Federal Fiscal Year 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program for Northwest Indiana Part II: TIP Development and Project Selection Processes MPO Planning Process The Commission itself, acting as either the Executive Board or Full Board of Commissioners, is the final, official decision making body of he MPO.· Transportation-related decisions made at the Board level almost always originate in the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC)l. Transportation Policy Committee. The purpose of the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) is to oversee the development of a multi-modal system of transportation in Lake, Porter and LaPorte Counties. This is primarily done through TPC actions on a regional transportation plan, transportation improvement program, studies, analyses, work program and other special programs. The TPC hears recommendations form transportation subcommittees and makes recommendations to the Commission or Executive Board. It functions primarily as a technical committee. Functions of the metropolitan area transportation planning process of particular interest to the TPC are: • identifying and analyzing transportation problems • developing and recommending solutions • fostering the development of projects, monitoring progress • allocating available federal funds • selecting and prioritizing projects of regional significance • coordination of activities and projects among local units of government within northwest Indiana with adjacent areas and with state and Federal agencies. 1 However, the Commission may, under Indiana law, act on any matter brought before it for consideration. • conducting an open, public participatory planning process; • keep transportation planning certified through a comprehensive, cooperative and continuous process MPO-Selected Projects. The TIP development process for MPO-selected projects is largely carried out by groups of stakeholder committees. Stakeholder committees are maintained for each funding program: Highways, Transit, Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Transportation Enhancement, and Highway Safety. Membership is open to the public. Meeting notices are posted on the NIRPC Website and mailed to transportation stakeholders. Each stakeholder committee reviews and reaches consensus upon the project selection criteria and relevant selection policies to be used in the selection process. Staff conducts the solicitation(s) and convenes the stakeholder committee(s) to review results of the project application process and recommend lists of projects to be selected for funding. Funding recommendations reported to the Transportation Policy Committee by way of being included in a draft version of the new TIP being developed. The NIRPC Commission or Executive Board is informed in the same manner. INDOT-Selected Projects. INDOT conducts its own project selection processes and informs NIRPC of the results. FHWA-Selected Federal lands Projects. The FHWA Eastern Federal lands Office (EFlO) maintains its own TIP process and document for transportation projects within or affecting the Indiana Dunes National lakeshore. NIRPC staff downloads the list of projects from EFlO and places them in our TIP. MPO Planning Area. The MPO planning area covers the entirety of lake, Porter, and laPorte Counties. This means that any surface transportation construction project funded through the u.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) must be listed in our TIP as well as the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Urbanized Areas and Federal Funds. The Chicago Urbanized Area (Urbanized Area) extends into Lake and Porter Counties. In Lake County, most of the land area to the north of Lowell and in Porter County, most of the land area north of Valparaiso is part of the Chicago Urbanized Area. Most of northwest LaPorte County (and a small portion of extreme northeast Porter County) lie within the Michigan City/LaPorte Urbanized Area. Congress appropriates several types of Federal funds from the u.s. Department of Transportation annually to Urbanized Areas and charges the MPO's with the responsibility of allocating these funds to specific transportation projects. NIRPC oversees a number of locally adopted project selection processes that involve stakeholder participation in the development of the selection system and in the selection of projects recommended for inclusion in the TIP. These federal funds come from two operating administrations of the u.s. DOT: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). FHWA funds are allocated to the state and suballocated to NIRPC. FTA funds are usually allocated to urbanized areas. This TIP also includes projects from a third: Federal Rail Administration (FRA). The specific federal funding programs from FHWA and FTA are as follows: Surface Transportation Program (STP). Each year the Indiana Department of Transportation (lNDOT) makes apportionments of FHWA Surface Transportation Program (STP) contract authority to each Urbanized Area for highway improvement projects. The area within the Chicago Urbanized Area is apportioned STP Group I (large Urbanized Area) funds; the area within the Michigan City/LaPorte Urbanized Area is apportioned STP Group II (small Urbanized Area) funds. ' FTA Section 5307. Each year the FTA apportions Urban Area Formula Grant (Section 5307) funds to each Urbanized Area for public transit projects. These funds are used for public transit operating and capital projects involving both bus and commuter rail transit services. Separate apportionments of Section 5307 funds are received by each of the two Urbanized Areas. Section S307 funds apportioned to the Chicago Urbanized Area are for the entire Urbanized Area, including both Illinois and Indiana portions. NIRPC maintains a Letter of Understanding with the Northeastern Illinois Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) that specifies how these funds are to be split. Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ). The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) apportions FHWA CMAQ funds to each county in an air quality non-attainment (or maintenance, if attainment has been achieved). Funds are received on the basis of population and the severity of the air quality problem. CMAQ projects are transportation projects which, if implemented, will result in lower emissions from internal combustion engines. Separate allocations are made to the combined Lake/Porter County area and to LaPorte County. FTA Sections 5316 (Job Access/Reverse Commute, or JARC) and 5317 (New Freedom). JARC-funded projects involve improving access to employment for lower income persons. New Freedom funds are for enhanced access to transit for persons with disabilities. Like the Section 5307 funds, these funds are funds are apportioned to the Chicago Urbanized Area are for the entire urbanized area, including both Illinois and Indiana portions. NIRPC maintains a Letter of Understanding with the Northeastern Illinois Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) that specifies how these funds are to be split. FTA Section 5309 Rail Modernization. These are FTA formula funds that are used by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) for improvements to the commuter rail facilities all along NICTD's rail corridor. Chicago Urbanized Area Rail Modernization funds are divided between Illinois and Indiana under an agreement with the RTA. NIRPC's TIP also includes Rail Modernization funds allocated to the South Bend Urbanized Area. Listed Rail Modernization projects may be undertaken in any of five counties, including Lake, Porter, LaPorte, and St Joseph Counties, Indiana, and Cook County, Illinois. Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP). These funds must address critical safety needs on local roadways which have a history of crashes. Separate allocations are made to each Urbanized Area but funds may be used for projects in any county served by the MPO. High Priority or Demonstration Project Funds. The TIP also includes other transportation projects which are selected by Congress (i.e., Demonstration or "High Priority" Projects). The TIP also includes Regionally Significant transportation projects that involve no federal funds, and INDOT-selected local projects that are usually located outside of the urbanized area but within the three-county area. These projects are not selected by NIRPC. INDOT System Improvements. The TIP also includes projects that are undertaken by the state of Indiana. The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) selects projects that will occur on state-owned roadways, which include Interstates and US-marked and State routes. INDOT also assists other state agencies such as the Indiana State Prison, Westville Correctional Center, Indiana Dunes State Park, Ports of Indiana at Burns Harbor, Purdue and Indiana Universities, and other state agencies by listing road and parking lot construction projects projects in the TIP and bidding them out through INDOT's letting system. Road Improvements on Federal Lands. The TIP also includes projects that are undertaken by FHWA on federal lands within the region-which are managed by the National Park Service at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. There are federal lands in each of the region's three counties. The Eastern Federal Lands Office (EFLO) of FHWA oversees these funds. There are two EFLO-funded projects listed in the TIP. Major Projects Implemented from the Prior TIP. Borman Expressway Interchange at 1-65 (final segment under construction). Economic Stimulus Projects funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: $61.4 million/149 projects. Commuter Rail Train Control/Signal System (underway). New Commuter Bus Service from Valparaiso for Chicago Loop area. Three-County Air Quality Public Education Program 1-65 New Interchange at 109th Ave (now open to traffic) Kennedy Avenue Reconstruction (Highland) 1-80/94 to Ridge Rd Cline Ave Improvement (Highland) Ridge Rd to 45th Ave 1-80/94 Drainage Correction near Kennedy Ave IIIiana Expressway NEPA Study (started) US 30 Access Control Project in Merrillville: Project Started Improvement of Boston/Larson/Bach Streets and SR 2 (LaPorte) Coolspring Ave Reconstruction (Ohio to Roeske Ave) Michigan City 165th St Reconstruction (Hammond) Indianapolis Blvd to Calumet Ave Purchase of 203 Alternative-Fueled Vehicles under the CMAQ Program TIP Development Process Introduction. In early 2010, NIRPC set out to develop a new TIP for the period FFY 2011 through 2015. In late 2009 INDOT developed a new Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) with new projects that were not included in our then-current TIP document. Accordingly, stakeholder meetings were convened in early 2010 with the intent of developing a new TIP for adoption in June 2010. In May 2010, following discussions with INDOT, FHWA, and FTA, a decision was made to delay production of the new TIP until after the Comprehensive Regional Plan (CRP) adoption (then expected in late 2010 or early 2011). TIP development ceased for all funding programs except public transit. Following consultation with transit operators, FTA, and the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC), NIRPC proceeded with an update of the transit projects in the TIP. 2010 Transit Project Solicitation. The rationale for proceeding with a tranSit-only solicitation was primarily due to financial matters-related. primarily to the national economic recession. The Cities of Hammond and East Chicago advised that they were experiencing severe financial conditions and provided notice that they were considering the discontinuation of services. In 2009 the Gary Public Transportation Corporation (GPTC) was experiencing significant shortfall in property tax revenue due to economic conditions and the state's new limits on property tax levies. Projects were selected in 2010 under Sections 5307 (both urbanized areas), Section 5309 Rail Modernization, Section 5316 Job Access/Reverse Commute, and Section 5317 New Freedom. The list of projects selected was incorporated into our current TIP via amendment. The public transit projects proposed for inclusion in the new 2012-2015 TIP are, with minor exceptions, those that were selected in 2010. FFY 2012-2015 TIP Update. A schedule for undertaking the new 2012-2015 TIP was developed and distributed to the Transportation Policy Committee at its December 2010 meeting. It was announced that the solicitation would be limited to STP-funded projects in both urbanized areas. This limited solicitation was due to the 2010 situation involving transit funding described earlier, plus our receipt of requests for supplemental funding from three of the six intersection improvement projects selected during the 2008 solicitation led us to believe that all new Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds would be allocated to these older projects (we were correct). CMAQ projects have never been solicited during a regular TIP update process-that solicitation schedule is aligned with the CMAQ eligibility determination process cycle. Project selection process information for the 2010 public transit project solicitation (including Sections 5307, 5309, 5316, and 5317), as well as the 2008 HSIP and CMAQ solicitations, are found in Appendix E. Summary: 2011 Project Solicitation Process for STP Projects. A series of stakeholder meetings was conducted in January and February 2011. There were at total of seven highway stakeholder meetings held. A lengthy agenda was developed that began with a recitation of current planning and programming issues: • What we learned from ARRA: Drainage/Flood Control Needs, PM, Sidewalks. • FHWA Planning Emphasis Areas: Project Tracking & ADA Transition Plans. • CRP Goals & Objectives: Shift to Growth Center Oriented Development. . • NIRPC Complete Streets Policy: Incorporation of non-motorized needs in highway design. • Congestion Management System: Pre-Identification of Capacity-Increasing Projects. • Regional Significance Guidance: Reclassification of some Aux Lane projects. • FHWA/MUTCD Sign & Pavement Replacement. • SAFETEA-LU Re-authorization & the mood of Congress. The group made recommendations for basic requirements for the development of new TIP's and general TIP procedures. Some of these recommendations are being embedded in the transportation plan. Others are reflected in a modification to the (then) draft Quarterly Project Tracking System. These include the frequency of new TIP documents, contents of the published list of projects, use of "funding targets" in each pool of federal funds controlled by the MPO, cross-cutting project solicitation standards for all solicitations, TIP amendment and administrative modification procedures, and the quarterly project tracking system, among others. The stakeholders concluded that the existing STP project selection system was obsolete and needed to be replaced. A new system was created that brought new elements, such as Complete Streets compliance, the use of data from NIRPC's new Congestion Management System (CMS), reclassification of some types of projects consistent with our Regional Significance policy, and reconsideration of the eligibility of right of way expenses for federal reimbursement. Most significantly, however, was the incorporation of priorities expressed in the new Comprehensive Regional Plan that was under development simultaneously with the new TIP. A new selection system was developed by stakeholders that resulted in the following funding categories for Group I-funded projects: Funding Target Percent Roadway Preservation Capacity Expansion Intersection Improvements Bridges Signalization On-System Drainage Other 40% of Programmable Funds 30% of Programmable Funds 8% of Programmable Funds 7% of Programmable Funds 3% of Programmable Funds 8% of Programmable Funds 4% of Programmable Funds A 100 point scoring system was devised for each funding target that allocated (up to) 60 points based on purpose and need and (up to) 40 points based upon the project's relative impact according to priorities expressed in the new Comprehensive Regional Plan's goals and objectives. The project selection process for local capacity-increasing projects was rewritten to specifically require prior clearance and approval through our Congestion Management Process (eMP) and plan inclusion as threshold requirements to being considered for funding in the TIP. Additionally, the relative ranking of the project in the CMP was also used in selecting capacity increasing projects submitted for funding consideration. The solicitation was released on February 24, 2011. Responses (applications for new projects or requests for supplemental funds for existing projects) were due on March 16, 2011. This date was later extended to March 31, 2011 to accommodate completion of the CMS process. The Group I (LakePorter) stakeholder meeting was held on April 19, 2011. [The Group II (Michigan City/LaPorte area) meeting was scheduled for April 20, 2011 but cancelled due to scheduling conflicts with two key stakeholders. Consequently, there were no new STP Group II projects selected. The STP Group II projects listed in the FFY 2012-2015 TIP are all carryover projects from the prior TIP.] Results of the STP Group I Stakeholder Meeting. Given the uncertainties regarding future federal funding, stakeholders accepted the staff recommendation to program only to FFY 2010 levels of funding for years 2012 through 2015. Funding was flat-lined at $13,686,912 per year. Staff calculated carryover funds on a cash basis. The most recent fund obligation data from INDOT (March 2011) was used. We projected a total programming limit of about $66.5 million for the four year period covered by the new TIP. Requests for supplemental funds for existing projects amounted to $30.2 million. When added to the total cash needs of pre-existing projects ($32.1 million), a total of $62.4 million was needed to provide funding for existing projects. This left about $4.1 million available for the programming of new projects. Staff reported that of the 39 construction projects being carried over into the new TIP, eight (8) had already been let, and at least 12 (but likely no more than 16) would be let prior to July 2012. This would leave between 15 and 19 projects buildable during 2013-2015. Because several of these 15 to 19 projects have been carri.ed over from multiple TIPs, the committee discussed options. Because there is a two to three year lead (minimum) to bring a project to letting, the committee was faced with two choices: 1) Reject all of the applications for new Group I projects (and re-solicit in 2013) or 2) use the remaining $4.1 million to provide initial funding to projects so that sponsors could begin development of these projects. The consensus of the group was to choose the latter-provide partial funding to projects in a manner consistent with the agreed upon project selection system. The $4.1 million was divided into the six funding targets and the highest scoring projects were selected in each (except Roadway Preservation and Intersection Improvements, where the selection system required that two projects be chosen in these categories). The committee was provided with an estimate of the unfunded federal portion of these projects (approximately $22.8 million). A total of eight projects were selected and those are listed in this TIP. The 2011 STP Group I and" solicitation materials used for this process are displayed on the following pages. Additional materials, including scoring sheets, are displayed in Appendix E. NORTHWESTERN INDIANA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ~:I;~g:s~ges .1~1~U~~:~g~g Together We Make The Difference ...--............. ..,.,.....,-..,.,.-..,....,......,..,.,...,.,....,. ..... ---...........,.,.-.., Onthelntemet WWW.nirpc.org6100 Southport Road Portage, Indiana 46368 E-mail Messages nirpc@nirpc.org Northwest Indiana Federal Fiscal Year 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program February 2011 Solicitation for Projects The Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission is now soliciting Highway projects under the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Surface Transportation Program (STP) Group I (Lake/Porter Counties) and Group" (LaPorte County). Ai?pli"ations·aretitlellt·NIRPCon·orprioftoWetlllestlay;.l\Ilarch-j.~,:2011. NIRPC will construct a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that will list FHWA-assisted projects anel funds from Federal Fiscal Years 2012 through201~. We willa/so solicit for projects to be funded with FFY 2016 funds. In total, we will maRe available, for new and.existing projects, approximately $40.1 million in federal funds in Lake/Porter Counties and $$.1 million in laPorte County. New Capacity Increasing Projects, Any capacity increasing project proposed must.have been submitted forinclusion in the Transportation component ofth.e Northwest Indiana 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan (CRP)and have been cleared for inclusion in the Plan. Because as of this date the final list ofsuch projects has not yet been established, LPNs should make sure that their project was, in fact, submitted. Projects which are submitted for inclusion in the TIP but which are not included in the Plan will not be permitted to proceed. Examples of these types of projects include regionally-significant new road segments, added travel lanes on existing road segments, and auxiliary lane projects of more than one mile in length. The NIRPC Regional Significance Guidance (http://www.nirpc.org/home/ProjectSelection/ProjectSelection.html) will apply to these projects. NIRpC staff will consult with the Federal and State transportation and air quality agencies to determine the regional significance of projects that are near the thresholds of regional significance. Federal funds can only be used on expansion projects where no alternatives exist to mitigate traffic congestion. NIRPC'S Congestion Management Process will determine whether or not other strategies are available. Other New Highway Projects. All projects involving roadway improvement projects must be on the local federal-aid highway system. Maps may be obtained from the INDOT website at this address: http://www.in.gov/indotL3.D26.htm. For lake/Porter Counties. An application form should be completed for each proposed project, along with the appropriate self-scoring form. Attachments specified by the scoring system should be provided in order to receive the indicated points. For laPorte County. An application Form should be completed with only the CRP Elements scoring attached. Attachments should be provided if the lPA desires to demonstrate compliance with the CRP. Complete Streets. lPA's are hereby notified that all new STP-funded projects involving road reconstruction (of any nature) will need to demonstrate compliance with NIRPC's Complete Streets policy. lPA's may also append Complete Streets elements onto existing projects. The stakeholder committees are charged with determining the compliance of individual projects with the policy. Because there are many low-cost measures that can be incorporated into projects, lPA's with questions should contact Mitch Barloga (mbarloga@niroc.org) to learn more about Complete Streets and of its many benefits to residents. Requests for Supplemental Funds (Existing Projects).lPA's must request supplemental funds fortheir project (in writing). Such requests should be made on letterhead and submitted by either the Employee in Responsible Charge (ERe) or Chief Elected Official (CEO). The letter should identify current and proposed (requested) funding for the total project,federal share, and local share. The letter must also indteate why the additional funds are needed and be submitted by the deadline forthe solicitation shown earlier . . Supplemental requestsmayalso besubmittedbysponsors 0/existing Highw(JY Sa/etyfmProvement Program (HSJPjprojects in Lake/Porter Counties (Cities o/Valpara;so and Portage, Towns a/Griffith, Merrillville,and ScherervilleJand LaPorte Caunty (City a/Michigan City). Electronic Applications. Electronicsubmissionof applications is preferred and encouraged (PDF format is preferred). lPA's may, however, submithard (paper) copies of applications if they so choose. Only one application document (per project) should be submitted. However, farHA's submitting multiple prOjects, it is not necessary to make multiple copies of the same documentation required to qualify for theCRP-related points (one will do). The person submitting the application must be either the ERC or the CEO. NIRPC Contact Person. Please submit your project applications to Gary Evers or Mary Thorne. If responding by email.sendtheprojectapplicationstogevers@nirpc.org.lfrespondingbyU.S.Mail. please forward them to Mary Thorne. If you have any questions, please contact Mary or Gary by telephone at (219) 763-6060 or Gary by email at gevers@nirpc.org. Stakeholder meetings will be held as follows: lake/Porter Counties (at NIRPC): 1:00pm on Wednesday, March 30 AND (if needed) 1:00pm on Thursday, March 31 laPorte County (at laPorte County Complex): 1:00 pm on Tuesday, March 29 NW Indiana 2012-2015 TIP: FHWA STP I & II Project Funding Request local Public Agency (lPA) Name: Employee in Responsible Charge (ERe): " E-mail Address ERe Contact Information: Telephone #1 Telephone #2 Project Name: Project Location: INOOT Work Type: INOOT Work Category: Group I Funding Target: Functional Classification: Number of Travel Lanes: Project length: Dates: From To At longitude Longitude Longitude Engage Design Firm Design Complete ROW Clear Request for Contracting letting Construction Complete Open to Traffic Funding: Total Cost Information Identify primary source of non-federal funds (if multiple sources are used, explain on page 3: Does project involve other US DOT federal funds? Does project involve other (non-US DOT) federal funds? Work Types & Scopes: Identify All Known (Construction) Work Types or Scopes Associated with the Project (check all that apply) Was the project submitted for inclusion in the Plan? Will the project add a new continuous travel lane (any length)? Is the proiect an extension of a previously constructed segment? What is the length ofthe previously constructed segment? When was this segment constructed? Complete Streets Identify All Planned Complete Streets Components Included in the Project (check all that apply) Components: 21 Complete Streets PreAll reconstruction projects, including intersection improvements and bridges, will be reviewed during the Construction Design design phase to confirm that the Complete Streets and other design features promised have, in fact, been Review Notice: included in the final project design. Calculation of Incremental Costs Associated with Complete Streets Compliance: LPA's may seek an exemption from the Complete Streets Policy because the cost of compliance exceeds 10% of the cost of construction without the added features. This exemption will be permitted only at the time of project selection and not afterward. Also, the incremental costs may not include the cost of basic street lighting, sidewalks (on one side ofthe roadway), sign age, and/or signal interconnection/preemption devices where these devices already exist. Notice Regarding Maintenance of Traffic Plans developed for all reconstruction projects, including intersection Maintenance of Traffic improvements and bridges, will consider all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and Plans: delivery vehicles. Notice Regarding Transition Plans Developed in Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Project Impact on Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Transit Users Local Public Agencies with 50 or more employees are required to develop, maintain, and implement an ADA Transition Plan. We recommend that LPNs with 49 or fewer employees also prepare a Transition Plan. The purpose of these plans is to establish a timetable for retrofitting all pre-ADA sidewalks with compliant curb cuts and repairing existing sidewalks to permit the safe use of these facilities by all pedestrians, including people with mobility impairments. Please indicate your current status below: Briefly explain how pedestrians, bicyclists, and trans'lt users are currently accommodated in the project right of way and how they will be accommodated following project completion. Project Funding (Supplemental Full list of non-federal funds involved in project. Information) Source Amount Purpose and Need Describe the purpose of your project and the need that it will address. Provide this description in the space below or Statement prepare separately and attach to your application. Marked up aerial photo (8.5" x 11" from Google Earth or other source) with project Attachments location. Photographs required to substantiate pavement condition, where required. List of roadways receiving preventive maintenance in 2010, including roadway name, length of treated segment, and preventive maintenance method employed. Evidence of Bridge Posting. For Drainage projects, evidence of each closure due to inundation, copy of a Drainage Plan, and PE/lS certification. Worksheets showing cost/benefit calculations (use INDOT's HAT program). Attachments as required to substantiate points claimed under "Transportation Plan-Related Scoring" By submission of this funding request, the local Public Agency hereby assures that it possesses, or will possess prior to Local Share Assurance construction, the local (non-federal) funding needed to pay project related expenses. STP Funding Target: Roadway Preservation (Reconstruction): 40% STP funds may be utilized for Roadway Preservation projects including rehabilitation or reconstruction of roadways without increased capacity (i.e. added travel lanes). Rehabilitation includes joint repair and/or base failure repair along with milling and resurface, curb, street lighting, sidewalk, driveway and drainage. As a rule of thumb, when repairs to the road base and/or pavement replacement due to storm sewer placement exceed SO% of the pavement surface, the entire pavement should be reconstructed. Rehabilitation is not intended to be a simple resurface or mill and resurface project. The intent is to perform a major rehabilitation, which will be sufficient to obtain another 15 years of pavement life. Roadways improved with these funds will not be eligible for additional funds from this category for 15 years following completion. At the time that projects are selected, no one project or phase of a project can exceed 50% of the STP obligation authority projected to be available in this funding category. STP Group I funds may not be used to reconstruct pavement on INDOTowned routes. Street lighting and traffic signal equipment replacement may be included if this equipment is 10 years or older-if not, then the existing equipment is to remain in use. Ma)(imum Criterion Factor Instructions Details Self-Score 1 Pavement Condition 2 Traffic Volume 3 Functional Classification LTAP Paser Manual Score (Reverse Order) Attach list of trreated Prior Year Preventive Local Public Agency treated 10% or more of Its Federal Aid Select if 4 roadways, s Maintenance level of Effort roadways during the prior calendar year. applicable. miles, & PM method. Prior eN must S Improved Connectivity through Corridor Completion Project represents additional phases of a project constructed not more than 10 years prior. Select if applicable. have been on the same 4 roadway, Subtotal: 60 1--.......1----1 Subtotal (Plan-Related): 40 1---1----1 Grand Total: 100 '---'--_..... Transportation Plan-Related Scoring to an area with existing or planned Iwncent","m,;of disabled, elderly, young or low income Improve Accessibility for Disabled, e . Elderly, Young, and low-Income il with existing or Populations I pl;mned ,eonce"tea'-,ons of disabled, elderly, young or low b Improve Internal Connectivity of the Transportation Network IP'oje," adds o,enllan,eesmad connection between two or existing roadways functionally classified as Major Select if 1 IColiecto,o, higher OR Project adds or enhances connections applicable two or more priority trail corridors. Improve Network Wayfinding includes improved wayfinding signage. d Improve Efficiency and Attractiveness of Public Transit project increases fixed route bus transit service efficiency and attractiveness through design or ITS technology. Project provides new or improved linkages to adjacent existing or planned public transit stations/stops. Select one or both, if applicable Identify affected bus service, design features, and/or ITS components. 1 Identify bus service and specific station or stop. 1 Promote Safe and Accessible e Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project includes bike safety improvements. Project includes pedestrian safety improvements. Select one or both, if applicable Identify the safety improvements 1 Identify the safety improvements 1 I _ Reduce Congestion on Freight Routes will reduce congestion on roadways with more-than trucks per day. Select if applicable a Encourage Development Around Existing Infrastructure (CAPACITY EXPANSION PROJECTS ONLY) only 1 b c Prioritize Transportation Investments that Support land Use and Econ. Dev. Goals Service to TOO, TND, and Conservation Design project is identified in an adopted Land Use or Economic Development Plan (submit plan excerpts). Project serves an area that is targeted in a land Use or Economic Development Plan (submit plan excerpts). Project serves an area that is identified in an existing or planned transit oriented design, traditional neighborhood design or environmental conservation design district in an adopted plan (submit plan excerpts). Select one or both, if applicable Select if applicable Submit plan excerpts Submit plan excerpts Submit plan excerpts 1 1 1 d Support Mixed-Use Downtowns Project serves an existing or planned mixed use downtown. 8 Highway Safety Maximum Points for this Subsection: a Reduce Number and Severity of Collisions Project is projected to reduce the number of colns·lons. Project addresses a safety problem as identified in the HSIP, Select one or both, if applicable Submit HAT or similar analysis Submit report 5% Report, or having a high crash rate. excerpts 3 1 1 25 b Use Intelligent Transportation Systems to Improve Safety Project includes ITS elements that will reduce crashes. Select if applicable Identify specific ITS components 1 Environmental Maximum Points for this Subsection: a Preservation of Floodplains and Wetlands project is not located in a floodplain and/or existing wetland. Project will result in the loss of existing wetlands (any may require off-site mitigation) Project is located in a floodplain and/or existing wetland. b Promote Stormwater BMPs Project invloves use of stormwater best management practices Select if applicable Identify best management practices 1 Project conforms to one or more EPA Green Infrastructure Develop Green Infrastructure standards. d Reduce Impervious Surfaces Project reduces impervious surface area or reduces stormwater runoff discharge rate and volume. Select if applicable Identify design features. 1 Proted and Enhance e Environmental Assets Project is projected to increase or improve regional high priority environmental assets. Select if applicable Identify affected assets from list. 1 Redevelop Brownfields and Grayfields Submit floodplain map. Identify mitigation measures. Select qnly one 9 2 1 o . Project serves (is adjacent to) existing brownfield or grayfield redevelopment sites. . Select one Of Supply map. 1 Project serves an adopted plan as part of a brownfield/grayfield redevelopment strategy. applicable both, jf Submit plan excerpts. 1 g Reduce Negative Impacts of Pollution caused by Transportation project includes mitigation efforts to reduce negative impacts caused by transportation. (Identify specific mitigation measures included in project) Select if applicable Identify two or more efforts. 1 10 Quality of Life Maximum Points for this Subsection: 13 a Coordinate Projects Across Multiple Agencies Project will benefit multiple (more than one) local public agencies and is endorsed in writing by each. Project is endorsed by multiple non-governmental organizations as a project of regional significance. Select one or both, if applicable Attach correspondenc e. Attach correspondenc efrom two or 1 1 more NGO's. b Develop and Preserve Greenways and Blueways Project is adjacent to AND incorporates enhanced public Select if Submit plan access to trails or blueways as identified in the Blueways and 1 applicable excerpts. Greenways Plan. c Improve Access to Regional Parks, Open Lands and Open Space Identify the Project improves the public's direct access to identjfied county or regional parks, open lands and/or open space. Select if applicable park, open land, and/or 1 open space. Project will improve direct public access (via one or more Expand Access to Lake Michigan modes) to Lake Michigan. Project will serve an existing or planned area identified as a e Improve Access to Jobs major employment center. Preserve Historical and Cultural Resources Project itself involves preservation of a Historical or Cultural resource as defined by state, local, or federal inventories. Select if applicable Attach list. 1 Project will not of agricultural land in Preserve Prime Agricultural land h Provide Safe and Reliable Access to Education Project includes design elements to improve safety and/or access (regardless of mode) to an existing or planned educational facility (sidewalks, traffic calming measures, crosswalk signals). Select if applicable Identify the educational facility and the design elements. 1 Project is projected to decrease overall emissions of PM 2.5 and ozone precursors (VOC's, NoX, CO). Select one or Attach emissions analysis. 1 Projects includes specific air pollution mitigation activities. applicable both, if Identify the qualaifYing 1 activities. Reduce Air pollution Reduce and Limit Disproportionate Environmental Impacts on EJ Communities Project is located within one or more identified Environmental Justice (EJ) Areas, has no adverse impacts projected, and will reduce travel time to work. Select if applicable NIRPCto supply EJ map. 1 k Reduce Emergency Response Times Project is identified as an existing or planned priority emergency response route by one or more local Public Agencies and is projected to decrease response tImes for EMS, fire, and police agencies. Select if applicable Attach EMS plan excerpts or other documents. 1 STP Group I Funding Target: Highway Capacity Expansion: 30% Highway Capacity Expansion projects are those which involve construction of a roadway that presently does not exist, the addition of travel lanes to an existing Federal Aid (On-System) roadway, or the addition of continuous center turn lane to an existing roadway where either the new segment is one mile in length (or longer) or the construction activity extends an existing continuous left turn to a total length of more than one mile. All projects selected for funding in this category must have been previously included (or approved for inclusion) in the 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan (CRP). The project must also be listed in the Plan in the Congestion Management System's "BUILD" List. 4. 4b Criterion 1 Congestion Relief Benefit 1 projected MDT Benefit/Cost Ratio level of Service Change (Existing Roadways only) Regional Significance (New Roadways only) Improved Connectivity through Corridor Completion Other Financial Resources Committed to the Project eMS Ranking of competing projects Benefit/Cost ratio is 0.75 or greater. Benefit/Cost ratio is between 0.51 and 0.75. or more grade change N1RPCwili assign pOints Identify prior phase(s) 10 10 5 5 5 Factor project represents addiflonal phases of a project constructed not more than 10 years prior. Group I funds represent 80% of the total projected construction cost (including CN, CE, and M&I). Group I funds represent 60% or less of the total projected construction cost. Group I funds represent 50% or less of the total projected construction cost. Instructions Select if applicable. Select only one Maximum Details Self-Score Score LPA's will be 5 bound to this percentage 10 spl"lit for the duration of the project. 15 Subtotal (from above), 60 Subtotal Plan-Related, 40 Grand Total , 100 Transportation Plan-Related Scoring an area with existing or planned Icon",n"·.tions of disabled, elderly, young or low income Improve Accessibility for Disabled, e Elderly, Young, and Low-Income WIThin 0.25 miles of an area with existing or populations concentrations of disabled, elderly, young or [ow I STP Funding Target: Intersection Improvements: 8% Intersection Improvement projects (including intersection improvements at isolated or multiple intersections, intersection channelization, signalization, and/or roundabouts) should be undertaken at locations that are not inconsistent with the Congestion Management system. No one project or phase of a project can exceed 50% of the available amount in this category. Street lighting and traffic signal equipment replacement may be included if this equipment is 10 years or older-if not, then the existing equipment is to remain in use. Maximum Criterion Factor Instructions Details Self-Score Score 1 Level of Service Change Identify One or more grade change . Enter score. current & post construction 10 lOS. 1 Point per 1,000 MDT Enter score. Score is based on the higher traffic volume of the intersecting streets. 32 Traffic Volume Principal Arterials Minor Arterials Major Collectors 3 2 1 Score based on the highest classification Functional Classification Select only one of the intersecting streets. Cost Effectiveness Transportation Plan-Related Scoring Improve Accessibility for Disabled, e Elderly, Young, and low-Income Populations Benefit/Cost ratio is 0.75 or greater. Benefit/Cost ratio is between 0.51 and 0.75. Select only one' Submit analysis 15 10 Subtotal: Subtotal (Plan·Related): Grand Total: 60 40 100 Project is adjacent to an area i existing or planned concentrations of disabled, elderly, young or low income ~~~~f;h;;;;;Ts-;;;;;;'-~;';-~;;;;;U;-;,;",";;g.;---1selecton'y fproject is i I an area with planned concentrations of disa~led, elderly, young or low adds or enhances road connection between two or existing roadways functionally classified as Major Select if 1 icallec"a, or higher OR Project adds or enhances connections applicable Ibe,tw,ee" t.,aor more priority trail corridors. b Improve Internal Connectivity of the Transportation Network Improve Network Wayfinding includes improved wayfinding signage. STP Funding Target: Bridge Preservation: 7% STP funds may be used for bridge preservation (reconstruction, rehabilitation or deck replacement) throughout the planning area. Because INDOT does not permit its own Bridge Funds to be used within urbanized areas, we have prioritized the preservation of structures within the urbanized area. Criterion Factor Maximum 1 Traffic Volume Rating 00 thru 09 Rating 10 thru 29 Rating 30 thru 49 I 3 IS,lely La,d ","0' 4 location Bridge located in urbanized area 601--1----1 401--1----1 100....._...&.._-... z Sufficiency Rating Transportation Plan-Related Scoring Subtotal: Subtotal (Plan~Related): Grand Total: Improve Accessibility for Disabled, e Elderly, Young, and low-Income Populations 0.25 miles of an area with existing or concentrations of disabled, elderly, young or low I adds or enhances road connection between two or b Improve Internal Connectivity of existing roadways functionally classified as Major Select if 1 the Transportation Network or higher OR Project adds or enhances connections applicable two or more priority trail corridors. c Improve Network Wayfinding includes improved wayfinding sign age. Select if applicable 1 Identify affected bus Project increases fixed route bus transit service efficiency and service, design 1 attractiveness through design or ITS technology. features, d e Improve Efficiency and Attractiveness of Public Transit Promote Safe and Accessible Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project provides new or improved linkages to adjacent existing or planned public transit stations/stops. Project includes bike safety improvements. Project includes pedestrian safety improvements. Select one or both, if applicable Select one or both, if applicable and/or ITS components. Identify bus service and 1 specific station or stop. Identify the safety 1 im rovemen Identify the safety 1 im rovem n s STP Funding Target: On-System Drainage Projects: 8% Drainage projects will be permitted to the extent that they are eligible for STP assistance under Title 23 USc. Projects must alleviate roadway closures on federal aid highways within the urbanized area. Maximum Criterion Factor Instructions Details SeH-Score 1 Traffic Volume 2 Functional Classification Minor Arterial Submit Roadway closed five (5) or more days per year 15 3 Inundation Frequency 1----------------------jSelectonly one documentatio 1----,------1 Roadway dosed fewer than five (5) days per year o 10 Submit study Study confirms need for the project and the proposed design 10 Drainage Study Results Enter score. solution. PE or land Surveyor certification required. & certification Subtotal: 60 ......--+---1 Subtotal (Plan-Related): 40 ......--+---1 Grand Total: 100 L..-_L..-_..I Transportation Plan-Related Scoring of disabled, elderly, young or low income Improve Accessibility for Disabled, e Elderly, Young, and low-Income i i Populations i area concentrations of disabled, elderly, young or low I b Improve Internal Connectlvlty of the Transportation Network adds or enhances road connection between two or Imo", e,';st'" roadways functionally classified as Major ICcllle'cteJr or higher OR Project adds or enhances connections Ib"t.'eeo two or more priority trail corridors. Select if applicable 1 Improve Network Wayfinding improved wayfinding signage. d Improve Efficiency and Attractiveness of Public Transit Project increases fixed route bus transit service efficiency and attractiveness through design or ITS technology. Project provides new or improved linkages to adjacent existing or planned public transit stations/stops. Select one or both, if applicable Identify affected bus service, design features, and/or ITS components. 1 Identify bus service and specific station or stop. 1 Identify the safety improvements STP Funding Target: Traffic Signals & Signal Interconnect Systems: 3% Eligible projects here include new signal system installation at one or more locations, modernization of existing systems (greater than 15 years in age) and/or signal system interconnection. Existing signal interconnection systems may be replaced here if they are more than 15 years old. Stand-alone signal interconnection projects may be funded here if three or more (consecutive) signal locations are involved. Projects may include the cost of purchasing and installing related computer hardware and software and telecommunications devices for wireless systems. Existing traffic signal equipment may only be replaced if the equipment is 10 years or older-if not, then the existing equipment is to remain in use or modernized. Miscellaneous work involving sidewalk pavement, curb, etc. is limited to no more than25 percent of the project construction cost. Maximum Criterion Factor Instructions Details Self-Score 1 Traffic Volume Z Cross Street Traffic Volume Identify current & post One or more grade change Enter score. 3 Predicted LOS Change construction LOS. 10 Subtotal, 60 Subtotal (Plan-Related), 40 Grand Total , 100 Transportation Plan-Related Scoring Improve Accessibility for Disabled, e Elderly, Young, and. low-Income Populations Improve Network Wayfil)ding an area with existing or I Iccie'" .,jd,or enhances road connection between two or existing roadways functionally classified as Major 1:')~lect~c ~c higher OR Project adds or enhances connections two or more priority trail corridors. includes improved wayflnding signage. Select if applicable 2 1 b Improve Internal Connectivity of the Transportation Network 1 d r mprove Efficiency and Attractiveness of Public Transit Project increases fixed route bus transit service efficiency and attractiveness through design or ITS technology. Select one or both, if applicable Identify affected bus service, design features, and/orlTS components. 1 Project provides new or improved linkages to adjacent existing or planned public transit stations/stops. Identify bus service and specific station or stop. 1 STP Funding Target: Other: 4% This funding category was established for the purposes of funding miscellaneous types of projects, including signage/road striping, sidewalk retrofit, bicycle/pedestrian projects, project specific planning, or other contingency/discretionary purposes. No unified criteria exist for this category since various project types are eligible to apply and there is no consistent way to compare these types of projects. After it has made funding recommendations for 011 other funding categories, and ifthere are unallocated funds remaining, these unallocated funds may be combined with the amount reserved for this category (4%) in order to make more funds available for these types of projects. The Stakeholder Committee may recommend funding for as many projects as it sees fit. It may also elect to not program the funds and use the balance as a program reserve. The Committee reserves the right to not recommend the allocation of funds which exceed the amount targeted (Le., 4% of the available STP obligation authority during the programming period). New requests for funding for "Other" Projects must be submitted in accordance with the rules and by the deadline established for submission of projects noted here or elsewhere in the solicitation package. To ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Regional Plan, all projects submitted under this funding category must complete and submit a completed CRP Impact Sheet. For Signage & Sign Replacement Projects Criteria Factor Instructions Data Project Mifes (On-system only) Enter length. 1 length of Project LPA's Total On-System Mileage Enter length. Percent covered by project Percent 2 I Traffic Volume Total (cumulative) MDT of Project i , 3 Functional Classification Off-Street Bicycle/Pedestrian and On-Street Sidewalk Projects The Ped Pedal & Paddle Committee will solicit for, review, and prioritize these types of applications. Group I funds may not be used for PE or RW services costs on these projects. Planning Projects Requests for STP funds for planning purposes should be limited to those related to NEPA studies of Regionally Significant roadway facilities or other eligible projects that do not lead directly to construction, including those listed in ntles 23 and 49 of the US Code. . Maximum CRP Impact Sheet: Mandatory Transportation Plan-Related Scoring Self-Score Score Improve Accessibility for Disabled, e Elderly, Young, and low-Income . Populations an area existing or planned icmlCe,,,,,tlm>s of disabled, elderly, young or low income an area i Gary Evers From: Gary Evers Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 4:07 PM To: Sandra Bucklew (sbucklew@cbbel-in.com); Aravind Muzumdar; Bob Volkmann; Bruce Spires (B9968@hotmail.com); Campbell, Glen; Chris A Meyers; Craig Hendrix, PE; Craig Phillips; Dale Clingerman (Home) (E-mail);DaveShafer;DenarieKane(hobdev@crown.net); Denny Cobb; Duane Alverson; Eric Kurtz; Geof Benson; George Van Til; Ian Nicolini (ian.nicolini@cedarlakein.org); Jake Dammarell; Wright, Jeff; Jezreel Rodriguez Urodriguez@eastchicago.com); Jim Harmening; Jim Mandon; John Bach; John Pugh; jneeb@townofdyer.com; Joseph Stahura; Kamyar Fattahi; Kerry Keith; (modell@chestertonin.org); Mary Jane Thomas; Matt Keiser; 'Mayor Brian Snedecor'; Mayor Chuck Oberlie (mayorchucko@emichigancity.com); Mayor David D F Uran (mayor@crownpointin.gov); Mayor Jon Costas (mayorcostas@valpo.us); Mayor Kathy Chroback; Mayor Keith Soderquist; Mayor Olga Velazquez; Mike Jabo; Peggy Sierz-Petosky; . Pete Faberbock; Pete Kohut; Ray Riddell; Rebecca Williams (rlwilliams13@frontier.com); Rick Anderson (andersonr@winfieldgov.com); Rick Konopasek (Rick.Konopasek@griffith.in.gov); Rick Ryfa (rick.ryfa@griffith.in.gov); Robert Rybicki (BRybicki@townofdyer.com); Ron Lombard (trailcreek@sbcglobal.net); Shawn Pettit; Stan Dostatni; Stanley Dobosz (Stanley.Dobosz@griffith.in.gov); Tim Burkman; milesdvg@sbcglobal.net; milesdvg@sbcglobal.net; Wing Lau; Jeff Huet; 'klayton@laportecounty.org'; Mmason@msconsultants.com; Tom Wiseman Cc: Gary Evers; Janet Cypra; John Swanson; Kathy Dubie; Kathy Luther; Laura Gropp; Blansett, Marcia; Mary Thorne; Mitch Barloga; Patrick Wooden; Peggy Sierz-Petosky; Ryan Hicks; Steve Strains; Stu Summers Subject: RE: 2011 STP Solicitation Information Application Deadline Extension. The application submission deadline for STP Group I and II projects, and requests for supplemental funds for STP and HSIP projects was extended to Thursday, March 31, 2011. Any LPA that is unable to meet this deadline should inform us, via e-mail. If you need to extend through the weekend (or later), we ask that you advise us by Friday afternoon~ via email, of what's coming, when we can expect it to arrive, along with the project name and funding category. How to Submit. Please e-mail a pdf of your Excel spreadsheet (including the fill-in form, scoring sheet, and Purpose/Need Statement) to us by the due date. You may mail the full application (including attachments), hand deliver it, pdf it all and transmit via e-mail. Regionally Significant Capacity Expansion Projects. When we announced the application submission deadline, we did so because of our delay in finalizing the list of qualifying Regionally Significant, Capacity Expansion projects being developed by the Congestion Management Process. The draft list of CMP-cleared expansion projects is set to be released at the CMS committee meeting here on Thursday, March 31 (9:00am). This list will represent the universe of expansion projects that will be published in the Transportation component of the Comprehensive Regional Plan (CRP). You may view our Regional Significance Guidance/Policy at http://www.nirpc.org/home/ProjectSelection/RegionaISignificanceGuidance.pdf. Schedule of Stakeholder Meetings. The extension of the submission deadline, of course, necessitated the rescheduling of the stakeholder project review meetings. These meetings will be held as follows: HSIP (lake-Porter): 1:00 pm on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 (at NIRPC) (Griffith, Merrillville, Portage, Schererville, Valparaiso only) STP Group I: 1:00pm on Thursday, April 21, 2011 (at NIRPC) STP Group" & LaPorte County HSIP: 1:30 pm on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at laPorte City Parks Dept Building on Pine lake Ave Application & Scoring Issues. 1 34 1. Drop-Down lists: The application form was created in Excel 2010. This version of Excel, we have found, is not 100% backward compatible with previous versions. Following is the data that is embedded in these drop-down tables: 2. Translation of PASER Manual Score: To translate the PASER score into our scoring system, double the value of the actual score and subtract the result from 20. For example, if the score is 3 (Poor), multiplythis score by two-which results in 6. Subtract 6 from 20 to arrive at a score of 14. 3. RW Federal Share for U&D: The formula for cell G41 (Total STP Federal Funds Requested) does not include cell G35 (RW U&D). Please edit the formula to ensure that the total in cell G41 includes these costs. 4. Map of Environmental Justice Areas: http://www.nirpc.org!home!ProjectSelection!EJRace.pdf). 5. Map of existing or planned area identified as a major employment center(s): You may self-identify these areas using your existing local plans. Attach documentation. Requests for Supplemental Funds (for Existing Group lor" Projects). These requests should be submitted by LPNs that expect their projects to be let within the next 2.25 years (prior to July 2013). If your projected letting date is in August 2013 or later, please defer your request until the 2013 solicitation. HSIP Supplemental Fund Requests: lake-Porter Counties. The solicitation notice indicated that requests for supplemental HSIP funding could be submitted by the Griffith, Merrillville, Michigan City, Portage, Schererville, and Valparaiso for their previously funded HSIP projects. The amount of new funding available prior to mid-2013 is $2,742,361 federal. Consensus needs to be reached on the allocation of these funds to the five active HSIP intersection projects. As stated above for Group I and II projects, LPNs which have lettings scheduled within the next 2.25 years (August 2013 or earlier) will be prioritized above others. Because, unlike the STP Group I program, there is no guarantee that all projects will be fully funded at the maximum federal share (90%). LPNs that are unable to accumulate the full amount of federal funds needed during this cycle may delay their letting until the next (2014-2018) TIP in late 2013, they may proceed with a letting with whatever amount of federal funds they have accumulated at the time of letting, or they may seek (in this solicitation) an allocation of STP Group I funds tomake up the difference. HSIP Supplemental Fund Requests: laPorte County. The topic of HSIP funds was not discussed at the stakeholder meeting earlier this year. The maximum amount available to the Michigan City (Woodland Ave) project or new HSIP projects in LaPorte CountY is $326,274 federal. Michigan City should advise us of its need for supplemental funds for this project (via e-mail). Funds in excess of this amount will be reserved for a general solicitation for projects to be held later on in 2011. The NIRPC staff person that will guide you through this process is Stephen (Steve) Sostaric. This funding is available for projects throughout LaPorte County. STP Group" Projects: Applicants may use either the pre-existing (2006) application form or the 2011 (Fill-In) form. DROP-DOWN TABLE DATA for the Fill-In Form INDOT Work Type local Bridge Project (Replacement or Rehabilitation) local Road Project (Reconstruction) local Road Project (Added Travel lanes) local Transportation Enhancement Project (TE) local Transportation Enhancement Project (STP or CMAQ) local Safety Project local Other Type Project (Intersection Improvements) local Other Type Project (Signals--New!Modernized) local Other Type Project (Environmental Mitigation) local Other Type Project (Drainage Correction) local Other Type Project (lighting) 2 Local Other Type Project (Landscaping) Local Other Type Project (Railroad Crossing) Local Other Type Project (Signing) Local NEPA Study Local Other Type Project (Other) Group I Funding Target Choices Capacity Expansion Roadway Preservation Intersection Improvement Signals Bridge Drainage Other Functional Classification Choices Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector None of the Above Not Applicable Good Luck!! Gary A. Evers Transportation Projects Manager Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission 6100 Southport Road, Portage, IN 46368-6409 219.763.6060 www.nirpc.org gevers@nirpc.org 3 36 NIRPC 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program Results of 2011 Project Solicitation STP Group I Requests for Supplemental Funds TOTAL REQUESTS: $ 31,672,189 Other Requests Received Gary Ridge Rd Reconstruction #1 (Broadway to Connecticut) 0600750 Ves $ 2,208,000 letting on 04/14/2011 lake County 45th Ave Reconstruction III (Colfax to Whitcomb) 9980080 Ves 6,400,000 Letting in late 2013 or later East Chicago Railroad Ave Reconstruction (151st St to Chicago Ave) 0710382 Ves 2,640,000 letting in late 2013 or later Merrillville Mississippi St Reconstruction #2 (93rd Ave to 101st Ave) eN 1006787 Ves 4,040,000 Letting in late 2013 or later -.J STP Group I New Project Funding Requests (Selected projects shown in Bold font on a shaded background) Chesterton Calumet Rd Reconstruction (Pope·O'Connor Ditch to Porter Ave) Roadway Pres Yes 2,514,152 Dl2 49 Lake Station Liverpool Rd Reconstruction (Ridge Rd to Deep River) Roadway Pres Yes 3,450,000 Structure point 60 Valparaiso Morgan Blvd Reconstruction (Union St to Calumet Ave) Roadway Pres Yes 712,800 60.5 Porter County Meridian Rd Reconstruction (eR 600N to 700N) Roadway Pres Yes 460,000 45 Porter County Meridian Rd Reconstruction (eR 700N to US 6) Roadway Pres Yes 689,600 45 Gary 35th Ave Reconstruction (Broadway to Grant 5t) Roadway Pres Yes 1,403,685 56 Gary Burr St Reconstruction (25th Ave to 15th Ave) Roadway Pres Yes 1,368,615 46 Lake St Reconstruct"lon (7th Ave to Hemlock 5t) Roadway Pres Yes 1,064,808 56 $ 68,970,472 w Summary of STP Group I Project Selection Process 1. Establish Programming Limit $ 66,496,001 LESS: Previously Selected & Funded: 30,735,301 46% Balance For New Projects or Supplemental Funding (Existing Projects) $ 35,760,700 54% 2. Supplemental Funding Requests Recommended for Approval: $ 31,672,189 48% Balance Available for New Projects $ 4,088,511 6% 3. Selection of the following projects for STP funding per stakeholder committee recommendation: a b c d e f g h j Allocation by Original UnfundedSTP I Funding Target Available Funding Allocation by Project Sponsor Project Name Funding Liability" Percent Target Funds Project Request UnfundedTarget IFederal1 (Federal) Capacity l30% $ 4,088,511 $ 1,226,553 $ 1,226,553 Gary Lakefront Marina Access Rd, Phase IIA, $ 8,989,600 $ 7,763,047 86% Expansion_ Segment III Kennedy Ave Reconstruction (174th Ave to ~ $ 817,702 Hammond $ 3,220,000 $ 2,402,298 75% Roadway 40% $ 4,088,511 $ 1,635,404 169th Ave) -Preservation* $ 817,702 Portage Central Ave Reconstruction (County Line $ 8,378,800 $ 7,561,098 90% Rd to Willowcreek) Intersection $ $ $ 163,541 Lake Station Roundabout: Central Ave @ Fairview $ 1,856,000 $ 1,692,459 91% I8% 4,088,511 327,082Improvements* $ 163,541 Crown Point 93rd Ave Intersection Imp at Chase St $ 736,000 $ 572,459 78% -Drainage 8% $ 4,088,511 $ 327,081 $ 327,081 Crown Point SR 53 at 101st Ave $ 1,423,680 $ 1,096,599 77% 1 Bridge 7% $ 4,088,511 $ 286,196 $ 286,196 Porter County Bridge 156 (Porter Ave over Coffee Creek) $ 1,336,000 $ 1,049,804 79% I . Signals 3% $ 4,088,511 $ 122,655 $ 122,655 Chesterton Calumet at Indian Boundary Rd $ 173,160 $ 50,505 29% I $ $ $ 113,540 Hobart Downtown Streetscape $ 680,000 $ 566,460 83% I Other 4% 4,088,511 163,540 $ 50,000 NIRPC Historic Preservation Inventory $ 50,000 $ 50,000 100% -' 100% 1$ 4,088,511 [$"4,088,5111--------------.-------I$26,843,240 [T22,804,729J-85~ * The project selection system requires that at feast two projects be selected in these categories. ** Original Funding Request (Column h) less New T/~ Aflocation by Project (Column e). w '"