TCTAB Prioritization Matrix

Taney County Transportation Advisory Board
Project Prioritization List
November 3, 2023

ROADWAY LIST
Current TC TAB Roadway/
Ranking Proj. No. Project Name Project Type Scale Intersection Status of Project Date

1 3 -7 U S -1 6 0 W id e n in g th r o u g h F o rs y th C a p a c ity L a rg e R oadw ay P la n n in g
2 1-3 M O - 7 6 a n d L a k e s h o re D r T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m In te rs e c tio n P la n n in g a n d D e s ig n 2018
3 4 -3 R o c k a w a y B e ach a n d U S -1 6 0 In te rs e c tio n T ra ffic S a fety Sm all In te rs e c tio n P la n n in g a n d D e s ig n
4 1-15 H o llis t e r P a rk w a y E x te n s io n C o n n e c tiv ity L a rg e R oadw ay P la n n in g
5 4 -6 M O - 2 4 8 C o r r id o r T ra ffic S a fety L a rg e R oadw ay P la n n in g
6 1-10 U S 6 5 U p g ra d e t o F re e w a y S ta n d a rd s C a p a c ity R e g io n a l In te rs e c tio n P la n n in g
7 6 -1 0 7 6 C o u n tr y B o u le v a rd C o m p le te S tr e e t F a c ility U p g ra d e R e g io n a l R oadw ay P la n n in g a n d D e s ig n
8 4-1 F H w y a n d US-1 6 0 In te rs e c tio n T ra ffic S a fety Sm all In te rs e c tio n P la n n in g 2016
9 6 -6 M O - 1 6 5 ( M O - 7 6 t o M O -2 6 5 ) C a p a c ity L a rg e R oadw ay P la n n in g
10 1 -1 4 H w y 8 6 C o r r id o r C a p a c ity R e g io n a l R oadw ay P la n n in g
11 5 -8 B ra n s o n H ills & T o w n C e n te r D r In te rs e c tio n G e o m e tric /S a fe ty M e d iu m In te rs e c tio n P la n n in g
12 7 -9 H w y 165 D a le t o Ingalls T u r n Lane T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m In te rs e c tio n P la n n in g
13 2 -7 T h u n d e r R o ad C o n n e c tiv ity M e d iu m R oadw ay P la n n in g a n d D e s ig n
14 4 -2 M O - 1 7 6 a n d U S -1 6 0 R o c k a w a y T u r n o ff In t. T ra ffic S a fety Sm all In te rs e c tio n P la n n in g
15 6 -5 M O -1 6 5 a n d P o in te R o y a le D r In te rs e c tio n O p e r a tio n s Sm all In te rs e c tio n P la n n in g
16 6 -3 Safari R d (S h a rp C u rv e A r e a t o M O - 1 6 5 ) G e o m e tric /S a fe ty M e d iu m R oadw ay P la n n in g
17 5 -9 H ig h ro a d & B u ch a n a n R o u n d a b o u t G e o m e tric /S a fe ty M e d iu m In te rs e c tio n P la n n in g
18 7 -6 C le v e n g e r C o v e T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m R oadw ay V e rb a l C o rp s A p p ro v a l
19 3-1 F o rs y th /T a n e y v ille R d ( S tr a w b e r r y R d t o M O -7 6 ) G e o m e tric /S a fe ty M e d iu m R oadw ay P la n n in g
20 7 -7 G ra h a m C la r k T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m R oadw ay V e rb a l C o rp s A p p ro v a l
21 7 -8 H a p p y H o llo w T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m R oadw ay V e rb a l C o rp s A p p ro v a l
22 2 -5 J -H w y a t T rig g e r C r e e k C o n n e c tiv ity M e d iu m R oadw ay P la n n in g
23 5 -7 B u ch a n a n R d a n d S u n ris e D r In te rs e c tio n T ra ffic S a fety Sm all In te rs e c tio n P la n n in g
24 3-5 C a n e y C r e e k R d ( W H w y t o S k y lin e D r ) T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m R oadw ay P la n n in g

MULTIMODAL LIST
Current TCTAB Roadway/
Ranking Proj. No. Project Name Project Type Scale Intersection Status of Project Date

1 1-1 1 T ra n s lo a d F a c ility M u ltim o d a l R e g io n a l In te rs e c tio n P la n n in g 2022

COMPLETED LIST
3 -6 H w y 7 6 & U S -1 6 0 T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m In te rs e c tio n C o m p le te d 2018
7-1 C o o n C r e e k R d ( H w y B b t o M O -7 6 ) C o n n e c tiv ity M e d iu m R oadw ay C o m p le te d 2018
3 -9 O ld C h e e s e P la n t R o a d C o n n e c tiv ity M e d iu m R oadw ay C o m p le te d 2022
2-1 K H w y / W a r r e n R d a t B u ll S h oals Lake C o n n e c tiv ity M e d iu m In te rs e c tio n C o m p le te d 2012
1-4 A c a c ia C lu b R d (S un V a lle y C ir c le t o M O - 1 6 5 /V H w y ) C o n n e c tiv ity M e d iu m R oadw ay C o m p le te d 2017
4 -5 R o u n d M o u n ta in R o a d B rid g e Q u a lity o f C o m m u n itie s M e d iu m R oadw ay C o m p le te d 2021
3-3 B ra c e H ill R d (S lo u g h H o llo w R d t o M H w y ) G e o m e tric /S a fe ty M e d iu m R oadw ay C o m p le te d 2016
7 -2 Io w a C o lo n y R d ( M O - 1 6 5 t o D ia m o n d H ill C r t ) T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m R oadw ay C o m p le te d 2010
2 -6 H w y 7 6 - K irb y v ille S c h o o l T u r n Lanes T ra ffic S a fety Sm all In te rs e c tio n C o m p le te d 2023
2 -2 S lo u g h H o llo w R d (F is h e rm a n s N o s e t o B ra c e H ill) C o n n e c tiv ity L a rg e R oadw ay C o m p le te d 2013
2 -3 M H w y a t B ra c e H ill a n d N a z a re n e C h u rc h R d G e o m e tric /S a fe ty M e d iu m In te rs e c tio n C o m p le te d 2016
7 -4 M O -1 6 5 a n d M O -2 6 5 In te rs e c tio n T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m In te rs e c tio n C o m p le te d 2015
6 -7 O r e m u s R o a d T ra ffic S a fety Sm all R oadw ay C o m p le te d 2020
F a irv ie w C h u rc h T ra ffic S a fety Sm all R oadw ay C o m p le te d 2020
D a lto n R o a d B rid g e T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m R oadw ay C o m p le te d 2021
C ra ig R o a d In te rs e c tio n Im p ro v e m e n ts T ra ffic S a fety Sm all In te rs e c tio n C o m p le te d 2020
C h u rc h St B o x C u lv e r t T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m R oadw ay C o m p le te d 2022
G o o d n ig h t H o llo w B o x C u lv e r t T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m R oadw ay C o m p le te d 2022
R o u n d M o u n ta in Base T ra ffic S a fety Sm all R oadw ay C o n s tr u c tio n 2023
B u e n a V is ta B rid g e T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m R oadw ay P e rm it A p p B R O 2023
B e a r C r e e k B rid g e T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m R oadw ay P e rm it A p p B R O 2023
P r o te m C e d a r C r e e k B rid g e T ra ffic S a fety M e d iu m R oadw ay P la n n in g 2024
Proj.#: Project Name: MO-76 and Lakeshore Dr
Project Type: Traffic Safety Total Score 71.0 out of 100
Project Description: Improve intersection to address safety issues. Improvements
include possible turn lanes, raised islands, and modified traffic control. A continuous
Green-T intersection could also be considered at this location.

Status: Planning and Design 2018 Length: NA
Project Scale: Medium Roadway or Intersection Intersection
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 16,700 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 334 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: Both roads are two lane roads. MO-76 hs a high volume of traffic.
There are no turn lanes on MO-76. The intersection is large and is not level (it slopes
from northeast to southwest). The curvature of the road and grade limit sight lines to the
east. Lakeshore is stop controlled. The posted speed on MO-76 is 35 mph, though the
85th percentile traffic liekly exceeds that speed. Left turn traffic during peak periods can
have a longer than desirable delay. Traffic volumes fluctuate with seasonal activity and
may meet signal warrants during peak times.

A ccess to O pp o rtu n ity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 0.3 |of 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 5.0 0.3
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply assume int control would incorporate ped provisions
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 No effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 0% 50 0.0 0.0 no bike/ped improvements are currently assumed

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 7.7 |of 10
Level of Service F 25 25.0 2.5 westbound left turn LOS for stop control (Synchro)
Functional Classificationl Minor Arterial 40% 25 10.0 1.0
Daily Usage 8350 25 17.4 1.7 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 100% 25 25.0 2.5 moderate to high traffic, key location, can have high delay

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 8.2 |of 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 30 30.0 3.0 MO-76
Support Regional Economic Opportunities Yes 20 20.0 2.0 supports rec development in the Lakeshore corridor
Level of Economic Distress 85% 20 17.0 1.7

Poverty (Block Group) 14.0% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 4 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 7.0% 2006-2010 ACS tract data - Combining 3 tracts
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 50% 30 15.0 1.5 important local intersection
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.4 |o f 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities Partial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes turn lanes to be added
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 167 30 8.7 0.9 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 50% 40 20.0 2.0 MO-76 is an important commerce route, Lakeshore is not

Q u ality o f C o m m u n ities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.0 |o f 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No no applicable local plans (notin Hollister or Branson)
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Important connection for the Branson, Hollister & Kirbyville areas
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 no major scenic or visual benefits, except possibly landscaping
Local Quality of Communities Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.0 this is an important intersection in the area

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.5 |o f 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Modest project, few stormwater issues expected
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Unmitigated environmental impacts are not expected
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 0.5 no major mitigation expected

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 26.7 |o f 30
"O
CD PDO 14 Safety Index 50 44.1 13.2 (Modified MoDOT formula)
o ^
C d £=
^ .9 Injury 12 Crash Rate 145.61 Crash data 2009-2011
° 'o
cc" (D

S -
Fatal 0 Accident Index 2.21
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 2.15
CD °
s__
o Avg AADT 16306 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 improvements expected to address safety concerns
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0 no major effect on response times
Local Safety Factors 100% 35 35.0 10.5 crash data confirms local concerns

Taking C are o f th e System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 15.2 |o f 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Good 20 5.0 1.0 MO-76 assumed to be good or very good, Lakeshore Fair
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature Yes 20 20.0 4.0 alignment decreases sight distance east of intersection
Functional Classification2 Minor Arterial 40% 10 4.0 0.8
Daily Vehicle Usage 8350 10 7.0 1.4 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 100% 40 40.0 8.0 Important local intersection

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 1-10 Project Name: US 65 Upgrade to Freeway Standards
Project Type: Capacity Total Score| 66.2 | out of 100 ~
Project Description: Upgrade Highway 65 to meet freeway standards throughout Taney
County. Upgrades would include improving Hwy 65 access points to grade-seprated
interchanges. This includes four intersections in the southern part of the county and up
to three in the northern part of the county (though some access consolidation may be
necesary). Some segment improvements signage upgrades may also be required.
Status: Planning Length: NA miles
Project Scale: Regional Roadway or Intersection Intersection
Functional Classification: Freeway (for the m ajor street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 20,611 2015 MoDOT Vehicle Count Map
Daily Truck Traffic: 1,390 2015 MoDOT Vehicle Count Map
Through Lanes: 4 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: Highway 65 is the primary north-south highway through Taney
County. It was upgraded to 4-lanes with a median in the 1990's. Several grade-
separated interchanges have also been built; however, there are seven at-grade
intersections that still remain. These intersections must be upgraded to full grade-
seprated interchanges or closed to meet Interstate standards. Other design features
such as fencing, signage, ramp tapers, and clear-zones must also be examined and
possibly improved. The focus of the evaluation is on the southern four intersections.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 1.9 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 0.0 0.0
Project provides bike connections No
Project provides pedestrian connections No
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities No use if first two do not apply
Transit Yes 25 25.0 1.3 Affects Branson Shuttle and Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 25% 50 12.5 0.6 Will not significantly change ped/bike/ransit access

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 5.9 |o f 15
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.8 Intersections typically operate at LOS B or better
Functional Classificationl Freeway 100% 25 25.0 3.8
Daily Usage 5152.8 25 3.0 0.4 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 25% 25 6.3 0.9 Not a major congestion relief project

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 17.9 |o f 20
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 20 20.0 4.0 Affects all of Taney County
Support Regional Economic Opportunities Yes 30 30.0 6.0 Beneficial for attracting new businesses & development
Level of Economic Distress 85% 20 17.0 3.4

Poverty (Block Group) 17.0% 2011-2015 ACS block group data - 4 block groups, near ints
Unemployment (tract) 9.0% 2011-2015 ACS tract data - 3 tracts, near ints.
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 75% 30 22.5 4.5 New development often favors Interstate access
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.8 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities artial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes Will upgrade intersections and corridor to Interstate standards
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 347.5 30 12.5 1.3 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 50% 40 20.0 2.0 Will benefit freight primarily at access points

Quality of Communities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 7.0 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 30.0 3.0
Consistent with Local Plans Yes Local priority, intersections on plans, now corridor being added
Consistent with Regional Plans Yes Listed as need in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Countywide
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 No major scenic or visual elements
Local Quality of Communities Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.0 Important to the local and regional community quality

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 14.3 |of 15 |
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Assume excess runoff mitigated(new stormwater detention faciliti
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Unmitigated environmental impacts are not expected
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 3.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 75% 20 15.0 2.3 Few small wetlands in area, project includes stormwater BMP

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 11.8 |of 20
"O
CD PDO 34 Safety Index 50 22.7 4.5 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Cd £=
^ .2 Injury 24 Crash Rate 40.31 Crash data 2009-2011,
° ~cl
CO* (D
Fatal 2 Accident Index 0.61 at all non-interchange access locations (7) along US 65
to -p .
<D -E Years 3 Severity Index 2.27 volume multiplied by 7 for 7 intersections
-5
6 2010 AADT 19418 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.0
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Reduces conflict points
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0 Unlikely to have a major impact on emergency response
Local Safety Factors 75% 35 26.3 5.3 Improves safety for area residents

Takin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.8 |of 5
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Good 20 5.0 0.3 Existing Hwy 65
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature Yes 20 20.0 1.0 Does not meet FHWA standards for interstates
Functional Classification2 Freeway 100% 10 10.0 0.5
Daily Vehicle Usage 5152.75 10 1.2 0.1 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 50% 40 20.0 1.0 Mainly new intersections, but benefits existing roadways

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 1-11 Project Name: Transload Facility
Project Type: Multimodal Total S c o re| 55.8 | out of 100
Project Description: Construct a new transload facility near the airport with railroad
acces. The site must have easy access to Hwy 65.

Status: Planning Length: N/A miles
Project Scale: Regional Roadway or Intersection Intersection
Functional Classification: Other (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 500 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 250 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: The transload facility could provide economic benefits to the area.
It could promote manufacturing and industrial development in the County and specifically
near the new facility. It could promote job growth and make Taney County a hub for
distribution services.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 0.0 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 0.0 0.0
Project provides bike connections No
Project provides pedestrian connections No
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities No use if first two do not apply
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 No effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 0% 50 0.0 0.0 This project does not affect bike/ped/transit access.

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 1.7 |o f 15
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.8 Could reduce regional truck traffic, but increase local traffic
Functional Classificationl 0% 25 0.0 0.0
Daily Usage 250 25 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 25% 25 6.3 0.9 Could reduce regional truck traffic, but increase local traffic

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 19.4 |o f 20
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 20 20.0 4.0
Support Regional Economic Opportunities Yes 30 30.0 6.0 Future development area, prior initiatives in corridor
Level of Economic Distress 85% 20 17.0 3.4

Poverty (Block Group) 18.0% 2011-2015 ACS block group data - countywide
Unemployment (tract) 9.0% 2006-2010 ACS tract data - countywide
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 100% 30 30.0 6.0 This project is focused on local and regional development
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 10.0 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities 30 30.0 3.0
Widens Road Yes Project effectively improves freight facilities
Improves Geometry Yes Project effectively improves freight facilities
Improves Load Rating Yes Project effectively improves freight facilities
Truck Usage 125 30 30.0 3.0 Adjusted to provide full points given project type
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 100% 40 40.0 4.0 Project is designed to improve freight movements

Q u ality o f C o m m u n ities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.0 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 30.0 3.0
Consistent with Local Plans Yes MoDOT Statewide Freight Study recommends strengthening
Consistent with Regional Plans Yes Intermodal connectors
Connectivity No 30 0.0 0.0
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 No major scenic or visual elements
Local Quality of Communities Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.0 Important to the local and regional community quality

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 13.5 |of 15
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 3.0
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.5 Project provides an efficient means of transporting freight

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 5.3 |of 20
"O PDO Safety Index 50 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
CD

Cd £=
^ .2 Injury Crash Rate 0.00
° 'o( D
CD

S - Fatal Accident Index 0.00
co -p.
CD _ E
Years Severity Index 0.00
-5
6 2010 AADT Safety Concern No 5 0.0 0.0
Safety Enhancements No 5 0.0 0.0
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0
Local Safety Factors 75% 35 26.3 5.3 Project provides a safe way of moving freight

T akin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.0 |of 5
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Fair 20 10.0 0.5
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0
Functional Classification2 Other 0% 10 0.0 0.0
Daily Vehicle Usage 250 10 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 75% 40 30.0 1.5 Project provides an efficient multimodal way of moving freight

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 1-14 Project Name: Hwy 86 Corridor
Project Type: Capacity Total Score| 63.1 | out of 100
Project Description: Improve Highway 86 between Hwy 65 and the Long Creek Bridge
by adding lanes and improving geometry. Project would also add an interchange at Hwy
65 and extend the road to the Branson Airport.

Status: Planning Length: 6.5 miles
Project Scale: Regional Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Major Arterial (for the m ajor street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 5,008 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 1,679 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: Project need has been increased due to development in the
Branson Creek and Big Cedar areas as well as the development of the Thunder Ridge
Arena. Large event traffic creates extreme congestion on Hwy 86 and Hwy 65. The
area has created a TDD and CID to help fund the proposed improvements. Construction
is underway to add lanes and a new entrance to Thunder Ridge.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.8 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 5.0 0.3
Project provides bike connections No Only for a portion of the entire length (see below)
Project provides pedestrian connections No Only for a portion of the entire length (see below)
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply Portion of highway will have sidewalk and bike lanes
Transit Yes 25 25.0 1.3 Includes Big Cedar Shuttles
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 50% 50 25.0 1.3 Directly connects year-round housing with jobs and shoppit

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 5.4 |of 15
Level of Service C 25 10.0 1.5 Addresses congestion issues during events
Functional Classificationl Major Arterial 50% 25 12.5 1.9
Daily Usage 2504 25 0.7 0.1 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 50% 25 12.5 1.9 Helps traffic from congested area during events.

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 15.8 |o f 20
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 20 20.0 4.0 Affects BUS 65 and Western Taney County
Support Regional Economic Opportunities Yes 30 30.0 6.0 Future development area, prior initiatives in corridor
Level of Economic Distress 70% 20 14.0 2.8

Poverty (Block Group) 18.0% 2012-2016 ACS 5-year estimates for countywide
Unemployment (tract) 4.0% 2012-2016 ACS 5-year estimates for countywide
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 50% 30 15.0 3.0 Important future development area, important linkage
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 6.9 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities 30 30.0 3.0
Widens Road Yes
Improves Geometry Yes
Improves Load Rating Yes
Truck Usage 839.5 30 19.4 1.9 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 50% 40 20.0 2.0 Road assumed to be built to meet criteria for trucks

Q u ality o f C o m m u n ities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 9.0 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 30.0 3.0
Consistent with Local Plans Yes Noton any plans
Consistent with Regional Plans Yes Noton any plans
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Ridgedale to Hollister/Branson
Scenic and Visual Yes 20 20.0 2.0 Big Cedar Scenic Tourist Area
Local Quality of Communities Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.0 Important to the local and regional community quality

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 9.0 |of 15 |
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Assume excess runoff mitigated(new stormwater detention faciliti
Consistent with Environmental Goals No 30 0.0 0.0 Unmitigated environmental impacts are not expected
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 3.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.5 Will require new clearing and environmental studies

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 12.7 |of 20
"O PDO 40 Safety Index 50 31.0 6.2 (Modified MoDOT formula)
CD

C d £=
^ .2 Injury 5 Crash Rate 419.42 Crash data 2018-2021,
°C D 1 ( D
5L 2 Fatal 1 Accident Index 2.40 along Hwy 86
co -p .
CD _E
Years 4 Severity Index 1.45
CO °
s__
o Avg AADT 5008 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Sight distance and congestion issues
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Sight distance and congestion issues
Emergency Response Yes 5 5.0 1.0 During large events
Local Safety Factors 50% 35 17.5 3.5 Improves safety for area residents and tourists

Takin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 1.5 |of 5
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Good 20 5.0 0.3 Partially new project
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0 Partially new project
Functional Classification2 Major Arterial 50% 10 5.0 0.3
Daily Vehicle Usage 2504 10 0.3 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 50% 40 20.0 1.0 Partially new roadway, but benefits existing roadways

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 1-15 Project Name: Hollister Parkway Extension
Project Type: Connectivity Total S c o re | 66.5 ~\ out of 100
Project Description: Construct a new approximately 0.4 mile connection from Hollister
Parkway to Maple Street in Hollister. A bridge will be required.

Status: Planning Length: 0.4 miles
Project Scale: Large Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Major Arterial (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 445 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 22 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: Project would provide a needed connection between the Hollister
Parkway business district and Maple Street. It would reduce traffic volumes on Bus Hwy
65 and provide convenience for residents. The project is a portion of a larger project
previously considered.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.1 |of 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 5.0 0.3
Project provides bike connections No Could provide bike access
Project provides pedestrian connections No Could provide ped connection
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply Portion of highway will have sidewalk and bike lanes
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 No effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 75% 50 37.5 1.9 Directly connects year-round housing with jobs and shoppir

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 6.2 |of 15
Level of Service C 25 10.0 1.5
Functional Classificationl Major Arterial 50% 25 12.5 1.9
Daily Usage 222.5 25 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 75% 25 18.8 2.8 Diverts traffic from congested area, new direct connection

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 20.0 |of 20
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 20 20.0 4.0 Affects BUS 65 and Eastern Taney County
Support Regional Economic Opportunities Yes 30 30.0 6.0 Future development area, prior initiatives in corridor
Level of Economic Distress 100% 20 20.0 4.0

Poverty (Block Group) 20.0% 2011-2015 ACS block group data - 3 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 10.0% 2011-2015 ACS tract data - 2 tracts
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 100% 30 30.0 6.0 Important future development area, important linkage
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 7.2 |o f 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities 30 30.0 3.0
Widens Road Yes
Improves Geometry Yes
Improves Load Rating Yes
Truck Usage 11.125 30 2.2 0.2 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 100% 40 40.0 4.0 Road assumed to be built to meet criteria for trucks

Quality of Communities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 8.0 |o f 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 30.0 3.0
Consistent with Local Plans Yes On local plans and submitted as TIGER Application
Consistent with Regional Plans Yes East-West Roadway listed as need in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 No major scenic or visual elements
Local Quality of Communities Factors 100% 20 20.0 2.0 Important to the local and regional community quality

Environmental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 12.8 |o f 15 |
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Assume excess runoff mitigated(new stormwater detention facility
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Unmitigated environmental impacts are not expected
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 3.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 25% 20 5.0 0.8 Will require several bridge crossings and greenfield construction

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 8.3 |o f 20
T3 PDO 0 Safety Index 50 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
ID
O ,_.
CC S=
>_ .Q Injury 0 Crash Rate 0.00 Crash data 2019-2023
°
CD' <D
S. “ Fatal 0 Accident Index 0.00 New road so no accident data
<D _E Years 5 Severity Index 0.00
■5
6 2023 AADT 445 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Safety mentioned as important issue in TIGER II application
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Shift traffic from other roads
Emergency Response Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Could improve emergency response times and access/egress
Local Safety Factors 75% 35 26.3 5.3 Improves safety for area residents

Taking C are o f th e System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.0 |o f 5
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Good 20 5.0 0.3 New roadway, but relieves traffic on other roads
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature Yes 20 20.0 1.0 Provides alternate route
Functional Classification2 Major Arterial 50% 10 5.0 0.3
Daily Vehicle Usage 222.5 10 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 25% 40 10.0 0.5 Mainly new roadway, but benefits existing roadways

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 2-5 Project Name: J-Hwy at Trigger Creek
Project Type: Connectivity Total Score) 41.0 [o u t of 100
Project Description: Improve the roadway to address the section that floods (existing
culverts) at Trigger Creek. This could include using fill and/or a structure to raise the
roadway.

Status: Planning Length: 0.1 miles
Project Scale: Medium Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Collector (for the m ajor street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 700 (est. 2012, avg. for m ajor street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 14 (est. 2012, avg. for m ajor street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: The closure of this roadway during high water events impacts north
south travel and causes traffic to have to re-route. This affects commerce, emergency
response times, and general travel. The roadway appears to be in relatively good
condition with regards to pavement. The flooding is relatively infrequent.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 0.6 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 0.0 0.0
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks, bike lanes, or widened shoulders
T ransit No 25 0.0 0.0 no effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 25% 50 12.5 0.6 minimal pedestrian/bicycle benefits

C ongestio n R elief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 1.9 |o f 10
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.5 estimated peak hour LOS
Functional Classificationl 30% 25 7.5 0.8
Daily Usage 350 25 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 25% 25 6.3 0.6 addresses an infrequent delay issue

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.5 |o f 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor No 30 0.0 0.0
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Level of Economic Distress 85% 20 17.0 1.7

Poverty (Block Group) 22% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 2 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 7% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 25% 30 7.5 0.8 minimal commerce on roadway
E fficien t M o vem en t o f Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.7 |o f 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities Partial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes improve alignment (low water area)
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 7 30 1.8 0.2 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 25% 40 10.0 1.0 benefits truck traffic, but not major truck focused improvement

Q u ality o f C o m m u n ities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.5 |o f 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No not known to be on any applicable local plan
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Kirbyville, Mincey
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 75% 20 15.0 1.5 links community together, especially in serious weather cond.

E n vironm ental P rotection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.5 |o f 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 stormwater issues should be mitigatable
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 stream/floodplain crossing, but impacts should be mitigated
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 0.5 environmental issues may require mitigation

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 9.8 |o f 30
"O
03 PDO 0 Safety Index 50 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
O ^
£o § Injury 0 Crash Rate 0.00 Crash data 2009-2011
03 CD
"^—" £Q)
co
Fatal 0 Accident Index 0.00
CD _E Years 3 Severity Index 0.00
03
S— °
o Avg AADT 700 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 reduced flooding
Emergency Response Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Could improve response times
Local Safety Factors 50% 35 17.5 5.3 project offers a number of safety benefits to the local community

T akin g C are o f th e S ystem Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 14.6 |o f 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Fair 20 10.0 2.0 roadway and culvert appear to be in fair condition
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature Yes 20 20.0 4.0 road impassable during high water events
Functional Classification2 Collector 30% 10 3.0 0.6
Daily Vehicle Usage 350 10 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 100% 40 40.0 8.0 important to maintain all weather access

Data Check3 OK DataCheckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 2-7 Project Name: Thunder Road
Project Type: Connectivity Total S c o re| 56.1 ~\out of 100
Project Description: Improve the roadway to address the section that floods at
Tumbling Creek. This will likely include a large culvert or box culvert to raise the road
along with some realignment on the east side of the creek..

Status: Planning and Design Length: 0.1 miles
Project Scale: Medium Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Local (for the m ajor street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 240 (est. 2020 count)
Daily Truck Traffic: 12 (est. 2020 count)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: The closure of this roadway during high water events impacts local
residents. This affects agriculture, emergency response times, and general travel. The
roadway appears to be in relatively good condition with regards to pavement. The
flooding is relatively infrequent. The project is currently waiting on a permit from the
Osage Nation.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 0.6 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 0.0 0.0
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks, bike lanes, or widened shoulders
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 no effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 25% 50 12.5 0.6 minimal pedestrian/bicycle benefits

C ongestio n R elief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 1.6 |o f 10
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.5 estimated peak hour LOS
Functional Classificationl 20% 25 5.0 0.5
Daily Usage 120 25 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 25% 25 6.3 0.6 addresses an infrequent delay issue

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.5 |o f 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor No 30 0.0 0.0
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Level of Economic Distress 100% 20 20.0 2.0

Poverty (Block Group) 24% 2016-2020 ACS block group data
Unemployment (tract) 11% 2016-2020 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 15% 30 4.5 0.5 minimal commerce on roadway
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.7 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities ’artial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes improve alignment (low water area)
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 6 30 1.6 0.2 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 25% 40 10.0 1.0 benefits truck traffic, but not major truck focused improvement

Quality of Communities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.0 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No not known to be on any applicable local plan
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Local residential
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.0 links community together, especially in serious weather cond.

Environmental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.5 |of 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 stormwater issues should be mitigatable
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 stream/floodplain crossing, but impacts should be mitigated
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 0.5 environmental issues may require mitigation

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 25.8 |of 30
"O PDO 1 Safety Index 50 50.0 15.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
CD

Cd £=
^ .2 Injury 0 Crash Rate 3805.18 Crash data 2018-2020
°C D 1 ( D
5L 2 Fatal 0 Accident Index 21.74
co -p .
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 1.00
CO °
s__
o Avg AADT 240 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 reduced flooding
Emergency Response Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Could improve response times
Local Safety Factors 60% 35 21.0 6.3 project offers a number of safety benefits to the local community

Takin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 14.4 |of 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Fair 20 10.0 2.0 roadway and culvert appear to be in fair condition
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature Yes 20 20.0 4.0 road impassable during high water events
Functional Classification2 Local 20% 10 2.0 0.4
Daily Vehicle Usage 120 10 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 100% 40 40.0 8.0 important to maintain all weather access

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 3-1 Project Name: Forsyth/Taneyville Rd (Strawberry Rd to MO-76)
Project Type: Geometric/Safety Total Score| 42.6 | out of 100 :*•••• f * ' 5 '
Project Description: Widen the lanes and shoulders and improve drainage along this
low density rural roadway. The improvements may require additional right-of-way as < i .-v]!
well as utility and stormwater swale relocation. A,'" ^ 1

Status: Planning Length: 3.62 miles
Project Scale: Medium Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Local (for the m ajor street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 1,500 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 30 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street) •I ■.‘ . • v:

Project Discussion: The roadway has moderate to low daily traffic volumes; however, it
also has narrow lanes (approx. 9 feet), no shoulders and what appears to be a narrow
right-of-way. Improvements are appropriate for this roadway, which is essentially a
collector roadway (though it is currently classified as a local street). This roadway
provides an alternate to MO-76 for travel between Forsyth and Taneyville .

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 1.5 |of 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 5.0 0.3
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply assumes improved shoulders
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 No effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 50% 50 25.0 1.3 Assumes improved shoulders

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.9 |o f 10
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.5 congestion not a major issue
Functional Classificationl 20% 25 5.0 0.5
Daily Usage 750 25 0.1 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 75% 25 18.8 1.9 moderate to low volumes, time spent following possible issu

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 3.5 |of 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor No 30 0.0 0.0
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Level of Economic Distress 100% 20 20.0 2.0

Poverty (Block Group) 15.0% 2006-2010 ACS block group data -1 block group
Unemployment (tract) 12.0% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 50% 30 15.0 1.5 minor economic linkages
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.8 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities Partial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road Yes widen lanes and shoulders
Improves Geometry No
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 15 30 2.6 0.3 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 25% 40 10.0 1.0 not a major freight route

Quality of Communities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.0 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No not mentioned in Forsyth Strategic Plan
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Connects Forsyth and Taneyville
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 Roadway improvements, no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.0 provides alt. route btwn Forsyth & Taneyville

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.5 |of 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Project includes drainage improvements
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Little mitigation expected due to size of project
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 0.5 Few issues expected; A few small wetlands (ponds) near road

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 13.1 |of 30
"O PDO 1 Safety Index 50 16.1 4.8 (Modified MoDOT formula)
CD

Cd £=
^ .2 Injury 1 Crash Rate 34.45 Crash data 2009-2011
°C D 1 ( D
5L 2 Fatal 0 Accident Index 0.20
co -p .
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 2.25
CO °
s__
o Avg AADT 1465 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Widen lanes & shoulders, improve drainage
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0
Local Safety Factors 50% 35 17.5 5.3 crash rate not significant relative to other projects

T akin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 10.4 |of 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Fair 20 10.0 2.0 Chip and seal in fair condition
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0
Functional Classification2 Local 20% 10 2.0 0.4
Daily Vehicle Usage 750 10 0.1 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 100% 40 40.0 8.0 improvements upgrade a connecting element of current system

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 3-5 Project Name: Caney Creek Rd (W Hwy to Skyline Dr)
Project Type: Traffic Safety Total Score| 33.7 | out of 100
Project Description: Widen lanes and shoulders and potentially straighten horizontal
curves.

Status: Planning Length: 5.46 miles
Project Scale: Medium Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Local (for the m ajor street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 100 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 2 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: This low volume road has approximately 9 foot lanes (18 foot
travelway). There are no pavement markings on the roadway. It also has sharp curves
in a number of locations. Improving these curves and providing shoulders would
improve safety and benefit the users of this roadway.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 0.9 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 5.0 0.3
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply assumes improved shoulders
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 No effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 25% 50 12.5 0.6 Very rural; local access is limited even with improvements

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 1.1 |o f 10
Level of Service A 25 0.0 0.0 congestion not a major issue
Functional Classificationl 20% 25 5.0 0.5
Daily Usage 50 25 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 25% 25 6.3 0.6 low volumes

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.8 |o f 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor No 30 0.0 0.0
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Level of Economic Distress 100% 20 20.0 2.0

Poverty (Block Group) 15.0% 2006-2010 ACS block group data -1 block group
Unemployment (tract) 10.0% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 25% 30 7.5 0.8 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.1 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities 30 30.0 3.0
Widens Road Yes widen lanes and shoulders
Improves Geometry Yes straightening curves
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 1 30 0.7 0.1 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 25% 40 10.0 1.0 not a major truck route

Quality of Communities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 3.5 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No no applicable local plan
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Only N-S connector in a large rural area
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 Roadway improvements, no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 25% 20 5.0 0.5 valuable to local residents

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.3 |of 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Few stormwater issues expected
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Proximity to floodplains & wetlands may be an issue
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 25% 20 5.0 0.3 Roadway travels in/along floodplain area; small wetlands (ponds]

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 9.8 |of 30
"O PDO 1 Safety Index 50 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
CD

C d £=
^ .2 Injury 0 Crash Rate 167.26 Crash data 2009-2011
°C D 1 ( D
5L 2 Fatal 0 Accident Index 0.96
co -p .
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 1.00
CO °
s__
o Avg AADT 100 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Widen lanes & shoulders, straighten curves
Emergency Response Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Could slightly improve rural response times
Local Safety Factors 50% 35 17.5 5.3 one reported crash from 2007-2011

Takin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 7.4 |of 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Poor 20 15.0 3.0 Roadway in worse condition than bridge
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0
Functional Classification2 Local 20% 10 2.0 0.4
Daily Vehicle Usage 50 10 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 50% 40 20.0 4.0 improvements beneficial to existing system

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 3-7 Project Name: US-160 Widening through Forsyth
Project Type: Capacity Total Score| 73.4 | out of 100
Project Description: Widen US 160 from west of the Hwy 76 Intersection to Casey
Road. The widening would add a center two-way left-turn lane through the center of
Forsyth. It is assumed that the widening project will also include appropriate pedestrian
improvements. Existing stormwater ditches may have to be converted to an enclosed
system.
Status: Planning Length: 2.8 miles
Project Scale: Large Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 9,500 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 475 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: This portion of US-160 has daily traffic volumes of between 8,500
and 10,500. It is the main street through Forsyth and is important for both local and
through traffic. There are safety, access, and capacity issues on this highway. The
addition of a center two-way left-turn lane as well as possible access improvements and
consolidations would help address these issues.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.4 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 10.0 0.5
Project provides bike connections No assume no bike facility will be included with the project
Project provides pedestrian connections Yes assumes pedestrian facilities inc. ped signals
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities No use if first two do not apply
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 75% 50 37.5 1.9 Improved roadway and intersection could benefit ped acces

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 7.9 |o f 15
Level of Service E 25 20.0 3.0 planning level - based on volume/capacity on roadway
Functional Classificationl Minor Arterial 40% 25 10.0 1.5
Daily Usage 4750 25 3.9 0.6 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 75% 25 18.8 2.8 moderate to high traffic, key location

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 17.2 |o f 20
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 20 20.0 4.0 US 160
Support Regional Economic Opportunities Yes 30 30.0 6.0 supports continued development and activity in Forsyth
Level of Economic Distress 30% 20 6.0 1.2

Poverty (Block Group) 11.0% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 2 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 11.0% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 100% 30 30.0 6.0 US 160 is an important economic corridor
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 7.0 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities 30 30.0 3.0
Widens Road Yes roadway widening project
Improves Geometry Yes adds turn lanes
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 237.5 30 10.3 1.0 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 75% 40 30.0 3.0 Should benefit truck traffic; important connector in Taney County

Q u ality o f C o m m u n ities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 7.5 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 30.0 3.0
Consistent with Local Plans Yes mentioned in Forsyth strategic plan
Consistent with Regional Plans Yes mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 important Forsyth through route
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 limited scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 75% 20 15.0 1.5 important improvement in the heart of Forsyth

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 13.5 |of 15
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Assume excess runoff mitigated
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Unmitigated environmental impacts are not expected
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 3.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.5 No known environmental impacts, historical impacts possible

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 15.4 |of 20
"O PDO 69 Safety Index 50 26.8 5.4 (Modified MoDOT formula)
CD

C d £=
^ .2 Injury 23 Crash Rate 323.48 Crash data 2009-2011
°C D 1 ( D
5L 2 Fatal 0 Accident Index 1.85
co -p .
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 1.63
CO °
s__
o Avg AADT 9276 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Will result in widened road and other improvements
Emergency Response Yes 5 5.0 1.0 will improve response time, fire dept, on north side of project
Local Safety Factors 100% 35 35.0 7.0 High number of crashes confirms local safety concern

Takin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.5 |of 5
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Good 20 5.0 0.3 Both the Roadway and Bridges are in good condition
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0
Functional Classification2 Minor Arterial 40% 10 4.0 0.2
Daily Vehicle Usage 4750 10 1.6 0.1 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 100% 40 40.0 2.0 improving roadway operations benefits existing system

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 4-1 Project Name: F Hwy and US-160 Intersection
Project Type: Traffic Safety Total Score 65.6 I out of 100
Project Description: Improve intersection alignment and traffic control. A roundabout
could be considered. This could reduce speeds, while limiting vehicle stops. It could also
possibly reduce sight distance concerns. Intersection may also need a high friction
surface to reduce accidents.

Status: Planning 2016 Length: NA
Project Scale: Small Roadway or Intersection Intersection
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial (for the m ajor street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 10,500 (est. 2012, avg. for m ajor street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 530 (est. 2012, avg. for m ajor street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on m ajor street)
Project Discussion: The locations of the heavy volumes highlight the need to install a
roundabout. Truck traffic was estimated at 5% based on a truck count on Hwy F west of
the intersection. This is the only east-west connection within Taney County between the
communities north of the river and US-65. Nearly all east-west traffic between these
areas passes through this intersection. The traffic volumes appear to meet signal
warrants, but a detailed study is in order.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 1.5 |of 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 5.0 0.3
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply assumes improved shoulders at intersection
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 no effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 50% 50 25.0 1.3 assumes improved shoulders at intersection

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 6.0 |of 10
Level of Service D 25 15.0 1.5 eastbound left turn LOS for stop control
Functional Classificationl Minor Arterial 40% 25 10.0 1.0
Daily Usage 5250 25 22.8 2.3 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 50% 25 12.5 1.3 moderate to high traffic, key location

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 6.5 |of 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 30 30.0 3.0 US-160
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Level of Economic Distress 100% 20 20.0 2.0

Poverty (Block Group) 20.0% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 3 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 13.0% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 50% 30 15.0 1.5 M0-160 is an important arterial and economic link
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 5.6 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities Partial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes improves turns for trucks and other large vehicles
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 265 30 10.9 1.1 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 75% 40 30.0 3.0 important corridor

Quality of Communities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 7.0 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 30.0 3.0
Consistent with Local Plans No no applicable local plans
Consistent with Regional Plans Yes SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Connects communities north of river with Branson area
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 Intersection improvements, no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.0 Critical connection location within the County

Environmental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.5 |of 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Modest project, few stormwater issues expected
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Modest project, no mitigation expected
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 0.5 Modest project, few issues expected

Safety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 25.9 |of 30
"O
(C PDO Safety Index 50 50.0 15.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
o ^

£ § Injury 10 Crash Rate 320.67 Crash data 2009-2011
° o
(C CD
1 «2 Fatal Accident Index 4.87
CD +Z
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 1.69
cc °

O AvgAAD T 10252 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Will result in widened shoulders
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0
Local Safety Factors 75% 35 26.3 7.9 High crash rate confirms local concerns, many rear-end crashes
on the west leg
Taking Care of the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 8.6 |of 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Fair 20 10.0 2.0 roadway in fair condition based on observations
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0
Functional Classification2 Minor Arterial 40% 10 4.0 0.8
Daily Vehicle Usage 5250 10 9.1 1.8 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 50% 40 20.0 4.0 important intersection to maintain in good operation

Data Check3 OK DataCheckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 4-2 Project Name: MO-176 and US-160 Rockaway Turnoff Int.
Project Type: Traffic Safety Total S c o re| 54.3 ~\out of 100
Project Description: Improve intersection alignment and traffic control. Could include
construction of a roundabout or installation of a traffic signal if warranted. Roundabout
could potentially reduce speeds without increasing vehicle stops and delay. Adequate
sight distance should be provided (especially east and west) and driveways may need to
be relocated and/or consolidated.
Status: Planning Length: NA
Project Scale: Small Roadway or Intersection Intersection
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 10,500 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 530 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: Both roadways are two-lanes. The northbound approach is stop
controlled; however, it splits with traffic on both sides of the island as shown on the figure
to the right. There is also a grade differential, with the northbound approach traveling up
to meet the east-west through street (US-160). In planning for improvements to this
intersection, the speed of traffic approaching the intersection should be taken into
account. The posted speed on US-160 is 55 mph and the posted speed on MO-176 is 45
mph. The traffic volumes at this location appear to meet or be near meeting peak hour

A ccess to O p p o rtu n ity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 1.5 |of 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 5.0 0.3
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply widened shoulders and better ped crossing opportunities
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 no effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 50% 50 25.0 1.3 assumes widened shoulders at intersection

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 6.0 |o f 10
Level of Service D 25 15.0 1.5 northbound left LOS for stop control (Synchro)
Functional Classificationl Minor Arterial 40% 25 10.0 1.0
Daily Usage 5250 25 22.8 2.3 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 50% 25 12.5 1.3 localized congestion

E conom ic C o m p etitiven ess Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 8.0 |o f 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 30 30.0 3.0 US-160
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Level of Economic Distress 100% 20 20.0 2.0

Poverty (Block Group) 20.0% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 3 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 13.0% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 100% 30 30.0 3.0 MQ-160 is an important arterial and economic link
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.6 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities artial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes realignment of intersection
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 265 30 10.9 1.1 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 50% 40 20.0 2.0 US-160 is an important arterial

Q u ality o f C o m m u n ities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.0 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No no applicable local plans
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Connects communities north of river with Branson area
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 Intersection improvements, no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.0 Minimal criteria met; US-160 is an important facility in Taney Co

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.8 |of 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Moderate project, few stormwater issues expected
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Moderate project, no mitigation expected
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 75% 20 15.0 0.8 Moderate project, few issues expected

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 15.8 |of 30
"O PDO 3 Safety Index 50 25.3 7.6 (Modified MoDOT formula)
CD

Cd £=
^ .2 Injury 3 Crash Rate 53.45 Crash data 2009-2011
°
C D 1 (D

5L 2 Fatal 0 Accident Index 0.81
co -p .
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 2.25
CD °
s_
o Avg AADT 10252 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Improves intersection (traffic control and safety)
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0
Local Safety Factors 50% 35 17.5 5.3 crash rate not as high as some other projects

T akin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 9.6 |of 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Good 20 5.0 1.0 based on field observations and pictures considered good
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0
Functional Classification2 Minor Arterial 40% 10 4.0 0.8
Daily Vehicle Usage 5250 10 9.1 1.8 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 75% 40 30.0 6.0 important intersection to maintain in good operation

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 4-3 Project Name: Rockaway Beach and US-160 Intersection
Project Type: Traffic Safety Total Score| 69.2 ~\out of 100
Project Description: Improve safety at the intersection by modifying or upgrading the
traffic control, signage, and geometry.

Status: Planning and Design Length: NA
Project Scale: Small Roadway or Intersection Intersection
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 11,000 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 550 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: Both roadways are two-lane roads. There are no turn lanes at the
intersection. There was one fatal crash at the location, a head-on crash related to one
vehicle passing another vehicle. MoDOT traffic counts indicate that this intersection
likely does not meet the signal warrant thresholds. Turn lanes may be the best option for
improving safety at this location. A turn lane was added, but the geometry of the curve
and the guardrail proximity to the road have resulted in more accidents.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.1 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 5.0 0.3
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply assumes widened shoulders at intersection
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 no effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 75% 50 37.5 1.9 widened shoulders benefit bikes/peds

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 5.8 |o f 10
Level of Service C 25 10.0 1.0 eastbound estimated peak hour LOS
Functional Classificationl Minor Arterial 40% 25 10.0 1.0
Daily Usage 5500 25 25.0 2.5 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 50% 25 12.5 1.3 moderate localized congestion

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 7.2 |o f 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 30 30.0 3.0 US-160
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Level of Economic Distress 60% 20 12.0 1.2

Poverty (Block Group) 12% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 2 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 14% 2006-2010 ACS tract data - Combining 3 tracts
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 100% 30 30.0 3.0 MQ-160 is an important arterial and economic link
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.6 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities artial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes intersection safety improvements
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 275 30 11.1 1.1 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 50% 40 20.0 2.0 Minimal criteria met; US-160 is an important arterial

Q u ality o f C o m m u n ities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.0 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No no applicable local plans
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Rockaway Beach/Merriam Woods connection to Forsyth
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 Intersection improvements, no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.0 Minimal criteria met; US-160 is an important facility in Taney Co

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.8 |of 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Modest project, few stormwater issues expected
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Modest project, no mitigation expected
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 75% 20 15.0 0.8 Modest project, few issues expected

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 30.0 |of 30
"O PDO 3 Safety Index 50 50.0 15.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
CD

Cd £=
^ .2 Injury 4 Crash Rate 68.02 Crash data 2009-2011
°
C D 1 (D

5L 2 Fatal 1 Accident Index 1.03
co -p .
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 3.25
CD °
s_
o Avg AADT 10741 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Will result in intersection improvements (traffic control and safety’
Emergency Response Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Improves intersection near emergency responder (ambulance)
Local Safety Factors 100% 35 35.0 10.5 All criteria met; crash rate is noteworthy, head-on

Takin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 10.8 |of 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Fair 20 10.0 2.0 Roadway cracking
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0
Functional Classification2 Minor Arterial 40% 10 4.0 0.8
Daily Vehicle Usage 5500 10 10.0 2.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 75% 40 30.0 6.0 Important local intersection

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj.#: ■ Project Name: MO-248 Corridor
Project Type: Traffic Safety Total Score 66.5 out of 100
Project Description: Improve traffic safety along this entire corridor. Improvements
may include geometry at curves, sight distance at multiple intersections, and widening of
lanes and providing shoulders. Project may also including adding a turn lane on
Bird Road.

Status: Planning Length: 4.1 miles
Project Scale: Large Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 11,504 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 2,815 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: This has become a heavily traveled road as Branson has continued to grow. Provides
an alternative route to commercial areas and residential areas. Two “T" intersections are in need of “near-
term" safety attention due to sight distance/speed concerns: 1) the intersection at Branson Hills Parkway and
2) the intersection at Buchanan Road. The intersection at Branson Hills Parkway has temporary placarding
placed to address this accident-prone location and is a candidate for installation o f signalization due to
significantly increased commercial and residential traffic. The intersection at Buchanan Road is also a
candidate for signalization due high traffic of school buses and student related auto traffic (Branson H.S.,
Intermediate School, Elementary School).

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.1 |of 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 5.0 0.3
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply assumes widened shoulders at intersection
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 no effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 75% 50 37.5 1.9 assumes widened shoulders at intersection

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 5.0 |of 15
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.8 estimated peak hour LOS for left turns
Functional Classificationl Minor Arterial 40% 25 10.0 1.5
Daily Usage 5752 25 5.7 0.9 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 50% 25 12.5 1.9

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 19.4 |of 20
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 20 20.0 4.0 US-160
Support Regional Economic Opportunities Yes 30 30.0 6.0 Developing area
Level of Economic Distress 85% 20 17.0 3.4

Poverty (Block Group) 13% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 2 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 7% 2006-2010 ACS tract data - Combining 2 tracts
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 100% 30 30.0 6.0 MO-248 is an important arterial and economic link
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 8.5 |o f 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities 30 30.0 3.0
Widens Road Yes
Improves Geometry Yes improves turns for trucks and other large vehicles
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 1407.5 30 25.2 2.5 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 75% 40 30.0 3.0 Important corridor for economy

Q u ality o f C o m m u n ities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 7.5 |o f 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 30.0 3.0
Consistent with Local Plans No no applicable local plans
Consistent with Regional Plans Yes US 248 mentioned in MoDOT plans
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 List communities
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 75% 20 15.0 1.5

Environmental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 14.3 |o f 15
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Small project, few stormwater issues expected
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Small project, no mitigation expected
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 3.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 75% 20 15.0 2.3 Few issues expected

Safety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 7.6 |o f 20
"O
CD PDO 48 Safety Index 50 1.9 0.4 (Modified MoDOT formula)
o ^
C d £=
.9 Injury 10 Crash Rate 84.23 Crash data 2018-2021
° 'o
CO" (D

S -
Fatal 0 Accident Index 0.48
CD _E
Years 4 Severity Index 1.43
CD °
s__
o Avg AADT 11504 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Will result in intersection improvements
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0
Local Safety Factors 75% 35 26.3 5.3 crash types vary

Taking C are o f th e System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.1 |o f 5
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Good 20 5.0 0.3 based on pictures and field observations
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0
Functional Classification2 Minor Arterial 40% 10 4.0 0.2
Daily Vehicle Usage 5752 10 2.3 0.1 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 75% 40 30.0 1.5 Important local road

Data Check3 #N/A Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 5-7 Project Name: Buchanan Rd and Sunrise Dr Intersection
Project Type: Traffic Safety Total S c o re| 37.8 | out of 100
Project Description: Improve intersection alignment and traffic control. Re-align the
through movement to connect Sunrise Dr in the north with Buchanan Rd in the west and
convert Sunrise Dr. northbound (south leg) to stop control. Alternativey, install a
roundabout. This may address the same issues more cost effectively.

Status: Planning Length: NA
Project Scale: Small Roadway or Intersection Intersection
Functional Classification: Local (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 2,800 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 140 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: Buchanan Rd is the location of the Branson High School,
Intermediate School, and Elementary School as well as the Taney County Transfer
Station. Traffic is heavy at peak times when school is in session. The south leg of
Sunrise Dr has only a handful of residences. The locations of the heavy volumes
highlight the need to adjust the through movement and/or install a roundabout. A
roundabout offers the benefit of reducing speeds, while limiting vehicle stops. It also
could limit the amount of new right-of-way. The final design should ensure adequate
sight distance and relocate driveways as needed.

A ccess to O pp o rtu n ity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 1 .5 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 5.0 0.3
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’reject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply assumes improved shoulders at intersection
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 no effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 50% 50 25.0 1.3 assumes improved shoulders at intersection

C on g estio n R elief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 3.7 |o f 10
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.5 eastbound left turn LOS for stop control
Functional Classificationl Local 20% 25 5.0 0.5
Daily Usage 1400 25 1.6 0.2 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 100% 25 25.0 2.5 moderate to high traffic, key location

E conom ic C o m p etitiven ess Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 0.8 |o f 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor No 30 0.0 0.0 Not a strategic corridor
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Level of Economic Distress 0% 20 0.0 0.0

Poverty (Block Group) 7.0% 2006-2010 ACS block group data -1 block group
Unemployment (tract) 3.0% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 25% 30 7.5 0.8 Minimal economic impact outside of the school
E fficien t M o vem en t o f Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 3.1 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities Partial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes improves turns for trucks and other large vehicles
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 70 30 5.6 0.6 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 25% 40 10.0 1.0 limited truck traffic other than buses and trash trucks

Q u ality o f C om m unities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.0 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No no applicable local plans
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity No 30 0.0 0.0 No significant improved connectivity
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 Intersection improvements, no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 100% 20 20.0 2.0 Reduces driver frustration for school traffic

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.8 |of 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Modest project, few stormwater issues expected
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Modest project, no mitigation expected
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 75% 20 15.0 0.8 Modest project, few issues expected

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 13.5 |of 30
"O PDO 1 Safety Index 50 0.0 0.0 (Modified M oDOT formula)
CD
O
Cd C=
o^ .Q Injury 0 Crash Rate 33.40 Crash data 2009-2011
CO% a)
^ £ Fatal 0 Accident Index 0.51
CO
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 1.00

o Avg AADT 2734 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Will result in widened shoulders & improved intersection design
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0
Local Safety Factors 100% 35 35.0 10.5 Concern raised by local leaders

T akin g C are o f th e S ystem Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 8.5 |of 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Fair 20 10.0 2.0 roadway in fair condition based on observations
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0
Functional Classification2 Local 20% 10 2.0 0.4
Daily Vehicle Usage 1400 10 0.6 0.1 (Modified M oDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 75% 40 30.0 6.0 important intersection to maintain in good operation

Data Check3 OK D a ta C h e ck l OK Data Check2 OK
Proj.#: : Project Name: Branson Hills & Town Center Dr Intersection
Project Type: Geometric/Safety Total Score 60.5 out of 100
Project Description: Intersection improvements including potential signal changes,
delineators, islands, etc..

Status: Planning Length: NA
Project Scale: Medium Roadway or Intersection Intersection
Functional Classification: Collector (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 5935 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 120 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 4 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: Branson Hills Parkway is a four lane divided roadway with a traffic
signal at Town Center Dr. There are a high number of crashes in the area due to the
high traffic into and out of businesses in the area. Improvements may include limiting left
turns into and out of specific drives, removal of portion of left turn median to lengthen
turning autos tail-space, as well as better sequencing of the left turn signal.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.4 |of 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 10.0 0.5
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations Yes use if first two do not apply if signal is installed, ADA pedestrian provisions assumed
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply if signal is installed, pedestrians have safe crossing option
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 No effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 75% 50 37.5 1.9 Signalization would benefit bikes/peds as well

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 3.8 |of 10
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.5
Functional Classificationl 30% 25 7.5 0.8
Daily Usage 1483.8 25 0.6 0.1 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 100% 25 25.0 2.5 peak hour congestion is an issue

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 5.0 |of 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor No 30 0.0 0.0
Support Regional Economic Opportunities Yes 20 20.0 2.0 Branson Hills Parkway provides key development access
Level of Economic Distress 0% 20 0.0 0.0

Poverty (Block Group) 9% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 2 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 4% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 100% 30 30.0 3.0 beneficial to make Branson Hills Parkway function better
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.9 |o f 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities Partial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes intersection upgrades will better serve trucks
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 30 3.7 0.4 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 75% 40 30.0 3.0 Branson Hills Parkway is a potential commercial route

Quality of Communities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 3.5 |o f 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No Branson Rec-plex is mentioned in Branson Community Plan 203C
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity No 30 0.0 0.0
Scenic and Visual Yes 20 20.0 2.0 Opportunity for building on Branson Hills Parkway landscaping
Local Quality of Communities Factors 75% 20 15.0 1.5 proximity to Branson Rec-plex and many businesses

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 3.0 |o f 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 few stormwater issues expected
Consistent with Environmental Goals No 30 0.0 0.0 mitigation possible
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 0.5 few issues expected

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 27.3 |o f 30
"O
CD PDO 20 Safety Index 50 46.0 13.8 (Modified MoDOT formula)
o ^
C d £=
^ .9 Injury 4 Crash Rate 226.93 Crash data 2017-2021
° 'o
CO" (D

S - Fatal 0 Accident Index 3.44
CO
CD _E
Years 5 Severity Index 1.42
CD °
s__
o Avg AADT 5795 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Improvements should address key safety issues
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0
Local Safety Factors 100% 35 35.0 10.5

Taking C are o f th e System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 10.6 |o f 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Fair 20 10.0 2.0 Roadway in fair condition
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature Yes 20 20.0 4.0 sight distance issues
Functional Classification2 Collector 30% 10 3.0 0.6
Daily Vehicle Usage 1483.75 10 0.2 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 50% 40 20.0 4.0 Important roadway intersection to maintain high functionality

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 5-9 Project Name: Highroad & Buchanan Roundabout
Project Type: Geometric/Safety Total S c o re) 48.3 [ o u t of 100
Project Description: Intersection improvements including potential roundabout.

Status: Planning Length: NA
Project Scale: Medium Roadway or Intersection Intersection
Functional Classification: Collector (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 5844 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 263 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 4 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: This intersection has seen increased traffic with growth in the area
resulting in long wait times for turning movements. Signals are not preferred due to the
proximity of other signalized intersections.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.4 |of 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 10.0 0.5
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations Yes use if first two do not apply if RAB is installed, ADA pedestrian provisions assumed
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply if RAB is installed, pedestrians have safe crossing option
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 No effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 75% 50 37.5 1.9 Signalization would benefit bikes/peds as well

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 3.2 |of 10
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.5
Functional Classificationl 30% 25 7.5 0.8
Daily Usage 1461 25 0.5 0.1 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 75% 25 18.8 1.9 peak hour congestion is an issue

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.3 |of 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor No 30 0.0 0.0
Support Regional Economic Opportunities Yes 20 20.0 2.0 Buchanan outer road has some commercial
Level of Economic Distress 0% 20 0.0 0.0

Poverty (Block Group) 9% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 2 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 4% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 75% 30 22.5 2.3 beneficial to make outer road function better
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 5.0 |o f 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities Partial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes intersection upgrades will better serve trucks
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 65.75 30 5.4 0.5 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 75% 40 30.0 3.0 Outer road is a potential commercial route

Q u ality o f C o m m u n ities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 3.5 |o f 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No Not mentioned in Branson Community Plan 2030
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity No 30 0.0 0.0
Scenic and Visual Yes 20 20.0 2.0 Opportunity for building on landscaping
Local Quality of Communities Factors 75% 20 15.0 1.5 proximity to businesses

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 3.0 |o f 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 few stormwater issues expected
Consistent with Environmental Goals No 30 0.0 0.0 mitigation possible
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 0.5 few issues expected

Safety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 20.3 |o f 30
"O PDO 15 Safety Index 50 22.7 6.8 (Modified MoDOT formula)
CD
o ^
Cd £=
^ .9 Injury 1 Crash Rate 150.02 Crash data 2019-2023
° 'o
CO" (D

S - Fatal 0 Accident Index 2.28
CO
CD _E Years 5 Severity Index 1.16
CD °
s__
o Avg AADT 5844 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Improvements should address key safety issues
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0
Local Safety Factors 100% 35 35.0 10.5

Taking C are o f th e System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 6 .6 |o f 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Fair 20 10.0 2.0 Roadway in fair condition
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0 no sight distance issues
Functional Classification2 Collector 30% 10 3.0 0.6
Daily Vehicle Usage 1461 10 0.2 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 50% 40 20.0 4.0 Important roadway intersection to maintain high functionality

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 6-3 Project Name: Safari Rd (Sharp Curve Area to MO-165)
Project Type: Geometric/Safety Total S c o re | 4 8 .4 ~|~io ut of 100
Project Description: Improve alignment to eliminate sharp curves (especially the curve
in the middle of the roadway segment). A signal installation at MO-165 was also
proposed.

Status: Planning Length: 0.88 miles
Project Scale: Medium Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Local (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 2600 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 50 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: Safari Road is a two-lane road with few access points. It is
particularly winding where it crosses the valley in the middle of the segment. There are
no posted speed limits, so it was assumed that a 25 mph limit applied. The traffic volume
at the intersection of Safari Road and MO-165 was examined in a very preliminary
manner with respect to traffic signal warrants. Based on the estimated ADTs, it appears
it is near the peak hour warrant threshold. Traffic counts will be required to determine if
the intersection fully meets one or more warrants. It may be good to split these two
projects unless the entire eastern portion of the road is to be upgraded.

A ccess to O p p o rtu n ity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 1 .8 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 10.0 0.5
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations Yes use if first two do not apply signal installation would meet ADA requirements
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply signal would benefit peds/bikes
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 No effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 50% 50 25.0 1.3 Assumes no new sidewalks or bike lanes on Safari

C o ngestio n R elief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2 .8 |o f 10
Level of Service C 25 10.0 1.0 estimated peak LOS on Safari (likely different at intersectior
Functional Classificationl Local 20% 25 5.0 0.5
Daily Usage 1300 25 0.4 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 50% 25 12.5 1.3 congestion not a major issue, but seasonality could affect it

E conom ic C o m p etitiven ess Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 1 .5 |o f 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor No 30 0.0 0.0
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 no known regional economic opportunities
Level of Economic Distress 0% 20 0.0 0.0

Poverty (Block Group) 10% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 2 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 4% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 50% 30 15.0 1.5 benefits local businesses, could be direct route to MO-265
E fficien t M o vem en t o f Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 1 .8 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities Partial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes eliminates sharp curves
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 25 30 3.4 0.3 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 0% 40 0.0 0.0 not a major truck/freight route

Q u ality o f C om m unities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.5 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No not mentioned in Branson Community Plan 2030
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 connects MO-165 in Branson with MO-265 in west
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 Roadway improvements, no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 75% 20 15.0 1.5 not major community issue, could give residents a new direct rou

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 2.5 |of 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Assume new runoff mitigated (stormwater detention facilities)
Consistent with Environmental Goals No 30 0.0 0.0 Roadway crosses stream/floodplain; small wetlands
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 0% 20 0.0 0.0 Possible impacts due to stream crossing

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 22.1 |of 30
"O
ro
O
PDO 10 Safety Index 50 28.7 8.6 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Cd C=
o
^ .Q Injury 1 Crash Rate 449.66 Crash data 2009-2011
CE CD
co
S_ Fatal 0 Accident Index 2.57
co
CD _E Years 3 Severity Index 1.23
o
to
s_
°
o Avg AADT 2539 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Will result in signal at MO-165 and roadway re-alignment
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0
Local Safety Factors 100% 35 35.0 10.5 crashes on Safari were veh. out of control with 3 of 4 in curve

T akin g C are o f th e System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 11.4 |of 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Good 20 5.0 1.0 road appears to be in good condition in general
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature Yes 20 20.0 4.0 sharp curve does not meet design standards
Functional Classification2 Local 20% 10 2.0 0.4
Daily Vehicle Usage 1300 10 0.2 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 75% 40 30.0 6.0 roadway is not major, but upgrade is important

D ataC heck3 OK D a ta C h e ckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj.#: I Project Name: MO-165 and Pointe Royale Dr Intersection
Project Type: Operations Total Score 53.0 out of 100
Project Description: Improve intersection traffic control and/or geometric design.
Consider traffic signal and/or a roundabout.

Status: Planning Length: NA
Project Scale: Small Roadway or Intersection Intersection
Functional Classification: Collector (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 9100 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 460 (estimated, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: The intersection is stop controlled on the side-streets. The posted
speed limit is 40 mph. There are left-turn lanes in both directions on MO-165. There are
also turn lanes for the north-south direction. The intersection appears to function
acceptably during most hours of the day; however during peak periods some side-street
drivers have to wait longer than desired. A sample count indicated that the location may
be close to meeting signal warrants. This is especially true if the high-speed (> 40 mph)
thresholds are employed. A speed study and traffic counts could be conducted to
determine if the warrants are met. A roundabout could also be considered.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 1.8 |of 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 10.0 0.5
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations Yes use if first two do not apply if signal is installed, ADA pedestrian provisions assumed
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply if signal is installed, pedestrians have safe crossing option
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 No effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 50% 50 25.0 1.3 Signalization/roundabout would benefit bikes/peds as well

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 7.0 |of 10
Level of Service E 25 20.0 2.0 estimated peak hour LOS (southbound throughs and lefts)
Functional Classificationl 30% 25 7.5 0.8
Daily Usage 4550 25 17.1 1.7 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 100% 25 25.0 2.5 peak period congestion is an issue

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 5.3 |of 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 30 30.0 3.0 MO-165 is an important arterial and economic link
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 not a regional economic dev. Project
Level of Economic Distress 0% 20 0.0 0.0

Poverty (Block Group) 4% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 2 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 4% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 75% 30 22.5 2.3 could promote additional dev. north of intersection
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 3.5 |o f 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities Partial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes signal/roundabout could better facilitate truck movements
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 230 30 10.2 1.0 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 25% 40 10.0 1.0 New traffic signal could benefit truck access/egress

Q u ality o f C o m m u n ities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 6.5 |o f 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 30.0 3.0
Consistent with Local Plans Yes 165 mentioned in Branson Community Plan 2030
Consistent with Regional Plans Yes 165 (from 76 to 265) mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity No 30 0.0 0.0 not a major connectivity project
Scenic and Visual Yes 20 20.0 2.0 Roundabout could enhance aesthetics
Local Quality of Communities Factors 75% 20 15.0 1.5 benefits to residential dev. to south and businesses to north

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.5 |o f 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Small project, few stormwater issues expected
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Small project, no mitigation expected
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 0.5 Small project, few issues expected

Safety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 13.6 |o f 30
"O
CD PDO 1 Safety Index 50 17.8 5.3 (Modified MoDOT formula)
o ^
Cd £=
^ .9 Injury 1 Crash Rate 20.56 Crash data 2009-2011
° 'o
CO" (D

S -
Fatal 0 Accident Index 0.31
CO
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 2.25
CD °
s__
o Avg AADT 8885 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Will result in intersection improvements (i.e. signal)
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0 no major change to emergency response times
Local Safety Factors 50% 35 17.5 5.3 number of crashes not large relative to other projects

Taking C are o f th e System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 11.0 |o f 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Good 20 5.0 1.0 intersection conditions appear good
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0
Functional Classification2 Collector 30% 10 3.0 0.6
Daily Vehicle Usage 4550 10 6.8 1.4 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 100% 40 40.0 8.0 important local intersection

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 6-6 Project Name: MO-165 (MO-76 to MO-265)
Project Type: Capacity Total Score| 65.5 | out of 100
Project Description: Widen road. Add turn lanes and widen shoulders. This could
require additional right-of-way as well as utility relocation work. Stormwater issues will
also have to be addressed. Also, different portion of the roadway would require different
treatments.

Status: Planning Length: 4.36 miles
Project Scale: Large Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial Modified from MoDOT (major st)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 9100 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 460 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: MO-165 has varying typical sections and posted speeds. 1) MO-
76 south to Van Buren Road: 2-lanes with left turn lanes at some locations (inc. several
major intersections); 2) Van Buren Road to Pointe Royale Drive: 3-lanes (center left-turn
lane); 3) Pointe Royale Dr. to Auston Ave: 2-lanes without turn lanes; 4) Auston Ave to
MO-265 4-lane undivided. The posted speed ranges from 35 mph near MO-76 (in
Branson) to 45 in the southwest. MoDOT ADTs range from 11,000 near MO-76 to 7000
near MO-265 in the southwest (an avg. value was used in the analysis). However,
Go£2!e_ADTs_are_asjTi2h_as_a££im^3i000_and_sam £!e_c^

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 1.5 |of 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 5.0 0.3
Project provides bike connections No consider adding bike lane or multi-use facility
Project provides pedestrian connections No consider multi-use facility
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities Yes use if first two do not apply assumes widened shoulders available for bikes/peds
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 No effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 50% 50 25.0 1.3 Widened shoulders benefit businesses & residents bikes/pf

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 6.4 |of 15
Level of Service C 25 10.0 1.5 est. 2-lane LOS s/o of Fall Creek Rd, more analysis needec
Functional Classificationl Minor Arterial 40% 25 10.0 1.5 consider request to upgrade roadway classification
Daily Usage 4550 25 3.6 0.5 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 75% 25 18.8 2.8 capacity and turn lane issues likely, more doc needed

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 15.1 |o f 20
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 20 20.0 4.0 MO-165
Support Regional Economic Opportunities Yes 30 30.0 6.0 important business and access / travel corridor
Level of Economic Distress 15% 20 3.0 0.6

Poverty (Block Group) 10% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 5 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 5% 2006-2010 ACS tract data - Combining 2 tracts
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 75% 30 22.5 4.5 Important arterial and economic link
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 6.0 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities 30 30.0 3.0
Widens Road Yes widen shoulders
Improves Geometry Yes turn lanes to be added
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 230 30 10.2 1.0 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 50% 40 20.0 2.0 important corridor for commerce and trucks in this area

Q u ality o f C o m m u n ities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 7.0 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 30.0 3.0
Consistent with Local Plans Yes 165 mentioned in Branson Community Plan 2030
Consistent with Regional Plans Yes 165 (from 76 to 265) mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 165 connects south Branson to north Branson
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.0 benefits residents and business community

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 12.8 |of 15 |
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Assume new runoff mitigated (new stormwater detention facilities
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Impacts likely can be mitigated, potential floodplain issues
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 3.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 25% 20 5.0 0.8 Large project; possible impacts

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 15.3 |of 20
"O PDO 136 Safety Index 50 44.0 8.8 (Modified MoDOT formula)
CD
Cd £=
^ .2 Injury 63 Crash Rate 471.46 Crash data 2009-2011
°
CD1 (D
5L 2 Fatal 1 Accident Index 2.69
co -p .
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 1.83
CD °
s_
o Avg AADT 8885 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Will result in widened road (shoulders and turn lanes)
Emergency Response Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Additional turn lanes and widening could improve response times
Local Safety Factors 50% 35 17.5 3.5 High number of crashes |

Takin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 1.5 |of 5
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Good 20 5.0 0.3 bridge and roadway appear to be in good condition
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0 none known
Functional Classification2 Minor Arterial 40% 10 4.0 0.2
Daily Vehicle Usage 4550 10 1.4 0.1 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 50% 40 20.0 1.0 important to maintain functionality of corridor

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 6-10 Project Name: 76 Country Boulevard Complete Street
Project Type: Facility Upgrade Total S c o re| 65.8 | out of 100
Project Description: Street improvement project to improve pedestrian safety and
tourist attraction to the 76 Strip. Portions of the project have been constructed while
other phases are in the planning and preliminary design phase.

Status: Planning and Design Length: 3.9 miles
Project Scale: Regional Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Major Arterial (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 23700 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 710 (est. 2012, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: This project has been a priority for the City of Branson. The City
has committed $18 million to the project. Project will include relocation (likely
underground) of existing electric utilities. The goals of the project include increasing
visitor trips, managing traffic congestion, increasing safety, improving access and
mobility, improving visual appearance, preserving and celebrating heritage, encouraging
investment and development, and strengthening existing destinations and businesses.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 3.8 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 25.0 1.3
Project provides bike connections Yes bike/pedestrian barriers will be eliminated
Project provides pedestrian connections Yes pedestrian access is key part of project
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities No use if first two do not apply
Transit Yes 25 25.0 1.3 Transit stops are to be constructed
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 50% 50 25.0 1.3 Pedestrian/Bike/Transit considerations very prominent

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 9.8 |o f 15
Level of Service F 25 25.0 3.8 extended delays and long queues common
Functional Classificationl Major Arterial 50% 25 12.5 1.9
Daily Usage 11850 25 15.6 2.3 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 50% 25 12.5 1.9 project increases capacity - a major issue, worst in County

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 14.2 |o f 20
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 20 20.0 4.0 project is center of highest economic area
Support Regional Economic Opportunities Yes 30 30.0 6.0 project is center of highest economic area
Level of Economic Distress 30% 20 6.0 1.2

Poverty (Block Group) 12% 2006-2010 ACS block group data - Comb. 2 block groups
Unemployment (tract) 4.0% 2006-2010 ACS tract data - Combining 2 tracts
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 50% 30 15.0 3.0 needed to keep Branson economically competitive
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.3 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities 30 0.0 0.0
Widens Road No no change
Improves Geometry No no change
Improves Load Rating No no change
Truck Usage 355 30 12.6 1.3 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 25% 40 10.0 1.0 not a major truck route, but does provide for deliveries

Quality of Communities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 6.0 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 30.0 3.0
Consistent with Local Plans Yes part of Branson's Comprehensive and Strategic plan
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity No 30 0.0 0.0
Scenic and Visual Yes 20 20.0 2.0 plan would enhance landscaping, aesthetics, and views
Local Quality of Communities Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.0 project will revive strip and increase tax revenues

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 15% Total Points = | 13.5 |of 15
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Branson MS4 requirements will be followed
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 4.5 Rain gardens are planned
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 3.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.5 Environment to be showcased where possible

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 14.4 |of 20
"O
CD PDO 388 Safety Index 50 44.5 8.9 (Modified MoDOT formula)
C d £=
^ .2 Injury 133 Crash Rate 527.20 Crash data 2009-2011
° (D
CD1

5L 2 Fatal 0 Accident Index 3.01
co -p .
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 1.64
CO °
s__
o Avg AADT 23141 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.0 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.0 pedestrian safety will be greatly enhanced
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0
Local Safety Factors 50% 35 17.5 3.5 will address pedestrian safety which is a major concern

Takin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 1 .8 |of 5
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Good 20 5.0 0.3 roadway appears to be in good condition, little roadway cracking
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0
Functional Classification2 Major Arterial 50% 10 5.0 0.3
Daily Vehicle Usage 11850 10 6.2 0.3 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 50% 40 20.0 1.0 improvements are needed for capacity

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 7-6 Project Name: Clevenger Cove
Project Type: Traffic Safety Total Score| 42.8 | out of 100
Project Description: Improve the roadway to address the section that floods when
Table Rock Lake level is high. This involves raising approximately 1,900 LF of roadway
a maximum of 10 feet.

Status: Verbal Corps Approval Length: 0.36 miles
Project Scale: Medium Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Collector (for the m ajor street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 336 (est. 2019, MoDOT)
Daily Truck Traffic: 20 (est. 2019, MoDOT)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: The closure of this roadway during high water events impacts local
residential traffic and causes traffic to have to re-route through Emory Creek. This affects
emergency response times and general travel. The roadway appears to be in relatively
good condition with regards to pavement. The flooding is relatively infrequent. Due to a
change in the Emory Creek board, this alternative route may no longer be available in
the future.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points 0.6 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 0.0 0.0
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks, bike lanes, or widened shoulders
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 no effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 25% 50 12.5 0.6 minimal pedestrian/bicycle benefits

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 1.9 |o f 10
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.5 estimated peak hour LOS
Functional Classificationl Collector 30% 25 7.5 0.8
Daily Usage 168 25 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 25% 25 6.3 0.6 addresses an infrequent delay issue

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 1.1 |o f 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor No 30 0.0 0.0
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Level of Economic Distress 15% 20 3.0 0.3

Poverty (Block Group) 11% 2016-2020 ACS block group data
Unemployment (tract) 8% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 25% 30 7.5 0.8 minimal commerce on roadway
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.7 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities ’artial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes improve alignment (low water area)
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 10 30 2.1 0.2 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 25% 40 10.0 1.0 benefits truck traffic, but not major truck focused improvement

Quality of Communities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.8 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No not known to be on any applicable local plan
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Residential traffic only
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 90% 20 18.0 1.8 links community together, especially in serious weather cond.

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.8 |of 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 stormwater issues should be mitigatable
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 stream/floodplain crossing, but impacts should be mitigated
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 75% 20 15.0 0.8 environmental issues may require mitigation

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 12.4 |of 30
"O
CD PDO 0 Safety Index 50 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
C d £=
^ .2 Injury 0 Crash Rate 0.00 Crash data 2018-2020
°
CD1 (D
5L 2 Fatal 0 Accident Index 0.00
co -p .
CD _E Years 3 Severity Index 0.00
CD °
s__
o Avg AADT 336 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 reduced flooding
Emergency Response Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Could improve response times
Local Safety Factors 75% 35 26.3 7.9 project offers a number of safety benefits to the local community

Takin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 14.6 |of 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Fair 20 10.0 2.0 roadway and culvert appear to be in fair condition
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature Yes 20 20.0 4.0 road impassable during high water events
Functional Classification2 Collector 30% 10 3.0 0.6
Daily Vehicle Usage 168 10 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 100% 40 40.0 8.0 important to maintain all weather access

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 7-7 Project Name: Graham Clark
Project Type: Traffic Safety Total S c o re| 42.3 ~\out of 100
Project Description: Improve the roadway to address the section that floods when
Table Rock Lake level is high. This involves raising approximately 450 LF of roadway a
maximum of 10 feet.

Status: Verbal Corps Approval Length: 0.36 miles
Project Scale: Medium Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Collector (for the m ajor street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 300 (est. 2020, Count)
Daily Truck Traffic: 20 (est. 2020, Count)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: The closure of this roadway during high water events impacts local
residential traffic and causes traffic to have to re-route. This affects emergency response
times and general travel. The roadway appears to be in relatively good condition with
regards to pavement. The flooding is relatively infrequent.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 0.6 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 0.0 0.0
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks, bike lanes, or widened shoulders
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 no effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 25% 50 12.5 0.6 minimal pedestrian/bicycle benefits

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 1.9 |o f 10
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.5 estimated peak hour LOS
Functional Classificationl Collector 30% 25 7.5 0.8
Daily Usage 150 25 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 25% 25 6.3 0.6 addresses an infrequent delay issue

E conom ic C o m p etitiven ess Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 1.1 |o f 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor No 30 0.0 0.0
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Level of Economic Distress 15% 20 3.0 0.3

Poverty (Block Group) 11% 2016-2020 ACS block group data
Unemployment (tract) 8% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 25% 30 7.5 0.8 minimal commerce on roadway
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.7 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities ’artial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes improve alignment (low water area)
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 10 30 2.1 0.2 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 25% 40 10.0 1.0 benefits truck traffic, but not major truck focused improvement

Quality of Communities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.6 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No not known to be on any applicable local plan
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Residential traffic only
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 80% 20 16.0 1.6 links community together, especially in serious weather cond.

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.5 |of 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 stormwater issues should be mitigatable
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 stream/floodplain crossing, but impacts should be mitigated
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 0.5 environmental issues may require mitigation

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 12.4 |of 30
"O PDO 0 Safety Index 50 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
CD

Cd £=
^ .2 Injury 0 Crash Rate 0.00 Crash data 2018-2020
°
C D 1 (D

5L 2 Fatal 0 Accident Index 0.00
co -p.
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 0.00
C
s_O °
o Avg AADT 300 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 reduced flooding
Emergency Response Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Could improve response times
Local Safety Factors 75% 35 26.3 7.9 project offers a number of safety benefits to the local community

Takin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 14.6 |of 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Fair 20 10.0 2.0 roadway and culvert appear to be in fair condition
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature Yes 20 20.0 4.0 road impassable during high water events
Functional Classification2 Collector 30% 10 3.0 0.6
Daily Vehicle Usage 150 10 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 100% 40 40.0 8.0 important to maintain all weather access

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 7-8 Project Name: Happy Hollow
Project Type: Traffic Safety Total Score| 41.8 | out of 100
Project Description: Improve the roadway to address the section that floods when
Table Rock Lake level is high. This involves raising approximately 230 LF of roadway a
maximum of 10 feet.

Status: Verbal Corps Approval Length: 0.36 miles
Project Scale: Medium Roadway or Intersection Roadway
Functional Classification: Collector (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 25 (est. 2020, Count)
Daily Truck Traffic: 1 (est. 2020, Count)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: The closure of this roadway during high water events impacts local
residential traffic and causes traffic to have to re-route. This affects emergency response
times and general travel. The roadway appears to be in relatively good condition with
regards to pavement. The flooding is relatively infrequent.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 0.6 |o f 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 0.0 0.0
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks, bike lanes, or widened shoulders
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 no effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 25% 50 12.5 0.6 minimal pedestrian/bicycle benefits

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 1.9 |o f 10
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.5 estimated peak hour LOS
Functional Classificationl Collector 30% 25 7.5 0.8
Daily Usage 12.5 25 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 25% 25 6.3 0.6 addresses an infrequent delay issue

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 1.1 |o f 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor No 30 0.0 0.0
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Level of Economic Distress 15% 20 3.0 0.3

Poverty (Block Group) 11% 2016-2020 ACS block group data
Unemployment (tract) 8% 2006-2010 ACS tract data -1 tract
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 25% 30 7.5 0.8 minimal commerce on roadway
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.5 |of 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities ’artial Yes 30 15.0 1.5
Widens Road No
Improves Geometry Yes improve alignment (low water area)
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 0.5 30 0.5 0.0 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 25% 40 10.0 1.0 benefits truck traffic, but not major truck focused improvement

Q u ality o f C o m m u n ities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.2 |of 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No not known to be on any applicable local plan
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Residential traffic only
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 60% 20 12.0 1.2 links community together, especially in serious weather cond.

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.5 |of 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 stormwater issues should be mitigatable
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 stream/floodplain crossing, but impacts should be mitigated
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 0.5 environmental issues may require mitigation

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 12.4 |of 30
"O PDO 0 Safety Index 50 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
CD

Cd £=
^ .2 Injury 0 Crash Rate 0.00 Crash data 2018-2020
°
C D 1 (D

5L 2 Fatal 0 Accident Index 0.00
co -p.
CD _E
Years 3 Severity Index 0.00
C
s_D °
o Avg AADT 25 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 reduced flooding
Emergency Response Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Could improve response times
Local Safety Factors 75% 35 26.3 7.9 project offers a number of safety benefits to the local community

Takin g C are o f the System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 14.6 |of 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Fair 20 10.0 2.0 roadway and culvert appear to be in fair condition
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature Yes 20 20.0 4.0 road impassable during high water events
Functional Classification2 Collector 30% 10 3.0 0.6
Daily Vehicle Usage 12.5 10 0.0 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 100% 40 40.0 8.0 important to maintain all weather access

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK
Proj. #: 7-9 Project Name: Hwy 165 Dale to Ingalls Turn Lane
Project Type: Traffic Safety Total Score| 57.2 | out of 100
Project Description: Addition of a turn lane and/or acceleration/deceleration lanes to
improve safety for turns off of Hwy 165.

Status: Planning Length: NA
Project Scale: Medium Roadway or Intersection Intersection
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial (for the major street)
Avg. Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): 2,600 (est. 2016, avg. for major street)
Daily Truck Traffic: 702 (est. 2016, avg. for major street)
Through Lanes: 2 (through lanes on major street)
Project Discussion: This area has seen considerable development in recent years and
has resulted in an increased amount of traffic entering and leaving Hwy 165.

Access to Opportunity Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 1.3 |of 5
Eliminate Bike/Ped Barriers (ADA) 25 0.0 0.0
Project provides bike connections No does not apply
Project provides pedestrian connections No does not apply
’roject brings existing facilities up to ADA Regulations No use if first two do not apply assumes no sidewalks or bike lanes
Project provides some bike/pedestrian facilities No use if first two do not apply assumes no bike/pedestrian facilities
Transit No 25 0.0 0.0 no effect on Branson Shuttle or Jefferson Lines
Local Access to Opportunity Factors 50% 50 25.0 1.3 assumes widened shoulders at intersection

Congestion Relief Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 2.8 |of 10
Level of Service B 25 5.0 0.5
Functional Classificationl Minor Arterial 40% 25 10.0 1.0
Daily Usage 1300 25 0.4 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Congestion Relief Factors 50% 25 12.5 1.3 localized congestion

Economic Competitiveness Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 6.7 |of 10
Strategic Regional Economic Corridor Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Hwy 165
Support Regional Economic Opportunities No 20 0.0 0.0 Not linked to any planned econ. dev. projects
Level of Economic Distress 70% 20 14.0 1.4

Poverty (Block Group) 18.0% 2012-2016 ACS 5-year estimates for countywide
Unemployment (tract) 4.0% 2012-2016 ACS 5-year estimates for countywide
Local Economic Competitiveness Factors 75% 30 22.5 2.3 MO-165 is an important arterial and economic link
Efficient Movement of Freight Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 6.3 |o f 10
Large Vehicle Friendly Facilities 30 30.0 3.0
Widens Road Yes additional turn lanes
Improves Geometry Yes additional lanes
Improves Load Rating No
Truck Usage 351 30 12.6 1.3 MoDOT formula
Local Efficient Movement of Freight Factors 50% 40 20.0 2.0 Hwy 76 is an important arterial

Quality of Communities Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 10% Total Points = | 4.0 |o f 10
Local/Regional Land Use Plans 30 0.0 0.0
Consistent with Local Plans No no applicable local plans
Consistent with Regional Plans No not mentioned in SMCOG regional plan
Connectivity Yes 30 30.0 3.0 Connects western and eastern Taney County
Scenic and Visual No 20 0.0 0.0 Intersection improvements, no scenic benefits
Local Quality of Communities Factors 50% 20 10.0 1.0 Minimal criteria met; Hwy 165 is an important facility in Taney Co

E n vironm ental Protection Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 5% Total Points = | 4.5 |o f 5
Consistent with Stormwater Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Moderate project, few stormwater issues expected
Consistent with Environmental Goals Yes 30 30.0 1.5 Moderate project, no mitigation expected
Avoids Historical Impacts Yes 20 20.0 1.0 No known historical impacts
Local Environmental Protection Factors 50% 20 10.0 0.5 Moderate project, few issues expected

S afety Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 30% Total Points = | 25.9 |o f 30
"O
CD PDO 3 Safety Index 50 50.0 15.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
o ^
Cd £=
^ .9 Injury 6 Crash Rate 263.44 Crash data 2018-2021
° 'o
cc" (D
S - Fatal 1 Accident Index 4.00
03
CD _E Years 4 Severity Index 3.30
CD °
s__
o Avg AADT 2600 Safety Concern Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Concern raised by local leaders
Safety Enhancements Yes 5 5.0 1.5 Improves intersection (traffic control and safety)
Emergency Response No 5 0.0 0.0
Local Safety Factors 75% 35 26.3 7.9 crash rate not as high as some other projects

Taking C are o f th e System Max Actual Weighted Weight Factor = 20% Total Points = | 5.8 |o f 20
Roadway or Bridge Conditions Good 20 5.0 1.0 based on field observations and pictures considered good
Substandard Roadway or Bridge Feature No 20 0.0 0.0
Functional Classification2 Minor Arterial 40% 10 4.0 0.8
Daily Vehicle Usage 1300 10 0.2 0.0 (Modified MoDOT formula)
Local Taking Care of the System Factors 50% 40 20.0 4.0

Data Check3 OK Data C heckl OK Data Check2 OK