MEETING AGENDA ITEMS FOR RECOMMENDATION...Via Zoom Meeting ID 873 9146 5410 Password IMPO Call-in...

Materials pertinent to item #’s 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 are attached. For additional information, please see www.indympo.org For accommodation needs for persons with disabilities, please call (317) 327-5136.

August 5, 2020 9:00 am – 11:00 am

Via Zoom Meeting ID 873 9146 5410 Password IMPO Call-in

(312) 626-6799Meeting ID 873 9146 5410Password 574720

Viewing only on YouTube

MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome & Introductions Anna Gremling, MPO 5 min.

ITEMS FOR RECOMMENDATION Anna Gremling, MPO 5 min.

Jen Higginbotham, MPO 5 min.

Kristyn Sanchez, MPO

Anna Gremling, MPO

5 min.

2. Minutes from February 5, 2020 Technical Committee Meeting

3. Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment #5a. Memorandumb. Resolution #2020-IMPO-017c. Amendment #5d. Transportation Conformity Determination Report

4. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendmentsa. 3rd Quarter Updateb. Memorandumc. Resolution #2020-IMPO-019d. Federal Exchange – Next Steps

5. Unified Planning Work Plan (UPWP)a. UPWP Tableb. Resolution #2020-IMPO-020

Sean Northup, MPO 7 min.

STATUS REPORTS 6. 5307 Funding Allocation Options Jen Higginbotham, MPO 15 min.

7. Scenario Planninga. Memorandum

Rose Scovel, MPO 15 min.

8. Regional Activity Centers Rose Scovel, MPO 10 min.

9. Long Range Transportation Plan Performance Measures Annual Report Rose Scovel, MPO 5 min.

OTHER BUSINESS 10. Other Items of Business

a. Vision Zero Toolkitb. Executive Committee Elections – Town Only

Anna Gremling, MPO 5 min.

11. Adjournment Anna Gremling, MPO 1 min.

Technical Committee INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

tel:3173275136

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85084050882?pwd=WmJmYlZrNDVVeGZxUjNpU043dHgzZz09

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaW-eSo1XijP5ioC7THmv9Q

DRAFT

Page 1 of 4

Indianapolis Regional Transportation Council

Technical Committee Meeting Minutes

February 2, 2020

9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

MIBOR Realtor Association

1912 N Meridian St, Indianapolis, IN 46202

Committee Members Present

Ryan Cannon – Town of Avon Joe Scikos – Town of Bargersville

Dennis Buckley – City of Beech Grove Nick Parr – Boone County

Todd Barker – Town of Brownsburg David Littlejohn – City of Carmel

CJ Taylor – Town of Cicero Mark Richards – City of Franklin

Jason Koch – Town of Greenfield Daniel Johnston – City of Greenwood

Brad Davis – Hamilton County John Ayers – Hendricks County

Erica Miller – City of Indianapolis Neil VanTrees – Johnson County

Srikanth Venugopalan – City of Lawrence Ryan Crum – Town of McCordsville

Anthony Hinkle – Morgan County Alison Krupski – City of Noblesville

Sarah Reed – City of Noblesville Jason Love- Town of Pittsboro

Scott Singleton – Town of Plainfield Desiree Caldera – Shelby County

John Nail – City of Westfield Lance Lantz – Town of Zionsville

Annette Darrow – IndyGo Jennifer Gebhard – CIRTA

Robert Dirks - FHWA

* = Proxy

Others Present

Anna Gremling – MPO Jen Higginbotham – MPO

Sean Northup – MPO Jennifer Dunn – MPO

Nick Badman – MPO Danielle Gerlach – MPO

Kristyn Sanchez – MPO Annie Dixon - MPO

Steve Cunningham – MPO James Rinehart - MPO

Rose Scovel – MPO Terry Cooper – Town of Cicero

Pete Peterson – RQAW Marsha Craney – Blevins – GAI Consultants

Mark Turner – First Group Amanda Johnson – EMCS

Amy Huebschman – EMCS Stephanie Belch – INDOT

Jacob Phillips – INDOT Shari Hinds O’Riley – USI

Amy Curtis – Etica Group Dan Silverman – WSP

Matt Duffy – WSP Roy Nunnally – INDOT

Kate Zale – Etica Group Brandon Burgoa – INDOT

Caitlin Stankovich - INDOT Jarvis Joiner – JQOL

Laura Parker – Morgan County Valerie Cockrum – INDOT

Alison Redenz – Marion County Public Health Logan Lane – Health by Design

Ryan Cannon – Town of Avon Gerald Glover – Town of Avon

Jason Richey – Friends of West Indy

1. WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS

Anna Gremling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and welcomed Technical Committee members. Introductions

were made around the room.

ITEMS FOR APPROVAL

2. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 9TH, 2019 MINUTES

Item 2

DRAFT

Page 2 of 4

Mayor Dennis Buckley moved to approve the October 9th, 2019 minutes as presented.

John Ayers seconded the motion.

The minutes of the October 9th, 2019 IRTC Technical Committee Meeting were approved. MOTION PASSED

3. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 11TH, 2019 JOINT MEETING MINUTES

Mayor Dennis Buckley moved to approve the December 11th, 2019 minutes as presented.

John Ayers seconded the motion.

The minutes of the December 11th, 2019 IRTC Joint Committee Meeting were approved. MOTION PASSED

4. LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AMENDMENT #4 (RES. 20-IMPO-003)

Jen Higginbotham announced that four projects will be amended into the plan, including US-36 Widening in Avon

(INDOT), US-31 Intersection Improvements in Franklin (INDOT), SR-135 Widening in Johnson County (INDOT),

and CR-100S Widening in Avon (local dollars only). There will also be a description correction in the document for

the County Line Road Widening in Indianapolis. In addition to project amendments, recently approved Resolution 10-

IMPO-017 (Federal Safety Targets) and Resolution 19-IMPO-021 (Transit Targets) will be added to 2045 LRTP’s

Appendix S: Targets.

Mayor Dennis Buckley moved to recommend approval of Long Range Transportation Amendment #4 (Resolution 20-

IMPO-003.)

Mark Richards seconded the motion.

The IRTC Technical Committee recommended approval of Long Range Transportation Amendment #4 (Resolution 20-

IMPO-003). MOTION PASSED

5. INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RES. 20-IMPO-004)

Kristyn Sanchez stated that the MPO received 13 INDOT amendment requests and 1 local amendment request that

did not affect the MPO’s annual allocation for the 1st Quarter.

Jason Taylor moved to recommend approval of the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program

(Resolution 20-IMPO-004).

Srikanth Venugopolan seconded the motion.

The IRTC Technical Committee recommended approval of the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement

Program (Resolution 20-IMPO-004). MOTION PASSED

Sanchez provided an update on the SFY 2020 spenddown. The MPO has spent down approximately 2/3rd’s of the 2020

annual allocation. One project went to letting in February and four are scheduled for March. The MPO anticipates the

remaining annual allocation balance will be spent down with the March letting.

Staff expects to bring the SFY 2025 Call for Projects recommendations to the IRTC meetings in April for review.

6. REGIONAL PEDESTRIAN PLAN (RES. 20-IMPO-001)

Jen Higginbotham gave a brief overview of the Regional Pedestrian Plan. Work started in late 2018. There were three

rounds of public input and the draft document public comment period ended on January 22nd, 2020. Exposure of the

plan was boosted by an interview with Higginbotham by the Indianapolis Star and WISH-TV. The MPO has received

public comments mostly relative to where residents want to see sidewalks in their communities. These comments have

been sent to the LPAs. Comments on the plan include critiques of methodology, especially in relation to the weight of

equity in the gap analysis, and a desire to see implementation methods. Higginbotham also announced that MPO staff

will host a training for the LPAs and others in March to learn how to apply and modify the plan’s prioritization

methodology for local communities.

Item 2

DRAFT

Page 3 of 4

Jason Taylor moved to recommend approval of the Regional Pedestrian Plan (Resolution 20-IMPO-001).

Steve Maple seconded the motion.

The IRTC Technical Committee recommended approval of the Regional Pedestrian Plan (Resolution 20-IMPO-001).

MOTION PASSED

7. INDIANA HOUSE BILL 1070 (RES. 20-IMPO-005)

Anna Gremling said the Administrative Committee recommended approval of a resolution of support for Indiana

House Bill 1070. The Bill aims to reduce distracted driving, a goal that is in line with the Indianapolis MPO’s crash

reduction and Vision Zero missions.

John Nail moved to recommend approval of Support for HB 1070 (Resolution 20-IMPO-005).

Dan Parker seconded the motion.

The IRTC Technical Committee recommended approval of Support for HB 1070 (Resolution 20-IMPO-005). MOTION

PASSED

STATUS REPORTS

8. INDIANA SENATE BILL 350

Sean Northup said there were three main actions for the new Indianapolis MPO: to separate from the City of

Indianapolis, expand services, and receive a state statute under which it can operate. As of now, the only types of

legislation the MPO can operate under are the Regional Development Authority or the Regional Planning Commission,

neither of which are ideal for the Indianapolis MPO. The proposed legislation in Senate Bill 350 has two parts: one

would expand the membership of the RDA and the other would expand the topic areas that can be serviced by the

MPO. The bill was passed out of committee and will be voted on by the Indiana House of Representatives; it is being

sponsored by Representative Brown. Anna Gremling explained the new structures and the differences between the

future umbrella organization and the MPO.

9. SOCIAL MEDIA METRICS AND ANALYSIS

Danielle Gerlach presented metrics from the MPO’s social media platforms over the past year. She highlighted

increases in followers, engagements, and input. The organization is mostly impressed with ‘shares’ on Facebook,

which allows posts to gain impressions from people outside of the MPO’s followers. The top activity generators from

2019 included the preferences and concerns survey for the Regional Pedestrian Plan, a Farewell to Mike Terry from

IndyGo, and Sean Northup’s induction to SKL.

John Nail asked if there was anything the LPAs can do to help increase engagement with the MPO. Gerlach said that

tagging the MPO in their own posts or sending them to staff so they can share it on MPO platforms would help greatly.

10. TRANSITION UPDATE

• HRIS

o Anna Gremling said the MPO is still working on an HRIS to help with the onboarding process.

• Human Resources

o Gremling said the MPO is still working on human resources details for the transition.

• Finance Software

o Gremling said the MPO has decided to go with a second vendor for grant management software after

having issues with the first chosen vendor.

Item 2

DRAFT

Page 4 of 4

11. DIRECTOR’S UPDATE

• Federal Exchange Agreement

o Anna Gremling said the MPO has received a contract from INDOT that is similar to an LPA contract.

The MPO wants to move that contract to a grant template instead. Travis Underhill (INDOT) has given

the MPO a June 2020 deadline. Gremling said IRTC approval of the agreement will be done at the

Summer IRTC Joint Meeting. The MPO will also have conversations with Underhill on changing the

exchange rate to a more favorable split. After moving to the exchange funding model, the MPO will

explore procedure details such as bids, letting dates, etc. Steve Cunningham noted that due to

uncertainties associated with the exchange agreement, it is possible that the MPO will not hold a call for

projects this October for SFY 2026. More will be known as the agreement progresses.

• ITE Freight Symposium

o Gremling said the MPO has an opportunity to hold a freight symposium with the Institute of

Transportation Engineers. She requested that if any members on the Technical Committee have ideas for

sessions to please provide them to her for consideration.

• Indy’s Best and Brightest

o Gremling announced that both Kristyn Sanchez and Jen Higginbotham have been chosen as finalists

for the Government section of the Indy’s Best and Brightest competition.

OTHER BUSINESS

12. OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS

James Rinehart said Jennifer Dunn has received cleaned up incapacitating and fatal crash data from 2018 which has

been added to the Regional Crash Dashboard on the MPO’s website. There has also been a new filter added that can

display accidents year by year. Brad Davis asked if the MPO had considered adding property damage to the

dashboard. Dunn said it was considered, however there are issues with accurate location data for those crashes. Anna

Gremling said it was something staff can look into adding.

13. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Dennis Buckley moved to adjourn the meeting.

Todd Barker seconded the motion.

The Technical Committee voted in favor of adjournment at 9:35 a.m.

Item 2

of 3

MemoTo: Transportation Technical Committee

From: Jen Higginbotham

Date: August 5, 2020

Re: 2045 LRTP Amendment #5

The MPO will be making a fifth amendment to the 2045 LRTP. This amendment will include the addition of the projects below to the overall LRTP project list. The document was available for public review from July 20, 2020 to August 3, 2020. Any public comments received will be shared during the meeting. The final draft of the full document will be available for Transportation Policy Committee review and consideration for approval at the August 19, 2020 meeting.

This amendment meets all requirements for transportation conformity.

MCCOG also submitted projects as part of the transportation conformity process. Their updated travel demand model outputs have been added to ours, as per routine procedure.

If you have additional questions, please feel free to call me at 317.327.7587 or email [email protected].

Non-Exempt amendments to be added to, or moved within, the 2045 LRTP List of Projects:

• I-70 ATL (Hancock County – INDOT) – LRTP# 3002 – DES# 1702919 – Add to Time Period 1, Open to traffic 2023 – ATL from 1.0 mi west of Mt Comfort Rd to 1.2 mi east of SR 9 (10 miles) – from 4 lanes to 6 lanes – $84,152,000

• SR 32 ATL (Hamilton County – INDOT) – LRTP# 2021 – DES# 2000158 – Add to Time Period 2, Open to traffic2026 – ATL from Hazel Dell Road to Mensa Road (2.2 miles) – from 2 lanes to 4 lanes – $18,077,471

• Purple Line BRT (Marion County – IndyGo) – LRTP# 9007 – DES# 1801414 – Modify within Time Period 1, Open for operation 2023 – Dedicated BRT lanes from Downtown Indianapolis to the City of Lawrence (15.2 miles) –$155,000,000

One project, a new segment of Stinemyer Rd in Hancock County between 500 W and 550 W, will be removed from the LRTP as the ICG determined it to be an exempt project. This project recently received Community Crossing funding.

EDITED AUG 3:

During the public comment period, the MPO received one comment. The comment and response follow:

Item 3a

mailto:[email protected]

of 3

Connie Szabo Schmucker:

I don't see any bicycle/pedestrian projects in this 2045 LRTP - are they somewhere else and this is just amendments to the LRTP 2045 or are there really no Bike/Ped projects in the LRTP 2045?

Also - concerned about 2036-2045 plans for the following:

• 56th St from Raceway to Dandy Trail 2 lanes - 4 lanes - isn't this across the eagle creek dam where the bike lanes just got put in?

• Southport Road Bluff to US 31 going from 2 to 4 lanes - this had been a designated bicycle corridor (and the only place to cross the river by bike in the entire SW quadrant of Marion County) - going from 2 to 4 lanes - any opportunity to include separated bike lanes in this project?

• Fall creek Road from Hague to Shadeland - expanding from 2 to 4 lanes - any opportunity to add bicycle infrastructure along here to access Fort Harrison State Park and extend Fall Creek Trail to 79th St. as originally envisioned.

And in keeping with Complete Streets - all the listed projects should have bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. And if not, why not?

with investment in BRT, there should be less need for expansion of roadways

with the aftermath of the pandemic, there is potentially 30% DROP in commuting as more people who are able to work from home will choose to do that.

It looks like a majority of the projects are ATL.

The LRTP needs to be rethought in terms of climate change impact, changes in commuting behaviors and changes in general transportation moving into our new normal.

The Federal INVEST Act has guidelines for MORE investment in active transportation and need for climate impact evaluation. I wonder how the LRTP 2045 will stand up to the guidelines in the upcoming and future federal transportation bills.

Response:

The Long Range Transportation Plan only includes project information for “capacity expansion” projects, or basically added lanes, new roads, etc. It’s essentially the projects that can be reflected in our travel demand model (TDM), which wasn’t built to work for bikeway projects. That’s why we have supplemental pedestrian, bike, and transit plans. However, the Transportation Improvement Program (https://MiTIP.IndyMPO.org) which is our short-term program of funded projects, DOES show bike and other projects, if you’re wondering where to find them.

Regarding the specific Indianapolis projects you mentioned, please make sure you talk to DMD and DPW directly about those. Because the LRTP is a 30-year plan, most of the projects, especially in the 2nd and 3rd time period, do not have sufficient planning or design details to indicate if there are bikeways or not. So make sure they know you want them for those projects. We will be doing a new call for LRTP projects at the end of this year, and our communities may choose to add new projects, remove old projects, or projects already in there may end up changing time periods. Indianapolis has done significant work in re-thinking its thoroughfares in the in the Indy Moves Plan, and those changes will be made in the new LRTP update. After the call and before we score anything, we will put the projects out for public comment and pass those comments along to the communities.

Item 3a

of 3

Regarding the Complete Streets Policy, that applies to our TIP. If a project applies to receive certain federal funding for a project, they have to adhere to the Complete Streets Policy.

Regarding your last comments: Noted. We’re preparing to update the LRTP in 2021. While the LRTP will continue to only address capacity expansion projects, as part of the update

• we are creating a preferred land use scenario plan, which will have an effect on our population and other projects for the future. Keep an eye out for a survey on the scenario options (which include some of the future drivers you mentioned, like how people shop and commute, etc.) around September/October.

• we have done an data-driven analysis of regional land uses to identify regional activity centers. The final report on that effort will be released soon. It essentially identifies activity centers for things like freight hubs, walkable areas, major regional destinations, etc. and will likely factor into the LRTP scoring criteria, as well as be something we can use outside of LRTP work.

Item 3a

INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE

Resolution Number 20-IMPO-017

A RESOLUTION to approve Amendment #5 to the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan

(LRTP) for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA).

WHEREAS, Amendment #5 to the 2045 LRTP incorporates surface transportation

projects proposed by local and state governments and transit agencies within the MPA; and

WHEREAS, the projects contained in Amendment #5 to the 2045 LRTP have been

reviewed as to their impact and importance to the continued improvement of the surface

transportation system operating within the area; and

WHEREAS, changing conditions necessitate periodic updates of the LRTP; and

WHEREAS, the Transportation Improvement Program is consistent with the 2045

LRTP; and

WHEREAS, the proposed 2045 LRTP Amendment #5 was made available for public

comment and comments received were provided to the Transportation Policy Committee, and

WHEREAS, 2045 LRTP Amendment #5 meets national ambient air quality standards

and the requirements under 40 CFR 93 as demonstrated in the Transportation Conformity

Determination Report;

WHEREAS, the MPO Transportation Policy Committee is the approval body for all

transportation-related activities of the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the MPA under

applicable U.S. Department of Transportation regulations;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the MPO Transportation Policy

Committee hereby approves this Amendment #5 to the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan.

The MPO Policy Committee adopted the above and foregoing resolution this 19th day of

August 2020.

DATE: __________________________ ____________________________

J. Andrew Cook, Chair

MPO Transportation Policy Committee

Item 3b

LRTP Amendment #5 | DRAFT v2020.08.03 Indianapolis MPO | 1

Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization

2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment #5

2045 Long Range Transportation Plan 2020-2023 Transportation Improvement Program

August 19, 2020

Prepared by:

Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization 200 East Washington Street, Suite 2322

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 317-327-5136 | www.IndyMPO.org

Item 3c

http://www.indympo.org/


Contents Approvals ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Transportation Conformity ....................................................................................................................... 5

2. Background ............................................................................................................................................... 5

3. Public Review and Approval Process ........................................................................................................ 5

4. Fiscal Constraint ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Appendices Appendix A: Consultation Materials Appendix B: 2045 LRTP Replacement List of Projects/Cost

Item 3c


Approvals IRTC Policy Committee Resolution

Item 3c


FHWA Conformity Determination Letter

Item 3c


1. Transportation Conformity Refer to the 2020-Q3 Transportation Conformity Determination Report for Central Indiana for required federal conformity determination for this Amendment #5 to the 2045 LRTP. This amendment to the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) includes:

• additions and changes to various Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) projects

2. Background The 2045 LRTP is the MPO’s 30-year vision and plan for implementation of major regional projects. The MPO works closely with all of its local public agencies (cities, towns, and counties), as well as the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), local transit operators, and other relevant agencies in creating the LRTP. As projects are selected for federal funding they advance to implementation, at which point they are programmed into the MPO’s 5-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for study, design, and construction, provided they attain environmental permits and other necessary clearances.

3. Public Review and Approval Process Public consultation was conducted consistent with planning rule requirements in 23 CFR 450. The 2045 LRTP Amendment #5 was made available for public review and comment from July 20, 2020 through August 3, 2020, and during a public hearing on August 19, 2020 during the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Council Policy Meeting. A summary of comments can be found in Appendix A.

4. Fiscal Constraint Transportation conformity requirements in 40 CFR 93.108 state that transportation plans and TIPs must be fiscally constrained consistent with DOT’s metropolitan planning regulations at 23 CFR part 450. This amendment meets reasonable fiscal constraint requirements. Amendment #5 to the 2045 LRTP includes the following projects. See full updated table of 2045 LRTP projects in Appendix B.

Item 3c


Non-Exempt amendments to be added to, or moved within, the 2045 LRTP List of Projects:


• SR 32 ATL (Hamilton County – INDOT) – LRTP# 2021 – DES# 2000158 – Add to Time Period 2, Open to traffic 2026 – ATL from Hazel Dell Road to Mensa Road (2.2 miles) – from 2 lanes to 4 lanes – $18,077,471

• Purple Line BRT (Marion County – IndyGo) – LRTP# 9007 – DES# 1801414 – Modify within Time Period 1, Open for operation 2023 – Dedicated BRT lanes from Downtown Indianapolis to the City of Lawrence (15.2 miles) – $155,000,000

Non-Exempt amendments within Central Indiana 9-county ozone area to be add to the regional Transportation Demand Model:

• None; as per routine procedure, the results of MCCOG’s transportation demand model for Madison County will be added to the MPO’s model results

Projects determined to be exempt during the ICG Consultation Process:

• Stinemyer Rd* (Hancock County) – LRTP # 3112 – Move from Illustrative List to Period 2, Open to traffic 2026 – Extending Stinemyer Rd. from 500 W to 550 W – New Road (1/2 mile), 2 lanes – $1,237,000 (Project received Community Crossings funding)

o * This project will be removed from the 2045 LRTP, pending transportation conformity determination

The following table summarizes planned expenditures by plan period from the tables in Appendix B. In each period the projected revenue is above the planned costs, therefore the plan is fiscally constrained.

Time Period 2016-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045 TOTAL State Revenues $3.7 B $5.2 B $6.6 B $15.5 B State Spending $2.3 B $0 $0 $2.3 B

Fiscally Constrained Total Local Revenues $2.8 B $3.4 B $4.1 B $10.3 B

Local Spending $0.8 B $0.8 B $1.0 B $2.7 B Fiscally Constrained

IndyGo Revenues $1.8 B $1.9 B $2.1 B $5.8 B IndyGo Spending $0.53 B $0 $0 $.53 B

Fiscally Constrained Spending totals updated as part of this Amendment #5. Source: Indianapolis MPO. All figures are rounded and in billions.

Item 3c


Appendix A – Consultation Materials

Public Review and Comment Materials

The Indianapolis MPO:

• issued an official public notice to the Indianapolis Star and Indianapolis Recorder • sent press release to newspapers including Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis Recorder, IBJ, Daily

Journal (Johnson County), Hamilton County Reporter, Current (multiple), Greenfield Reporter, The Republican (Hendricks County), and The Times (Hamilton County)

• advertised the public comment opportunity via social media accounts (facebook and twitter) • included the public comment opportunity in the weekly teMPO e-newsletter

The Indianapolis MPO made this report available for public review and comment from July 20, 2020 through August 3, 2020.

Comments / Questions

• Connie Szabo Schmucker: o I don't see any bicycle/pedestrian projects in this 2045 LRTP - are they somewhere else

and this is just amendments to the LRTP 2045 or are there really no Bike/Ped projects in the LRTP 2045? Also - concerned about 2036-2045 plans for the following: 56th St from Raceway to Dandy Trail 2 lanes - 4 lanes - isn't this across the eagle

creek dam where the bike lanes just got put in? Southport Road Bluff to US 31 going from 2 to 4 lanes - this had been a

designated bicycle corridor (and the only place to cross the river by bike in the entire SW quadrant of Marion County) - going from 2 to 4 lanes - any opportunity to include separated bike lanes in this project?

Fall creek Road from Hague to Shadeland - expanding from 2 to 4 lanes - any opportunity to add bicycle infrastructure along here to access Fort Harrison State Park and extend Fall Creek Trail to 79th St. as originally envisioned.

And in keeping with Complete Streets - all the listed projects should have bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. And if not, why not? with investment in BRT, there should be less need for expansion of roadways with the aftermath of the pandemic, there is potentially 30% DROP in commuting as more people who are able to work from home will choose to do that. It looks like a majority of the projects are ATL. The LRTP needs to be rethought in terms of climate change impact, changes in commuting behaviors and changes in general transportation moving into our new normal.

Item 3c


The Federal INVEST Act has guidelines for MORE investment in active transportation and need for climate impact evaluation. I wonder how the LRTP 2045 will stand up to the guidelines in the upcoming and future federal transportation bills.

• Response: o The Long Range Transportation Plan only includes project information for “capacity

expansion” projects, or basically added lanes, new roads, etc. It’s essentially the projects that can be reflected in our travel demand model (TDM), which wasn’t built to work for bikeway projects. That’s why we have supplemental pedestrian, bike, and transit plans. However, the Transportation Improvement Program (https://MiTIP.IndyMPO.org) which is our short-term program of funded projects, DOES show bike and other projects, if you’re wondering where to find them. Regarding the specific Indianapolis projects you mentioned, please make sure you talk to DMD and DPW directly about those. Because the LRTP is a 30-year plan, most of the projects, especially in the 2nd and 3rd time period, do not have sufficient planning or design details to indicate if there are bikeways or not. So make sure they know you want them for those projects. We will be doing a new call for LRTP projects at the end of this year, and our communities may choose to add new projects, remove old projects, or projects already in there may end up changing time periods. Indianapolis has done significant work in re-thinking its thoroughfares in the in the Indy Moves Plan, and those changes will be made in the new LRTP update. After the call and before we score anything, we will put the projects out for public comment and pass those comments along to the communities. Regarding the Complete Streets Policy, that applies to our TIP. If a project applies to receive certain federal funding for a project, they have to adhere to the Complete Streets Policy. Regarding your last comments: Noted. We’re preparing to update the LRTP in 2021. While the LRTP will continue to only address capacity expansion projects, as part of the update we are creating a preferred land use scenario plan, which will have an effect on

our population and other projects for the future. Keep an eye out for a survey on the scenario options (which include some of the future drivers you mentioned, like how people shop and commute, etc.) around September/October.

we have done an data-driven analysis of regional land uses to identify regional activity centers. The final report on that effort will be released soon. It essentially identifies activity centers for things like freight hubs, walkable areas, major regional destinations, etc. and will likely factor into the LRTP scoring criteria, as well as be something we can use outside of LRTP work.

• No further comments.

The 2045 LRTP Amendment #5 was made available for public review and comment from, and during a public hearing on August 19, 2020 during the MPO Transportation Policy Committee Meeting.

Item 3c


• Add comments made during the public hearing.

Item 3c


Indianapolis Star public notice

Indianapolis Recorder public notice

Confirmed via email on July 14, 2020.

“Received. Sent to production. Thanks!!”

Item 3c


Facebook Notice

Twitter Notice

Item 3c


Weekly Newsletter Notice

Item 3c


Appendix B – 2045 LRTP Replacement List of Projects/Cost

2045 LRTP Recommended Project List (2016-2025)

LRTP # Project Name Description Sponsor Project Type Cost (YOE) Source Assigned Period

4204 Dan Jones Rd - US 36 to CR 100 S

Widen from 2 ln to 4 lane Blvd Avon Added Travel

Lanes $11,185,649 Federal/Local 2016-2025

1103 400S / 300S Connector

Connect 400S to 300S to bypass downtown Whitestown.

Boone Co. New Road $5,514,240 Federal/Local 2016-2025

4302

East Northfield Drive (CR 300 North to CR 400 North)

Continuation of access road around Brownsburg.

Brownsburg New Road $8,223,120 Federal/Local 2016-2025

2204

Veteran's Way from Executive Dr. to City Center Dr.

New 3-ln roadway. Carmel New Road $7,789,360 Federal/Local 2016-2025

2207 Range Line Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from 136th St. to US 31 Carmel Added Travel


2208 116th St. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. from Keystone Ave. to Hazel Dell

Carmel Added Travel Lanes $11,064,928 Federal/Local 2016-2025

2211

96th Street and Keystone Parkway Interchange

Construction of new grade-separated roundabout.

Carmel Intersection $35,050,000 Federal/Local 2016-2025


6 ln div. with inter-section improvements and multi-use paths from Haverstick Rd. to Priority Way West Drive



Widen 4-ln. to 6-ln. div from Priority Way West Dr. to the White River Bridge


2219

96th St extension from Westfield Blvd to College Ave

New roadway construction extending 96th St from Westfield Blvd to College Ave.

Carmel New Road $19,648,212 Federal/Local 2016-2025

2018

131st Street & SR 37 Intersection Improvement

Roundabout improvements at 131st and SR 37.

Fishers Intersection $20,056,500 Federal/Local 2016-2025

2018

SR 37 Corridor Improvements from 126th Street to SR 32/38

Corridor Improvements to SR 37 from 126th to SR 32/38.

Fishers Added Travel Lanes $20,345,350 Federal/Local 2016-2025

2018

Intersection Improvement at 126th Street and SR 37

Roundabout improvements at 126th St and SR 37.


2018

141st Street & SR 37 Intersection Improvement

Roundabout improvements at 141st St and SR 37.


Item 3c




2018




2018




2104 96th Street Added Travel Lanes

Added Travel on 96th Street from just east of Lantern Road to just west of Cumberland Road.


2303

106th Street between Lantern Road and Cumberland Road.

Added Travel on 106th Street from just east of Lantern Road to just west of Cumberland Road.


2305

Added Travel Lanes on 96th Street from Cumberland Road to Fall Creek Road

Added Travel on 96th Street from just east of Cumberland Road to just west of Fall Creek Road.


5202

Worthsville Road Reconstruction - Section 3

This section, stretching from Averitt Road to US 31, will include a two-lane section with curb and multi- use path that has the ability to widen to the inside to become a four or five-lane section in the future.

Greenwood Added Travel Lanes $10,926,250 Federal/Local 2016-2025

5203 Smith Valley Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from SR 135 to S. Emerson Ave.


5205

E-W Corridor (Stones Crossing Road segment) - Section 1

From SR 135 to the Honey Creek Road intersection improvement along Stones Crossing Road.


5206 E-W Corridor - Section 2

Added travel lanes -- 2-4 lanes. Greenwood Added Travel


2110

West 146th Street - Phase II - Towne Road to Ditch Road

Reconstruction of 146th Street from the existing two- lane facility to the proposed four-lane, curbed facility.

Hamilton Co.

Added Travel Lanes $7,173,336 Federal/Local 2016-2025

2111

146th St. Phase III Towne Road to Shelborne Road

The intent of this project is to continue the 146th St corridor improvement for Phase III, approximately 1 mile in length from just west of Shelborne Road to just west of Towne Road in western Hamilton Co.

Hamilton Co.


Item 3c




2112

146th Street - Phase IV Shelborne Road to Hamilton / Boone County Line

The intent of this project is to continue the 146th Street corridor improvement for Phase IV, approximately 1 mile in length from just west of Shelborne Road to just west of the Hamilton / Boone County Line in western Hamilton County.

Hamilton Co.


3101

600W from 300N to CR400N (Segment A)

Construction on the Mount Comfort Corridor

Hancock Co. Added Travel Lanes $9,727,500 Federal/Local 2016-2025

3102

Mt Comfort Road/CR 600 W Widening, Segment B

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from CR 400 N to CR 600 N


3103

Mt Comfort Road/CR 600 W Widening, Segment C



3108 CR 300 N Widening, Segment G

Construction on the Mount Comfort Corridor


3108 Bridge 63 Widening

Widening existing bridge. Hancock Co. Added Travel


4104 Ronald Reagan Pkwy from CR 300 N to US 136

Continuation of Ronald Reagan in Hendricks County.

Hendricks Co. New Road $12,280,452 Federal/Local 2016-2025

6101 10th St. Reconstruction and Widening

Reconstruction and Widening to 4-ln. div. from Raceway Rd. to Tomahawk

Indianapolis DPW



Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Fall Creek to Sunnyside

Indianapolis DPW


6104 Georgetown Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from 62nd St. to 86th St.

Indianapolis DPW


6107 21st St Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Post Rd. to Mitthoeffer

Indianapolis DPW


6108 56th Street Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Guion Rd. to Kessler

Indianapolis DPW


6113

82nd St. Widening - Phase I - from Hague Rd. to Lantern Rd.

Widen 2 to 4 lanes. Indianapolis DPW


6113

82nd Street - Phase II - Lantern Road to Fall Creek Road

Widen 2 to 4 lanes. Indianapolis DPW


6149 Payne Rd. from 71st to 79th

New 2-ln. on 4-ln. div. road from 71st to 79th

Indianapolis DPW New Road $5,536,555 Federal/Local 2016-2025

Item 3c




6156 Zionsville Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from 86th St. to 96th St. *Employment Centers

Indianapolis DPW


6163

Market Street Reconstruction, Pennsylvania to Alabama (PE/ CN/CE)

Reconstruction (historic area)

Indianapolis DPW

Reconstruc-tion $6,375,000 Federal/Local 2016-2025

6165

Emerson Avenue from County Line Road to Southport Crossing Place

Roadway Widening - 4 lane roadway with flush median (two way left turn lane) and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway

Indianapolis DPW


6166

Emerson Avenue Widening (Stop 11 to Southport Crossing)

Emerson Avenue Widening from Stop 11 to Southport Crossing shall include roadway widening, storm structures, signals, signage, curb & sidewalks, row acquisition, pavement markings, etc. Scoping has been completed. ROW anticipated.

Indianapolis DPW


5108

Worthsville Road Connector from Griffith Rd. (CR 325E) to Franklin Rd. (CR 440E)

New 2-lane roadway extending Worthsville Rd. to Franklin Rd.; part of the East-West Corridor

Johnson Co. New Road $3,660,370 Federal/Local 2016-2025

6401 16th St. Realignment

Realignment from Main St. to east town limits Speedway Realignment $53,141,315 Federal/Local 2016-2025

6403 25th St. Georgetown Rd. Connector

New 4 ln. Road Speedway New Road $11,561,806 Federal/Local 2016-2025

6404 Lynhurst Dr. from 26th St. to 30th St.

New 4 ln. Road from 26th St. to 30th St. Speedway New Road $12,239,172 Federal/Local 2016-2025

6405 Holt Rd. Realignment and Extension

Realignment and Extension - 4 ln. from S. of 10th St. to 16th St.

Speedway Added Travel Lanes $19,220,558 Federal/Local 2016-2025

2403 161st St. Widening

Widen 2-ln to 4-ln from Union Street to Gray Rd. Westfield Added Travel


2408 Westfield Boulevard Connector

Connects Poplar Street to 169th Street. Westfield New Road $10,047,300 Federal/Local 2016-2025

2423 Ditch Road Extension

New 2 lane Roadway from the intersection of Ditch Road at SR 32 running north and easterly to connect into a new roundabout with Casey Road. Once open, Casey Road at SR 32 will be closed. Existing City project - completed in 2017.

Westfield New Road $3,937,530 Federal/Local 2016-2025

Item 3c




2425

East Street North Extension North East Street Extension (196th to SR 38)

New Roadway to connect East Street from 196th to SR 38. This project will become a new commercial and industrial corridor to provide a regional North-South corridor from SR 32 to SR 38. This roadway will be built as a 2 lane roadway and will be expandable to 4 lanes. Project length is 1.3 miles with another 0.2 miles of S-lines (connection to Grassy Branch Road).


2438 Westfield Road Connector (161 to 169th)

New frontage road of US 31 from 191st and Chad Hittle, north to connect to SR 38.


2440

Westfield Boulevard Extension (151st to 156th at US 31)

New 2 lane Roadway from 151st St. (just west of US31) running north and connecting to Union Street at US31 underpass bridge.


2441 Wheeler Road (32 to 186)

From SR 32 to just north of 186th Street. Westfield Added Travel


1201

North-South Connector from Oak St. to CR 550 S

New 2-lane roadway with multi-use pathway Zionsville New Road $5,280,000 Federal/Local 2016-2025

1208 Bennett Pkwy from 96th St. to 106th St.

New 2-lane road from 0.5 miles south of 106th St. to 96th St. with multi-use path and new signal at 96th St.

Zionsville New Road $18,278,814 Federal/Local 2016-2025

4203 CR 100S (Morris St.) Widening

Widen 2-ln. Blvd to 4-ln.Blvd from Dan Jones Rd to Ronald Reagan Parkway

Avon Added Travel Lanes $15,172,740 Local 2016-2025

2445

SR 32 Reconstruction from Poplar to East St.

Improve traffic capacity with additional through lanes for the full length of the project, reconstruct asphalt pavement, curb and gutter, pedestrian facilities, and storm sewer.

Westfield Added Travel Lanes $17,050,000 State/Local 2016-2025

1002 I-65/SR 267 Interchange Modification

I-65/SR 267 Interchange Modification, 4.5 miles north of I-865

INDOT Interchange $975,000 State 2016-2025

Item 3c




1111 I-65 @ CR 550 E New Interchange INDOT Interchange $19,300,000 State 2016-2025

2014

Added Travel Lanes on I-69 N from SR 37 N jct to 0.50 mile N of Old SR 238 in Hamilton County

Added lanes on I-69 North from SR 37 N jct to 0.50 mile N of Old SR 238 in Hamilton County

INDOT Added Travel Lanes $3,482,900 State 2016-2025

2015

Added Travel Lanes on I-69 N from 0.50 North of Old SR 238 to 0.50 mile N of SR 13 in Hamilton and Madison Counties

Added lanes on I-69 North from 0.50 North of Old SR 238 to 0.50 mile N of SR 13 in Hamilton and Madison Counties


2016 I-69 Added Travel Lanes - Madison Co.

Added Travel Lanes from SR 13 to SR 38 in Madison Co.


2019 US 31 at 236th St. Interchange

US 31 at 236th Street/Jackson St. Interchange Analysis

INDOT Interchange $22,589,885 State 2016-2025

2020 SR 32 Widening

Added travel lanes on SR 32 from 19th Street to Presley Drive (~0.63 miles)


4001 SR 39 Interchange Modification

Interchange Modification INDOT Interchange $1,250,995,076 State 2016-2025

4002 US 36 (Rockville Road)

Improve US 36 from Raceway Road west to Shiloh Crossing Drive


4004

I-70 Resurfacing and Improvements

Pavement Rehabilitation from 0.8 mi W of SR 39 to 0.5 mi E of Ronald Reagan Pkwy, 2.40 mi E of SR 267 and 5200’ of new auxiliary lanes between SR 267 and Ronald Reagan Parkway

INDOT Added Auxiliary Lanes

$69,649,744 State 2016-2025

4005 US 36 Widening

ATL (from 4 lanes to 6) on US 36 from Shiloh Crossing to Avon Ave / SR 267


5003 SR 135 (Meridian St.) Widening

Widen 2 lane to 4 lanes; ATL on SR 135 from 1.76 miles north of SR 144 to 4 miles north of SR 144


5004 I-69 Indy to Evansville

New 4 to 6 lane freeway from I-465 in Marion Co. to SR 39 in Martinsville

INDOT New Road $1,800,000 State 2016-2025

Item 3c




5008

US 31 Improvements (Hospital to Cedar)

Multiple intersection improvements along US 31 from Hospital Road to Cedar Lane (~1.25 miles)

INDOT Intersection Improvements $11,829,200 State 2016-2025

5009 US 31 Improvements (Cedar to Israel)

Multiple intersection improvements along US 31 Cedar Lane to Israel Lane (~3.19 miles)

INDOT Intersection Improvements $21,375,830 State 2016-2025

5010

US 31 Intersection improvement / ATL at S Main and Hospital Road

ATL on US 31 from S Main Street to just south of Hospital Road


6004

I-465 Added Travel Lanes from White River Bridge to I-69

I-465, I-465 from 2.25 mi W of I-69 (White River Bridge/Allisonville Rd) to I-69


6005 I-69 & I-465 Interchange Modification

Added Travel Lanes: I-69 from I-465 to 1 mile North of I-465 (82nd Street) Northbound Only


6025 Added Travel Lanes

Exit ramp from EB I-70 to Post Road RP 90-71 INDOT Added Travel

Lanes $1,450,000 State 2016-2025

6025 Added Travel Lanes

Exit ramp from EB I-70 to Post Road RP 90-71 INDOT Added Travel

Lanes $1,450,000 State 2016-2025

6029 I-465 & I-65 Interchange (south)

Two-phased interchange modification at I-465 and I-65 S of Indianapolis. First phase complete; second phase planned for completion by CY2024

INDOT Interchange Modification $168,080,000 State 2016-2025

6036 I-65 Safety and Efficiency Project

Added Travel Lanes on I-65 from 0.20 mile N of I-465 to 0.05 mile No of I-70 in South Indianapolis


6037

I-69 to Fall Creek (0.75 miles N of 56th St.)

Added Travel Lanes - 6 to 8 lanes INDOT Added Travel

Lanes $10,837,500 State 2016-2025

Item 3c




6039 North Split Interchange Modification

Modification of the I-65 & I-70 interchange just north of downtown Indianapolis. The interchange modification encompasses a footprint from Central Ave to Commerce Ave to Vermont St. There will be several new bridges and alignment changes within the interchange modification footprint.

INDOT Interchange Modification $17,992,800 State 2016-2025

6040 North I-69

Widen I-69 at I-465 from I-465 to 1.55 miles N of I-465, Southbound lane only.


6041

US 36 Added Travel Lanes from I-465 to Transfer Dr.

Widen from 4 to 6 lanes including sidewalks. INDOT Added Travel

Lanes $17,193,104 State 2016-2025

6042

US 36 Added Travel Lanes, Raceway Rd. to Transfer Dr.

Add 1 lane each direction between Raceway Rd. and Transfer Drive in Marion County. Will include intersection improvements.


6043 I-465 NW Added Travel Lanes

ATL on I-465 from 86th Street to US 31; Interchange Modification at I-865 and I-465


6044 I-456 Reconfiguration / ATL

Add travel lanes and auxiliary lanes from I-70 to I-65 on I-465 southwest segment; Interchange modification at US31 and I-465 south

INDOT

Added Travel Lanes & Interchange Modification

$73,900,000 State 2016-2025

3002* I-70 ATL

ATL from 1.0 mi west of Mt Comfort Rd to 1.2 mi east of SR 9 (10 miles), from 4 to 6 lanes


9003 Red Line BRT - Phase 1

Build phase 1 from north to south Marion County line.

IndyGo Added Capacity - Transit

$148,295,745 IndyGo 2016-2025

9006 Blue Line

Connecting the middle part of Marion County, this project is part of the Marion County Transit Plan, supporting by the voters and the Indianapolis City- County Council.


$200,000,000 IndyGo 2016-2025

* Edited as part of 2045 LRTP Amendment #5

Item 3c




9007* Purple Line

Bus Rapid Transit line from Downtown Transit Center (201 E Washington) downtown Indianapolis to Lawrence. There is only one phase.


$137,600,000 IndyGo 2016-2025

9008

Marion County Transit Plan Local Network Improvements - 2023

Frequency increases of many routes, alters 27 out of 31 routes, consolidates parallel routes onto fewer main streets.


$28,000,000 IndyGo 2016-2025



4201 CR 800E (Dan Jones Rd.) Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. Blvd from CR 300 S to CR 200 N Except segment from US 36 to CR 100 S

Avon Added Travel Lanes $53,261,033 Federal/Local 2026-2035

4303

C.R. 625 East / Witham Rd. New alignment and bridge over I-74

New alignment and bridge over I-74 Brownsburg New Bridge $18,254,003 Federal/Local 2026-2035

2214 Spring Mill Rd. Widening

W 2 to 4 ln. div. from 96th St. to 116th St. Carmel Added Travel


2306

Allisonville Road from 131st Street to 146th Street

Allisonville Road from 131st Street to just south of 146th Street.


2307

Allisonville Road from South of 126th Street to 131st Street

Added Travel on Allisonville Road from just south of 126th Street to and through 131st Street.


2308

Lantern Road from 96th Street to 106th Street

Lantern Road from 96th Street to 106th Street. Fishers Added Travel


2106 Olio Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln to 4-ln from Tegler Ave. to SR 38 Hamilton Co. Added Travel



Widen 4-ln. to 6-ln. from SR 37 to Boden Rd.

Hamilton Co. Added Travel Lanes $46,455,485 Federal/Local 2026-2035

3104

Mt Comfort Road/CR 600 W Widening, Segment D



3105 Mount Comfort Section E



1107 Ronald Reagan Parkway Extension

Ronald Reagan Parkway between 600 N (Hendricks Co.) and I-65 @ SR 267 Interchange (Boone Co.), New Alignment



Item 3c




4108

CR 100 N widening from CR 200 E to CR 500 E

Widen CR 100 N from 2 lanes to 4 lanes between CR 200 E and CR 500 E

Hendricks Co.


6106 Township Line Rd.

New 4-ln. div. Roadway from 71st St. to 79th St.



Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Dandy Trail Rd. to I-465

Indianapolis DPW



Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Georgetown Rd. to Michigan Rd.

Indianapolis DPW



Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Michigan Rd. to Township Line Rd.

Indianapolis DPW


6114 Bluff Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from West St. to Troy Ave.

Indianapolis DPW


6115 Cooper Road from Michigan Rd. to 62nd St.

New 2-ln. on 4-ln. div. from Michigan Rd. to 62nd St.


6116 County Line Rd. Widening

W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from 500’ west of SR 37 to Morgantown Rd

Indianapolis DPW


6117 Dandy Trail Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Crawfordsville Rd. to 34th St.

Indianapolis DPW


6125 Township Line Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from 79th St. to 96th St.

Indianapolis DPW



Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Georgetown Rd. to Michigan Rd.

Indianapolis DPW


6131 Allisonville Rd. Widening

Widen 4-ln. div. to 6-ln. div. from 96th St. to 86th St.

Indianapolis DPW


6155 West St. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Raymond St. to Bluff St.

Indianapolis DPW


5106 CR 200 N Widening

Widen 2-ln to 4-ln div. from SR 144 to US 31 Johnson Co. Added Travel


2501 Greenfield Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. from Allisonville Rd. to Cumberland Rd.

Noblesville Added Travel Lanes $23,860,510 Federal/Local 2026-2035

2502 Allisonville Rd Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. from 146th St. to Greenfield Rd.

Noblesville Added Travel Lanes $50,274,439 Federal/Local 2026-2035

4504 Perimeter Pkwy NE, Phase 2, Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 5-ln. from Avon Ave. to Dan Jones Rd.

Plainfield Added Travel Lanes $9,212,820 Federal/Local 2026-2035

4509 Ronald Reagan Parkway, South Widening

Widen the Parkway from 4-lane to 6-lane section from I-70 Interchange to Bradford Road.



Widen 2-ln to 4-ln from Springmill to US 31 Westfield Added Travel


2412 186th Street Widening Project

To widen 186th Street from Grand Park Boulevarad Roundabout to the New Roundabout at Spring Mill.

Westfield Added Travel Lanes $2,441,097 Federal/Local 2026-2035

Item 3c




2415 191st Street Widening (west)

Roadway widening of 191st west of US 31 to Horton Road.


2421

Chad Hittle Extension (191st Street to Tomlinson Road)

New roadway extending Chad Hittle at 191st Street south westerly to connect to Tomlinson Road near 186th Street.


2426 East Street Widening 186th to 191st Street

Widen existing East Street from 2 lanes to 4 lanes from 186th Street to 191st Street. This will include intersection improvements


2428

East Street/ Jersey Street Extension From SR 32 to Union

New 2 lane roadway that will extend East Street Southwesterly from SR 32 to the intersection of Union at Jersey Street.


2430

Grand Park Boulevard South Extension to 181st

New 3-lane commercial extension of Grand Park Boulevard from Wheeler Road to 181st Street at Sun Park Drive.


2431 Oak Ridge North Extension

Oak Ridge Road at SR 32 northerly to connect into Grand Park Boulevard.


2439 Westfield Road Connector

Westfield Boulevard Connector Expansion Westfield New Road $10,035,621 Federal/Local 2026-2035


Widen 2 to 4 ln. from Zionsville Rd. to Hamilton Co. line with multi-use pathway

Zionsville Added Travel Lanes $20,805,552 Federal/Local 2026-2035

1210

Oak St. from Ford Rd. to Whitestown Corp. limits

Added lanes 2 to 4 with multi use pathways and intersection improvement (roundabout) and bridge replacement

Zionsville Added Travel Lanes $19,843,949 Federal/Local 2026-2035

2021* SR 32 ATL ATL from Hazel Dell Road to Mensa Road (2.2 miles), from 2 to 4 lanes



Item 3c




4105 CR 100 N (10th St.) Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. Blvd from Raceway Rd. to SR 267

Avon Added Travel Lanes $58,928,885 Federal/Local 2036-2045

4202 CR 200 N (21st St) Widen 2-ln to 4-ln. Blvd

Widen 2-ln Blvd to 4-ln. Blvd Avon Added Travel


4203 CR 100S (Morris St.) Widen 2-ln. Blvd to 4-ln.Blvd

Widen 2-ln. Blvd to 4-ln.Blvd Avon Added Travel


1105

CR 300S Expansion From Whitestown to Hamilton County Line

Expansion of CR 300 South from Whitestown Town Limits to the Boone/Hamilton county Line, 2 to 4 lanes.

Boone Co. Added Travel Lanes $76,369,457 Federal/Local 2036-2045

4307 Northfield Drive Extension (SW Leg)

Completion of the final segment of Northfield Drive, the bypass around the heart of Brownsburg.

Brownsburg New Road $31,680,681 Federal/Local 2036-2045


Reconstruct and widen 131st St. to a 4-ln. div. road from Keystone Ave. to Hazel Dell Rd.


2213 Towne Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from 96th St. to 116th St. Carmel Added Travel



W 2 to 4 ln. div. from Hazel Dell to River Ave. Carmel Added Travel


5201 Worthsville Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. divided from I-65 to US 31


2103 206th St. re-alignment II

New alignment of 206th from SR 19 to Cumberland Road.


2105 206th St. re-alignment I

New alignment of 206th St from the Hague/ Carrigan Rd roundabout to SR 19.


2113 206th Street widening III

206th Street from Cumberland Road to SR 37


4112

CR 200 N extension from CR 600 E to Avon Avenue

Construct CR 200 N on new alignment from CR 600 E to Avon Avenue


4118

Widening of Hendricks County Road

Widen south County Line Road from CR 525 E to CR 925 E from 2 lanes to 4 lanes

Hendricks Co.



Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Raceway Rd. to Dandy Trail Rd.

Indianapolis DPW


6118 Girls School Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Rockville Rd. to 21st St.

Indianapolis DPW


6122 Southport Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Bluff Rd. to SR 135

Indianapolis DPW


Item 3c





Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from SR 135 to US 31

Indianapolis DPW


6124 Thompson Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from High School Rd. to Mann Rd.

Indianapolis DPW


6134 Bluff Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div.from Thompson Rd. to SR 37

Indianapolis DPW


6137

County Line Rd. from Five Points to Franklin Rd.

New 2-ln. on 4-ln. div. from Five Points to Franklin Rd.


6139 Fall Creek Rd. Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Hague Rd. to Shadeland

Indianapolis DPW


6144 Girls School Rd Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Crawfordsville Rd. to 21st St.

Indianapolis DPW

Added Travel Lanes $ 12,492,222 Federal/Local 2036-2045

6157 High School Rd Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from 46th St. to 56th St.

Indianapolis DPW


5102 Stones Crossing Widening

Widen 2-ln to 4-ln div. from SR 37 to SR 135 Johnson Co. Added Travel


5107 Whiteland Rd Widening

Widen 2-ln to 4-ln div. from CR 225 E to I-65 Johnson Co. Added Travel


4505 Perimeter Pkwy SW (CR600S) Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. from Center St. to Moon Rd.


4510

US 40 to I-70 Connector: CR 525 E to Miles Road

Create a 2-lane N/S roadway connection between CR 525 E to Miles Road

Plainfield New Road $6,452,629 Federal/Local 2036-2045

8001 Fairland Road Extension

New 2-lane Roadway from CR 400 N to CR 100 N

Shelby Co. New Road $40,062,102 Federal/Local 2036-2045

2405 Springmill Road Widening

Widen 2-ln to 4-ln div from 146th St. to SR 32 Westfield Added Travel


2406

Western Way from S. Union St. to Western Way

New 4-ln. roadway Westfield New Road $99,411,943 Federal/Local 2036-2045

2413 191st Street East Roadway Widening

To widen 191st Street east of US 31 to Moontown Road.


2418 Aurora Extension Roadway

New SR 38 frontage (south side) that will run along the Aurora PUD and connect into the East Street North Extension project.


2422 Dean Road South Extension to 161st

New 3-lane frontage roadway along the west side of US 31 that will connect SR 32 and 161st interchanges.


Item 3c




2427

East Street Widening 191st Street to 196th Street

Widen East Street from 2 lanes to 4 lanes from the 191st Street to 196th Street


2432 Oak Ridge Widening 146th Street to SR 32

Widen existing Oak Ridge Road to 3 lanes from 146th Street north to SR 32.


2433 Spring Mill Road Widening SR 32 to 191st Street

Widen Spring Mill Road from a 2 lane roadway to a 3 lane roadway with intersection improvements from SR 32 to 191st Street. New Roundabout is planned for 186th and Spring Mill Intersection letting in FY 2018


1206

Templin Rd. from Mulberry St. to Willow Rd.

New 2-lane roadway Zionsville New Road $15,271,363 Federal/Local 2036-2045

2045 LRTP Recommended Project List (Illustrative List)


1104

Whitestown Parkway (CR 650 S) from SR 267 to I-65

Widen 2 to 4 lanes. Boone Co. Added Travel Lanes $4,917,658 Federal/Local Illustrative

4305 Co. Rd. 900 E. Bridge at I-74

Connecting two segments of Co. Rd. 900 E with new bridge over I-74.

Brownsburg New Bridge $10,384,500 Federal/Local Illustrative

4306

Co. Rd. 900 E. Intersection Safety Improvement

Separate the crossing of Co. Rd. 900 E. and E. US Hwy 136 from the CSX Railroad.

Brownsburg Intersection $8,830,000 Federal/Local Illustrative


Reconstruct and widen 116th St. to a 4-ln. div. road from Michigan Rd. to Shelborne Rd.

Carmel Added Travel Lanes $18,750,000 Federal/Local Illustrative

2304

136th Street from Southeastern Parkway to Cyntheanne Road

Added capacity to 136th Street to improve safety and mobility for the growing Med Tech corridor area.

Fishers Added Travel Lanes $12,900,000 Federal/Local Illustrative

2309

126th Street from Southeastern Parkway to Cyntheanne Road

New Road Construction on 126th Street from Southeastern Parkway to Cyntheanne Road

Fishers New Road $9,637,500 Federal/Local Illustrative

2107 Olio Road from SR 38 to SR 32

New 4-ln road from SR 38 to SR 32

Hamilton Co. New Road $31,293,000 Federal/Local Illustrative

Item 3c




2114 206th Street widening IV

206th St from SR 37 to an improved N-S corridor (Oilo Rd extension)

Hamilton Co.

Added Travel Lanes $10,125,000 Federal/Local Illustrative

2115 256th Street Connection

256th from SR19 to Mt. Pleasant Road (E. 95th St.)


2116 Olio Road Extension II

Olio Rd corridor extension , SR 32 to 206th St


2117 Olio Road extension Phase III

Improved North - South corridor from 206th St to Strawtown Ave


2118 Olio Road Extension Phase IV

New road/bridge connection from Strawtown Ave. across the White River to the SR 37/SR213 intersection.


3106 CR 300 N Widening, Segment F

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from CR 700 W to CR 600 W

Hancock Co. Added Travel Lanes $16,939,178 Federal/Local Illustrative

3107 CR 300 N Widening, Segment H

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from CR 500 W to CR 400 W


3110 200W from 300N to US40

increase the capacity of the roadway when a new interchange is built.


3112* Stinemyer Rd Connection

Connect Stinemyer to 500W to bypass traffic from US52 around New Palestine.

Hancock Co. New Road $1,850,000 Federal/Local Illustrative

4106 CR 1000 N Widening

Widen 2-ln. to 4-ln. from Raceway Rd. to SR 267

Hendricks Co.


4107

Connector road from Miles Road at US 40 to CR 300 E at CR 350 S

Construct new road connecting proposed extension from interchange at CR 525 E/I 70 to CR 300 E

Hendricks Co. New Road $14,840,000 Federal/Local Illustrative

4109

CR 100 S extension from CR 300 E to CR 400 E

Extend CR 100 S from where it ends at CR 300 E to where it begins again at CR 400 E


4110 CR 1000 E from CR 750 N to CR 1000 N

Extend CR 1000 E from it's current terminus at CR 750 N to CR 1000 N


4111

CR 200 N extension from CR 225 E to CR 475 E

Extend existing CR 200 N from where it ends at CR 225 E to where it begins again at CR 475 E


4113

CR 200 S extension from CR 225 E to CR 300 E

Extend existing 200 S from where it currently ends at CR 225 E to where it begins again at CR 300 E.


* Edited as part of 2045 LRTP Amendment #5 (removed due to status update to “exempt project”)

Item 3c




4114 CR 500 N from CR 575 E to CR 400 E

Extend CR 500 N from CR 400 E to the proposed Brownsburg bypass at approximately CR 575 E


4115

CR 750 S extension to Interchange Connector road

Improve and extend CR 750 S from SR 39 to the proposed connector road from the proposed I-70 interchange at CR 525 E


4116

CR 950 N extension from CR 800 E to CR 925 E

Extend CR 950 N on new alignment from CR 800 E to its current terminus at CR 925 E.


4117 Widen CR 300 E from CR 350 S to CR 200 N

Widen CR 300 E from 350 S to 200 N

Hendricks Co.


6119 Mann Rd. Widening - Phase 1

W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div., from Kentucky Rd. to I-465

Indianapolis DPW


6120 Post Rd. Widening

W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Brookville Rd. to I-74

Indianapolis DPW



W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Mann Rd. to SR 37

Indianapolis DPW



W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Pendleton Pike to Mitthoeffer Rd. Consistent Facility type*

Indianapolis DPW


6135

Camby Rd Widening, Kentucky to Mooresville

W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Kentucky Ave. to Mooresville Rd.

Indianapolis DPW


6136

Camby Rd Extension, Mooresville to Mann

New 4-ln. div. ROW from Mooresville Rd. to Mann Rd.

Indianapolis DPW New Road $12,500,000 Federal/Local Illustrative

6140 Franklin Rd. Widening

W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from 38th St. to 21st. St.

Indianapolis DPW



W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Brookville Rd. to Troy Ave.

Indianapolis DPW



W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Southeastern to Shelbyville

Indianapolis DPW


6146 Lynhurst Widening

W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from I-70 to Rockville Rd.

Indianapolis DPW


6147 Mann Rd. Widening - Phase II

W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Southport to I-465

Indianapolis DPW



W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Emerson Ave. to Franklin Rd.

Indianapolis DPW


6158 10th St. Widening, I-465 to Tomahawk

Widen 4-ln. to 6-ln. div. from I-465 to Tomahawk

Indianapolis DPW


Item 3c




6160 Co. Line Rd. Widening

W 2-ln. to 4-ln. div. from Morgantown to SR 135

Indianapolis DPW


6162

Ameriplex Parkway/ Camby Road Connector New 4-lane Roadway

New 4-lane Roadway Indianapolis DPW New Road $31,550,000 Federal/Local Illustrative

6164 Division Street Addition

Division Street from I-70 to Washington Street, new 2 lane roadway (new alignment for GM Stamping Plant)


6167

Monument Circle, Market Street & Meridian Street Reconstruction

Monument Circle, Market from Capitol to Delaware, & Meridian from New York to South

Indianapolis DPW Reconstruction $22,578,800 Federal/Local Illustrative

6168 South Street/ Harding Street Addition

South Street/Harding Street from I-70 to West Street (G.M. Stamping Plant)


6169 Thompson Road Widening

Thompson Road from Emerson Avenue to Southeastern Avenue, widening from 2 to 4 lanes

Indianapolis DPW


5101 Smith Valley Rd. from Mann Rd. to SR 37

New 2-ln. on 4-ln. div. ROW Johnson Co. New Road $11,500,000 Federal/Local Illustrative

5103 Clark School Rd Widening

Widen 2-ln to 4-ln div. from Franklin Rd. (CR 440E) to the Johnson/ Shelby County Line.

Johnson Co. Added Travel Lanes $26,260,500 Federal/Local Illustrative

5104

CR 144 Widening from SR 37 to Whiteland Rd.

Widen 2-ln to 4-ln div. Johnson Co. Added Travel Lanes $9,100,000 Federal/Local Illustrative

5105 Whiteland Rd Widening

Widen 2-ln to 4-ln div. from CR 144 to SR 135 Johnson Co. Added Travel

Lanes $6,500,000 Federal/Local Illustrative

2503

191st Street from Little Chicago Road to Moontown Road

Added travel lanes and intersection improvements from Little Chicago Road to Moontown Road.

Noblesville Added Travel Lanes $7,871,855 Federal/Local Illustrative

2504

Boden Road Improvements from Greenfield Ave/146th Street to SR 38

Added travel lanes, intersection improvements, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements.


2505

Little Chicago Road from SR 38 to Carrigan Road

Exisitng roadway capacity improvement with a intersections, pedestrian and bicycle facilities


Item 3c

Transportation Conformity Determination Report

Central Indiana

Boone, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Shelby Counties

– Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization –– Madison County Council of Governments –

– Columbus Area Metropolitan Planning Organization – – Indiana Department of Transportation –

2020-Q3 | DRAFT: August 3, 2020

Prepared by:

Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization 200 East Washington Street, Suite 2322

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 317-327-5136 | www.IndyMPO.org

Item 3d

http://www.indympo.org/

Contents 1. Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Background ............................................................................................................................................... 3

3. Current Air Quality Status ......................................................................................................................... 3

4. Transportation Conformity Requirements ............................................................................................... 4

5. Latest Planning Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 5

6. Consultation .............................................................................................................................................. 5

7. Transportation Control Measures ............................................................................................................. 5

8. Fiscal Constraint ........................................................................................................................................ 6

7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 8

Appendix A: Conformity Documentation Public Comments ........................................................................ 9

Item 3d

1. Overview As part of its transportation planning process, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (IMPO) completed the transportation conformity process for the Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) for the 9-county Central Indiana 1997 NAAQS region. This report documents that the following LRTPs and TIPs meet the federal transportation conformity requirements in 40 CFR Part 93.

• Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (indympo.org) o 2045 LRTP (Specifically Amendment #5’s current list of projects) o 2020-2023 TIP (MITIP)

• Madison County Council of Governments (mccog.net) o 2045 LRTP o 2020-2023 TIP

• Columbus Area Metropolitan Planning Organization o Regarding this particular region, in 2014 the Indianapolis MPO (IMPO), Madison County

Council of Governments (MCCOG), and the Columbus Area MPO (CAMPO) signed a Memorandum of agreement to establish policies for overlapping or adjacent areas. Per that agreement, “In 2010, the IMPO's Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) was expanded to include the two townships that [were] part of the Columbus UZA… This expansion removed the CAMPO from the central Indiana air quality conformity process.” “For the two townships in Johnson/Shelby counties, IMPO will continue to perform applicable air quality conformity determinations.”

2. Background MPOs work closely with their local public agencies (cities, towns, and counties), as well as the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), local transit operators, fellow MPOs, and other relevant agencies in creating their LRTPs. As projects are selected for federal funding they advance to implementation, at which point they are programmed into MPOs’ 5-year TIPs for study, design, and construction, provided they attain environmental permits and other necessary clearances.

3. Current Air Quality Status Clean Air Act (CAA) section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) requires that federally funded or approved highway and transit activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS or any interim milestones. 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1). The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) transportation conformity rules establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether metropolitan transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and federally supported highway and transit projects conform to the SIP. 40 CFR Parts 51.390 and 93.

Item 3d

https://www.indympo.org/whats-underway/lrtp

https://www.indympo.org/whats-underway/irtip

https://mitip.indympo.org/

https://www.heartlandmpo.org/mtp-plan

https://www.heartlandmpo.org/tip

On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. District v. EPA (“South Coast II,” 882 F.3d 1138) held that transportation conformity determinations must be made in areas that were either nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS when the 1997 ozone NAAQS was revoked. These conformity determinations are required in these areas after February 16, 2019. The 9-county Central Indiana conformity area1 was nonattainment at the time of the 1997 ozone NAAQS revocation on April 6, 2015 and was also designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on May 21, 2012 and as attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, per the South Coast II decision, this conformity determination is being made for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on the 9-County Central Indiana conformity area LRTPs and TIPs. This conformity determination was completed consistent with CAA requirements, existing associated regulations at 40 CFR Parts 51.390 and 93, and the South Coast II decision, according to EPA’s Transportation Conformity Guidance for the South Coast II Court Decision issued on November 29, 2018.

4. Transportation Conformity Requirements On November 29, 2018, EPA issued Transportation Conformity Guidance for the South Coast II Court Decision2 (EPA-420-B-18-050, November 2018) that addresses how transportation conformity determinations can be made in areas that were nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS when the 1997 ozone NAAQS was revoked, but were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in EPA’s original designations for this NAAQS (May 21, 2012). The transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.109 sets forth the criteria and procedures for determining conformity. The conformity criteria for LRTPs and TIPs include: latest planning assumptions (93.110), latest emissions model (93.111), consultation (93.112), transportation control measures (93.113(b) and (c), and emissions budget and/or interim emissions (93.118 and/or 93.119). For the 1997 ozone NAAQS areas, transportation conformity for LRTPs and TIPs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated without a regional emissions analysis, per 40 CFR 93.109(c). This provision states that the regional emissions analysis requirement applies one year after the effective date of EPA’s nonattainment designation for a NAAQS and until the effective date of revocation of such NAAQS for an area. The 1997 ozone NAAQS revocation was effective on April 6, 2015, and the South Coast II court upheld the revocation. As no regional emission analysis is required for this conformity determination, there is no requirement to use the latest emissions model, or budget or interim emissions tests. Therefore, transportation conformity for the 9-County Central Indiana conformity area can be demonstrated by showing the remaining requirements in Table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109 have been met. These requirements, which are laid out in Section 2.4 of EPA’s guidance and addressed below, include:

1 The 9-County Central Indiana conformity area includes Boone, Hamilton, Madison, Hendricks, Marion, Hancock, Morgan, Johnson, and Shelby counties.

2 Available from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/documents/420b18050.pdf

Item 3d

• Latest planning assumptions (93.110) • Consultation (93.112) • Transportation Control Measures (93.113) • Fiscal constraint (93.108)

5. Latest Planning Assumptions The use of latest planning assumptions in 40 CFR 93.110 of the conformity rule generally apply to regional emissions analysis. In the 1997 ozone NAAQS areas, the use of latest planning assumptions requirement applies to assumptions about transportation control measures (TCMs) in an approved SIP. The Indiana SIP does not include any TCMs, see also Section 7.

6. Consultation The consultation requirements in 40 CFR 93.112 were addressed both for interagency consultation and public consultation. Interagency consultation was conducted consistent with the Indiana Conformity SIP and including the following agencies: FHWA, FTA, IDEM, EPA, INDOT, IndyGo, CIRTA, City of Anderson Transit System (CATS), Indianapolis DPW, Indianapolis MPO (IMPO), Madison County Council of Governments (MCCOG), and Columbus Area MPO (CAMPO). On January 16, 2019, as part of a previous LRTP amendment, an email was sent to ICG members stating that there are no TCMs in the Indiana SIP for the 9-county Central Indiana ozone area. The interagency consultation group (ICG) received an email on June 29, 2020 which included a list of projects under consideration for amendment into the LRTP and a projected timeline for the amendment process. The ICG were asked to provide questions, comments, or their concurrence by July 13, 2020. A follow up email was sent on July 7, 2020 with one additional project, which was determined to be an exempt project. The draft consultation document was made available for ICG review and comment between July 20, 2020, and August 20, 2020. Public consultation was conducted consistent with planning rule requirements in 23 CFR 450. This conformity determination report, as well as the IMPO 2045 LRTP Amendment #5 and MCCOG 2045 LRTP Amendment, were made available for public review and comment from July 20, 2020 through August 3, 2020, and during a public hearing on August 19, 2020 during the Indianapolis MPO Transportation Policy Committee Meeting. A summary of comments can be found in Appendix A.

7. Transportation Control Measures The Indiana SIP has no Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) for the 9-county Central Indiana ozone area.

Item 3d

8. Fiscal Constraint Transportation conformity requirements in 40 CFR 93.108 state that transportation plans and TIPs must be fiscally constrained consistent with DOT’s metropolitan planning regulations at 23 CFR part 450. This amendment meets reasonable fiscal constraint requirements. This conformity update includes the following projects, some of which will be amended into the IMPO 2045 LRTP and the MCCOG 2045 LRTP. The CAMPO LRTP has no amendments as part of this conformity update. Note that exempt projects are reviewed for conformity via a separate TIP process.

Regionally Significant, Non-Exempt amendments for IMPO

(to be added to the Indianapolis MPO’s 2045 LRTP List of Projects and included in fiscal constraint):


• SR 32 ATL (Hamilton County – INDOT) – LRTP# 2021 – DES# 2000158 – Add to Time Period 2, Open to traffic 2026 – ATL from Hazel Dell Road to Mensa Road (2.2 miles) – from 2 lanes to 4 lanes – $18,077,471

• Purple Line BRT (Marion County – IndyGo) – LRTP# 9007 – DES# 1801414 – Modify within Time Period 1, Open for operation 2023 – Dedicated BRT lanes from Downtown Indianapolis to the City of Lawrence (15.2 miles) – $155,000,000

Regionally Significant, Non-Exempt amendments for MCCOG

• SR 13 ATL (Madison County) – DES # 1400064 – LRTP Period 2020-2025, Open to traffic 2022 – Added Travel Lanes and new signals on SR 13 from .08 miles south of, to .23 miles north of, I-69 Exist 214 interchange (0.31 miles) – from intermittent 2 lanes with center turn lane to intermittent 4 lanes with center turn lane plus new auxiliary lane alignment for I-69 ramps (< 1/4 mile in length each) – $4,805,357.

• SR 9 / US 36 / SR 67 / SR 38 ATL (Madison County) – DES # 1702936 / DES # 1802854 – LRTP Period 2025-2035, Open to traffic 2026 (est.) – Added Travel Lanes on SR 9 in Pendleton from Madison Avenue to Huntsville Road (1 mile) [overlapping road names omitted] – from 2 lanes with center turn lane to 4 lanes with center turn lane and/or median – $3,700,000.

• 73rd/67th Street Extension Project (Madison County) – DES # 1592299 – LRTP Period 2025-2035 – New Road Construction, 4-lane, limited access, with multi-use paths, parallel to I-69 (north side) between Exit 222 and Exit 219 (4 miles) – funding from 2 separate Federal Earmarks – $39,876,746.

• SR 9 @ CR 600 N/Linwood Road (Madison County) – DES # 1900152 – LRTP Period 2025-2035, Open to traffic 2026 (est.) – Intersection Improvement on SR 9 north of Anderson with Added Travel Lanes (~ 1,100 ft), removed traffic signals, and construction of restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) intersection – $1,162,000.

Item 3d

• SR 13 @ CR 800 N (Madison County) – DES # 1900171 – LRTP Period 2025-2035, Open to traffic 2025 (est.) – Intersection Improvement on SR 13 in Ingalls with Added Travel Lanes (~ 2,500 ft), changing from stop-controlled east-west intersection to a signalized intersection – $954,000.

Non-Exempt amendments within Central Indiana 9-county ozone area to be add to the regional Transportation Demand Model:

• None

Projects determined to be exempt during the ICG Consultation Process:

• Stinemyer Rd (Hancock County) – LRTP # 3112 – Move from Illustrative List to Period 2, Open to traffic 2026 – Extending Stinemyer Rd. from 500 W to 550 W – New Road (1/2 mile), 2 lanes – $1,237,000 (Project received Community Crossings funding)

o Based on exempt status, project will be remove from IMPO LRTP

The following table summarizes planned expenditures by plan period from the tables for MPOs in the 9-County Central Indiana conformity area. In each period the projected revenue is above the planned costs, therefore the plan is fiscally constrained.

IMPO LRTP Time Period 2016-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045 TOTAL

State Revenues $3.7 B $5.2 B $6.6 B $15.5 B State Spending $2.3 B $0 $0 $2.3 B

Fiscally Constrained Total Local Revenues $2.8 B $3.4 B $4.1 B $10.3 B

Local Spending $0.8 B $0.8 B $1.0 B $2.7 B Fiscally Constrained

IndyGo Revenues $1.8 B $1.9 B $2.1 B $5.8 B IndyGo Spending $0.53 B $0 $0 $.53 B

Fiscally Constrained Spending totals updated as part of LRTP Amendment #5. Source: Indianapolis MPO. All figures are rounded and in billions.

Item 3d

MCCOG LRTP Analysis Period 2017-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045 Total State Revenues $78.84 M $72.12 M - $150.96 M

State Spent $78.84 M $72.12 M - $150.96 M Constrained YES YES YES YES

Total Local Revenues $178.92 M $239.47 M $291.28 M $709.67 M Local O&M $139.58 M $187.25 M $228.26 M $555.10 M

Local Available $39.33 M $52.22 M $63.02 M $154.58 M MPO Available $34.41 M $28.84 M $28.84 M $92.10 M

Special Available $20.92 M $15.00 M - $35.92 M Total Federal Available $55.33 M $43.84 M $28.84 M $128.02 M

2045 MTP Plan Cost $68.76 M $54.00 M $34.35 M $157.11 M Total Federal Spent $55.01 M $43.20 M $27.48 M $125.69 M

Local Spent (Fed Aid) $13.75 M $10.80 M $6.87 M $31.42 M Constrained YES YES YES YES

Transit Revenues $1.84 M $16.33 M $19.91 M $38.08 M Transit Federal/State $16.32 M $18.18 M $18.18 M $52.67 M

CATS/TRAM Spent $18.15 M $34.51 M $38.09 M $90.75 M Constrained YES YES YES YES

Spending totals updated as part of the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Source: MCCOG. All figures are rounded and in millions.

7. Conclusion This conformity determination process demonstrates that these planning documents meet the Clean Air Act and Transportation Conformity rule requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

The 9-County Central Indiana conformity area LRTPs and TIPs demonstrate fiscal constraint per the requirements in 40 CFR 93.108.

Item 3d

Appendix A

Conformity Documentation Public Comments Public consultation was conducted consistent with planning rule requirements in 23 CFR 450. This conformity determination report, as well as the IMPO 2045 LRTP Amendment #5 and MCCOG 2045 LRTP Amendment, were made available for public review and comment from July 20, 2020 through August 3, 2020. The IMPO held a public hearing on August 19, 2020 during the Indianapolis MPO Transportation Policy Committee Meeting. MCCOG held a public hearing on August 3, 2020. The Indianapolis MPO:

• issued an official public notice to the Indianapolis Star and Indianapolis Recorder • sent press release to newspapers including Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis Recorder, IBJ, Daily

Journal (Johnson County), Hamilton County Reporter, Current (multiple), Greenfield Reporter, The Republican (Hendricks County), and The Times (Hamilton County)

• advertised the public comment opportunity via social media accounts (facebook and twitter) • included the public comment opportunity in the weekly teMPO e-newsletter

Comments / questions received during the public comment period

• Connie Szabo Schmucker (regarding the IMPO amendment): o I don't see any bicycle/pedestrian projects in this 2045 LRTP - are they somewhere else

and this is just amendments to the LRTP 2045 or are there really no Bike/Ped projects in the LRTP 2045? Also - concerned about 2036-2045 plans for the following: 56th St from Raceway to Dandy Trail 2 lanes - 4 lanes - isn't this across the eagle

creek dam where the bike lanes just got put in? Southport Road Bluff to US 31 going from 2 to 4 lanes - this had been a

designated bicycle corridor (and the only place to cross the river by bike in the entire SW quadrant of Marion County) - going from 2 to 4 lanes - any opportunity to include separated bike lanes in this project?

Fall creek Road from Hague to Shadeland - expanding from 2 to 4 lanes - any opportunity to add bicycle infrastructure along here to access Fort Harrison State Park and extend Fall Creek Trail to 79th St. as originally envisioned.

And in keeping with Complete Streets - all the listed projects should have bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. And if not, why not? with investment in BRT, there should be less need for expansion of roadways with the aftermath of the pandemic, there is potentially 30% DROP in commuting as more people who are able to work from home will choose to do that. It looks like a majority of the projects are ATL.

Item 3d

The LRTP needs to be rethought in terms of climate change impact, changes in commuting behaviors and changes in general transportation moving into our new normal. The Federal INVEST Act has guidelines for MORE investment in active transportation and need for climate impact evaluation. I wonder how the LRTP 2045 will stand up to the guidelines in the upcoming and future federal transportation bills.

• Response: o The Long Range Transportation Plan only includes project information for “capacity

expansion” projects, or basically added lanes, new roads, etc. It’s essentially the projects that can be reflected in our travel demand model (TDM), which wasn’t built to work for bikeway projects. That’s why we have supplemental pedestrian, bike, and transit plans. However, the Transportation Improvement Program (https://MiTIP.IndyMPO.org) which is our short-term program of funded projects, DOES show bike and other projects, if you’re wondering where to find them. Regarding the specific Indianapolis projects you mentioned, please make sure you talk to DMD and DPW directly about those. Because the LRTP is a 30-year plan, most of the projects, especially in the 2nd and 3rd time period, do not have sufficient planning or design details to indicate if there are bikeways or not. So make sure they know you want them for those projects. We will be doing a new call for LRTP projects at the end of this year, and our communities may choose to add new projects, remove old projects, or projects already in there may end up changing time periods. Indianapolis has done significant work in re-thinking its thoroughfares in the in the Indy Moves Plan, and those changes will be made in the new LRTP update. After the call and before we score anything, we will put the projects out for public comment and pass those comments along to the communities. Regarding the Complete Streets Policy, that applies to our TIP. If a project applies to receive certain federal funding for a project, they have to adhere to the Complete Streets Policy. Regarding your last comments: Noted. We’re preparing to update the LRTP in 2021. While the LRTP will continue to only address capacity expansion projects, as part of the update we are creating a preferred land use scenario plan, which will have an effect on

our population and other projects for the future. Keep an eye out for a survey on the scenario options (which include some of the future drivers you mentioned, like how people shop and commute, etc.) around September/October.

we have done an data-driven analysis of regional land uses to identify regional activity centers. The final report on that effort will be released soon. It essentially identifies activity centers for things like freight hubs, walkable areas, major regional destinations, etc. and will likely factor into the LRTP scoring criteria, as well as be something we can use outside of LRTP work.

Item 3d

Comments / questions received during public hearings

• No comments received during the MCCOG public hearing on August 3, 2020. • Comments received during the IMPO public hearing on August 19, 2020.

o Add

Item 3d

3rd Quarter 2020 TIP Update as of 7/24/2020

SFY 2021 Annual Allocation Update 13 Purchase Orders for 11 Projects Totaling $3,253,738.17

3 Advice-of-Changes Totaling $151,511.02 (4.7% of the SFY 2021 Annual Allocation Obligated Funds)

-$1,000,000 -$500,000 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000

Local Amendment Requests

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Mill

ion

s

Annual Allocation Spenddown

0

2

4

6

8

Letting Schedule

Rejected Bid Accepted Bid Planned for Letting

$0 $100,000 $200,000

Safety Upgrade

Roadway Reconstruction/Rehabilitation

Pedestrian Enhancement

Intersection or Intersection Groups

New Road Construction

Existing Roadway Capacity Improvement

Bridge Replacement

Bridge Rehabilitation

Bicycle Enhancement

$46,805,284.58

$43,551,546.40

$21,152.32

$18,358.70

$112,000

Indianapolis – Safe Routes to Transit North + $1,813,275 (41.6% HSIP)

1

Item 4a

MEMORANDUM

TO: Transportation Technical Committee Members

FROM: Kristyn Sanchez, Indianapolis MPO

DATE: July 29, 2020

RE: Proposed 3rd Quarter 2020 Amendment to the 2020-2023 Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program

The Indianapolis MPO staff is offering the attached list of proposed amendments to the 2020 -2023 IRTIP for your review. The amendments will be presented for your consideration at the August 5th Technical Committee meeting and are being offered for public review and comment from August 8th to 18th. If any comments are received after the Technical Committee meeting, they will be provided to the Policy Committee at their August 19th meeting prior to their approval.

Overview: Proposed 3rd Quarter Amendments

This quarter, the MPO received 2 local amendment requests and 16 INDOT amendment requests. A detailed list can be found attached as Exhibit A.

- Revise scope and budget on the IndyGo Purple Line;

- Increase HSIP funds on a SFY 2021 project.

HSIP Project Amendments

City of Indianapolis – Des #1601001, Safe Routes to Transit - North, with a total CN/CE cost of $4,841,500 ($4,357,350 Federal HSIP $484,150 Local Match). CN in SFY 2021. Increase CN/CE by $1,813,275 Federal HSIP due to two unsuccessful bids and scope changes. 41.6% increase in Federal funds. See attached memo for additional information.

Administrative Modifications/Amendments

28 administrative modifications have been processed since the June meeting. The administrative modification list is available on the IMPO’s website.

Item 4b

1



Deadlines

1st Quarter SFY 2021 Quarterly Reports (changes made between July 1st and September 30th) are due via MiTIP by October 21st.

The deadline for submitting TIP amendments for the 4th Qtr. meetings is Thursday, September 25th.

Please contact me at [email protected] should you have any questions.

Thank you.

Item 4b

2




INDIANAPOLIS TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE


&

PROPOSED 3rd QUARTER IRTIP AMENDMENT LIST

August 19, 2020

Item 4c

1


INDIANAPOLIS TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE


A RESOLUTION amending the 2020-2023 Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

WHEREAS, the 2020-2023 Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program (IRTIP) incorporates projects proposed by local governments and agencies within the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area; and

WHEREAS, the projects contained in the proposed IRTIP amendment have been reviewed as to their immediate impact and importance to the continued improvement of the transportation system operating within the area; and

WHEREAS, changing conditions necessitate periodic amendments to the IRTIP; and

WHEREAS, the IRTIP is consistent with the 2045 LRTP as amended; and

WHEREAS, the MPO consulted with the Interagency Consultation Group and the agencies concurred in the MPO finding that the proposed TIP amendment meets transportation conformity requirements under Section 176(C) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Parts 51.390 and 93; and

WHEREAS, the proposed IRTIP Amendment was made available for public comment and comments received were provided to the Indianapolis Transportation Policy Committee; and

WHEREAS, the Transportation Policy Committee is the approval body for all transportation-related activities of the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the MPA under applicable U.S. Department of Transportation regulations;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Indianapolis Transportation Planning Committee hereby approves the amendment to the 2020-2023 Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program as shown on the attached Exhibit A. The Transportation Policy Committee adopted the above and foregoing resolution this ____ day of ____________ 2020.

DATE: __________________________ ____________________________

Anna Gremling, Executive Director Indianapolis MPO for the Policy Committee Chair

Item 4c

2

EXHIBIT A

Item 4c

3

QUARTER Q3, 2020 INDOT 20-07

LEAD AGENCY DES NUM ROAD/TRAIL PROJECT TITLE TYPE EXEMPT? TOTAL TOTAL

DIFF

PHASE SFY FED

FUNDS

LINE TOTAL FED TOTAL FED % STATE

TOTAL

STATE % JUSTIFICATION ACTION PROPOSED

PRIOR INDOT 1400075 I- 69 I-69 & I-465 Interchange

Modification

Interchange

Modification

Non-Ex - - - $- $- -$42,998,016 - -

PROPOSED $294,836,09

9

PE/PL SFY 2020 NHPP $10,000 $9,000 90% Add CN, PE and

ROW funds in

2021-2025.

$337,834,115 $1,000 10%

PRIOR ROW SFY 2020 STP-ST $2,000,000 $1,800,000 90% $200,000 10%

PROPOSED ROW SFY 2020 NHPP $2,000,000 $1,800,000 90% $200,000 10%

PRIOR CN SFY 2020 STP-ST $28,266,309 $25,439,678 90% $2,826,631 10%

PROPOSED CN SFY 2020 NHPP $3,800,000 $3,420,000 90% $380,000 10%

PRIOR - - - $- $- - - -

PROPOSED PE/PL SFY 2021 NHPP $17,670,000 $15,903,000 90% $1,767,000 10%

PRIOR - - - $- $- - - -

PROPOSED ROW SFY 2021 NHPP $12,088,250 $10,879,425 90% $1,208,825 10%

PRIOR - - - $- $- - - -


PRIOR - - - $- $- - - -

PROPOSED PE/PL SFY 2022 NHPP $2,873,657 $2,586,299 90% $287,358 10%

PRIOR - - - $- $- - - -

PROPOSED CN SFY 2022 NHPP $52,642,000 $47,377,800 90% $5,264,200 10%

PRIOR - - - $- $- - - -


PRIOR - - - $- $- - - -


PRIOR - - - $- $- - - -


PRIOR PE/PL SFY 2020 STP-ST $10,000 $9,000 90% $1,000 10%

PROPOSED - - - $- $- - - -

PRIOR INDOT 1600878 US 31 Tracy Rd. & US 31 Intersection

Improvement

Other

Intersection

Improvement

Exempt CN SFY 2021 NHS $257,000 $205,600 80%$355,989 $51,400 20%

PROPOSED $-355,989 - - - $- $- - Remove RW phase

in 2020 and CN

phase in 2021.

Project will be not

be completed.

$0 - -

PRIOR PE/PL SFY 2018 NHS $78,989 $63,191 80% $15,798 20%

PROPOSED - - - $- $- - - -

PRIOR ROW SFY 2020 NHS $20,000 $16,000 80% $4,000 20%

PROPOSED $- 0% $- 0%

PRIOR INDOT 1601093 US 36 US 36 Bridge over White Lick Creek

Replacement

Bridge

Replacement,

Other

Construction

Exempt ROW SFY 2020 NHPP $30,000 $24,000 80%$2,684,321 $6,000 20%

Item 4c

4


DIFF

PHASE SFY FED

FUNDS


TOTAL


PROPOSED $278,360 ROW SFY 2021 NHPP $30,000 $24,000 80% adjusted funding$2,962,681 $6,000 20%

PRIOR CN SFY 2021 NHPP $2,604,321 $2,079,457 80% $524,864 20%


PRIOR INDOT 1601072 US 36 US 36 Added Travel Lanes Project Added Travel

Lanes

Non-Ex ROW SFY 2020 STPSM $384,360 $307,488 80%$10,500,047 $76,872 20%

PROPOSED $176,650 ROW SFY 2020 STPSM $212,325 $169,860 80% adjusted funds to

current

$10,676,697 $42,465 20%

PRIOR ROW SFY 2019 STPSM $5,000 $4,000 80% $1,000 20%

PROPOSED ROW SFY 2021 STPSM $172,035 $137,628 80% $34,407 20%

PRIOR CN SFY 2021 STPSM $8,969,350 $7,175,480 80% $1,793,870 20%

PROPOSED CN SFY 2021 STPSM $9,151,000 $7,319,200 80% $1,831,800 20%

PRIOR INDOT 1700100 US 136 Intersect. Improv. W/ New Signals Intersect.

Improv. W/ New

Signals

Exempt CN SFY 2022 STP-ST $880,217 $704,174 80%$1,029,887 $176,043 20%

PROPOSED $142,549 CN SFY 2022 STPSM $1,122,766 $898,213 80% adjusted funding$1,172,436 $224,553 20%

PRIOR CN SFY 2020 STP-ST $100,000 $80,000 80% $20,000 20%

PROPOSED - - - $- $- - - -

PRIOR INDOT 1702919 I- 70 Pavement Replacement Pavement

Replacement

Exempt - - - $- $- -$23,679,000 - -

PROPOSED $60,473,000 CN SFY 2020 NHPP $6,473,000 $5,825,700 90% Change in project

scope, added

mobility funds to

change from a

Pavement project to

added travel lanes

with capacity

increase.

$84,152,000 $647,300 10%

PRIOR - - - $- $- - - -


PRIOR INDOT 1900526 SR 42 R41982 Resurface over Asphalt

Pavement

Resurface over

Asphalt

Pavement

Exempt - - - $- $- -$200,000 - -

PROPOSED $479,314 CN SFY 2020 STPSM $620,700 $496,560 80% adjusted funds$679,314 $124,140 20%

PRIOR PE/PL SFY 2019 STPSM $200,000 $200,000 100% $- 0%

PROPOSED CE SFY 2020 STPSM $58,614 $46,891 80% $11,723 20%

PRIOR INDOT 1901560 I- 865 District Bridge Project

(Rehabilitation)

Substructure

Repair And

Rehabilitation

Exempt PE/PL SFY 2020 NHPP $40,000 $32,000 80%$140,000 $8,000 20%

PROPOSED $181,157 PE/PL SFY 2020 $40,000 $- 0% adjusted funding$321,157 $40,000 100%

PRIOR CN SFY 2021 NHPP $100,000 $80,000 80% $20,000 20%

PROPOSED CN SFY 2021 NHPP $281,157 $253,023 90% $28,134 10%

PRIOR INDOT 1900165 US 31 US 31 Intersection Improvements Intersect.

Improv. W/

Added Turn

Lanes

Exempt PE/PL SFY 2020 STPSM $140,000 $112,000 80%$1,547,893 $28,000 20%

PROPOSED $458,990 PE/PL SFY 2021 STPSM $598,990 $479,192 80% Moved Pe to FY

2021 and increased

PE

$2,006,883 $119,798 20%

PRIOR INDOT 1900746 SR 67 Bridge Deck Overlay Bridge Deck

Overlay

Exempt - - - $- $- -$460,000 - -

PROPOSED $20,000 PE/PL SFY 2021 STPSM $20,000 $16,000 80% added PE phase$480,000 $4,000 20%

Non-Ex

Item 4c

5


DIFF

PHASE SFY FED

FUNDS


TOTAL


PRIOR INDOT 1900747 SR 67 Bridge Deck Overlay Bridge Deck

Overlay

Exempt - - - $- $- -$500,000 - -

PROPOSED $20,000 PE/PL SFY 2021 STBG $20,000 $16,000 80% added PE$520,000 $4,000 20%

NEW INDOT 2000469 I- 65 Six Thin Deck Overlays @ I465 &

I65 interchange Southside

Bridge Thin

Deck Overlay

Exempt $2,075,325 PE/PL SFY 2021 NHPP $300,000 $270,000 90% NEW PROJECT$2,075,325 $30,000 10%

NEW CN SFY 2024 NHPP $1,775,325 $1,597,792 90% $177,533 10%

NEW INDOT 1800660 SR 39 SR 39 Bridge Thin Deck Overlay Bridge Thin

Deck Overlay

Exempt $198,831 PE/PL SFY 2021 STPSM $2,135 $1,708 80% NEW PROJECT$198,831 $427 20%

NEW CN SFY 2021 STPSM $142,296 $113,837 80% $28,459 20%

NEW INDOT 1900377 North County Line Rd. at LIRC RR

DOT 535596U

Railroad

Protection

Exempt $338,058 PE/PL SFY 2020 HSIP-ST $22,222 $20,000 90% NEW PROJECT$338,058 $- 0%

NEW PE/PL SFY 2021 HSIP-ST $315,836 $284,252 90% $- 0%

NEW INDOT 2001708 Statewide Overhead Sign Structure

Inspection

Other Type

Project

(Miscellaneous)

Exempt $666,263 PE/PL SFY 2021 STPSM $666,263 $533,010 80% NEW PROJECT$666,263 $133,253 20%

NEW INDOT 2001709 Statewide High Mast Lighting

Tower Inspection

Other Type

Project

(Miscellaneous)

Exempt $200,000 PE/PL SFY 2021 STPSM $200,000 $160,000 80% NEW PROJECT$200,000 $40,000 20%

Item 4c

6

QUARTER Q3, 2020 LOCAL 20-07.2


DIFF

PHASE SFY FED

FUNDS

LINE TOTAL FED TOTAL FED % MATCH % JUSTIFICATION ACTION PROPOSEDMATCH

TOTAL

DES NUM 2

PRIOR Indianapolis

DPW

1601001 Safe Routes to Transit -

North

Pedestrian

Enhancement

Exempt CN SFY 2020 HSIP $1,404,717 $1,264,245 90%$5,683,500 10%$140,472 N/A

PROPOSED $2,014,750 CN SFY 2021 HSIP $6,090,000 $5,481,000 90% Move to SFY 2021.

Project has let

twice - both came in

significantly higher

than the engineers

estimate. After the

initial unsuccessful

bid, DPW and the

consultant value

engineered out a

significant amount

of work in hope of

getting a favorable

bid the second time.

Unfortunately the

latest bid came

Increase CN/CE by

$1,813,275 Fed HSIP in

SFY 2021 (41.6%

increase).

$7,698,250 10%$609,000

PRIOR CE SFY 2020 HSIP $631,500 $568,350 90% 10%$63,150

PROPOSED CE SFY 2021 HSIP $766,250 $689,625 90% 10%$76,625

PRIOR CE SFY 2020 PYB $63,150 $- 0% 0%$0

PROPOSED - - - $- $- - 0%

PRIOR CN SFY 2020 PYB $2,805,283 $2,524,755 90% 10%$280,528

PROPOSED - - - $- $- - 0%

PRIOR IndyGo 1801414 Purple Line Transit

Enhancement

Capital Projects

Non-Ex PE/PL SFY 2019 SEC5307 $14,857,163 $11,885,730 80%$137,465,877 20%$2,971,433 N/A

PROPOSED $17,534,123 PE/PL SFY 2020 SEC5307 $13,235,324 $2,172,000 16% The Purple Line

has experienced

changes to its

timeline, scope, and

budget. Instead of

separating from the

Red Line and

continuing down

Meridian Street, the

Purple Line will

follow the Red Line

all the way to the

Carson Transit

Center. More

detailed

engineering

documents and

discussions with

partner

$155,000,000 84%$11,063,324

PRIOR ROW SFY 2019 SEC5339 $4,268,299 $- 0% 20%$4,268,299

PROPOSED ROW SFY 2020 $2,427,885 $- 0% 100%$2,427,885

PRIOR - - - $- $- - 0%

PROPOSED PE/PL SFY 2021 SEC5307 $4,094,617 $3,897,600 95% 5%$197,017

PRIOR PE/PL SFY 2019 SEC5309 $4,640,989 $3,712,791 80% 20%$928,198

PROPOSED PE/PL SFY 2021 SEC5309 $16,931,718 $16,117,029 95% 5%$814,689

PRIOR CN SFY 2020 SEC5307 $17,400,228 $13,920,182 80% 20%$3,480,046

PROPOSED CN SFY 2021 SEC5307 $4,711,128 $2,502,887 53% 47%$2,208,241

Item 4c

7


DIFF

PHASE SFY FED

FUNDS

LINE TOTAL FED TOTAL FED % MATCH % JUSTIFICATION ACTION PROPOSEDMATCH

TOTAL

DES NUM 2

PRIOR - - - $- $- - 0%


PRIOR - - - $- $- - 0%

PROPOSED CN SFY 2022 SEC5307 $8,182,545 $8,088,923 99% 1%$93,622

PRIOR - - - $- $- - 0%

PROPOSED CN SFY 2022 SEC5309 $41,534,788 $41,059,563 99% 1%$475,225

PRIOR - - - $- $- - 0%


PRIOR - - - $- $- - 0%


PRIOR CN SFY 2019 SEC5339 $19,224,730 $- 0% 25%$19,224,730

PROPOSED - - - $- $- - 0%

PRIOR ROW SFY 2019 SEC5307 $10,555,820 $8,444,656 80% 20%$2,111,164

PROPOSED - - - $- $- - 0%

PRIOR ROW SFY 2019 SEC5309 $10,785,673 $8,628,538 80% 20%$2,157,135

PROPOSED - - - $- $- - 0%

PRIOR CN SFY 2019 SEC5307 $19,224,730 $- 0% 0%$0

PROPOSED - - - $- $- - 0%

PRIOR CN SFY 2019 SEC5309 $76,546,339 $57,321,609 75% 0%$0

PROPOSED - - - $0 $0 0% 0%

Item 4c

8

Date: July 24, 2020

To: Indianapolis MPO Technical Committee

Thru: Anna Gremling, Executive Director Indianapolis MPO

From: David Borden Deputy Director Engineering, Department of Public Works

Re: TIP Amendment Request – DES # 1601001 Safe Routes to Transit North – Red Line Corridor

In 2015, the City of Indianapolis Department of Public Works (DPW) was awarded $4,210,000 in federal funding to make pedestrian intersection improvements within a half mile of the IndyGo BRT Red Line from Fall Creek Parkway North Drive to 66th Street. As a part of the original scope of this project, we completed an extensive engineering report that allowed us to evaluate the value of improving the ADA access while assessing the cost to make the improvement. Of the over 420 intersections within the project area, we were able to narrow our focus on improvements to 109 intersections.

In November of 2019, DPW let the project through INDOT. The letting resulted in two bids that were not awardable; low bid came in 38% above the engineer’s estimate of $4,250,000 (Olco at $5,874,250).

Since the unsuccessful bid in November of 2019, DPW rescoped the project removing: 22 of the 109 intersections, all full intersection resurfacing, simplified the Maintenance of Traffic Plans, extended the contractual completion time, and updated our engineer’s estimate unit prices to reflect the low bidder and current market prices based on OMAN Bid Tab data.

In July of 2020, the project was let for a 2nd time. The 2nd letting resulted in two bids that were over the re-scoped project engineer’s estimate of $4,250,000 with the lowest bidder (Calumet) coming in at $6,130,000, 44% above the re-scoped project and the 2nd lowest bidder (Rieth Riley) coming in at $6,178,631, 45% above the revised estimate. Since both Calumet and Rieth Riley were very close in their bids, we do not believe that putting this project out for a 3rd letting without making substantive changes will result in lower bids. We also believe that rescoping this project a 2nd time would diminish the intention of the original project, which is to improve ADA access to the surrounding communities of the City’s transit system, specifically the IndyGo Red Line.

Due to the increased cost of construction based on the demand of work in the City of Indianapolis region, we are requesting the MPO to increase the Federal share of cost for the construction (CN) from

Item 4c

9

$3,789,000 to $5,481,000 for a total increased amount of $1,672,000 and the construction inspection (CE) from $568,350 to $689,250 for a total increased amount of $120,900.

We believe that this investment, along with the City-wide investments from many organizations into improving our transit system only serves to benefit the communities that we live in and the City as a whole. We thank you for your time and consideration of this proposal.

The City of Indianapolis plans to dedicate a local match of 10% of the total project cost to supplement the funding for CE and CN.

Sincerely,

David Borden Deputy Director Engineering, City of Indianapolis

Item 4c

10

2021 Indy MPO Unified Planning Work ProgramLast Updated:

ELEMENT TASK DESCRIPTION Overhead Contract Total PL+5303 STBG Other (Non-MPO) Grants PL+5303 Match (Dues) STBG Match Other Local FundsA Program Administration 1,632,667$ -$ 1,632,667$ 1,306,134$ -$ 326,533$ -$ B UPWP Development & Reporting -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ C Partner Agency Coordination -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ D MPO Board Management -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ E MPO101 Training & Education -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ F Professional Development 75,000$ 75,000$ 60,000$ -$ 15,000$ -$ G Internal Process Improvement -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ H Annual Report 2,000$ 2,000$ 1,600$ -$ 400$ -$ I Internship & Assistantship 20,000$ 20,000$ 16,000$ -$ 4,000$ -$ J Env Justice & Title VI 25,000$ 25,000$ 20,000$ -$ 5,000$ -$ K Public Involvement Program 100,000$ 100,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ L Manage Website & Social Media 25,000$ 25,000$ -$ 20,000$ -$ 5,000$ M Memberships & Sponsorships 75,000$ 75,000$ 60,000$ -$ 15,000$ -$ N Certification Review -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ O Strategic Planning -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ P Discretionary Grant App -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Q Government Relations 55,000$ 55,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 55,000$

Element 100 Subtotal 1,632,667$ 377,000$ 2,009,667$ 1,543,734$ 100,000$ -$ 385,933$ 25,000$ 55,000$ A Data Program Administration -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ B Software Licensing 100,000$ 100,000$ -$ 80,000$ -$ 20,000$ C Data Purchase -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ D Dashboard Development & Maint -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ E Traffic, Bike, & Ped Counts 150,000$ 150,000$ -$ 120,000$ -$ 30,000$ F Performance Measures&Targets -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ G Data Automation Visualization -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ H Land Use, Socioeconomic Model 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ 4,000$ -$ 1,000$ I FCS, NHS & NTN Classification -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ J Air Quality Analysis -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ K Travel Demand Model Update 75,000$ 75,000$ -$ 60,000$ -$ 15,000$ L Congestion Management Process -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ M Household Travel Survey -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ N Onboard Survey -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ O Crash Records Management 50,000$ 50,000$ 40,000$ -$ 10,000$ -$ P Pavement Management -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Q Transportation Database Devel -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ R Regional Centers -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ S Microsimilation Model -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ T Freight Data, Modeling 160,000$ 160,000$ -$ 128,000$ -$ 32,000$ U Modeling Subcomittee 50,000$ 50,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ V Visitor Model 75,000$ 75,000$ -$ 60,000$ -$ 15,000$ W Transit Ridership Modeling -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ X Data Strategic Planning -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Element 200 Subtotal -$ 665,000$ 665,000$ 80,000$ 492,000$ -$ 20,000$ 123,000$ -$ A TIP Program Administration -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ B TIP Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ C TIP License & Maintenance 80,000$ 80,000$ 64,000$ -$ 16,000$ -$ D Annual Call for Projects -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ E Annual Obligation Report -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ F Quarterly Tracking -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ G ADA, Title VI, and EJ Coord -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ H Project Cost Estimations 15,000$ 15,000$ 12,000$ -$ 3,000$ -$ I Complete Streets Policy -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ J Continuing eTIP Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ K Federal Exchange Policies 75,000$ 75,000$ 60,000$ -$ 15,000$ -$

Element 300 Subtotal -$ 170,000$ 95,000$ 76,000$ -$ -$ 19,000$ -$ -$ A LRTP Program Administration -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ B LRTP Development & Management 50,000$ 50,000$ 40,000$ -$ 10,000$ -$ C LRTP Outreach -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ D MPO Planning Assistance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ E Transportation Advisory Panel -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ F Scenario Planning -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ G Freight Planning Coordination 150,000$ 150,000$ -$ 120,000$ -$ 30,000$ H Red Flag Investigations -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ I ITS Infrastructure 15,000$ 15,000$ 12,000$ -$ 3,000$ -$ J Knozone Program -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Element 400 Subtotal -$ 215,000$ 215,000$ 52,000$ 120,000$ -$ 13,000$ 30,000$ -$ A Multimodal Program Admin -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ C Regional Pedestrian Studies -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ D Regional Vision Zero -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ E Transit Planning & Outreach 90,000$ 90,000$ 72,000$ -$ 18,000$ -$ F Transit Bus Stop Inventory -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ G Transit Oriented Development 60,000$ 60,000$ 48,000$ -$ 12,000$ -$ H Title VI Analysis -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ I Transit COA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ J Human Services Coord Plan -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ K Transit Financial Model -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ L 5311/5307 Allocation 75,000$ 75,000$ 60,000$ -$ 15,000$ -$ M Traffic Safety Education 50,000$ 50,000$ 40,000$ -$ 10,000$ -$

Element 500 Subtotal -$ 275,000$ 275,000$ 220,000$ -$ -$ 55,000$ -$ -$ A Regional Econ Dev Plan -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ B Regional Dev Authority -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ C CIRTA Planning & Engagement 225,000$ 225,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ D CIRTA Mobility Management 220,187$ 220,187$ -$ -$ -$ -$ E IndyGo Analysis and Studies -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ F IndyGo Outreach -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ G Transit Asset Management Plan -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ H Local Thoroughfare Plans -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ I Local Planning Studies -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ J Partner Strategic Planning -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Element 600 Subtotal -$ 445,187$ 445,187$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ A Economic Development Admin -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ B Comprehensive Econ Dev Plan 180,000$ 180,000$ -$ 180,000$ -$ -$ 60,000$ C Regional Econ Dev Studies -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ D Economic Development Data -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ E Econ Dev Engagement & Panel -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Element 700 Subtotal -$ 180,000$ 180,000$ -$ -$ 180,000$ -$ -$ 60,000$ A Land Use & Housing Admin -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ B Regional Land Use Plan -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ C Regional Land Use Study -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ D Land Use Advisory Panel -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ E Regional Housing Plan -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ F Regional Housing Study -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ G Housing Advisory Panel -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Element 800 Subtotal -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ A Water & Environmental Admin -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ B Regional Water Plan -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ C Regional Water Study -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ D Water Advisory Panel -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ E Regional Resiliency Plan -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ F Regional Resiliency Study -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ G Resiliency Advisory Panel -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ H Regional Environmental Plan -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ I Regional Environmental Study -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ J Environmental Advisory Panel -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Element 900 Subtotal -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$

PL STBG Other (Non-MPO) Grants PL Dues STBG Match Other Local FundsElement 100 1,543,734$ 100,000$ -$ 385,933$ 25,000$ 55,000$ Element 200 80,000$ 492,000$ -$ 20,000$ 123,000$ -$ Element 300 76,000$ -$ -$ 19,000$ -$ -$ Element 400 52,000$ 120,000$ -$ 13,000$ 30,000$ -$ Element 500 220,000$ -$ -$ 55,000$ -$ -$ Element 600 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Element 700 -$ -$ 180,000$ -$ -$ 60,000$ Element 800 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ Element 900 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$

1,971,734$ 712,000$ 180,000$ 492,933$ 178,000$ 275,000$

Grand Total 1,632,667$ 2,147,187$ 3,704,854$ 1,971,734$ 712,000$ -$ 492,933$ 178,000$ 55,000$ *Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs)**For UPWP Display Purposes Only - Not necessarily using federal planning (PL) funds***MPO Council Funding

FHWA/FTA Updating Planning Roles and Responsibilities Cooperating Operating Manual (PRRCOM) Modifications & AmendmentsFHWA/FTA Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Add EDA funds when awardedFHWA/FTA Local Road Safety Plans (LRSPs)FHWA/FTA Participation Plans (PPs)

2021 Revenues Federal Local TotalCombined Planning Grant (FHWA Planning Funds + FTA 5303) $2,252,228 $563,057 $2,815,285STBG Flex Funds (80/20) $649,804 $162,451 $812,255

$2,902,032 $725,508 $3,627,540

2020 MPO Council Discretionary Fund Allocation $0 $4,738 $4,738 *Federal amount included in 2020 allocation, match collected as part of 2021 dues invoicesIRTC Government Relations + T4A Membership (100% local) $0 $55,000 $55,000RDA Regional Development Authority $0 $18,400 $18,400IEDC / EDA / Chamber Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy $0 $0 $0Non-MPO: IndyGo / CIRTA? $0 $0 $0

$0 $78,138 $78,138

$2,902,032 $803,646 $3,705,678

$1,335,600 Salaries+Benefits (1 new hire, 5% COLA/merritt, assuming 75% salaries / 25% benefits)$57,067 Office Space

$100,000 Legal$50,000 ISA (TechSupport)$30,000 Human Resources$60,000 Financial Services

$1,632,667 Total Overhead

MPO Overhead

(100A)

Other Revenues

Local RevenuesFederal Revenues

* 2021 Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs)

400:

Lon

g Ra

nge

Tran

spor

tatio

n Pl

an,

Tran

spor

tatio

n Co

nfor

mity

, &

Freig

ht

500:

Mul

ti-Mo

dal (

Tran

sit &

Act

ive

Tran

spor

tatio

n)

Wednesday, July 15, 2020

100:

Plan

ning

Adm

inist

ratio

n20

0: D

ata a

nd G

IS30

0: P

rogr

amm

ing

600:

Oth

er P

lanni

ng In

itiat

ives

& St

udies

700:

Eco

nom

ic De

velo

pmen

t80

0: L

and

Use &

Ho

usin

g90

0: W

ater

& E

nviro

nmen

t

INDOT PO Revenues

Item 5a


TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE


A RESOLUTION to approve the 2021 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), and

authorizing the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to enter into a grant

agreement with the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), including authority to

revise amounts as allocations adjust through the course of regular negotiations about the grant

agreement.

WHEREAS, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization is Central

Indiana’s designated MPO, with the responsibility for facilitating the continuing, cooperative

and comprehensive transportation planning process for the Indianapolis Metropolitan

Planning Area; and

WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Regulations issued by Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) require a UPWP for

the MPO’s metropolitan planning area; and

WHEREAS, INDOT requires an FTA-, FHWA-, Transportation Policy Board-, and

State-approved UPWP as a precondition to executing a grant agreement for the MPO’s federal

funding allocation; and

WHEREAS, the MPO’s annual allocation has increased slightly after initial UPWP

approval by the Transportation Policy Board, necessitating passage of amendment resolutions

and slowing the appropriations process; and

WHEREAS, the MPO Transportation Policy Committee is the approval body for all

transportation-related activities of the MPO under applicable U.S. Department of

Transportation regulations; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the MPO Transportation Policy

Committee herby approves the 2021 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), and

authorizes the MPO to enter into a grant agreement with the Indiana Department of

Transportation (INDOT), and authorizes the MPO executive director to revise amounts as

allocations adjust through the course of regular negotiations about the grant agreement..

The MPO Transportation Policy Committee adopted the above and foregoing

resolution this ____ day of August 2020.

DATE: ________________________________________________________________

Anna M. Gremling, Executive Director

Indianapolis MPO

for the Transportation Policy Committee Chair

Item 5b

101 Stat ion Landing, Sui te 410 Medford, MA 02155

te l 781-539-6700 www.camsys.com fax 781-539-6701

Memorandum

TO: Rose Scovel, Indianapolis MPO

FROM: Chris Porter, Sarah Windmiller, and Jack Glodek

DATE: July 24, 2020

RE: Land Use Scenario Placetype Distribution

This memo describes the changes to placetype distributions within each transportation and land use scenario for Central Indiana’s 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Currently, a “base” future placetype map has been created for the Indianapolis region from future land use maps and plans from counties, cities, and towns within the region. For each of the future scenarios, this land use map will be altered to reflect the influences and forces within each scenario that affect land use and development patterns. The specific changes for each scenario are outlined here.

The Four Scenarios

The four scenarios are outlined in greater detail in the Regional Transportation and Land Use Scenarios memo from June 23, 2020, but some background is given for each of the four scenarios here.

• Business as Usual: This is a continuation of the current trajectory of transportation and landuse. Most new housing is low density, single-family homes, although there is someredevelopment of older neighborhoods in the urban core. Private automobiles continue to bethe dominant form of transportation, but there is still transit for people that don’t own vehicles.E-commerce continues to increase at moderate rates and most vehicles are still powered byfossil fuels. This scenario is the “base” future placetype map that has been vetted by the LandUse Advisory Panel members and Indy MPO staff.

• Clean Suburban: Most new housing is in large, single-family homes, following low densitydevelopment patterns. However, automated, connected, and electric vehicle technologyprogresses to a point where households begin to own fewer vehicles. Pollution decreases asa result, but public transportation options become less sustainable as fewer people takeadvantage of them. E-commerce also captures the majority of the retail market, replacingbrick-and-mortar retail.

• Moderate Infill: Residents exhibit increasing preferences for walkable neighborhoods and aslight increase in density, but not for densities that make high-frequency transit viable.Micromobility options (bikes, scooters, etc.) proliferate along with shared mobility services thatoptimize multi-passenger routing. E-commerce rises, but residents still value the social

Item 7a

- 2 -

interaction of select brick-and-mortar stores. Transportation becomes less polluting as vehicles become electric.

• Transit-Supportive: Dense, urban environments become the location of choice for residences and business, resulting in more widespread high-capacity transit service. Many households own few or no vehicles, and micromobility options become more common. New land use regulations focus warehousing and distribution uses into industrial centers. Equity remains a concern and affordable housing policies are implemented to combat rapid gentrification.

Changes in Placetype Distribution

The differences between scenarios outlined above will lead to associated differences in land uses. The anticipated change in placetypes, relative to the ‘Business as Usual’ scenario, are described in the following sections and summarized in the table below. In this table, a select number of relevant placetypes are displayed, and for each scenario, there is an arrow showing the increase or decrease in this placetype (compared to Scenario 1). Two arrows means a stronger change than one arrow, and a horizontal arrow indicates a minimal change in that placetype.

Selected Placetypes Scenario 1 – Business as

Usual

Scenario 2 – Clean

Suburban Scenario 3 –

Moderate Infill Scenario 4 -

Transit-Supportive

Agriculture / Conservation

Rural Estate

Suburban Residential ☺

Walkable Neighborhood ☺

Suburban Mixed-Use

Mixed-Use Urban Infill ☺

Strip Commercial

Office Park / Corporate Campus

Traditional Downtown ☺

Downtown Indy ☺

Warehouse / Logistics ☺

Item 7a

- 3 -

Legend: = strong decrease, = moderate decrease, = no change, = moderate increase,☺ = strong increase

Business as Usual

Since the “Business as Usual” scenario implies that the development patterns seen today will continue, the current future land use map will remain unchanged for this scenario. The rest of the scenarios (Clean Suburban, Moderate Infill, and Transit-Supportive) will be compared to this land use distribution used in the “Business as Usual” scenario.

Clean Suburban

The “Clean Suburban” scenario primarily represents a continuation and increase in low density development patterns. This will require some of the future land use changes to stay similar to existing (2020) conditions. For example, when comparing the existing placetype map and the map for the “Business as Usual” case, some of the neighborhoods have become higher density. For the “Clean Suburban” scenario, instances of higher density should be returned to their current density. For example, an existing area may be primarily suburban residential, but the “Business as Usual” scenario has that area increasing in density and becoming a walkable neighborhood. The “Clean Suburban” scenario proposes to return that location to suburban residential.

Along with the lower densities, the “Clean Suburban” future anticipates increasing traditional suburban and exurban development patterns. In the case of land use types, this means agricultural land far from city centers would become a little denser and turn into rural estate, while existing rural estate land would become suburban residential. There would also be an increase in corporate campuses that aren’t located downtown. This would not be mimicked in locations that are already dense, as this scenario predicts a reduction in density.

The changes in e-commerce would affect the future land use as well. Compared to the “Business as Usual” scenario, the “Clean Suburban” scenario forecasts e-commerce increasing even more and replacing brick-and-mortar shopping centers. With the rise of e-commerce comes the need for more warehouses (as shipping will increase), so warehousing footprints should expand beyond their current borders. The new warehouses would be primarily seen around old clusters. Subsequently, since people are doing their shopping more online, commercial centers would remain largely as they were in 2020 or be redeveloped into mini-neighborhood distribution centers for local delivery. Places that were predicted to become the strip commercial placetype in the “Business as Usual” scenario would instead become more residential (suburban residential, rural estate, walkable neighborhood), depending on the surrounding densities. Additionally, mixed-use communities would likely decline and become more residential as well (either suburban residential or walkable neighborhood).

Moderate Infill

The “Moderate Infill” scenario was characterized by an increase in density compared to the “Business as Usual” alternative, but not as much an increase as seen in the “Transit Supportive” alternative. For this reason, densification would be seen mainly in areas between the urban core and the outer limits of the suburbs. The suburbs closer to the city center would turn more into

Item 7a

- 4 -

walkable neighborhoods to reflect an increase in micromobility, while walkable neighborhoods would become a little denser and turn to urban mixed-use. In addition, current agriculture / rural estate areas that were anticipated to develop into suburban residential would mostly stay as-is, especially in the areas furthest from city centers.

Since e-commerce is still prevalent in this scenario (but not as much as the “Clean Suburban” scenario), strip commercial placetypes would transform to suburban mixed-use. The commercial parts of these mixed-use developments would provide the people in this scenario the limited physical shopping locations they desire, so many single-use, retail-based locations would be redeveloped into mixed-use or other non-strip commercial placetypes. This would support the increased densities in this scenario as well as the rise of micromobility as mixed-use neighborhoods are more pedestrian-friendly.

Warehouses would increase in this scenario compared to the “Business as Usual” scenario, but not by as much as the “Clean Suburban” scenario as people would still do some shopping in-person. It’s anticipated that the expansion of warehouses would occur near existing clusters, which is the same pattern as the “Clean Suburban” scenario.

Transit-Supportive

The “Transit Supportive” scenario is characterized by much higher densities and a reliance on transit instead of personal vehicles. In this alternative, there should be no converting of agriculture/rural estates to higher density land uses; the growth should occur almost entirely in areas that are already of medium or higher densities. This means areas close to the city center should transform to walkable neighborhoods (if they were suburban residential already), walkable neighborhoods should become urban mixed-use, and urban mixed-use should become downtown Indy. The increase of jobs in the downtown area should particularly fuel the increase in the downtown Indy placetype, and with that should come high-frequency transit lines that are necessary to support higher densities. The grids immediately adjacent to transit stations should be a higher density than the surrounding placetype. For example, a station in a walkable neighborhood would support a mixed-use urban infill density.

Densities can also be increased in limited locations outside the city center. High-frequency transit lines mean there can be hubs of dense development in parts of the region, as these hubs would be connected to downtown by a transit line. This would mean the rise of suburban mixed-use land uses, replacing former strip malls and potentially some suburban residential. Adjacent to these could be more office parks/corporate campuses as well, depending on the station locations relative to existing office parks. Cities outside of I-465 would see an increase of the traditional downtown placetype, as these cities and towns could be connected to Downtown Indianapolis with high-frequency transit lines. Similar transit access could be made to suburban mixed-use areas.

Suitability Analysis

To fully support and represent the varying scenarios, the underlying suitability map that prioritizes residential and employment development needs to be updated. These suitability maps should represent the attractiveness of areas due to the scenario influences. For example, low-density,

Item 7a

- 5 -

residential areas will be more attractive in the “Clean Suburban” scenario versus the “Transit-Supportive” scenario.

Cambridge Systematics and the Indy MPO will need to coordinate on where these sweeping generalizations are located. In addition, we will need to coordinate on location-specific changes, such as station locations for high-capacity transit and areas for warehouse / logistic center growth. These locations will need to be identified through the placetypes and suitability map. For example, the station areas should have higher-density placetypes and have a higher weighting in the suitability map.

Item 7a

2020 REGIONAL PERFORMANCE

MEASURE UPDATE

Item 9

Our regional road network should make it possible to move between key locations in a reasonable amount of time. This measure identifies those key locations, then calculates the average vehicle travel time during the morning peak travel period.

Access to a bikeway allows more people to bike safely for commuting or recreation. Connected bikeway networks allow people to travel further by bike. Access is defined as residents that live within a 1/2 mile of a bikeway that is most connected for bikeway network ativity.

Connected bikeways are those where two or more bikeways cross, creating connections. This measure divides the number of people who live within 1/2 mile of the most-connected bikeways by the number of people in the Metropolitan Planning Area.

How is it Measured? How is it Measured?

Regional Vehicle Connectivity Percentage of People in the Region with Access to a Connected Bikeway

Objective 1A Objective 1BPM1 PM1

Step 1 For each center, measure travel time to all others using the Travel Demand Model

Ident i f y regional centers

Step 2

Step 3. Repeat for all centers; average all times

Data Data

AVERAGE MINUTES OF TRAVEL TIME DURING PEAK MORNING TRAVEL BETWEEN ECONOMIC CLUSTERS

OF THE REGIONAL POPULATION HAS ACCESS TO A CONNECTED BIKEWAY

25.9 54%

MoveTHEME

1

Item 9

Sidewalks help people move around neighborhoods, access transit, and stay healthy. They are important for people with disabilities, older residents, and children to be comfortable and safe walking. Access is defined as living within 200 feet of an existing sidewalk.

Transit systems are one of many transportation choices. The higher the number of transit trips per person in a population, the more people are using the system. Using a per person measure allows comparison with other transit systems serving different size populations. This measure includes unlinked transit trips taken on IndyGo’s and Access Johnson County’s fixed-route and paratransit (demand response) services.

Percentage of People within the Region with Access to a Sidewalk Transit Ridership Per Capita

Objective 1B Objective 1CPM2 PM1

DataData

This measure divides the number of people who live within 200 feet of a sidewalk by the number of people in the Metropolitan Planning Area.


Transit providers count every passenger that boards a vehicle.

The rider counts are divided by population estimates for the 8-county region (from ESRI Community Analyst).

Step 1 Step 2

OF THE REGIONAL POPULATION HAVE ACCESS TO A SIDEWALK TRANSIT TRIPS PER PERSON (2019)

54% 5.01

MoveTHEME

2

Item 9

Scheduled, fixed-route transit provides a transportation option for people who can access it. Transit service (frequency/hours/etc.) may improve as the number of people who can access them and use them increases. Ten minutes is considered the maximum time people are willing to walk to a transit stop (~1/2 mile). This measure did not include CIRTA’s routes.

Frequent transit route are those with buses coming every 15 minutes or less. These routes often have higher ridership than others because riders do not need a schedule to know that the next bus will come “soon”.

Percentage of People within the Region with Access to Fixed-Route Transit

Transit Ridership Per Capita along Frequent Transit Routes

Objective 1C Objective 1CPM2 PM3

Data Data


A 1/2 mile buffer is drawn around fixed-route transit lines. People in the buffer have access to transit. ESRI Community Analyst estimates the population within the bus stop buffer.

The number of people within the buffer is divided by population estimates for the MPA (from ESRI Com-munity Analyst).

Step 1 Step 2

OF THE REGIONAL POPULATION HAS ACCESS TO FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT

25%TRANSIT TRIPS PER PERSON ALONG FREQUENT TRANSIT ROUTES (2019)

27.9

Transit providers count every passenger that boards a bus on the high frequency routes.

A 1/2 mile buffer is drawn around frequent service fixed-route transit lines.

Step 1

Step 2

MoveTHEME

The rider counts are divided by population estimates for the buffer (from ESRI Community Analyst).

Step 3

3

Item 9

ProsperTHEME

Transportation Costs as a Percent of Median Income Equity Accessibility Gap


Transportation costs are the second largest expense in a household and where a person chooses to live, along with the transportation options available at that location, are important determinants for transportation costs. Transportation costs are considered affordable when they are less than 15 percent of a household’s income. By tracking transportation costs, we understand the burden the existing trasportation system places on individual households.

Accessibility to jobs is one of the key functions of the transportation system. The Equity Accessiblity Gap measures the difference in access to jobs within 30 minutes of equity and non-equity populations. Ideally the measure should be 0%; a 100% means twice as much job accessibility for non-equity populations in 30 minutes compared to equity populations. Moving the measure requires more jobs in equity areas or better integration of lower income housing in the region. It does not consider skill level for jobs. Locations for equity populations are based on a 2016 equity analysis, identifying zones where the low income or non-white populations existed at a rate that exceeded the region’s overall rate for those populations.

The Housing and Transportation (H+T) Affordability Index uses three elements in their transportation costs model.The estimate of transportation costs as a percentage of median household income comes from the Center for Neighborhood Technology Housing + Transportation Index and uses the MPA boundary for the analysis.

OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME GOES TO TRANSPORTATION COSTS GAP BETWEEN EQUITY ZONE ACCESS TO

EMPLOYMENT AND NON-EQUITY ZONE ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT

How is it measured?How is it measured?

24% 53.7%Auto

OwnershipTransit

UseAuto Use

Data

Data

Step 1Measure travel time between zones, selecting travel times under 30 min

Identify equity zones and non-equity zones. Identify zones with jobs

Step 2

Step 3. Separate equity zones from non-equity zones

4

Item 9

Percent of Environmental Justice Population Near Frequent Transit

Number of People in Central Indiana with Access to Higher Education Facilities by Fixed-Route Transit

Objective 3B Objective 3CPM2 PM1

This is a measure of the percentage of the environmental justice population that can access frequent transit routes. “Frequent transit” is a fixed-route transit line where the bus comes every 15 minutes or less. “Environmental Justice Population” includes all non-white or Hispanic people living in poverty. “Access” means within walking distance of a stop on a frequent transit route, which is defined as a 10 minute walk (1/2 mile).

Higher education is a means to opportunity and generally higher wages. Transportation can be a factor that limits access to higher education for people. Central Indiana is defined as the 9-county Central Indiana region, fixed-route transit is service from IndyGo and Access Johnson County, and higher education facilities are junior colleges, colleges, and universities. This performance measure did not account for CIRTA’s fixed routes.

A half-mile buffer is drawn around all fixed-route transit lines. This is overlaid with Transportation Analysis Zone demographic data to calculate the population within the buffer. This data is overlaid with InfoUSA data, which displays all higher education facilities within the MPO counties (including Madison County).

PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES AND TRAINING CENTERS BY TRANSIT

OF HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ARE ACCESSIBLE BY FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT

59.9K69%

DataData

How is it measured?How is it measured?

14%53%NON-WHITE / HISPANIC

POPULATION WITH FREQUENT TRANSIT ACCESS

HOUSEHOLDS IN POVERTY WITH FREQUENT

TRANSIT ACCESS

Step 1ESRI Community Analyst counts households in poverty and the non-white or Hispanic individuals within a 1/2 mile walk of stops on bus routes that run at least every 15 minutes.

Step 2ESRI Community Analyst deter-mines the population and number of households in the MPA.Step 3The regional population is divided by the EJ populations from Step 1.

ProsperTHEME

5

Item 9

Automobile Accessibility Index Transit Job Accessibility Index

Objective 4A Objective 4APM1 PM2

The Automobile Accessibility Index is the percentage of households in Central Indiana (9-county region) that can reach a job within a 30-minute car trip during peak morning travel.

The Transit Job Accessibility Index is the percentage of households in Central Indiana (9-county region) that can reach a job within a 60-minute transit trip during peak morning travel.

Data

How is it measured?

The DARK ZONE is a zone that has a job and the STRIPED ORANGE zones are zones with households that can access the job within 30 minutes of driving during morning peak traffic.

Data

How is it measured?

The DARK ZONE is a zone that has a job and the STRIPED ORANGE zones are zones with households that can access the job within a 60 minute transit ride during morning peak traffic. The brown lines represent conceptual transit lines.

OF CENTRAL INDIANA’S HOUSEHOLDS ARE ACCESSIBLE TO A JOB BY AUTOMOBILE IN 30 MINUTES

OF CENTRAL INDIANA’S HOUSEHOLDS ARE ACCESSIBLE TO A JOB BY TRANSIT IN 60 MINUTES

99.5% 41.2%

ProsperTHEME

6

Item 9

Make SafeTHEME

Percentage of Non-NHS Bridges in Poor Condition Percentage of Pavement on Non-NHS Roads in the Region in Poor Condition

Objective 7A Objective 7CPM3 PM4

Measurement of major non-NHS roadways’ pavement condition is an important performance measure that affects safety and efficiency of surface transportation facilities.

The City of Indianapolis uses the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which rates pavement condition on a 0 to 100 point scale. Other local governments in the MPO’s metropolitan planning area use the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) measure, which rates condition on a 0 to 10 point scale. A breakdown of how the scores were distributed between the categories is listed below:

Good: A PCI of 56 or greater; A PASER of 6 or greaterFair: A PCI between 41 to 55; A PASER of 4 to 5Poor: A PCI between 1 to 40; A PASER of 1 to 3

This performance measure examines bridges off* the National Highway System, providing a comprehensive overview of bridges in Central Indiana (8-county region). “Poor condition” is defined by the federal rule governing this performance measure. * Condition of bridges on the National Highway System are measured by INDOT.

Counties regularly inspect and rate bridges. They report that data to the National Bridge Inventory. For this measure, the MPO compares the square meter area of non-NHS bridges in bad condition to the total area of all non-NHS bridges.

DataData

How is it Measured?How is it Measured?

60.47%

13.87%

66.43% 11.35%21.44% 25.49%

0.17%

of road pavement is in Good condition.

of road pavement is in Poor condition.

GOOD

POOR

FAIR

NO SCORE

GOOD POORFAIR of road pavement is in Fair condition.

of road pavement has no score.

of all non-NHS bridge surface area in Central

Indiana is in good condition.

of all non-NHS bridge surface area in Central

Indiana is in poor condition.

of all non-NHS bridge surface area in Central Indiana is in fair

condition.

7

Item 9

This measure allows us to track the expansion of the urbanized area and monitor how quickly greenfield development is converting open land into developed land.

Access to healthy foods for people who don’t have access to a car is an important quality of life indicator and social determinant of health. Grocery stores provide better access to healthy food choices than convenience or specialty food stores. Access means 1/2 mile (10 minute) walk to transit followed by a 1/2 mile walk to a grocery store, or a 2.5 mile (15 minute) bike ride or 1/2 mile (10 minute) walk to a grocery store.

SustainTHEME

Land Consumption Number of Residents that can Access Grocery Stores by Bike, Sidewalk, or Transit


Data

How is it Measured?

261Kresidents can access a grocery store by fixed-

route transit.

TRANSIT

591KBICYCLE

residents can access a grocery store by bicycle.

152KWALKING

residents can access a grocery store by walking.

How is it measured?For each mode (bike, walking, transit)...

Map the infrastructure (bike path, sidewalk, transit route) and the grocery stores. Select those stores that are near the infrastructure.

Draw a buffer around those stores, representing how far you might travel by each mode to get there.

People inside the purple buffer, above, are close enough to access the sidewalk, bike path, or bus route, and they are close enough to get to the grocery store.

Data

OF DEVELOPED LAND IN THE MPO’S METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA

437K ACRES

Property class codes for parcels in the MPO’s metropolitan planning area from the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) are used to identify vacant and developed parcels. The area of vacant parcels is then subtracted from the total land area.For this measure agricultural (non-homestead) parcels are considered vacant.

8

Item 9

MEETING AGENDA ITEMS FOR RECOMMENDATION...Via Zoom Meeting ID 873 9146 5410 Password IMPO Call-in...

Documents

Transcript of MEETING AGENDA ITEMS FOR RECOMMENDATION...Via Zoom Meeting ID 873 9146 5410 Password IMPO Call-in...