TIP 2020-2024 Program Scoring Sheet COMMITTEE: 3PC PROGRAM: COMPLETE STREETS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria | Access & Connections | Economic Generation | Environmental Benefits (PICK ONE) | Local Plan & Policy Support | Regional Plan & Policy Support | Partnerships | Project Readiness | Safety | Social Equity | MAX SCORE | ||||||||||||||||||
1) | Walk score for project area | 5 | Access to job commuters | 10 | Emission reduction | 5 | Project documentaion: | 10 | Project Documentation: | 5 | Planning or funding agreements with | 10 | Overmatch | 5 | All crashes within project area | 10 | project in Environmental Justice area | 5 | 100 | |||||||||
100-80 | 0 | 100+ employed within 1/2 mile of project area | 10 | Cost per ton < $1,000,000 | 5 | Complete Streets Policy / Citation in Comp, bike & ped or thoroughfare plan / Park Plans / Bicycle Parking Ordinance / Flexible zoning & subdivison codes / School District SRTS Plan / School PTA Approval / TOD | Greenways+Blueways 2020 Plan / NIRPC 2040 Plan | INDOT / Other jurisdictions / Advocacy groups / Foundations / Businesses / School Districts | > 30% local match or pay PE costs | 5 | Project located in one of top crash locations in NIRPC 2040 Update Companion | 5 | 50% or more of project is within EJ area | 5 | ||||||||||||||
< 80-50 | 3 | 50-99 employed | 7 | Cost per ton between $1M and $2M | 3 | Three or more above satisfied | 10 | Adheres to either plan's goals and objectives | 5 | Two or more partnerships | 10 | 25 to 30% local match | 3 | # accidents per 100 million vehicles | < 50% in EJ area | 3 | ||||||||||||
< 50 | 5 | 1-49 employed | 3 | Two or more | 5 | One partnership | 5 | 21 to 24% local match | 1 | High value | 5 | |||||||||||||||||
One satisfied | 2 | Medium value | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
2) | Trip Generators within 1/2 mile of project area | 10 | Current % of students dropped off by auto (SRTS only) | 5 | NIRPC's Complete Streets design adherence | 5 | Right-of-way owned completely by LPA | 5 | Senior or disabled center within 1/2 mile of project area | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||
# of parks, schools, post offices, libraries, civic facilities, 10+ businesses: | > 20% (reseach) | 5 | Maximum adherence | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 or more | 10 | Minimum adherence | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 to 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 or less | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3) | Transit access within 1/2 mile of project | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
More than one stop | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 stop | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4) | Residential density within 1/2 mile of project | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(per old TAP) | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5) | Universal Design adherence | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6) | Current % of children walking & biking to school (SRTS projects only) | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Less than 5% | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MAX Criteria Score | 25 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||
TIP 2020-24 Program Scoring Sheet COMMITTEE: 3PC PROGRAM: MULTI-USE TRAILS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria | Access & Connections | Economic Generation | Environmental Benefits | Local Plan & Policy Support | Regional Plan & Policy Support | Partnerships | Project Readiness | Safety | Social Equity (PICK ONE) | MAX SCORE | ||||||||||||||||||
1) | Number of Communities Connected | 5 | Number of employed within 1/2 mile of project area | 10 | Connections to Conservation Corridors | 5 | Project documentaion: | 5 | Planning or funding agreements with either: | 5 | Overmatch | 5 | Law enforcement & EMS patrol policies in place | 5 | Location of project in Environmental Justice area | 5 | 100 | |||||||||||
Connects two or more communities or completes a gap in a trail corridor | 5 | Over 250 employed | 10 | Connects/crosses corridor | 5 | Complete Streets Policy / Citation in Comp or thoroughfare plan / Parks Plan / Bicycle Parking Ordinance / Set-asided in subdivison codes / Enhanced trails maintenance plan adopted / Railroad agreements / TOD Plans | INDOT / Other jurisdictions / Advocacy groups / Foundations / Businesses / School Districts | > 30% local match or PE funds | 5 | Yes | 5 | 50% or more of project is within EJ area | 5 | |||||||||||||||
Extension of existing or funded trail segment | 3 | 100 to 249 employed | 5 | Three or more above satisfied | 5 | Partnerships including funding | 5 | 25 to 29% local match | 3 | < 50% in EJ area | 3 | |||||||||||||||||
Isolated trail segments | 1 | 25 to 99 | 3 | Two or more | 3 | Other partnerships | 3 | 21 to 24% local | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
One satisfied | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2) | Trip Generators within 1/2 mile of project area | 10 | Priority Trails Adherence | 25 | Right-of-way ownership | 5 | Senior or disabled center within 1/2 mile of project | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||
# of parks, schools, post offices, libraries, civic facilities, 10+ businesses: | Project on High Priority Corridor | 25 | Completely or owned by NIPSCO | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 or more | 10 | Project on Medium Priority Corridor | 20 | Minor amounts required (less than half acre | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
9 to 5 | 5 | Project on Low Priority Corridor | 15 | At least 50% owned by sponsor | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
4 or less | 2 | Project connects two Priority Corridors | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Project connects to one Priority Corridor | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3) | Transit access within 1/2 mile of project | 3 | Visionary Trail | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
More than one stop | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 stop | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OR Trailhead parking included | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4) | Residential density within 1/2 mile of project | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(based on TAP app) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Two dwelling units per acre | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5) | Connections to existing on- road bicycle routes | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trail crossing bike lanes or signed routes | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MAX Criteria Score | 25 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 30 | 5 | 10 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
TIP 2020-24 Program Scoring Sheet COMMITTEE: EMPC PROGRAM: Air Quality | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria | Access & Connections | Economic Generation | Environmental Benefits | Local Plan & Policy Support | Regional Plan & Policy Support | Partnerships | Project Readiness | Safety | Social Equity | MAX SCORE | ||||||||||||||||||
1) | Potential of the Vehicle to enhance access and connections for people, or Potential of Alt Fuel or TSE infrastructure to close an access gap, or Percent of Education Project budget focusing on access and connection to low emission transportation modes | 10 | Economic Benefit /ton cumulative mobile source emission reductions of Criterian Pollutants Mobile Source Source Sector HD Diesel =$360,000/ton PM2.5+230,000/tonS0x+6,500/ton N0x X useful life | 5 | Emission Reduction Total - CAA(Sum of reduction of all Criteria Air pollutant emissions in CMAQ Emissions Calculator Toolkit x useful life) | 10 | Extent to which the applicant has embraced air quality and energy effeciency improvememts in operations, community plans, policies, and programs. | 5 | Supports Regional Transit Asset Management Plan or Priority Alt Fuel Corridors or education project Implements Strategies Identified in 2040 Implementation Matrix (Choose One) | 5 | Participates in Regional Air Quality Initiatives such as NWI Green Fleets, NWI Partners for Clean Air, Green Building Council, South Shore Clean Cities | 5 | Procurement Readiness (choose one) | 5 | Investment in Safety Training for Alt Fuels and Infrastructure or public education on health risk during air quality action days. (choose one) | 5 | Emission reductions benefit Environmental Justice populations | 5 | ||||||||||
If Vehicle retrofit, repower, or purchase, Vehicle is a Transit Revenue Vehicle. If Alt Fuel or TSE Infrastructure, Infrastructure is 5 miles or greater from same with public/commercial access. If education program focuses on < 50% transit and non-motorized mode shift. | 10 | $4M+ | 5 | Tons per useful life > 3 | 10 | Green Fleets Plan, Idle Reduction Ordinance, Education and Incentives Programs for Residents and Businesses, Urban Forestry Plan, Energy Efficiency, Green Building Standards or related documents. | 5 | Project is within 5 mile of a national priority Alt Fuel Corridor | 5 | Project Sponsor is active member in more than one group above. | 5 | Vehicles or certified retrofit equipment meeting specifications for the project are on existing Quantity Purchase Agreements or have competitive procurement documentation examples from other jurisdictions are provided. | 5 | If Alt Fuel project applicant engages in alternative fuel or electric vehicle or infrastructure safety training for maintenance workers. | 5 | 100% of vehicle operation for project is within EJ areas, or fueling station /TSE and vehicle operation within EJ area. Education Project wholly within EJ Area. | 5 | |||||||||||
If Vehicle Retrofit/repower/purcahse is a School Bus. If Alt Fuel Infrastructure/TSE is less than 5 miles from same and offers limited but shared access with other entities. If education program includes focus > 50% transit and non-motorized mode shift | 5 | $3-4M | 4 | Tons per useful life = 2-3 | 6 | Three or more above satisfied | 3 | Vehicle Replacement is in regional TAM or applicable planning document and near end of federal useful life | 5 | Project Sponsor is active member in one group above. | 3 | If a public partnership (ie: School Bus or non LPA public entity) the a cooperative agreement with LPA to apply and manage the project has been secured. | 5 | If non-alt-fuel project, applicant demonstrates commitment to promoting public information on health and air quality action days | 5 | 75-99% of vehicle operation for project is within EJ areas of is within EJ areas, fueling station or TSE is within EJ area. Percent of Education Project expenditures in EJ Area. | 4 | |||||||||||
Non-Transportation Vehicle/Alt Fuel Infrastructure has no mechanism to share access, education program limited re: mode shift aspects | 0 | $2-3 M | 3 | Tons per useful life = 1-2 | 4 | Two or more | 2 | Education project activities are included in the 2040 Plan Implementation Matrix | 5 | Infrastructure or TSE Project is to be installed on public property | 5 | 50-75% of vehicle operation for project is within EJ areas of is within EJ areas, fueling station or TSE is within EJ area. Percent of Education Project expenditures in EJ Area. | 3 | |||||||||||||||
$1-2M | 2 | Tons per useful life = <1 | 2 | One satisfied | 1 | If education project, all promotional items are identified specifically in the application. | 5 | 25-49% of vehicle operation for project is within EJ areas of is within EJ areas, fueling station or TSE is within EJ area. Percent of Education Project expenditures in EJ Area. | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
<$1M | 1 | 0 | No Public Private Partnerships with pre- identified private partner will be allowed. These must be competitively procurred. | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2) | Increase Access to Clean Air: (based on population of census blocks within 1000 ft* of project) | 5 | Return on Investment: If Alt Fuel Vehicle, Idle Reduction, or TSE: Return on investment =(annual energy and/or fuel cost savings to public applicant) x Useful Life/ project cost | 5 | GHG- Emission Reduction Total =(Sum of GHG Equivalents reduced/year) x useful life) | 10 | Community Air Quality Education and Promotion | 5 | Operational Readiness | 5 | Reduce exposure of sensitive populations to diesel vehicle emissions | 5 | ||||||||||||||||
Population in census blocks within 1000 ft of transit or school bus route + ridership, fueling station, or idling location + ridership >5000 | 5 | ROI=100% | 5 | Tons per useful life > 500 tons | 10 | Applicant initiates education, outreach, and awareness of air quality related activities, behaviors, etc.(at least annual newsletter, water bill inserts, or eblasts over 3 year prior) | 5 | Fuel purchasing plan or infrastructure is in place to support alt. fuel vehicles, or all vehicles. | 5 | Number of Schools, senior centers/nursing homes, hospitals, and recreational facilities within half mile of transit or school bus route, fueling station or idling location, or planned public education events > 10 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||
Population in census blocks within 1000 ft of transit or school bus route + ridership, fueling station, or idling location 4000-5000 | 4 | ROI=75 - 100% | 4 | Tons per useful life = 300-400 | 8 | Number of Schools, senior centers/nursing homes hospitals, and recreational facilities within half mile of transit or school bus route, fueling station. idling location, or planned public education events: 8-10 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Population in census blocks wtihin 1000 ft. of transit or school bus route + ridership, fueling station, or idling location + 3000-4000 | 3 | ROI = 50 - 75% | 3 | Tons per useful life = 200-300 | 6 | Number of Schools, hospitals, senior centers/nursing homes and recreational facilities within half mile of transit or school bus route, fueling station. idling location, or planned public education events: 4-7 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Population in census blocks within 1000 ft of transit or school bus route + ridership, fueling station, or idling location. 2000-3000 | 2 | ROI = 25 - 50% | 2 | Tons per useful life = 100-200 | 4 | Number of Schools, hospitals, senior centers/nursing homes and recreational facilities within half mile of transit or school bus route, fueling station. idling location, or planned public education events: 2-3 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Population within 1000 ft. of transit or school bus route + ridership, fueling station, or idling location. 1000-2000 | 1 | ROI = 1-25% | 1 | <100 | 2 | Number of Schools, hospitals, senior centers/nursing homes and recreational facilities within half mile of transit or school bus route, fueling station. idling location, or planned public education events: 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
3) | 15 | Emission Reduction Cost Effectiveness (CMAQ $/ Kg)= CMAQ$/ (sum all pollutants kg.yr)* Useful Life | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
10 | CMAQ ost per kg >$10,000 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CMAQ ost per kg $5,000-10,000 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CMAQ cost per kg $2500-5000 | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CMAQ cost per kg $1000-2500 | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CMAQ cost per kg < $1000 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MAX Criteria Score | 30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TIP 2020-24 Program Scoring Sheet COMMITTEE: EMPC PROGRAM: Environment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria | Access & Connections | Economic Generation | Environmental Benefits | Local Plan & Policy Support | Regional Plan & Policy Support | Partnerships | Project Readiness | Safety | Social Equity | MAX SCORE | ||||||||||||||||||
Potential of the project to:
OR | 10 | Demonstrates economic benefit as operational cost savings or economic generation | 5 |
OR | 20 | Project supports local natural resource related plans and policies Note: funds cannot not be used for permit compliance, projects must go "above and beyond" for eligibility | 20 | Project supports regional natural resource related plans and policies | 20 | Demonstrated extermal partnership support for project need and long-term success | 5 | Right-of-way ownership | 5 | Project addresses known safety issue | 5 | Location of project in Environmental Justice area | 10 | 100 | ||||||||||
waterbody has public access within 1/2-mile OR | 10 | Yes | 5 | Project improves stormwater storage | 5 | Project supports municipal stormwater management plan/CSO long-term control plan | 5 | Project supports implemenation of watershed management plan | 5 | Five or more partners | 5 | All ROW needed is owned by Local Public Agency has been Completed and reviewed by NIRPC | 5 | Addresses demonstrated issue such as floodprone transportation infrastructure, sightline visibility or traffic calming | 5 | Project location within EJ area | 10 | |||||||||||
OR | 5 | Project reduces sediment and nutrient loading | 5 | Project supports implemenation of TMDL | 5 | 3 to 4 partners | 3 | ROW is owned by natural resource agency or land trust and LPA has negotiated a cooperative agreement | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
OR | 3 | Project incorporates habitat and forage for native pollinators | 5 | Project an adopted flood mitigation plan | 5 | Project supports implemenation of LMCP or CLCP conservation area plan | 5 | 1-2 partners | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
Project controls invasive species in ROW | 5 | Project supports municipal park or openspace plan | 5 | Project supports implemenation Greenways & Blueways 2020 Plan | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Project supports municipal urban forest plan, Tree City | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | 5 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 5 | 5 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||
COMMITTEE: LUC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROGRAM: Quality of Place | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Elgible Projects | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1- Divided Highway conversion to boulevard | 4- Roadway expansion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2- Traffic Calming | 5- Historic preserve of historic transportation facilities | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3- Inventory/ control/ removal of outdoor advertising | 6- Turnouts/ overlook | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria | Access & Connections | Economic Generation | Environmental Benefits | Local Plan & Policy Support | Regional Plan & Policy Support | Partnerships | Project Readiness | Safety | Social Equity | MAX SCORE | ||||||||||||||||||
1) | Walk score for project area | 5 | Improve the quality of life of the project area | 5 | Emission reduction | 4 | Project documentation (citation): | 10 | Project documentation | 10 | Planning or funding agreements with either | 5 | Overmatch | 10 | All crashes within project area | 5 | Project located in an Environmental Justice area | 5 | 100 | |||||||||
100-75 | 5 | Attract business or enhance existing business area | 3 | Cost per ton < $1,000,000 (under review) | 4 | Citation in local comprehensive/ strategic/ redevelopment plan | 5 | Regional Corridor Study | 5 | Three or more partnerships | 5 | > 30% local match or PE locally funded | 10 | Project located in one of the top crash locations of all modes in NIRPC Long Range Plan | 5 | Within an EJ area (map) | 5 | |||||||||||
74-50 | 3 | Increase the number of visitors/ users | 2 | Cost per ton between $1M and $2M (under review) | 3 | Citation in traffic/ safety study | 3 | NIRPC Long Range Plan | 5 | Two partnerships | 3 | 25 to 29% local match | 6 | |||||||||||||||
< 49 | 2 | Capital Improvement Plan | 2 | One partnership | 2 | 21 to 24% local match | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
2) | Improve major centers areas | 10 | Green Infrastructure Standards* | 4 | ROW Owned | 10 | # Accidents per 100 million vehicles | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Major employment area (map) | 4 | 5 or more | 4 | ROW completely owned | 10 | High value : > 200 crashes per 100 million vehicle mile | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
CLC (map) | 4 | 3 to 4 | 3 | 75% + ROW owned | 7 | Medium value: 150-199 crashes per 100 million vehicle mile | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Arterial Route | 2 | 1 to 2 | 1 | 50%+ ROW | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Collector Route | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3) | Transit access within 1/2 mile of project | 4 | Improve visual appearnce | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
More than one stop | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 stop | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4) | Ease of mobility/ safety | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Separate transportation | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Universal Design | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Removal of a distraction | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MAX Criteria Score | 25 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 20 | 10 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
* Stormwater management- Rain garden- Air quality- Biodiversity- Land conservation- Bioswales- Vegetation in the road rights-of-way- Permeable pavement in right-of-
ways- bioretention curb extention
COMMITTEE: LUC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROGRAM: Planning | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria | Access & Connections | Economic Generation | Environmental Benefits (PICK ONE) | Local Plan & Policy Support | Regional Plan & Policy Support | Partnerships | Project Readiness | Safety | Social Equity | MAX SCORE | ||||||||||||||||||
1) | Walk score for project area | 5 | Improve the quality of life of the project area | 6 | Emission reduction | 3 | Project documentation | 5 | Project Documentation | 10 | Planning or funding agreements with either: | 5 | Overmatch | 6 | Increase safety of all modes - motorized/ non-motorized | 8 | Project located in an Environmental Justice area | 5 | 100 | |||||||||
100-75 | 0 | Attract business or enhance existing business area | 3 | Cost per ton < $1,000,000 | 4 | Citation in local comprehensive/ strategic/ redevelopment plan | 3 | CLC Report | 4 | Three or more partnerships | 5 | > 30% local match | 6 | Decrese speed limit | 2 | Within an EJ area | 5 | |||||||||||
74-50 | 3 | Increase the number of visitors/ users | 3 | Cost per ton between $1M and $2M | 3 | Local Transit Plan | 2 | RDA / NICTD Plans | 3 | Two partnerships | 3 | 25 to 29% local match | 4 | Clearly marked mid- block and intersection crossings | 3 | |||||||||||||
< 49 | 5 | I-65 & Us 30 Study | 3 | One partnership | 2 | 21 to 24% local match | 2 | Curb extensions and center medians to shorten the distance pedestrians need to negotiate | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
ADA consideration | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2) | Improve connectivity with easy access to jobs and services | 10 | Increase livability | 9 | Green Infrastructure Standards* | 2 | Public Outreach | 5 | Create the groundwork for future implementation | 4 | # accidents per 100 million vehicles | 7 | ||||||||||||||||
Major employment area | 5 | Increase in poulation | 4 | > 70% | 4 | Full and fair participation by all potentially affected areas | 5 | Create the groundwork for future implementation | 2 | High value : > 200 crashes per 100 million vehicle mile travel | 7 | |||||||||||||||||
CLC/ Downtown | 5 | Increase of housing | 3 | 30-69 | 3 | Implementation plan | 2 | Medium value: 150- 199 crashes per 100 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
Seating - sidewalks- street lights- landscape- parks | 2 | <30 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3) | Transit access within 1/2 mile of project | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> one stop | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 stop | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4) | Ease of mobility/ safety | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Separate transportation modes | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Improve traffic flow | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MAX Criteria Score | 25 | 15 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
* Stormwater management- Rain garden- Air quality- Biodiversity- Land conservation- Bioswales- Vegetation in the road rights-of-way- Permeable
pavement in right-of-ways- bioretention curb extention
TIP 2020-2024 Program Scoring Sheet COMMITTEE: STC PROGRAM: Roadway Improvements | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria | Access & Connections | Economic Generation | Environmental Benefits | Local Plan & Policy Support | Regional Plan Adherence | Partnerships | Project Readiness | Safety | Social Equity | MAX SCORE | ||||||||||||||||||
1) | Functional Classification of roadway improved | 8 | Access to job commuters | 10 | Emission reduction | 5 | Local Plan Adherence | 10 | Regional Plan Adherence | 5 | Planning or funding agreements with either: | 5 | Overmatch | 5 | Location on high priority corridors | 5 | Location of project in Environmental Justice area | 5 | 100 | |||||||||
Principal Arterial | 8 | Project is located in a major employment area (map) | 10 | Cost per ton < $1,000,000 (Under Review) | 5 | Cited in local comprehensive or master plan, thoroughfare plan, capital improvements program, traffic impact fee plan, asset management plan, or other local plan/study | Cited in Creating Livable Communities, At-Grade Crossings Study or other published plan for the region that includes at least all of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties | INDOT / Other jurisdictions / Other Transportation Owners or Operators / Railroads / Businesses / Advocacy Groups / Foundations | > 30% local match across each project phase or 100% PE by LPA | 5 | Project located in one of top crash corridors in NIRPC 2040 Long Range Plan | 5 | 50% or more of project is within EJ area (map) | 5 | ||||||||||||||
Minor Arterial | 6 | Project is located in a moderate employment area (map) | 5 | Cost per ton between $1M and $2M (Under Review) | 3 | 25 to 29% local match | 3 | < 49% in EJ area (map) | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
Major Collector | 4 | Cited in at least 2 of the above | 10 | Cited in at least 2 of the above plans | 5 | Two or more partnerships | 5 | 21 to 24% local match | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
Minor Collector | 2 | Cited in at least 1 of the above | 5 | Cited in 1 of the above plans | 3 | One partnership | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
2) | Residential density within 1 mile of project | 5 | Green Infrastructure Standards Incorporated into project | 5 | Congestion Management Process (CMP) Adherence | 5 | Right-of-way controlled by LPA | 5 | Crash Rate in project area | 5 | Progress toward ADA transition plans | 5 | ||||||||||||||||
5 or more residential dwelling units per acre | 5 | 5 or more | 5 | Located on a corridor with Level of Service (LOS) E or F | 5 | Project is in a high crash location (map) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
2-4.99 dwelling units per acre | 3 | 3 to 4 | 3 | Located on a corridor with Level of Service (LOS) D | 3 | Project is in a high crash location (map) | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
1-1.99 dwelling units per acre | 1 | 1 to 2 | 1 | Project is in a moderate crash location (map) | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
3) | Transit access within 1/2 mile of project | 2 | Asset Management | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
More than one stop | 2 | Pavement PASER < 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 stop | 1 | Bridge suff. Rating < 50 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
4) | Network Connectivity within 3 miles | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connects to Other Principal Arterials (OPAs) or Higher Functional Classification on both sides | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connects to an Other Principal Arterial (OPA) or Higher Functional Classification on one side | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connects to a Minor Arterial (MA) | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MAX Criteria Score | 20 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||
* Stormwater management- Rain garden- Air quality- Biodiversity- Land conservation- Bioswales- Vegetation in the road rights-of-way- Permeable pavement in right-of-ways- bioretention curb extention - infiltration trench - wildlife crossing
TIP 2020-2024 Program Scoring Sheet COMMITTEE: STC PROGRAM: New Roadways | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria | Access & Connections | Economic Generation | Environmental Benefits | Local Plan & Policy Support | Regional Plan & Policy Support | Partnerships | Project Readiness | Safety | Social Equity | MAX SCORE | ||||||||||||||||||
1) | Funcitonal Classification of route | 8 | Access to job commuters | 15 | Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) Reduction | 5 | Local Plan Adherence | 10 | Regional Plan Adherence | 10 | Planning or funding agreements with either: | 10 | Overmatch | 5 | Crash Rate in project area | 5 | Location of project in Environmental Justice area | 5 | 100 | |||||||||
Principal Arterial | 8 | Project is located in a major employment area (map) | 15 | 1,000 daily VHT or more reduced compared to no-build scenario as a result of new roadway according to NIRPC Travel Demand Model (Under Review) | 5 | Cited in local comprehensive or master plan, thoroughfare plan, capital improvements program, traffic impact fee plan, or other local plan/study | Cited in current long- range plan, Creating Livable Communities, or other published plan for the region that includes at least all of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties | 5 | INDOT / Other jurisdictions / Other Transportation Owners or Operators / Railroads / Businesses / Advocacy Groups / Foundations | > 30% local match across all project phases or 100% PE by LPA | 5 | Project is in a high crash location (map) | 50% or more of project is within EJ area (map) | 5 | ||||||||||||||
Minor Arterial | 6 | Project is located in a moderate employment area (map) | 10 | 500-999 daily VHT reduced (Under Review) | 3 | One of the 22 segments identified in the Regional Corridors Study | 5 | 25 to 29% local match | 3 | < 49% in EJ area (map) | 3 | |||||||||||||||||
Major Collector | 4 | Cited in at least 2 of the above | 10 | Two or more partnerships | 10 | 21 to 24% local match | 1 | Project is in a high crash location (map) | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
Minor Collector | 2 | Cited in 1 of the above | 5 | One partnership | 5 | Project is in a moderate crash location (map) | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
2) | Residential density within 1 mile of project | 5 | Green Infrastructure Standards* | 5 | Congestion Management Process (CMP) Adherence | 5 | Right-of-way controlled by LPA | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||
5 or more residential dwelling units per acre | 5 | 5 or more | 5 | Connects to or serves within 1 mile of a corridor with Level of Service (LOS) E or F (map) | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2-4.99 dwelling units per acre | 3 | 3 to 4 | 3 | Connects to or serves within 1 mile of a corridor with Level of Service (LOS) D (map) | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
1-1.99 dwelling units per acre | 1 | 1 to 2 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3) | Transit access within 1/2 mile of project | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
More than one stop | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 stop | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4) | Network Connectivity | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connects to Other Principal Arterials (OPAs) or Higher Functional Classification on both sides | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connects to an Other Principal Arterial (OPA) or Higher Functional Classification on one side | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connects to a Minor Arterial (MA) | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||