Surface Transportation Committee (STC) Meeting
Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.
Zoom Meeting Information https://zoom.us/j/94054340205? pwd=TDZMTDdXL3VmYmRJUDV4c1JNczdDQT09 Meeting ID: 940 5434 0205
Passcode: 634266
Dial in: (312) 626-6799
Annotated Agenda
6100 Southport Road
Portage, Indiana 46368
(219) 763-6060
1.0 Call to Order by Chairman and Pledge of Allegiance
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 indicate their wish to comment in advance with the Chair or NIRPC staff.
3.0 Minutes of December 1, 2020 (pp. 1-2)
Action Requested: Approval
4.0 Review of New Roadways and Quality of Place - Roadway Expansion Fiscal Years 2025- 2026 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) Project Applications (Scott Weber) (pp. 3-27)
Staff will review the Fiscal Years 2025-2026 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) project applications for the New Roadways and Quality of Place – Roadway Expansion project types. These projects were previously considered Tier 3 in the 2025-2026 NOFA materials, but as a result of an action taken at the December 16, 2020 Transportation Resources Oversight Committee (TROC) meeting, these project types were moved to Tier
2. The December 16, 2020 TROC meeting also requested the STC to review these projects again with the goal of coalescing support for a small number of them. Action Requested: Recommendation to the Technical Planning Committee
5.0 Adjournment. The next STC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in the Lake Michigan Room at the NIRPC office.
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.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Virtual Meeting December 1, 2020 Minutes
This meeting was convened as an electronic meeting, pursuant to Governor Holcomb’s Executive Order 20-04 and 20-09, extended by Executive Order 20-47. All persons were meeting remotely on a Google Meet platform that allowed for real time interaction and supported the public’s ability to observe and record the proceedings. When the agenda item was provided for public comment, this was supported as well. A roll call was taken to motion and approve the agenda items.
Tom Schmitt called the meeting to order at 9:36 a.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call. In attendance were Gerald Swets, Jeff Huet, Duane Alverson, Michael Jabo, Jill DiTommaso, Mark O’Dell, Rachelle Morgan, Deb Backhus, Dean Button, John Kennedy, Sarah Nimitz, AJ Monroe, Sandra Kolb, Tyler Neff, Susan Alabbas, Dustin Anderson, George Topoll, Chris Murphy, Amy Blaker, Nick Bellar, Kevin Brietzke, and Dennis Cobb.
NIRPC staff present were Scott Weber, Kevin Polette, Candice Eklund, Peter Kimball, Charles Bradsky, Ty Warner, and Flor Baum.
There were no public comments.
The minutes of the November 10, 2020 meeting were corrected and approved on motion by Michael Jabo and second by Duane Alverson. Changes made were as follows:
Add Duane Alverson
East Chicago tabulation error; change score to 78
Valpo tabulation error for Lincolnway project; change score to 73
Valpo tabulation error for SR 130 project; change score to 69
Review of NOFA Applications
Scott Weber reviewed the continuation of the 2020 Notice of Funding Applications (NOFA) for New Roadways, and Roadway Improvements. The scoring changes that were discussed and agreed on by the committee were made live by Scott. The representatives will provide supporting documentation to Scott by the end of this meeting.
New Roadway Submissions:
City of La Porte (Group II) - North-South Corridor Phase 1 PE. Funding request is
$935,322. Due to technical difficulties, representatives were not present to discuss the city’s project. The self- score of 78 was adjusted by NIRPC staff to 67. STC did not submit a score.
Roadway Improvements Submissions:
City of La Porte (Group II) - Emergency Vehicle Preemption - Lincolnway Corridor. Funding request is $30,590. Due to technical difficulties, representatives were not present to discuss the city’s project. The self- score of 42 was adjusted by NIRPC staff to 45. STC did not submit a score.
City of Gary
15th Ave Reconstruction - Funding request is $3,096,000. Eric Wolverton presented on this project at the November 10, 2020 meeting. The self-score of 55 was adjusted by NIRPC staff to 53. The STC score reflected 53.
City Signal Improvement - Funding request is $928,000. The self-score of 56 was adjusted by NIRPC staff to 54. The STC score reflected 54.
City of Portage - Central Ave Reconstruction Phase 2. Funding request is $2,179,375. The self-score of 70 was adjusted by NIRPC staff to 62. The STC score reflected 68, pending materials from the congressional office.
LaPorte (county; Group II) - Michigan Blvd Bridge Replacement. Funding request is
$2,322,000. The self-score of 35 was adjusted by NIRPC staff to 48. The STC score reflected 48.
The following Roadway Improvement submissions were revisited to further discuss awarded points.
Town of Chesterton - Emergency Vehicle Preemption - Safety Improvements. Funding request is $1,327,052. Additional points were awarded. The self-score of 64 was adjusted by NIRPC staff to 57. STC updated the score from 58 to 61.
City of Hammond - Summer St Reconstruction Phase 2. Funding request is
$3,285,000. Dean Button withdrew the request to award additional points. The STC score remains at 71.
Lake County - Colorado St Bridge Replacement over Deep River. Funding request is
$1,045,625. An additional point was awarded. The self-score and NIRPC staff score was
44. STC updated the score from 44 to 45.
Except for the City of La Porte, on motion by Michael Jabo and second by Mark O’Dell, the committee recommended the final application scores to be submitted to the Technical planning committee.
Scott will forward score updates from City of La Porte to the Surface Transportation Committee.
The Surface Transportation Committee will meet on February 2, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. at the NIRPC offices.
Hearing no other business, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
NIRPC 2025-2026 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) New Roadways Submissions | |||||||
Rank (scr) | Sponsor | Proposal | Request | Self Score | NIRPC Score | STC Score | |
5 | Hobart | 83rd Ave Extension | $4,767,840 | 53 | 53 | 53 | |
1 | La Porte (city) | North-South Corridor Phase 1 PE | $935,322 | 78 | 69 | 69 | |
4 | Porter County | Willowcreek Rd Extension | $4,614,975 | 59 | 58 | 58 | |
2 | St. John | Cline Ave Gap | $6,452,500 | 62 | 65 | 65 | |
TOTAL | $16,770,637 | ||||||
Roadway Expansions Submissions | |||||||
Rank (scr) | Sponsor | Proposal | Request | Self Score | NIRPC Score | LUC Score | |
3 | Schererville | Kennedy Ave Phase 3 | $4,173,322 | 67 | 62 | 62 | |
4 | Schererville | Kennedy Ave Phase 4 | $6,373,890 | 65 | 61 | 58 | |
TOTAL | $10,547,212 | ||||||
3
Name of municipality or transit operator: Name of applicant on behalf of municipality or transit operator: | #REF! | County | ||||
#REF! | ||||||
Complete streets program application (see program + project types tab for more info) | Financial information about project: Total in $ Max. fed share Min. fed share Your match | |||||
Below are the project types for this program | Tier | Step Total estimated construction cost | $ 5,544,000 | $ 4,435,200 | $ 1,108,800 | $ 1,108,800 |
Description: funds to promote or educate roadway safety (usually a state level initiative) | (Please use CY 2021 dollars; we will How much do you propose contributing to the construction costs? ▲
If you elect to pay for PE/ROW with local funds that amount will be considered overmatch for scoring purposes ▲ | |||||
Description: funding required to be spent to improve the safety and security of transit | ||||||
New truck parking facilities | ||||||
Construction of minor collectors in same corridor as NHS route | ||||||
Choose a project type for this application ▼ | ||||||
New bridge / roadway / tunnel construction | ||||||
Maps | ||||||
Function Classification | Click Here | |||||
Residential Density / Municipal Boundries | ||||||
Transit Access / Rail | ||||||
Major Employment Centers | ||||||
Environmental Justice | ||||||
General Project Information | |||||||
Please give the total project costs (including PE, ROW and CN) for all phases. | $ 6,699,500 | ||||||
How many phases are expected in this project? | |||||||
Will this project add roadway capacity? (y/n) ► | no | Road/trail name/other identifier ▼ | |||||
Are you seeking HSIP funding?(y/n) | no | 83rd Avenue Extension from Colorado Street to Harms Road | |||||
Is this project eligible for CMAQ funding?(y/n) | no | Limits | Begin | Colorado Street | |||
Will this project seek to flex funds from FHWA to FTA? (y/n) ► | no | End | Harms Road | ||||
Environmental Document & Permits | If this is a bridge project what is the score? | ||||||
Environmental Investigation Completed? | None | What is the desired year for PE? (CY/na) | 2024 | ||||
Anticipated NEPA Document Required | Categorical Exclusion | What is the desired year for RW? (CY/na) | not applicable | ||||
NEPA Document Status | Not Started | What is the desired year for CN? (CY/na) | 2026 | ||||
Anticipated Permits | 401 Water Quality | Does this project address a gap in existing service? (y/n) | yes | ||||
Right of Way Needs | Is this project Regionally Significant? (y/n) | yes | |||||
New ROW Required | Yes | Utilities Needs | |||||
If Yes, Number of Parcels | 9 | Utilities Impacted? | Yes (list known utilities in supporting docs) | ||||
If Yes, Types of Parcels | Mix | If Yes, Location of Utilities | Unknown | ||||
Does this project touch Right of Way belonging to INDOT? If yes please | If Yes, Relocations required? | Yes | |||||
provide concurrance documentation. (y/n) ► | no | Railroad Impacted? | No | ||||
If yes, what percentage ► | If Yes, are Improvements being made? | ||||||
4
yes | ||
#VALUE! | ||
PE | ||
$ 332,640 | $ 332,640 | $ - |
Step 3 | You have elected to match your construction costs at the rate of ► | 20% |
You have elected to request PE/ROW funds at the rate of ► | 100% | |
Your total match for scoring purposes is ► | 20% |
Project Need and Purpose |
What is the problem/issue that this project will address? (Project Need) ▼ |
The City of Hobart has recognized through thoroughfare planning, taking part in the US30 Safety Study, completing the Southwest Area Traffic Study, and by way discussions with INDOT, NIRPC and Merrillville, that alternative and parallel routes in close proximity to US30 will help the area in terms of congestion and safety. The Levels of Service on a number of the signalized intersections to US30 are performing poorly and the frequency of accidents is high at many of the intersections as well. There is a need to improve congestion and safety on US30 by providing these alternative routes. Additionally, there is a need to provide for alternative means of travel such as walking or biking. Specifically, in consideration of the C&O Trail Corridor through the area along the US 30 Corridor and to the southeast where the C&O |
Please describe what your project seeks to accomplish, be descriptive (Project Purpose)▼ |
The City recognizes 83rd Avenue to be one of these alternative parallel corridors where improvements aimed to provide for a more connected and easily traveled route will reduce the congestion and improve safety of the US30 Corridor. These improvements would have a positive regional impact. The City proposes to construct a new road segment connecting 83rd Avenue to Colorado Street. This project would be one of the first steps taken by the City to improve connectivity and allow for more alternative routes to US30 in this area. The effect would be improvement to the LOS and safety on US30 as a result of drawing more drivers off the US30 Corridor. This project would also include the construction of two new intersections, |
Asset Management
What will be the functional classification of the new route? Please consult the functional classification map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 8 pt given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q1 Principal arterial – 8 pts
Minor arterial – 6 pts Major collector – 4 pts
Minor collector – 2 pts Local road – 0 pts
Minor Arterial
6 6 6
What is the expected ADT for this road / bridge for the given design year? Maximum 5 pts given.
Q2 ≤ 8,000 - 0 pts ≤ 12,000 - 5 pts less than 8000 until further build out
8,000 < > 12,000 - 3 pts
0 0 0
Access & Connections Self NIRPC FINAL
Q3 | What is the residential density within on 5 or more/acre – 5 pts | e mile of the new roadway? Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you ne 1-1.99 – 1 pts | ed assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. 5 or more per acre | 5 | 5 | 5 |
2-4.99 – 3 pts | Less than 1 – 0 pts |
What is the transit access within ½ mile of the project area, including bus stops, commuter rail or Amtrak stations? Please contact jwinters@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question.
Q4 Maximum 2 pts given.
2 2 2
More than 1 - 2 pts
1 stop - 1 point
More than 1 stop within 1/2 mile
How will the project enhance network connectivity? Please consult the functional classification map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Q5
Connects to other principal arterials or higher classification roadways on both sides of the new road – 5 pts
Connects to another principal arterial or higher classification roadway on one side – 3 pts Connects to a minor arterial – 1 point
Connects roads classified as collectors or lower – 0 pts
Project connects two minor arterials
1 1 1
8 | 8 | 8 | |||||
Q6 Maximum 8 pts given. Major area (Dark Green)– 8 pts Moderate (Light Green) - 5 pts | Minor Area (Yellow) - 3 pts Not in area (Blank) - 0 pts | Project is in major employment center | |||||
Environmental Benefits | Self | NIRPC | FINAL | ||||
Will the project reduce Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) as compared to a no-build option? Please contact the NIRPC Travel Demand Model or sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
Q7 1,000 daily VHT or more is reduced – 5 pts 500-999 daily VHT reduced – 3 pts Less than 499 daily VHT reduced – 0 pts | Project reduces VHT by 1631 daily. Calculation provided by NIRPC | ||||||
Does the project include green infrastructure elements? Elements may include: Complete Streets; stormwater management or rain garden; biodiversity; land conservation; bio-swales; native Q8 vegetation in the road rights-of-way; permeable pavement in rights-of-ways; bio-retention curb extension; infiltration trench; or wildlife crossing. Maximum 3 pts given. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
3 or more - 3 pts 1 or 2 - 1 point | Project will include complete steet measures including pedestrain trail, storm water management by way of native platings in the RW, infiltration and storm water qaulity | ||||||
Local / Regional Plans & Policy Support | Self | NIRPC | FINAL | ||||
Is this currently a legacy project? A legacy project is defined to be a stand alone project or a phase of a project that has an approved NEPA document, or the project or phase has already received Q9 federal funding through NIRPC. Maximum 5 pts given. Yes - 5 points No - 0 points | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
How does the project advance local plans or policies? Project may be cited in local comprehensive plan, thoroughfare plan, capital improvements program, traffic impact fee plan, or other local plan/study. Please describe plans and policies. Maximum 5 pts given. | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
Q10 2 or more policy/plans - 5 pts 1 policy/plans - 3 pts No policy/plans - 0 pts | This project is cited in the City of Hobart’s thoroughfare plan and the US30 Safety Plan conducted by NIRPC in coorperation with INDOT, City of Hobart, and Merrillville. See Supporting docs for excerpts of these studies. | ||||||
How does the project advance region plans or policies? Please describe how the project achieves objectives in regional plans or policies and cite those plans and policies. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. Project is cited in current long-range plan, located in a Creating Livable Communities “Main Center” (see Main Center map), or other published plan for the region that includes at least all of Lake, Q11 Porter, and LaPorte Counties – 5 pts Project is one of the 22 segments identified in the Regional Corridors Study (please reference the Regional Corridors Study) – 5 pts Project is not cited in any of the above – 0 pts | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Economic Generation
5
How does the project assist with access for job commuters? Please reference Major Employment Center map. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Project is not cited in any of the above | ||||
How does the project adhere to the MPO’s Congestion Management Process? Please reference Congested Corridors Map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with a Level of Service (LOS) E or F – 5 pts Q12 The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with a Level of Service D – 3 pts The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with Level of Service C or better – 0 pts | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
The project location is within 0.5 miles of a section of road or intersection with LOS F, US30 and Colorado Intersection | ||||
0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Partnerships with 3 or more LPA - 5 points Q13 Partnership with two LPAs - 3 points No partnerships - 0 points | List partners here: | ||||||
Project does not cross municipal boundaries | |||||||
Are there any funding agreements committed to with partners? Please describe the partnerships. Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Partners may include: a. Indiana Department of Transportation; b. Another municipality or County; c. Advocacy groups; d. Foundations; e. Private sector; f. School districts; g. other regional entities. Maximum 5 pts given. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
Q14 Two or more partnerships - 5 pts One partnership - 3 pts No partnerships - 0 pts | List partners here: | List amount here: | |||||
Town of Merrillville is a fiscal partner | BD pending award amoun | ||||||
Project Readiness | Self | NIRPC | FINAL | ||||
What is the overmatch associated with this project application? Please reference "Step 3" under the "Financial information about this project" above. Maximum 5 pts given. | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Q15 Greater than 30% - 5 pts 25-29.9% - 3 pts | 20.1% - 24.9% - 1 pt Minimum match - 0 pts | Minimum match | |||||
At the present time; what is the status of the Right of Way for the proposed project? Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Q16 Right of Ways are secured or owned completely by the LPA – 5 pts Right of Ways will be secured or owned completely by the LPA within one year – 3 pts Right of Ways need to be secured – 0 pts | RW will be needed for the intersections, RW for the segment of 83rd Extension has been verbally agreed upon with NIPSCO | ||||||
What is the status of the design/engineering for the proposed project? Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Q17 Design/engineering has started with an LPA contract and NEPA document completed. – 5 points Design/engineering has not been started – 0 points | Design/engineering has not been started | ||||||
Does the project impact any railroads? (If yes, please explain.) Maximum 5 pts given. | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
No RR impacts | |||||||
Partnerships / Collaborations
Do the project limits cross municipal/county boundries? If yes please list all LPAs. Maximum 5 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q18
No interaction with any railroads are necessary – 5 points Only a flagging agreement is necessary – 2 points
6
Is the project location in an Environmental Justice area? Please consult the Environmental Justice map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org for further information on the map. Maximum 4 pts given | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Q19 50% or more of a project is within EJ area – 4 pts Less than 50% of a project is in EJ area – 2 pts Project is not in an EJ area – 0 pts | Not within EJ | |||
Does the project advance progress on the municipalities ADA transition plan? Please describe. Maximum 5 pts given. | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Q20 Yes - 5 points No - 0 points | The project would construct a segment of the C&O Trail and would advance the City ADA Transition Plan. | |||
Local's Preference (for information only) | ||||
Q21 If the LPA is submitting more than one project; please rank this project (to the other projects submitted) in the order of importance by the LPA (1 - Highest priority; 2 - 2nd highest; 3 - 3rd highest; ect.) Please contact Charles Bradsky for clarification. | 2 | |||
Would a smaller federal funding amount than requested be acceptable while maintaining the original intent of the project? If yes, please define smaller meaningful limits, size, service (y/n) level, phases, or scopes along with the cost for each. ▼ Please continue on a seperate document if you need more space | yes | |||
Project involves construction of a crossing or crossing equiment within the railroad(s)' Right of Way – 0 points Social Equity
Self
NIRPC
FINAL
Q22 | Reducing this projects scope would not maintain the intent of the project, however, it could be built in phases starting with the intersection improvements at Colorado Street, then intersection improvements at Harms Road, then the 83rd Avenue Road Segment. Separate construction cost estimates have been provided for each of the 3 potential phases. | |
7
Name of municipality or transit operator: Name of applicant on behalf of municipality or transit operator: | #REF! | County | ||||
#REF! | ||||||
Complete streets program application (see program + project types tab for more info) | Financial information about project: Total in $ Max. fed share Min. fed share Your match | |||||
Below are the project types for this program | Tier | Step Total estimated construction cost | $ 5,366,250 | $ 4,293,000 | $ 1,073,250 | $ 1,073,250 |
Description: funds to promote or educate roadway safety (usually a state level initiative) | (Please use CY 2021 dollars; we will How much do you propose contributing to the construction costs? ▲
If you elect to pay for PE/ROW with local funds that amount will be considered overmatch for scoring purposes ▲ | |||||
Description: funding required to be spent to improve the safety and security of transit | ||||||
New truck parking facilities | ||||||
Construction of minor collectors in same corridor as NHS route | ||||||
Choose a project type for this application ▼ | ||||||
Maps | ||||||
Function Classification | Click Here | |||||
Residential Density / Municipal Boundries | ||||||
Transit Access / Rail | ||||||
Major Employment Centers | ||||||
Environmental Justice | ||||||
General Project Information | |||||||
Please give the total project costs (including PE, ROW and CN) for all phases. | ######### | ||||||
How many phases are expected in this project? | 4 | ||||||
Will this project add roadway capacity? (y/n) ► | yes | Road/trail name/other identifier ▼ | |||||
Are you seeking HSIP funding?(y/n) | no | Willowcreek Road | |||||
Is this project eligible for CMAQ funding?(y/n) | no | Limits | Begin | SR 130 | |||
Will this project seek to flex funds from FHWA to FTA? (y/n) ► | No | End | CR 700 North | ||||
Environmental Document & Permits | If this is a bridge project what is the score? | ||||||
Environmental Investigation Completed? | Multiple (list in supporting docs) | What is the desired year for PE? (CY/na) | 2022 | ||||
Anticipated NEPA Document Required | Environmental Assessment | What is the desired year for RW? (CY/na) | 2024 | ||||
NEPA Document Status | Underway | What is the desired year for CN? (CY/na) | 2025 | ||||
Anticipated Permits | Multiple (list in supporting docs) | Does this project address a gap in existing service? (y/n) | yes | ||||
Right of Way Needs | Is this project Regionally Significant? (y/n) | yes | |||||
New ROW Required | Yes | Utilities Needs | |||||
If Yes, Number of Parcels | 14 | Utilities Impacted? | No | ||||
If Yes, Types of Parcels | Mix | If Yes, Location of Utilities | |||||
Does this project touch Right of Way belonging to INDOT? If yes please | If Yes, Relocations required? | ||||||
provide concurrance documentation. (y/n) ► | yes | Railroad Impacted? | No | ||||
If yes, what percentage ► | If Yes, are Improvements being made? | ||||||
8
yes | ||
#VALUE! | ||
PE | ||
$ 321,975 | $ 321,975 | $ - |
Step 3 | You have elected to match your construction costs at the rate of ► | 20% |
You have elected to request PE/ROW funds at the rate of ► | 100% | |
Your total match for scoring purposes is ► | 20% |
Project Need and Purpose |
What is the problem/issue that this project will address? (Project Need) ▼ |
The Porter County Board of Commissioners is developing a federal-aid road project to improve regional connectivity and operational traffic flow by providing a direct north-south route in Porter County, generally between the Valparaiso- Merrillville corridor and downtown Portage. Porter County in coordination with Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), is seeking funding through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The proposed project is located in Union and Portage Townships, Porter County, Indiana. The project corridor is located on the Portage and Palmer USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps in Sections 35 and 36, Township 36 North, |
Please describe what your project seeks to accomplish, be descriptive (Project Purpose)▼ |
The Porter County Board of Commissioners is developing a federal-aid road project to improve regional connectivity and operational traffic flow by providing a direct north-south route in Porter County, generally between the Valparaiso-Merrillville corridor and downtown Portage. Porter County in coordination with Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), is seeking funding through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The proposed project is located in Union and Portage Townships, Porter County, Indiana. The project corridor is located on the Portage and Palmer USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps in Sections 35 and 36, Township 36 |
Asset Management
What will be the functional classification of the new route? Please consult the functional classification map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 8 pt given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q1 Principal arterial – 8 pts
Minor arterial – 6 pts Major collector – 4 pts
Minor collector – 2 pts Local road – 0 pts
be a minor arterial after it is constructed to SR 130. This was disc 6 6 6
What is the expected ADT for this road / bridge for the given design year? Maximum 5 pts given.
Q2 ≤ 8,000 - 0 pts ≤ 12,000 - 5 pts projected traffic after completion of this section of roadway is 19, 5 5 5
8,000 < > 12,000 - 3 pts
Q3 | What is the residential density within on 5 or more/acre – 5 pts | e mile of the new roadway? Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you ne 1-1.99 – 1 pts | ed assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. See the residential map, Exhibit C. | 5 | 5 | 5 |
2-4.99 – 3 pts | Less than 1 – 0 pts |
Access & Connections Self NIRPC FINAL
What is the transit access within ½ mile of the project area, including bus stops, commuter rail or Amtrak stations? Please contact jwinters@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question.
Q4 Maximum 2 pts given.
1 0 0
More than 1 - 2 pts
1 stop - 1 point
ransit Routes Map, the project is within the demand response area for the Porter County Aging & Commu
How will the project enhance network connectivity? Please consult the functional classification map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Q5
Connects to other principal arterials or higher classification roadways on both sides of the new road – 5 pts
Connects to another principal arterial or higher classification roadway on one side – 3 pts Connects to a minor arterial – 1 point
Connects roads classified as collectors or lower – 0 pts
Willowcreek connects to a principal arterial on the south (SR 130) and
minor arterial on the north (Willowcreek Road). See Exhibit B.
3 3 3
3 | 3 | 3 | |||||
Q6 Maximum 8 pts given. Major area (Dark Green)– 8 pts Moderate (Light Green) - 5 pts | Minor Area (Yellow) - 3 pts Not in area (Blank) - 0 pts | Per the major employment center map, the project lies in a yellow area with an employment density less than or equal to 200. | |||||
Environmental Benefits | Self | NIRPC | FINAL | ||||
Will the project reduce Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) as compared to a no-build option? Please contact the NIRPC Travel Demand Model or sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
Q7 1,000 daily VHT or more is reduced – 5 pts 500-999 daily VHT reduced – 3 pts Less than 499 daily VHT reduced – 0 pts | Per email from Scott Weber, see Exhibit K, VHT are reduced by 4,193 hours. | ||||||
Does the project include green infrastructure elements? Elements may include: Complete Streets; stormwater management or rain garden; biodiversity; land conservation; bio-swales; native Q8 vegetation in the road rights-of-way; permeable pavement in rights-of-ways; bio-retention curb extension; infiltration trench; or wildlife crossing. Maximum 3 pts given. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
3 or more - 3 pts 1 or 2 - 1 point | oject will include stormwater management, bio-swales, and native vegetation in the R/ | ||||||
Local / Regional Plans & Policy Support | Self | NIRPC | FINAL | ||||
Is this currently a legacy project? A legacy project is defined to be a stand alone project or a phase of a project that has an approved NEPA document, or the project or phase has already received Q9 federal funding through NIRPC. Maximum 5 pts given. Yes - 5 points No - 0 points | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
How does the project advance local plans or policies? Project may be cited in local comprehensive plan, thoroughfare plan, capital improvements program, traffic impact fee plan, or other local plan/study. Please describe plans and policies. Maximum 5 pts given. | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
Q10 2 or more policy/plans - 5 pts 1 policy/plans - 3 pts No policy/plans - 0 pts | The Willowcreek Road extension between CR 700 N and SR 130 is identified in the following local plans or policies: Porter County, Indiana Corridor Plan Adopted 5/19/2009, the Porter County, Indiana Thoroughfare Plan + Trails and Greenway Plan Overlay dated 2/1/2007 and NIRPC’s 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan. | ||||||
How does the project advance region plans or policies? Please describe how the project achieves objectives in regional plans or policies and cite those plans and policies. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. Project is cited in current long-range plan, located in a Creating Livable Communities “Main Center” (see Main Center map), or other published plan for the region that includes at least all of Lake, Q11 Porter, and LaPorte Counties – 5 pts Project is one of the 22 segments identified in the Regional Corridors Study (please reference the Regional Corridors Study) – 5 pts Project is not cited in any of the above – 0 pts | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
Economic Generation
9
How does the project assist with access for job commuters? Please reference Major Employment Center map. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question.
Self NIRPC FINAL
The project is identified in the following region plans or policies: NIRPC Comprehensive Regional Plan A Vision for Northwest Indiana dated June 2011 and NIRPC Northwest Indiana Regional Corridors | ||||
How does the project adhere to the MPO’s Congestion Management Process? Please reference Congested Corridors Map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with a Level of Service (LOS) E or F – 5 pts Q12 The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with a Level of Service D – 3 pts The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with Level of Service C or better – 0 pts | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Please see the attached Congested Corridors Map | ||||
0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Partnerships with 3 or more LPA - 5 points Q13 Partnership with two LPAs - 3 points No partnerships - 0 points | List partners here: | ||||||
Are there any funding agreements committed to with partners? Please describe the partnerships. Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Partners may include: a. Indiana Department of Transportation; b. Another municipality or County; c. Advocacy groups; d. Foundations; e. Private sector; f. School districts; g. other regional entities. Maximum 5 pts given. | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Q14 Two or more partnerships - 5 pts One partnership - 3 pts No partnerships - 0 pts | List partners here: | List amount here: | |||||
Project Readiness | Self | NIRPC | FINAL | ||||
What is the overmatch associated with this project application? Please reference "Step 3" under the "Financial information about this project" above. Maximum 5 pts given. | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Q15 Greater than 30% - 5 pts 25-29.9% - 3 pts | 20.1% - 24.9% - 1 pt Minimum match - 0 pts | ||||||
At the present time; what is the status of the Right of Way for the proposed project? Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Q16 Right of Ways are secured or owned completely by the LPA – 5 pts Right of Ways will be secured or owned completely by the LPA within one year – 3 pts Right of Ways need to be secured – 0 pts | R/W still needs to be acquired | ||||||
What is the status of the design/engineering for the proposed project? Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
Q17 Design/engineering has started with an LPA contract and NEPA document completed. – 5 points Design/engineering has not been started – 0 points | Design and the NEPA document are underway. Both are approximately 60% complete. | ||||||
Does the project impact any railroads? (If yes, please explain.) Maximum 5 pts given. | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
is phase of the project does not interact with any railroad | |||||||
Partnerships / Collaborations
Do the project limits cross municipal/county boundries? If yes please list all LPAs. Maximum 5 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q18
No interaction with any railroads are necessary – 5 points Only a flagging agreement is necessary – 2 points
10
Is the project location in an Environmental Justice area? Please consult the Environmental Justice map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org for further information on the map. Maximum 4 pts given | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Q19 50% or more of a project is within EJ area – 4 pts Less than 50% of a project is in EJ area – 2 pts Project is not in an EJ area – 0 pts | The project is not in an EJ area per NIRPC's mapping. | |||
Does the project advance progress on the municipalities ADA transition plan? Please describe. Maximum 5 pts given. | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Q20 Yes - 5 points No - 0 points | ||||
Local's Preference (for information only) | ||||
Q21 If the LPA is submitting more than one project; please rank this project (to the other projects submitted) in the order of importance by the LPA (1 - Highest priority; 2 - 2nd highest; 3 - 3rd highest; ect.) Please contact Charles Bradsky for clarification. | 1 | |||
Would a smaller federal funding amount than requested be acceptable while maintaining the original intent of the project? If yes, please define smaller meaningful limits, size, service (y/n) level, phases, or scopes along with the cost for each. ▼ Please continue on a seperate document if you need more space | yes | |||
Project involves construction of a crossing or crossing equiment within the railroad(s)' Right of Way – 0 points Social Equity
Self
NIRPC
FINAL
Q22 | Porter County understands that the overal project will need to be constructed in mutliple phases. | |
11
Name of municipality or transit operator: Name of applicant on behalf of municipality or transit operator: | #REF! | County | ||||
#REF! | ||||||
Complete streets program application (see program + project types tab for more info) | Financial information about project: Total in $ Max. fed share Min. fed share Your match | |||||
Below are the project types for this program | Tier | Step Total estimated construction cost | $ 8,437,500 | $ 6,750,000 | $ 1,687,500 | $ 1,985,000 |
Description: funds to promote or educate roadway safety (usually a state level initiative) | (Please use CY 2021 dollars; we will How much do you propose contributing to the construction costs? ▲
If you elect to pay for PE/ROW with local funds that amount will be considered overmatch for scoring purposes ▲ | |||||
Description: funding required to be spent to improve the safety and security of transit | ||||||
New truck parking facilities | ||||||
Construction of minor collectors in same corridor as NHS route | ||||||
Choose a project type for this application ▼ | ||||||
New bridge / roadway / tunnel construction | ||||||
Maps | ||||||
Function Classification | Click Here | |||||
Residential Density / Municipal Boundries | ||||||
Transit Access / Rail | ||||||
Major Employment Centers | ||||||
Environmental Justice | ||||||
General Project Information | |||||||
Please give the total project costs (including PE, ROW and CN) for all phases. | ######### | ||||||
How many phases are expected in this project? | 1 | ||||||
Will this project add roadway capacity? (y/n) ► | yes | Road/trail name/other identifier ▼ | |||||
Are you seeking HSIP funding?(y/n) | no | Cline Ave | |||||
Is this project eligible for CMAQ funding?(y/n) | no | Limits | Begin | W 93rd Ave | |||
Will this project seek to flex funds from FHWA to FTA? (y/n) ► | no | End | W 101st Ave | ||||
Environmental Document & Permits | If this is a bridge project what is the score? | ||||||
Environmental Investigation Completed? | None | What is the desired year for PE? (CY/na) | 2023 | ||||
Anticipated NEPA Document Required | Environmental Assessment | What is the desired year for RW? (CY/na) | 2024 | ||||
NEPA Document Status | Not Started | What is the desired year for CN? (CY/na) | 2025 | ||||
Anticipated Permits | Multiple (list in supporting docs) | Does this project address a gap in existing service? (y/n) | yes | ||||
Right of Way Needs | Is this project Regionally Significant? (y/n) | yes | |||||
New ROW Required | Yes | Utilities Needs | |||||
If Yes, Number of Parcels | 9 | Utilities Impacted? | Yes (list known utilities in supporting docs) | ||||
If Yes, Types of Parcels | Mix | If Yes, Location of Utilities | Unknown | ||||
Does this project touch Right of Way belonging to INDOT? If yes please | If Yes, Relocations required? | Yes | |||||
provide concurrance documentation. (y/n) ► | no | Railroad Impacted? | No | ||||
If yes, what percentage ► | If Yes, are Improvements being made? | ||||||
12
yes | ||
#VALUE! | ||
no | ||
$ 506,250 | $ - | $ 506,250 |
Step 3 | You have elected to match your construction costs at the rate of ► | 24% |
You have elected to request PE/ROW funds at the rate of ► | 0% | |
Your total match for scoring purposes is ► | 30% |
Project Need and Purpose |
What is the problem/issue that this project will address? (Project Need) ▼ |
The project will provide a missing link of Cline Ave (Minor Arterial) between W 93rd Ave and W 101st Ave. This gap creates inefficient and unsafe travel along the corridor. |
Please describe what your project seeks to accomplish, be descriptive (Project Purpose)▼ |
The project will increase mobility, efficiency, & safety for the motoring public by constructing a roundabouts at the intersections of Cline Ave and W 93rd Ave and Cline Ave and W 101st Ave. The project will also provide an alternate North/South route, relieving traffic on Blaine Street (County Road) 0.25 miles to the East. This direct connectivity of Cline Ave will promote economic growth and development by providing multiple access points to undeveloped land in the area. The project will also add ADA facilities, a multi-use path, improve storm water management and wetland quality along the corridor. |
Asset Management
What will be the functional classification of the new route? Please consult the functional classification map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 8 pt given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q1 Principal arterial – 8 pts
Minor arterial – 6 pts Major collector – 4 pts
Minor collector – 2 pts Local road – 0 pts
3rd Ave and South of W 101st Ave is currently classified as a Minor 6 6 6
What is the expected ADT for this road / bridge for the given design year? Maximum 5 pts given.
Q2 ≤ 8,000 - 0 pts ≤ 12,000 - 5 pts <8,000 - See Exhibit D
8,000 < > 12,000 - 3 pts
0 0 0
Access & Connections
What is the residential density within one mile of the new roadway? Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q3 5 or more/acre – 5 pts 2-4.99 – 3 pts
1-1.99 – 1 pts
Less than 1 – 0 pts
5 or more / acre - See Exhibit F
5 5 5
What is the transit access within ½ mile of the project area, including bus stops, commuter rail or Amtrak stations? Please contact jwinters@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question.
Q4 Maximum 2 pts given.
1 0 0
More than 1 - 2 pts
1 stop - 1 point
Lake County Community Services - Demand Response services the area - See Exhibit G
How will the project enhance network connectivity? Please consult the functional classification map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Q5
Connects to other principal arterials or higher classification roadways on both sides of the new road – 5 pts
Connects to another principal arterial or higher classification roadway on one side – 3 pts Connects to a minor arterial – 1 point
Connects roads classified as collectors or lower – 0 pts
The project will connect a gap along a Minor Arterial alignment. It will
connect to W 93rd Ave and W 101st Ave.
1 5 5
Economic Generation
How does the project assist with access for job commuters? Please reference Major Employment Center map. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q6
Maximum 8 pts given.
Major area (Dark Green)– 8 pts Moderate (Light Green) - 5 pts
Minor Area (Yellow) - 3 pts Not in area (Blank) - 0 pts
Better connectivity within a Minor employment center area - See Exhibit H
3 3 3
Environmental Benefits
Will the project reduce Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) as compared to a no-build option? Please contact the NIRPC Travel Demand Model or sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q7 1,000 daily VHT or more is reduced – 5 pts
500-999 daily VHT reduced – 3 pts
Less than 499 daily VHT reduced – 0 pts
4,193 VHT; see Exhibit K
5 5 5
Does the project include green infrastructure elements? Elements may include: Complete Streets; stormwater management or rain garden; biodiversity; land conservation; bio-swales; native
Q8 vegetation in the road rights-of-way; permeable pavement in rights-of-ways; bio-retention curb extension; infiltration trench; or wildlife crossing. Maximum 3 pts given.
3 3 3
3 or more - 3 pts
1 or 2 - 1 point
Local / Regional Plans & Policy Support
project plans to include storm water management, land conservation, and native veget
Self
NIRPC
FINAL
Is this currently a legacy project? A legacy project is defined to be a stand alone project or a phase of a project that has an approved NEPA document, or the project or phase has already received
Q9 federal funding through NIRPC. Maximum 5 pts given.
Yes - 5 points No - 0 points
How does the project advance local plans or policies? Project may be cited in local comprehensive plan, thoroughfare plan, capital improvements program, traffic impact fee plan, or other local plan/study. Please describe plans and policies. Maximum 5 pts given.
0 0 0
Q10 2 or more policy/plans - 5 pts 1 policy/plans - 3 pts
No policy/plans - 0 pts
The Town's Thoroughfare Plan includes the construction of this section of Cline Ave and the Town's Comprehensive Plan includes the 5 5 5
construction of a trail between W 93rd Ave and W 101st Ave - See Attachment A
13
How does the project advance region plans or policies? Please describe how the project achieves objectives in regional plans or policies and cite those plans and policies. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Q11
Project is cited in current long-range plan, located in a Creating Livable Communities “Main Center” (see Main Center map), or other published plan for the region that includes at least all of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties – 5 pts
Project is one of the 22 segments identified in the Regional Corridors Study (please reference the Regional Corridors Study) – 5 pts Project is not cited in any of the above – 0 pts
5 5 5
The project is identifed in the 2017 NIRPC Regional Corridor Study - See Attachment B | ||||
How does the project adhere to the MPO’s Congestion Management Process? Please reference Congested Corridors Map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with a Level of Service (LOS) E or F – 5 pts Q12 The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with a Level of Service D – 3 pts The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with Level of Service C or better – 0 pts | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
93rd Avenue and 101st Avenue are LOS E - See Exhibit I | ||||
3 | 3 | 3 | |||||
Partnerships with 3 or more LPA - 5 points Q13 Partnership with two LPAs - 3 points No partnerships - 0 points | List partners here: | ||||||
Town of Schererville | |||||||
Lake County | |||||||
Are there any funding agreements committed to with partners? Please describe the partnerships. Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Partners may include: a. Indiana Department of Transportation; b. Another municipality or County; c. Advocacy groups; d. Foundations; e. Private sector; f. School districts; g. other regional entities. Maximum 5 pts given. | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
Q14 Two or more partnerships - 5 pts One partnership - 3 pts No partnerships - 0 pts | List partners here: | List amount here: | |||||
Lake Central School Corporation | $ 500.00 | ||||||
Schilling Development | $ 500.00 | ||||||
Olthof Homes | $ 500.00 | ||||||
Project Readiness | Self | NIRPC | FINAL | ||||
What is the overmatch associated with this project application? Please reference "Step 3" under the "Financial information about this project" above. Maximum 5 pts given. | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
Q15 Greater than 30% - 5 pts 25-29.9% - 3 pts | 20.1% - 24.9% - 1 pt Minimum match - 0 pts | 30% | |||||
At the present time; what is the status of the Right of Way for the proposed project? Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Q16 Right of Ways are secured or owned completely by the LPA – 5 pts Right of Ways will be secured or owned completely by the LPA within one year – 3 pts Right of Ways need to be secured – 0 pts | Some exsiting r/w exists for Cline Avenue. | ||||||
What is the status of the design/engineering for the proposed project? Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Q17 Design/engineering has started with an LPA contract and NEPA document completed. – 5 points Design/engineering has not been started – 0 points | Design/Engineering has not yet started | ||||||
Does the project impact any railroads? (If yes, please explain.) Maximum 5 pts given. | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
No railroads exist within the project limits | |||||||
Partnerships / Collaborations
Do the project limits cross municipal/county boundries? If yes please list all LPAs. Maximum 5 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q18
No interaction with any railroads are necessary – 5 points Only a flagging agreement is necessary – 2 points
14
Is the project location in an Environmental Justice area? Please consult the Environmental Justice map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org for further information on the map. Maximum 4 pts given | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Q19 50% or more of a project is within EJ area – 4 pts Less than 50% of a project is in EJ area – 2 pts Project is not in an EJ area – 0 pts | Not in an EJ Area | |||
Does the project advance progress on the municipalities ADA transition plan? Please describe. Maximum 5 pts given. | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Q20 Yes - 5 points No - 0 points | Yes | |||
Local's Preference (for information only) | ||||
Q21 If the LPA is submitting more than one project; please rank this project (to the other projects submitted) in the order of importance by the LPA (1 - Highest priority; 2 - 2nd highest; 3 - 3rd highest; ect.) Please contact Charles Bradsky for clarification. | 2 | |||
Would a smaller federal funding amount than requested be acceptable while maintaining the original intent of the project? If yes, please define smaller meaningful limits, size, service (y/n) level, phases, or scopes along with the cost for each. ▼ Please continue on a seperate document if you need more space | no | |||
Project involves construction of a crossing or crossing equiment within the railroad(s)' Right of Way – 0 points Social Equity
Self
NIRPC
FINAL
Q22
15
Name of municipality or transit operator: Name of applicant on behalf of municipality or transit operator: | #REF! | County | ||||
#REF! | ||||||
Complete streets program application (see program + project types tab for more info) | Financial information about project: Total in $ Max. fed share Min. fed share Your match | |||||
Below are the project types for this program | Tier | Step Total estimated construction cost | $ 187,206,088 | $ 149,764,870 | $ 37,441,218 | $ 187,064 |
Description: funds to promote or educate roadway safety (usually a state level initiative) | (Please use CY 2021 dollars; we will How much do you propose contributing to the construction costs? ▲
If you elect to pay for PE/ROW with local funds that amount will be considered overmatch for scoring purposes ▲ | |||||
Description: funding required to be spent to improve the safety and security of transit | ||||||
New truck parking facilities | ||||||
Construction of minor collectors in same corridor as NHS route | ||||||
Choose a project type for this application ▼ | ||||||
New bridge / roadway / tunnel construction | ||||||
Maps | ||||||
Function Classification | Click Here | |||||
Residential Density / Municipal Boundries | ||||||
Transit Access / Rail | ||||||
Major Employment Centers | ||||||
Environmental Justice | ||||||
General Project Information | |||||||
Please give the total project costs (including PE, ROW and CN) for all phases. | ######### | ||||||
How many phases are expected in this project? | 5 | ||||||
Will this project add roadway capacity? (y/n) ► | yes | Road/trail name/other identifier ▼ | |||||
Are you seeking HSIP funding?(y/n) | no | La Porte North South Corridor: Phase 1 | |||||
Is this project eligible for CMAQ funding?(y/n) | no | Limits | Begin | US 35 | |||
Will this project seek to flex funds from FHWA to FTA? (y/n) ► | no | End | SR 4 | ||||
Environmental Document & Permits | If this is a bridge project what is the score? | ||||||
Environmental Investigation Completed? | Historic Properties | What is the desired year for PE? (CY/na) | 2024 | ||||
Anticipated NEPA Document Required | Environmental Assessment | What is the desired year for RW? (CY/na) | 2025 | ||||
NEPA Document Status | Underway | What is the desired year for CN? (CY/na) | 2026 | ||||
Anticipated Permits | None Required | Does this project address a gap in existing service? (y/n) | yes | ||||
Right of Way Needs | Is this project Regionally Significant? (y/n) | yes | |||||
New ROW Required | No | Utilities Needs | |||||
If Yes, Number of Parcels | Utilities Impacted? | No | |||||
If Yes, Types of Parcels | If Yes, Location of Utilities | ||||||
Does this project touch Right of Way belonging to INDOT? If yes please | If Yes, Relocations required? | ||||||
provide concurrance documentation. (y/n) ► | no | Railroad Impacted? | No | ||||
If yes, what percentage ► | If Yes, are Improvements being made? | ||||||
16
no | ||
#VALUE! | ||
PE | ||
$ 11,232,365 | $ 935,322 | $ 10,297,043 |
Step 3 | You have elected to match your construction costs at the rate of ► | 0% |
You have elected to request PE/ROW funds at the rate of ► | 8% | |
Your total match for scoring purposes is ► | 6% |
Project Need and Purpose |
What is the problem/issue that this project will address? (Project Need) ▼ |
The City of La Porte is in need of congestion relief on major north-south and east-west arteries. These roadways are severely impaired because they function in a dual capacity as the City's main streets and major thoroughways. Improved vehicular and pedestrian safety, access and connectivity between the City of La Porte and Michigan City, I- 90, and Industrial Parks are all issues that must be addressed in order to accomodate forecasted economic development and population growth in the area. |
Please describe what your project seeks to accomplish, be descriptive (Project Purpose)▼ |
This project seeks to maintain Levels of Service (LOS) in the City of La Porte's Central Business District as they are forecasted to decrease. It will support the development of the Central City of La Porte as a Livable Center, improve vehicular and pedestrian safety, and improve access between Kingsbury Industrial Park, Thomas Rose Industrial Park, and I-90. This will be accomplished through the development of the North-South Corridor, a new roadway extending from US 35 north to the Indiana Tollroad. |
Asset Management
What will be the functional classification of the new route? Please consult the functional classification map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 8 pt given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q1 Principal arterial – 8 pts
Minor arterial – 6 pts Major collector – 4 pts
Minor collector – 2 pts Local road – 0 pts
Principal arterial
8 8 8
What is the expected ADT for this road / bridge for the given design year?
Q2 ≤ 8,000 - 0 pts ≤ 12,000 - 5 pts 8,000< > 12,000
8,000 < > 12,000 - 3 pts
3 3 3
Access & Connections Self NIRPC FINAL
Q3 | What is the residential densit 5 or more/acre – 5 pts | y within one mile of the new roadway? Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you ne 1-1.99 – 1 pts | ed assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. 5 or more/acre | 5 | 5 | 5 |
2-4.99 – 3 pts | Less than 1 – 0 pts |
What is the transit access within ½ mile of the project area, including bus stops, commuter rail or Amtrak stations? Please contact jwinters@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question.
Q4 Maximum 2 pts given.
2 2 2
More than 1 - 2 pts
1 stop - 1 point
More than 1
How will the project enhance network connectivity? Please consult the functional classification map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Q5
Connects to other principal arterials or higher classification roadways on both sides of the new road – 5 pts
Connects to another principal arterial or higher classification roadway on one side – 3 pts Connects to a minor arterial – 1 point
Connects roads classified as collectors or lower – 0 pts
Project connects a principal arterial (SR 2) to a minor arterial (SR 39) on
both sides of the new road 5 3 3
8 | 5 | 5 | ||
Q6 Major area – 8 pts Moderate - 5 pts Not in area - 0 pts | Major areas will be connected with much lower commute times. | |||
Environmental Benefits Self NIRPC FINAL | ||||
Will the project reduce Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) as compared to a no-build option? Please contact the NIRPC Travel Demand Model or sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Q7 1,000 daily VHT or more is reduced – 5 pts 500-999 daily VHT reduced – 3 pts Less than 499 daily VHT reduced – 0 pts | NIRPC modeling demonstrated an anticipated reduction of -887 | |||
Does the project include green infrastructure elements? Elements may include: Complete Streets; stormwater management or rain garden; biodiversity; land conservation; bio-swales; native Q8 vegetation in the road rights-of-way; permeable pavement in rights-of-ways; bio-retention curb extension; infiltration trench; or wildlife crossing. Maximum 5 pts given. | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
3 or more - 3 pts 1 or 2 - 1 point | 3 or more | |||
Local / Regional Plans & Policy Support Self NIRPC FINAL | ||||
Is this currently a legacy project? A legacy project is defined to be a stand alone project or a phase of a project that has an approved NEPA document, or the project or phase has already received Q9 federal funding through NIRPC. Maximum 6 pts given. Yes - 5 points No - 0 points | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
How does the project advance local plans or policies? Project may be cited in local comprehensive plan, thoroughfare plan, capital improvements program, traffic impact fee plan, or other local plan/study. Please describe plans and policies. Maximum 10 pts given. | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Q10 2 or more policy/plans - 5 pts 1 policy/plans - 3 pts No policy/plans - 0 pts | 2 or more policy/plans | |||
How does the project advance region plans or policies? Please describe how the project achieves objectives in regional plans or policies and cite those plans and policies. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. Project is cited in current long-range plan, located in a Creating Livable Communities “Main Center” (see Main Center map), or other published plan for the region that includes at least all of Lake, Q11 Porter, and LaPorte Counties – 5 pts Project is one of the 22 segments identified in the Regional Corridors Study (please reference the Regional Corridors Study) – 5 pts | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Economic Generation
17
How does the project assist with access for job commuters? Please reference Major Employment Center map. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 15 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Project is not cited in any of the above – 0 pts | ||||
Cited in Creating Livable Communities Main Center, and includes 2 of the 22 segments identified in the Regional Corridors Study | ||||
How does the project adhere to the MPO’s Congestion Management Process? Please reference Congested Corridors Map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. Or should points be given for projects contained in the Air Quality Conformity Report instead? The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with a Level of Service (LOS) E or F – 5 points Q12 The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with a Level of Service D – 3 points The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with Level of Service C or better – 0 points | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
This project addresses congestion management at SR 35 at the Indiana Toll Road, level E, and SR 2, level E. | ||||
2 | 3 | 3 | |||||
Partnerships with 3 or more LPA - 5 points Q13 Partnership with two LPAs - 3 points No partnerships - 0 points | List partners here: | ||||||
LaPorte County | |||||||
Are there any funding agreements committed to with partners? Please describe the partnerships. Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Partners may include: a. Indiana Department of Transportation; b. Another municipality or County; c. Advocacy groups; d. Foundations; e. Private sector; f. School districts; g. other regional entities. Maximum 10 pts given. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
Q14 Two or more partnerships - 5 pts One partnership - 3 pts No partnerships - 0 pts | List partners here: | List amount here: | |||||
LaPorte County Government (LOS Attached):On future phases/in-kind | 50% | ||||||
Project Readiness | Self | NIRPC | FINAL | ||||
What is the overmatch associated with this project application? Please reference "Step 3" under the "Financial information about this project" above. Maximum 5 pts given. | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Q15 Greater than 30% - 5 points 25-29.9% - 3 points | 20.1% - 24.9% - 1 point Minimum match - 0 points | Minimum match | |||||
At the present time; what is the status of the Right of Way for the proposed project? Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Q16 Right of Ways are secured or owned completely by the LPA – 5 points Right of Ways will be secured or owned completely by the LPA within one year – 3 points Right of Ways need to be secured – 0 points | Need to be secured | ||||||
What is the status of the design/engineering for the proposed project? Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. | 5 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Q17 Design/engineering has started with an LPA contract and NEPA document completed. – 5 points Design/engineering has not been started – 0 points | Has started with LPA contract-NEPA document in progress | ||||||
Does the project impact any railroads? (If yes, please explain.) | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
interaction with any railroads are necessary-for this Pha | |||||||
Partnerships / Collaborations
Do the project limits cross municipal/county boundries? If yes please list all LPAs. Maximum 5 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q18
No interaction with any railroads are necessary – 5 points Only a flagging agreement is necessary – 2 points
Project involves construction of a crossing or crossing equiment within the railroad(s)' Right of Way – 0 points Social Equity
Is the project location in an Environmental Justice area? Please consult the Environmental Justice map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org for further information on the map. Maximum 5 pts given
50% or more of a project is within an EJ area
Q19 50% or more of a project is within EJ area – 4 pts Less than 50% of a project is in EJ area – 2 pts
Project is not in an EJ area – 0 pts
Yes, additional information attached
5
Does the project advance progress on the municipalities ADA transition plan? Please describe. Maximum 5 pts given.
Self
4
NIRPC
4
5
4
FINAL
18
Q20
Yes - 5 points No - 0 points
highest; ect.) Please contact Charles Bradsky for clarification.
Q21 If the LPA is submitting more than one project; please rank this project (to the other projects submitted) in the order of importance by the LPA (1 - Highest priority; 2 - 2nd highest; 3 - 3rd
5
Local's Preference (for information only)
1
Would a smaller federal funding amount than requested be acceptable while maintaining the original intent of the project? If yes, please define smaller meaningful limits, size, service
level, phases, or scopes along with the cost for each. ▼ Please continue on a seperate document if you need more space (y/n) | yes | |
Q22 | n City to get project funding in place wherever possible. We are also willing to decrease the project scope if necess | |
19
Name of municipality or transit operator: Name of applicant on behalf of municipality or transit operator: | ='Start Here'!J75:R75 | County | ||||
='Start Here'!J76:R76 | 3 | |||||
Complete streets program application (see program + project types tab for more info) | Financial information about project: Total in $ Max. fed share Min. fed share Your match | |||||
Below are the project types for this program | Tier | Total estimated construction Step | $ 4,852,700 | $ 3,882,160 | $ 970,540 | $ 970,540 |
Traffic calming | 1 | cost (Please use CY 2021 dollars; How much do you propose contributing to the construction costs? ▲ 1 we will inflate the cost.) Does this amount include CE? (y/n) According to your match entry you are over/under matched by ► 2 How much do you propose requesting in PE/ROW? ▲ Add'l overmatch ▲ If you elect to pay for PE/ROW with local funds that amount will be considered overmatch for scoring purposes ▲ | ||||
Divided highway conversion to boulevards | 1 | |||||
Inventory / control / removal of outdoor advertising | 2 | |||||
Historic preserve of historic transportation facilities | 2 | |||||
Roadway expansion | 3 | |||||
Turnouts / overlooks | 3 | |||||
3 | ||||||
Choose a project type for this application ▼ | ||||||
Roadway expansion | ||||||
Maps | ||||||
Major Employment Centers | Click Here! | |||||
Functional Classifications | ||||||
Crash Rate | ||||||
Main Centers / Transit | ||||||
School Age Population | ||||||
Enviromental Justice | ||||||
General Project Information | |||||||
Please give the total project costs (including PE, ROW and CN) for all phases. | |||||||
How many phases are expected in this project? | 4 | ||||||
Will this project add roadway capacity? (y/n) ► | yes | Road/trail name/other identifier ▼ | |||||
Are you seeking HSIP funding?(y/n) | no | Kennedy Avenue | |||||
Is this project eligible for CMAQ funding?(y/n) | no | Limits | Begin | Oak Street | |||
Will this project seek to flex funds from FHWA to FTA? (y/n) ► | no | End | Main Street | ||||
Environmental Document & Permits | If this is a bridge project what is the score? | ||||||
Environmental Investigation Completed? | Multiple (list in supporting docs) | What is the desired year for PE? (CY/na) | 2022 | ||||
Anticipated NEPA Document Required | Environmental Assessment | What is the desired year for RW? (CY/na) | 2023 | ||||
NEPA Document Status | Submitted for Review | What is the desired year for CN? (CY/na) | 2025 | ||||
Anticipated Permits | Multiple (list in supporting docs) | Does this project address a gap in existing service? (y/n) | yes | ||||
Right of Way Needs | Is this project Regionally Significant? (y/n) | yes | |||||
New ROW Required | Yes | Utilities Needs | |||||
If Yes, Number of Parcels | 29 | Utilities Impacted? | Yes (list known utilities in supporting docs) | ||||
20
yes | ||||
$ - | ||||
Step | Do you want funds for PE/ROW? If so which one? For PE/ROW you may use federal aid up to ► | PE | ||
$ 291,162 | $ 291,162 | $ - | ||
Step 3 | You have elected to match your construction costs at the rate of ► | 20% |
You have elected to request PE/ROW funds at the rate of ► | 100% | |
Your total match for scoring purposes is ► | 20% |
Project Need and Purpose |
What is the problem/issue that this project will address? (Project Need) ▼ |
See narrative for Project Need |
Please describe what your project seeks to accomplish, be descriptive (Project Purpose)▼ |
See narrative for proposed improvements proposed in Project Purpose. |
If Yes, Types of Parcels
Mix
If Yes, Location of Utilities
Unknown
Does this project touch Right of Way belonging to INDOT? If yes
please provide concurrance documentation. (y/n) ► no
If Yes, Relocations required?
Railroad Impacted?
Yes No
If yes, what percentage ► 0% If Yes, are Improvements being made? No
Access + connections
What is the average of the walk score and the bike score for the project location? Please visit www.walkscore.com and input an address nearby the location. If the project is linear in scope, please take the average score of three pts along the project which would include the endpts and middle. Take the average of all scores and show work Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q1 Below 50 – 5 pts
50-74 – 3 pts
75-100 – 0 pts
Walk score location 1 Bike score location 1 Average
16 Walk score location 2
27 Bike score location 2
21.5 Average
41 Walk score location 3
36 Bike score location 3
38.5 Average
21
30
25.5
Final Average 5 5 5
28.5
How does the project assist with access for job commuters? Please reference Major Employment Center or Main Centers map. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance
Q2
with this question. Max 5 pts given.
Major area (Dark Green) – 5 pts Minor area (Yellow) - 2 pts Major Area within 0.5 mile 5 4 4
Moderate area (Light Green) - 3 pts Not in area (Blank) - 0 pts
What is the transit access within ½ mile of the project area, including bus stops, commuter rail or Amtrak stations? Please contact jwinters@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this
Q3 question. Maximum 5 pts given. 0 0 0
More than 1 - 5 pts 1 stop - 2 point 0
Does the project address any of the following factors that will enhance mobility or increase safety? Points may apply to each factor that applies to the project, please describe to qualify. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Q4 The project will separate conflicting transportation modes and make both safer – 1 pts 1 5 5 5
The project will incorporate Universal Design standards – 2 pts 2
The project will remove distractions – 2 pts 2
Q5
If there is a school within 1/4 mile of the project, what is the current percent of children that live within 1/4 mile of that school? (Grades K-12) Please see school age population for a map of the area. Please contact pkimbal@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Max 5 pts given.
26.43 - 42.32% - 5 pts 14.54 - 19.82% - 3 pts 3 3 3
19.83 - 26.42% – 4 pts 8.44 - 14.53% - 2 pts Project within 8.44%-14.53% School Age Children Area
Economic generation
How will the project improve the quality of life in the project area? Please describe if the answer is yes to either. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 6 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q6 The project will attract business or enhance an existing business area (please reference the Major Employment Center map) – 3 pts
The project will increase the number of visitors/tourists/users – 3 pts
3 6 6 6
3
Environmental benefits
Does the project reduce emissions? Please use FHWA CMAQ calculator located here: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/toolkit/index.cfm Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 4 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q7 Cost per ton is less than $1,000,000 – 4 pts
Cost per ton is between $1,000,001 and $2,000,000 – 3 pts Cost per ton is greater than $2,000,000 – 0 pts
N/A
0 0 0
Does the project include green infrastructure elements? Elements may include: Living or Complete Streets; stormwater management or rain garden; biodiversity; land conservation; bio-
swales; native vegetation in the road rights-of-way; permeable pavement in rights-of-ways; bio-retention curb extension; infiltration trench; or wildlife crossing. Max 3 pts given.
Q8 3 or more elements - 3 1 or 2 elements - 1 point
See narrative for additional information.
3 3 3
21
Does the project improve the visual appearance of the project area? Please describe, and give a plan for maintenance. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with
this question. Maximum 2 pts given.
Q9 Yes – 2 pts
No – 0 pts
Local / Regional Plans + Policy Support
See narrative for additional information.
2
Self
2
NIRPC
2
FINAL
Is this currently a legacy project? A legacy project is defined to be a stand alone project or a phase of a project that has an approved NEPA document, or the project or phase has already
Q10 received federal funding through NIRPC. If so, give the INDOT des number. Maximum 5 pts given. 5 5 5
Yes - 5 pts No - 0 pts Des # 1902000
How does the project advance local plans or policies? Project may be cited in local comprehensive plan, thoroughfare plan, capital improvements program, traffic impact fee plan, or other local plan/study. Please describe plans and policies. Maximum 4 pts given.
Q11 2 or more policy/plans - 4 pts 4 4 4
1 policy/plans - 3 pts No policy/plans - 0 pts
T own of Schererville comprehensive plan
R epresented, and the purpose, of the Tax Increment Finance (TIF) area being managed by the Schererville Redevelopment Commission.
How does the project advance region plans or policies? Please describe how the project achieves objectives in regional plans or policies and cite those plans and policies. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 4 pts given.
Project is cited in current long-range plan (NWI 2050), located in a Creating Livable Communities “Main Center” (see Main Center map), Living Streets, or other published plan for the region that includes at least all of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties – 4 pts
Q12 Project is one of the 22 segments identified in the Regional Corridors Study (please reference the Regional Corridors Study) – 4 pts 4 4 4
Project is not cited in any of the above – 0 pts
This project is one of the segments identified I the Regional Corridors Study
How does the project adhere to the MPO’s Congestion Management Process? Please reference Congested Corridors Map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with a Level of Service (LOS) E or F – 5 pts
Q13 The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with a Level of Service D – 3 pts
The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with Level of Service C or better – 0 pts
See attached map. Indianapolis Boulevard at Airport Road.
5 5 5
Partnerships / Collaborations
Do the project limits cross municipal/county boundries? If yes please list all LPAs. Maximum 5 pts given. Partnerships involving 3 or more LPAs- 5 pts List partners here:
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q14 Partnership with two LPAs - 3 pts
No partnerships - 0 pts
Town of Highland
3 3 3
Are there any funding agreements committed to with other partners? Please describe the partnerships. Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Partners may include: a. Indiana DOT; b. Another municipality or County; c. Advocacy groups; d. Foundations; e. Private sector; f. School districts; g. other regional entities. Maximum 5 pts given.
Q15 Partnerships with 3 or more LPA - 5 pts List partners here: List amount here: 0 0 0
Partnership with two LPAs - 3 pts N/A
No partnerships - 0 pts
Project Readiness
What is the overmatch associated with this project application? Please reference "Step 3" under the "Financial information about this project" above. Maximum 5 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q16 Greater than 30% - 5 pts 20.1% - 24.9% - 1 point
25-29.9% - 3 pts Minimum match - 0 pts
Minimum match
0 0 0
Q17
0
At the present time; what is the status of the Right of Way for the proposed project? Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. Right of Ways are secured or owned completely by the LPA – 5 pts N/A
22
Right of Ways will be secured or owned completely by the LPA within one year – 3 pts 0 0
Right of Ways need to be secured – 0 pts
What is the status of the design/engineering for the proposed project? Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Q18 Design/engineering has started with an LPA contract and NEPA document completed. – 5 pts Conceptual Plans based on LiDar data are 4 0 0
Design/engineering has not been started – 0 pts
complete.
Q19
See narrative for additional information. | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Does the project impact any railroads? (If yes, please explain.) Maximum 5 pts given. No interaction with any railroads are necessary – 5 pts
Only a flagging agreement is necessary – 2 pts
Safety Self NIRPC FINAL
23
Project involves construction of a crossing or crossing equiment within the railroad(s)' Right of Way – 0 pts
What is the mororized and non-mororized crash rate in the project area? Please reference crash severity map. Please contact pkimball@nirpc.org for further information on the map. In case of different rates, use the higher rate. Maximum 5 pts given. Q20 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
High location - 5 pts Lower location - 1 pts Medium location - 3 pts Other location - 0 pts | Motorized | High | |||
Non-Motorized | Low | ||||
Social Equity Self NIRPC FINAL | |||||
Q21 Is the project location in an Environmental Justice area? Please consult the Environmental Justice map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org for further information on the map. | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Project is within EJ area – 5 pts Project is not in an EJ area – 0 pts | N/A | ||||
Does the project advance progress on the municipalities ADA transition plan? Please describe. Maximum 3 pts given. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||
Q22 Yes - 3 pts No - 0 pts | See narrative for additional information. | ||||
Asset Management Self NIRPC FINAL | |||||
Q23 Not applicable | 0 | ||||
Local's Preference (for information only) | |||||
Q24 If the LPA is submitting more than one project; please rank this project (to the other projects submitted) in the order of importance by the LPA (1 - Highest priority; 2 - 2nd highest; 3 - 3rd highest; ect.) Please contact Charles Bradsky for clarification. | 2 | ||||
Would a smaller federal funding amount than requested be acceptable while maintaining the original intent of the project? If yes, please define smaller meaningful limits, (y/n) size, service level, phases, or scopes along with the cost for each. ▼ Please continue on a seperate document if you need more space | |||||
Q25 | |||||
Name of municipality or transit operator: Name of applicant on behalf of municipality or transit operator: | ='Start Here'!J75:R75 | County | ||||
='Start Here'!J76:R76 | 3 | |||||
Complete streets program application (see program + project types tab for more info) | Financial information about project: Total in $ Max. fed share Min. fed share Your match | |||||
Below are the project types for this program | Tier | Total estimated construction Step | $ 7,411,500 | $ 5,929,200 | $ 1,482,300 | $ 1,482,300 |
Traffic calming | 1 | cost (Please use CY 2021 dollars; How much do you propose contributing to the construction costs? ▲ 1 we will inflate the cost.) Does this amount include CE? (y/n) According to your match entry you are over/under matched by ► 2 How much do you propose requesting in PE/ROW? ▲ Add'l overmatch ▲ If you elect to pay for PE/ROW with local funds that amount will be considered overmatch for scoring purposes ▲ | ||||
Divided highway conversion to boulevards | 1 | |||||
Inventory / control / removal of outdoor advertising | 2 | |||||
Historic preserve of historic transportation facilities | 2 | |||||
Roadway expansion | 3 | |||||
Turnouts / overlooks | 3 | |||||
3 | ||||||
Choose a project type for this application ▼ | ||||||
Roadway expansion | ||||||
Maps | ||||||
Major Employment Centers | Click Here! | |||||
Functional Classifications | ||||||
Crash Rate | ||||||
Main Centers / Transit | ||||||
School Age Population | ||||||
Enviromental Justice | ||||||
General Project Information | |||||||
Please give the total project costs (including PE, ROW and CN) for all phases. | |||||||
How many phases are expected in this project? | 4 | ||||||
Will this project add roadway capacity? (y/n) ► | yes | Road/trail name/other identifier ▼ | |||||
Are you seeking HSIP funding?(y/n) | no | Kennedy Avenue | |||||
Is this project eligible for CMAQ funding?(y/n) | no | Limits | Begin | US 30 | |||
Will this project seek to flex funds from FHWA to FTA? (y/n) ► | no | End | Junction Avenue | ||||
Environmental Document & Permits | If this is a bridge project what is the score? | ||||||
Environmental Investigation Completed? | Multiple (list in supporting docs) | What is the desired year for PE? (CY/na) | not applicable | ||||
Anticipated NEPA Document Required | Environmental Assessment | What is the desired year for RW? (CY/na) | 2025 | ||||
NEPA Document Status | Submitted for Review | What is the desired year for CN? (CY/na) | 2026 | ||||
Anticipated Permits | Multiple (list in supporting docs) | Does this project address a gap in existing service? (y/n) | yes | ||||
Right of Way Needs | Is this project Regionally Significant? (y/n) | yes | |||||
New ROW Required | Yes | Utilities Needs | |||||
If Yes, Number of Parcels | 53 | Utilities Impacted? | Yes (list known utilities in supporting docs) | ||||
24
yes | ||||
$ - | ||||
Step | Do you want funds for PE/ROW? If so which one? For PE/ROW you may use federal aid up to ► | PE | ||
$ 444,690 | $ 444,690 | $ - | ||
Step 3 | You have elected to match your construction costs at the rate of ► | 20% |
You have elected to request PE/ROW funds at the rate of ► | 100% | |
Your total match for scoring purposes is ► | 20% |
Project Need and Purpose |
What is the problem/issue that this project will address? (Project Need) ▼ |
See narrative for Project Need |
Please describe what your project seeks to accomplish, be descriptive (Project Purpose)▼ |
See narrative for proposed improvements proposed in Project Purpose. |
If Yes, Types of Parcels
Mix
If Yes, Location of Utilities
Unknown
Does this project touch Right of Way belonging to INDOT? If yes
please provide concurrance documentation. (y/n) ► no
If Yes, Relocations required?
Railroad Impacted?
Yes No
If yes, what percentage ► 0% If Yes, are Improvements being made? No
Access + connections
What is the average of the walk score and the bike score for the project location? Please visit www.walkscore.com and input an address nearby the location. If the project is linear in scope, please take the average score of three pts along the project which would include the endpts and middle. Take the average of all scores and show work Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q1 Below 50 – 5 pts
50-74 – 3 pts
75-100 – 0 pts
Walk score location 1 Bike score location 1 Average
45 Walk score location 2
37 Bike score location 2
41 Average
26 Walk score location 3
35 Bike score location 3
30.5 Average
12 Final Average 5 5 5
30 30.83333333
21
How does the project assist with access for job commuters? Please reference Major Employment Center or Main Centers map. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance
Q2
with this question. Max 5 pts given.
Major area (Dark Green) – 5 pts Minor area (Yellow) - 2 pts Major Area within 0.5 mile 3 3 3
Moderate area (Light Green) - 3 pts Not in area (Blank) - 0 pts
What is the transit access within ½ mile of the project area, including bus stops, commuter rail or Amtrak stations? Please contact jwinters@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this
Q3 question. Maximum 5 pts given. 0 0 0
More than 1 - 5 pts 1 stop - 2 point 0
Does the project address any of the following factors that will enhance mobility or increase safety? Points may apply to each factor that applies to the project, please describe to qualify. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Q4 The project will separate conflicting transportation modes and make both safer – 1 pts 1 5 5 5
The project will incorporate Universal Design standards – 2 pts 2
The project will remove distractions – 2 pts 2
Q5
If there is a school within 1/4 mile of the project, what is the current percent of children that live within 1/4 mile of that school? (Grades K-12) Please see school age population for a map of the area. Please contact pkimbal@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Max 5 pts given.
26.43 - 42.32% - 5 pts 14.54 - 19.82% - 3 pts 3 3 0
19.83 - 26.42% – 4 pts 8.44 - 14.53% - 2 pts Project within 8.44%-14.53% School Age Children Area
Economic generation
How will the project improve the quality of life in the project area? Please describe if the answer is yes to either. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 6 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q6 The project will attract business or enhance an existing business area (please reference the Major Employment Center map) – 3 pts
The project will increase the number of visitors/tourists/users – 3 pts
3 6 6 6
3
Environmental benefits
Does the project reduce emissions? Please use FHWA CMAQ calculator located here: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/toolkit/index.cfm Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 4 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q7 Cost per ton is less than $1,000,000 – 4 pts
Cost per ton is between $1,000,001 and $2,000,000 – 3 pts Cost per ton is greater than $2,000,000 – 0 pts
N/A
0 0 0
Does the project include green infrastructure elements? Elements may include: Living or Complete Streets; stormwater management or rain garden; biodiversity; land conservation; bio-
swales; native vegetation in the road rights-of-way; permeable pavement in rights-of-ways; bio-retention curb extension; infiltration trench; or wildlife crossing. Max 3 pts given.
Q8 3 or more elements - 3 1 or 2 elements - 1 point
See narrative for information.
3 3 3
25
Does the project improve the visual appearance of the project area? Please describe, and give a plan for maintenance. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with
this question. Maximum 2 pts given.
Q9 Yes – 2 pts
No – 0 pts
Local / Regional Plans + Policy Support
See narrative for information.
2
Self
2
NIRPC
2
FINAL
Is this currently a legacy project? A legacy project is defined to be a stand alone project or a phase of a project that has an approved NEPA document, or the project or phase has already
Q10 received federal funding through NIRPC. If so, give the INDOT des number. Maximum 5 pts given. 5 5 5
Yes - 5 pts No - 0 pts Des # 1173760
How does the project advance local plans or policies? Project may be cited in local comprehensive plan, thoroughfare plan, capital improvements program, traffic impact fee plan, or other local plan/study. Please describe plans and policies. Maximum 4 pts given.
Q11 2 or more policy/plans - 4 pts 4 4 4
1 policy/plans - 3 pts No policy/plans - 0 pts
T own of Schererville comprehensive plan
R epresented, and the purpose, of the Tax Increment Finance (TIF) area being managed by the Schererville Redevelopment Commission.
How does the project advance region plans or policies? Please describe how the project achieves objectives in regional plans or policies and cite those plans and policies. Please contact eibrahim@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 4 pts given.
Project is cited in current long-range plan (NWI 2050), located in a Creating Livable Communities “Main Center” (see Main Center map), Living Streets, or other published plan for the region that includes at least all of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties – 4 pts
Q12 Project is one of the 22 segments identified in the Regional Corridors Study (please reference the Regional Corridors Study) – 4 pts 4 4 4
Project is not cited in any of the above – 0 pts
This project is one of the segments identified I the Regional Corridors Study
How does the project adhere to the MPO’s Congestion Management Process? Please reference Congested Corridors Map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with a Level of Service (LOS) E or F – 5 pts
Q13 The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with a Level of Service D – 3 pts
The project location is within 0.5 mile of a section of road or intersection with Level of Service C or better – 0 pts
See attached map. US 30 at Kennedy Avenue.
5 5 5
Partnerships / Collaborations
Do the project limits cross municipal/county boundries? If yes please list all LPAs. Maximum 5 pts given. Partnerships involving 3 or more LPAs- 5 pts List partners here:
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q14 Partnership with two LPAs - 3 pts
No partnerships - 0 pts
INDOT - US 30
3 3 3
Are there any funding agreements committed to with other partners? Please describe the partnerships. Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Partners may include: a. Indiana DOT; b. Another municipality or County; c. Advocacy groups; d. Foundations; e. Private sector; f. School districts; g. other regional entities. Maximum 5 pts given.
Q15 Partnerships with 3 or more LPA - 5 pts List partners here: List amount here: 0 0 0
Partnership with two LPAs - 3 pts N/A
No partnerships - 0 pts
Project Readiness
What is the overmatch associated with this project application? Please reference "Step 3" under the "Financial information about this project" above. Maximum 5 pts given.
Self NIRPC FINAL
Q16 Greater than 30% - 5 pts 20.1% - 24.9% - 1 point
25-29.9% - 3 pts Minimum match - 0 pts
Minimum Match
0 0 0
Q17
0
At the present time; what is the status of the Right of Way for the proposed project? Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given. Right of Ways are secured or owned completely by the LPA – 5 pts N/A
26
Right of Ways will be secured or owned completely by the LPA within one year – 3 pts 0 0
Right of Ways need to be secured – 0 pts
What is the status of the design/engineering for the proposed project? Please contact mbarloga@nirpc.org if you need assistance with this question. Maximum 5 pts given.
Q18 Design/engineering has started with an LPA contract and NEPA document completed. – 5 pts Conceptual Plans based on LiDar data are 4 0 0
Design/engineering has not been started – 0 pts
complete.
Q19
See narrative for additional information. | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Does the project impact any railroads? (If yes, please explain.) Maximum 5 pts given. No interaction with any railroads are necessary – 5 pts
Only a flagging agreement is necessary – 2 pts
Safety Self NIRPC FINAL
27
Project involves construction of a crossing or crossing equiment within the railroad(s)' Right of Way – 0 pts
What is the mororized and non-mororized crash rate in the project area? Please reference crash severity map. Please contact pkimball@nirpc.org for further information on the map. In case of different rates, use the higher rate. Maximum 5 pts given. Q20 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
High location - 5 pts Lower location - 1 pts Medium location - 3 pts Other location - 0 pts | Motorized | High | |||
Non-Motorized | Low | ||||
Social Equity Self NIRPC FINAL | |||||
Q21 Is the project location in an Environmental Justice area? Please consult the Environmental Justice map. Please contact sweber@nirpc.org for further information on the map. | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Project is within EJ area – 5 pts Project is not in an EJ area – 0 pts | N/A | ||||
Does the project advance progress on the municipalities ADA transition plan? Please describe. Maximum 3 pts given. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||
Q22 Yes - 3 pts No - 0 pts | See attached documentation. | ||||
Asset Management Self NIRPC FINAL | |||||
Q23 Not applicable | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Local's Preference (for information only) | |||||
Q24 If the LPA is submitting more than one project; please rank this project (to the other projects submitted) in the order of importance by the LPA (1 - Highest priority; 2 - 2nd highest; 3 - 3rd highest; ect.) Please contact Charles Bradsky for clarification. | 3 | ||||
Would a smaller federal funding amount than requested be acceptable while maintaining the original intent of the project? If yes, please define smaller meaningful limits, (y/n) size, service level, phases, or scopes along with the cost for each. ▼ Please continue on a seperate document if you need more space | no | ||||
Q25 | |||||