November 13, 2018 9:00 a.m.
Lake Michigan Room 6100 Southport Road, Portage
Annotated Agenda
Call to Order by Chairman, Opening and Announcements
Pledge of Allegiance; Introductions
Meeting Participation Survey
INDOT requires NIRPC to develop a questionnaire to help evaluate the success of their efforts to reach out to all members of our community. Participation is strictly voluntary and anonymous.
Minutes of the October 9, 2018 meeting (pp. 1-2) ACTION REQUESTED: Approval
2.0 Public Comment on Agenda Items
This is an opportunity for comments from members of the audience. The amount of time available to speak will be limited to 3 minutes. Commenters must sign the blue form.
Implementation Planning
2050 Plan Futures – Dominique Edwards
NIRPC staff will present the results from the fall round of pop-up events.
ACTION REQUESTED: Informational
Performance Measures
The Federal Highway Administration requires NIRPC to adopt Transportation Performance Measures related to safety, pavement and bridge condition, system performance, freight, traffic congestion, and on-road mobile source emissions.
Resolution 18-19, Safety Performance Measure Targets (pp. 3-5) – Scott Weber ACTION REQUESTED: Recommendation to the NIRPC Commission
Resolution 18-20, Pavement Condition and Bridge Condition Performance Measures (pp. 6-8) – Scott Weber
ACTION REQUESTED: Recommendation to the NIRPC Commission
Resolution 18-21, System Performance, Freight, and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Performance Measure (pp. 9-11) – Scott Weber
ACTION REQUESTED: Recommendation to the NIRPC Commission
Coordinated Transit Plan (pp. 12-xx) – James Winters
The Coordinated Transit Plan is a federal requirement in order to receive funding for federal program 5310, "Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities." This federally funded program provides resources for eligible transit operators to improve et mobility for people who have disabilities, people who are elderly and people who are low income.
Public Comment Period Report (pp.12-23) ACTION REQUESTED: Informational
Resolution 18-22, Coordinated Transit Plan (pp. 24-91) – James Winters ACTION REQUESTED: Recommendation to the NIRPC Commission
Presentation: Draft Funding Allocations and Program Rules – Mitch Barloga
Resolution 18-23, Notice of Funding Availability (pp. 92-xx) – Mitch Barloga ACTION REQUESTED: Recommendation to the NIRPC Commission
Topical Committee Reports
Various committees are invited to report out on their meetings.
Environmental Management Policy Committee (EMPC)
Ped, Pedal & Paddle Committee (3PC)
Transit Operators Roundtable (TOR)
Land Use Committee (LUC)
Surface Transportation Committee (STC)
Transportation Resource & Oversight Committee (TROC)
Reports from Planning Partners
Federal Highway Administration & Federal Transit Administration
Neighboring Regional Planning Agencies
Other Business, Staff Announcements and Upcoming Meetings
Other Business
Staff Announcements
NIRPC Meetings/Events
The Finance & Personnel Committee will meet on Thursday, November 15 at 8:00 a.m. in the Dune Room at NIRPC.
The NIRPC Full Commission/Executive Board will meet on Thursday, November 15 at 9 a.m. in the Lake Michigan Room at NIRPC.
The NIRPC Offices will be closed in observance of Thanksgiving Day on November 22 and 23.
The Transportation Resource & Oversight Committee – Lake and Porter Counties will meet on Tuesday, November 27 at 9 a.m. in the Lake Michigan Room at NIRPC.
The Transportation Resource & Oversight Committee – LaPorte County will meet on Tuesday, November 27 at 1:00 p.m. at City of La Porte Parks Department.
The Surface Transportation Committee will meet on Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in the Lake Michigan Room at NIRPC.
The Land Use Committee will meet on Wednesday, December 5 at 10 a.m. in the Dune Room at NIRPC.
The Environmental Management Policy Committee will meet on Thursday, December 6 at 9 a.m. in the Lake Michigan Room at NIRPC.
The Ped, Pedal & Paddle Committee will meet on Thursday, December 6 at 1:30 p.m. in the Lake Michigan Room at NIRPC.
7.0 Next Meeting
The next Technical Planning Committee meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 9 a.m. in the Lake Michigan Room at the NIRPC office.
8.0 Adjournment
Requests for alternate formats, please contact Mary Thorne at NIRPC at least 48 hours prior at (219) 763- 6060 extension 131 or at mthorne@nirpc.org. Individuals with hearing impairments may contact us through the Indiana Relay 711 service by calling 711 or (800) 743-3333.
The Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, familial status, parental status, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program.
NIRPC Lake Michigan Room, 6100 Southport Road, Portage October 9, 2018
Minutes
Kevin Breitzke called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance, remembering the victims of September 11 2001. Members present included Kevin Breitzke, George Topoll, Mark O’Dell, Kelly Wenger, Margot Sabato, Dean Button, Kay Nelson, Tyler Kent, Julie Ritzler, and David Wright. Others present included Jerry Siska, Bruce Lindner, Jerry Siska, Frank Rosado, Jr., Laurie Keagle, Chris Moore, Jeff Huet, Doug Ferguson, Claudia Taylor, Jill Murr, Ismail Attallah, Jake Dammarrell, and Dennis Cobb. Joyce Newland participated via conference phone. Staff present included Mitch Barloga, Trey Wadsworth, Charles Bradsky, Dominique Edwards, Lisa Todd, Scott Weber, Eman Ibrahim, Peter Kimball, Allen Hammond and Mary Thorne.
The INDOT participation survey was available at the table in the lobby.
The minutes of the September 11, 2018 Technical Planning Committee meeting were approved on a motion by Kay Nelson and a second by Dean Button.
There were no public comments.
Presentation – Dominique Edwards presented on the 2050 Plan drivers and influences of Northwest Indiana’s future. Summer pop-up events concluded September 1. Feedback was received from over 900 people ranging in age from 5 to 75. The fall series of pop up events began last week and goes through October 20. Visit www.nirpc.org for more information.
Presentation - Mitch Barloga presented on the revisions to the new Programmatic Investment Approach for the 2050 Plan and 2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with changes made from input received from the topical committees. The first part of the approach will be the scoring of the project types, the second part will be the scoring of the programs. A sample score sheet was shown as well as the formulas for scoring. Programs and funding allocations will be determined through November and project selection will take place from November to January. Program scoring will be presented to this committee in November for recommendation to the Board and the NOFA solicitation package will be ready for a late November call for projects. Discussion followed. Contact Mitch Barloga with any questions or comments.
Implementation Planning
Scott Weber described the reasons for an amended Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Performance Plan, noting the changes to the targets for peak hours of excessive delay per capita (PHED) and Non- single occupancy vehicle travel (Non-SOV). On a motion by Kay Nelson and a second by George Topoll, the committee voted to recommend the amended CMAQ Performance Plan to the NIRPC Board for adoption.
Lisa Todd presented on the transit asset management group plan for small transit providers as required by the Federal Transit Administration for sub-recipients. The plan is required to be in place by October 1 and the required condition assessment must be completed before September 30, 2019. On a motion by Margot Sabato and a second by George Topoll, the committee voted to recommend the transit asset management group plan to the NIRPC Board for adoption. Contact James Winters with questions or for more information.
Programming
Charles Bradsky reported that a 30-day public comment period was held on FY 2018-2021 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment #17 from August 30 through September 30. No comments were received.
Charles Bradsky presented Resolution 18-14, FY 2018-2021 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment #17 for INDOT and local projects. On a motion by Dean Button and a second by David Wright, the committee voted to recommend Resolution 18-14, FY 2018-2021 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment #17 to the NIRPC Board for adoption.
Topical Committee Reports
The Ped, Pedal & Paddle Committee did a programmatic approach exercise at its meeting last week. Governor Holcomb has set $90 million for trails throughout the state.
Allen Hammond outlined the Transit ADA Inventory including bus stops, in its ADA transition plan. The goal is to verify that an operator or its community has an inventory of barriers and a prioritization schedule for removal of those barriers. The deadline for starting the assessment is December of 2018. Contact Allen Hammond for more information.
The Surface Transportation Committee met last Tuesday to hear presentations from Dominque Edwards on 2050 outreach and from Mitch Barloga on the programmatic approach. Feedback was provided by the committee. The next meeting date will be finalized shortly.
The Lake & Porter Transportation Resource and Oversight Committee will meet on October 23 at 9 a.m. at NIRPC.
The LaPorte Transportation Resource and Oversight Committee will meet next Tuesday at 1:00
p.m. at the City of La Porte Parks Department.
Planning Partners
Doug Ferguson announced that the CMAP On to 2050 launch will be held on October 10 at Millennium Park from 10 a.m. to noon.
Emerging Trends: Due to time constraints, no video was provided.
Announcements
Kevin Breitzke congratulated NIRPC for winning the outstanding project award for the Greenways+Blueways Plan at the MPO Conference.
Mitch Barloga said the Environmental Management Policy Committee will reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. to continue their exercise on the programmatic approach.
The next Technical Planning Committee meeting is November 13 at 9 a.m. at NIRPC. Hearing no other business, Kevin Breitzke adjourned the meeting at 10:45 a.m.
A Digital MP3 of this meeting is filed. Contact Mary Thorne at the phone number or email below should you wish to receive a copy or a portion of it.
October engagement results: highlights on the public’s feedback on programs
3
Pop-up highlights
Interactive table-top game at seven locations across the three counties
Participants provided feedback on what programs to invest in for NWI’s future
Each were given cards describing the thirteen programs and were asked to choose to budget five programs in a hypothetical budget of $15 million
Over 208 participants from Oct. 4 – Oct. 20th
Rich feedback captured from diverse audiences
Contact name Email Website Facebook Twitter
Phone Address
Dominique D. Edwards
https://www.facebook.com/nirpcmpo/ https://twitter.com/NIRPC
(219) 763-6060
6100 Southport Rd Portage, IN 46368
A RESOLUTION OF THE NORTHWESTERN INDIANA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURE TARGETS FOR 2019
November 15, 2018
WHEREAS: Northwest Indiana’s citizens require a safe, efficient, resource- conserving regional transportation system that maintains and enhances regional mobility and contributes to improving the quality of life in Northwest Indiana; and
WHEREAS: The Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission, hereafter referred to as “the Commission”, being designated the Metropolitan Planning (MPO) for the Lake, Porter, and LaPorte County area, has established a regional, comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing (3-C) transportation planning process to develop the unified planning work program, a transportation plan, and a transportation improvement program to facilitate federal funding for communities, counties, and transit operators, and to provide technical assistance and expertise to regional transportation interests; and
WHEREAS: The Commission performs the above activities to satisfy requirements of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 (PL 114-94), applicable portions of all prior federal transportation program authorizing legislation, as well as other federal, state, and local laws mandating or authorizing transportation planning activities; and
WHEREAS: The FAST Act of 2015 requires the implementation of performance-based planning, including the adoption of annual safety targets by state departments of transportation for the performance measures of number of fatalities, rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, number of serious injuries, rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, and number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries; and
WHEREAS: The FAST Act of 2015 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to annually adopt the targets of the state department of transportation or develop their own; and
WHEREAS: The Technical Planning Committee (TPC) has recommended that the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission adopt these safety targets for the year 2019;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission hereby adopts the safety targets chosen by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and will support these targets by planning and programming projects so that they contribute to the attainment of the targets for the performance measures as shown on the attachment to this resolution.
Duly adopted by the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission this 15th day of November 2018.
Geof R. Benson Chairperson
ATTEST:
Karen Freeman-Wilson Secretary
Safety Performance Measure Targets:
Performance Measure | 2018 Target | 2019 Target |
Number of fatalities | 814.9 | 889.6 |
Rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled | 1.036 | 1.087 |
Number of serious injuries | 3,479.8 | 3,501.9 |
Rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled | 4.347 | 4.234 |
Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries | 417.0 | 393.6 |
A RESOLUTION OF THE NORTHWESTERN INDIANA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING PAVEMENT CONDITION AND BRIDGE CONDITION PERFORMANCE MEASURE TARGETS FOR 2019 AND 2021
November 15, 2018
WHEREAS: Northwest Indiana’s citizens require a safe, efficient, resource- conserving regional transportation system that maintains and enhances regional mobility and contributes to improving the quality of life in Northwest Indiana; and
WHEREAS: The Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission, hereafter referred to as “the Commission”, being designated the Metropolitan Planning (MPO) for the Lake, Porter, and LaPorte County area, has established a regional, comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing (3-C) transportation planning process to develop the unified planning work program, a transportation plan, and a transportation improvement program to facilitate federal funding for communities, counties, and transit operators, and to provide technical assistance and expertise to regional transportation interests; and
WHEREAS: The Commission performs the above activities to satisfy requirements of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 (PL 114-94), applicable portions of all prior federal transportation program authorizing legislation, as well as other federal, state, and local laws mandating or authorizing transportation planning activities; and
WHEREAS: The FAST Act of 2015 requires the implementation of performance-based planning, including the adoption of 2-year and 4-year pavement condition and bridge condition targets by state departments of transportation for the performance measures of percentage of Interstate pavements in Good condition, percentage of Interstate pavements in Poor condition, percentage of non-Interstate National Highway System pavements in Good condition, percentage of non-Interstate National Highway System pavements in Poor condition, percentage of National Highway System bridges in Good condition, and percentage of National Highway System bridges in Poor condition; and
WHEREAS: The FAST Act of 2015 requires, within 180 days of the state department of transportation adopting targets, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to either adopt the targets of the state department of transportation or develop their own targets; and
WHEREAS: The Technical Planning Committee (TPC) has recommended that the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission adopt these pavement condition and bridge condition targets for the years 2019 and 2021;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission hereby adopts the pavement condition and bridge condition targets chosen by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and will support these targets by planning and programming projects so that they contribute to the attainment of the targets for the performance measures as shown on the attachment to this resolution.
Duly adopted by the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission this 15th day of November 2018.
Geof R. Benson Chairperson
ATTEST:
Karen Freeman-Wilson Secretary
Pavement Condition and Bridge Condition Performance Measure Targets:
Performance Measure | 2019 Target | 2021 Target |
Percentage of Interstate pavements in Good condition | 84.24% | 84.24% |
Percentage of Interstate pavements in Poor condition | 0.80% | 0.80% |
Percentage of non-Interstate National Highway System pavements in Good condition | 78.71% | 78.71% |
Percentage of non-Interstate National Highway System pavements in Poor condition | 3.10% | 3.10% |
Percentage of National Highway System bridges in Good condition | 48.32% | 48.32% |
Percentage of National Highway System bridges in Poor condition | 2.63% | 2.63% |
A RESOLUTION OF THE NORTHWESTERN INDIANA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE, FREIGHT, AND CONGESTION MITIGATION AIR QUALITY PERFORMANCE MEASURE TARGETS FOR 2019 AND 2021
November 15, 2018
WHEREAS: Northwest Indiana’s citizens require a safe, efficient, resource- conserving regional transportation system that maintains and enhances regional mobility and contributes to improving the quality of life in Northwest Indiana; and
WHEREAS: The Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission, hereafter referred to as “the Commission”, being designated the Metropolitan Planning (MPO) for the Lake, Porter, and LaPorte County area, has established a regional, comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing (3-C) transportation planning process to develop the unified planning work program, a transportation plan, and a transportation improvement program to facilitate federal funding for communities, counties, and transit operators, and to provide technical assistance and expertise to regional transportation interests; and
WHEREAS: The Commission performs the above activities to satisfy requirements of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 (PL 114-94), applicable portions of all prior federal transportation program authorizing legislation, as well as other federal, state, and local laws mandating or authorizing transportation planning activities; and
WHEREAS: The FAST Act of 2015 requires the implementation of performance-based planning, including the adoption of 2-year and 4-year system performance, freight, and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality targets by state departments of transportation for the performance measures of the percent of person-miles traveled on the Interstates that are reliable, the percent of person- miles traveled on the non-Interstate National Highway System that are reliable, Truck Travel Time Reliability Index on the Interstates, annual peak hours of excessive delay per capita on the National Highway System in the Chicago, IL--IN Urbanized Area, percent of non-single occupancy vehicle travel in the Chicago, IL-
-IN Urbanized Area, and emissions reductions of applicable criteria pollutants and precursors from Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program-funded projects; and
WHEREAS: The FAST Act of 2015 requires, for the system performance, freight, and emissions reduction performance measures, within 180 days of the state department of transportation adopting targets, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to either adopt the targets of the state department of transportation or develop their own targets; and
WHEREAS: The FAST Act of 2015 requires, for the peak hours of excessive delay per capita and the percent of non-single occupancy vehicle travel performance measures, all metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and state departments of transportation to adopt unified targets for the applicable Urbanized Area; and
WHEREAS: The Technical Planning Committee (TPC) has recommended that the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission adopt these system performance, freight, and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality targets for the years 2019 and 2021;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission hereby adopts the system performance, freight, and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality targets chosen by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and will support these targets by planning and programming projects so that they contribute to the attainment of the targets for the performance measures as shown on the attachment to this resolution.
Duly adopted by the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission this 15th day of November 2018.
Geof R. Benson Chairperson
ATTEST:
Karen Freeman-Wilson Secretary
System Performance, Freight, and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Performance Measure Targets:
Performance Measure | 2019 Target | 2021 Target |
Percent of person-miles traveled on the Interstates that are reliable | 90.5% | 92.8% |
Percent of person-miles traveled on the non-Interstate National Highway System that are reliable | Not Applicable | 89.8% |
Truck Travel Time Reliability Index on the Interstates | 1.27 | 1.24 |
Annual peak hours of excessive delay per capita on the National Highway System in the Chicago, IL--IN Urbanized Area | Not Applicable | 15.4* |
Percent non-single occupancy vehicle travel in the Chicago, IL--IN Urbanized Area | 31.4%* | 31.9%* |
PM10 reduced (kg/day) from Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program projects | 0.30 | 0.50 |
NOx reduced (kg/day) from Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program projects | 1,600.00 | 2,200.00 |
VOC reduced (kg/day) from Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program projects | 1,600.00 | 2,600.00 |
CO reduced (kg/day) from Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program projects | 200.00 | 400.00 |
* Unified target between the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, the Indiana Department of Transportation, and the Illinois Department of Transportation already committed to before May 20, 2018
Coordinated Transit Plan | October 31, 2018
The draft of the Coordinated Transit Plan was released for a 30-day public comment period beginning October 1, 2018. A draft of the document was made available at www.nirpc.org and emailed to stakeholders.
The comments and responses to the draft are listed below. An update will also be provided at the NIRPC Commission meeting on November 15, 2018.
Coordinated Transit Plan Draft Comments & Responses
Comment Reference Number | Manner Considered by Staff | Staff Response | Significant? Need to Modify? |
Coordinated Transit Plan Public Comments (October 1 - 30, 2018) | |||
Electronic Comments | |||
1 | I focused on Lake County--not much new. Why is there not a fixed route bus on Ridge Rd.--Indiana and Illinois? Please continue to strongly advocate for the South Shore double tracking, and the WestLake Extension of the South Shore. | Regarding your suggestion about the Ridge Road bus, we will pass your comments along to the fixed route bus operators in North Lake County: Gary Public Bus Corporation and East Chicago. Should they decide there is enough demand for service on Ridge Road, and enough funding available, they may decide to put service there. However, ultimately the decision on where to place service comes down to each individual transit agency. Thank you for your comments on the West Lake Extension and Double Tracking the South Shore Train. These are very important catalyst projects that spark greater investments in transit over time. NIRPC will continue to maintain its positive relationship with the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District and support these projects however it can. | No |
Comment Reference Number | Manner Considered by Staff | Staff Response | Significant? Need to Modify? |
Coordinated Transit Plan Public Comments (October 1 - 30, 2018) | |||
2 | We need to provide transportation for these individuals with an alternative that is NOT marked a "special." My daughter has autism and refuses to use SLCCS because it is "the handicapped bus." Why not provide the vehicles without any markings except SLCCS? Must all who use this be "branded"? What we really need is accessible and affordable general public transportation throughout the region. | I looked into the issue that you and your daughter ran into with SLCCS buses. I spoke to the transportation department at SLCCS and asked them to confirm the kind of branding present on their buses. They indicated to me that currently they do not have any kind of "special" moniker on their buses - that they are labeled only as SLCCS transit. The woman I spoke with did elaborate that there is an international symbol of access, or a "handicap" logo, on the side of the bus to indicate that there is a wheelchair-accessible ramp, but otherwise there isn't currently any branding on the buses to distinguish it as a special form of transit. I also wanted to mention that the services SLCCS provides are open to the public regardless of age or disability status, and many people without disabilities utilize SLCCS services. We have heard from the stakeholders in our planning process and from the public that sometimes individuals feel less inclined to take transit because of the stigma associated with transit being for "special needs." This stigma is something that we're working against to enhance transit access for all people, and reduce barriers to accessibility across the region. If you or your daughter have any input on how we can continue to reduce the stigma of using public transit, we would appreciate your feedback. I've made SLCCS aware of this issue and I'm also cc'ing them on this message in case I missed something regarding your suggestion or if you'd like any additional feedback. I also wanted to mention that we appreciate your comment about needing "accessible and affordable general public transportation throughout the region." We wholeheartedly agree. The goal of all of our planning efforts is to expand transit to as many people as possible. Thank you for taking the time to submit a comment. If you have anything else you'd like to add, please let us know! Thanks again, | No |
Comment Reference Number | Manner Considered by Staff | Staff Response | Significant? Need to Modify? |
Coordinated Transit Plan Public Comments (October 1 - 30, 2018) | |||
3 | Re: coordination o D/R providers with each other and helping feed/extend fixed route effectiveness Re: Local investment Change “local match” conversation to “local investment”. More investment needed to provide services people want (more frequency, larger service area). Considering the amount of leftover NIRPC grant funds, local match is not an operator-specific issue Snapshots of service and agencies: | Hello David, As you know, many of these comments were incorporated into the document as per the Transit Operators Roundable on October 25, 2018. As per request, this message will address the comments made in that meeting as well as a few additional ones you requested here. “Change “local match” conversation to “local investment”. More investment needed to provide services people want (more frequency, larger service area). Considering the amount of leftover NIRPC grant funds, local match is not an operator-specific issue” “Separate the maps for fixed route and demand response services (possibly include complementary paratransit areas in the latter)” | Yes. Changes made: •Expanded references to GPTC's rapid bus service throughout the document •Moved NICTD's transit operator profile to a new "Mulit-county" provider section •Enhanced language regarding local match •Enhanced language regarding the core services of GPTC and local match •Enhanced language concerning the beginning of GPTC's regional services •Enhanced language about North Township and GPTC's changed service area after the decline of the RBA •Removed the "Service overlap map," and all supporting text •Added an implementation matrix |
Twofold coordination:o Fixed-route operators with each other (schedules, fare media, technology, etc)
The endorsement of using federal funds for ADA transition plan site reviews/improvements is a good suggestion
Separate the maps for fixed route and demand response services (possibly include complementary paratransit areas in the latter)
Deviated fixed route is not often considered a separate mode, but rather how a fixed-route service provides its complementary service
Rapid Bus, defined by infrastructure, branding, dedicated lanes and frequency, should be identified as a separate mode
NICTD: most of NICTD’s service area is outside of Lake County; the agency profile should not be in the Lake County section
“Local match” is distinctly different from “local investment.” In order to more effectively utilize federal funds a dedicated regional local match source is necessary. This point was discussed in detail at the Gary public meeting of the coordinated plan, the GPTC Regional Transit Summit, and in nearly every public meeting concerning transit. While local investment is important, local matching funds for federal funds remains to be a paramount concern in spending down all carryover balances for all transit systems in Northwestern Indiana, including GPTC.
The primary purpose of this document is to ensure coordination between transit operators, as well as operators and human service agencies on a
Comment Reference Number | Manner Considered by Staff | Staff Response | Significant? Need to Modify? |
Coordinated Transit Plan Public Comments (October 1 - 30, 2018) | |||
Public Participation | regional scale. In order to do this, maps with both types of service are necessary. “Deviated fixed route is not often considered a separate mode, but rather how a fixed-route service provides its complementary service.” “Rapid Bus, defined by infrastructure, branding, dedicated lanes and frequency, should be identified as a separate mode” “NICTD: most of NICTD’s service area is outside of Lake County; the agency profile should not be in the Lake County section” | as an appendix that links 2050 Critical Paths, Coordinated Plan strategies, needs, relevance, and responsible parties | |
GPTC
GPTC is the only agency described specifically with a “local match problem.” GPTC has local support needed for maintaining its core system and, as mentioned elsewhere in the Coordinated Plan, has infrastructure and expertise but lacks regional partners for expansion and higher frequencies. This is different from a “local match problem”. Please modify.
GPTC’s return to regional service was in 1996 (Tri-City Connection), not with the loss of RBA service. Please correct.
Much like NICTD’s Westlake and Double Track projects, GPTC’s Lakeshore and Broadway services were preceded by specific corridor plans followed by community buy-in and, for both subareas, community investment. Both efforts are worthy of specific mention in the agency summary. Please modify.
NORTH: Please explain how North Township’s Dial-A-Ride is similar to GPTC’s service. Additionally, the Dial-A-Ride existed prior to the collapse of the RBA, but was expanded afterwards. Please clarify.
SLCCS: Service area size is not mentioned regarding other agencies so it may not really be appropriate here
Transit Triangle: The plan’s ridership mention reads as being critical of the project; ridership for other services not mentioned. This critique should be removed.
TransPorte: The description of effectiveness due to smaller service area misses the mark - not about service area but that the service area is the same as a municipal boundary (not fair to compare it to other D/R services)
Change focus of discussion from number of flyers/emails/meetings to actual engagement and responses
93 human services site visits - explain?
Can providers get access to raw data relevant to them?
The reason deviated fixed route services are called out in this section is to highlight the difference between traditional fixed-route service with complementary paratransit and deviated fixed-route service. The public identified complementary paratransit as the most-ideal choice in providing service to people with disabilities. As such, it would be a misnomer to lump deviated fixed route service into the latter.
The purpose of defining the modes in the context of this document was to highlight the regional accessibility of people with disabilities and the elderly. You are correct that there is a distinction here that is important. Further analysis should be completed concerning frequency of service and how that affects transit availability in the region. Unfortunately, this analysis is too broad and time consuming to be included in this document, however other references to GPTC’s rapid bus service have been expanded in other portions of the document.
This issue was discussed this at length in our 10/25 meeting. Edits have been received from NICTD and they also indicated they’d prefer their profile be moved to a new section. A new section for multi-county providers has been added.
Comment Reference Number | Manner Considered by Staff | Staff Response | Significant? Need to Modify? |
Coordinated Transit Plan Public Comments (October 1 - 30, 2018) | |||
Data Trends Strategies The service gaps identified on page 41 should be connected to the strategies from the 2050 plan via a matrix or some other method. | “GPTC is the only agency described specifically with a “local match problem.”” “GPTC has local support needed for maintaining its core system and, as mentioned elsewhere in the coordinated Plan, has infrastructure and expertise but lacks regional partners for expansion and higher frequencies. This is different from a “local match problem”. Please modify.” “GPTC’s return to regional service was in 1996 (Tri-City Connection), not with the loss of RBA service. Please correct.” “Much like NICTD’s Westlake and Double Track projects, GPTC’s Lakeshore and Broadway services were preceded by specific corridor plans followed by community buy-in and, for both subareas, community investment. Both efforts are worthy of specific mention in the agency summary. Please modify.” “NORTH: Please explain how North Township’s Dial-A-Ride is similar to GPTC’s service. Additionally, the Dial-A-Ride existed prior to the collapse of the RBA, but was expanded afterwards. Please clarify.” “SLCCS: Service area size is not mentioned regarding other agencies so it may not really be appropriate here.” “Transit Triangle: The plan’s ridership mention reads as being critical of the | ||
Some citation should be made that commuter rail reach is improved with fixed route transit, especially at EC, Metro, MC (all have multiple bus lines serving them)
Service overlap map and discussion is misleading
Could lead to misinterpretation that more service providers equals more transit access (i.e. two D/R providers > one fixed route provider)
Of the four cities mentioned in the text as having multiple services overlapping, three are not served by fixed route transit and, contrary to the text and map, have been targeted as poster communities for poor transit access
Illustrating the conceit of the misinterpretation: Midtown Gary has only one operator – GPTC – but significantly better transit access (Bmx, R3, L1, L3, L5) than downtown Hammond (D/R, R1 and R4), yet the map suggests that Midtown, with bus service averaging once every six minutes, is transitstarved. o An alternative would be a “quality of service” metric suggested recently - stratify service types (D/R, fixed route, rapid bus, commuter rail) and measure locations by frequency of each type
If “quality of service” is not used I would recommend removing the map and elaborating in the text, as the map apparently (based on meeting discussions) purports to identify “transit deserts” yet includes some of NWI’s most transitrich areas, that are simply served by one agency.
Language has been expanded to include other transit operators that are also trying to increase their local match. The language has been softened from “local match problem,” to “…finding additional investment to secure and expand their regional services is a challenge.”
Language has been updated
Language has been updated
Language has been updated
This issue was discussed in-depth at the 10/25 meeting. The language has been updated to clarify that both services expanded to accommodate a void in service left by the collapse of the RBA.
The size of an operator’s service area is mentioned in other profiles. For instance, GPTC’s service area size is also mentioned in their profile as “the largest fixed route operator.” A primary issue facing SLCCS is how to continue to provide the same level of service to a large geographic area that continues to grow in need as more human service agencies move to suburban Lake County. As such, mention of their geographic size is important for context as the reader moves into the outreach and data trends portion of the document. Additionally, as indicated in the 10/25 roundtable meeting, SLCCS indicated that they are comfortable with this language.
Comment Reference Number | Manner Considered by Staff | Staff Response | Significant? Need to Modify? |
Coordinated Transit Plan Public Comments (October 1 - 30, 2018) | |||
project; ridership for other services not mentioned. This critique should be removed.” “TransPorte: The description of effectiveness due to smaller service area misses the mark - not about service area but that the service area is the same as a municipal boundary (not fair to compare it to other D/R services)” “Change focus of discussion from number of flyers/emails/meetings to actual engagement and responses” | |||
This issue was also discussed at the 10/25 roundtable meeting. A representative from the Transit Triangle made recommendations to change the language concerning ridership. We have taken their comments and updated the language.
Demand response service providers function more efficiently when their service areas are smaller. To scale up in geographic area a demand response provider has to add vehicles and more operational hours to accommodate those changes. A representative from TransPorte approved the submitted language.
The “Outreach Methods” section of the document is a single infographic that comprises a single page. This is the only place where NIRPC’s specific methods in soliciting public input are mentioned. Documenting these steps are critically important in illustrating the steps NIRPC received to get the public response in the plan. The following section “Outreach Trends” is a 17- page section dives into the responses in depth. This section is broken into three sub-sections each highlighting the specific types of response NIRPC received in the largest iterations of our outreach: the ridership survey, the
Comment Reference Number | Manner Considered by Staff | Staff Response | Significant? Need to Modify? |
Coordinated Transit Plan Public Comments (October 1 - 30, 2018) | |||
organization survey, and public meeting feedback. The 1 page of methods compared to 17 pages of results is a sufficient level of focus on actual engagement. “93 human services site visits - explain?” “Can providers get access to raw data relevant to them?” “Some citation should be made that commuter rail reach is improved with fixed route transit, especially at EC, Metro, MC (all have multiple bus lines serving them)” “Service overlap map and discussion is misleading (…)” “The service gaps identified on page 41 should be connected to the strategies | |||
This was discussed at length in the 10/25 meeting. NIRPC staff made 93 visits to human service agencies to drop off paper surveys to solicit more feedback on our ridership survey.
The raw data from the ridership and organizational surveys will be shared. It is expected to be utilized in the upcoming year of programming with the Transit Operators Roundtable.
The data trends section’s primary focus is on the availability and quality of transit from a regional perspective. In future studies, more attention should be given to fixed route service frequency and coordination with commuter rail, however similarly to the service frequency comment that kind of analysis is too specific for this kind of document. Please note that in several places in the document the importance of coordination between providers, across modes, is identified as critically important and should be prioritized.
The map in question was removed to accommodate your comments.
Comment Reference Number | Manner Considered by Staff | Staff Response | Significant? Need to Modify? |
Coordinated Transit Plan Public Comments (October 1 - 30, 2018) | |||
from the 2050 plan via a matrix or some other method.” | |||
Comments by Telephone | |||
No comments were received by telephone | |||
Letters Received | |||
An implementation matrix has been incorporated. This matrix links 2050 Critical Paths, to Coordinated Plan Strategies, to identified needs, their relevance, and responsible parties.
Comment Reference Number | Manner Considered by Staff | Staff Response | Significant? Need to Modify? |
Coordinated Transit Plan Public Comments (October 1 - 30, 2018) | |||
4 | (Attachment 1) | Unfortunately, implementing public transit is often challenging. The purpose of this plan, is to hopefully make transit easier and more accessible for riders and more efficient for operators. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides funding to local transit operators to run their services. FTA requires that the kind of accommodations you describe in your letter are present and operational in vehicles their funds help pay for including lifts, securement devices, and seat belts. To your point, there are many issues that need to be studied. This plan is a first step in better understanding who in Northwestern Indiana needs transit and where do they need to go, however it is an ongoing process that requires participation from regional transit operators, elected officials, and of course individuals like yourself. | No |
5 | (Attachment 2) | There is no substantive data or study that concludes that transit spreads crime. This is a myth that is sometimes propagated to limit transit expansion projects, but it has no merit. In fact, the more people and activity placed on community streets often leads to safer communities. Modern public transit vehicles are also often equipped with safety features like security cameras. If a criminal was seeking to escape the scene of a crime without leaving a forensic foothold, as you have indicated, they would likely choose any other method of travel that does not include multiple witnesses, a very large (often slow-moving) well-lit and branded vehicle with unique identification numbers, security systems, and well-documented pick up and drop off data. The methods the federal government uses to allocate funding puts strict limitations on what can be purchased with those federal funds. To “forget public transportation and repair the roads and bridges” is impossible. There are distinct funding sources for building roads and bridges that are separate from transit funding. | No |
µ_; _}{ /.Z:f.W ut /l'H b P_M./ .,IA / c?l'/ tfl l-L?/.A · '/!!"/¥7_{f:,JtfJlf1f.S'P
o,M' ._' AfLLER.5 Mr yY '/V.PA- _.f_t 7 Q ;::,L_
/<.LStd ;r.:t
f_L/ fi,C7
_ M L -fj:t - - l!L tt
/11',<,n_) ;,,;, ,,;_ J a_
&4r--tL t:L Ut r'-- - - .IL_ ftJii,(_
w_ c1 e). J r r,7d lfi /)d A £ d _
- J i- clu- -
- t.,J wdlk +a
_'CAL- L.,._41'-' WffA, $f_z li R'(g_
_ b.rA.,. /c uua. ut
- - t .4-R--tw.L-_l;! dtv-t- -a. -
L£4J.).<'tiu.£CJ) «-U Aaiid.. t0,L kL!ut.-, 1
q--t_,,L o/ ,-ad
i- ,k.u_L_t;
_ k /'_.-/4tl .,&,- d fL.t4
/u_ h pU/rL_4/u__ft _
: QA/
: QA/
- -- - t;/_ /tt: d- 4-k
/'UL f · a.4,;!A!!:_ 1
- - - - - - - -
SEP 2 2018 ,; :
[J
Here is the requested feedback for your transportation issue: The northwest Indiana public transportation is a terrible idea. A bus line...originating in one crime area. travelling through another crime area. and ending in another crime area...duh!...just promotes crime.
Northwest Indiana does not need that. Ask yourself just who really is the money behind the push for public transportation. and if you would want any of your family living along the route.
The people whom can most benefit from Public Transportation. are the very ones whose safety is threatened while using public transportation. They are the ones who are the most vulnerable. In effect. they get punished for embracing progress.
Give the people OPTIONS. not give them a safety issue.
When there is a bus line from/through/and to crime areas. this is what you end up with - criminals who move easily within and between communities. who leave no tire tracks. no license plate numbers. no faotprints...and growing crime statistics that are difficult to track. Most urgent and costly of all. is that you have community/region that immediately begins to deteriorate further. ls that what you want for the future of Lake County. Porter County. and LaPorte County? When you connect your counties with a bus. you connect your crime network. (Can you figure out how to do the former. without doing the later?)
Public Transportation creates more problems than it fixes. It makes Crime portable. If you put hired protection on each public conveyance. the cost of use goes up beyond the ability to pay of the ones who most need the service. It makes the efforts laughable. and enables a clear view through the economic veil to see who really benefits from the Public Transportation creation. Better think this through first. That money is better spent on road improvements to help keep the integrity of the existing neighborhoods. Good neighborhoods that people want to raise their families in. do not have had road systems.
If you want financial growth with population growth and stability. forget Public Transportation. and repair the roads and bridges. Affluent neighborhoods do not have tacky roads.
A RESOLUTION OF THE NORTHWESTERN INDIANA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT THE COORDINATED TRANSIT PLAN, AS REQUIRED BY 49 U.S.C. 5310
WHEREAS, the citizens of Northwest Indiana require a safe, efficient and effective regional transportation system that maintains and enhances regional mobility and contributes to improving the quality of life in the region; and
WHEREAS, the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission, hereafter referred to as “the Commission” is the designated metropolitan planning organization for the Lake, LaPorte, and Porter Counties of Indiana; and
WHEREAS, the Commission is a Designated Recipient of Federal Transit Administration grant funds as defined by 49 U.S.C. § 5307(a)(2); and
WHEREAS, the Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan requirement issued by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires “a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan” that is “developed and approved through a process that included participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and other members of the public;” and
WHEREAS, the Commission together with the Northwestern Indiana transit operators: Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, Gary Public Transit Bus Corporation, City of LaPorte, City of East Chicago Transit, North Township Dial-a-Ride, Opportunity Enterprises, Porter County Aging and Community Services, and South Lake County Community Services; and
WHEREAS, the Commission together with a steering committee comprised of representatives from a variety of fields of human service agencies including: transit operators, the aging community, the disability community, the housing community, and workforce participation; and
WHEREAS, this planning period utilized a robust outreach process to gain participation from seniors, individuals with disabilities, the public, and many human service agencies; and
WHEREAS, the NIRPC Technical Planning Committee provides the Commission with technical advice and recommendations, and concurs with this resolution; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission officially adopts the NIRPC Coordinated Transit Plan:
DULY ADOPTED by the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission this 15th day of November, 2018.
Geof R. Benson Chair
ATTEST:
Karen Freeman-Wilson Secretary
Coordinated transit plan for NWI
0 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
1
Executive summary
This Coordinated Transit Plan is an effort to improve the accessibility of the overall transit system in Northwestern Indiana to individuals with disabilities, people who are low income, and people who are elderly. In order to improve the accessibility of the system, this plan used data and other information collected from transit operators, human service organizations, partner agencies, and the public to develop a set of regional needs and service gaps. These needs and service gaps were then matched to proposed goals to improve the connectivity and efficiency of the transit system and ultimately, funding priorities.
While the transit system in Northwestern Indiana covers a large geographic area, there are several limitations that have large impacts on the lives of individuals that rely on transit as their only source of transportation, namely people with disabilities, people who are elderly, and people who are low income. Most of the region is covered by demand response service, however these services do not provide the same level of freedom and flexibility as a fixed route system with complementary paratransit. Additionally, individuals who rely on transit are limited in their travel by the limitations of the transit networks service area and operational hours. In Northwestern Indiana, few providers offer services that cross county lines, and travel between cities is usually limited. These problems are increasingly aggravated by developing outside of the urban core, especially when human service agencies and medical facilities develop into unincorporated areas. Services between fixed route and demand response operators can be made more efficient by expanding fixed- route and paratransit services into communities that have the density to support higher levels of service, allowing demand response operators to operate more efficiently by focusing on longer city-to-city, county-to-county trips. Additionally, by working across program areas outside of transit, NIRPC and local decision makers can incentivize developing within the urban core, to curb unsustainable growth.
The transit system in Northwestern Indiana can also be made more efficient by coordinating services between providers. A constant problem among operators is retention of staff, limitations of available vehicles, and access to resources. By consolidating aspects of an operator’s services, sharing staff, and sharing vehicles; the regional transit system can grow beyond existing funding limitations. Other coordination methods should also be
An in-depth summary of demand response and fixed route with complementary paratransit services
can be found in the “Transit network: current conditions” section of this
document
2 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
First mile-last mile commonly is used to refer to the gap between where a bus drops off an individual and their desired location. Often this specifically relates to pedestrian infrastructure or connections between regional transit services and local services.
ADA transition plans are a requirement of FHWA, designed to encourage communities to self- evaluate barriers to the accessibility of people with disabilities. The transition plan is designed to bridge the gap from outdated infrastructure to federally-mandated accessibility requirements in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
considered like working with medical professionals or human service providers to build efficiencies, such as coordinated multi-user dispatching, contributions to local match, data- sharing, trainings, and others.
In addition to the entire regional network, more attention needs to be paid to the individual accessibility of each transit system. Persons with disabilities frequently encounter problems
accessing transit when pedestrian infrastructure is lacking. This “first mile - last mile” gap in infrastructure creates a physical barrier between individuals and where they need to go with
potentially life-changing consequences. Adequate pedestrian infrastructure is not enough, communities need to have the resources available to improve their pedestrian infrastructure to universal design standards. This can be done by setting aside federal transportation funding for the implementation of locally- developed ADA transition plans, as well as continuing to prioritize funding for pedestrian connections to transit networks, residential areas, job centers, and recreational areas.
Communication continues to be an obstacle in Northwestern Indiana when discussing transit. Traditional methods used for communicating issues about transit or coordination are often ineffective. More effort should be given in providing information about the meetings further in advance than what is typical for other public meetings. Individuals that rely on transit for 100% of their travel often have limited availability for making another trip to attend a meeting. Other opportunities for participation should be explored including utilizing social media, and other online resources to where participants can weigh-in online.
Additionally, public participation should be solicited where people are: in transit facilities, on transit vehicles, in public housing, and other places associated with the affected population groups. These considerations should all be made while recognizing that older residents may not have the same level of comfortability with technology. Communication about transit can also be more accessible to the public by coordinating between transit operators to use common language and policies between their services. Participants in this planning effort often indicated that transit services were confusing to learn about. If operators work together to develop common paratransit policies, similar language about their service area and hours, similar fares, and a single place to communicate this information to the public, learning about transit can be less confusing.
Not every resident of Northwestern Indiana has the same transportation needs. Individuals who have been historically left behind in terms of transportation investments should be
3
prioritized when considering how to grow and expand transit. These groups include people who are elderly, people with disabilities, people who are low-income, people who are ethnic minorities, and veterans. Increasing access between these priority population groups and critical locations area priority. Critical locations include: grocery stores, job centers, educational institutions, medical facilities, shopping districts, and other recreational areas. Inclusion of quality-of-life destinations can be just as important to an individual who relies on transit as the commonly-identified locations like hospitals or grocery stores. The ultimate aim of Northwestern Indiana’s transit system should not be merely to connect individuals to necessary services – the desired culmination of our planning effort should be freedom of movement and equity across all modes of transportation.
Lastly, a transit service is limited in its scope by the availability of local match. Local match 
continues to be a problem for many local transit operators in Northwestern Indiana. In order
to have a truly robust and equitable transit system, more local match will be required to leverage more federal funding for transit investments.
Local match is a portion of money that is required to leverage federal funds in the form of grants. Most federal grants that are available for transit require 50% or 80% of funding for a program to be covered by a local entity.
4 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Table of contents
Transit network: current conditions 6
Service gaps and regional needs 42
Strategies to coordinate transit 43
Funding and program priorities for FTA 5310 funding 50
Priority populations 49
Priority locations 49
Expansion strategies 49
Coordination strategies 50
Communication strategies 51
5
Federal transit law requires that projects selected for funding under the Enhanced Mobility for Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) Program be "included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan," and that the plan be "developed and approved through a process that included participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and other members of the public" utilizing transportation services. This document, the Northwestern Indiana Coordinated Transit Plan (CTP) was written by the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission to meet this federal requirement.
The Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC) was created in 1965 and functions as a regional Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as well as a Council of Governments (COG). NIRPC provides planning support to Lake, Porter, and LaPorte counties and their 41 municipalities, focusing on issues concerning transportation, the environment, and economic development. NIRPC also functions as the direct recipient for seven public transit operators in Northwestern Indiana. As a direct recipient, NIRPC provides administrative responsibilities associated with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants, including applying for federal funds on behalf of the subrecipient, providing the administrative work and oversight associated with the grant, and the procurement hurdles required by FTA for purchasing capital items and services. Additionally, NIRPC also provides oversight related to several program areas, for each subrecipient from drug and alcohol testing, ADA compliance, maintenance, and others. A function of NIRPC’s role as a direct recipient, is to coordinate and write the CTP in order to receive Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities funding.
The Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities is an FTA program that provides formula funding to states and urbanized areas to assist private, nonprofit, and public groups in meeting the transportation needs of people who are elderly, people with disabilities, and people who are low-income. This plan was developed with coordinating guidance from members of the public and representatives of these groups who work in affiliated human service agencies. Activities eligible for funding within this program include:
Human services are broadly defined as a field with the objective of allowing people to stabilize their lives in times of crisis or chronic ongoing challenges. Human service agencies are multidisciplinary, and often are related to social services, housing, counseling, medical services, independent living, and others.
NIRPC is an MPO and a COG.
MPOs traditionally are responsible for transportation-related issues,
COGs cover a broader variety of services, allowing NIRPC to also focus on: growth and conservation, the environment, human and economic resources, and stewardship and governance.
6 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Operating expenses are related to the day-to-day operations of transit. Capital expenses involve the purchase of physical items such as equipment, vehicles, buildings, planning documents, or other 3-rd party services.
Operating and capital
Buses and vans
Wheelchair lifts, ramps, and securement devices
Transit-related information technology systems, including scheduling/routing/one-call systems
Mobility management programs
Acquisition of transportation services under a contract, lease, or other arrangement
Transit network: current conditions
The Northwestern Indiana transit network has a wide variety of transit services within its region and many transit providers. Regional transit providers can be broadly categorized by the type of service they provide: demand response or fixed route.
“Demand response” is defined by FTA as “any non-fixed route system of transporting individuals that requires advanced scheduling by the customer, including services provided by public entities, nonprofits, and private providers.”
“Fixed route” transit systems operate on a point-to-point predetermined schedule. Fixed route systems can utilize buses, vans, rail or other vehicles. These systems rely on stops with estimated drop-off and pick up times, so users can plan their travel. If a transit provider is operating a fixed route service, they will be required by FTA to provide a comparable complementary paratransit service. Paratransit services must meet the following guidelines within a fixed-route system:
Service must be provided within ¾ of a mile of a fixed route
Service must be provided within the same dates and times as the fixed route service is available
Reservations must be available during normal business hours of the operator’s administrative offices, no restrictions on times to make a reservation may be applied
Fares for a paratransit trip may not exceed twice the typical full fare for the service
Personal care attendants cannot be charged a fare
7
Passengers may not be picked-up more than an hour before or after the requested time, however the transit operator may negotiate a pick-up time
No restrictions can be made for the purpose of the trip
Riders may be asked by the operator to determine their eligibility for paratransit services
Transit providers are required to provide “origin-to-destination” service, meaning that the requested service may need to go beyond a curbside drop-off. If the right criteria are met, transit operators could potentially be required to provide “door-to-door” service.
Frequently, demand response service and the complementary paratransit service required of fixed route providers are confused, or the terms are used interchangeably. However, it is worth noting that this is incorrect. Demand response providers are not under the same, stricter, service guidelines as fixed route providers operating a complementary paratransit system. The following section will detail the transit operators servicing each county in Northwestern Indiana. Each transit operator features a short description of their service as well as a “quick facts” box that uses 2016 National Transit Database figures to describe their services.
The National Transit Database is the primary source for information and
statistics related to transit. All transit operators are federally-required to contribute to the database. Annual figures are updated on a two-year lag. 2016 figures are the most recently available dataset for comparing transit providers.
8 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
9
Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD)
The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) is the entity that maintains and operates the commuter service that runs from South Bend, IN into Chicago, IL known as the South Shore Line. In 2016 the South Shore Line logged over 3 million unlinked passenger trips, of which an estimated 89% board at stations located with Lake, Porter, and La Porte Counties. NICTD is commonly referred to as a “donor agency”, as the ridership and data generated by their service increases the available FTA formula funds provided in Northwestern Indiana, however it only receives a portion back.
NICTD is heading two transformative projects, double tracking and the West Lake Extension, that will expand upon the current passenger services. The double track project improves the existing service by expanding the South Shore Line from single track to double track between Gary and Michigan City. This project also improves signal, power, and platform improvements at five passenger stations. This project will add trains for more frequent service, reduce delays and improve travel times. The West Lake Extension proposes a new rail line that extends eight miles south of Hammond, IN into Dyer, IN. This project add three new stations and creates one large Hammond Gateway station where the two rail lines would merge.
10 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
NICTD quick facts | |
FTA fund recipient type (direct/sub-recipient): | Direct recipient |
Service type: | Commuter rail |
Unlinked passenger trips (annual ridership): | 3,504,080 |
Vehicle revenue miles: | 4,233,598 |
Vehicle revenue hours: | 117,214 |
Passengers per hour: | 29.89 |
Passenger miles traveled: | 113,035,111 |
Average trip length (miles): | 32.26 |
Direct route miles: | 180 |
Fare: | Between $5.50 and $14.25 depending on distance of travel. Discounts are available. |
11
Lake county
East Chicago Transit
East Chicago Transit (ETC) is a service that is provided by the East Chicago city government. ETC provides fixed route and paratransit service throughout the city of East Chicago, with connections to the Gary Public Transit Corporation and the South Shore Train. Currently, using ETC is free for all residents of East Chicago.
ECT quick facts | |
FTA fund recipient type (direct/sub-recipient): | Sub-recipient |
Service type: | Fixed-route bus, Paratransit |
Unlinked passenger trips (annual ridership): | 150,668 |
Vehicle revenue miles: | 140,159 |
Vehicle revenue hours: | 12,146 |
Passengers per hour: | 18.23 |
Passenger miles traveled: | 243,876 |
Average trip length (miles): | 4.73 |
Direct route miles: | 70 |
Fare: | Free |
12 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Gary Public Transit Corporation
The Gary Public Transit Corporation (GPTC) is the largest fixed-route bus service in Northwestern Indiana. While GPTC receives a large portion of its local match from the City of Gary, it is a distinctly separate entity from the city government. GPTC offered regional services to municipalities outside of Gary since 1996, however after the collapse of the Regional Bus Authority in 2012, GPTC expanded more regional connections in North Lake County. GPTC offers significant levels of service to Hammond, and Merrillville; with limited connections to Highland, Munster, Crown Point, and Hobart. Under their current financial model, GPTC can continue to provide core services within the City of Gary indefinitely, however finding additional investment to secure and expand their regional services is a challenge. Currently, GPTC has the infrastructure necessary to aggressively expand service in North Lake County and perhaps South Lake County, and has achieved some success for incremental expansion, which can only be done with local investment. GPTC recently launched a major transformative transit investment in Lake County, the Broadway Metro Express, the “BMX.” The BMX is Northwestern Indiana’s first rapid bus service, connecting Gary to Merrillville in 20-minute service intervals.
GPTC quick facts | |
FTA fund recipient type (direct/sub-recipient): | Direct |
Service type: | Fixed-route bus, Paratransit |
Unlinked passenger trips (annual ridership): | 786,362 |
Vehicle revenue miles: | 889,673 |
Vehicle revenue hours: | 64,271 |
Passengers per hour: | 15.85 |
Passenger miles traveled: | 1,053,562 |
Average trip length (miles): | 6.64 |
Direct route miles: | 155 |
Fare: | $1.60 for local one-way with free transfers and discounts for “seniors, disabled, Medicare” and students. $2.25 for regional trips. |
13
North Township Dial-a-Ride
Similarly to GPTC, the North Township Dial-a-Ride was a service that aggressively expanded into Hammond to fill the void left by the collapse of the Regional Bus Authority. While this service is a subrecipient of the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission, its day to day services are administered out of the North Township Trustee’s office, Frank Mrvan. Since the Dial-a-ride’s expansion, finding additional local investment to maintain its expanded operations has been an ongoing challenge. Currently, the Dial-a- Ride offers demand response service to all communities in North Township including, Highland, Munster, Hammond, East Chicago, and Whiting. Currently, using the service is free.
North Township Dial-a-Ride quick facts | |
FTA fund recipient type (direct/sub-recipient): | Sub-recipient |
Service type: | Demand response |
Unlinked passenger trips (annual ridership): | 43,462 |
Vehicle revenue miles: | 228,505 |
Vehicle revenue hours: | 19,518 |
Passengers per hour: | 4.57 |
Passenger miles traveled: | 475,490 |
Average trip length (miles): | 22.15 |
Direct route miles: | N/A (demand response) |
Fare: | Free |
14 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
South Lake County Community Services
South Lake County Community Services (SLCCS) has the largest geographic area of all the Lake County Providers. SLCCS primarily provides service to rural and urban communities that are not currently serviced by the other Lake County operators. SLCCS provides demand response service to Griffith, Dyer, Schererville, Merrillville, Hobart, Lake Station, Crown Point, St. John, Winfield, Cedar Lake, Lowell, and Schneider, as well as the unincorporated areas of Lake County. Like many of the other demand response providers, SLCCS is facing an aging population that has increased need to get to essential services with limited mobility. As more and more of these services are built in low-density, rural areas, outside of the urban core; operating their service becomes less efficient and more expensive furthering the ongoing need for local match. Currently, SLCCS will take residents from South Lake County into North Lake County, or Porter County, but it will not pick up residents that do not live within their service area.
SLCCS quick facts | |
FTA fund recipient type (direct/sub-recipient): | Sub-recipient |
Service type: | Demand response |
Unlinked passenger trips (annual ridership): | 41,214 |
Vehicle revenue miles: | 278,696 |
Vehicle revenue hours: | 25,723 |
Passengers per hour: | 1.60 |
Passenger miles traveled: | 889,704 |
Average trip length (miles): | 21.59 |
Direct route miles: | N/A (demand response) |
Fare: | Free to $7 depending on pick-up location and the age of the client |
15
ChicaGo Dash
The ChicaGo Dash is another transit service sponsored by the City of Valparaiso. The Dash a commuter bus service connecting a transit station in downtown Valparaiso to the central business district in Chicago. The Dash has a single pick-up/drop-off location in Valparaiso, and three stops in Downtown Chicago, with no other stops in-between. The service is limited in its pick up and drop off times, offering four buses departing at four times in the morning, each bus making three stops in Chicago to drop off customers, before waiting until the afternoon, where each bus picks up from the three Chicago stations, returning to Valparaiso. The timetable was designed around an average workday with some flexibility to allow users to come in early or potentially stay late.
ChicaGo Dash quick facts | |
FTA fund recipient type (direct/sub-recipient): | Sub-recipient |
Service type: | Commuter bus |
Unlinked passenger trips (annual ridership): | 61,174 |
Vehicle revenue miles: | 120,437 |
Vehicle revenue hours: | 2,447 |
Passengers per hour: | 25.00 |
Passenger miles traveled: | 3,179,741 |
Average trip length (miles): | 51.98 |
Direct route miles: | 104 |
Fare: | $8 |
16 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Porter County Aging and Community Services
Porter County Aging and Community Services (PCACS) is a multi-service agency committed to alleviating the needs of people who are elderly in Porter County, however they provide transportation to anyone, providing they have the capacity. The PCACS service area begins and ends at the Porter County border.
PCACS quick facts | |
FTA fund recipient type (direct/sub-recipient): | Sub-recipient |
Service type: | Demand response |
Unlinked passenger trips (annual ridership): | 20,620 |
Vehicle revenue miles: | 187,977 |
Vehicle revenue hours: | 14,418 |
Passengers per hour: | 1.43 |
Passenger miles traveled: | 171,774 |
Average trip length (miles): | 8.33 |
Direct route miles: | N/A (demand response) |
Fare: | $1 one-way with subsidies for people who are elderly |
17
Opportunity Enterprises
Opportunity Enterprises (OE) is an agency that provides multiple services to adults with physical and developmental disabilities. These services are educational, vocational, recreational, and residential in nature. Additionally, OE provides demand-response transportation services in and around Porter County. Outside of Porter County, OE extends into Hobart Lake Station, Ogden Dunes, Michigan City, Westville, Wanatah, LaCrosse, and portions of Merrillville and Gary.
OE quick facts | |
FTA fund recipient type (direct/sub-recipient): | Sub-recipient |
Service type: | Demand response |
Unlinked passenger trips (annual ridership): | 87,827 |
Vehicle revenue miles: | 361,865 |
Vehicle revenue hours: | 25,616 |
Passengers per hour: | 3.43 |
Passenger miles traveled: | 1,378,044 |
Average trip length (miles): | 15.69 |
Direct route miles: | N/A (demand response) |
Fare: | $7.50 one-way in Porter County $10 outside of Porter County |
18 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
V-Line
The V-Line is a service sponsored by the City of Valparaiso. The V-Line is a deviated fixed route service, meaning that while it operates on a scheduled route like a regular fixed-route service, riders may call ahead to request a deviation in the route up to ¾ of a mile. This service is provided throughout the City of Valparaiso, primarily along commercial corridors, with limited service connecting to the Dune Park South Shore Station.
V-Line quick facts | |
FTA fund recipient type (direct/sub-recipient): | Sub-recipient |
Service type: | Fixed-route bus with deviations |
Unlinked passenger trips (annual ridership): | 121,675 |
Vehicle revenue miles: | 203,401 |
Vehicle revenue hours: | 15,136 |
Passengers per hour: | 8.04 |
Passenger miles traveled: | 522,452 |
Average trip length (miles): | 4.29 |
Direct route miles: | 60 |
Fare: | $1 with discounts available to students and people who are elderly. |
19
Michigan City Transit
Michigan City Transit (MCT) is a fixed route and paratransit operator in Michigan City. The service provides four distinct routes that begin and end at the Michigan City Library, offering service throughout the City. Currently, MCT is also operating the commuter service, the Transit Triangle. The Triangle offers service between Michigan City, LaPorte, and Purdue Northwest’s campus in Westville. Buying a fare in Michigan City will also allow a rider to transfer for free to the Transit Triangle.
Michigan City Transit quick facts | |
FTA fund recipient type (direct/sub-recipient): | Direct Recipient |
Service type: | Fixed-route bus, Paratransit |
Unlinked passenger trips (annual ridership): | 166,086 |
Vehicle revenue miles: | 238,782 |
Vehicle revenue hours: | 16,680 |
Passengers per hour: | 13.87 |
Passenger miles traveled: | N/A (reduced reporter) |
Average trip length (miles): | N/A (reduced reporter) |
Direct route miles: | N/A (reduced reporter) |
Fare: | $1 with discounts available based on age, disability status, and if the rider is a student |
20 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Transit Triangle
As of February 1st 2015, the Transit Triangle is a new commuter service linking Michigan City, LaPorte, and Purdue Northwest’s campus in Westville. Before the Transit Triangle Michigan City and the City of LaPorte were essentially unlinked islands with no transit connections between each system. Through innovative partnerships with Purdue Northwest, Michigan City, LaPorte and Westville; the major population centers of LaPorte County have been linked by a commuter service. Ridership has increased since the launch of the service and recent efforts to streamline transfers between systems, lower fares, and a more efficient schedule are expected to boost ridership even further. Buying a fare on the Transit Triangle will allow a rider to transfer to any Michigan City bus route for free.
Transit Triangle quick facts | |
FTA fund recipient type (direct/sub-recipient): | Sub-recipient (Michigan City Transit) |
Service type: | Commuter bus |
Unlinked passenger trips (annual ridership): | 6,846 |
Vehicle revenue miles: | 94,655 |
Vehicle revenue hours: | 4,282 |
Passengers per hour: | 1.60 |
Passenger miles traveled: | N/A (reduced reporter) |
Average trip length (miles): | N/A (reduced reporter) |
Direct route miles: | N/A (reduced reporter) |
Fare: | $1 with discounts based on age, and for users that also have transit passes in Michigan City or La Porte |
21
TransPorte
TransPorte is a demand response operator sponsored by the City of La Porte. Unlike other demand response providers in Northwestern Indiana, TransPorte has the smallest geography meaning that while its service area is small it can provide faster more efficient service than the providers that cover a larger service area. TransPorte is also the first Northwestern Indiana transit operator to fully utilize low-emissions vehicles. The entire fleet of TransPorte’s revenue vehicles run on propane.
TransPorte quick facts | |
FTA fund recipient type (direct/sub-recipient): | Sub-recipient |
Service type: | Demand response |
Unlinked passenger trips (annual ridership): | 40,683 |
Vehicle revenue miles: | 121,577 |
Vehicle revenue hours: | 13,051 |
Passengers per hour: | 3.12 |
Passenger miles traveled: | N/A (reduced reporter) |
Average trip length (miles): | N/A (reduced reporter) |
Direct route miles: | N/A (demand response) |
Fare: | $3.25 with discounts depending on age |
22 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Other rural providers
In rural LaPorte County there is virtually no transit. Currently, there are only two operators that receive federal funding for transit, the Social Learning Institute and Paladin. The Social Learning Institute, uses federally-acquired buses for the clients of their institute only, taking occasional trips and other outings. Paladin has a similar transportation program, and is open to the public but with extremely limited capacity for all of LaPorte county. A new private taxi service has recently started providing service to rural LaPorte County residents. “Ride With Care” primarily focuses their business on providing trips for the elderly and disabled, but are not currently offering subsidized services.
23
Public participation
The Identification of service gaps and regional transit needs and priorities is an ongoing process that should not stop with this planning document and needs to be revisited on an ongoing basis. Communication and input was provided by many members of the public as well as several valued partner agencies, however it is understood that this list of partners and groups of stakeholders should grow into the future. Input was solicited using both formal and informal methods. Formal input was provided through the use of steering committees, working groups, surveys, and public meetings. Informal input was provided in field visits, interviews, and one-on-ones with regional and local advocates of various affiliated causes. Communication and input was received from:
Assisted living facilities/residents
Disability advocates and support organizations
Educational institutions
Housing assistance organizations
Independent living support organizations
Job placement centers/programs
Local elected officials
Local transit operators
Medical care providers
Mobility managers
Non-profit organizations
Public housing agencies
Senior centers/participants
Social service agencies
Transit users
24 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
25
General ridership survey
Of all the 278 individuals who took the survey, most people indicated they were white (53%), low-income (26% below $15,000), approximately half of respondents were older than 55, and 58% indicated that someone in their household was diagnosed with a disability. Approximately 66% of all survey respondents indicated that they have used Northwestern Indiana’s transit services – the most popular service the South Shore Train, but with strong representation from GPTC, East Chicago Transit, and the other transit operators.
What is your household annual income?
Have you or anyone in your household been diagnosed with a disability? (Select all that apply)
74
74
Below
47
47
$15,000 -
39
39
$35,000 -
12
12
$75,000 -
6
21
21
$100,000 - More than
90
90
42
42
49
49
33
33
32
32
27
27
25
25
24
24
12
12
Not applicable
Not applicable
A mobility impairment
A mobility impairment
A mental health disorder
A mental health disorder
A disability or impairment not listed above
A disability or impairment not listed above
A sensory impairment (vision or hearing)
A sensory impairment (vision or hearing)
A learning disability (e.g., ADHD, dyslexia)
A learning disability (e.g., ADHD, dyslexia)
Prefer not to say
Prefer not to say
Other
Other
Prefer not
$14,999
$34,999
$74,999
$99,999
$149,999
$150,000
to say
26 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Survey respondents were also asked to provide the zip codes for their home and work locations. Concentrations of respondents took the survey from North Lake County municipalities including, Gary, Whiting, and Merrillville; with other concentrations across the region. Participants who indicated they worked, were employed primarily in Gary, Griffith, Merrillville, and the East side of Valparaiso.
While most survey respondents indicated that their experience was overall or mostly positive (72%), many people indicated obstacles with transit that limited their access to where they wanted to go. If an individual does not have immediate access to a personal vehicle because of physical, financial, or other limitations; then crossing county lines becomes nearly impossible, or coordinating rides between providers to link trips is too confusing or expensive.
An expansion of existing van/bus transportation services
A convenient way to pay across multiple transportation providers
A multi-county toll-free phone number for scheduling trips
Travel-assistants to help familiarize new riders with using the local transportation services
A multi-county website for scheduling trips
General marketing to promote awareness of the local transportation services
51
51
Creation of entirely new services
45
45
Repair vandalized or outdated transit facilities and vehicles, to feel safe and welcoming
37
37
Consolidation of current services
34
34
Other
Are you comfortable using technology (for example, a fax machine, smartphone, or computer) to learn about or schedule public transportation?
Are you comfortable using technology (for example, a fax machine, smartphone, or computer) to learn about or schedule public transportation?
What are the biggest obstacles to where you would like to go? (Select all that apply.)
What are the biggest obstacles to where you would like to go? (Select all that apply.)
67
67
142
142
63
63
39
39
Yes, I am comfortable with all I am comfortable with some No, I am not comfortable with
Yes, I am comfortable with all I am comfortable with some No, I am not comfortable with
or most technology
or most technology
technology but may need any technology assistance to use it
technology but may need any technology assistance to use it
What improvement do you think would be of the greatest benefit to users of public transportation services? (Please select all that apply)
114
94
84
What improvement do you think would be of the greatest benefit to users of public transportation services? (Please select all that apply)
114
94
84
75
75
73
73
64
64
I do not have a problem traveling where I would like to go
63
63
57
57
Financial limitations 
No access to a personal vehicle 
52
52
Transportation that is provided does not have services offered at the times I need
51
51
Services do not include my desired destinations
49
49
45
45
No driver’s license 
Personal limitations 
27
27
Coordinating rides across county/state boundaries is too difficult
26
26
21
21
Time needed for the trip takes too long 
Coordinating rides is too confusing 
21
21
20
20
59
59
Other 
Paying multiple providers is too
confusing, difficult or expensive
18
18
It is unsafe to complete my trip because of inadequate infrastructure
27
27
6
6
Lack of readable signage 
28 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Other individuals who would like to use transit services, but do not, indicated that they cannot get to the locations they want or that simply finding out about existing services is too difficult. Another consistent theme throughout the various methods of outreach was that rides often require too much time to reserve in advance, and when the ride is eventually scheduled it takes too long to get to the destination.
In terms of transportation improvements, respondents were asked what times of day they need to travel. The following chart is a summary of their responses. Across the top of the chart are the days of the week, along the left-hand side are various three-hour timeslots across the day. Participants were asked to check the boxes that indicate when they needed transit services. The fields in green are the highest indicated, while the fields in red are the lowest. The value in each cell is the number of people who indicated that time and day of the week they typically needed to travel. It is no surprise that the most desired travel times are from Monday through Friday, from approximately 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, although many respondents also indicated the 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm timeslot as a priority. Relatively few people indicated they wanted late-night service, after 11:59 pm. However, a number of respondents indicated they need to travel on the weekends.
Transit service time needs identified by survey respondents
Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | |
9am – 9am | 37 | 82 | 76 | 83 | 79 | 78 | 52 |
9am – 12pm | 44 | 71 | 65 | 70 | 65 | 70 | 57 |
12pm – 3pm | 39 | 60 | 59 | 58 | 58 | 57 | 52 |
3pm – 6pm | 41 | 67 | 64 | 67 | 66 | 64 | 50 |
6pm – 9pm | 37 | 51 | 51 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 48 |
9pm – 12 am | 25 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 32 | 35 |
12am- 3am | 16 | 21 | 22 | 21 | 20 | 24 | 30 |
3am – 6am | 15 | 18 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 22 | 24 |
Currently, all of the demand-response providers are in line with the times and days of desired service indicated by the survey. Of the demand response providers, a stand out provider that offers service during the extra 3:00 – 9:00 pm timeslot is Transporte, however
29
most other providers only offer service until 5:00 or 6:00 pm. Large portions of Lake County do not have consistent service after 3:00 pm.
Overall, survey responders want an expansion of existing services (approximately 41%). Respondents also indicated that universal access passes, a multi-county dispatch network, educational transit-assistants, and the ability to schedule a ride from a multi-county network of from a website would all be a great benefit to transportation services. While many decision makers shy away from technological solutions for fear of alienating individuals who may be intimidated by technology, the majority of participants (73%) indicated they were comfortable with at least some technology.
Organizational survey
In addition to the survey intended for the general public, NIRPC also released a survey designed to solicit feedback directly from professionals who work in the human services field. Unlike the general public survey, the organizational survey was long-form and encouraged professionals to comment on transit issues primarily related to arranging transportation on behalf of others. The responses from this survey primarily indicate that many human service agencies do not always have a comprehensive understanding of the transit options available to their clients. Information about systems outside of their immediate geography is limited, and like many of the general survey participants, coordinating rides across county lines is nearly impossible.
One area of particular interest was related to individuals who require dialysis treatment. Dialysis requires frequent, multi-week trips to and from dialysis centers. Social workers employed by dialysis centers are often responsible for arranging transportation for their patients, and find many obstacles in getting their patents to and from their facilities. Many dialysis patients often have other medical conditions that inhibit their ability to walk, or transport themselves to and from their treatment. Unless both the patient and the dialysis facility are both on a fixed route transit service with complementary paratransit, their only options are to use a demand-response provider or book service through the state Medicaid dispatcher, Southeastrans.
Demand-response providers typically provide “curb-to-curb” service, meaning a driver will not enter a patient’s home to assist the patent in getting into the vehicle. Additionally, if the patient requires a medical assistant or family member to travel with them, demand
30 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
On-site visits and paper survey drop locations
response providers are obligated to charge the assistant with a fare. This can quickly become too difficult or costly for riders with advanced medical conditions. Southeastrans was frequently cited as a difficult service to coordinate with. Many regional operators indicated that coordinating with Southeastrans was too difficult, too expensive, or too inefficient to continue to take Medicaid trips.
Currently, only two public transit providers, continue to work with Southeastrans, Paladin and Opportunity Enterprises. For other human-service professionals, Southeastrans was indicated as not dependable and inflexible. That patients were frequently late in dropping off patents or picking them up. Dispatchers are slow to respond to ride requests, and often have a poor attitude. Unfortunately, for an individual that requires frequent medical transportation and is low-income, the state Medicaid dispatcher is the only service option they can utilize to maintain their health.
31
Public meetings
The public meetings had a lot of variation in their feedback depending on location. For instance, the public meeting in Gary focused a lot of discussion on issues with fixed route transit from GPTC and the South Shore Train, and public meetings in less urban areas like Valparaiso, focused on increasing access to unincorporated communities and demand response needs.
A common thread throughout the public meeting process was communication about transit issues. Participants indicated that traditional methods used for communicating issues about transit or coordination are often ineffective. More effort should be given in providing information about the meetings further in advance than what is typical for other public meetings. Additionally, public meetings are not necessarily the best way to allow transit riders to participate in future planning efforts.
Individuals that rely on transit for 100% of their travel often have limited availability for making another trip to attend a meeting - even if the meeting is held after typical working hours in a transit accessible location. Participants indicated that utilizing social media, and other online resources to not only advertise the meeting, but to livestream meetings where participants can weigh in online. Data resources can also be more accessible, so that the general ridership of a service can find out more about statistics on the transit system, schedules, policies, instant messages about service changes and schedules, and other relevant policies and figures.
Most importantly, public participation should be solicited where people are: in transit facilities, on transit vehicles, in public housing, and other places associated with affected population groups. These considerations should all be made while recognizing that older residents may not have the same level of comfortability with technology.
Participants in the public meetings also put emphasis on the fact that transit does not begin and end on a vehicle. Infrastructure connections to transit facilities are an essential part of the network. Sidewalks, trails, bus stops are essential, especially to persons with disabilities. Where an individual without a physical disability may be able to traverse a broken-up sidewalk, or quickly leave a bus stop that does not feel safe; individuals with mobile impairments do not have the same freedoms.
32 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Additionally, transit operators and municipal decision makers should consider additional accessibility features when planning pedestrian infrastructure. Likewise, NIRPC and Northwestern Indiana’s federal and state partners should allocate more funding to making pedestrian infrastructure more accessible, utilizing universal design standards. Participants mentioned specifically funding for additional curb cuts, sidewalk repair, pedestrian crossing buttons that do not require a push-button, audio and visual crossing assistance, automated stop announcements for the visually impaired, enhanced access for persons with disabilities on the South Shore Train, additional lighting at station stops, and funding to prioritize and implement local ADA transition plans.
The Pace bus service is the primary transit operator servicing the suburbs surrounding Chicago. The Pace network provides a variety of transit services to connect the suburbs of Chicago to each other as well as the city itself.
Rural transit providers like the Social Learning Institute and Paladin, do not apply for transit funding through MPOs. Their federal funding is allocated from the State of Indiana. Neither the Social Learning Institute or Paladin are NIRPC subrecipients, and have much smaller operations by comparison. However, these organizations may use this plan to assist in their ongoing mission, and securing funding.
Similarly to the other outreach methods, the public meetings also indicated that connections between transit systems is lacking. Even in North Lake County where many transit operations overlap geographically, coordination from one service to another is difficult. Meeting participants indicated they need more coordination between local fixed route operators and the South Shore Train schedule, so less time is spent waiting at a train station, after already waiting for a bus. The Chicago suburb transit service, Pace bus, makes some stops in Lake County, but connections to the service are few. Likewise, commuter services such as Valparaiso’s ChicaGo Dash, pass through North Lake County, but do not stop, and connections between demand response providers are difficult to coordinate. Even though there are many transit options in North Lake County, the fare policies between each system are inconsistent and linking trips together can be difficult and expensive.
Rural communities also have poor connections between transit systems. In most of South Lake County there is only one transit provider. In Porter County there are there are two operators, and in LaPorte County rural communities there is virtually no transit. Currently, there are only two operators that receive federal funding for transit, the Social Learning Institute and Paladin. The Social Learning Institute, uses federally-acquired vehicles for the clients of their institute only, taking occasional trips and other outings. Paladin has a similar transportation program, and is open to the public but with extremely limited capacity for all of LaPorte county. Paladin frequently runs into the same problems with Medicaid billing and Southeastrans as was mentioned previously. While demand-response transit is valuable, especially for individuals with disabilities and people who are elderly, it is limited in its ability to cross county lines, and can be inflexible.
64
33
Urban communities with established fixed route stations indicated that the maintenance of vehicles and passenger facilities is often lacking. Even when brand new bus stops are installed, it does not take long for the stops to become defaced, vandalized, or simply fall out of repair. More consideration should be given to regular maintenance of these assets in addition to securing new facilities. A poorly maintained bus stop provides the assumption of a facility being unsafe, even if it truly is not so. Safety and the perception of safety is very important for continued use of transit in the region.
Across all three public meetings, individuals recognized the need for services that are more efficient during more times of day. Riders want to be on the bus for less time, and want service into the evenings and over the weekends. Access to public housing; medical facilities; essential services for people who are elderly, disabled, or low income should be prioritized while also recognizing that all people should have access locations that enhance all aspects of their lives – not just essential services. Operators and human service professionals cannot lose sight of the fact that while access to these places is a priority, it does not complete an individual’s transportation needs. Likewise, every public meeting emphasized the importance of connecting vulnerable populations: people who are elderly, people who live in disadvantaged communities, people who live in public housing, people who are veterans, and people who have disabilities.
Emphasis was also placed on the fact that the community of people with disabilities who are of working age, want to work and need public transportation to get to their jobs.
Additionally, their lives do not begin and end with needing transportation to essential services. Transit providers should try to make sure that their schedules accommodate recreational trips to movie theaters, outdoor recreation locations, retail shopping districts, and other locations. Times can be restrictive on this group as well. If a transit service shuts down at 5pm on Friday, there are few remaining options for an individual with disabilities to visit with friends and family over the weekend.
At every public meeting concern was raised about transit funding. Every community wants more access to more federal funds to expand existing transit services. Additionally, the need for local match continues to be an issue for nearly every transit provider in the region. In order to leverage more federal funding, local funds have to be raised to match the federal funds on a 50/50 or 80/20 ratio. The lack of a dedicated regional local
34 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
funding source has continued to stunt the growth of cohesive regional transit network.
Additionally, nearly every operator is feeling the demand for transit increase as more and more medical facilities are built on the urban periphery. Hospitals, dialysis centers, medical facilities, service centers, shopping centers, and other critical institutions are often built outside of the urban environment, where populations are the densest and into sprawling suburban and rural locations. This development pattern means longer trips for fixed route and demand response providers, longer wait times, and more deadhead time. Coordination between transit and human service agencies mean coordinating early, at the physical planning level. Gaps in transit service because a medical facility or other critical service moved outside of a transit service area, should be filled with the assistance from human service provider.
Most of Northwestern Indiana’s population lives within some kind of transit service area. Nearly all of Lake and Porter Counties are covered by a fixed route or demand response provider. LaPorte County’s two largest population centers are covered by transit, but leave most of the county’s land area unlinked to the rest of the system except by very limited rural providers. The table on the next page indicates the amount of people in the region who are elderly, who have a disability, and who are low-income that are currently serviced by a transit provider.
Status of transit service access by various populations
Elderly (65+) | Individuals with a Disability | Low-income | Total | |||||
Within Total Service Area | 99,293 | 89% | 92,270 | 93% | 120,822 | 94% | 716,687 | 93% |
Outside of Total Service Area | 11,881 | 11% | 7,169 | 7% | 7,538 | 6% | 51,020 | 7% |
Total | 111,174 | 100% | 99,439 | 100% | 128,360 | 100% | 767,707 | 100% |
As indicated, 93% of Northwestern Indiana’s total population is within a transit service area, including 89% of all people in the region who are elderly, 93% of people who have a disability within the region, and 94% of individuals who are low-income. At first glance, this
35
information appears to indicate that most residents are well-connected by transit. However, a deeper understanding of the type of transit that is available would indicate that simply is not true.
Status of transit service types by various populations
Elderly (65+) | Individuals with a Disability | Low-income | Total | |||||
Fixed Route with complementary paratransit | 35,761 | 32% | 40,183 | 40% | 58,173 | 45% | 274,325 | 36% |
Demand Response | 86,064 | 77% | 78,118 | 79% | 100,931 | 79% | 628,352 | 82% |
Deviated Fixed Route | 5,511 | 5% | 3,601 | 4% | 5,729 | 4% | 42,384 | 6% |
Commuter Bus | 5,740 | 5% | 4,586 | 5% | 9,322 | 7% | 42,138 | 5% |
Commuter Rail | 13,222 | 12% | 15,026 | 15% | 23,061 | 18% | 103,538 | 13% |
When the transit network is divided into service type, some of the obstacles facing region residents begin to take shape. As indicated earlier, fixed route services with complementary paratransit, offers more freedom to individuals who rely on transit than demand response alone. However, only 36% of the region is within a fixed route service area with complementary paratransit. While the majority of region residents are within the service area of demand response providers, approximately 82%, demand response cannot offer the same level of freedom and access as paratransit providers can. This is not intended to undersell the importance of demand response transit. These operators provide valuable services to individuals who would be otherwise isolated, however demand response providers can only offer limited rides, at limited times of day, and often must be scheduled several days in advance. This provides very little to the user in terms of access to everyday employment, or flexibility, and spontaneity in their everyday lives.
Unfortunately, the limitations of the transit network are also clear when considering the time of day that service is available. Wide coverage of transit over a geographic area has limited impact when the hours of service are constricted. The following tables indicate the current availability of service depending on time of day and if the service offered is during a weekday or a weekend. With only some exceptions, most demand response providers offer service until 5pm. Porter County Aging and Community Services offer service until 6pm, and TransPorte offers service until 9pm. South Lake County Community Services core
36 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
hours are between 9am and 3pm with some limited flexibility to pick up before and after. Additionally, most providers do not offer any weekend service at all.
Status of transit service hours
Service Type | Operator | Weekday | Hours | ||
Demand response: | North Township | 7:00am – 5:00pm | 10 | ||
Opportunity Enterprises | 7:00am – 5:00pm | 10 | |||
PCACS | 6:00am – 6:00pm | 12 | |||
SLCCS | 9:00am – 3:00pm | 6 | |||
TransPorte | 6:00am – 9:00pm | 15 | |||
Fixed, deviated, and commuter: | East Chicago | 5:55am - 8:40pm | 16 | ||
GPTC | 5:30am - 9:00pm | 15.5 | |||
Dash | 5:50am - 7:15pm | 11.25 | |||
Michigan City Transit | 6:30am - 6:00pm | 12.5 | |||
NICTD | 4:00am – 2:30am | 22.5 | |||
Transit Triangle | 6:00am - 5:30pm | 11.5 | |||
V-Line | 6:15am - 10:15pm | 16.25 | |||
Service Type | Operator | Saturday | Hours | Sunday | Hours |
Demand response: | North Township | N/A | 0 | N/A | 0 |
Opportunity Enterprises | N/A | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
PCACS | N/A | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
SLCCS | N/A | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
TransPorte | 8:00am – 4:00pm | 8 | N/A | 0 | |
Fixed, deviated, and commuter: | East Chicago | 9:00am – 4:30pm | 7.5 | N/A | 0 |
GPTC | 8:00am - 7:00pm | 8 | N/A | 0 | |
Dash | N/A | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
Michigan City Transit | 8:30am - 6:00pm | 9.5 | N/A | 0 | |
NICTD | 5:30am – 2:30am | 21 | 5:30am – 2:30am | 21 | |
Transit Triangle | N/A | 0 | N/A | 0 | |
V-Line | 6:15am - 10:15pm | 16.25 | 8:00am – 12:00pm | 4 | |
37
In terms of other access, as mentioned previously, certain populations in Northwestern Indiana are more likely to rely on transit, and their connections to the transit network are of paramount importance. These populations include individuals who are elderly (below), have a disability (page 37), live in a disadvantaged area (page 36), or have limited access to food (page 39).
Transit access for NWI elderly population
38 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Transit access for NWI population with disabilities
39
Transit access for NWI EJ communities
40 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Because of Northwestern Indiana’s growth pattern, it is becoming more and more difficult to keep disadvantaged populations connected. When looking at individuals who are elderly, frequently assisted living facilities or nursing homes are often built in the suburban space outside of dense urban communities. As indicated on the map, “Transit access for NWI elderly population” and “Population with disabilities,” the highest concentrations of individuals who are elderly and individuals with disabilities are outside of the core service area for transit providers. Developers and human service agencies will build large-scale housing projects for these residents, and when tenants begin to occupy the space, request transit services for their clients. This puts a lot of pressure on the transit network. For
Transit access in NWI food deserts
41
demand response providers it means more time between trips and more travel time for riders. For demand response it means more revenue miles and longer trips as well.
In communities like Valparaiso, an overlap of transit services does not mean duplicating service. In instances like this, demand response providers take a role in moving individuals to and from municipalities, while the local demand response service connects them to the inner-city trips that they need during their stay. By adding fixed route service in communities that are dense enough to accommodate fixed route, it alleviates the need for demand response providers and allows the entire system to function more efficiently.
However, continuing to build outside of the urban core undermines efficiency.
Northwestern Indiana is not without its shortage of disadvantaged areas. NIRPC uses federal guidelines to define these areas as “Environmental Justice” (EJ) areas. EJ areas are communities where there is a large concentration of people who are an ethnic minority, people who are low-income, or both. Historically, these communities have been left out of the conversation concerning transportation investments. NIRPC and the federal government use metrics surrounding EJ areas to ensure that new transportation investments do not disproportionately burden these communities.
In terms of transit access, to EJ communities, most EJ communities are connected to the network. The fixed route services in Lake County, run throughout the EJ communities.
However, the connections from these communities into areas of opportunity, job centers and other key locations is lacking. Additionally, low-income areas in South Lake County, North Porter County, and East La Porte County are not connected at all. These communities solely rely on demand response transit, which has limitations.
Lastly, large portions of Northwestern Indiana have limited access to grocery stores. The map on page 39 indicates how transit operators provide access to areas that are designated as a “food desert.” Similarly, to the EJ communities; fixed route providers travel in, out and through food deserts; and demand response providers have a blanket service area that overlaps with food deserts; however individual connections to grocery stores and other sources of fresh produce are unclear. Some transit operators, like GPTC are actively working to bring fresh food to transit riders. GPTC hosts a farmer’s market at some of its station stops so riders can peruse fresh goods while waiting for a ride. Strategies like this, as well as other connections to food should be considered when planning transit.
Food deserts are defined as a low- income urban or rural community
that lacks adequate access to fresh, healthy and affordable food.
42 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Service gaps and regional needs
Service gaps
Evening service
Weekend service
Rural LaPorte County
Access between transit operators
Access between municipalities and counties
Accessible pedestrian infrastructure to allow for safe access to transit
Regional needs
Create service efficiencies to make transit more available
More local investment in regional transit
More flexible service to more times of day
A density threshold to prioritize either fixed route or demand response service
Increased service across county and municipal boundaries
Increased coordination to more efficiently link service across transit operators
Expansion of paratransit services
More pedestrian connections
Enhanced communication about transit issues to the public
Consistent language and terminology in operator schedules and websites
Better coordination between regional transit providers and Southeastrans
Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications
Easier opportunities for the public to arrange transportation
Easier opportunities for the public to coordinate between transit operators
More access to fresh quality food
More connections to priority populations, such as:
People living in environmental justice communities
People living in food deserts
People who are elderly
People who are low-income
People who are disabled
43
People who are veterans
Increased service to critical locations, including:
Job Centers
Medical facilities, including dialysis centers
Service providers/Human service organizations
Educational institutions
Grocery stores
Recreational areas
Shopping districts
Strategies to coordinate transit
Concurrent to the development of this document, NIRPC is developing its long-range planning document, the NWI 2050 Plan. NIRPC, in collaboration with the public, has developed four vision statements and four plan focus areas. Each vision statement captures an idealized future that Northwestern Indiana residents want to see realized by the year 2050. Each vision statement is linked to the plan focus areas. By combining these two ideas NIRPC developed a series of “critical paths.” The critical paths were preliminarily endorsed in July 2018 and will guide NIRPC future investments and planning.
Some critical paths are more closely related to coordinated transit planning than others. On page 43 is the matrix detailing the strong direct relationships between the critical paths and coordinated transit planning in dark green. The light green critical paths indicate an indirect relationship. The critical paths not highlighted indicate no relationship. Strategies for improving and coordinating transit are provided using the direct and indirectly linked critical paths.
The strategies identified on pages 43-51 will require active and robust partnerships throughout our region including the transit operators, local governments, counties, non- profits, human service providers, advocates and more. No single actor or agency can accomplish all that is suggested or needed. All future activities must be continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive as required by federal metropolitan planning regulations under the “3C planning process.”
The long-range transportation plan is a federal requirement for
all MPOs. All long-range transportation plans are required to have a 20-year planning horizon to serve as the foundation for other transportation programming. Most long-range transportation plans have a 20- year planning horizon, but NIRPC’s 2050 Plan has a 30-year horizon to better integrate with Chicago’s “On To 2050” plan.
The 3C transportation planning process states: planning must be
maintained as an ongoing activity and should address both short- term needs and long-term vision; the process must involve a wide variety of interested parties; and the process must cover all aspects and be consistent wit7h5regional and local plans.
44 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
NWI 2050 Plan visions, plan focus areas, and critical paths
Economy + place / Focusing on NWI’s economy and quality of place | Connected NWI / NWI’s people have accessible, safe, and equal opportunities for working, playing, living, and learning. | Renewed NWI / NWI’s urban and rural centers are places people want to come to and live in, and our environment is safe and healthy. | United NWI / NWI’s diversity is celebrated, and we work together as a community across racial, ethnic, political and cultural lines for the mutual benefit of the region. | Vibrant NWI / NWI’s economy is thriving, our people are well educated, growth is planned, and natural and agricultural areas are valued and protected. |
Update land development policies and strategies to emphasize accessibility between people and opportunities. | Maximize growth in existing centers to enhance civic and economic life and to protect natural areas and farmland. | Collaborate regionally to welcome a diversity of people and talent to achieve mixed and balanced growth. | Promote initiatives and policies to ensure healthy living, sustainability, quality of life, and prosperity. | |
Environment / Focusing on NWI’s environmental quality | Connect fragmented natural areas and integrate links between people and green spaces to increase resiliency and health outcomes. | Clean and protect the air, land, water, and natural habitats to sustain and enhance the environment’s safety and health for all. | Build region-wide coalitions to advance environmental sustainability for the benefit of future generations. | Endorse innovative energy and environmental strategies to achieve a balance that protects diverse and unique ecological treasures while fostering a sustainable economy. |
Mobility / Focusing on NWI’s transportation choices | Complete roadway, bicycle, sidewalk, and transit networks across municipal and county lines to enhance safe and efficient access to opportunities for all. | Improve roadway, bicycle, sidewalk, and transit networks to revitalize existing urban and rural centers and enhance equity. | Prioritize transformative investments to elevate the position of the region and to attract a diversity of residents and high- quality economic opportunities. | Adopt technological innovation that enhances the safe and fluid movement of people and goods to enable a flourishing economy. |
People + leaders / Focusing on NWI’s people and community leaders | Commit to removing barriers and obstacles to guarantee equal and accessible opportunities. | Focus educational and workforce development initiatives on expanding skills that the modern economy requires. | Foster better communications, cooperation and coordinate to bring people together across the lines that divide us. | Embrace a dynamic, diversified and sustainable economy that attracts and retains talent, enhances quality of life, and increases personal and household income. |
45
Economy + place: update land development policies and strategies to emphasize accessibility between people and opportunities.
Encourage compliance and execution of locally-developed ADA transition plans
Allocate funding to allow more resources to implement locally-developed ADA transition plans
Build sidewalk and trail connections throughout residential areas and into downtowns, job centers, and transit networks
Use universal design standards when developing new pedestrian infrastructure
Use universal design standards when developing new transit infrastructure like bus stops and signage
Keep transit and pedestrian infrastructure well-maintained and well lit
Encourage human service and medical agencies that move outside of the urban core to contribute to local match if they want to continue to use transit services
Environment: connect fragmented natural areas and integrate links between people and green spaces to increase resiliency and health outcomes.
Prioritize linking individuals with parks, beaches, and other outdoor green spaces and recreational facilities
Mobility: complete roadway, bicycle, sidewalk, and transit networks across municipal and county lines to enhance safe and efficient access to opportunities for all.
Encourage and prioritize transit expansions that cross municipal and county lines
Encourage coordination between operators to link across county and municipal lines where possible, including designated pick up and drop off points between providers, dispatch sharing, and other strategies
People and leaders: commit to removing barriers and obstacles to guarantee equal and accessible opportunities.
Continue to encourage and prioritize funding for projects that eliminate barriers to safe accessible transit, including projects that improve and go beyond ADA compliance
46 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Economy and place: maximize growth in existing centers to enhance civic and economic life and to protect natural areas and farmland.
Continue to encourage density
Prioritize fixed-route service with complementary paratransit in areas with enough density to accommodate the service
Prioritize demand-response service in areas that lack the density to support fixed- route with complementary paratransit
Mobility: improve roadway, bicycle, sidewalk, and transit networks to revitalize existing urban and rural centers and enhance equity.
A transit system that truly enhances equity needs to allow the same freedom of movement as the population in Northwestern Indiana that exclusively drives.
Prioritize transit expansions that can allow a typical work day, with some flexibility (6am – 9pm)
Prioritize transit expansions that decrease wait times
Prioritize transit expansions that add availability during the weekends
Prioritize transit expansions that increase flexible use of restaurants, shopping centers, movie theaters, and other recreational amenities
People + leaders: focus educational and workforce development initiatives on expanding skills that the modern economy requires.
Prioritize transit expansions to job centers
Encourage employers to consider transit as a viable method to get their employees to work
Encourage employers to offer flexible shift start times to allow more flexibility for transit users
Encourage employers to contribute to local share to expand transit to job centers
Work with educational institutions to use existing public transit operators to offer campus transportation services instead of paying for the service themselves
Encourage educational institutions to purchase universal access passes for their students as an incentive to use transit
47
Economy and place: collaborate regionally to welcome a diversity of people and talent to achieve mixed and balanced growth.
Prioritize transit investments that connect communities in environmental justice areas, people who are elderly, people who are low-income, people with disabilities, and veterans.
Prioritize transit expansions that better connect the determined at-risk populations to job centers, medical facilities, recreation centers, shopping districts, and educational institutions.
Prioritize transit expansions that close the gap between at-risk populations and fresh food resources
Prioritize transit expansions that connect at-risk populations to regional decision makers
Mobility: prioritize transformative investments to elevate the position of the region and to attract a diversity of residents and high-quality economic opportunities.
Support regional transformative investments like the South Shore’s West Lake expansion and Double Tracking Projects; GPTC’s Broadway Rapid Express; and Valparaiso’s transit-oriented development
Prioritize connections to existing and future transformative transit investments in the region
People and leaders: foster better communications, cooperation and coordination to bring people together across the lines that divide us.
Develop a regional transit website, featuring:
Up-to date figures of all transit operations in Northwestern Indiana
Links to transit operator websites and other information resources
Downloadable and printable maps and schedules
An address-lookup feature where users can determine what transit operators are near them
A streamlined comment box where a user can send comments about transit services to the operator as well as regional decision makers and compliance officers
48 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Instructions on how to use transit services
Instructions on how to attend and participate in transit operator public meetings, as well as other public meetings concerning transit
Digital methods for requesting rides from demand response providers, including email or text
Create consistent policies and language for using transit including:
Policies regarding eligibility for paratransit services and reciprocity
Fare policies
Information about transit services such as start and stop time, scheduling methods, procedures, no-show policies, and others
Use enhanced communication techniques outlined in this plan to inform human service agencies, medical professionals, and decision makers about all options an individual has when choosing transit
Use regional platforms to promote public participation in transit operator board meetings and other transit related public meetings
Continue to expand outreach methods to find better, more meaningful, communication methods outside of what is strictly required by FTA
Develop cost-saving measures between transit operators, such as consolidation of services, vehicle sharing, shared services, shared staff, joint events, and training opportunities
Develop cost-saving measures between transit operators and human-resource agencies such as multi-user pick up and drop off times, coordinated services between many clients, distribution of information about transit, and others
Develop a multi-county website and phone number for scheduling trips across providers
Utilize travel-assistants to help familiarize riders with transportation services
Offer transit trainings to educate the public on what transit is available and how to use it with multiple operators represented
49
Economy and place: promote initiatives and policies to ensure healthy living, sustainability, quality of life, and prosperity.
Link transit operators to human service agencies to find more efficient ways of using transit to link individuals to health resources
Mobility: adopt technological innovation that enhances the safe and fluid movement of people and goods to enable a flourishing economy.
Prioritize funding for technological improvements that can allow for coordination between transit operators
Prioritize funding for technological improvements that have robust data-tracking software to be used in transit decision-making
Prioritize funding for technological improvements that allow for greater and easier coordination between the operator and the user, such as real-time bus tracking, automatic status updates, Google Maps integration, schedules, and on-line reservations and ride requests
Coordinate universal fare systems and transfer policies between transit operators
People and leaders: embrace a dynamic, diversified and sustainable economy that attracts and retains talent, enhances quality of life, and increases personal and household income.
Work with regional employers, economic development groups, and career centers to offer flexible start times for workers that rely on transit
Work with regional employers, municipalities, counties, human service agencies, and medical professionals to find new avenues for a dedicated source of local match to leverage more federal funds for transit
50 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Funding and program priorities for FTA 5310 funding
While the goals and objectives in the previous section are important in framing a regional vision and approach for improving transit, not all the goals identified are directly tied to FTA’s 5310 grant program, a central focus of this plan. Below are five topic areas that have a direct impact on the 5310 funding program. The following priorities should be used when evaluating projects proposed for this grant program.
People with disabilities
People who are elderly
People who are low-income
People who live in environmental justice areas
People who are veterans
Fresh food resources such as farmers markets and grocery stores
Recreational locations such as parks and green space, movie theaters, restaurants, shopping centers, and regional events
Educational institutions
Decision-making bodies/public meetings
Job centers
Expansions that cross municipal and county lines
Continue to encourage and prioritize funding for projects that eliminate barriers to safe accessible transit, including projects that improve and go beyond ADA compliance
51
Prioritize transit expansions that can allow a typical work day, with some flexibility (6am – 7pm)
Prioritize transit expansions that decrease wait times
Prioritize transit expansions that add availability during the weekends
Technological improvements that can allow for coordination between transit operators
Technological improvements that have robust data-tracking software to be used in transit decision-making
Technological improvements that allow for greater and easier coordination between the operator and the user, such as real-time bus tracking, automatic status updates, Google Maps integration, schedules, and on-line reservations and ride requests
Coordinate universal fare systems between transit operators
Develop cost-saving measures between transit operators, such as consolidation of services, vehicle sharing, shared staff, joint events, and training opportunities
Coordinate consistent language, fares, and policies across transit operators
Develop cost-saving measures between transit operators and human-resource agencies
Develop tools to allow users to schedule rides across providers utilizing one-call, one-click systems
Coordinate strategies between medical facilities and human-resource agencies to contribute to the local match of transit operators who travel to their facilities, especially when moving outside of dense urban boundaries
Coordinate driver trainings between transit operators and human service agencies that utilize similar vehicles to increase awareness about ADA accessibility and transit vehicles
52 Coordinated transit plan for NWI
Develop a regional transit website, featuring:
Up-to date figures of all transit operations in Northwestern Indiana
Links to transit operator websites and other information resources
Downloadable and printable maps and schedules
An address-lookup feature where users can determine what transit operators are near them
A streamlined comment box where a user can send comments about transit services to the operator as well as regional decision makers and compliance officers
Instructions on how to use transit services
Instructions on how to attend and participate in transit operator public meetings, as well as other public meetings concerning transit including annual list of all public meetings associated with public transit and their description
Work with partner agencies to host trainings for the public on how to use transit
Utilize travel-assistants to assist new users in learning how to manage transit
Communication regarding public transit should be accessible to all potential riders, regardless of disability. Operators and agencies affiliated with transit should be prepared to offer the following services:
Full accessible websites, compatible with e-readers, and usable for people who have low-vision, blind, or have other cognitive and communication impediments. These websites should have image descriptions provided, so the image can be described using e-readers.
All typeface used for communication utilizes sans-serif fonts
Access to CART services for public meetings if an individual who is low-hearing or deaf requests it
Access to a closed-circuit, assisted listening devices at all public meetings
As-needed auxiliary aids and other services
Publish easy-to-read understandable data about transit for increased public awareness
53
Appendix: Implementation Matrix
| Coordinated Transit Plan Appendix: Implementation Matrix
2050 Plan Critical Paths | Strategy | Need(s) or Service Gap(s) Addressed | Relevance | Responsible Parties | |
Connected NWI | Economy + place: update land development policies and strategies to emphasize accessibility between people and opportunities. | Encourage compliance and execution of locally- developed ADA transition plans | •Accessible pedestrian infrastructure to allow for safe access to transit •More pedestrian connections •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Accessible transit does not begin and end with transit facilities. Public infrastructure owned by local municipalities is critical in transit access. | |
Allocate funding to allow more resources to implement locally-developed ADA transition plans | •Accessible pedestrian infrastructure to allow for safe access to transit •More pedestrian connections •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Accessible transit does not begin and end with transit facilities. Public infrastructure owned by local municipalities is critical in transit access. These plans can be more quickly implemented with a dedicated funding source. | |||
Build sidewalk and trail connections throughout residential areas and into downtowns, job centers, and transit networks | •Accessible pedestrian infrastructure to allow for safe access to transit •More pedestrian connections •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Accessible transit does not begin and end with transit facilities. Public infrastructure owned by local municipalities is critical in transit access. | |||
Use universal design standards when developing new pedestrian infrastructure | •Accessible pedestrian infrastructure to allow for safe access to transit •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Universal design standards require a new transit or pedestrian facility to be built to enhance access for all people regardless of age or physical ability. | |||
Use universal design standards when developing new transit infrastructure like bus stops and signage | •Accessible pedestrian infrastructure to allow for safe access to transit •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Universal design standards require a new transit or pedestrian facility to be built to enhance access for all people regardless of age or physical ability. | |||
Keep transit and pedestrian infrastructure well- maintained and well lit | •Accessible pedestrian infrastructure to allow for safe access to transit •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Safety and the appearance of safety is important for any rider on any transit system. This is especially true of riders with disabilities who may feel more vulnerable using public transit. | |||
Encourage human service and medical agencies that move outside of the urban core to contribute to local match if they want to continue to use transit services | •More local investment in regional transit •Increased service to critical locations, including: medical facilities, dialysis centers, human service organizations | When human service agencies move outside of the urban core, it puts additional strain on a transit system to continue to offer service to those locations. |
NIRPC
Local Planning Agencies
Transit Operators
NIRPC
NIRPC
Local Planning Agencies
Transit Operators
NIRPC
Local Planning Agencies
Transit Operators
Local Planning Agencies
Transit Operators
Local Planning Agencies
Transit Operators
NIRPC
Local Planning Agencies
Transit Operators
Medial Institutions
Human Service Agencies
| Coordinated Transit Plan Appendix: Implementation Matrix
Environment: connect fragmented natural areas and integrate links between people and green spaces to increase resiliency and health outcomes. | Prioritize linking individuals with parks, beaches, and other outdoor green spaces and recreational facilities | •Increased service to critical locations, including: recreational areas | An individual's life does not begin and end with the services they receive. A transit system is not robust or equitable if it does not have access to quality of life locations like recreational locations. | ||
Mobility: complete roadway, bicycle, sidewalk, and transit networks across municipal and county lines to enhance safe and efficient access to opportunities for all. | Encourage and prioritize transit expansions that cross municipal and county lines | •Access between municipalities and counties | Individuals in the region frequently need to cross municipal and county boundaries, however often that is where transit services stop. | ||
Encourage coordination between operators to link across county and municipal lines where possible, including designated pick up and drop off points between providers, dispatch sharing, and other strategies | •Access between municipalities and counties •Easier opportunities for the public to arrange transportation •Easier opportunities for the public to coordinate between transit operators | Individuals in the region frequently need to cross municipal and county boundaries, however often that is where transit services stop. Additionally, by consolidating or sharing services operators can expand their operational footprint without requesting more local or federal funds. | |||
People and leaders: commit to removing barriers and obstacles to guarantee equal and accessible opportunities. | Continue to encourage and prioritize funding for projects that eliminate barriers to safe accessible transit, including projects that improve and go beyond ADA compliance | •Accessible pedestrian infrastructure to allow for safe access to transit •More pedestrian connections | Accessible transit does not begin and end with transit facilities. Public infrastructure owned by local municipalities is critical in transit access. | ||
Renewed NWI | Economy and place: maximize growth in existing centers to enhance civic and economic life and to protect natural areas and farmland. | Continue to encourage density | Transit is cheaper, faster, and often better in dense urban environments. Transit in less-dense areas comes a higher cost per passenger. |
Transit Operators
Transit Operators
Transit Operators
NIRPC
Local Planning Agencies
Transit Operators
Create service efficiencies to make transit more available
A density threshold to prioritize either fixed route or demand response service
More flexible service to more times of day
Expansion of paratransit services
Easier opportunities for the public to arrange transportation
Easier opportunities for the public to coordinate between transit operators
More connections to priority populations
Increased service to critical locations
NIRPC
Local Planning Agencies
Transit Operators
| Coordinated Transit Plan Appendix: Implementation Matrix
Prioritize fixed-route service with complementary paratransit in areas with enough density to accommodate the service | •Expansion of paratransit services | Fixed-route services with complementary paratransit offer the most freedom to people who are elderly and people who are disabled. However, when operating in a less-dense environment, these transit operators are too expensive to maintain. By prioritizing demand response outside of the urban core, passenger can use the service better suited for a less-dense environment to get into a city, and then utilize the local fixed route with complementary paratransit services to ride within the city. | |||
Prioritize demand-response service in areas that lack the density to support fixed- route with complementary paratransit | Fixed-route services with complementary paratransit offer the most freedom to people who are elderly and people who are disabled. However, when operating in a less-dense environment, these transit operators are too expensive to maintain. By prioritizing demand response outside of the urban core, passenger can use the service better suited for a less-dense environment to get into a city, and then utilize the local fixed route with complementary paratransit services to ride within the city. | ||||
Mobility: improve roadway, bicycle, sidewalk, and transit networks to revitalize existing urban and rural centers and enhance equity. | Prioritize transit expansions that can allow a typical work day, with some flexibility (6am – 9pm) | •Evening service | Individuals who rely on transit, are not able to support a job if their transit service cannot accommodate a work day. | ||
Prioritize transit expansions that decrease wait times | An obstacle for many people in using transit is the time it takes to wait for a ride, the time taken on the ride itself, and often the amount of advance time needed to schedule a ride. | ||||
Prioritize transit expansions that add availability during the weekends | •Weekend service | An individual's life does not begin and end with the services they receive. A transit system is not robust or equitable if it does not have access to quality of life locations or can adequately support weekend leisure, or even weekend employment. |
A density threshold to prioritize either fixed route or demand response service
NIRPC
Local Planning Agencies
Transit Operators
A density threshold to prioritize either fixed route or demand response service
NIRPC
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Increase transit service to critical locations
More flexible service to more times of day
NIRPC
Transit Operators
NIRPC
Transit Operators
| Coordinated Transit Plan Appendix: Implementation Matrix
Prioritize transit expansions that increase flexible use of restaurants, shopping centers, movie theaters, and other recreational amenities | •Increased service to critical locations, including: recreational areas | An individual's life does not begin and end with the services they receive. A transit system is not robust or equitable if it does not have access to quality of life locations. | |||
People + leaders: focus educational and workforce development initiatives on expanding skills that the modern economy requires. | Prioritize transit expansions to job centers | •Increased service to critical locations, including: job centers, shopping districts | Increased access to job centers can mean that individuals who rely on transit can seek employment or services at those centers. | ||
Encourage employers to consider transit as a viable method to get their employees to work | •Increased service to critical locations, including: job centers, shopping districts | If employers made small accommodations to help encourage transit riders, their workers could receive many benefits; and the employer could gain greater access to a large pool of potential workers and clients. | |||
Encourage employers to offer flexible shift start times to allow more flexibility for transit users | •Increased service to critical locations, including: job centers, shopping districts | If employers made small accommodations to help encourage transit riders, their workers could receive many benefits; and the employer could gain greater access to a large pool of potential workers and clients. | |||
Encourage employers to contribute to local share to expand transit to job centers | If employers made small accommodations to help encourage transit riders, their workers could receive many benefits; and the employer could gain greater access to a large pool of potential workers and clients. | ||||
Work with educational institutions to use existing public transit operators to offer campus transportation services instead of paying for the service themselves | •More local investment in regional transit | If education institutions collaborated with transit operators, the transportation services the instruction typically pays for can be provided by a reduced amount and the operator could receive additional local match. |
NIRPC
Transit Operators
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Business Community
Local Planning Agencies
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Business Community
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Business Community
More local investment in regional transit
Increased service to critical locations, including: job centers, shopping districts
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Business Community
Increased service to critical locations, including: educational institutions
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Education Institutions
| Coordinated Transit Plan Appendix: Implementation Matrix
Encourage educational institutions to purchase universal access passes for their students as an incentive to use transit | By contributing to an operator's local share, an education institution can "buy" universal access passes for their students. These passes could provide every student and faculty center at a university unlimited rides within a transit network. This would also increase the amount of local match being contributed to the operator. | ||||
United NWI | Economy and place: collaborate regionally to welcome a diversity of people and talent to achieve mixed and balanced growth. | Prioritize transit investments that connect communities in environmental justice areas, people who are elderly, people who are low-income, people with disabilities, and veterans. | Individuals within these population groups are the most at-risk of being left behind in community investments and often disproportionately rely on transit. These populations should be a priority within any transit network. | ||
Prioritize transit expansions that better connect the determined at-risk populations to job centers, medical facilities, recreation centers, shopping districts, and educational institutions. | By linking population groups that are the most at risk to essential services, these populations have increased accessibility to the tools needed to stay active within the community. Also, linking the most at-risk groups to important services in their communities is a baseline requirement of creating an equitable transit system. | ||||
Prioritize transit expansions that close the gap between at-risk populations and fresh food resources | •Increased service to critical locations, including: grocery stores | By linking population groups that are the most at risk to food resources can raise the quality of life and health for those that need it most. |
More local investment in regional transit
Increased service to critical locations, including: educational institutions
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Education Institutions
More connections to priority populations, such as: people living in environmental justice communities, people living in food deserts, people who are elderly, people who are low- income, people who are disabled, and people who are veterans
NIRPC
Local Planning Agencies
Transit Operators
More connections to priority populations, such as: people living in environmental justice communities, people living in food deserts, people who are elderly, people who are low- income, people who are disabled, and people who are veterans
Increased service to critical locations, including: job centers, medical facilities, human service organizations, educational institutions, grocery stores, recreational areas, and shopping districts
NIRPC
Local Planning Agencies
Transit Operators
More connections to priority populations, such as: people living in environmental justice communities, people living in food deserts, people who are elderly, people who are low- income, people who are disabled, and people who are veterans
NIRPC
Local Planning Agencies
Transit Operators
| Coordinated Transit Plan Appendix: Implementation Matrix
Prioritize transit expansions that connect at-risk populations to regional decision makers | •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications •Easier opportunities for the public to arrange transportation | By linking population groups that are the most at risk to essential services, these populations have increased accessibility to the tools needed to stay active within the community. Also, linking the most at-risk groups to important services in their communities is a baseline requirement of creating an equitable transit system. These groups should be the first priority in expanding service. | |||
Mobility: prioritize transformative investments to elevate the position of the region and to attract a diversity of residents and high-quality economic opportunities. | Support regional transformative investments like the South Shore’s West Lake expansion and Double Tracking Projects; GPTC’s Broadway Rapid Express; and Valparaiso’s transit- oriented development | Transformative investments change the shape of regional transit. These are typically very large investments that raise access to transit to many region residents. These large-scale investments not only increase an individual's access to transit, but it can also help other connecting transit systems operate more efficiently. | |||
Prioritize connections to existing and future transformative transit investments in the region | Transformative investments change the shape of regional transit. These are typically very large investments that raise access to transit to many region residents. These large-scale investments not only increase an individual's access to transit, but it can also help other connecting transit systems operate more efficiently. | ||||
People and leaders: foster better communications, cooperation and coordination to bring people together across the lines that divide us. | Develop a regional transit website, featuring multiple enhanced communication features (see strategies section) | •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Communication about transit issues, services, and schedules was frequently flagged as needing to be improved. A central location where individuals can gain information about how to participate in the planning process, learn about how to use services, and learn about all the services available within the region can help bridge the gap between transit |
More connections to priority populations, such as: people living in environmental justice communities, people living in food deserts, people who are elderly, people who are low- income, people who are disabled, and people who are veterans
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Access between transit operators
Access between municipalities and counties
Accessible pedestrian infrastructure to allow for safe access to transit
More local investment in regional transit
Expansion of paratransit services
Increased service to critical locations
More connections to priority populations
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Local Planning Agencies
Access between transit operators
Access between municipalities and counties
Accessible pedestrian infrastructure to allow for safe access to transit
More local investment in regional transit
Expansion of paratransit services
Increased service to critical locations
More connections to priority populations
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Local Planning Agencies
Easier opportunities for the public to arrange transportation
Easier opportunities for the public to coordinate between transit operators
| Coordinated Transit Plan Appendix: Implementation Matrix
services and the people who need them. | |||||
Create consistent policies and language for using transit including: policies regarding eligibility for paratransit services and reciprocity; fare policies; and Information about transit services such as start and stop time, scheduling methods, procedures, no- show policies, and others | •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Many individuals indicated that they wish that transit was easier to use. The indicated that it was difficult to coordinate between operators not only because of the physical limitations, but because each operator is very different in the way they communicate their services. Without directly consolidating, operators can offer a more seamless experience by matching their policies to neighboring systems. | •Transit Operators | ||
Use enhanced communication techniques outlined in this plan to inform human service agencies, medical professionals, and decision makers about all options an individual has when choosing transit | •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Communication about transit issues was frequently flagged as needing to be improved. Enhanced communication about these issues can foster more feedback from the public on transit issues that are unique to them. | |||
Use regional platforms to promote public participation in transit operator board meetings and other transit related public meetings | •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Communication about transit issues was frequently flagged as needing to be improved. Enhanced communication about these issues can foster more feedback from the public on transit issues that are unique to them. | |||
Continue to expand outreach methods to find better, more meaningful, communication methods outside of what is strictly required by FTA | •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Communication about transit issues was frequently flagged as needing to be improved. Enhanced communication about these issues can foster more feedback from the public on transit issues that are unique to them. |
Easier opportunities for the public to arrange transportation
Easier opportunities for the public to coordinate between transit operators
Consistent language and terminology in operator schedules and websites
Easier opportunities for the public to arrange transportation
Easier opportunities for the public to coordinate between transit operators
NIRPC
Transit Operators
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Local Planning Agencies
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Local Planning Agencies
| Coordinated Transit Plan Appendix: Implementation Matrix
Develop cost-saving measures between transit operators, such as consolidation of services, vehicle sharing, shared services, shared staff, joint events, and training opportunities | Without a windfall of new federal and local funding to support transit, the only way to increase an operator's service footprint is by making existing services more efficient. One way many transit providers can provide this is by consolidating services with other transit providers or human service agencies. That way the shared cost savings can be passed on to operations. | ||||
Develop cost-saving measures between transit operators and human- resource agencies such as multi-user pick up and drop off times, coordinated services between many clients, distribution of information about transit, and others | Without a windfall of new federal and local funding to support transit, the only way to increase an operator's service footprint is by making existing services more efficient. Coordination of services between providers can provide more flexibility to the rider, and efficiencies to the provider. | ||||
Develop a multi-county website and phone number for scheduling trips across providers | •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Communication about transit issues, services, and schedules was frequently flagged as needing to be improved. A central location where individuals can learn about how to use services, and schedule services, regardless of provider, all on one website can help streamline the rider experience. | |||
Utilize travel-assistants to help familiarize riders with transportation services | •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Communication about transit issues, services, and schedules was frequently flagged as needing to be improved. Travel-assistants can offer on-the-ground help to riders that may not have access to digital communication tools. | |||
Offer transit trainings to educate the public on what transit is available and how to use it with multiple operators represented | •Increase the accessibility of public meetings, meeting materials, and other important communications | Communication about transit issues, services, and schedules was frequently flagged as needing to be improved. Travel training can offer on-the-ground help to riders that may not have access to digital communication tools. |
Increased coordination to more efficiently link service across transit operators
Create service efficiencies to make transit more available
Transit Operators
Increased coordination to more efficiently link service across transit operators
Create service efficiencies to make transit more available
Transit Operators
Human Service Agencies
Easier opportunities for the public to arrange transportation
Easier opportunities for the public to coordinate between transit operators
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Easier opportunities for the public to arrange transportation
Easier opportunities for the public to coordinate between transit operators
Transit Operators
Easier opportunities for the public to arrange transportation
Easier opportunities for the public to coordinate between transit operators
NIRPC
Transit Operators
| Coordinated Transit Plan Appendix: Implementation Matrix
Vibrant NWI | Economy and place: promote initiatives and policies to ensure healthy living, sustainability, quality of life, and prosperity. | Link transit operators to human service agencies to find more efficient ways of using transit to link individuals to health resources | Without a windfall of new federal and local funding to support transit, the only way to increase an operator's service footprint is by making existing services more efficient. The ongoing coordination with human service agencies can provide insight into ridership needs. | ||
Mobility: adopt technological innovation that enhances the safe and fluid movement of people and goods to enable a flourishing economy. | Prioritize funding for technological improvements that can allow for coordination between transit operators | Coordination between transit operators can be enhanced through the use of technology. For instance, if all operators utilized a software that use real-time vehicle tracking, an operator may be able to build efficiencies and flexibility by requesting another operator's vehicle pick up a rider, if that vehicle were closer. | |||
Prioritize funding for technological improvements that have robust data- tracking software to be used in transit decision-making | Ridership data, and other metrics are important tools in mapping out system efficiencies and expansion opportunities. | ||||
Prioritize funding for technological improvements that allow for greater and easier coordination between the operator and the user, such as real-time bus tracking, automatic status updates, Google Maps integration, schedules, and on-line reservations and ride requests | Communication about transit issues, services, and schedules was frequently flagged as needing to be improved. These digital tools are the new normal in communicating transit services to existing and potential ridership, and have proven to be effective in increasing awareness about transit. | ||||
Coordinate universal fare systems and transfer policies between transit operators | A major obstacle in coordinating transit is the time it takes to transfer between transit providers as well as the additional cost of transfer. If operators could coordinate transfer opportunities, it could create a seamless, more efficient experience for the rider. |
Increased coordination to more efficiently link service across transit operators
Create service efficiencies to make transit more available
Increased service to critical locations including: Medical facilities
Transit Operators
Human Service Agencies
Increased coordination to more efficiently link service across transit operators
Create service efficiencies to make transit more available
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Increased coordination to more efficiently link service across transit operators
Create service efficiencies to make transit more available
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Increased coordination to more efficiently link service across transit operators
Create service efficiencies to make transit more available
Easier opportunities for the public to arrange transportation
Easier opportunities for the public to coordinate between transit operators
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Easier opportunities for the public to arrange transportation
Easier opportunities for the public to coordinate between transit operators
Enhanced communication about transit issues to the public
Consistent language and terminology in operator schedules and websites
Transit Operators
| Coordinated Transit Plan Appendix: Implementation Matrix
People and leaders: embrace a dynamic, diversified and sustainable economy that attracts and retains talent, enhances quality of life, and increases personal and household income. | Work with regional employers, economic development groups, and career centers to offer flexible start times for workers that rely on transit | •Increased service to critical locations, including: job centers, shopping districts | Flexible start times are helpful to transit riders because often using transit requires more time than using a personal vehicle. With a flexible start time, workers are allowed some flexibility in their mornings to get to work on time in spite of scheduling issues, breakdowns, or other delays that may impact their commute. | ||
Work with regional employers, municipalities, counties, human service agencies, and medical professionals to find new avenues for a dedicated source of local match to leverage more federal funds for transit | •More local investment in regional transit •Increased service to critical locations | With more local investment in transit, the region can leverage more federal funds. With more federal funding the region can have faster service, less wait times, and a larger service area. |
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Business Community
NIRPC
Transit Operators
Local Planning Agencies
Programming rules Programming approach Scoring criteria
Targeted funding allocations
96
Identify all eligible project types for federal funding
Categorize project types
into programs and identify complete
eligible funding sources
Evaluate project types for
2020-2024 TIP development goals
Highway and transit programming rules for Chicago and Michigan City UZAs
Funding targets for the 13 programs
Funding source assignments for each project type
impact to vision / goals
Based on impact
complete
Process to reallocate funding to other programs/project types if not enough applications are received
Scoring criteria unique to each program
evaluation, group projects complete
types into tier 1, 2, or 3
Timeline for this and future NOFAs
Assign funding available to highest tiered project types
today
97
11/7/2018 2050 Plan + TIP project call: recommended NOFA 2
Propose enhanced programming rules to:
Avoid future issues with TIP deficits due in part to projects failing to advance to project letting
Ensure consistency with state and federal programming requirements and better ensure no FWHA funds lapse back to INDOT or transit funds to FTA
Establish region-wide “playbook” for: PE, ROW, CO funding, and to ensure all sponsors are treated the same when/if they need amendments due to project development delays
Increase transparency to
Leverage all federal- aid available to NWI by:
Providing full view on all available fund sources to all project sponsors in the same NOFA: $267 million
Programming Highway and Transit projects in both Chicago and Michigan City UZAs at the same time
Developing a process that will be placed on a routine timeline, which is predictable and more transparent to sponsors and public, replacing the previously periodic NOFAs that were funding and UZA based that never fully programmed all federal funds available to NWI
Better link to regional priorities with:
A programming approach that evaluates all federal-aid eligible projects for their impact on the vision for the Region and critical paths to achieve the vision
A project evaluation approach with refined evaluation criteria that is framed around nine “umbrella” criteria that relate to the vision for the Region
A performance-based planning focus.
11/7/2018
sponsors and public
98
2050 Plan + TIP project call: recommended N 3
OFA
Sponsor must provide a guarantee that their match will be available for each phase and year of the project. Sponsors are encouraged to identify funding sources (public & private) that will be used for the sponsor’s match. This may include innovative financing techniques to ensure success for the project.
The sponsor must have a current ADA transition and Title VI plan on file with NIRPC. Further, if a project will advance progress on implementing the sponsor’s ADA transition plan, provide a description on what progress will be made.
Complete Streets policy and guidelines should be followed wherever possible. If the policy cannot be met, a reasonable explanation must be given in the application explaining why.
Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Right of Way (ROW) phases will be limited to a combined total of 7.5% of the estimated construction estimate. These funds will be initially set aside for every project, but the project sponsor may elect not to receive the funds. If sponsor elects not to use funds for PE or ROW, the funds will be programmed for other projects.
The application must include a map at sufficient enough scale to clearly identify beginning and ending points of the project. Sponsors are encouraged to include photographs or other visuals (on either 8 ½ x 11, 8 ½ x 14, or 11 x 17 paper) to identify the scope of work required and to help explain the project to the reviewers.
The project must let in the fiscal year that it is programed.
Only one exception will be allowed for the letting.
The letting will be allowed to move to the next available year that there is available funding within the existing five-year TIP. The practice of pushing projects outside of the five-year TIP will cease.
If after a project is allowed to move within the five-year TIP, and the letting still cannot be made, the project will be eliminated from the TIP, losing commitment. Future work must wait until the next NOFA and the project will be required compete for future funding. Federal funds spent will be required to be paid back to FHWA by the sponsor, if construction does not occur within ten years.
Exceptions will be allowed for:
Changes in the project’s limits, upon approval of the Transportation Resources Oversight Committee (TROC).
Downsizing the scope, or phasing the project provided the overall funding request does not increase.
Once a project is awarded, the funds programmed to that project shall remain with that project for the year in which it is programmed. If the project is eliminated or suspended by the Sponsor, the funds will be reprogrammed.
If a project is applying for funds from CMAQ or HSIP category, additional eligibility determinations must be met. For projects requesting CMAQ funding, please see https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/cmaqfs.cfm. For HSIP funding please see https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/legislationandpolicy/fast/guidance.cfm. Technical assistance from NIRPC will be available for these funding sources.
During construction, Change Orders will be limited to 10% of the CN letting amount or $100,000, whichever is less. The maximum amount set aside for all change orders is capped at 1.75% of the total funding available in that fiscal year.
Transfers of funds from FHWA derived sources to be flexed to FTA will be requested by NIRPC, pursuant to INDOT rules, and generally only after a full year appropriation has been made by Congress.
A risk factor will be assigned to each fiscal year to assist in absorbing any unexpected project cost increases or other uncertainties. If those funds are not needed by any project, they will be reprogrammed in the next NOFA:
First year in TIP – 0%; second year in TIP – 1%; third year in TIP – 1.5%; fourth year in TIP – 2%; and fifth year in TIP – 2.5%
Transit vehicles (some rules may only apply to NIRPC subrecipients):
If an operator has more than one vehicle that has met the end of its useful life, they may choose to swap the priorities of the vehicles only if the vehicle swapped has a lower-rated condition assessment.
NIRPC will not submit any vehicle replacement into a grant unless it is confirmed that the vehicle will meet the end of its useful life within the following calendar year, the vehicle will be bumped into the following priority year and all other vehicles will advance in priority.
Preliminary specifications on vehicle replacements and capital purchases are due before FTA grant submissions and/or TIP applications.
NIRPC will not program any vehicle replacement for a sub-recipient into the TIP unless it is part of the Indiana State QPA or an identified state cooperative agreement.
NIRPC will not submit any vehicles for early replacement to FTA if none of the vehicle’s systems have been rated as “inoperable,” or a “0” condition assessment.
Operators will have to submit an annual condition assessment for every vehicle in their fleet, failure to submit a condition assessment will result in no TIP awards or grant executions for an operator’s vehicle replacements.
Vehicles will only be replaced until the cap of 5307 funding designated in the TAM plan for vehicle replacements has been reached.
Vehicles may be purchased beyond the cap, if it allows the small transit providers to meet the goals set in their TAM plan.
Late or missing data submissions may result in denial of programming for federal funds. Including:
National Transit Database (NTD)
Annual List of Obligated Projects (ALOP)
Other subrecipient reporting:
Vehicle Usage & Accident
Drug & Alcohol Testing
Disadvantage Business Enterprise Report
Preventive Maintenance Reporting
Operating Assistance Financial Report
Capital Cost of Contracting Financial Report
Income Financial Report
ADA Review Documentation
Biennial Review Documentation
Certifications and Assurance Compliance
Availability of Local Match Annual Report
Triennial Review Documentation
State Board of Accounts Audit
Procurement Documentation
If an operator does not have enough local match to replace multiple vehicles in a single year, the operator may choose to “bump” a vehicle from one year to another, advancing the priority of all other replacements, provided the group can maintain its ULB thresholds.
Pursuant to FTA regulations, operators may not receive operating assistance funds valued in excess of their proportional share of Vehicle Revenue Hours as a percentage of a maximum of 75% of a single year’s total 5307 apportionment.
Operators seeking FHWA CMAQ funds to pilot new transit service understand that the funds are for startup service and that it is the responsibility of the operator to secure future operating funds to sustain the transit service.
Operators are expected to spend down obligated carryover in grants, and unobligated carryover not yet in a grant, before requesting new funds from the most recent apportionment. A carryover balance equal to half of a year’s worth of operating expenses will be maintained regionally for stop-gap funding purposes should an federal appropriation be unexpectedly reduced.
If an operator has reduced or eliminated service in one part of their service area and has applied for an expansion in another part of their service area, the operator may be asked to provide a demonstration of how the saved revenue from the reduced service has been redistributed to the rest of their service area. Additionally, the operator may be asked to include documentation on how the new expansion will differ than the service that needed to be cut.
Sustain funding necessary to support the system we have / some low scoring project types still need to be funded
Historical costs + programming / consider typical costs of different project types to be logical with targets
Anticipate future needs / have to be sure targeted funding can be sustained over
long-term Ensure fiscal constraint / must
set targets with available funding in mind
Federal funding rules / need to be logical and efficient with assigning funding sources
Logic to “retarget” any funds if not applied for / funds go to next highest scoring program
Project type scores determined through new process / help guide where to target funding
Recommended funding targets to Commission
TPC
guidance
105
11/7/2018 2050 Plan + TIP project call: recommended NOFA 10
Capital investment in existing fixed guideway systems | Tier 1 | $ 11,161,417 | 5337 | NICTD is sole recipient of 5337; TAM drives est | ||||
Fixed guideway rolling stock (new or existing) | Tier 1 | $ 5,929,503 | 5337 | NICTD is sole recipient of 5337; TAM drives est | STBG, | estimated in part on historical costs to support | ||
Preventative maintenance | Tier 1 | $ 5,287,785 | 5307 | estimated in part on historical costs | $ 230,000 | CMAQ | transit; funding target not assigned to any one | |
Vehicle replacement (existing and subject to TAMP) | Tier 1 | $ 1,597,560 | 5307, 5339 | estimated in part on historical costs | project type due to small UZA funding pot | |||
Maintenance facilities | Tier 1 | $ 50,000 | 5307 | estimated in part on historical costs | ||||
Air quality | 66 | $ 1,450,000 | $ 450,000 | |||||
Capital investment in existing fixed guideway systems | Tier 1 | $ 11,161,417 | 5337 | NICTD is sole recipient of 5337; TAM drives est | ||||
Fixed guideway rolling stock (new or existing) | Tier 1 | $ 5,929,503 | 5337 | NICTD is sole recipient of 5337; TAM drives est | STBG, | estimated in part on historical costs to support | ||
Preventative maintenance | Tier 1 | $ 5,287,785 | 5307 | estimated in part on historical costs | $ 230,000 | CMAQ | transit; funding target not assigned to any one | |
Vehicle replacement (existing and subject to TAMP) | Tier 1 | $ 1,597,560 | 5307, 5339 | estimated in part on historical costs | project type due to small UZA funding pot | |||
Maintenance facilities | Tier 1 | $ 50,000 | 5307 | estimated in part on historical costs | ||||
Air quality | 66 | $ 1,450,000 | $ 450,000 | |||||
Alternative fuel infrastructure | Tier 1 | $ 290,000 | CMAQ | modest increase over historical costs | estimated in part on historical costs to replace | |||
Transit vehicle emission reduction (new or mod.) | Tier 1 | $ 800,000 | CMAQ | increase over historical costs | $ 450,000 | CMAQ | transit vehicles | |
Air quality education | Tier 2 | $ 360,000 | CMAQ | estimated on historical costs | ||||
Complete Streets | 63 | $ 1,716,000 | $ 300,000 |
Alternative fuel infrastructure | Tier 1 | $ 290,000 | CMAQ | modest increase over historical costs | estimated in part on historical costs to replace | |||
Transit vehicle emission reduction (new or mod.) | Tier 1 | $ 800,000 | CMAQ | increase over historical costs | $ 450,000 | CMAQ | transit vehicles | |
Air quality education | Tier 2 | $ 360,000 | CMAQ | estimated on historical costs | ||||
Complete Streets | 63 | $ 1,716,000 | $ 300,000 |
2020 - 2024 Transportation Improvement Program recommended funding allocation targets (based on estimated annual funding appropriation) Transit / operating | Average program score / scoring tier 80 | Chicago UZA Targeted funding amount $ 5,120,000 | Targeted funding source | Notes | Michigan City U Targeted funding amount $ 951,500 | ZA Targeted funding source | Notes |
Complementary paratransit to fixed route service | Tier 1 | $ 1,200,000 | 5307 | core investments required to sustain existing | core investments required to sustain existing | ||
Operating assistance | Tier 1 | $ 3,680,000 | 5307 | transportation system; estimated in part on | $ 951,500 | 5307 | transportation system; estimated in part on |
Operational support equipment / computer hard/software | Tier 1 | $ 240,000 | 5307 | historical costs | historical costs | ||
Multi-use trails | 78 | $ 2,750,000 | $ 350,000 | ||||
Multi-use trails | Tier 1 | $ 2,750,000 | STBG | estimated in part on historical costs | $ 350,000 | STBG | new annualized target based on critical paths |
Transit / asset management | 72 | $ 24,026,265 | $ 230,000 |
Transportation projects for ADA compliance w/ universal design | Tier 1 | $ 450,000 | STBG | new annualized target based on critical paths | ||
Bicycle/pedestrian signals | Tier 1 | $ 150,000 | TA | new annualized target based on critical paths | ||
On-road trails (bicycle lanes or cycle track s) | Tier 1 | $ 370,000 | STBG | new annualized target based on critical paths | new annualized target based on critical paths, | |
Sidewalk s | Tier 1 | $ 370,000 | STBG | new annualized target based on critical paths $ 300,000 | STBG, TA | but not assigned to any one project type due |
Safe Routes to School infrastructure projects | Tier 1 | $ 250,000 | TA | estimated in part on historical costs | to small UZA funding pot | |
Bicycle infrastructure (signage, bicycle rack s, etc.) | Tier 1 | $ 25,000 | TA | estimated in part on historical costs | ||
Safe Routes to School non-infrastructure projects | Tier 2 | $ 50,500 | TA | new annualized target based on critical paths | ||
Safe Routes to School Coordinator | Tier 2 | $ 50,500 | TA | new annualized target based on critical paths | ||
2020 - 2024 Transportation Improvement Program recommended funding allocation targets (based on estimated annual funding appropriation) | Average program score / scoring tier | Chicago UZA | Michigan City UZA | ||||
Targeted funding amount | Targeted funding source | Notes | Targeted funding amount | Targeted funding source | Notes | ||
Transit / customer experience | 63 | $ 474,397 | $ - | ||||
Mobility management / information technology systems | Tier 1 | $ 200,000 | 5310 | new annualized target based on critical paths | $ - | n/a | funding not available at this time to target |
Transit passenger facilities | Tier 2 | $ 274,397 | 5307, 5337 | estimated in part on historical costs | |||
Transit / expansion | 60 | $ 698,745 | $ - | ||||
Incremental cost of providing same day service or door-to-door | Tier 1 | $ 248,745 | 5310 | new annualized target based on critical paths | $ - | n/a | funding not available at this time to target |
Operating assistance for new transit service | Tier 1 | $ 450,000 | CMAQ | new annualized target based on critical paths | |||
Planning | 56 | $ 675,000 | $ 50,000 | ||||
Creating Livable Communities or TOD planning program | Tier 1 | $ 125,000 | STBG | new annualized target based on critical paths | $ 50,000 | STBG | new annualized target based on critical paths |
Transit planning and administrative oversight | Tier 1 | $ 550,000 | 5307 | estimated on historical costs; req'd to oversee | not seek ing funds from MC UZA | ||
Environment | 48 | $ 350,000 | $ - | ||||
Stormwater management / control / prevention | Tier 1 | $ 200,000 | TA | new annualized target based on critical paths | $ - | n/a | too small of a UZA funding pot to target funds |
Vegetation management in ROWs | Tier 2 | $ 150,000 | TA | new annualized target based on critical paths | |||
Quality of place | 48 | $ 750,000 | $ - | ||||
Traffic calming | Tier 1 | $ 750,000 | HSIP | new annualized target based on critical paths | $ - | n/a | too small of a UZA funding pot to target funds |
Transit security | 44 | $ 299,397 | $ 9,528 | ||||
Transit security | Tier 2 | $ 299,397 | 5307, 5337 | req'd to spend at least 1% on transit security | $ 9,528 | 5307 | req'd to spend at least 1% on transit security |
Roadway improvement | 41 | $ 11,730,000 | $ 1,160,000 | ||||
Intersection safety improvements | Tier 1 | $ 1,625,000 | HSIP | core investments required to sustain existing transportation system; estimated in part on historical costs | $ 1,160,000 | HSIP, STBG | core investments required to sustain existing transportation system; estimated in part on historical costs |
Pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction | Tier 2 | $ 7,880,000 | STBG | ||||
Railway-highway grade crossings | Tier 2 | $ 525,000 | HSIP | ||||
Intersection congestion improvements | Tier 2 | $ 1,700,000 | CMAQ | ||||
New roadways | 24 | $ - | $ - | ||||
No project types recommended for funding in this program | Tier 3 | $ - | n/a | did not score well in view of critical paths | $ - | n/a | did not score well in view of critical paths |
Summary | $ 50,039,804 | $ 3,501,028 | |||||
What happens if applicants do not apply for all the funding targeted to a project type or program?
The funding targets, are just that, targets, not fixed amounts
Within each program, any remaining funding for a project type will go to the next highest scored project type (if it is eligible for the funding source available), until the program fully uses its targeted funds
If there is funding left in a program, it’ll go to the next highest scored program (if it is eligible for the funding source available)
This will continue to until all funds are programmed
Program A
$ stay in program until used
Program B
$ stay in program until used
Program C
$ stay in program until used
FHWA – Chicago UZA FHWA – Michigan City UZA
STBG CMAQ HSIP TA | ||||||
2020 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 11,951,486 | $ 3,708,491 | $ 3,636,386 | $ 984,647 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 14,910,760 | $ 2,670,240 | $ 2,282,850 | $ 247,200 | ||
PE/ROW set aside | N/A | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Risk set aside | N/A | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Change order set aside | $ 375,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - | ||
Available for programming | $ (3,334,274) | $ 1,038,251 | $ 1,353,536 | $ 737,447 | $ (205,040) | |
2021 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 11,951,486 | $ 3,607,329 | $ 2,901,536 | $ 984,647 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 12,729,857 | $ 3,553,934 | $ - | $ 1,495,560 | ||
PE/ROW set aside | 5.00% | $ 597,574.30 | $ 180,366.45 | $ 145,076.80 | $ 49,232.35 | |
Risk set aside | 1.00% | $ 119,514.86 | $ 36,073.29 | $ 29,015.36 | $ 9,846.47 | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 375,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ (1,870,460) | $ (163,045) | $ 2,727,444 | $ (569,992) | $ 123,947 | |
2022 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 11,951,000 | $ 3,607,000 | $ 2,270,000 | $ 985,000 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 11,774,400 | $ - | $ 1,138,500 | $ 984,080 | ||
PE/ROW set aside | 7.50% | $ 896,325.00 | $ 270,525.00 | $ 170,250.00 | $ 73,875.00 | |
Risk set aside | 1.50% | $ 179,265.00 | $ 54,105.00 | $ 34,050.00 | $ 14,775.00 | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 209,143 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ (1,108,133) | $ 3,282,370 | $ 927,200 | $ (87,730) | $ 3,013,708 | |
2023 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 11,951,000 | $ 3,607,000 | $ 2,270,000 | $ 985,000 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 15,437,274 | $ - | $ - | $ - | ||
PE/ROW set aside | 7.50% | $ 896,325.00 | $ 270,525.00 | $ 170,250.00 | $ 73,875.00 | |
Risk set aside | 2.00% | $ 239,020.00 | $ 72,140.00 | $ 45,400.00 | $ 19,700.00 | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 209,143 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ (4,830,762) | $ 3,264,335 | $ 2,054,350 | $ 891,425 | $ 1,379,349 | |
2024 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 11,951,000 | $ 3,607,000 | $ 2,270,000 | $ 985,000 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 9,598,707 | $ - | $ - | $ - | ||
PE/ROW set aside | 7.50% | $ 896,325.00 | $ 270,525.00 | $ 170,250.00 | $ 73,875.00 | |
Risk set aside | 2.50% | $ 298,775.00 | $ 90,175.00 | $ 56,750.00 | $ 24,625.00 | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 209,143 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ 948,051 | $ 3,246,300 | $ 2,043,000 | $ 886,500 | $ 7,123,851 | |
STBG CMAQ HSIP TA | ||||||
2020 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 2,901,841 | $ 614,152 | $ 397,174 | $ 95,830 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 3,979,373 | $ - | $ - | $ - | ||
PE/ROW set aside | N/A | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Risk set aside | N/A | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 31,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ (1,108,532) | $ 614,152 | $ 397,174 | $ 95,830 | $ (1,376) | |
2021 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 1,142,937 | $ 614,152 | $ 397,174 | $ 95,830 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 811,809 | $ - | $ - | $ 1,160,000 | ||
PE/ROW set aside | 7.50% | $ 57,146.85 | $ 30,707.60 | $ 19,858.70 | $ 4,791.50 | |
Risk set aside | 1.00% | $ 11,429.37 | $ 6,141.52 | $ 3,971.74 | $ 958.30 | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 70,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ 192,552 | $ 577,303 | $ 373,344 | $ (1,069,920) | $ 73,278 | |
2022 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 1,142,937 | $ 614,152 | $ 397,174 | $ 95,830 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 1,460,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - | ||
PE/ROW set aside | 7.50% | $ 85,720.28 | $ 46,061.40 | $ 29,788.05 | $ 7,187.25 | |
Risk set aside | 1.50% | $ 17,144.06 | $ 9,212.28 | $ 5,957.61 | $ 1,437.45 | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 70,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ (489,927) | $ 558,878 | $ 361,428 | $ 87,205 | $ 517,585 | |
2023 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 1,142,937 | $ 614,152 | $ 397,174 | $ 95,830 | ||
Currently programmed | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | ||
PE/ROW set aside | 7.50% | $ 85,720.28 | $ 46,061.40 | $ 29,788.05 | $ 7,187.25 | |
Risk set aside | 2.00% | $ 22,858.74 | $ 12,283.04 | $ 7,943.48 | $ 1,916.60 | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 70,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ 964,358 | $ 555,808 | $ 359,442 | $ 86,726 | $ 1,966,334 | |
2024 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 1,142,937 | $ 614,152 | $ 397,174 | $ 95,830 | ||
Currently programmed | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | ||
PE/ROW set aside | 7.50% | $ 85,720.28 | $ 46,061.40 | $ 29,788.05 | $ 7,187.25 | |
Risk set aside | 2.50% | $ 28,573.43 | $ 15,353.80 | $ 9,929.35 | $ 2,395.75 | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 70,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ 958,643 | $ 552,737 | $ 357,457 | $ 86,247 | $ 1,955,084 | |
STBG CMAQ HSIP TA | ||||||
2020 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 11,951,486 | $ 3,708,491 | $ 3,636,386 | $ 984,647 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 14,910,760 | $ 2,670,240 | $ 2,282,850 | $ 247,200 | ||
PE/ROW set aside | N/A | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Risk set aside | N/A | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Change order set aside | $ 375,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - | ||
Available for programming | $ (3,334,274) | $ 1,038,251 | $ 1,353,536 | $ 737,447 | $ (205,040) | |
2021 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 11,951,486 | $ 3,607,329 | $ 2,901,536 | $ 984,647 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 12,729,857 | $ 3,553,934 | $ - | $ 1,495,560 | ||
PE/ROW set aside | 5.00% | $ 597,574.30 | $ 180,366.45 | $ 145,076.80 | $ 49,232.35 | |
Risk set aside | 1.00% | $ 119,514.86 | $ 36,073.29 | $ 29,015.36 | $ 9,846.47 | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 375,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ (1,870,460) | $ (163,045) | $ 2,727,444 | $ (569,992) | $ 123,947 | |
2022 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 11,951,000 | $ 3,607,000 | $ 2,270,000 | $ 985,000 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 11,774,400 | $ - | $ 1,138,500 | $ 984,080 | ||
PE/ROW set aside | 7.50% | $ 896,325.00 | $ 270,525.00 | $ 170,250.00 | $ 73,875.00 | |
Risk set aside | 1.50% | $ 179,265.00 | $ 54,105.00 | $ 34,050.00 | $ 14,775.00 | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 209,143 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ (1,108,133) | $ 3,282,370 | $ 927,200 | $ (87,730) | $ 3,013,708 | |
2023 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 11,951,000 | $ 3,607,000 | $ 2,270,000 | $ 985,000 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 15,437,274 | $ - | $ - | $ - | ||
PE/ROW set aside | 7.50% | $ 896,325.00 | $ 270,525.00 | $ 170,250.00 | $ 73,875.00 | |
Risk set aside | 2.00% | $ 239,020.00 | $ 72,140.00 | $ 45,400.00 | $ 19,700.00 | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 209,143 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ (4,830,762) | $ 3,264,335 | $ 2,054,350 | $ 891,425 | $ 1,379,349 | |
2024 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 11,951,000 | $ 3,607,000 | $ 2,270,000 | $ 985,000 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 9,598,707 | $ - | $ - | $ - | ||
PE/ROW set aside | 7.50% | $ 896,325.00 | $ 270,525.00 | $ 170,250.00 | $ 73,875.00 | |
Risk set aside | 2.50% | $ 298,775.00 | $ 90,175.00 | $ 56,750.00 | $ 24,625.00 | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 209,143 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ 948,051 | $ 3,246,300 | $ 2,043,000 | $ 886,500 | $ 7,123,851 | |
STBG CMAQ HSIP TA | ||||||
2020 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 2,901,841 | $ 614,152 | $ 397,174 | $ 95,830 | ||
Currently programmed | $ 3,979,373 | $ - | $ - | $ - | ||
PE/ROW set aside | N/A | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Risk set aside | N/A | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Change order set aside | 1.75% | $ 31,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
Available for programming | $ (1,108,532) | $ 614,152 | $ 397,174 | $ 95,830 | $ (1,376) | |
2021 | overall available to program ▼ | |||||
Allocation | $ 1,142,937 | $ 614,152 | $ 397,174 | $ 95,830 | ||
Currently programmed | ||||||