Appendix E: Prior Project Selection Processes.



image image

Applications Due to N RPC

May 16, 2014

By 4:00 pm


image


image

Transportation Alternatives

Program


Northwestern Indiana Regional Pla nning Commission


FY 1 4-20 APPLICATION SCHEDULE

March 27 Ped, Pedal & Paddle Meeting - TAP WORKSHOP

Goals:

1) Set new funding targets

2) Revise application (if necessary)

3) Revise eligibility & local match (if necessary)


April 4 TAP Application Ready Online


May 16 TAP Applications due to NIRPC by 4:00 p.m. and screened

by NIRPC Staff. NO EXCEPTIONS!

1Electronic Copy (not to exceed SMB in size} 1Paper Copy


May 20

TAP Application Subcommittee.will meet to review and rank applications (9:30 am). Anyone interested can participate.


May 21 TAP Environmental Subcommittee will meet to review and rank environmentally-based projects ONLY (9:30 am).


May 22


Presentation & Recommendations of application submission at the Ped & Pedal Committee meeting held at 1 : 30 p .m . The Committee will finalize and make recommendations for review by

INDOT LaPorte District for eligibility.


June 5 NIRPC's Environmental Management Policy Committee (EMPC) will meet to finalize environmentally-based TAP applications ONLY.


June 10


July/August 2013


Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) Action to amend TIP with new TE projects as deemed eligible byINDOT.


NIRPC Commission Meeting. NIRPC acts on applications aer TPC recommendation & 30-day comment period. Projects amended into TransportationImprovement Program (TIP).

Tro.,.porta\lon Altern•tlllt.J

image

l'llort.hwte.m ln.dl1n.a Aif1llOrt1J Pf 1n1'ln9 Camm. t n


NorthwesternI ndiana Regional Plannlng Commission

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)

Solicitation for Projects Apri l -May 2014


PLEASE REA D CAREFUL L Y BEFORE FILLING OU TAPPL/ CATION(S)!

NIRPC is undertaking a multi-year solicitation for new projects under the TAP federal funding for 2014. In 2012 President Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) law which significantly changed the former Transportation Enhancement (TE) funding program. Most notably is the elimination of the stand-alone Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program, which has now been combined with former TE-eligible projects into the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). NIRPC's Ped, Pedal and Paddle Committee (3PC) will review and rank projects related to bicycle and pedestrian transportation and SRTS.


Under TAP, NIRPC's Environmental Management Policy Committee (EMPC) wlll directly review and rank eligible water management and wildlife safety and habitat projects.


In addition, NIRPC's Surface Transportation Program Subcommittee allocated $800,000 for the next two fiscal years for bicycle and pedestrian projects only.


All units of government in Lake, Porter and LaPorte Counties are eligible for TAP funding,


Applications TAP are due to NIRPC on or prior to Friday, May 16, 2014.

Late app/icatfons w!ll be discarded and not considered for funding,


Total TAP funding available for this application cycle is $6,867,707 based on a seven-year planning program. ALL project phases are eligible. The target breakdown per funding category is as follows:


  1. Bicycle & Pedestrian: $5,494,166 (80% of total). MAX request: $2 million


  2. Environment & Historic: $686,771 (10% of total). MAX request: $228,923 (1/3)


  3. Safe Routes to School: $686,771 (10% of total)

    1. MAX request nfrastructure Projects (90% of total): $309,000 (50%)

  1. MAX request Non-Infrastructure Projects (10% of total): $34,000 (50%)

    Tran<portotlon Alhlrnatlve<

image


Application Prep Tips:


  1. There are two types of GENERAL application forms to fill out:

    1. TAP: Bicycle & Pedestrian, Environmental & Historic Projects

    2. Safe Routes to School:Infrastructure & Non-Infrastructure (different forms)


  2. In addition to the application form, you will need to fill out a SCORING SHEET for the Bicycle & Pedestrian, Environmental and Historic project requests.


  3. Safe Routes to School has two applications forms for either infrastructure or non­ infrastructure-based projects. Provided with the applications is detailed information on correctly filling out either application.


  4. There is one main application form (Excel file) that is required for ALL applications. However, if you submit a Non-Infrastructure SRTS project, you will need to fill out a separate budget apart from the Excel file form. Please refer to this application for the necessary cost breakdowns.


  5. INDOT provides an excellent Safe Routes to School information clearinghouse page which can be accessed here: htt p://www.i n .gov/!nd ot/2355.htm


6) NIRPC requires ONE hard copy and ONE electronic copy of each application.

PDF format is preferred.


  1. The person submitting the application MUST be either the LPA's Employee in Responsible Charge (ERC) or the Chief Elected Officer (CEO). A transmittal letter should be prepared - it may be transmitted with the application(s) (as part of a PDF file) or submitted separately. We do not need the original letter.


  2. Please forward applications to Mitch Barloga at mbarloga@nlrpc .org. Same if responding by US Mail. If you have any questions, please contact Mitch at (219) 763- 6060 or mbarloga@niroc .org.


  3. Please refer to the schedule within for important dates of review and approval meetings.


    image

    INFORMATIO N FOR

    TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM

    PROJ ECT APPLICATIONS


    1. TYPES OF PROJ ECTS ELIGIBLE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ALTER NATIVES PROGRAM (TAP) WITHIN THE NIRPC JURISDICTION

      Pedestrian &. Bicycle Projects

      • Provisions of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles (e.g.. construction, amenities, facilities).

      • Preservation of abandoned railway corridors, including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails (i.e., land acauisition, rights-of-wa).

        Environment & Historic Projects

      • Vegetative management practices In transportation right-of-ways to improve roadway safety, prevent against invasive species and provide erosion control.

      • Address stormwater management, control and water pollution prevention or abatement relat­ ed to highway construction or due to highway runoff.

        Reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among ter­ restrial or aquatic habitats.

      • Historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities.

        Safe Routes to School

        Infrastructure-related projects including planning, design and construction to improve the abllily of students to walk or bicycle to school within two-miles of facility.

      • Nonlnfrastn.Jcture·related activities to encourage walking and biking to school induding public awareness campaigns, education and traffic enforcement.


    2. PROJECT SCORING

      In order to assure that projects approved by NIRPC are consistent with the region's priorities, sc::ore sheets have been prepared for each of the three major categories. ALL projects are to be self scored by the sponsoring agency. NIRPC's Ped, Pedal & Paddle Committee (3PC) will finalize the rankings on Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects and Safe Routes to School Projects. NlRPC's Envi­ ronmental Management & Policy Committee (EMPC) wlll finalize rankings for the Environment & Historic Projects category.

      *ALL Projects must score a minimum of 50 points to be considered for further consideration*


    3. ELIGIBL-= PROJECT SPONSORS

      The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) oversees TAPP which awards up to 80% of the total cost to a project. TAP funds may be awarded only to project sponsors that are legally designated

      recipients of federal money - Lake. Porter and LaPorte Counties, all cities and towns in those

      ,the Northern lrid lada eommuter T ranspofuitian DJstrlct (Soutt\ Shore Railroa'dJ, the Gatv Pubilc Transoortatlon Corporation and . All other potential project sponsors must obtain a cooperatlv reement with one of those agencies - It must agree to be lead sponsor .


    4. NIRPC TE-FUND LIMITATIONS

      NIRPC will fund TAPapplications according to following targets:

      1. Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects - 80% of total TAP funding/Max request: $2 million FED

      2. Environment & Historic Projects - 10% of total TAP funding/Max request: 1/3 of 10%

        funds

      3. Safe Routes to School - 10% of total TAP funding

      Max requests: 90%Infrastructure & 10% Non-Infrastructure projects


    5. DETAILED MAINTENANCE PLAN

ALL sponsors MUST include a detailed maintenance plan for their projects, or they will not be accepted. This applies ONLY to off-road trail projects. An example of such a plan follows on the next page. Please use this as a guide for your submission.


image


DETAILED MAINTENANCE PLAN EXAMPLE;


SC ·1 11·:H E ln' I Li .E l':\ Hl\S 1\ Nll tn:nu·:ATION TIU II. 1\1,.\ JN n:NANCE l'l.AN PENNS\' < ;JHV \\',\ \' THAU .


lv1t\ IN'J EN1\NCF

.wl'.l'l•ly

M u w ing

\Vccd whi p :11rn111d sie11.1.c

Bl11 w i 1ff :iny t r;11l 1kb1i h npt · lrash t<.·npl:1cks l'ii.:k .up 1110.,c 11ash

llm1l i11 nl 1 c·1110•/c• •1t hc.:1 1kb1is C'lil:ck fiµiJ1111)! 111 llu ,1: L·1d vcrl Cll\.Th di lri k ing f11ur11 <1i 11

Gra rri1 i l'l'!lllW :1I

\Y.al c·1 j'llllll'.: J.]l 1w1..·1.-.;

l'nl n• l t r;iil

DEPT /0'11 IER


l';irk

l'ark I'a rk I'ark

I'.:irk/communil.Y snviL'l' 1'11rk/c11nununi1y s.:rvic · I'a rk

Park

P:irl:/conmmnily iwrvit:c

Oanlcn Cluh!J>urk l1olict•


M_ont hl y

lnspcl'I & l'riu w l'r1·1..., ;111d Shn1hs

ln:1pi:l'I aml JlHlllll ili ll ...1g11<1 gL' lnpcct a nd 1..-pair l'nl·i11g l11spcc1 othl'!' eq ui p11w111


Pnrlc/G1>rdt.'ll (·111h

rurk/llliarrn Citizens for l'i:nnsy P:irl<IPcnce conlr:iclor

I'ark


1\ n111w.l l y

A pp.I)! fc11ili:.-tr mid wn cl t1111 n•l

Fxolic \'l.1L'lalton ( '11n1 r11J Ti im uml Rc1110Vl' li r m.lt Mu h-h

Och1 i s ,v. ( ' ka n ll p

Prtiu t c:nsswal ks

lnspn:I wllllillt•n ul LI! 1;1..:111g Mai111 u i11 1111d 1 <:p11i1 ;;mLici11g lh:11l;h:L'. km:i.rw. I r lllTd1.•il Hcpl:i tc igua);!c.:. iI 11c.:..:d1:d Clc:in L•lll pl:111H·r


l'ark

J>nrk/lC.r.lci\i·ic grnlrps Park/l.C.l'.ICivic grnu1> 1";1rkll.C-11 .ICi vie: groups Purk/l .C.l'.JC.:i\1i<: gi o111> r uhlic Wllrks

rnrk/l.C.1' . f'ublic Wurk11 P11rk

J'mk

Gnr<li..•11 C'\un


F)ili111;ilc 1\n,n.1;.tl.

I anlls:rping & /'vi111

HL·pou r

l'lnnfillt'

l\fr,\' Suppl11·,

'IIff Al C. '< )S I'

. ._C .'ill!,I

'1.xrn1

!, 1.:,00

\ 500

\ '°l()tl 7. t ()()

_ ---·-- ..- ..,___.,_F1111diug_ r111rcc

l'cnnsy Trail No11-R1;w11 in11 F111HI l'c1111sy T111il No11-R i:vL·rt i11 g 1'111111 llonat11111s!Pt nnsy Tr ail N;:111·R t'v F1111il l'i..'llllS)' Twil Noli - R evcr1i 11µ Funcl


F. ATIEN DAN CE BONUS

Bonus points will be awarded to sponsors who attended monthly 3PC meetings. Each meeting will count for a half point, with a maximum of five points possible to be applied to sponsor's TAP application.


image


TRANSPORTATI ON ALTERNATI VES PROGRAM SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROJECT APPLICATIONS


2014SRTS GUIDE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND NON-INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATIONS


ELIGIBLE PROJECTS


Introduction:


I n 2006 the India na Department of Tra nsportation ( I NDOT) la u nched the Saf e Routes to School (SRTS)

Progra m to make bicycli ng and wa l king to school safer a nd more routine. Federal f u nds a re ma de

ava i la ble to hel p create an environment where school child ren i n grades K th rough 8 can get to school the way their gra nd pa rents did, by walki ng or bicycli ng. America ns increasi ngly realize that traffic congestion, fuel consum ption and air pollution nea r our schools, cou pled wit h growing health and obesity concerns, make wal ki ng and bicycling to school a low-cost, attractive option.


Pu blic a n d private school officials, parents, local transportation officials, health care, law enforcement and advocate orga nizations are encou raged to work together u nder t he SRTS progra m. Funds a re availa ble for i nfrastructu re projects that im prove the "built environment", a nd for non-i nfrastructu re

activities that ed ucate child ren, school officia ls a nd pa rents, encou rage a nd pla n for bicycli ng or walki ng to school, or enforce motor vehicle safety to protect child ren in their travel to and from school.


Fu nds are only available on a reim bu rsement basis for approved projects or activities. All applica tions received by NI R PC a re reviewed and eva luated by the Ped, Pedal a n d Pa ddle Com m ittee (3PC).


To find out more a bout the Nation a l Safe Routes to School Progra m go to: htt p://safety.f hwa.dot.gov/saferoutes and http://www.saferoutesi nfo.org


A. El igi bl e P r o jects: I nfrast ructu re


Sidewalk Im provements

This category includ es new sidewalks, widened sidewalks, sidewalk gap closures, significa nt sidewalk re pa i rs, cu rb ra mps, and curb and gutter if directly associated with sidewalk im provements serving

elementa ry or midd le schools. Sid ewa l ks m ust be S feet wi de or m ore a nd a re NOT suita ble as bicycl i ng facilities.


Pedestria n/Bicycle Crossing I mprovements

This work category i ncl udes new or u pgra ded traffic devices for bicyclists or pedest ri a ns, crosswa l ks serving sidewa l ks or shared use paths, media n ref uges, pavement ma rki ngs, t raffic signs, ped estri an and/or bicycle overpasses or u nderpasses, flashing crossing beacons, traffic signal modifications t hat favor safe pedestria n or bicyclist crossing movements, bicycle-sensitive signal a ctua tion devices,

pedestria n activated signa l u pgrades, and sight dista nce im provements at crossi ngs t hat enha nce the safety of chi ldren biki ng or wa l king to school.


On-Street Bicycle Facilities

Th is category is for new or u pgra ded bike lanes or sha red lanes that benefit bicyclists traveli ng to an d from school. Rel ated geometric im provements, tu rni ng la nes, traffic isla nds, roadway rea lign ment, traffic signs a nd pavement ma rkings would also be eligible if cl early i ntended to im prove bi ke travel to and from schools serving K-8th grades.


Traffic Diversion I m provements

Th is category is i ntended to im prove the safety of ped estria ns a nd bicycles by rem oving or red u ci ng motor vehicle traffic nea r school facilities, in school zones or a long designated routes to school.


Off-Street Bicycle/Ped estria n Facilities

This work category is prima rily for sha red-use paths or trails that serve both bicycl ists a nd ped estria ns traveling to a nd from schools. Paths or trails m ust have a n effective width of 10 feet or m ore.


Traffic Calming Measures

Th is category featu res measu res that clea rly benefit wa l king a nd bicycling to schools, such as cu rb extensions to red uce curb-to-cu rb crossing dista nces, roadway media n pedest ri a n ref uges, f u ll a nd ha lf­ street closu res, speed h u m ps and speed ta bles, a nd other tech niq ues to slow, red uce or d iscou rage motor veh i cle traffic.


Bicycle Pa r ki ng Facilities

This category refers to bicycle racks, bi cycle lockers, bicycle pa rki ng shelters an d a ny other eq uipment designed to encou rage biki ng to school a nd provide safe secure bicycle pa rki ng for stud ents to use while atten ding school. Concrete pa ds to secu re bike racks, bike l ockers or bi ke shelters a re eligi ble u nd er t his category. Bicycle pa rki ng fa cil ities need to be l ocated on school property i n a prom i nent, convenient, high-visi bility loca tion.


  1. Eligible Projects: Non-Infrastructure


    Comprehensive SRTS Pla n Development and School Travel Plans

    Th is category is highly i ncl usive a nd is mea nt to cover a ll pla n ning activities associ ated with creating a n SRTS program. Com prehensive pla ns include the school-specific travel pla n, but also recommend suitable non-construction activities for each school to hel p increase wal king a nd biki ng. Consul ta nt costs are com mon and the work typically i ncl u des promotiona l, education & trai ning, encou ragement a nd enforcement a ctions.


    School travel pla ns are the core of a com prehensive saf e routes pla n, but can stand alone. Travel pla ns identify the specific routes best suited for pedestria n and bicycle travel to each school, along with specific improvements needed for those routes. Professional eva luation a nd a phasing of im provements are ty pically pa rt of a school travel pla n .


    Encou ragement Activities

    This category i ncl ud es a va ri ety of ways for schools, towns, pa rents and teachers to increase active participation in wal king and/or bicycli ng as preferred modes for school travel. Com petitions among

    gra d es and schools, sched uled days for wal ki ng or bi ki ng to school, mileage cl u bs, wa l ki ng school buses

    a n d bike trai ns, a n d ea rl ier d ismissal ti mes for wa l kers and bikers are typica l encou ragement actions. For students traveli ng more tha n 2 m iles by car or bus, com m u nities can esta blish remote d rop-off locations for ch il dren to pa rtici pate i n wal ki ng events.


    Minor incentives that serve as rewards for pa rticipation are a lso com mon ways to encou rage biking and wa l ki ng. It is recommended that incentives be used as rewa rds for pa rtici pati ng after, rather tha n before, the pla nned activiti es.


    Outreach a nd Prom otion Activities

    Actions meant to pu blicize a nd com m u n icate the health, safety, economic and environmenta l benefits off ered by wa l ki ng a nd bicycli ng to school a re considered outrea ch or promotion activities. Among the audiences for t hese activities a re pa rents, city a nd town officia ls, developers, school boa rds a nd the media. Printed materia ls, such as safe route ma ps and safe biki ng or wal king ti ps, and pu blic service

    a n nou ncements a re exa m ples of eligi ble outrea ch an d promotion activities.


    Ed ucation Materials

    Safe wa lking a nd bicycling pa m phlets, video m ateria ls, training ma nua ls, instructional coloring books, etc. for students, crossi ng gua rds a nd teachers a re a few of the items ty pica lly considered u nder

    ed ucation materia ls. The pu rpose of these materials is to convey safe walki ng a nd bicycli ng techniq ues

    a nd skills to chil dren an d those in cha rge of tea ching or monitori ng the ch ild ren's saf ety d u ri ng travel to an d from school.


    Pa rent and Teacher Training

    These expenses often accom pa ny the ed ucation items mentioned above. Train ing sessions for parents, teachers and school crossi ng gua rds are the most common a ctivities. Sometimes experts i n the field are brought in to provide t h is instruction a nd associated expenses would be eligible costs under this category.


    Student Training in Safe Wal king and Safe Bicycling

    This category i ncl ud es instruction of students i n va rious pedestria n and bicycling skills that enable

    chi ld ren to wa l k or bike safely and confidently to school. You nger chil d ren, typically K through 3rd grade, are usually ca ndidates for pedestria n safety train ing, whi le 4th through 8th grade child ren are generally old enough for lea rni ng safe biki ng techniq ues at a bike rodeo or other traini ng format. Law

    enforcement agencies, physical education teachers and l ocal bicycle cl u b mem bers might provide these kin ds of trai ning.


    Traffic Enforcement Activities

    Most of the a ctions i n this category are directed towa rd motorists who drive nea r ta rget schools. Speed ing and unsafe ma neuvers that enda nger child ren are the pri ncipa l behaviors that enforcement measu res a re mea nt to identify and elim inate. Stepped-u p speed enforcement ca m pa igns, setting u p speed trailers a nd monitori ng of school zones and traffic calming i nstallations nea r schools woul d fall u nder this category.


    Eq uipment Purchases

    Certai n ki nds of eq uipment pu rchases are considered eligible non-infrast ructu re activities. These i nclude clothi ng a nd equi pment for crossing gua rds, porta ble in-road signs for high lighting pedestria n crossings

    and some other eq uipment that enha n ce the safety of students bi ki ng or wa l ki ng to school. Eq ui pment m ust be used at t he intended school(s) and d uring arrival and dismissal times. Certain tem pora ry

    eq ui pment rentals may be Included if directly releva nt to wal ki ng or bi ki ng to school. Some equ ipment purchases, such as speed tra ilers, ca rry specific lim itations on deployment


    image


    INFORMATION FOR TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROG RAM

    PROJ ECT APPLICATIONS


    1. TYPES OF PROJ ECTS ELIGIBLE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM (TAP) WITHIN TH E NIRPC JURISDICTION

      Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects

      Provisions of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles (e.g., construction , amenities, facllltles) .

      • Preservation of abandoned railway corridors, including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails (i.e., land acgu!sltion,rights-of-way).

        Environment & Historic Projects

      • Vegetative management practices in transportation right-of-ways to improve roadway safety, prevent against invasive species and provide erosion control.

      • Address stom1water management, control and water pollution prevention or abatement relat­ ed to highway construction or due to highway runoff.

      • Reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among ter­ restrial or aquatic habitats.

        Historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities.

        Safe Routes to School

        Infrastructure-related projects including planning, design and construction to improve the ability of students to walk or bicycle to school within two-miles of faclllty.

        Noninfrastructure-related activities to encourage walking and biking to school including public awareness campaigns, education and traffic enforcement.


    2. PROJECT SCORING

      In order to assure that projects approved by NIRPC are consistent with the region's priorities, score sheets have been prepared for each of the tilree major categories. ALL projects are to be self scored by the sponsoring agency. NIRPC's Ped, Pedal & Paddle Committee (3PC) wlll finalize

      the rankings on Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects and Safe Routes to School Projects. NIRPC's Envi­ ronmental Management & Policy Committee (EMPC) will finalize rankings for the Environment &

      Historic Projects category.

      *ALL Projects must score a minimum of 50 points to be considered for further consideration*


    3. ELIGIBLE PROJECT SPONSORS

      The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) oversees tile Transportation Enhancement (TE) Pro­ gram which awards up to 80% of the total cost to a TAP project. TAP funds may be awarded only to project sponsors that are legally designated recipients of federal money - Lake. Parter and LaPorte Counties, all cities and towns I n tbose counties, tile No@er n ndiana Commuter

      I@!lSJ;!ortatlon District (South Shore Railroad), tile Garv Public Transportation Corporation and NlRPC. All other potential project sponsors must obtain a coooeratiye agreement with one of those agencies - I.e., itmust agree to be lead sprn .


    4. NIRPC TE-FU ND LIMITATIONS

      NIRPC will fund TAP applications according to following targets:

      1. Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects - 80% of total TAP funding/Max request: $2 million

      2. Environment & Historic Projects - 10% of total TAP funding/Max request: 1/3 of 10% funds

      3. Safe Routes to School - 10% of total TAP funding

      Max requests: 90% Infrastructure & 10% Non- nfrastructure projects


      image

      PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE PROJECTS

      SCORE SHEET INFORMATION AN D SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS


      The project score sheet will contain some elements which will be scored on the basis of the Indi­ vidual project being proposed while other elements will be based on the overall trail corridor which is defined between intersecting trail corridor points. The Regional Priority Trail Corri dors are shown on a map which has been attached to the BACK of this application.


      The following provides instructions, clarification and identification of documentation requirements for these projects:


      1. Enhances the Regional Trail Network

        This section Is to score the specific project being submitted for consideration for funding; Projects will be awarded points according to the conditions of linkage and priority of the overall trail corridor. Provide a map showing the limits and location of the proposed project.


      2. Enhances the Access of E J (Environmental Justice) Areas.

        Non-motorized alternatives to the automobile are especially important to residents in E J areas. These areas are designated in the attached map and are available on the NIRPC website (www.ni roc.om). Provide a copy of the E J map with the trail project and trail corridor clearly indicated. The points are awarded based on the percentage of the trail corridor within the E J area.


      3. MultiAgency Partnerships.

        1. list the cooperating agencies (public or private):

      image

      Cooperating Aqencv Contact Person Phone or e"mail


      image

      image

      1)

      image

      image

      2)

      image

      3) -

      4) _


      image


      Attach documentation illustrating the cooperative effort among these agencies in planning and/or implementation of the project. This category is based on the overall trail corridor.


      IV.- Intermodal Connection.

      Points will be awarded in this category for projects which have certain characteristics which will either encourage intermodal connections to the trail or provide tratl head parking. The points in this category are awarded based on the overall Regional Trail Corridor that the project is contained within or connects to.


      V, Project Readiness.

      Points are awarded In this category to projects which can be brought to construction quickly. Formal public hearings and significant land acquisition requirements add 12 to 36 months to a project's schedule.

      If the land on which the specific project is to be built is either presentlv owned by the project sponsor, 10 points will be awarded. Land which is owned by a Park Foundation will be considered owned by the project sponsor.


      VI. Potential Trail User Pool.

      Trails which have the higher number of potential users are considered more desirable for funding purposes. As a proxy for estimating the number of trail users, potential traffic


      image

      generators have been chosen. Points will be awarded for the generator based on their proximity to the trail, or project such as a bridge or underpass.


      1. Progressive Planning Bonus

        Any project sponsor may apply these points ONLY IF they have enacted, through legal ordinances, development standards that encourage the preservation of corHdors and/or the mandated construction of trails within new developments, weather they be residen­ tial or commercial. A another category on demonstration of a detailed maintenance plan has also been included. This later category Is only applicable to those plans that go ABOVE AND BEYOND minimum requirements as dictated In the INDOT TE Application.


      2. Overmatch Provision.

      Extra bonus points will be awarded for every percent over the mfnimum 20% local match. This maximum that can be attained Is 10 points, or 30% local match. This com­ mitment is to be fn the form of a letter from the executive officer from the agency.


      IX. Previously Awarded TAP/TE Bonus

      Five points will be awarded to any project that pr·eviously was awarded either Transpor­ tation Enhancement (TE) or TAP monies. The bonus only applies to a specific phase of the project, not a new phase of the same project.


      1. Point Deductions Recommended to Ped, Pedal & Paddle Committee

        This section Is ONLY TO BE F)UED OUT BY NIRPC STAFF. They Involve a deduction in point totals for the willful compromise of a Regional Priority Trail Corridor (RTC). Since the TE process Is very competitive, the PPC has enacted this deduction not only to speed up prior awarded projects, but to balance the funding towards newer projects in other areas of the region. The 3PC has also enacted a deduction to any project sponsor that has approved subdivisions, and/or other actions, that have led to the serious compro­ mise of the lineal integrity of a RTC These planned corridors represent the very back bone of the regional trail system's future expansion, and the PPC deems a sponsor's action to undermine their viability a serious, and highly avoidable offense. This deduc­ tion extends for a minimum ofT H RES...UNLE55 the sponsor is able ta rectify their error of judgment In a fashion deemed acceptable by the Ped, Pedal & Paddle Commit tee. This deduction will go into effect for all sponsor actions from February 2007 onwards.


        PLEASE NOTE! NIRPC staff WILL contact project sponsor PRIOR toany point deduc­ tion recommended to afford sponsor an opportunity to explain delays.


        ALSO...PLEASE READ FINAL PAGE OFSELECTION CRITERIA FOR APPLING WrrH EXISTING TE-FUNDED PROJECTS STILL OUTSTANDING!


        RIGHT-OF-WAY NOTICE:

        If a project Involves minor right-of-way taking both in area and number of parcels a for­ mal public hearing need not be held. An Informal public information meeting may be held If desired by the project sponsor, but this would be outside of theINDOT hearing requirements. To gairi these 5 points, the project sponsor must have checked with IN­ DOT to determine lf the intended landimage-acquisition for the specific project is minor enough to not require a pubic hearing and provide documentation as to this condition.

        lNDOT contact person Is Rickie Clark, Jr. Manager, TNDOT Hearings Section, 317-232-

        6601.


        The project sponsor is hereby warned not to attempt to acquire property and or commitments to purchase, lease, or donate property in order to satisfy this condition as that action may jeopardi ze the federal funding for construction.

        If the project sponsor has any questions on this point, please contact NDOT's Land Ac­ quisition Division before acting to obtain guidance . Theil' phone number Is 317-232- 5014.


        image

        PEDESTR AN & BICYCLE PROJECTS

        PROJ ECT SELECTION CRITERIA (100 Poi nts + Bonus)

        Eligible Project Categories

        • Provisions for pedestrians and bicycles (separated routes only).

        • Preservation of abandoned railway corridor (including the conversion and use thereof for pe­ destrian or bicycle trails) .


image

** Plan support **

In order for the project to be eligible for consideration, the project must be recommended in one or more of the following:


    1. Park$ nd Recreation Master Plan

    2. Comprehensive Land Us:Plan

      a

    3. Strategic Fiian

    4. It has been supported through vote by an appropriate taxing:authority at a

. I.. ' _;.;: j

:PUBIJ.IC MEETING where PUBLIC NPUT was recej\fed'an.d considered prior to

the vote of the proJeFt recommenation.


**PLEASE PROVIDE DOC,lf MENTATION'! * ..

"'·

I. Enhances the Regional Transportation Network (45 Points Maximum)

Note: A solid line below ( ) represents a funded/existing segment.

A dotted line below (• • • • ·• ) represents an unfunded or planned segment of the Regional Priority Corridor Map.


CHOSE ONLY ONE of the follow ing..

image

image

(choose FIVE Points for Bonus if applicable) Corridor Points


A. I l The project connects two exist


Lbw

Priority

.........,._P_ro_j_e_cJ....,._..

1111


B. I

ing/funded segments on a Re 30

glonal Trail Corridor and/or a corridor from outside the NIRPC region.

The project connects on one end to 25

Project j.•• .. an existing/funded segment on a

Regional Trail Corridor and/or a cor

ridor from outside the NIRPC region.


.c.. ..


Pr;oject


.....

The project constructs an isolated

segment on a Regional Trail Corridor 20

and/or a corridor from outside the

NIRPC region.

VISIONARY CORRIDOR BONUS:

The trail segment is proposed within the "Marq. Greenway" or "American Discovery Trail" Corridors - ADD 5 (FIVE) POINTS.

+s +5

31

. .


image

E.


image

image

Regional Trail


t:l

Q)

"e'

0.


Regional Trail

The project (trail or bike lane) di All

rectly connects to two existing and/ a..o.;.._m_id_io_r.;s;.....,,.-..,..-,----------­

or funded segments of two Regional Trail Corridors and/or a Regional

Trall Corridor and a corridor outside :.. •, the NIRPC Region


1. B9th Regional Trails are built or funded.


  1. One Regional Trail is built or funded, and the other Is planned.


  2. Both Regional Trails are ONLY planned.



Regional Trail


The project (trail or bike lane) di rectly connects to an existing or funded segment of a Regional Trail Corridor.


1. The Regional Trail is built or funded.


2. The Regional Trail is ONLY planned.



  1. Enhances the Access of Envf rQnmental Justice CEJ) Areas (1 0 Points Ma)(imum)

    Choose ONLY ONE of the following:

    1. 50% or more of the project is within an EJ area : (10 Points)


  1. The project touches an EJ area or up to 49% of the project is within an EJ area.

    (5 Points)


    **NOTE: Any EJ area which has been defined SOLELY upon the location of a prison, jail or juvenile detention area will NOT qualifi; for points.


    Ill. Multi-Agency Partnerships (5 Points Maximum)

    Choose ONE OR BOTH Statements:


    Two or more public/private agencies (NOT two or more within same municipality or governing body) are cooperating on the project in the following capacity:


    1. Implementation: Agencies directly contributing labor,

      in-kind, or cash to project (past or

      present contributions):


      (5 points)


    2. Planning: Agencies agreeing on support of

project through letters of agreement: (2 Points)



  1. Intermodal Connection (5 Points Maximum + Bonus)

    Choose ONLY ONE of the following statements:


    1. The community has an existing transit, FIXED ROUTE system AND the trail project is either within 1/2 mile of a bus/rail stop that has se cure bicycle storage facilities; OR it Is on a transit route served by passenger vehicles w/ bike storage and bike facilities. Attach docu­ mentation.


      (5 Points)


    2. The community doesn't have a transit system BUT the project creates trail head parking EXCLUSIVE for the trail (minimum 5 paved parking bays).


      (5 Points)


      BONUS: Every additional 5-car paved parking lot EXCLUSIVE for the trail - maximum two

      additional locations. Number of !ocatlons


      X 2 = (4 points max.)



  2. Project Readiness (10 Points Maximum)

    Choose ONLY ONE of the following statements:


    1. The project will be built solely on existing property owned by the project sponsor and/or on property owned by NIPSCO PRIOR to the time of application.

WARNING! - Do NOT attempt to obtain any property or commitments to donate/ purchase property just to satisfy this condition as that action may jeopardize your federal funding for construction purposes.


(10 Points)


B. The project will require minor amounts of right-of-way to be purchased AND the project activities will not include a formal public hear­ ing ( minor amount = acquiring LESS than a half-acre of property).


c. At least 75% of the project will be built on already owned property by the sponsor.


(5 Points)


(2 Points)


D. At least 50% of the project will be built on Already owned property by the sponsor.


(1 point)


VI Potential Tra il User Pool (25 Points Maximum)·SHOW ALL WORK VIA ATTACHMENT!

Part 1- Draw Map

On a map, create a band at either 1/2 mile on either side of the proposed segment of· trail corridor that the project is contained within or 1mile on either side of the trail corridor.If the 112 mile (each side) band is chosen, the generators are worth 1 point each.If the 1 mile (each side) ·band is chosen, the generators are worth 1/2 point each. The project sponsor should look at both conditions to determine which will provide the best score.

To create the band around the trail, start with the trail as the center and add a parallel line to each side of the trail and close the ends of the bands with two perpendicular lines. For a 112 mile condition the map would look as follows:

1<>r 1/2 mile

f r i1---------g--,..---------"';;!

image

1or 1/2 miie 1or.1/ 2 mile

-!----. --------.--. ··-". ..--

.". ·

---.

--. ---..---.

---.-. - . --.r

l or 1(2 mile


Part 2 - Count CORRIDOR SPECIFIC GENERATORS:

Withfn the boxed area that you have created, count all the following traffic generators that are WHOLLY or PARTIALLY contained within the box. List each traffic generator ONCE andIN ONLY ONE CATEGORY BELOW:


  1. Parks:


  2. Schools:


  3. Post Offices:


  4. Public Libraries:


  5. Other municipal buildings such as town/city hall and other buildings involved in public businesses:

  6. Existing or funded Regional Priority Trail Corridors: _


  7. Are there twenty or more retail business within the trall band? No = 0 I Yes = 1


    Part 3 - Count PROJECT SPECI FI C User Pool Generators:

    The following breaks down potential users that can access ONLY THE SEGMENT OF THE

    TRAIL THAT S BEING APPLIED FOR HEREIN.


  8. CONTIGUOUS THREE-BLOCKAREA: s there a contiguous 3-block area partially or wholly within the band that contains a group of workplaces that collectively employ 250+ employees?

    tt1r\iporta\l"Alte.11naUva

    I_..V...._.J..,..... ......... li


image image image image image image


List each SEPARATE CONTIGUOUS THREE-BLOCK area with at least 250 em­ ployees as ONE traffic generator. List each workplace and number of employees within each identified 3-block area.


Total # of 3-block areas with 250+ employees:


  1. Is the AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY within the band at least TWO dwelling units per acre? No = O, Yes = 3

(A) Number of existing dwelling units within the trail band: (A) units

(B) Area with the Trail Band In acres (640 acres = 1sq. mi. (B) acres

(C) Number of dwelling units divided by total acreage (a)/(b) = (C) units/acre

(D)If (C) >= 3, the number of trail traffic generators is 3; If (C) >= 2, the number of trail traffic generators is 2

If (C) >= 1, the number of trail traffic generators is 1


Total (0 to 3)


GROSS TOTAL # OF TRAIL GENERATORS


Part 4 - FINAL CALCULATIONS

NOW Choose ONLY ONE of the Following:


A. The number of significant generators within

1/2 mile of proposed trail of exclusive bike

lane (one point for each). __ Pts. (20 pts. Max)


B. The number of significant generators within 1 mile of proposed trail or exclusive bike lane

(1/2 point each). X .5

____ Pts. (20 pts. Max)


image

  1. Progressive Planning Bonus cs Points total)

    Sponsor has enacted, per legal ordinances, and/or specific impact fees (off-road trails ONLY) standards that mandate the preserva- tion of trail corridors in new developments.


    _ (5 Points)


  2. OVERMATCH ABOVE THE 20% LOCAL MATCH .

.••of the total project cost is from any combination of private/public funding sources. Private sources could be trail users groups and organizations or other private agencies.

Attach documentation.


One point for every percent over 20%

(Max 10

points)


IX Previouslv Awarded TAP Bonus

Project was awarded Transportation Enhancement (TE) or TAP funding from a previous funding cycle;

SAME PHASE ONLY


(5 Points)


image

'x


---( - 20 pts)


image

TOTAL PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE POINTS:


NO APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED IF THE SPONSOR HAS AT LEAST ONE CURRE NT TE-FUNDED PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE PROJECT WHICH HAS

NOT BEE N LET FOR CONSTRUCTION IN FIVE YEARS 1 FROM DATE OF AWAR D, AND IS NOT ON A CU RRE NT INDOT LETIING LIST WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF N EW APPLICATION SUBMISSION (MAY 2014)


image


Transportati on Alternatives Application

ENVIRO NMENTAL PROJ ECTS

  1. General Application Scoring for ALL Projects - SO points total


    Project Background; Total Points: 12


  1. Environmental Mitigation of Water Pollution Due to Highway Runoff or to Reduce Vehicle-Caused Wildlife Mortality While Maintaining Habitat Connectivity (additional review from NIRPC Environmental Management Policy Committee (EMPC) WIL L be required )


    Acqui sition; Total Points: 10


  1. Development: Water Pollution Mitigation; Total Points: 40

ETR Critical Habitat (5)

Adjacent to Nature Preserve or land managed for habitat (5)

Fish passage for designated salmonid streams or other special waters (5) Non ETR species (3)


  1. Development: Vegetation Management; Total Poi nts: 40


    Prevent against invasive species in transportation right of way



Regional Significance (30 points maximum)

Choose ONLY ONE statement and provide a narrative explana tion for all claimed points.


Subtotal )30


(30 Points)


(20 Points)


(15 Points)


(10 Points)

The project has broad regional,state or national significance OR it is a regionally recognized historic transportation activity,i s listed on the National Register of Historic Places OR on theIndiana State Register of Historic Sites and Structures. (Attach documentation) and ONE of the following statements Is true:

1. It preserves a historic transportation structure or site unique In the region;

  1. It provides for the acquisition or preservation of a regionally significant historic transportation site;

  2. It is a regionally significant historic highway program.


The project has local significance OR it Is a locally recognized historic transportation activity,

on the Nationa l Register of Historic Places OR on the lru:!liln.a State Regl st;er of Historic Si tes and Structures. (Attach documentation) AND one of the follow statements is true:

  1. It preserves a locally unique historic transportatio n structure or site AND/OR It Is similar to another structure/site already preserved elsewhere in the region;

  2. It is a locally significant historic highway program.


The project has broad regional,state or national significance OR it is a regionally recognized historic transportation activity for which this region is recognized, i s eligible but NOT l i sted on the National Re9lster of Historic Places OR on the Indiana State Register of Historic Sites and Structures and ONE of the statements in the 30 point category above is true:


The project has local significance OR it is a locally recognized historic transportation ac.tivit:y,eligible but NOT listed on the Nationa l Regi ster of Historic Places OR on the ndiana State Register of Historic Sites and Structures. (Attach documentation) ONE of the statements in the 20 point category above is true:


* Definition of Eligible but not listed: Any historic structure, building or site determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the ndiana State Historic Preservation Office, the National Park Service or listed in an "Interim Report of Historic Buildings".


Resource Rarity (20 points maximum) Subtotal J20

Is the Structure, Object, Facility an outstanding example of a rare historic transportation resource? Choose ONLY ONE statement and provide a narrative explanation for all claimed points.


(20 Points)


(10 Points)


(O Points)


Extremely rare Somewhat rare Common

Definition of Rare: Historic transportation resource or structures that is seldom found or disappearing from theIndiana landscape.


image


Resource Threats (20 points maximum)

Is the Structure, Object, Facility an endangered historic resource?

Choose ONLY ONE statement and provide a narrative explanation for all claimed points.

Subtotal J20


(20 Points)


(10 Points)


(O Points)

Extremely endangered


Endangered or potentially endangered Not endangered at all

Definition of Endangered: Historic transportation resources or structures that are Irreplaceable and in jeopardy of being lost from the ndiana landscape. Resources that are threatened with extinction by deterioration, demolition, obsolescence, development pressure and sprawl.


Plan Support (10 Points Maximum) Subtotal )10


(10 Points)

The project is recommended in a 1) park & recreation master plan, 2) local land use plan, 3) strategic plan,

  1. comprehensive plan, 5) a historic preservation plan and/or ordinance, OR 6) it has been supported through a vote by an appropriate taxing authority at a PUBLIC MEETING WHERE PUBLICINPUT was received and considered prior to the vote. (Attach Documentation)


    Multi-Agency Partnershi ps (10 points maximum) Choose ONE or BOTH statements:


    Subtotal )10


    (5 Points)


    (5 Points)

    Two or more public/private agencies are cooperating on the planning and implementation of the project. (Attach documentation such as letters of agreements)


    At least 5% ABOVE THE 20% LOCAL MATCH of the total project cost is from any combination of private/public funding sources. Private sources could be historic groups or organizations or other private agencies. (Attach documentation)


    Intermodal Connection (10 points maximum)

    Choose ONLY ONE statement and attach documentation:


    Subtotal )10


    {fO Points)


    {5 Points)

    The community has an existing fixed-route transit system AND the historic project is within Y2-mile of a bus/rail stop.


    The community does not have a transit system BUT the historic project provides on-site parking.


    TOTAL HISTO RIC POINTS: _f. 100


    Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) 2014-2 Solicitation/Call for Federal-Aid Transportation Projects Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties, Indiana


    Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC) is soliciting proposals from units of government and other eligible entitles within Lake and Porter Counties,Indiana under the following Federal­ Aid Programs in the amounts indicated:


    1. Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) Program

2. Highway SafetyImprovement Program (HSIP)

$13.4 Million

$ 9.9 Million


Funds to be made available in Lake and Porter Counties under this Solicitation/Call will be available beginning in State Fiscal Year 2017 (July 1, 2016).


We are also soliciting proposals from units of government and other eligible entities within LaPorte County, Indiana under the following Federal-Aid Programs in the amounts indicated:


1. Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) Program

  1. Highway Safety Jmprovement Program (HSIP)

  2. Surface Transportation Program (STP II)

$2.6 Million

$1.5 Million

$4.7 Million


Funds to be made available in LaPorte County under this Solicitation/Call will be available beginning In State Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015).


We expect all funds awarded in response to this Solicitation/Call to be fully obligated on or prior to June 30, 2021.


Eligible Activities


HSIP. A highway safety improvement project is any strategy, activity or project on a public road that is consistent with the data-driven State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. Specific

INDOT Guidance is downloadable from our website (www.nlrpc.org).


CMAQ. Transportation projects and related activities that result in the reduction of Internal combustion engine emissions that produce ground-level ozone. Transportation projects involve the movement of people and/or goods. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) deployment, replacement of transit rolling stock, intersection improvements, signals, bicycle/pedestrian projects, purchase of alternative fuel infrastructure and fuel are examples of eligible projects. CMAQ funds may not be used for preservation and maintenance activities or for the expansion of highway facilities. CMAQ program guidance Is downloadable from either the NIRPC or US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) website:

bttQ:t/www .. fhwa.dot.gov/en vlreoment/alr quaffty/cmaq/policy and quidance/2013 guidance/lo

dex.cfm


STP. Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, preservation, or operational improvements for highways and bridges, transit capital projects, planning, among othets. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/rnap21/guidance/guidestprev.cfm.



4 2


.,


Geographic Restrictions by Fund Type


CMAQ and HSIP funds may be used anywhere in the county. STP IIfunds may only be used within the boundaries of the Michigan City-LaPorte Urbanized Area, which includes the Cities of Michigan City and LaPorte, the towns of Michiana Shores, Pottawattamie Park, Long Beach, and Trail Creek, as well as portions of unincorporated LaPorte County along and adjacent to Johnson Road.


Eligible Applicants


1. County Governments . Applications may only be submitted by the Board of Commissioners. Boards and/or Commissions created by the county may not submit applications directly to NIRPC.

  1. Cities and Towns. Applications may only be submitted by the Chief Elected Official. Boards and/or Commissions created by a city or town may not submit applications directly to NIRPC.

  2. Gary Public Transportation Corporation (GPTC).

  3. NorthernIndiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD).

  4. State Agencies, Including state-assisted public colleges and universities (IU, Purdue, vy Tech, etc.).

  5. NIRPC, on behalf of itself or other legally-constituted entities.

  6. Other Entitles, Including private sector businesses (for profit and not-for-profit). These entities may not submit their application directly to NIRPC. A city, town, or the county must agree to sponsor the other entity's projects. The city, town, or county will then physically submit the other entity's application to NIRPC. Applications received directly from other entitles will be discarded.


Submission of Applications/Deadline

Applications must be transmitted to NIRPC on or prior to Friday, February 13, 2015. Application packages may be e-mailed,malled (via USPS) or delivered in person to:

Amanda Pollard apereqr lne@nlroc.org at NIRPC, 6100 Southport Rd, Portage,IN 46368-6409.


Application Form Preparation

A project application form may be downloaded from NIRPC's website (www.n irpc.org). The application form is in Microsoft Excel. Applicants should fill In the form, print it, attach required documentation, and then either 1) scan the documents into pdf format and submit the materials via e-mail or 2) physically submit the original application, with required documentation, to NIRPC in person or by mail. (Alternatively, applicants may use a paper copy of the application and complete it either by hand or typewriter for submission.) A dated transmittal letter, executed by the CEO (Chief Elected Official or Chief Executive Officer), must also accompany the application.


Applications should be prepared with great care.Incomplete applications cannot be considered for funding and applicants will not be Informed of missing components of their applications . NIRPC will not supply missing information.


An area of emphasis this year is the preparation of Purpose and Need Statements. The purpose of the project should be stated clearly and concisely. The need for the project should be quantified whenever possible. Documentation that supports the need for the project should be attached.


Project Selection Processes


  1. All Projects: A list of projects submitted In response to this Solicitation/Call will be presented to the NIRPC Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) for information purposes at their December 2014 meeting. The list will identify the project, its funding needs by year, its emissions impact and cost­ effectiveness, and indicate if the project is believed to be eligible for the type of funding requested.


2



If the total amount of federal funding requested by all projects presumed eligible does not exceed the projected amount available by program and/or urbanized area, all projects will be recommended for funding and the TPC will be asked to ratify the list of projects (including those within the jurisdiction of the NIRPC Environmental Management Policy Committee [EMPC]). The NIRPC Board will be asked to ratify the list as well.


All CMAQ projects proposed must demonstrate both a (measurable) reduction in emissions and found to be cost-effective (cost per Kg per year).


  1. HSIP (Both Urbanized Areas). f the totalamount of federal HSIP funding requested for projects presumed HSIP-eligible exceeds the projected amount available In one or both urbanized areas, the existing (2013) HS P Project Selection System will be used to select projects within that funding category.


  2. CMAQ (Lake-Porter Counties).If the total amount of federal CMAQ funding requested for projects presumed CMAQ-eliglble exceeds the projected total amount available, a meeting of the Consolidated Surface Transportation Stakeholder Committee will be convened for the purpose of prioritizing and selecting projects. f they are unable to do so, project review and selection responsibilities will be delegated to the N RPC Environmental Management Policy Committee (EMPC), Ped/Pedal, and Paddle Committee, and Public Transit Operators, as needed.


  3. CMAQ and STP II (LaPorte County). Applications for all projects will be reviewed by LaPorte County stakeholders at a meeting to be conducted prior to the December 2014 Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) meeting. A constrained llst of projects will be submitted.


Special Rules and Restrictions.


1. Maximum Federal Funding Request Limit per Application.


HSIP Program: These maximums are as specified by the 2013 project selection system or as Imposed byINDOT.


CMAQ Program: There are no specific maximums, except for those imposed by available funding per year (see table on the following page). We encourage applicants limit their request to

$1,000,000 (federal) per project or a per-year amount (for multi-year projects) to $600,000. This will improve our ability to advance or delay projects, if necessary, in order to balance out funds per year (overall) and within each funding category.


STP II: The per-year federal funding cap is as shown in the table on the following page.


3



image

2. Total Federal Funds Available per Year.



HSP

Year

2017


' $

Lake-Porter

1,250,000 : $

LaPorte

305,685

I

2018_

; $

1,000,000 $ 305.685

I

2019

1 $

2,225,000 $ 305,665

l

2020

1 $

2,729,254 1 $ 305,685

2021

$

2,729,254 : $ 305,665



OvlAQ 201§


image

image

-

I

! $ I S


273,666

2017 $ 1,500,000 ' $ 7,756

2016

$ 2.150,000 Is

583,038

2019

$ 2,500 ,000 $

583,038

2020

3,317,880 : $

583,038

2021

3,317,889 ! $

583,038

SlPll

2016

$

632,341

2017

$

392,289

2018

$

973,781

2019

$

973,761

2020

$

73,781

2021

$

973,781



3. CMAQ Eligibility of Alternative Fuels Purchase Projects. Eligibility of these types of projects will cease at the end of Federal Fiscal Year 2017 (Sept 30, 2017). Applicants are restricted, per agreement with FHWA, to the purchase of the amount of fuel that is expected to be consumed over a 12-month period. Applications which exceed this quantity or are for multi-year projects cannot be found eligible.


For Lake-Porter Counties, given the limited window of availability of funding for these types of projects, the TPC and EMPC may jointly act to prioritize to these types of projects (over other types of CMAQ projects) for 2017 only.


4. Lake-Porter CMAQ - Supplemental Funding Requests for Existing Construction Projects. For Lake-Porter CMAQ projects to be let in SFY 2015 (prior to June 30, 2015), there are no supplemental funds available. However, such projects may be delayed until 2016 in order to qualify for supplemental funds in that year. LPA's may submit requests for supplemental funds for existing CMAQ-funded, TAP-funded, and/or STP-funded projects In accordance with the limits noted in paragraphs 1and 2.


  1. CMAQ-Funded Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility Projects. The application materials must plainly demonstrate that the facility will connect residential areas with existing commercial, Industrial, and/or recreational facilities. CMAQ-funded Bicycle/Pedestrian facilities are Intended to function as transportation (not recreational) facilities. Trailheads (parking lots) are not fundable.


    4


  2. LaPorte County STP II Funds. Of the $4.7 million In available STP funds, $594,628 will be reserved for any STP-ellglble project proposed by the City of LaPorte and $394,628 will be allocated to LaPorte County Project 1382220 (Johnson RdIntersectionImprovements at CR 250 North/500 West). Tue net amount of STP IIfUnds available for other projects is $3,731,990.


  3. Public Transit Demonstration Operating Assistance Projects. There Is a five-year limit on the duration of these projects. The amount of federal funds requested in Years 3, 4, and 5 altogether may not exceed the subsidy received in either Years 1or 2, whichever is more. Funds will be transferred year-by-year. These projects must be supported by a route analysis or feasibility study.


  4. Public Transit Revenue Vehicle Purchase Projects. Conventionally-fueled (e.g., diesel or gasoline) replacement public transit revenue vehicles may be purchased with CMAQ and/or STP II funds. Rolling stock purchased with CMAQ funds must demonstrate a reduction in emissions, unless the vehicles will be used exclusively on a route funded with CMAQ Demonstration Operating Assistance.


  1. ITS Projects. Stand-alone ITS projects are categorically elfgible for CMAQ assistance. Transit operators are especially encouraged to consider such projects where such technology would result in increased ridership.


    NIRPC Contacts


    For HSIP Process: Stephen Sostaric ssostaric@niroc.org For STP & CMAQ Funding: Gary Evers gevers@nlrpc.org

    For general questions regarding the solicitation, deadlines, document formats, and meetings: Amanda Pollard aperegrine@ni roc.org


    Telephone 219.763.6060


    October 24, 2014


    5


    NOFA 2014-2 NIRPC CMAQ Project Funding Request for 2017-2021

    image

    local Public Agency (LPA) or Applicant Name: Contact Person or Employee ln Responsible Charge

    (ERC) :

    All Projects


    Contact Person or ERC

    Information:


    Project Name:


    CMAQ Project Type:


    CMAQ Work Type:

    1. mail Address Telephone #1

      Telephone #2


      Public/Private Partnerships Public Outeach/Educatlon Public Transit


      Replacement Transit Revenue Vehicles Go to Row 210


      image

      Public Outreach/Educ ation Attach Separate Request

      image

      Alternative Fuels:Vehicle Replacement Go to Row 149

      image

      Alternative Fuels: Fuel Puq;hases Go to Row 129

      image

      Alternative Fuels: Fuel Infrastructure Go to Row 184


      image

      Diesel Repower Attach Separate Request



      image

      image

      Financial Summary Federal Funds Requested

      Non-federal Funds Total Prq)ect CQst


      Is this project a Public/Private Partnership 7


      If so, name the private sector participants.


      ...;...... "--' -'--'"""'-'" . ;:...:.-=-- <.:..:.:--=-"" ......"'rl

      Has a legal agreeme-nt been developed between the spons.or and each private sector

      participant?


      image image

      Pu rpose and Need Describe the purpose of your project a nd the need that it wlll address. Provide this description In the space below or

      Statement p repare sepa rately and attach to your appllcatlon .

      All Projects


      image

      image

      All Projects


      CONSTRUCTION

      PROJECT INFORMATION


      Funding by Year:

      image

      Total Cost Information Federal Funds

      PE & RW S.ervices RW Ll&D Construction & CE

      Paymenu fo:f!ailroads:

      Other (Specify) Total

      Federal Funds Requested

      Local Funds


      image


      Emissions Reduction


      substa nce

      image

      image

      Total grams Ellmlnated per Day

      KJlogr.ims. (_Kg). UsefUI Life Toal l<g

      Eflmlnated .«er Ellmlnated over

      • "' (Ul-rVears)

Day Useful Life.

VOC's .

image

i 0.000 .0


NoX

-o.ooo 0

co --

- I:..

..." 0.000

20

0

PM 2.5 ·"'Iii. -.


0.000 0


image

Total Co.st per Kg Elimlnated/Day #_D_IV_/_O_I


CMAQ $$ per Kg Eliminated/Day


image

-#OIV/01--


image

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIA

N CAPITAL

EQU IPMENT


Type of Equipment


Installation Location(s)


image

·...k.·

..... .h

\ .'

All Pro)ects



Funding:


,Equipment Delivery Installation


Total_


image

image

Unit Cost Information


Total Cost Information

image

image

Number of Units Total Project Cost Federal Share

Non-Federal Share

Identify pr1mary source of non-federal funds (lf multlple sources ere used, explain below:


image image


so

All Projects


image

ALTERNATIVE FUELS



image


image

Annual Fuel Consumption Gallons, Therms, etc.

r-----::::-:-:'!:'-'t"

Projected U nit Cost Prlte per Gallon, Therm, etc.

image

------

Projected Total Cost $

CMAQ Funds Requested $-


Emissions Reduction Insert Emissions

image

image

Dnta Here


image

g/mlle



Number of Vehicles

Miles Driven per Year

Emission Reduction

f;lo;c Vehicle Greenhouse Gases


1\11 Fueled Vehicle Greenhouse

G.,;cs

Dlffnrcnce1

-------

g/mlle g/mlfe


by all veh/c/es that w/11 use thisfuel grams/year

Kg/year


image image

Cost Effectiveness Cost per Kg Ellmlnated/oay #DIV/01 CMAQ $$ per Kg Ellmlnated/oay --

#DIV/OJ --

All Pro)ects


image

ALTER NATIVE

Fl:J ELH> VEHICLES



Vehicle being Replaced Yea r

Make Model Type

owiierslirp

Odometer Miles Fuel Type

·Prlr'fliVV '.U.si?


New Vehicle Make

Model

Alternative Fuel Type


Cost Information MSRP Alt Fueled Model

MSRP Base Model

Cot Difference $

Federal Share {MPb Cap) $

Acquired Local Match $

Total Local Funds

image

image

image

Unlt #l Unit #2 Unit #3

image


image image


image

image

image

$ $

image

$ s

image

image

image

image

s

$

image image image


image

image

oata nre

Emissions Reduction lns·.£mlsil_o(\S


Bas_

e Vehicle Greenliolise


of.milt '

ases

.Alt Fueled Vehicle Greenhouse Ga$es

Dlffer.em:e:

Number of Vehicles

Miles Driven per Year Emission ReducUon


image image

Cost Effectiveness Cost per Kg Eliminated/Day

#DJV/01 CMAQ $$ per Kg Eliminated/Day nDJV/01


image image


ALTER NATIVE FU EL

I N FRASTRUCTU R E


image image

image

Fuel TYP!!

image image

Infrastructure Type: Quantity Unit Cost Total Co•t


image image image

image

image

Fuel Tank $

image

image

Metering System Card Reading

image

Software/Hardware Dellvery/lnstal lation

image

image

image

Electric Charging Station Other (Describe)

Total $

image image image

Federal Share $ ...

Local Share $

All Projects



Emissions Reduction

Insert Emissions Rate Here


Ba1>e Vehicle Greenhouse

Gases

Alt Fueled Vehicle Greenhouse Gases

Difference:

g/mlle

image

g/m//e

Number of Vehicles Miies Driven per Vear

Emission .Reduction grams/year

_, Kg/year


image


image image

Cost Effectiveness Cost per Kg Eliminated/Day ltDIV/Ol CMAQ $$ per Kg Elimlnated/Day #DIV/01

image image


image

image

Pu blic Tra nsit

Revenue Vehicles

All Projects



New Vehicles Type

lengtti

image

Vehtclg'lll Vehicle #2 Vehlcle #3

image

image

image

image

FTA Useful life

Fuel Type Replacement?


Old Vehicle: VOC's New Vehicle: VOC's

Difference:

Old Vehicle: NoX Jllqw Vehicle: NoX

Difference:

Old Vehlc:le: CO New Vehicle: CO

Difference:

Old Vehicle: PM 2.5 New Vehicle: PM 2.5

Difference:

Total Reduction/hour (g) Hours Used per Day (g) Service Days per Ye·ar (g) Reduction per Year (g)

Conversion to KR

Emissions Reduction

image

image

image

cost

.Qua ntity

Tc;it;il Coft $ $ $

image image


image

image

image

Federal Share

image

Non-Federal Share


image

image

image

-

Cost Effectiveness Cost per Kg Eliminated/Day

# DIV/Of

"QIV} OI

#DIV/DI

- :: --··-·-.-

CMAQ $$ per Kg Eliminated/Day

llDIV/Ol

llDIV/01

#DIV/01

··· ··


image


Pu blic Tra nsit

Qperating

-Assistance


Projected Expenses 501 Lebor

502 Frlnse Beneflts

503 Services

504 Materlels & Supplies

505 Utllltles

505 IMurence 507'Taxes

508 Purchased Transportation

509 Mlscellaneous

510 Expense Transfers SU Interest Expense 512 leases & Rentals 513 Depredetlon

514 Purchase Lease Payments

SlS Related Parties lease Agreement

516 other Reconciling Items

image

image

image

image

Year Ill Year #2. Years #3-S

image

Total Profected Expense $ $ $

image image image


image

Federal Share Federal Share

image

Non-Federal Share


Projected Ridership Projected Dally Ridership


image

Length of Project

$ ....: $

image

image

image

$ s $

image

Year #1 viiilrs·11a-s

image image

image

image

-,

Years l. ..... 'l


image

Service Type & Level ..N:.:.e:w:.S::e.::r:.v.: lc:e.:_T:_.y'._pc:.e::_ _---l!=--o.!!:_..::...,;..,.....::'.i....::r,;<1!2._,.. ::::a.:e:.i:.::::a..:!!!!;:.;.a,u;i::.:::._.;il

image

S'ervlce _Days per Vear

Hours of Service Avalla blllty Headways

Total Revenue Miies/Year

Total Revenue_ H.9W /Year


image

For Service Expansion Projects,

Indicate wtiat I being

_ exeanded.

SeJ"Vlcatlays per Year

Hours of Service Avallablllty



'Tolill ftavenuekour /Yc;ir

Elllsting::

-st.J.ns!:

All Projects


image

Emiss!.cms Reduction

l. Average Dally Ridership (Unlinked One-Way Trips) per service day:

image

  1. Projected Passenger Miies per service day:

  2. Dally VMT Re!!uctlo ;

4. Calculate Daily Eml!slons Reduction for Each Factor:


image


Emissions


-

trips per day

m11es

miles per service day

Compound


voe co NoX

Per mile emission

image

factor

Reduction g/day

Kg per Day

D-

PM 2.S


Total Reduction/Day:


image

  1. Service Days per year:


    Cost Effectiveness Cost per Kg Ellmlnated/Oay

    CMAO,$$ per Kg Ellmlnated/Day

    llOIV/01 llDIV/01

    All ProJects



    image


    image

    Complete Streets Pre­ Constructlon Design Review Notice:


    Calculation of Incremental Costs Associated with Complete Streets Compliance:

    Notice Regarding Maintenance of Traffic

    Plans:

    Projec;t Impact on Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Transit Users


    Local Share Assurance

    All roadway reconstruction projects, Including Intersection Improvements and bridges, wlll be reviewed during the design phase to confirm that the Complete Streets and 9ther design features promised have, in fact, been In cl uded i n the flnal project design.


    image image


    image

    LPA's may seek an exemption from the Complete Streets Policy because the cost of complia nce 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 of the roadway), slgnage, and/or signal Interconnection/pre-emption devices where these devlc::es already exist.

    image

    Maintenance ofTra ff l c Plans developed for all reconstruction projects, including I ntersection Improvements and bridges, will consider all users, including pedestria ns, blcycllsts, transit users, and

    d ell very ve h i cles.


    image

    Briefly explain how pedestrians, blcycllsts, and transit users are currently accommodated In the project right of way and how they w111 be accommodated following project completion.


    image


    image

    By submission of this funding request, the Local Public Agency hereby assures that It possesses, or w111 possess prior to construction, the local (non-federal) funding needed to pay project related expenses.


    image


    NIRPC HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) PROGRAM PROCESS STATEMENT

    For both the Lake/Porter Coun ties and LaPorte County planning areas.


    The purpose of this document is to define the process used by NIRPC to select projects for funding using the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The overall purpose of this program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of infrastructure-related highway safety improvements. The goal of HSIP funding in the NIRPC planning area is the reduction of fatal and incapacitating injury crash events.


    The LPA is advised to review the INDOT Local Highway Safety Improvement Program Project Selection Guidance prior to preparing an application for HSIP funding.


    1. NIRPC assembles and convenes meetings of the HSIP stakeholders as one group (though there are two pools of funding: one for Lake and Porter Counties, one for LaPorte County). The MPO will establish project selection criteria and selection process. The selection process will be as follows for both planning areas. Please note: any funding caps listed below do not apply to LaPorte County. This document will reveal the data driven project selection criteria to be used by the stakeholder groups. Selection of projects will be based upon the Benefit/Cost (B/C) Ratio, the location's crash history, ADT, and the high crash locations as provided in NIRPC's 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan.


      Projects will be divided into two project categories:

      • High Crash Location (75% of HSIP funds for the Lake/Porter County Planning Area)

      • PE is capped at $100,000 or 10% of the total project cost, whichever is less (Lake/Porter only)

      • ROW is strictly capped at $50,000 federal per project (Lake/Porter only)

      • For the purpose of ranking projects, the Benefit/Cost Ratio and the project site's history of severe crashes will be used for ranking . The B/C ratio will be the foundation of the project's score, with potential bonus values added to the B/C Ratio as follows:

        • Project is a top 25 severe crash location within its county as listed in NIRPC's 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan: +.25 in addition to the B/C Ratio.

        • Project is a top 10 by severe crash type location as listed in NIRPC's 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan: +.25 in addition to the B/C Ratio.

        • Project is located in an environmental justice comm unity: +.l in addition to the B/C Ratio.

          • NIRPC 's emphasis on environmental justice ispart of a continuing effort to comply with a corrective action that waspart of the agency's 2009 Certification Review from FHWA and FTA and ensure a more equitable distribution of benefits and burdens throughout the region.

            • Systemic Low Cost/High Impact (25% of HSIP funds for the Lake/Porter County Planning Area)


              • $100,000 per project cap (Lake/Porter only)

              • $25,000 cap on PE (Lake/Porter only)

              • A pool of $50,000 will be available for any ROW needs for all projects in this category (Lake/Porter only)

              • For Lake and Pmter Counties, funds will initially be evenly divided among the seven eligible project types outlined in INDOT's Highway Safety Improvement Program Local Project Selection Guidance document. Th is funding division is meant to be fluid, and funds can be reallocated as needed among the project types, depending on demand.

              • Projects will be prioritized and rated among each other within the project type by the number of injuries and fatalities at the project location and then by the ADT as determined by following NIRPC's process.

                • Higher priority will be given to those locations with a demonstrated history of severe crashes involving severe injuries and fatalities


    2. NIRPC issues one HSIP solicitation for the entire three-county planning area (Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties). Projects will be solicited, at a minimum, every other year, or when needed.


    3. Eligible LPAs submit complete project applications to NIRPC by the deadline specified in the solicitation, which includes INDOT's Local Highway Safety Improvement Program Project Selection Guidance document.


    4. N.IR.PC staff and stakeholders review each project application for consistency with the local selection criteria and INDOT/FHWA HSIP eligibility rules. Afterward, a constrained list of HSIP-eligible projects will be developed.


    5. NIRPC will submit the applications proposed for HSIP eligibility review (along with other supporting documentation) to the INDOT MPO liaison and Emmanuel Nsonwu. INDOT will review each project application and make a determination of HSIP eligibility.


    6. INDOT will notify NIRPC of the eligibility status of each project submitted.


    7. NIRPC will add the eligible HSIP projects to the TIP.


    8. The LPA and NIRPC will work with the INDOT District LPA Coordinator to advance programmed projects following procedures contained in the INDOT LPA Process Guid ance Document.

NIRPC HSIP 2014 Funding Project Request


image

Local Public Agency (LPA) Name: Employee in Responsible Charge (ERC):.

ERC Contact Information:

E-mail Address Telephone #1 Telephone tl2


Project Name:



Project Location:

To At


image

Functional Classification:


image

Project Length:


Dates: TIP Inclusion

RFP Issued

Design Firm Engaged NEPA Approval Preliminary Plans Preliminary Field Check Design Approval


Longitude Longitude Longitude


image

Funding:


image

image

PE

RW Services RW U&D


Total Cost Information


image

PE

RW Services RW Ll&D


HSIP Funds Requested

Construction

Construction Engineering Payments to Railroads Other (Specify)

Total

Federal Funds Requested Local Funds


Identify primary source of non-federal funds (If multiple sources are used, explain on page 3:

Construction

Construction Engineering Payments to Railroads other

Total


Calculated Percent Federal•



image

Does project Involve other US DOT federal funds?

Program Amount


Does project involve other (non-US DOT) federal funds?


image

Benefit/Cost Ratio: Base B/C Ratio

Top 25 Crash Location, add .25 Top 10 by Crash Type, add .25

Located in an Environmental Justice Community, add .1

Calculation of Incremental Costs Assoclat'ed with Complete Streets Compl1anc:e:

Notice Regarding Maintena nce of Traffic

Plans:


Project Impact on Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Transit Users


Project Funding (Supplemental Information)


Attachments


Local Share Assura nce


image image

LPA's may seek an exem ption from the Complete Streets Pol icy beca use t he cost of com plia nce exceeds 10% of the cost of construction without the added featu res. This exemption will be permitted only at the time of project selection and not afterwa rd. Also, the incremental costs may not i ncl ude the cost of basic street lighting, sidewal ks (on one side of the roadway), signage, a nd/or signal intercon nection/pre­

emption devices where these devices already exist.


image image


image image

Mai ntenance of Traffic Plans developed for all reconstructi.o n -projects, i ncl udi ng intersection improvements and bridges, will consider all users, i ncludi ng pedestria ns, bicyclists, transit users, and

delivery vehicles:


image image

Briefly explain how pedestrians, bicyclists, and tra nsit users a re currently accom modated In the project right of way and how they will be accommodated following project completion.


image


Full list of non-federal funds Involved In project.


Source Amount

image


image

Marked up aerial photo (8.5" x 11" from Google Earth or other source) with project location.

image

Worksheets showing cost/benefit calculations (use I NDOT's HAT progra m).


image

At least three (3) years of crash data from the Indiana State Police ARIES database

Proof that LPA has analyzed crash locations and prioritized according-Wned, showing that the proposed project i;:-;J -

high priority.

image

image

Any other relevant summary data tables with written analysis {If necessary). Legal submittal letter signed by primary sponsor's CEO

image

Letters of support from co-sponsors (If a pplica ble) · .


image

By submission of this funding request, the Local Public Agency hereby assures that it possesses, or wlll possess prior to construction, the local (non-federal) funding needed to pay project related expenses.


image


image

. . By submission of this fundi ng req uest, the Local Pu blic Agency hereby agrees to post-implementation

Project Momtormg . . .

to measu re the

. ,s .

u pon th e safety of the imp 1entatlon 1ocation.

proiect monitoring

project

impact


NOFA 2014-2: Responses Received

Please Inform NIRPC of Missing Projects or Errors.


03(16/2015

Chicago Urbanized Ar ea

LPA Project Total Cost


Fed Funds


Program


Mode


Request Type

Valparaiso Supplemental Funds for CN {Vole Pork Polhwoy) $ 68,095

$ 54,476

CMAQ

Bike/Ped

Trail (Supplemenlol)

tlums Harbor Morquelte Greenway: East Branch Connector $ 6.707,313 (Ameriplex to W Babcock Rd)

$ 5,365,850


CMAQ


Bike/Ped


Trail

Eosl Chicago Marquette Greenway: (Toll

Indianapolis Blvd)

Rd @ Kosciusko Blvd to

$ 1.374.800


$ 1.099,840


CMAQ


Oike/Ped


Trail



image

image

image

image

image

image

image

Morquetle Greenway (Downtown Hammond to

Hammond $ 2.350,000

Chicago via IHB RW)

$ 1.560,000


CMAQ


Bike/Ped


Trail

Schererv]lle lf1_c:fioriapolls Blvd lo iiiyer Central Pork $ 1,340,860

$ 1.072,704

CMAQ

Bike/Ped

Trail

Meoillvllle C&.O Trail Grade \!lf!latoffon

@ SR 55 $ 2,416.500

$ 1 .9S3.26d

CMl\Q

Bike/Ped

Trail

Gory US 20 Sidewalk Improvements $ 493,292

$ 394.634

CMAQ

Bike/Ped

Non-Troll Bike/Ped

Crown Point l09th Ave Corridor Improvements West (Delaware Pkwy $ 4,858.750 $ 3,887,000 CMAQ Hwy Bollleneck Elimination to SR 53)



Crown Poinl

I091h Ave Corridor Improvements East (Delaware Pkwy

to 1-65) $ 4.330,000

$ 3.464.000


CMAQ


Hwy


Bottleneck Efirnlno)loo

Intersection

1 Hobart 61st Ave Intersection Improvements (at Marcella St) $ 346,400 $ 277.120 CMAQ Hwy lmprovemenls


Hobart

Counly Line Road Traffic Flo

to SR 130)

w Improvements (Cleveland

$ 5,747.050


$ 4.597.640


CMAQ

Hwy Intersection Improvements

Hobart County Line Rd Intersection Improvements (at $ 1,600,000 $ 1.280,000 CMAQ Hwy Intersection Cleveland Ave) lmprovemenls


Intersection Valparaiso Sithavy Rd Intersection Improvements (al LaPorte Ave) $ 824.140 $ 659.312 CMAQ Hwy Improvements (PE &.

RW Funds Only)



East Chicago


Replacement Vehicles (Hook Lift & Street Sweeper)


$ 561.380


$ 449.104


CMAQ

Ineligible as

Other

submitted

Hobart

CNG Fuel Infrastructure

676.716

$ 541.373

CMAQ

Other Fuel lnfroslructure

Hobart

I-·

CNG Fuel

1> 47.894

$ 38,315

CMAQ

Other Fuel

Hoborl

CNG Retrofit '(2 Vel lcles)

$ 230.628

$ 184,502

CMAQ

Other

Refro.fil/Re'pow_er

image

lake County 36-unit Truck S top Electrification Project (1-65 @ SR 2) 3P $ 411.732 $ 329,386 CMAQ Other 3P Arrangement


loke Station Replacement Vehicles (Hook Lift &. Street Sweeper) $ 561,380 $ 449,104 CMAQ Other Ineligible as

submitted


Lake Station 27-unit Truck Stop Electrification Project (Flying J @ Ripley $ 329,843 $ 263.874 CMAQ Other 3P Arrangement St) 3P

Lake Station CNG Fueling Station 3P $ 1,000.641 $ 440.282 CMAQ Other 3P Arrangement

New Chicago Alternative Fuel (EBS) $ 18,8<n $ 1 5,1 14 CMAQ Olher Fuel

NiRPC School Bus Heaters IAriil tdfing) $ 127.356 $ 101.885 CMAQ Other Idling Reduction Por lage CNG fuelb:ig Station JP w/fo(TillY Express $ 1.741.000 $ 8[0,500 CM/\Q Other 3P Arrangement



Gory PTC

Two Replocemenl Revenue Vehicles

$

BSD.ODO

$

680.000


image



Gary PTC


Livable Broadway BRT/Bus Feeder System

$


3,865,805

$


3.092,644


Valparaiso


Chicago DASH Operating

$


1.011.000

$


800.800

'llolpo'fa!rn

Ctllcogo DASH Capitol IOne Bus)

$

700,000

$

560.000

CMAQ Transit Cppltot

CMAQ Transil Operollflg

Volporolso

V-Line Operating Expansion !Parter Ho_Ellol)

$

1.249.000

$

999.200

Valporo

o

V-Line Capitol Expansion (Porter Hospital)

One Bus

$

120.000

$

96,000

CMAQ

Transit

Capital

CMAQ Transit Capital


CMAQ Transit


image

Operating & Capitol (3 Mod Vans)


CMAQ Tran$11 Operaling image


image


Total CMAQ $ 35,565,859


image

Hobart

Suppter11enra1 Funds for CN (Slg11 oplo.cemcntl

$

312.293

$

281.064

HSIP

Hwy

E-Z rsupplamentoll

Vaiparo1so

SlJpplementol Funds for CN (Sign l\'eplocemenlJ

.$.

50,000

$

45,000

HSIP

Hwy

E-Z (SupplemontolJ

Griflilh

Supplemental Funds for CN (S gn.Reptocernent ).

$

37070

$

336.933

HSIP

Hwy

E-Z' (SupplementotJ

Merrillville

S(/pplemental Funds for CN (Sign fiplacernant)

,$

982.950

$

884,655

HSIP

Hwy

E-Z (Supplemental)

LPA Proj ect Total Cost fed Funds Program Mode Request Type

Crown Point Courthouse Square Pedestrian lmprovemenls $ 177,950 $ 160.155 HSIP Bike/Ped (Non- E z (SuppI 1 I)

Tro) -

emen a


image



Crown Point


1091h Ave Intersection Improvements (at Iowa St)


$


1.565.000


$


1,408,500


HSIP


Hwy


High Crash Location


Oow.n Po!nl

1091h Ave Corridor Improvements West (Delaware Pkwy to SR 53)


$


4,858,750

$


4.372.875


HSIP


Hwy


High Crash Location

VolpcroJo

Ransom Rd Safely. Improvements

$

769,825

$

692,843

HSIP

Hwy

Hfgf1 Crash Locolton


Merrillville


Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption (Mville. Sville, CP. Hob)


image


$


1.944,540


$


1,652,626


HSIP


Hwy


High Crash Location


image

Lowell

Sign Reploemen1(Reg 8. Warning)

$

110,000

$

100,000

HSIP

Hwy

E-Z New

Porter (Town)

.Sign Replacement (Reg & Wornlf\9)

$

110.000

ioo.ooo

HSIP

Hwy

E-Z New


-

Schererville

S15:!1n P.eplocemenl (Reg & Waming)

$

507.SB'i'

$

126.880

H.S.IP

Hwy

E-Z N.ew

image

image

image

Total HSIP $ 10,161,531



Michigan City/LaPorte Urbanized Area

LPA prqjoct Total Cost Fed funds Program Mode Request Type

image

image

Mich City

Replacement Buses (21

$ 270,000

$ 216,000

CMAQ

Troruil

Capital

Mich City

Bus Stop Signage

$ &b;ooo

$ 48.000

CMAQ

Transl!

Copltal

Mlch City

Repfacemenl Buses (3)

$ 420,000

$ 336,00o

CMAQ

Tronsit

Copltal

Mich City

Replacement Buses (1)

$ 140,000

$ lT2000

CMAQ

Transit

CopJtal

llof'or.t (City)

Replacement Rev Vehicles (7)

$ 606.000

$ 484.BQP

CMAQ

Transit

Copi_t9I



image



LaPorie County

Singing Sands Trail Extension (600W lo IN/Ml Line)

$

l,000,000

$

BOO.DOD

CMAQ

Bike/Ped

Trail

LaPorte County

Al!ernot ive Fuel (E85J

$

100,000

$

80,000

CMAQ

Other

Fuel

LoPor1e (City)

Alferno1ive Fuel (EB5)

$

83.715

$

66;972

CMAQ

Ottier

Fuel

LaPorte (City)

Alternative Fuel (Lf')

$

59.808

$

47.846

CMAQ

Other

Fuel

LaPorte (City)

Diesel Retrofit (One Unit)

$

1 4.000

$

11,200

.... CMAQ

Other

Relroflt/Repower

LaPorte (City)

Chessie Greenway Phase II (CN Only)

$

728,798

$

583.038

CMAQ

Bike/Ped

Troll

,


image image image image

Total CMAQ S 2,785,856


image

LaPorte County Sign Replocemenl /Reg_& Warning) $ 222,222.21 $ 200.000 HSIP E-Z tsupplemenlolJ

image

Mlch Clfy 51 n Replacement (Ra§ & Warning! $ lll.111.11 $ 100.000 HSIP Hw.y E-Z {Svpplemen1cit)

image

Total CMAQ S 300,000


image

LaPorte County Franklin Sf Bridge Study $ SOQ,000 $ 400.000 STP Hwy Planni1ig laPorle County Pavement Management Slud\t $ 250.000 $ 200.000 STP Hwy Planning lciP.orte County SR 2/l 81h St/Zigler Ri:liNursery Rd lnl Imp (PE RW Only) $ 425.000 $ 31,0;000 SIP Hwy CN

LaPorte <:aunty Five-Year Capital trnp1ovemenl Plon/S1udy (PE) $ 200.000 $ 160,00Q STP Hwy Planning Mlch Clly Int Imp:Cleveland Ave @ Coolspring Ave $ 314,06B $ 2s1 2s4 STP Hw- CN Mich City Int Imp: Barker Ave @ Ohio St $ 269,016 $ 215.21 3 STP Hwy CN Mich City Int Imp: Earl Rd @ Hitchcoc St $ >104.174 $ 323,339 STP H\vy CN Mich City Singing Sandslrail 3A (PE/RW/CN) & Singing Sands 3b (PEJ $ 2.057,567 $ l.646.070 STP II Trolls CN

LaPorte (City)

Pavement Manogemenf Study

$ 180,000

$

144,000

STP II

Hwy

Planning

lbPorle (Cily)

Sidewalk Recons1ruction (5 Projeclsl

$ 8.25.000

$

660,000

SJP II

Bike/Ped

CN

LoPdi!e ICily)

FA Route Pavement Work (5 Projects)

$ 4,046,024

$

3,236,819

STP II

Hwy

CN

LaPorte (Cily)

Eastshore Pkwy Warning Flasher (Pine Lake Ave)

$ 50.000

.:{.

40,000

STP ll

Hwy

CN

LoPorf'e (City)

Chessie Greenway Phase II (PE/RW & Parlial CNJ

$ 921,202

$

736,962

STP II

Bike/Ped

CN

Tolal CMA Q

S

8,353,657