n
cl ea nupi s compl ete.Therema ybeongoi nga cti ons requi redonce l oca l requi rements .
thei nfra s tructurei s i npl a ce.
Projects pons ors ,ODOT,a ndoffi ci a l s wi thjuri s di cti onoverSecti on
4(f)res ources cl os el ycoordi na tethroughouttheproject
devel opmentproces s tomi ni mi zeha rmormi ti ga tei mpa cts on
protectedres ources .Long ra ngepl a nni ngs houl da ccountforwel l
knownSecti on4(f)res ources throughouttheRegi ontha twoul dpos e
a s i gni fi ca ntl os s i fa ffected.Iti s ,however,prema turetoa na l yze
i ndi vi dua l projects 'Secti on4(f)i mpa cts thi s ea rl yi ntheproces s .

Page147
Figure 8.2
Significant Projects
89B
678
89A
509A
855
509B
113
530
368
841
543
545
154G
154E
108
535
528
105A
98
656
354
518B
166
229 677
541
105C
105B
863
831
509C
371
507
842
877
803A
840
369
96
103
238
248B
867
643
680
209C
24B
144C
876
34C
676
24A
50
452
66C
415
414
78C
451
155E
39B
155D
39A
633
822A
338F
335C
372B
338D
9C
338G
184B
372A
335B
338C
872
431
823B
822B
338E
9A
10A
54E
418
340A
433
443
635
58E
70B
9B
434
455
10D
10B
32A
345
426
Miles
0
167
202E
335A
May 2016
Source: MVRPC
89A
509A
371
103
545
108
354
105B
98
842
238
451
66C
431
340A
633
70B
822A
338E
338G
184B
338F
89B
509A
89A
Endangered Species
Watersheds and Wellfields
Wetlands and Scenic Rivers
89B
509C
530
354
518B
541
105B
643
876
678
24A
24B
34C
855
841
155E
633
238
229 677
39A
418
431
509B
530
108 545
354
98
105B
166
144C
842
876
24B
155E
633
Miles
0 2 4 6 8
Cultural Features
6
6
6
66
6
6
6
66 66 6
6
6666 66
66666
6 66666
6666
66
66666
66 6
666666
666
6
66666
66
6
6
66 66
66
6
6 666
108
6
6
6
6
6
66)
6
66
6
666
!
C
6
6
66
6
6
6 167 6
6
!
C !
C
66
6
6
66 6
66
)
6
666 10A
452
431
10A
70B
6
338E
50
666
6
6
66
6
10D
70B
822B
372A
426
167
Source: ODNR, ODOT, MVRPC
530
6
6 6 666
6
66
6
C
6 6!
!
C6 6
10A
431
509A
666666
66
338E
j
k
98
418
822A
372B
Source: ODNR, ODOT, Ohio NRCS, OEPA, MVRPC
Parklands
Environmental
Mitigation
Analysis
340A
39B
202E
6 6
6
10B
!
C
451
58E
184B
!
C
Figure 8.3
656
338C
Superfund Locations
530
78C
426
509A
414
39A
155D
415
66C
841
872
66
6666
6
6
6
50
452
238
338F
Source: ODNR, ODOT, MVRPC
541
518B
872
509C
103
!
C
j
k
j
k
j
k
k
j
j
k
j
k
k
j
j
k
j
jk
k
j k
k
j
j
j
k
j
k
jk
k
j
k
jk
jk
k
j
k
j k
j
j
k
j
k
j
k
j
j
k
j k
k
kk
j
j
39B
kk
j
j
j k
k
j
j
k
j
k
j
k
Source: Ohio Historical Society, MVRPC

Open Space)
)Study 2005, National Park Service
Source: MVRPC Open Space Study 2005,

MetroParks 2012
Source: USEPA SEMS Database & EnviroMapper
Table 8.5 Superfund Sites on Final NPL

SiteNameandLocation
HRSScore
StageofClean up
Description
LammersBarrelFactory,
GreeneCounty
69.33
RemedySelected
UnitedScrapLeadCo.Inc.,
MiamiCounty
58.15
ConstructionCompleted
Wright PattersonAirForceBase,
Montgomery/GreeneCounties
57.85
MiamiCountyIncinerator,
MiamiCounty
57.84
NorthSanitaryLandfill,
MontgomeryCounty
50
RemedySelected
BehrDaytonThermalSystem,
MontgomeryCounty
50
StudyUnderway
EastTroyContaminatedAquifer,
MiamiCounty
50
StudyUnderway
Accordingtoformeremployees,LammersBarrelFactory
soldandreclaimedalltypesofsolvents.Anyinventoriesof
chemicalshandledatthefacilitywerereportedlydestroyed
inafire.Samplinganalysisidentifiedanareaofground
watercontaminationalongthenorthernendofthe
Valleywoodsubdivision,locatedsoutheastofthefacility.
TheUnitedScrapLeadCo.,Inc.reclaimedleadbatteries,
generatinganestimated32,000cubicyardsofcrushed
batterycases,whichwereusedasfillmaterial.Monitoring
wellson sitearecontaminatedwithlead,accordingtotests
conductedbytheState.Tworesidentialwaterwellscontain
leadabovebackgroundlevelsbutwithinthestandardsfor
drinkingwater.
PastAirForceactivitiesinsupportofoperationalmissions
haveresultedinthecreationofseveralunlinedwaste
disposalareasthroughoutthebase.Morethan791tonsof
wastehavebeendisposedontheBase,includingsolvents,
contaminatedthinners,degreasingsludges,tetraethyllead
sludge,andmiscellaneoushazardouschemicals.In1985,
theBaseandOEPAfound1,1,1 trichloroethane,
tetrachloroethylene,trichloroethylene,1,2 dichloroethane,
andmanganeseinon basewells.
Acombinationofpoorgeologiclocationand
environmentallyunsounddisposalpracticesresultedin
significantcontaminationtooneofthemostproductiveand
valuableaquifersinOhio.Alllandfillingoperationsstopped
inl978,andthesitenowservesasatransferstationfor
wastesthataredisposedofelsewhere.
Severalindustrialfacilitiesarelocatedadjacenttothe
property.IndustrialandmunicipalwastesfromtheDayton
areawereusedtofillunlinedgravelpitsthatwerecreated
byformerminingoperations.Thesepitscontainedwater
thatmayhaveenteredthesandandgravelaquiferthatthe
pitsintersect.
Thesitehostsamanufacturerofpartsandsub assemblies
ofHVACequipmentforautomanufacturers.Industrial
solventcleanerswereusedinthesitemanufacturing
processes.ThesolventcleanersincludedTCE,
tetrachloroethene,1,1,1 trichloroethaneandsulphuricacid.
Suchcompoundshavebeenreportedinshallowground
waterbeneaththeBehrfacility.Groundwaterhasbeen
contaminatedaboveUSEPA'sSafeDrinkingWaterAct's
maximumcontaminantlevel(MCL)forTCE.Also,TCE
vaporshavemigratedintoresidentialhomesand
commercialbusinessesaboveasafeindoorairlevel.
Twogroundwaterplumesonthesitearecontaminatedat
variouslevelswithVOCs,includingcis 1,2 dichloroethene
(cis 1,2 DCE),tetrachloroethene(PCE),andtrichloroethene
(TCE).TheStateofOhiocurrentlyhasanagreementin
placetoaddressasourceareaforoneoftheplumes.There
isnosourcecontrolonthesecondplume.TheStateand
USEPAareworkingtofindacomprehensivesolutionto
addressbothplumes,anyadditionalsourceareas,and
potentialissuesrelatedtovaporintrusion.
Page151
SiteNameandLocation
HRSScore
StageofClean up
Description
SanitaryLandfillCo.,
MontgomeryCounty
35.57
MoundPlant(USDOE),
MontgomeryCounty
34.61
PowellRoadLandfill,
MontgomeryCounty
31.62
50
StudyUnderway
Thelandfillreportedlyacceptedmunicipalwastesand
varioustypesofindustrialwastes,includingsolvents.The
landfillislocatedabovegraveldeposits.Wellssupplying
drinkingwateraredrilledintoanaquiferwhichmaybe
connectedtothegraveldeposits,accordingtoaU.S.
GeologicalSurveystudy.Thus,thereisapotentialfor
contaminationofpublicwaterwells.
TheMoundoperatestosupportU.S.weaponsandenergy
programs.Themajorwasteareasincludealandfillinwhich
solvents,paints,andphotoprocessingandplatingbath
solutionsweredeposited;severalleachbedsusedto
disposeofsolutionscontainingradionuclidesand/or
explosive/pyrotechnicmaterials;andanareainwhicha
solutioncontaminatedwithplutoniumwasspilled.
Wastesweredumpedonthesite,includingstrontium
chromateandbenzidine.Thewastesaretoxic,persistent,
flammable,andhighlyvolatile.Thereisnoevidenceofthe
landfillbeinglined,andsomecontainersareleaking.
Groundwaternearbysuppliesprivatewellsandthesurface
waterisusedforrecreationalpurposes.
VOCshavebeendetectedintwoofthefivewellsinthe
field,fromayet unidentifiedsource.Contaminantsfoundin
untreatedwellwaterincludetetrachloroethene(PCE),
trichloroethene(TCE),cis 1,2 dichloroethene(DCE)and
1,1,1 trichloroethane(TCA).PCEamountswerefoundto
exceedthefederalmaximumcontaminantlevel.A
groundwaterplumehasbeenidentifiedheadingtowardthe
field.Furtherinvestigationisneededtoidentifythesource
ofVOCcontaminationanddefinethepreciseextentofthe
groundwaterplume.
WestTroyContaminatedAquifer,
MiamiCounty
Source:U.S.EPASEMSDatabasehttps://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm
The FAST Act of 2015 added a factor for MPOs to consider strategies to reduce or mitigate
stormwater impacts of surface transportation. Storm water discharges are generated by runoff
fromlandandimperviousareassuchaspavedstreets,parkinglots,andbuildingrooftopsduring
rainfallandsnowevents.Stormwateroftencontainspollutantsinquantitiesthatcouldadversely
affect water quality. In Ohio, OEPA implements the federal stormwater program to ensure
compliancewiththeCleanWaterActandNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)
requirements.
Construction sites, including transportation improvements, impact Ohio's waters by adding
pollutants,especiallysediment,torainwaterrunningoffofconstructionsitesduringconstruction
aswellasmakinglong termlandusechangesthatalterthehydrologyandpollutantloadingoflocal
streams.Ifaprojectdisturbsoneormoreacresofground,theprojectsponsormustgetapermit
todischargestormwaterfromthesiteandcontrolstormwaterdischargesthroughtheuseofBest
ManagementPractices(BMPs).Typically,projectsarescreenedduringtheenvironmentalprocess
andiftheyexceedtheacreagelimit,BMPsareincludedintheconstructionplans.ODOTsLocation
andDesignManualhasinformationonacceptableBPMmethods.
Page152
TherearetwostormwaterpermitapplicationoptionsconstructionactivitiesinOhio.Thefirstisto
submit an individual NPDES permit application and the second is to file a Notice of Intent (NOI)
formrequestingcoverageunderageneralpermit.Thegeneralpermitprocessisusuallyeasierand
faster than the individual permit process. MVRPC requires that all project sponsors comply with
applicablefederalandstaterequirementsasaconditionofreceivingfunding.
The main purpose of various conservation organizations in the Region is to monitor and protect
regional land including natural resources and historical properties. Close partnerships with
individuals, businesses, and local jurisdictions are a key component for these organizations to
achievetheirconservationgoals.AbriefdescriptionofeachorganizationintheRegionisprovided
inTable8.6.
Table 8.6 Environmental Conservation Organizations in the Region
Responsible
Organization
Typeof
Conservation
Organization
ThreeValley
Conservation
Trust
LandTrust
Miami
Conservancy
District
Flood
Protection
Tecumseh
LandTrust
LandTrust
OhioChapter
oftheUS
Departmentof
Agriculture
B W
Greenway
Community
(B WGC)Land
Trust
BeaverCreek
Wetlands
Association
Government
Agency
Description
The Three Valley Conservation Trust actively seeks to protect agricultural land, forested
lands, wildlife areas, wetlands and other scenic or natural lands. The Trust protects
streamsinButler,Preble,MontgomeryandDarkeCountiesinOhio,andverysmallparts
of Wayne, Franklin, and Union Counties in SE Indiana. The Trust has been awarded a
$192,000Stategranttohelpestablishprioritiesfortheconservationofareastreams.
The Miami Conservancy District established its Groundwater Preservation Program in
1997 to develop and maintain an ongoing watershed wide technical program to help
protect and manage the areasaquifer and groundwater resources. Over theyears, the
organizationhasbranchedouttomeettheRegionswaterneeds.MCDhasbeenactively
involvedformanyyearsinpromotingrecreationalongtheRegionsriversandstreamsas
well as being a key partner in projects like downtown Daytons RiverScape, by bringing
togetherstateandfederalfundstoleveragelocaldollars.
TheTrustspurposeistopreserveagriculturalland,openspace,andhistoricstructuresin
voluntarycooperationwithlandownersandtheirheirs,andtoeducatethepublicabout
methods of private land conservation. The Trust currently has about 10,000 acres of
farmlandinClarkandGreenecountiesunderprotectiveconservationeasements.
NaturalResourcesConservationService(NRCS)assistsownersofOhio'sprivatelandwith
conservingtheirsoil,water,andothernaturalresources.NRCSpartnerswiththeMiami
Valley Conservancy District to conserve local soil and water. Several environmental
conservation and mitigation programs are offered by NRCS in partnership with local
agencies. These include EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program, SWCA Soil
andWaterConservationAssistance,WHIPWildlifeHabitatIncentivesProgram,andthe
WRPWetlandsReserveProgram.
LandTrust
B WGCspurposeistoeducatethepublicaboutthevalueofwetlandsandtheimportance
of connecting the Beavercreek and Wenrick Wetlands with a greenway; to promote
sustainable useof land within B WGC while balancing human and wildlife needs; and to
protect,preserve,andstewardopenspaceforfarming,recreation,habitat,andwatershed
management.
LandTrust
BCWA helps protect the wetland ecosystems in the Beaver Creek watershed in Greene
Countythroughpartnerships,communitynetworks,andpubliceducation.
Page153
Responsible
Organization
OhioChapter
ofthe
Worldwide
Conservation
Organization
Typeof
Conservation
Organization
Description
Nature
Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy works to protect large landscapes made up of plants, animals,
andnaturalcommunitiesalloverOhioincludingtheMiamiValleyRegion.
LittleMiami,
Inc.
Watershed/
LandTrust
Honeycreek
Watershed
Association
Watershed
Dayton
History
Historical
Preservation
Preservation
Dayton,Inc.
Historical
Preservation
Greene
County
Parksand
Recreation
FiveRivers
MetroParks
Parksand
Recreations
MiamiCounty
Park
Parks
LittleMiami,Inc.(LMI)wasfoundedin1967asa501(c)(3)nonprfitorganizationdedicated
totherestorationandprotectionoftheLittleMiamiWild&ScenicRiver.Theorganization
ownsover50naturepreservesalongtheLittleMiamiandseveraltributaries,preserving
over12%oftheLittleMiamisriverfrontforests.Anadditional39%oftheriverfrontlands
areprotectedthroughpublicandquasi publicownership.
TheAssociationseekstoprotectandenhancethegroundandsurfacewaterresourcesof
the Honey Creek Watershed through education and project implementation. The
AssociationhelpspreservetheWatershedbyprotectingriparianlands,monitoringwater
qualitytoidentifypotentialsourcesofpollution,andeducatingresidentsabouteverything
frompropersepticsystemmaintenancetolandscapingwithnativevegetation.
This regional organization collects, preserves, interprets, presents and promotes the
Regions assets, stories and experiences. The organization also maintains Preservation
WatchListfortheRegionshistoricalassets.
Preservation Dayton actively promotes the work of preservation, protection and
enhancement,andhistoricallysympatheticrevitalizationoftheDayton,Ohiocommunity
throughadvocacyandavarietyofothercreativemethods.
TheCountyisthehomeofnearly2,000acresofgreenspaceheldinpublicinterestin43
parksandrecreationsites.Theseparksandrecreationssitesareownedandmanagedby
twoseparate,butcooperativeorganizations:theGreeneCountyParkDistrict(1,139acres)
andtheGreeneCountyRecreation,ParksandCulturalArtsDepartment(994acres).The
ParkDistricthastraditionallybeenassociatedwithpassiverecreationandconservationof
its green spaces while the Recreation, Parks and Cultural Arts Department provides
extensiveserviceincludinganactiverecreationfocustotheParkDistrictproperties.
The Five Rivers MetroParks (FRMP) district is a nationally recognized park system
composed of natural area parks, gardens, sensitive river corridors, urban parks, and a
network of recreational trails. Its key mission is to protect rapidly disappearing open
spaceandnaturalareasintheMiamiValley.
The County offers beautiful farmland, the Great Miami River, and charming parks. The
MiamiCountyParkDistricthas15parksandrecreationsites.ThemissionoftheDistrictis
to acquire and manage outstanding natural resources for the purpose of preservation,
conservation, education, and passive leisure activities for the people of Miami County.
TheDistrictcontinuestostrivetoexcelintheareasofenvironmentaleducation,bikeway
development,andlandacquisition.
Source:MVRPC
Page154
CHAPTER 9
COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
9.1 Overview
MVRPCconductsaCommunityImpactAssessmenttoaddressEnvironmentalJustice(EJ)issuesin
the 2040 LRTP, and ensure that socially disadvantaged population groups do not bear an
unreasonableorinequitableshareofthecostsassociatedwithplanningprocessesandinitiatives.
As such, MVRPC undertook extensive measures to identify locations where such disadvantaged
populationsareconcentratedintheRegion.
The technical analyses travel time to work; travel time to major facilities such as shopping
centers, universities, and hospitals; and transit and regional bikeway accessibility were
performed, and findings indicated that the disadvantaged population groups were largely
unaffectedbythe2040LRTPincomparisontothegeneralpopulation.
The following sections of this chapter articulate the efforts and results of MVRPCs measures
towardsaddressingEnvironmentalJustice(EJ)issuesinthe2040LRTP.
9.2 Background8
MVRPC, as a MPO, receives federal funding to support many of its programs and activities, and
mustaddressthefederalEJrequirementsasaconditionofreceivingthosefunds.
TheU.S.DepartmentofTransportation(U.S.DOT)describesthethreebasicprinciplesofEJas:
Ensuringpublicinvolvementoflow incomeandminoritygroupsindecisionmaking;
Preventingdisproportionatelyhighandadverseimpactsofdecisionsonlow incomeand
minoritygroups;and
Assuringlow incomeandminoritygroupsreceiveproportionateshareofbenefits.
Ingeneral,thismeansthatforanyprogramoractivityforwhichanyfederalfundswillbeused,the
agency receiving the federal funds must make a meaningful effort to involve low income and
minoritypopulationsinthedecision makingprocessesestablishedfortheuseoffederalfunds,and
evaluate the nature, extent, and incidence of probable favorable and adverse human health or
environmentalimpactsoftheprogramoractivityuponminorityorlow incomepopulations.
OhioDepartmentofTransportation(ODOT),GuidanceandBestPracticesforIncorporatingEnvironmentalJusticeinto
OhioTransportationPlanningandEnvironmentalProcesses,August,2002.
Page155
UnderTitleVIofthe1964CivilRightsActandrelatedstatutes,eachfederalagencyisrequiredto
ensure that no person is excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to
discriminationunderanyprogramoractivityreceivingfederalfinancialassistanceonthebasisof
race,color,nationalorigin,age,sex,disability,orreligion.TitleVIbarsintentionaldiscriminationas
wellasdisparateimpactdiscrimination(i.e.,aneutralpolicyorpracticethathasadisparateimpact
onlowincomeandminoritygroups).
TheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1969(NEPA)stressedtheimportanceofprovidingfor,all
Americans a safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically pleasing surroundings, and provided a
requirement for taking a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to aid in considering
environmentalandcommunityfactorsindecision making.
This approach was further emphasized in the Federal aid Highway Act of 1970: 23 United States
Code 109(h). It established a further basis for equitable treatment of communities affected by
transportation projects. It requires consideration of the anticipated effects of proposed
transportation projects upon residences, businesses, farms, accessibility of public facilities, tax
base,andothercommunityresources.
On February 11, 1994, President Clinton, recognizing that the impacts of federal programs and
activitiesmayraisequestionsoffairnesstoaffectedgroups,signedExecutiveOrder12898:Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations.
TheExecutiveOrderrequiresthateachfederalagencyshall,tothegreatestextentallowedbylaw,
administer and implement its programs, policies, and activities that affect human health or the
environmentsoastoidentifyandavoiddisproportionatelyhighandadverseeffectsonminority
andlow incomepopulations.
On June 29, 1995, theU.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) published its draft Order to
AddressEnvironmentalJusticeinMinorityPopulationsandLow IncomePopulationsintheFederal
Register.Thereportwasprimarilyareaffirmationoftheprinciplesof1964sTitleVI.
OnApril15,1997,U.S.DOTpublishedthefinalOrdertoAddressEnvironmentalJusticeinMinority
Populations and Low Income Populations (U.S. DOT Order 5610.2). The order complies with the
Presidents1994ExecutiveOrder12898.
OnOctober1,1999,aU.S.DOTletterinterpretingEJfurtherclarifiedthattransportationagencies
aretoensurethatlow incomepopulationsandminoritypopulationsreceiveaproportionateshare
ofbenefitfromfederallyfundedtransportationinvestments.
OnAugust11,2000,ExecutiveOrder13166:ImprovingAccesstoServicesforPersonswithLimited
English Proficiency, was signed by President Clinton. This executive order stated that individuals
whodonotspeakEnglishwellandwhohavealimitedabilitytoread,write,speak,orunderstand
Englishareentitletolanguageassistanceunder1964sTitleVIwithrespecttoaparticulartypeof
service,benefit,orencounter.
In June 2012, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued FHWA Actions to Address
EnvironmentalJusticeinMinorityPopulationsandLow IncomePopulations(DOTOrder6640.23A)
Page156
thatrequiretheFHWAtoimplementtheprinciplesoftheDOTOrder5610.2(a)andtheExecutive
Order12898byincorporatingenvironmentaljusticeprinciplesinallFHWAprograms,policies,and
activities.
9.3 MVRPCs Approach to Environmental Justice

Recognizing the importance of incorporating EJ issues into the transportation planning process,
MVRPCinitiatedbothquantitativeandqualitativeapproachestoaddressEJrequirementsforthe
2040LRTP.
MVRPCadoptedfourmainapproachesduringtheprocessofupdatingits2040LRTPtoaddressEJ
issues, following the guidelines in Guidance and Best Practices for Incorporating Environmental
Justice into Ohio Transportation Planning and Environmental Processes, published by ODOT, and
recommendations of the Ohio EJ Task Force. This guidance document presents methods and
approachesforensuringthattheinterestsofminorityandlow incomepopulationsareconsidered
and the impacts on these populations are identified and addressed within the current
transportation decision making processes. Further, it presents concepts for developing public
participationprogramsthatreachtargetpopulations.MVRPCsapproachincluded:
Definingtargetpopulations;
Identifyingtargetareas;
Conductingtestsforadverseimpacts;and
Takingextrapublicparticipationeffortstofullyengagediversepopulationgroups.
9.4 Defining Environmental Justice Populations

MVRPCs analysis groups included racial and ethnic minorities, persons in poverty, persons with
disabilities,andtheelderly.Further,MVRPCexpandedtheEJtargetpopulation toincludeother
traditionally disadvantaged groups, such as persons of Hispanic origin and households without
automobiles.
Avarietyofdatasourcesexistpertainingtopopulationdemographics.Notallsources,however,
are of equal quality. MVRPC, therefore, used the 2010 Census and 2008 2012 American
CommunitySurvey(ACS)dataasprimarydatasourcesforanalysisoftargetpopulationgroups.For
minority,elderly,andHispanicvariables,2010CensusSummaryFile1(SF1)blockleveldatawere
aggregatedtothetrafficanalysiszone(TAZ)levelusingGIS.Fortheremainingvariables(poverty,
disability, and zero car households), 2008 2012 ACS 5 Year Estimate block group data was
convertedtotheTAZlevel,usingspatialanalysistechniques.
MVRPCdefinedthetargetpopulationsasfollows:
Page157
AllpersonsofracesotherthanCaucasianwereconsideredminorities,includingAfrican American;
AmericanIndianorAlaskaNative;Asian;NativeHawaiianorOtherPacificIslander;someotherrace
alone;andpersonsoftwoormoreraces.ItisimportanttonotethatthepopulationofHispanic
originwasnotcountedasaracesincetheU.S.CensusBureautreatspersonsofHispanicoriginas
anethnicgroup,notarace.

Personsinpovertyaredefinedasthesumofthenumberofpersonsinfamilieswithincomebelow
the poverty threshold and the number of unrelated individuals with incomes below the poverty
thresholds. The set of poverty thresholds varies by family size and composition and age of
householder. MVRPC defined the poverty population based on available ACS data tabulated for
totalhouseholdpopulationplusnon institutionalizedgroupquarters.

In 2010, the ACS began using a new definition of disabled populations, focusing on the impact
conditionshaveonbasicfunctioningratherthanthepresenceofconditions.Consistentwiththis
newdefinition,MVRPCdefinedthedisabledpopulationbasedonavailableACSdatatabulatedfor
householdpopulation18yearsofageandover.Apersonwasconsideredashavingadisabilityif
he/she met any of the following conditions. A brief description of each disability category is as
follows:
Hearingdifficultydeaforhavingseriousdifficultyhearing.
Visiondifficultyblindorhavingseriousdifficultyseeing,evenwhenwearingglasses.
Cognitivedifficultybecauseofaphysical,mental,oremotionalproblem,havingdifficulty
remembering,concentrating,ormakingdecisions.
Ambulatorydifficultyhavingseriousdifficultywalkingorclimbingstairs.
Self caredifficultyhavingdifficultybathingordressing.
Independentlivingdifficultybecauseofaphysical,mental,oremotionalproblem,having
difficultydoingerrandsalonesuchasvisitingadoctorsofficeorshopping.

Theelderlypopulationisdefinedasallpersons65yearsofageandolder.

PersonswhoclassifiedthemselvesinoneofthespecificSpanish/Hispanic/Latinoorigincategories
listed,suchasMexican,Mexican American,PuertoRican,orCuban,aswellasthosewhoindicated
thattheywereofotherSpanish/Hispanic/Latinoorigin.PersonsofHispanicoriginmaybeofany
race.

Zero Car Households are households with no automobiles at home and available for the use of
householdmembers.
Page158
InSFY2013,MVRPCcompletedaLimitedEnglishProficiency(LEP)analysisfortheMPOarea.9The
analysisindicatesthatlessthan1percentofthepopulation5yearsorolder(approximately5,400
individuals) is not proficient in English. Approximately 50 percent of the LEP individuals speak
SpanishastheirprimarylanguagewiththeremainderspeakingotherIndo Euro,AsianPacific,or
other languages. As a result, MVRPC is focusing its outreach efforts on the Spanish speaking
population.
Posters, both English and Spanish versions, advertising the public participation meetings are
providedtoGDRTAhubs,GreeneCATS,andMiamiCountyTransitoffices.Theyarealsodistributed
totheLatinoConnection,alocalHispaniccommunity basedoutreachorganization.Publicnotice
newspaper ads are printed in both Spanish and English in La Jornada Latina, a free newspaper
distributedthroughouttheregion.
9.5 Identifying Environmental Justice Target Areas

MVRPCidentifiedEJtargetareasbyexaminingtheconcentrationoftheEJtargetpopulationsatthe
TAZlevelusingGeographicInformationSystems(GIS).
Thetargetpopulationthresholdswerecalculatedforeachpopulationdemographicvariableunder
examinationinordertolocatetheareasofhighconcentration.TheTAZpopulation(e.g.,elderly
persons) was aggregated to the county level and a county average percentage for each target
populationwascalculated.Usingthecountyaveragepercentageasathreshold,theareasofhigh
concentration were identified. Target population averages were calculated individually for each
county,asopposedtoanMPOaverage,toreflecttheuniquenatureofeachcounty.Thecounty
thresholdsforeachtargetpopulationarelistedinTable9.1.
MinorityPopulationMontgomeryCountyhasthehighestpercentageofminoritiesinthe
Region.Over26%ofMontgomeryCountyresidentsareminorities.Ontheotherhand,only
5.6%oftheMiamiCountyresidentsareminorities.
People in Poverty In the Region, Montgomery County has the highest percentage of
peopleinpoverty(16.7%),comparedtoGreene,Miami,andWarrenCountieswith13.5%,
12.2%,and6.3%,respectively.
Disabled Population Montgomery County has the highest percentage of disabled
population in the Region (18.4%), followed by Miami, Greene, and Warren Counties, at
15.5%,14.1%,and11.4%,respectively.
Elderly Population A higher percentage of elderly population lives in Miami and
Montgomery counties (15.4% and 15.1%, respectively), compared to Greene and Warren
Counties(13.6%and10.8%,respectively).
Thefullreportcanbeviewedhere:http://www.mvrpc.org/sites/default/files/LimitedEnglishProficiencyAnalysis.pdf
Page159
Hispanic Population A higher percentage of persons of Hispanic descent live in

MontgomeryandWarrenCounties(2.3%each),followedcloselybyGreeneCounty(2.1%)
andMiamiCountywiththeleast(1.3%).
Zero Car Households Montgomery County has the highest percentage of households
withoutaccesstocars.Almostoneintenhouseholds(9.5%)reportedhavingnocarsinthe
2008 2012data.
Table 9.1 Target Population Thresholds
County
PeopleinPoverty
DisabledPopulation
Zero CarHouseholds
MinorityPopulation
HispanicPopulation
ElderlyPopulation
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Warren
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Warren
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Warren
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Warren
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Warren
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Warren
Total
Threshold
20,714
12,366
87,503
3,929
16,647
11,897
73,416
4,396
3,037
2,112
21,304
2,047
21,903
5,784
139,881
20,262
3,439
1,341
12,177
4,784
21,998
15,731
81,041
22,936
13.53%
12.16%
16.73%
6.33%
14.13%
15.50%
18.44%
11.42%
4.83%
5.17%
9.51%
2.68%
13.56%
5.64%
26.14%
9.53%
2.13%
1.31%
2.28%
2.25%
13.61%
15.35%
15.14%
10.78%
Sources:2010Censusand2008 2012AmericanCommunitySurvey
Usingthecountysthresholdforeachtargetpopulation,TAZswereexaminedandcodedaseither
AboveCountyAverageorBelowCountyAverage.Itisimportanttonoteherethataspecific
TAZcouldbeatargetareaforseveralEJpopulationgroups.
Page160
MVRPCusedGIStoproduceaseriesofmapsshowingthegeographicdistributionoftargetareas
foreachpopulationgroupintheRegion.ThemapsareshowninFigure9.1.
MinorityPopulationDistributionMinorityareasareconcentratedaroundurbanareasor
cities.
Distribution of People in Poverty The distribution of people in poverty revealed a high
concentrationinthecentralcityareasofMontgomeryCounty.GreeneandMiamiCounties
also showed the highest concentrations in the central city areas, as well as selected rural
areas.
DisabledPopulationDistributionThedistributionofthedisabledpopulationshowedno
particularpattern.DisabledpopulationsarespreadthroughouttheentireRegion.
Elderly Population Distribution No strong patterns were identified with the elderly
population,asidefromaslightbutperceptiblelackofconcentrationnearurbancenters.In
general,theelderlypopulationappearstobespreadevenlyovertheRegion.
Hispanic Population Distribution In contrast with the distribution patterns for the
minoritypopulationandpeopleinpoverty,theHispanicpopulationintheRegionappears
to be located away from city centers and closer to rural areas and large employment
centers,particularlyWrightPattersonAirForceBase.
Zero Car Households Distribution The distribution of households with no cars shows
greaterconcentrationpatternsincitycenters.
9.6 Community Impact Analysis

MVRPC conducted various technical analyses for the 2040 LRTP to address EJ issues, recognizing
thatnosinglemeasurementcandeterminewhetherdisproportionateadverseimpactsexistornot.
Specifically, MVRPC analyzed: 1) Accessibility to Selected Major Facilities; 2) Home Based Work
(HBW) Travel Times; and 3) Transit and Regional Bikeway Accessibility. The purpose of these
analyses was to determine if target areas are adversely affected by the Plan, compared to non
target areas, for various population groups. The following sections provide information on each
analysissmethodology.
MVRPCconductedtheaccessibilityanalysisbymeasuringtraveltimefromTAZstomajorfacilities.
The facilities included were major hospitals, shopping centers, and universities located in the
Region(seeTable9.2),usingthreedifferenttransportationnetworks2010Base,2040E+C,and
2040Planthatweredevelopedbasedonthecongestionmanagementprojectlistaspresentedin
Chapter5.ThelocationsofmajorfacilitiesconsideredintheanalysiscanbeseeninFigure9.2.
MVRPC calculated the travel time from each TAZ to the closest facility using the Transportation
DemandForecastingModel(TDFM).TAZswerethengroupedintotargetandnon targetareasand
theaveragetraveltimetotheclosestfacilitywascalculatedforthetargetversusnon targetareas.
This process was repeated for all three scenarios: 2010 Base, 2040 E+C, and 2040 Plan. The
summaryoffindingsfromtheanalysisispresentedbelow.
Page161
Table 9.2 Average Travel Time to Major Facilities by EJ Status in Minutes

2010
2040 Existing+Committed
2040 Plan
University
Hospital
Shopping
Center
University
Hospital
Shopping
Center
University
Hospital
Shopping
Center
Poverty
6.9
6.5
5.2
7.4
7.0
5.4
7.3
6.8
5.3
Non Poverty
13.0
10.6
7.1
14.2
11.7
7.8
13.9
11.4
7.7
Disabled
8.8
7.6
5.6
9.5
8.1
5.9
9.3
8.0
5.8
Non Disabled
11.9
10.1
6.9
13.1
11.2
7.6
12.8
10.9
7.5
ZeroCar
7.1
6.6
5.1
7.7
7.0
5.4
7.5
6.9
5.3
Non ZeroCar
12.9
10.7
7.2
14.2
11.7
7.8
13.8
11.5
7.7
Minority
6.8
5.6
4.7
7.3
5.8
4.9
7.0
5.7
4.8
Non Minority
12.0
10.3
7.0
13.1
11.4
7.6
12.8
11.1
7.5
Hispanic
8.1
7.3
4.9
8.9
7.8
5.1
8.6
7.6
5.0
Non Hispanic
11.3
9.5
6.9
12.3
10.4
7.5
12.0
10.2
7.4
Elderly
11.6
9.7
6.5
12.6
10.5
7.0
12.3
10.3
6.9
Non Elderly
9.3
8.1
6.2
10.2
8.9
6.6
9.9
8.7
6.5
Source:MVRPC
Page162
Poverty Population
Below County %
TROY
Zero-Car
Households
Disabled Population
Below County %
Above or Equal to County %

No Population/No Data
TROY
Percentage by County
Greene County
13.53%
Miami County
12.16%
Montgomery County 16.73%
6.33%
Warren County
DAYTON
Below County %

Greene County
Miami County
Montgomery County
Warren County

No Households/No Data
Greene County
Miami County
Montgomery County
Warren County
14.13% *
15.50% *
18.44% *
11.42% *
DAYTON
XENIA
TROY
4.83%
5.17%
9.51%
2.68%
DAYTON
XENIA
XENIA
* The Census Bureau collects disability data under

the categories of Hearing difficulty, Cognitive difficulty, Ambulatory
difficulty, Self-Care difficulty, and Independent Living difficulty.
Minority Population
Hispanic Population
Below County %
TROY
Figure 9.1
Environmental
Justice:
Target Group
Populations
DAYTON
TROY

Greene County
Miami County
Montgomery County
Warren County
13.56%
5.64%
26.14%
9.53%
DAYTON
XENIA
Below County %
Below County %
Greene County
Miami County
Montgomery County
Warren County
Elderly Population
TROY

Greene County
13.61%
15.35%
Miami County
Montgomery County 15.14%
10.78%
Warren County
2.12%
1.31%
2.28%
2.25%
DAYTON
XENIA
XENIA
Miles
0 2 4 6 8
Source: U.S. Census 2010, ACS 2008-2012
May 2016
n
m
_
_^
^ ^
__
^
Newberry
Township
PIQUA
BR AD F O RD
Figure 9.2
Major Facilities in the Dayton Region
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
FLE TCH ER
CO VIN G TO N
Washington
Township
G
_^
^
m^
_
_n
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Newton
Township
PLE AS AN T
HILL
^
_
G
Lostcreek
Township
CAS S TO W N
Downtown Dayton
m
n
TROY
LU D LO W FAL LS
LAU R A
Union
Township
WEST
MILTON
_
^
TIPP
CITY
Monroe
Township
PO TS D AM
m
n
^
_
G
Bethel
Township
m
n
G
UNION
PHIL LIPS B U R G
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
^
_
_^
^
_G
_ ^
^
^
_
_
_
^
_
^
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
_
^
^
_
m
n
G
^
_
m
n
mG G n
n
mn
n
m
n
m
_
^
_
^
m
G
_
^
_ mn
^
_
^
m
n
m
n
_ G ^
^
G
m _
n
_ ^
^
_
m^
n
m
n
_
m
n
_
^
m
n
G^
_
^
G
_
^_
_
^
_
_G^
^
_^
^
_
^
_
m
n
_
^
_G ^
^
_^
^
m
_G^
_
_ n
_
_ ^
^
_
^
_^
^
_
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
YELLOW
SPRINGS
RIVERSIDE
BEAVERCREEK
Xenia
Township
Beavercreek
Township
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
MORAINE
FAR ME RS V ILLE
Shopping Center
_
^
m
n
Bath
Township
DAYTON
Jackson
Township
Hospital
m
n
_
^
FAIRBORN
NEW
LEBANON
University
VANDALIA
Butler
ENGLEWOOD Township
Perry Township
n
m
G
_
^
Elizabeth
Township
KETTERING
Miami
Township
CLIF TO N
m
n
CEDARVILLE
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
XENIA
Source: MVRPC
WEST CARROLLTON
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
BELLBROOK
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
CARLISLE
FRANKLIN
Washington
Township
SPRINGBORO
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
Silvercreek
Township
May 2016
Spring
Valley
Township
SP RIN G VAL LEY
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
BO W ER S VILL E
Miles
0
Theanalysisindicatesthattheaveragetraveltimetotheclosesthospitalisshorterfromthetarget
areas for all target population groups, except for the elderly population. This holds true for all
threescenarios.

Theaveragetraveltimetotheclosestshoppingcenterfortargetareasisshorterthanthetravel
time from the non target areas for all target population groups in all three scenarios with the
exceptionoftheelderlypopulation.

Theanalysisindicatesthattraveltimetouniversitiesisshorterfortargetversusnon targetareasin
allthreescenarios,exceptingtheelderlypopulation.
The lack of concentration of elderly population near urban centers (where many of the Regions
major facilities are located) is likely responsible for the longer travel times for that population
revealedbytheanalysis.Thispresentsaslightchangefromelderlypopulationconcentrationsin
2000,andposesanewconcernfortheRegiongoingforward.Accessbytheelderlytohospitals
andshoppingcentersisimportantfortheirhealthandindependence.
Overall,theaccessibilityanalysisindicatesthattheaveragetraveltimeoftargetversusnon target
areasisnotadverselyaffectedbythe2040LRTPprojects.Infact,theanalysisconfirmsthatPlan
projectswillmaintainorimprovetraveltimestomajorfacilitiesforalltargetareasandpopulations
through2040.Inparticular,reductionsintraveltimesfortheelderlypopulationbetween2040E+C
and the 2040 Plan scenarios are nearly identical to travel time reductions for the general
population.
MVRPCanalyzedtraveltimetowork(HBWTrips)asasecondcommunityimpactevaluationofthe
2040LRTP. Thisevaluationidentifieswhetheradverseimpactsexistregardingthetraveltimeto
workbetweentargetareasandnon targetareas,withrespecttoemploymentlocationsasaresult
ofthePlan.
The average travel time to work for each TAZ was derived using MVRPCs TDFM for all three
scenarios(2010Base,2040E+C,and2040Plan).TheaverageHBWtraveltimeforeachTAZwas
calculatedfortargetandnon targetareasforallpopulationgroups.Theresultsoftheanalysiscan
beseeninTable9.3below.
Page166
Table 9.3 Average Travel Time to Work by EJ Status in Minutes

2010
2040 Existing+Committed
2040 Plan
Peak
Off Peak
All
Peak
Off Peak
All
Peak
Off Peak
All
Poverty
14.4
12.1
13.5
15.1
12.4
14.0
15.0
12.5
14.0
Non Poverty
18.2
15.6
17.2
19.2
16.0
18.0
19.0
16.0
17.8
Disabled
15.3
13.0
14.4
16.0
13.3
14.9
15.8
13.3
14.9
Non Disabled
17.9
15.2
16.8
18.9
15.6
17.6
18.6
15.6
17.5
ZeroCar
14.4
12.2
13.6
15.3
12.5
14.2
15.0
12.5
14.1
Non ZeroCar
18.3
15.6
17.2
19.2
16.0
17.9
19.0
16.0
17.8
Minority
13.7
11.9
13.0
14.1
12.1
13.3
14.0
12.2
13.3
Non Minority
17.9
15.1
16.8
19.0
15.5
17.6
18.7
15.5
17.5
Hispanic
14.2
12.2
13.4
14.7
12.5
13.8
14.5
12.6
13.8
Non Hispanic
17.7
14.9
16.6
18.7
15.3
17.4
18.5
15.3
17.2
Elderly
17.5
14.8
16.5
18.6
15.2
17.3
18.4
15.2
17.1
Non Elderly
15.8
13.5
14.9
16.5
13.9
15.5
16.3
13.9
15.4
Source:MVRPC
Thedifferencesbetweenthetargetandnon targetareasintheRegion,withrespecttoHBWtravel
time,areconsistent(lessfortargetareas)forallpopulationgroupsineachscenario,exceptforthe
elderly population. A comparison of HBW travel times between the 2040 E+C and 2040 Plan
scenarios reveals that implementation of the 2040 LRTP will decrease HBW travel times from all
target areas for all population groups during peak hours. Non peak travel times stay about the
same,evenshowingafewslightincreases,perhapsduetoalteredtravelpatterns.Wherethese
slightincreasesoccurtotargetpopulations,traveltimesremainshorterforthetargetpopulations
thanforthegeneralpopulation.
The analysis of the average travel time to work in the Region indicates that target areas are
favorablysituatedascomparedtonon targetareasintermsoftraveltimetowork,asidefromthe
elderlytargetareas.Further,theanalysisshowsthatalltargetareaswillbenefitmorethannon
target areas as a result of the 2040 LRTP, again excepting areas with a high elderly population.
Giventhattheelderlyarelesslikelytoworkthemoretheirageaffectstheirmobility,HBWtravel
timesarenotlikelytobeseenasaconcernbyindividuals(unlike,forexample,accesstoshopping
centers and hospitals discussed above). It is therefore fair to say that there are no significant
adverseimpactsontargetareascomparedtonon targetareas.
MVRPC conducted a Transit Accessibility Analysis as a third measure of community impact

evaluationofthe2040LRTP.TheanalysiswasconductedusingGIStoidentifyhowmuchaccess
eachtargetpopulationgrouphastopublictransitintheRegion.Further,thisanalysisevaluates
Page167
Bethel
Township
DARKE COUNTY
UNION
Figure 9.3
Transit Accessibility
in Montgomery County
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
Service Areas
VANDALIA
GDRTA 2015 Transit Routes
Butler
ENGLEWOOD Township
1/4 Mile Buffer
HUBER
HEIGHTS
1/2 Mile Buffer
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
Percentage of Population within

1/4-Mile of GDRTA Transit Route
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
73.9%
Total Employment
Perry Township
Zero Car
80.9%
Poverty
79.8%
69.3%
Disabled
60.4%
Elderly
DAYTON
68.6%
Hispanic
76.0%
Minority
RIVERSIDE
0.0%
NEW
LEBANON
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
88.6%
Total Employment
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
KETTERING
Zero Car
93.6%
Poverty
92.6%
86.8%
Disabled
81.5%
Elderly
86.6%
Hispanic
WEST CARROLLTON
90.9%
Minority
83.0%
Total Population
0.0%
German Township
GERMANTOWN
MIAMISBURG
CENTERVILLE
CARLISLE
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
* Express Routes and Local School Routes are not included.
Washington
Township
Source: GDRTA, U.S. Census 2010,

ACS 2008-2012 and MVRPC
Date: May 2016
Miles
SPRINGBORO
20.0%
BELLBROOK
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
100.0%
Percentage of Population within

1/2-Mile of GDRTA Transit Route
BEAVERCREEK
Jackson
Township
63.6%
Total Population
how much transit access various target population groups have in comparison to the overall
population.
With the exception of limited portions of Greene County (Wright Patterson Air Force Base and
WrightStateUniversity),MontgomeryCountyistheonlyCountyintheMPOareathatisservedby
regularly scheduled fixed transit routes through the Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority
(GDRTA).Therefore,theanalysisinthissectionfocusesonMontgomeryCounty(seeFigure9.3).
MiamiandGreenecountieshavedemand responsivetransitservicesthatareopentothegeneral
public.
Duetothecloseproximityoftransitstoplocationslessthanmileapartonmostroutes(with
theexceptionofexpressroutes)andrelativelycomprehensivetime/locationcoverage(withthe
exceptionoflocalschoolroutes),busroutes,notbusstops,wereusedasthebasisfortheanalysis.
Theanalysisutilizedtheupdated2015GDRTAtransitroutes.
Transit route buffers were overlaid on TAZ and census block boundaries to determine the area
coveredbythebufferwithrespecttotheoverallpopulationandtargetpopulationgroups.Using
theassumptionsthatpopulationisevenlyspreadthroughoutunderlyingcensusblocksandtarget
populationproportionsareconsistentwithinTAZs,thepercentageofthegeneralpopulationand
targetpopulationgroupscoveredinthebufferwascalculated.
The results of the analysis are presented in two charts in Figure 9.3. The first chart shows the
percentageofthegeneralpopulationandtargetpopulationgroupswithinmileofatransitroute.
Thesecondchartshowspercentageswithinmile.
Theresultsrevealthat63.6%ofthetotalpopulationofMontgomeryCountyliveswithinmileand
83.0% within mile of a transit route. It was also revealed that high percentages of target
populationsarecoveredbypublictransportation.Further,theresultsshowthattargetpopulation
groups,withtheexceptionoftheelderly,arebetterservedthantheoverallpopulationinboththe
mile and mile buffer analyses. For example, 76.0% of minorities, 79.8% of persons living in
poverty,69.3%ofpersonswithadisability,68.6%ofpersonsofHispanicorigin,and80.9%ofzero
carhouseholdslivewithinmileofatransitroute,comparedto63.6%forthegeneralpopulation
in the same area. The elderly population is slightly less served than the general population at
60.4%,butisamuchmoreevenlyspreaddemographicthroughoutthecounty.
The transit accessibility analysis indicates that, in general, target population groups have better
accessibility to transit compared to the general population, which leads to the conclusion that
therearenoadverseimpactsregardingtargetpopulations.
The importance of measuring the accessibility of the Regions bikeways for target population
groups has become an important focus as investment in the system has increased over time.
UnlikeGDRTAsfixedroutetransitservice,theregionalbikewaynetworkextendsthroughoutthe
MPORegionandcontinuestogrowasnewsectionsaredesignedandconstructed.Onlyexisting
regionalbikewaysbikepathsorbikerouteswereincludedintheanalysis.
Page169
Bikepathfacilitiesaretypicallygradeseparated,pavedtrailsintendedfornon motorizedvehicles;
while bike routes are designated portions of the surface roadway network that serve both
motorized and non motorized vehicles. Bike routes are typically identified through signs and/or
pavementmarkings.
Currentlythereareroughly250milesofbikewaysintheregionwithapproximately16.5milesof
bikewaysaddedtotheRegionsince2012.
As in the transit analysis, regional bikeway buffers were overlaid on TAZ and census block
boundaries to determine the area covered by the buffer with respect to overall population and
target population groups. Using the assumptions that population is evenly spread throughout
underlying census blocks and target population proportions are consistent within TAZs, the
percentage of the general population and target population groups covered in the buffer was
calculated.
The results of the analysis are presented in two charts in Figure 9.4. The first chart shows the
percentage of the general population and target population groups within mile of a regional
bikeway.Thesecondchartshowspercentageswithinmile.
Theanalysisshowsthatonly14.4%and30.3%ofthegeneralpopulationlivewithinandmileof
aregionalbikeway,respectively.Thoughonlyafractionlivewithinmileofaregionalbikeway,
target populations experience slightly higher levels of accessibility to regional bikeways within
mileasthegeneralpopulation.Thesameistruefortargetpopulationswithinmileofaregional
bikeway.Alltargetpopulationshavehigherlevelaccessibilityratesthanthegeneralpopulation.In
fact,nearly40%ofbothpeopleinpovertyandzero carhouseholdsarewithinmileofaregional
bikeway, more than any other target population groups or the general population. In addition,
45.5%oftheRegionstotalemploymentexistswithinmileofaregionalbikeway.
TheRegionalbikewayaccessibilityanalysisindicatesthat,ingeneral,targetpopulationgroupshave
comparable or better accessibility to regional bikeway facilities as compared to the general
population, which leads to the conclusion that there are no adverse impacts regarding target
populations.
Pedestrian access is important for many members of the target Environmental Justice groups.
Minority and Hispanic status often correlate with low income status, and many people with low
incomes are often unable to afford ownership and maintenance of automobiles, have fewer
automobilesperhousehold,orownautomobileswhicharefrequentlyunreliable.Manymembers
of the elderly and disabled populations have physical limitations preventing them from safely
owning and operating a motor vehicle. Members of the zero car group, either by choice or
necessity,alsoareheavilyreliantuponnon automobilemeansoftransportation,suchaswalking,
biking, or public transit. Since each transit trip begins and ends as a pedestrian trip, having a
continuousnetworkofsidewalksbetweenbusstopsandorigins/destinationsisalsoanimportant
factorfortransitaccessibility.
Page170
Newberry
Township
Brown
Township
Springcreek
Township
PIQUA
Figure 9.4
Regional Bikeway
Accessibility
FLETCHER
PercentageofPopulationwithin
1/4 MileofaRegionalBikeway
BRADFORD
RegionalBikeways
COVINGTON
Quarter mileBuffer
Washington
Township
Staunton
Township
Concord
Township
Half mileBuffer
Lostcreek
Township
Newton
Township
City
CASSTOWN
PLEASANT
HILL
TotalEmployment
ZeroCar
Poverty
Disabled
Elderly
Hispanic
Minority
TotalPopulation
Boundary
Township
TROY
County
Elizabeth
Township
LUDLOW FALLS
LAURA
Union
Township
0.0%
WEST
MILTON
TIPP
CITY
Monroe
Township
POTSDAM
25.7%
18.3%
19.5%
15.5%
13.8%
13.1%
13.5%
14.4%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
PercentageofPopulationwithin
1/2 MileofaRegionalBikeway
Bethel
Township
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
Butler
ENGLEWOOD Township
HUBER
HEIGHTS
BROOKVILLE
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
45.5%
36.9%
39.3%
32.3%
29.0%
28.9%
30.0%
30.3%
TotalEmployment
ZeroCar
Poverty
Disabled
Elderly
Hispanic
Minority
TotalPopulation
VANDALIA
Bath
Township
YELLOW
SPRINGS
DAYTON
0.0%
Miami
Township
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
CLIFTON
RIVERSIDE
CEDARVILLE
NEW
LEBANON
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
Xenia
Township
Beavercreek
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
Ross
Township
Cedarville
Township
KETTERING
XENIA
Source:GDRTA,U.S.Census2010,
ACS2008 2012andMVRPC
WEST CARROLLTON
GERMANTOWN
MIAMISBURG
CENTERVILLE
Miami
Township
Washington
Township
BELLBROOK
Sugarcreek
Township
CARLISLE
SPRINGBORO
May2016
JAMESTOWN
New Jasper
Township
German Township
Silvercreek
Township
Spring
Valley
Township
SPRING VALLEY
Caesarscreek
Township
Jefferson
Township
BOWERSVILLE
FRANKLIN
Miles
8
Figures 9.5 and 9.6 help to show where improvements can be made in the pedestrian network.
Gapsinthepedestriannetwork,particularlythoseneartransitstopsandactivitycentersandthose
within urbanized areas, offer opportunities and considerations for future projects.
Accommodationsforpedestriansandtransituserscanalsohavethebenefitsofimprovingpublic
health,reducingpollutionandemissions,andmitigatingtrafficcongestion.
9.7 Environmental Justice and Public Participation

RefertoChapter10PublicParticipationandConsultation,foradiscussionofadditionalpublic
participationeffortstoreachEnvironmentalJusticepopulations.
Page172
Figure 9.5
Pedestrian Activity Centers
by Sidewalk Availability
Downtown Dayton
Pedestrian Activity Centers:

Sports Facilities, Schools,
Hospitals, Libraries, Retail
Centers, and Open Spaces
1/4 Mile Buffer
1/2 Mile Buffer
Roadways with sidewalk to
pedestrian activity center
Roadways without sidewalk
to pedestrian activity center
Limited access roadway
Source: MVRPC
May 2016
Miles
0
Figure 9.6
Sidewalk Gaps 1/4 Mile
From GDRTA Stops
Bethel
Township
UNION
PHILLIPSBURG
CLAYTON
Clay
Township
VANDALIA
Butler
ENGLEWOOD Township
GDRTA Bus Stop
HUBER
HEIGHTS
Gaps Outside Urbanized Area
BROOKVILLE
Gaps Within Urbanized Area

Sidewalk Availability
Harrison
Township
TROTWOOD
RIVERSIDE
Census Designated Urbanized Area
WPAFB
FAIRBORN
Perry Township
DAYTON
RIVERSIDE
NEW
LEBANON
BEAVERCREEK
OAKWOOD
Jefferson
Township
Jackson
Township
MORAINE
FARMERSVILLE
KETTERING
Source: MVRPC
WEST CARROLLTON
May 2016
German Township
MIAMISBURG
GERMANTOWN
CENTERVILLE
BELLBROOK
Sugarcreek
Township
Miami
Township
Washington
Township
Miles
CARLISLE
Madison
Township
SPRINGBORO
FRANKLIN
CHAPTER 10
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION
10.1 Overview
MVRPCs integration of a more proactive approach in transportation planning is accomplished
through the public participation process. The process is made up of multiple components,
including consultation with the TAC and MVRPC Board of Directors, the LRTP Work Groups, and
general outreach to the public. Additionally, community outreach efforts were expanded in an
attempttoreachdisadvantagedpopulations.
AspertheFASTAct,aMPOneedstodevelopandusea
documented public participation plan that defines a
processforprovidingcitizens,affectedpublicagencies,
representatives of public transportation employees,
freight shippers, providers of freight transportation
services, private providers of transportation, etc. with
reasonable opportunities to be involved in the
metropolitan transportation planning process. MVRPC
lastupdateditsPublicParticipationPolicyinNovember
2015. The policy details the LRTP public participation
requirements and complies with current planning
regulations and the FAST Act Statutory Provisions.
MVRPC made an extensive public outreach effort to
solicitinputfromthegeneralpublicandspecialinterest
groups in order to increase public participation in the
2040 LRTP update process. The policys key items
include an expanded public participation notification
list,useoftechnologytoenhancecommunicationwith
the public (website applications and social media), and efforts to reach environmental justice
populations.
10.2 Plan2040.mvrpc.org Webpage

For the May 2016 Update of the 2040 LRTP, MVRPC created a webpage solely dedicated to the
updateeffortandpromoteditsusethroughpublicnotices,advertising,andsocialmediaasaone
stopshopforallitemsrelatedtothePlanupdate.ThewebpagelaunchedinAugust2015andwas
availablethroughouttheupdateprocessandincludedtheupdatetimeline,informationpresented
at various meetings, comment card, and an interactive map with the ability to comment on
individualprojectsonthemap.Thewebsitewasalsopromotedbyusinganonlinephotocontest.
Figure10.1depictsthevariouswebpagefeaturesincludingtheabilitytoviewwebsitecontentin
Spanishbyusinganonlinetranslator.
Page175
Figure 10.1 Features and Content: plan2040.mvrpc.org
10.3 Public Participation Meetings

Beginning in August 2015, the public was involved in each step of 2040 LRTP update process
through the use of various tools. Public participation meetings were held to present the latest
information pertaining to the update and MVRPC staff was present at the meetings to answer
questions.Commentcardsweremadeavailableatthemeetingstorecordresidentsconcernsand
Page176
comments. MVRPCs website was updated frequently to provide the latest information and an
onlineversionofthecommentcardwasmadeavailabletoreceivecomments24/7onanyofthe
informationprovided.ThesameinformationwasalsomadeavailableatMVRPCsofficespriorto
eachmeeting.
The first phase of the public participation process involved hosting an open house public
participation meeting in August 2015 to provide transportation related background information
used in the development of the LRTP. The second phase included presenting the draft list of
multimodaltransportationprojectsinanopenhouseformat,atvariouslocationsthroughoutthe
RegioninOctober2015.Inaddition,onNovember4,2015from2pmto4pm,MVRPCstaffhelda
Twitter Chat Session to answer questions live on the Twitter Platform and give residents the
opportunity to interact with staff without having to attend a physical meeting. Followers were
askedtousethehashtag,#PlanMiamiValleytoaskquestions.Duringthe2hourperiod,atotalof
22postsweremadewithfactsrelatedtothetransportationsystem.
Finally, the last phase of public participation took place in April of 2016, through an open house
format,topresentthedraft2040LRTPincludingthefindingsofvariousLRTPanalyses.Comments
receivedateachmeetingwerepresentedtotheTACandtheBoardofDirectorspriortoactionon
LRTPrelateditems.
MVRPCs 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Public Participation Summary report provides
comprehensive information and documentation regarding the public participation process,
includingallthepublicoutreachmaterialsusedtopromotethemeetings,alistingofinformation
presentedatthemeetings,andallthecommentsreceived.Table10.1providesabriefsummaryof
eachmeeting.
Table 10.1 Public Participation Meeting Summary
Outreach
Contents
Attendance/Comments
August12,20154pmto6pm,MVRPCOffices
PrintingpublicnoticesintheDaytonDailyNews
andLaJornadaLatina(EnglishandSpanish)
PrintingpageadintheDaytonCityPaper
Submittingpressreleasestoalllocalnewspapers,
television,andradiostations(165)
Sendingletterstoindividuals/agencieswho
haverequestedtobenotifiedaboutpublic
participationmeetings(600)
Sendinglettersandpromotionalposterstoall
thepubliclibrariesinMontgomery,Greene,and
MiamiCounties
DisplayingpromotionalpostersinEnglishand
SpanishatalltheGDRTAHubsandE mailing
promotionalposterstoMiamiCountyTransitand
GreeneCATS
E mailingpromotionalposters(Englishand
Spanishversions)totheLatinoConnection
AnnouncingthemeetingonMVRPCswebsite
2040LongRange
TransportationPlan
UpdateOverview
2040LongRange
TransportationPlan
Projects
SafetyandCongestion
Conditions
TransportationSystem
andCongestion
Analysis
Alternative
TransportationModes
(Passenger&Freight)
LandUseand
Socioecenomic
Projections
CommunityImpact
11peopleattendedthemeeting;
oneformalcommentwasreceived
Page177
Outreach
andsocialmediaplatforms
Contents
Attendance/Comments
Assessment
JourneytoWorkMap
October20 22,20154pmto6pm,Miami,Montgomery,andGreeneCounties
Sendingletterstoindividuals/agencieswho
haverequestedtobenotifiedaboutpublic
MiamiCounties
GreeneCATS
PrintingpageadsintheDaytonDailyNews,La
JornadaLatina,andtheDaytonCityPaper
PurchasingbanneradsonDaytonDailyNewsand
Dayton.comwebsitesdirectingpeopleto
plan2040.mvrpc.org
MiamiCo.October20,2015
4peopleattendedthemeeting;no
formalcommentwasreceived
DraftCongestion
ManagementProjects
ListandMaps
TransitServiceLong
RangePlan
Assumptions2016 2040
RegionalBikeway&
PedestrianNetwork
ProjectListandMap
MontgomeryCo.October21,2015
noformalcommentwasreceived
GreeneCo.October22,2015
oneformalcommentwasreceived
3additionalcommentswere
receivedviapostalserviceandthe
online commentcard
Page178
Outreach
Contents
Attendance/Comments
April6,20164pmto6pm,MVRPCOffices
PrintingpageadintheDaytonCityPaper
Sendingletterstoindividuals/agencieswhohave
requestedtobenotifiedaboutpublic
MiamiCounties
GreeneCATS
2040LongRange
TransportationPlan
UpdateOverview
AirQualityAnalysis
FiscalConstraintAnalyis
SafetyandPerformance
Management
TransportationSystem
andCongestion
Analysis
CommunityImpact
Assessment
Environmental
MitigationAnalysis
Congestion
ManagementProjects
Transit
Congestion
ManagementProjects
BikewayandPedstrian
Congestion
ManagementProjects
Roadway
8peopleattendedthemeeting;no
formalcommentswerereceived.
10.4 Community Outreach and Public Participation

In accordance with Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, MVRPC has expanded its
publicparticipationtoincorporatetheregulationsrequiredbythisorder(seeChapter9).Although
MVRPC has historically made efforts towards the requirements of Environmental Justice (EJ), a
concertedeffortwasmadetofurtherseekinputfromtraditionallydisadvantagedpopulationsand
other EJ target groups and to include them in the public participation process. These efforts
included:
Expanding the mailing list to include EJ
target
populations
(low income,
minority,elderly,anddisabled);
Offeringfreeparkingpassesformeetings
atMVRPCofficesinDowntownDayton;
Adapting advertising for ease of
understanding, including special articles
andflyers;
Adapting public meeting times and
locationsforaccessibility;
AdvertisingatGDRTAHubs;
Page179
Purchasing public notices in La Jornada Latina, an English/Spanish publication, and the

DaytonCityPaper,afreedistributionnewspaper;
OfferinganEnglish to SpanishtranslatoronMVRPCswebsite;and
Posting information about upcoming meetings on social networking sites such as Twitter
andFacebook.
10.5 Participation in Other Public Outreach Efforts

Duringthe2040LRTPupdatecycle,MVRPCstaffactivelyparticipatedand/orattendednumerous
publicparticipationmeetingspertainingtostudiesandprojectsonprogressthroughouttheRegion.
These meetings ranged from public participation meetings to public hearings related to various
transportation studies, as well as Comprehensive and/or Land Use Plans being developed by
member jurisdictions. By attending the meetings, staff members were able to gain a better
understanding of the projects and studies and to listen to any concerns that the general public
mighthaveregardingtheprojectorstudy.MVRPCstaffwerealsoabletoansweranyquestions
thataroseinrelationtoMVRPCsplanningactivitiesandthe2040LRTP.
Thefollowingisapartiallistofpublicparticipationmeetings/activitiesthatMVRPCstaffattended:
I 75DowntownDaytonSub CorridorReconstruction;
Corridor Upgrades Montgomery County US 35 Corridor and Greene County US 35
Corridor;
SR444Relocation;
ComprehensiveBikewaysPlan;
RegionalLandUseInitiative;
GDRTAStrategicPlan;
ODOTAccessOhio2040;
StatewideManagedLanesStudy;
VariousTransportationSafetyStudies;
DaytonMallAreaMasterPlan;
GreaterDowntownDaytonPlanandDaytonTransportationPlan;
JeffersonTownshipFutureLandUseStrategicPlanning;and
Comprehensive Planning Efforts City of Fairborn, City of Xenia, and Five Rivers
MetroParks;
Page180
10.6 Consultation Requirements in the FAST Act

The FAST Act mandates that the MPO consult, as appropriate, with State and local agencies
responsibleforlandusemanagement,naturalresources,environmentalprotection,conservation,
andhistoricpreservationconcerningthedevelopmentofthetransportationplan.MVRPCsPublic
Participation contact list has been expanded to include agencies with an interest in the areas of
land use management, environmental resources, environmental protection, conservation, and
historic preservation. As a result the list now includes nearly 600 agencies and individuals. A
subset of these groups was also invited to the LRTP work group meetings (see Figure 5.2). All
contactsarenotifiedandgiventhe opportunitytocommentonanytransportation programthat
requiresactionbytheMVRPCBoardofDirectors,suchastheLongRangeTransportationPlanand
theTransportationImprovementProgram.
Page181
Page182

2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (2040 Plan) - MVRPC

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (2040 Plan) - MVRPC

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2040

MVRPC BOARD OF DIRECTORS*

2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Adopted: May 5, 2016

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org

Figure 1.2 MVRPC Transportation Program Structure

1.2 Long Range Transportation Plan Overview

1.3 Transportation Goals and Objectives

Develop Regional Priorities Continue to address regional transportation needs that

Transportation Choices Encourage a stronger multi modal network in the Region to

1.5 Fiscal Constraints

1.6 Air Quality Conformity

1.7 Project Implementation

1.8 Process for Amending and Updating the Long Range

2.2 The Fixing Americas Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act)

Figure 2.1 Organization of MAP 21 Performance Related Provisions

2.3 Development and Content of the Regional Transportation

3.2 The Miami Valley Region Today

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org

Table 3.2 Functional Classification System

The Region offers a variety of multimodal

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org

3.3 The Miami Valley Region in the Year 2040

MVRPC, as a regional agency, maintains locally adopted

Total Working Residents

Regionwide Commuter Mode Share

Average Commute Time

Source: American Community Survey 2006-2010

* Only outside residents working inside the region are considered.

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org

3.4 Travel Demand Forecasting Model

Figure 3.11 Basic Model Structure

Table 3.7 Employment Classification by SIC Code

541,303 35,326 1,422,463 855,291 16,018

11,206 5,083 110,341 223,512 39,772

109,848 156,938 30,456

542,773 35,762 1,416,348 875,507 15,548

10,388 4,862 164,097 326,935 60,912

4.2 Roadway Congestion in the Miami Valley Region

Table 4.1 Regional Report Card

In the Base (2010) network, roadway congestion is located mainly on I 75 and US 35 in

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

10 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 700, Dayton, OH 45402 ph: 937-223-6323 www.mvrpc.org