|
Indianapolis Long Range Transportation Plan Update - Status Report
Click HERE for graphic. Indianapolis Long Range Transportation Plan Update STATUS REPORT REVIEW OF ISTEA METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FACTORS December 1993 by: The Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization Department of Metropolitan Development, Planning Division 129 E. Market Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Indianapolis Long Range Transportation Plan Update STATUS REPORT REVIEW OF ISTEA METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FACTORS December 1993 by: The Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization Department of Metropolitan Development, Planning Division 129 E. Market Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 FOREWORD Drafts of this report were reviewed by the Study Review Committee of the Long Range Transportation Plan Update. Several members of the committee commented that it would be helpful for the document to contain definitions of some of the technical terms and a list of acronyms used in the report for easy reference. The information found in this foreword is in response to the committee's comments. Questions or comments concerning this report should be referred to: Michael Peoni, Senior Planner DMD, Planning Division 129 E. Market Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 327-5151 DEFINITIONS Intermodal - refers to connectivity between modes (auto, bus, rail, air, etc.) as a means of facilitating linked trip making. It emphasizes connections (transfers of people or freight m a single journey), choices (provision of transportation options to facilitate trip making), coordination and cooperation (collaboration among transportation organizations). Multimodal - reflects consideration of more than one mode to serve transportation needs in a given area. Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) - the area in which the metropolitan transportation planning process must be carried out. Metropolitan Planning Organization - means the organization designated as being responsible, together with the State, for carrying out the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive metropolitan planning process. Nonattainment Area - refers to areas where air quality standards are not met for transportation related pollutants as determined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Transportation Control Measures (TCM) - refers to measures identified in air quality implementation plans which reduce transportation related emissions be reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion. Transportation Improvement Program (TIEP) - a staged multiyear program of transportation projects, excluding planning and research activities. LIST OF TRANSPORTATION ACRONYMS BMS Bridge Management System CAAA 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments CIP Capital Improvement Program CMS Congestion Management System DMD Department of Metropolitan Development FAA Federal Aviation Administration FFY Federal Fiscal Year (Oct. 1 - Sept. 30) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transportation Administration HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System IAA Indianapolis Airport Authority IDEM Indianapolis Department of Environmental Management INDOT Indianapolis Department of Transportation IMS Intermodal Facilities and Systems INDOT Indiana Department of Transportation INSTIP Indiana State Transportation Improvement Program IPTCM Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation/Metro IRTC Indianapolis Regional Transportation Council IRTIP Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program ISTEA 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act LRTP Long Range (Transportation) Plan MDC Metropolitan Development Commission MPA Metropolitan Planning Area MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization PMS Pavement Management System PTMS Public Transportation Facilities and Equipment Management System SFY State Fiscal Year (July I - June 30) SMS Highway Safety Management System SOV Single Occupancy Vehicles TCG The Corradino Group TCM Transportation Control Measure TEA Transportation Enhancement Activity TIEP Transportation Improvement Program TIS Transportation Impact Studies TMA Transportation Management Area TMS/H Traffic Monitoring System for Highways TSM Transportation System Management UNIGOV Unified Government of the City of Indianapolis USDOT United States Department of Transportation UZA Urbanized Area VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel 3-C Continuing, Cooperative and Comprehensive (refers to the transportation planning process) TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. FOREWORD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Metropolitan Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Participants in Long Range Transportation Planning Process . . . . . 5 Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization. . . . . . . . . . . 5 Regional Transportation Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 United States Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration. . . . 5 State of Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Indiana Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Indiana Department of Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . 6 City of Indianapolis/Marion County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Excluded Cities and Towns in Marion County . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Other Cities and Counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IPTC)/Metro. . . . . 6 Indianapolis Airport Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Community Involvement Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Financial Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Air Quality Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ISTEA METROPOLITAN PG FACTORS Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Factor 1: Use of Existing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Factor 2: Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Factor 3: Congestion Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Factor 4: Transportation Policy and Land Use/Development Plans . . .18 Factor 5: Transportation Enhancement Activities. . . . . . . . . . .20 Factor 6: Effects of All Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Factor 7: Access to All Modes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Factor 8: External Connectivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Factor 9: Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Factor 10: Right-of-Way Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Factor 11: Movement of Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Factor 12: Life Cycle Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Factor 13: Social, Economic, Energy and Environmental Criteria . . .39 Factor 14: Finance Transit Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Factor 15: Transit Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 LIST OF MAPS MAP NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 1 Official Thoroughfare Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 1990 Indianapolis Urbanized Area and Proposed Metropolitan Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 LIST OF TABLES TABLE NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 1 Matrix of ISTEA Factors and Plan Update Tasks . . . Exec Summary 2 Applicability of 15 ISTEA Planning Factors to Existing Planning Documents and Reports . . . . . . Exec Summary APPENDICES Appendix A - Study Review Committee Appendix B - Study Tasks Appendix C - Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary Documentation Appendix D - Public involvement Information Appendix E - Status of Transportation Control Measures Appendix F - Congestion Management System Content Appendix G - Transportation System Management Report Summary Appendix H - Summary of Indpls. Department of Transportation Pavement System Appendix I - Possible Evaluation Criteria EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has been working with a group of transportation consultants in updating the Long Range Transportation Plan for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) as required by the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The MPO staff and the consultant team are working with a study review committee consisting of representatives from the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Council (IRTC) and other jurisdictions new to the planning area. The ISTEA requires the consideration of 15 p@g factors in the development of transportation plans and programs. The purpose of this report is to meet the ISTEA requirement by describing the steps to be taken by the MPO in considering the 15 factors during the update of the Long Range Transportation Plan. The response to the 15 factors was developed in conjunction with the Study Review Committee and public meetings were held prior to the submission of this document. The Study Review Committee views this report as a working document subject to change as conditions warrant. It is not intended to limit the MPO or the IRTC from reevaluating how the 15 factors will be considered in the future. RESPONSE The MPO views the ISTEA requirements to consider the 15 factors, place new emphasis on community involvement and ensure financial feasibility as an aid to achieving its goal of producing a long range transportation plan that will function as a working document. As the complex, it is increasingly important to make informed decisions within the context of a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive (3- C) p@g process. Toward this end, the in conjunction with the Study Review Committee, has prepared Technical Report No. 1, "Interim Study Design", which addresses all of the ISTEA requirements. Because final regulations pertaining to ISTEA have not been issued, it is anticipated that the study design will be further refined as the study progresses. The study tasks addressing each ISTEA factor are identified in Table 1. Generally the factors will be considered at each appropriate step in the study process. Special cam will be taken to incorporate the factors in the study's goals and objectives, the evaluation of alternative transportation plans and in determining project priorities. This response also includes a general discussion of the 15 factors and previous planning efforts pertaining to them. Table 2 documents past and ongoing planning efforts pertaining to the 15 factors. In all, the Study Review Committee identified 80 existing planning documents and reports which pertain to the 15 factors. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. 1.INTRODUCTION The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 requires the consideration of 15 factors in the development of transportation plans and programs. The purpose of this report is to meet the requirements of ISTEA by describing the steps which are being taken by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Authority (MTO) to comply with each of the 15 factors and to set the framework for continuing maintenance of the Long Range Transportation Plan in accord with ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This report is one of a series of technical reports to be completed over the next 18 to 24 months in updating the Long Range Transportation Plan for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area. This report has been prepared in cooperation with a Study Review Committee consisting of representatives from the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Council (IRTC) and other jurisdictions new to the Metropolitan Planning Area (see Appendix A). In addition, five public meetings were held to acquaint the public with the update process and responses to the 15 factors prior to submission to the Federal Highway Administration A). M& report will be presented to and approved by the Technical and Policy Commission of the IRTC before it is presented to the Metropolitan Development Commission (MDC) for adoption. The Study Review Committee views this report, like all products produced under the ISTEA, as a working document subject to change as conditions warrant. It is not intended to limit the NM and the IRTC from reevaluating how they might better consider the 15 factors in updating the Long Range Transportation Plan. Completion of other ISTEA requirements have preceded this report. The MPO has complied with the Air Quality Transportation Conformity requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (November 31, 1991), adjusted the Urban Area Boundary (June 30, 1992)31 reclassified the Federal Roadway Functional Classification System for the Indianapolis Urbanized Area (December 31, 1992) and determined the roadways to be included on the Indianapolis Urbanized Area portion of the National Highway System (April 30, 1993). A consultant team led by The Corradino Group has been retained by the UTO to assist in the update of the long range plan. Members of the consultant team are identified in Appendix A. The current contract covers the initial phases of the planning process as identified in Technical Report No. 1, "Interim Study Design" (see Appendix B). Further refinement and additional consultant services may be necessary as the study progresses. METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA The study area for the current long range transportation plan includes all of Marion County and portions of Hamilton and Johnson Counties as shown on Map 1. The Indianapolis MPO has included the entire 1990 Census Urbanized Area within its planning process since its official release by the Census Bureau in 1992. This area which is shown on Map 2 also includes Zionsville, Fishers, Westfield and portions of Hendricks and Elancock Counties. Designating a new Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA), which defines the area to be included in the MPO planning process, is required by the ISTEA and is to be determined by agreement between the MPO and the Governor. At a minimum, the ISTEA requires that the NOA boundary include the 1990 Census Urbanized Area and the contiguous areas likely to become urbanized within the 27 year planning forecast period. Generally the expanded urbanized area is to be based on a growth assumption of 1000 persons per square mile. The MPO established a sub-committee of the Long Range Transportation Plan Update Study Review Committee to help determine the NTA boundary. The MPO employed three independent methods to estimate future growth. The three methods were cross checked with one another and were found to support very similar conclusions. The proposed MPA boundary was presented to the NTA subcommittee and underwent several revisions before proceeding to the IRTC technical and policy committees. The proposed MPA boundary was endorsed by the Technical Committee on August 5, 1993. It was initially debated at the Policy Committee level based primarily on perceived programming implications rather than the technical merits of the growth assumptions used. A draft letter from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and a Memorandum of Understanding from the MPO were prepared in response to the programming concerns. The MPO distributed the proposed MPA boundary technical documentation, FHWA letter and MPO Memorandum of Understanding (see Appendix C) to all Technical and Policy Committee members and conducted a special "technical briefing' to answer questions. The proposed NTA boundary was endorsed by the Policy Committee at a joint Technical and Policy Committee meeting on September 15, 1993 and was adopted by the MDC on October 6, 1993. The proposed NTA boundary is viewed as a conservative, yet reasonable estimate of future growth (see Map 2). It encompasses all of Marion County, including the Cities of Beech Grove, Indianapolis, Lawrence, Southport, and the Town of Speedway. The boundary also includes portions of Hamilton, Boone, Hendricks, Johnson, and Elancock Counties, including the municipalities of Fishers, Westfield, Whiteland, New Whiteland, and the Cities of Carmel, Zionsville, Brownsburg, Plainfield and Greenwood. The MPA cones a 1990 population of 985,000 and is projected to increase by 9% to 1,070,000 by 2020. 2 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. PARTICIPANTS IN LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization The Metropolitan Development Commission is the designated MPO for the Indianapolis region. As such it is responsible, together with the State and Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IPTC-METRO) for the continuing, cooperative and comprehensive (3-C) transportation planning function required of urbanized areas in order to for federal transportation funds. The NM is responsible for complying with all ISTEA requirements including the development of the Long Range Transportation Plan for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area. The MPO is also responsible for developing the Unified Planning Work Program, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Congestion Management System in cooperation with INDOT. In addition, because Indianapolis is rated marginal for nonattainment of the ozone standards by the Environmental on Agency (EPA), the ISTEA requires the NW to assist the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) in developing the transportation control measures of the State Plan (SIP). The MPO together with the State and in cooperation with the IRTC is the transportation policy setting organization for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). Indianapolis Regional Transportation Council (IRTC) The IRTC is a cooperative group composed of representatives of the transportation jurisdictions within the metropolitan area. It serves as an ad hoc advisory committee to the MPO on transportation matters of concern to the jurisdictions within the metropolitan area. In general the IRTC (1) recommends policy for the conduct of the transportation planning program; (2) recommends transportation projects involving federal-aid Surface Transportation Program urban funds; and (3) provides a mechanism for discussion and resolution of local transportation issues. United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/Federal Transportation (FTA) The FHWA and FTA are non-voting members on the IRTC. They provide guidance in the interpretation and implementation of federal regulations pertaining to transportation planning. FHWA, because it has an office located in Indianapolis, has a greater opportunity to participate in the planning activities of the MPO and is involved with most aspects of the transportation planning process. 5 State of Indiana Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) INDOT has the responsibility together with the MPO and IPTC for conducting the 3-C planning process. It has the lead responsibility under ISTEA in developing the management systems required by the act as well as to preparation of a statewide long range transportation plan and a statewide transportation improvement program. The management systems include: (1) highway pavement of Federal-aid highways; (2) bridges on and off federal-aid highways; (3) highway safety; (4) traffic congestion; (5) public transportation facilities And equipment; (6) intermodal transportation facilities and systems; and (7) traffic monitoring system for highways. Indiana Department of environmental Management (IDEM) IDEM has the responsibility to oversee air quality planning and participates in the review of the air quality aspects of the Indianapolis region's long range transportation plans and transportation air quality conformity requirements. IDEM is also the lead agency for compliance with the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 and prepares the State Implementation Plan (SIP). City of Indianapolis/Marion County The unified government of the City of Indianapolis (Unigov) encompasses Marion County with the exception of four cities which were excluded when Unigov was formed. The Unigov is responsible for all outside of the excluded cities and all thoroughfares in Marion County including the excluded cities. Excluded Cities and Towns in Marion County The cities and towns within Marion County excluded from Unigov are the Cities of Beech Grove, Lawrence, Speedway, and the Town of Southport. These cities are responsible for streets not on the State highway system or the Office Thoroughfare Plan for Marion County. Other Cities and Counties As part of the NTA, Boone, Hamilton, Hancock, Johnson, and Hendricks counties participate in the transportation planning activities of the region. Individual incorporated cities and towns included in the MPA within these counties are, or will be represented on the IRTC . Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IPTC) METRO IPTC-METRO is responsible for providing the Indianapolis region's public transit service. METRO, as the public transit system operator, is included in the long range transportation planning process and is represented on the IRTC. As the publicly owned transit service provider it is responsible together with the MPO and the State for conducting the 3-C planning process. 6 Indianapolis Airport Authority The Indianapolis Airport Authority is the Public Agency responsible for the operation of the Indianapolis International Airport, the regions commercial Air Carrier airport, and most of the regions reliever airports. Greenwood and Shelbyville operate their own municipal airports. The Airport Authority is an active participant on the IRTC. Private Sector Private taxi operators and specialized services are major providers of transportation to the transit dependent. IPTC-Metro is now contracting with the private sector to operate its Open Door service to the disabled. The private sector is represented on the IRTC and participates on a number of planning committees with the MPO. 7 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM In addition to consideration of the 15 factors, ISTEA requires the metropolitan transportation planning process to include provisions to ensure early and continuing involvement of the public in the development of plans and TIPS. The MPO has been discussing the ISTEA requirements at every opportunity with all interested parities since early 1991 in anticipation of more actively involving the community in the transportation planning process. The MPO fully embraces the requirement for increased community involvement and views it as essential to developing a long range transportation plan that will function as a working document. Unless all affected parties have confidence in and feel ownership toward the long range plan, it will not be used to its fullest potential in guiding the transportation future of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area. The MPO conducted a series of public meetings during the week of September 13, 1993 at five locations throughout the Metropolitan Planning Area. The purpose of the meetings was to acquaint the public with the Long Range Transportation Plan update and to solicit their input. News releases and an informational newsletter were distributed in advance of the public meetings. The newsletter was sent to over 1000 agencies, organizations and individuals throughout the Metropolitan Planning Area identified by the members of the Long Range Transportation Plan Study Review Committee as having a transportation interest. The meetings included an overview of the long range transportation plan update process including the 15 metropolitan planning factors. Time was provided for questions and a questionnaire was distributed at each meeting. The purpose of the questionnaire was to solicit opinions on how to involve the public in the transportation planning process and to provide the opportunity for the public to identify transportation challenges and solutions. See Appendix D for a copy of the meeting agenda, informational newsletter and questionnaire. The MPO is in the process of reviewing the community input from the questionnaire. Any conclusions that can be drawn from the questionnaires will be reflected in the plan update. In terms of an ongoing community involvement program, the MPO is recommending the establishment of a Citizen's Advisory Committee which would have continued involvement with the 3-C planning process. This recommendation has received a favorable response from the Study Review Committee and the IRTC. The MPO believes an established committee, representative of the metropolitan area will provide the greatest opportunity for informed community input and more active public participation. The development of a community involvement program is addressed in Task 2 of the "Interim Study Design". Anticipated modifications to the interim study design will specifically address the community involvement requirements as contained in "Proposed ISTEA Metropolitan Planning Regulations" published in the Federal Register on March 2, 1993. 8 FINANCIAL PLAN The ISTEA requires that the long range transportation plan include a financial plan which demonstrates that the funding necessary to supplement the transportation improvements in the plan, over the life of the plan, is expected to be available. In addition, for nonattainment areas the plan must address the financial resources necessary to ensure compliance with the attainment of clean air requirements. The proposed rule indicates that at a minimum the financial plan must address estimated revenues and strategies for ensuring their availability for implementing, operating and maintaining all projects. In addition, innovative financing such as private participation in both capital and operating expenses would be considered. The financial plan is viewed by the MPO as a critical component to achieving a feasible transportation plan for meeting the future transportation needs of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area. A financially constrained plan will strengthen the relationship between the long range plan and the TIP by requiring study participants to identify the most needed projects as part of the planning process. Debating the merits of projects within the context of developing the long range plan will provide the opportunity for testing options and possibly identifying better solutions. A financially constrained plan will also encourage study participants to look more closely at less costly operational demand management type improvements. Task 15 of the Interim Study Design addresses the requirement for a financial plan. The bottom line to this effort will be a financially feasible plan based on life cycle costs of proposed projects and estimated revenues. AIR QUALITY CONSiDERATIONS The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require greater integration of transportation planning and air quality planning, particularly for areas designated as nonattainment by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Marion County is currently classified as marginal for non-attainment of the ozone standards and a sixteen-block area in the central business district is classified for non-attainment of the carbon monoxide standards. However, the area has recently qualified to have the ozone classification rescinded and staff of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and the City are preparing the necessary documentation for consideration by EPA. The MPO staff work closely with staff of the Indianapolis Air Pollution Control Division (APCD), IDEM and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) on issues pertaining to air quality. In the next few months IDEM will be updating the State Implementation Plan (SIEP) which documents the actions that are necessary for the area to meet air quality requirements. The SIEP contains Transportation Control Measures (TCM's) which must be implemented to ensure that the requirements are met. Appendix E of this report contains a status report on the existing TCM's for the Indianapolis area. 9 2. ISTEA METROPOLITAN PLANNING FACTORS The ISTEA requires 15 Metropolitan transportation plans and programs pursuant to 23 U.S.C. Section 134. This section of the report identifies each factor and outlines how it is to be considered by the MPO as it completes the detailed update of the Long Range Transportation Plan for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area. For ease of review, the response to each of the 15 factors follows the outline presented below. ISTEA Definition Statement of each factor as defined in the ISTEA. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance FHWA - Region 5 provided the MPOs within the Region suggestions as to how they might respond to each of the 15 factors. This sub-section states the guidance provided. MPO Response This sub-section succinctly states how the factor is to be addressed in the long range transportation plan update. Status Report This sub-section provides general discussion of the factor and describes how the factor has been addressed in the past. It also identifies completed reports and ongoing activities completed reports pertaining to the factor. 10 FACTOR 1: USE OF EXISTING FACILITIES ISTEA Definition Preservation of existing transportation facilities and, where practical, ways to meet transportation needs by using transportation facilities more efficiently. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: Preservation:Inventory needs; classify list of projects by investment categories; report status; adopt policies. Efficiencies:Assess extent that LRP investments are for better operations/management of existing system. Possible Long Term Actions: Preservation:Use output of management systems to give due priority to system preservation projects. Reflect commitment of resources for preservation in the Financial Plan. Efficiencies:Use output of CMS to identify efficiency improvement needs and program these under proper priority. MPO Response The MPO will evaluate the effectiveness of short range transportation measures such as signal timing and intersection improvements before recommending the widening of existing roadways or the construction of new roadways in the update of the long range transportation plan. This activity is included in Technical Report No. 1, "Interim Study Design", Task 12, "Develop Alterative Modal Plans,' (see Appendix B) and will be further detailed in the upcoming modification of the study design. Status Report The primary activity currently taking place on a regular basis is the development and refinement of the Transportation System Management (TSM) Process report. The TSM, updated on an annual basis, focuses on improving and preserving the existing transportation system through solutions to immediate transportation problems, better management of transportation, maximization of urban mobility and consideration of all modes of surface transportation as a coordinated transportation system. Basic to the TSM process is community problem 11 identification, monitoring and surveillance, TSM strategy determination, problem indicator measurements, specific problem analysis and post-project evaluation. The TSM document is prepared by the MPO in cooperation with the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Council. Historically, the TSM and the Long Range Transportation Plan have been independent of one another. Both the TSM and the Thoroughfare Plan identify needed projects and establish priorities as well as provide the planning support for projects included in the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program (IRTIP). In Factor 1, ISTEA stresses the importance of getting the most of and preserving prior infrastructure, investments as part of the long range transportation planning efforts. The MPO intends to bring together the short range and long range planning efforts to achieve the greatest benefit from the existing transportation system. The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor 1. These reports are a result of ongoing efforts and are updated on a regular basis. Transportation System Management (TSM) Process Report - Nov. 1991 Street Facilities Inventory - Nov. 1992 Indianapolis DOT (IDOT) Pavement Management Program - in progress IDOT Capital Improvement Program Indiana Department of Transportation (DMI) Highway Improvement Program - April 1993 INDOT Indiana Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (INSTIP) - to be approved October 1993 Comprehensive Plans Indianapolis Marion County Thoroughfare Plan - March 1991 Hamilton County Thoroughfare Plan - March 1991 Johnson County Thoroughfare Plan - March 1991 Indianapolis Airport System Plan Update Transportation Impact Studies Guidelines for Proposed Development - September 1990 Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Carmel and Clay Township - June 1993 Traffic Impact Study - I-65 Corridor, 1989 - 1990 Highway Performance Monitoring System, 1991 12 FACTOR 2: ENERGY ISTEA Definition The consistency of transportation planning with applicable Federal, State, and local energy conservation programs, goals, and objectives. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: Review national and state energy policy; determine implications on transportation; assess current and future response needs; report. Possible Long Term Actions: Reflect in the LRP the adoption of policy and procedures for ensuring consistency with energy conservation plans. MPO Response Energy consumption will be calculated by the MPO as an evaluation measure for each transportation alternative developed as part of the long range transportation plan update and for determining project priorities. This will ensure the recommendations from the long range transportation plan update reflect energy conservation goals. This activity is included in Technical Report No 1, "Interim Study Design", Task 12 (Develop Alternative Modal Plans) and Task 13 (Evaluate Plans in Terms of Cost-Effectiveness and ISTEA Requirements). Status Report While there is Federal legislation relating to vehicle fuel efficiency for new vehicles, and energy efficiency standards for heating and air conditioning of buildings, there are no state or local regulations or policies relating to energy and transportation planning. Past federal planning guidance has encouraged reduced energy consumption. In 1992, the State of Indiana organized an effort to define the elements of an energy policy for the state. The Governor appointed a 50 person working group, chaired by the Lt. Governor, called the Indiana Energy Policy Forum. The Forum established several subcommittees with one addressing energy issues related to transportation. The Forum made policy recommendations which are now being addressed at the executive level. 13 There have been no recent local efforts regarding energy policy. Previous local energy policies date to the early 1980's. Air quality, however, has received much attention locally in recent years which indirectly impacts energy consumption. Almost any measure that would reduce the air pollution burden also would reduce energy consumption. Such measures usually revolve around reduced use of single occupancy vehicles (SOVS) and in use of public transportation. The calculation of fuel and energy consumption is usually based on vehicle miles of travel (VMT). VMT is usually based on the travel model, allowing easy calc@on of estimated energy consumption. Energy consumption is y proportional to VMT. Thus, alternatives that reduce VMT through reduction of the use of SOVS, use of public transportation systems, providing efficient and direct connections for major travel movements, and land use policies that discourage urban sprawl tend to decrease energy consumption. Estimation of the energy consumption associated with each alternative will provide a quantitative measure of energy efficiency for the proposed plan. The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to this Factor 2. Technical Memorandum No. I - Energy Conservation Planning, Status and Objectives of Public Programs for Energy Conservation Planning,' DMD, March 1981 Technical Memorandum No. 2 - Energy Conservation Planning, "Projections of Highway Fuel Consumption in the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Study Area," DMD, August 1981 Transportation Energy Contingency Plan for the Indianapolis Urbanized Area, DMD, July 1982 Recommendations of the Indiana Energy Policy Forum of 1992, Report of the Indiana Energy Policy Forum 14 FACTOR 3: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT ISTEA Definition The need to relieve congestion and prevent congestion from occurring where ft does not yet occur. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: Inventory and report on current congestion management aspects of LRP. In areas, indicate how TCMs and other operational management strategies are being implemented. Possible Long Term Actions: Develop and implement a congestion management system; reflect in the LRP CMS - identified strategies. MPO Response Reducing congestion is one of the primary objectives of the long range plan. Thus congestion management will be considered throughout the update process and will be reflected m the evaluation measures for system alternatives and project priorities. In addition, as status in Factor 1, the effectiveness of short range transportation measures will be considered in the update of the long range plan before recommending additional capital intensive improvements. These activities are included in Technical Report No. 1, 'Interim Study Design' Task 4 (Determine the Boundary of the New Study Area),.Task 5 Determine Methods for Travel Model Update), Task 7 (Collect Roadway Data and Traffic Counts for Model Calibration), Task 11 (Identify System Deficiencies), Task 12 (Develop Alterative Modal Plans), Task 13 (Evaluate Plans in Terms of Cost-Effectiveness and ISTEA Requirements) and Task 14 (Develop Future Multimodal Plan). Congestion management will be addressed continually through the annual update of the Congestion Management System Report. Status Report As a Transportation Management Area (TMA), the Indianapolis MPO is required to prepare a Congestion Management System (CMS) that is part of a state-wide CMS. The CMS is to provide for the effective management of new and existing transportation facilities through the use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies. Further, the process is 15 to provide information on transportation system performance to decision makers in selecting and implementing cost-effective strategies so that traffic congestion is alleviated and the mobility of goods and persons is enhanced. Because a fully operational CMS is not required before Federal fiscal year 1995, federal guidance is provided on the phase-in process. During the phase-in plan development process, the CMS is to include an analysis of transportation system management strategies to make more efficient use of the existing transportation system and an assessment of all reasonable travel demand reduction and operational management strategies corridor in which a traffic project is located. Further, as a part of the analysis, the project must include reasonable provisions to manage the proposed improvement to make the most efficient use of it. Likewise, the commitment of the State and MPO to implement other management strategies in areas of need is important. Being a part of the transportation planning process for metropolitan areas, the travel demand reduction and operational management strategies identified by the CMS are to be included in the Long Range Transportation Plan and implemented through the Transportation Improvement Program on a project-by-project basis (see Appendix F). The most significant effort to date that relates to the purpose and content of the Congestion Management System is the current Transportation System Management (TSM) Process Report completed in November of 1991. The 1991 TSM Report documents transportation system performance characteristics; documents traffic operation/signalization improvement efforts; and describes efforts relating to transportation control measures such as ride sharing, parking strategies, and bicycle and pedestrian planning. Appendix G provides more discussion of the MPO's TSM document. Data is collected on a continuing basis to support the TSM process. The Indianapolis Department of Transportation has had a traffic counting program for thoroughfares that operates on a three-year cycle, and the Indiana Department of Transportation has had a similar program for Interstates and State Routes which operates on a four-year cycle. Also, the Indianapolis Police Department and the State Police have had an ongoing accident reporting program for decades. The Indiana Department of Transportation presently has a computer roadway characteristics inventory system jurisdiction, functional, cross- section and geometric characteristics) and a computerized Highway Performance Monitoring System (BPMS). The long range planning activities will build upon the TSM Process Report completed in 1993 to more effectively address viable strategies for congested corridors and to ensure integration of the CMS strategies into the IRTIP, Long Range Plan and project-by-project conformity analyses. Several of the jurisdictions within the Indianapolis are managing congestion through the use of transportation impact studies which assess the impact of proposed development on the transportation system and make recommendations for maintaining acceptable levels of service or reducing the intensity of development. 16 The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor 3. Transportation System Management Process Report, 1991 Applicant's Guide: Transportation Impact Studies for Proposed Development, 1990 Indianapolis Subarea Planning Study, 1988 West 16th Street Corridor Study, 1988 Michigan Road Corridor Study, 1984 Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Carmel and Clay Township, 1993 Traffic Impact Study - 165 Corridor, 1989-1990 17 FACTOR 4: TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT PLANS ISTEA Definition The likely effect of transportation policy decisions on land use and development and the consistency of transportation plans and programs with the provisions of all applicable short and long-term land use and development plans. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: Qualitative evaluation of consistency between LRP and land use plans; determine extent LRP is serving existing land development vs. opening access to new development. Possible Long Term Actions Integrate transportation and land use planning in the modeling and in the evaluation of investment needs. MPO Response The MPO will review all existing land use plans and thoroughfare plans for the jurisdictions within the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planing Area. The land use plans will be used m developing future year social-economic forecasts in cooperation with the local jurisdictions. Inconsistencies between the land use plans and the regional transportation plan will be addressed as part of the update process. The policy implications of transportation decisions on land use will be discussed in the context of developing goals and objectives for the long range transportation plan update. Development of the goals and objectives will involve the MPO, IRTC and the public. The impact transportation proposals have on land use will be considered in the evaluation of system alternatives and the establishment of project priorities. These activities are included in Technical Report 1, "Interim Study Design" Task 5 (Transportation Enhancement Activities), Task 8 (External Connectivity) and Task 13 (Social, Economic, Energy and Environmental Criteria). The tasks will be further refined in upcoming modifications to the study design as required to specifically address this factor. An ongoing determination of the consistency between land use and transportation plans will be achieved through the transportation impact study process. 18 Status Report All jurisdictions within the Metropolitan Planing Area have some soft of land use plan and thoroughfare plan. Indiana State law requires that comprehensive plans have a transportation element. As a result, transportation issues are generally discussed as an integral factor in the development of comprehensive plan recommendations. For example, in Marion County, detailed transportation information is provided as part of the land use inventory for the Comprehensive Plan updates. This information includes existing and future functional classification for all thoroughfare plan segments, proposed transportation projects, and existing as well as projected levels of service. The impact of land use on the transportation system can be seen most vividly around the regional shopping centers. Conversely, the impact of the transportation system on land use can be seen most clearly around interstate interchanges. The need to balance land use with transportation to ensure an acceptable level of service has caused some jurisdictions, including Indianapolis, the Indiana Department of Transportation, Carmel and Fishers to request transportation impact studies as part of rezoning and permit applications. Transportation impact studies have been found to be effective decision making tools. Observation of the development process in the region finds that sewer and sewage treatment availability tend to drive land development with more force than roadway construction or thoroughfare planning. The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor 4. Comprehensive Plans Thoroughfare Plans Traffic Impact Study - I-65 Corridor, 1989-1990 Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Carmel and Clay Township, 1993 Applicant's Guide - Transportation Impact Studies for Proposed Development, Sept., 1990 Department of Community Development Area Suitability Report, Carmel, 1992 Department of Community Development Planing Summary Report, Carmel, 1992 S-1 Zone Planning Study Consultant Team Reports, 1992 Indianapolis Corridor Planning Study, 1981 19 FACTOR 5: TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES ISTEA Definition The programming of expenditures on transportation enhancement activities as required in section 133. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: inventory enhancement needs and program them in MT subject to State criteria for project selection. Possible Long Term Actions. Revise TP to include resources to be invested in enhancement. MPO Response The Long Range Transportation Plan update will include a mechanism for the review and selection of TEA projects. Technical Response No. 1, "Interim Study Design," describes the activities that will be used to update the plan. TEA activities will be addressed in Task 2 (Coordinate with Applicable Federal, Local, and State Agencies), Task 14 (Develop Future Multimodal Plan) and Task 15 (Develop the Financial Plan). The Interim Study Design will be modified to include more specific references to TEA projects. Status Report The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) has developed a policy for the evaluation and selection of Transportation Enhancement Activity @) projects in the state of Indiana. Projects are selected on a statewide competitive basis after review by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, the Indiana Department of Commerce and (INDOT. The Policy includes general guidelines for the type of project that qualifies for TEA funds, requires that the project demonstrate a genuine contribution to transportation by meeting one of three qualifying linkage requirements (functional, proximity, impact) and notes that preference will be given to projects which are ready for construction or land acquisition, enhance the state's travel tourism programs, satisfy more than one linkage requirement, satisfy more than one qualifying activity requirement and will provide significant connectivity among transportation facilities. 20 The MPO solicited projects from various groups within the Indianapolis Urbanized Area that had either expressed Interest m enhancement funds or those groups the UTO believed might have interest in the program. The six (6) projects received by the UTO were submitted to INDOT for consideration during the State Fiscal Year 1993. Those projects have been programmed in the 1994-1996 Indianapolis Region Transportation Improvement Program (IRTIP) and have been approved by the MPO for their regional significance. The Long Range Plan will include a bicycle and plan to encourage non- motorized transportation and to provide planning support for TEA projects. The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor 5. 1993 IRTIP INDOT'S Policy MPO's Information Packet The Carmel Greenway Corridor Indianapolis Greenway Corridor System, 1993 Monon Rail Corridor Planning Process, 1993 Bicycle User Map 21 FACTOR 6: EFFECTS OF ALL PROJECTS ISTEA Definition The effects of all transportation projects to be undertaken within the metropolitan area, without regard to whether such projects are publicly funded. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: Inventory and report on scope of private sector transportation development/investment; and on the potential impacts of these on the public transportation infrastructure. Possible Long Term Actions: Adopt process for considering the effects of all urbanized area transportation projects in system efficiency and reflect in LRP decisions. MPO Response The Long Range Transportation Plan update will consider all transportation projects, public and private, regardless of their funding source. Technical Report No. 1, "Interim Study Design," describes the activities that will be used to update the plan. Task 13 (Evaluate Plans in Terms of Cost-Effectiveness and ISTEA Requirements) outlines a process for evaluating alternative transportation plans. All existing transportation projects, regardless of the funding source and regardless of whether they are public or private, and all future projects to the extent that they can be anticipated, will be included in this evaluation and cost- effectiveness process. The Interim Study Design will be modified to include a more specific reference to the consideration of all projects. Status Report In the past, long-range transportation planning efforts usually have been concerned only with arterial and urban transit projects that would require public funding. ISTEA requires the scope of the long- range plan to be extended to transportation projects that are funded through sources other than the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Agency (FTA), including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), state and local funding sources, and the private sector. 22 Efforts related to several significant issue areas pertaining to Factor 6 include: Development of new subdivision streets. Regulation of subdivision streets is a local responsibility tied closely to local land use and zoning policies. Subdivision regulations from each of these local agencies prescribe standards for construction, right-of-way, set-back, geometries, etc. One major impact of developing new subdivision is that they usually become the responsibility of local government to maintain, which consumes financial resources. Although they do not necessarily improve traffic flow in the MPA, the future financial impact of new subdivision streets and their impact on the long-range plan will be estimated on the basis of historical trends and information gathered from the pavement management system. This estimate will be considered in all assessments of transportation system efficiency. If agreement can be reached among the local governments, it would be desirable to have uniform regulations for new subdivision streets throughout the MPA. Transportation impact studies and mitigation. Transportation impact studies are required by local regulations for some cities in the MPA. The Cities of Indianapolis and Carmel request transportation impact studies as part of the development process. The Indiana Department of Transportation also requests transportation impact studies. The State of Indiana has enabling legislation allowing localities to impose transportation and other impact fees providing that appropriate justification studies are performed. The Town of Fishers enacted a transportation impact fee ordinance in 1991 and has been collecting fees since 1992. Highway networks will be updated periodically to reflect improvements to the highway systems that are made as a result of traffic impact studies and the collection of impact fees. Impact fees will be considered in the analysis of existing and potential revenues. If agreement can be reached among the local governments, it would be desirable to have a uniform system for traffic impact studies and mitigation throughout the MPA. Local transportation projects - Local transportation projects include roadway improvements financed not only by federal sources, but also from general obligation and revenue bonds, the wheel tax, and other local sources. City of Indianapolis projects are listed in the 1993- 1995 Indianapolis Capital Improvement Program which is updated continually. Other local agencies also have local projects. Because of the requirement for examining all projects in conjunction with air quality analysis, all local transportation projects, including new roads, widening and reconstruction will be included in air quality analyses. Airport planning - Major expansion activity is underway at the Indianapolis International Airport, particularly activities related to the United Airlines maintenance facility. Runways are being extended and added, businesses and facilities are being constructed, and the air passenger terminal will be relocated and enlarged, all in conformance with the Airport Master Plan. The Airport Master Plan recommends the improvement of nearby roadways and the construction of a new interchange to serve the relocated terminal. Feasibility and justification studies are underway or have been completed. 23 Airport planning should be reflected in the travel modeling process in trip generation for person trips and freight. The Long Range Transportation Plan should consider the need to provide adequate modes, capacity, and location of access to the airport. Rail Planning - The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOI) Intermodal Division maintains inventories and plans for intermodal facilities, including railroads. The most recent plan for rail transportation is the Indiana Rail Plan, 1987 Update. This report addresses the history and future of passenger and freight transportation for Indiana. The Rail Plan also provides an inventory of facilities, and outlines policies pertaining to statewide railroad systems. The State Rail Plan is currently in the process of being updated. The Long Range Transportation Plan will consider any improvements or changes to the rail system that could impact the overall transportation system. impacts are more likely to be a result of do of rail lines than improvements. Abandonment could result in the availability of needed right-of-way, the elimination of grade crossings, elimination of existing or planned grade separations, and changes in rail traffic on other lines or changes in truck traffic to handle freight from abandoned lines. These and other issues relating to rail transportation could be addressed in an update of the Urban Goods Movement Study for the Indianapolis Region. Parking facilities - Parking facilities have the potential for causing both 1 roadway congestion, and encouraging use of single-occupant vehicles. The Long Range Plan should consider the location of parking facilities with respect to traffic congestion, and overall parking supply policies. Abundant, inexpensive parking discourages the use of public transportation, carpools, and vanpools. The Long Range Plan should define a parking supply and cost policy for the MPO. The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor 6. Interchange Justification Report - Task Force - MSE 12-31-92 Bridgeport Rd. Alignment Study - IDOT - BL&N 1-89 Planning & Relocation Study - Bridgeport Rd. - IAA _ BNTB 10-91 UAL Traffic and Parking Lot Study - FSB - PK&G 7-92 Transportation Impact Study UAL MOC III - IDOT - PK&G 12-92 Raceway Rd. Alignment Study - Hendricks Co. - SEG Stafford Rd./Six Points Rd. Study - Hendricks Co. - D E M Six Points Rd. Connector - IAA - BL&N 8-4-92 US 40 & New Haven Traffic Signal - IAA - RWA 3-7-88 Corridor Study - DMD - GFC&C 6-81 IAA Surface Transportation Plan - IAA - HNTB 5-1989 Potential Interchange Portfolio - INDOT - MTA 1989 AIDA Access & Runway Study - IAA - HNTB 2-5-93 Thoroughfare Plan - Marion Co. - DMD 3-6-91 Transportation System Management Plan 1992-96 - DMD 11-91 IRTIP 1992-96 - DMD 7-91 Reassessment & Refinement of Proposed Roads - DMD - SCA 2-88 Year 2000 Travel Demand - DND - 12-76 24 Hendricks Co. Master plan of Thoroughfares - HC - RWA 61 IIA Channelization/Signalization H.S. Rd. - IAA - RWA 44-86 Urban Goods Movement Study - DMD - WSA 12-31-80 Minnesota/Washington St. Corridor Study - DMD 5-90 Airport Industrial Development Plan - DMD 8-90 Decatur Twp. Comp. Land Use Plan - DMD 12-4-91 Wayne Twp. Comp. Land Use Plan - DMD I Hendricks Co. Comprehensive Plan - H. C. - 8-15-83 ILA Master plan update - IAA - HNTB 10-90 Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update - IAA - L&B 4-92 Regional Center Planning Study - DMD Regional Center Parking Study Annual Update - DMD Indianapolis Capital Improvement Program - IDOT Indiana Rail Plan, 1987 Update -łApplicant's Guide for Transportation Impact Studies for Proposed Development - DMD Traffic Impact Analysis, city of Carmel and Clay Township, Carmel - A&F, 1993 Traffic Impact Study - I-65 Corridor - Greenwood - PKG 1989-1990 25 FACTOR 7: ACCESS TO ALL MODES ISTEA Definition international boarder crossings and access to ports, airports, intermodal transportation facilities, major freight distribution routes, national parks, recreation areas, monuments and historic sites, and military installations. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: Ensure that travel models recognize these major trip generators; adopt 'level playing field' in needs assessment. Possible Long Term Actions: Reflect consideration to multimodal solutions to access needs in the TP listed investments. MPO Response The MPO will examine access to special generators as part of the long range transportation update. The need to provide access to special generators will be reflected in the evaluation measures for system alternatives and project priorities. Work on special generators will be accomplished in Task 5 (Determine Methods for Travel Model Update) and Task 9 (Calibrate 1990 Model). Access and connectivity will be considered in Task 12 (Develop Alternative Model Plans). These tasks are described in Technical Report No. 1: "Interim Study Design". Status Report An important aspect of the plan updating process will be to include special generators within the update of the Indianapolis Travel Demand Model. Special generators identified at this stage in the Model update are: Glendale Mall Castleton Square Mall Greenwood Park Mall l.U. Medical Center/l.U.P.I. White River State Park Indianapolis International Airport Lafayette Square Mall Washington Square Mall Keystone At The Crossing 26 The intermodal components of this region have been identified and to a considerable extent evaluated through a series of component specific studies. INDOT, MPO, the Indianapolis Airport Authority, and the City of Indianapolis have initiated the component studies with the and are responsible for the policy implementation of the findings. Compliance requirements of ISTEA will necessitate coordinated planning and policy implementation. There are on-going efforts to coordinate plans that are developed for Marion County. Within the planning Division coordination occurs on a regular basis between comprehensive planning, parks planning, sub-area planning and transportation planning. Likewise, efforts are made to coordinate plans with jurisdictions outside Marion County. Coordination with INDOT on the state rail plan and the aviation system plan will need to occur as part of the long range transportation update. Likewise the urban goods movement study will need to be reviewed for necessary updating. In addition, an examination of the reuse plan for Fort Benjamin Harrison, plans for the Naval Avionics Center and plans for commercial busing activities will need to occur during the long range plan update. Coordination with intermodal transportation facilities, recreation areas and monuments and historic sites will need to be emphasized in the long range plan update process. More of an intensive effort will be made to coordinate transportation plans with other jurisdictions, especially those outside Marion County and with other facilities/modes. The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor 7. Indiana Rail Plan - 1987 Update Urban Goods Movement Study _ 1980 Transportation System Management (TSM) Process Report (designated truck routes)- Nov., 1991 1991 Fort Benjamin Harrison Reuse Plan - in progress Naval Avionics Center Plan - Greyhound Bus Station Documentation White River Greenway Corridor Study - Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, Indpls/Marion County - 1992 Indianapolis Metropolitan Airport System Plan Update, June 1993 27 FACTOR 8: EXTERNAL CONNECTIVITY ISTEA Definition The need for connectivity of roads within the metropolitan area with roads outside the metropolitan area. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: Inventory existing connectivity problems, like those related to the movement of freight. Ensure State DOT involvement in 3-C process. Possible Long Term Actions: Coordinate with Statewide planning process. Schedule projects to address needs. MPO Response The MPO will consider the need for external connectivity as part of network development. Deficiencies in connectivity will be identified and addressed in the modeling of system alternatives. The need to provide external connectivity will be reflected in the evaluation measures for system alternatives and project priorities. These activities are included in Technical Report No. 1, "Interim Study Design", Task 9 (Calibrate 1990 Model), Task 12 (Develop Alternative Modal Plans) and Task 13 (Evaluate Plans in Terms of Cost- Effectiveness and ISTEA Requirements). Status Report The 3-C planning process has traditionally considered connectivity inside and outside the transportation planning area. The travel in, out and through the metropolitan planning area is being quantified in the external origin-destination study now being conducted by the MPO. The results from this study will be used as part of model calibration and in the development of system alternatives. Coordination activities along the various jurisdictions within the MPO and particularly with INDOT's long range transportation planning efforts will continue to ensure that connectivity across the study area boundary is maintained. The coordination activity will largely be performed via the IRTC. The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor 8. External Station Study (in progress) Thoroughfares Plans for jurisdictions within the NTA. 28 FACTOR 9: MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ISTEA Definition The transportation needs identified through use of the management systems required By section 303 of this title. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: Adopt strategy for considering the output of the management systems in the 3-C process. Possible Long Term Actions: Reflect consideration of strategies identified by management systems in the LRP and in its financial plan. MPO Response The MPO will use the results of the Management Systems, when they are made available, in the areas of traffic modeling in Tasks 5 (Determine Methods for Travel Model Update) and 9 (Calibrate 1990 Model); inventories in Task 7 (Collect Roadway Data and Traffic Counts for Model Calibration); identification of deficiencies in Task 11 (Identify System Deficiencies); plan development in Tasks 12 (Develop Alternative Modal Plans), 13 (Evaluate PI= in Terms of Cost- Effectiveness and ISTEA Requirements) and 14 (Develop Future Multimodal PI=); and, development of the financial plan in Task 15 (Develop the Financial Plan) of the -Interim Study Design". It is not certain at this time if the results of the Management Systems will be available for use in the Long Range Transportation Plan update currently in progress. Status Report USC 23 section 303 titled "MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS" states miles for seven management systems for elements of the transportation system. These management systems are to be included as part of the management process specified by ISTEA. The seven management systems are: Pavement Management system (PMS) Bridge Management System (BMS) Highway Safety Management System (SMS) Traffic Congestion Management System (CMS) Public Transportation Facilities and Equipment Management System (PIMS) 29 Intermodal Facilities and Systems (IMS) Traffic Monitoring System for Highways (TMS/H) Section 500.105 titled "Policy" states: The primary purpose of the management systems is to provide additional information needed to make effective decisions on the use of limited resources. Each state shall develop, establish, and implement, on a statewide basis each of the management and monitoring systems. MPO's and agencies shall be given appropriate opportunities for involvement in the development, establishment, and implementation of the management systems. The outputs of each management system shall be integrated into the metropolitan planning process and the statewide transportation planning process and shall be considered m the development of metropolitan and statewide transportation plans and improvement programs and in making project selection. States are encouraged to use BPMS to the extent possible. The lead responsibility for responding to the section 303 requirements (except the Congestion Management System) rests with the state, however, section 500.107 titled "Coordination and Evaluation of Systems," specifies that "within all UTO areas, CMS, PTMS, and IMS shall be part of the metropolitan transportation planning process." The MPO has the lead responsibility for the Congestion Management System in cooperation with the State. Activities pertaining to Factor 9 are highlighted below: Pavement Management System (PMS) Phase I of a Pavement Management Program for the City of Indianapolis has been completed and encompassed Perry Township. The Phase H program, which covers the remainder of Marion County, is currently under contract and should be completed by December 31, 1993 (see Appendix H). As the lead agency for the development, establishment and implementation of the management and monitoring systems, INDOT is cooperating with IDOT in the preparation of the Pavement Management System. In addition, the INDOT PMS for the State of Indiana has been completed for the Interstate Highway system. INDOT maintains a state roadway inventory on its main frame computer and could become a storehouse for local jurisdictions' PMS inventories. A PMS for the year 2020 WA will be developed as part of the long range transportation plan. The first step toward preparing the WA PMS win be to combine the PMS for the City of Indianapolis with the PMS prepared by INDOT for the WA area and adopting a unified graphic display system for the new MPA. Supplemental work may be required to add those roadways 30 included in the City PMS which are not included in the INDOT PMS but should be a part of the PMS for the 2020 MPA. Bridge Management System An inventory of bridge conditions has been prepared by county within each county of the state. INDOT is using the previously collected data to prepare a BMS per the requirements of ISTEA. The output of the INDOT developed system will be used by the MPO for the year 2020 MPA and in the project selection process. Highway Management System (SMS) INDOT is the lead agency for the preparation of the SMS. A component of the system, accident occurrence data, is included in the TSM and is used in the project selection process. Also maintained by INDOT are a traffic accident records system and a highway grade crossing inventory. Congestion Management System (CMS) The "Traffic Congestion System" is the same as the "Congestion Management System' referred under the discussion of ISTEA Factor 3 of this report. Public Transportation Facilities and Equipment Management System (PTMS) INDOT is the lead agency for the preparation of the PTMS and as required by ISTEA is coordinating the effort with the MTO and the @ area recipients of FTA transit assistance programs. Development of a PTMS operating manual development is underway as part of procedures for implementing the IMS and programming projects will need to be developed as part of the long range transportation planning effort for the year 2020 MPA. INDOT in cooperation with the MPO will lead this effort. Intermodal Facilities and Systems INDOT is the lead agency for the preparation of the IMS and as required by ISTEA in coordinating the effort with the MTO and the MPO area recipients of FTA transit assistance programs. INDOT has recently begun development of the IMS. The IMS implementation and updating effort will need to be closely coordinated between INDOT, the @, and transit system federal aid recipients for the 2020 NTA as required by ISTEA. Procedures for implementing the IMS and programming IMS projects will need to be developed as part of the long range transportation planning effort for the year 2020 MPA. INDOT in cooperation with the MPO will lead this effort. 31 Traffic Monitoring System for Highways (TMS/H) INDOT is the lead agency for the preparation of the TMS/H and as required by ISTEA is coordinating the effort with the UPO programs. INDOT follows the traffic inventory guidelines which were recently approved by FEHWA. The TMS/H implementation and updating effort will need to be closely coordinated between INDOT and the MPO as required by ISTEA. The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor 9. Indianapolis Pavement Management System Scope of Work - Pavement Management Program - Phase H 1993-1995 Indianapolis Capital Improvement Program INDOT - Pavement Management Program has developed a condition survey manual and software to implement the state portions of the PMS. RMT Bridge Inventory Report (annual update) Indiana Transportation Plan INSTIP. DMT TSM INDOT SMS projects are part of the INSIP report 32 FACTOR 10: RIGHT-OF-WAY PRESERVATION ISTEA Definition Preservation of rights-of-way for construction of future transportation projects, including identification of unused rights-of- way which may be needed for future transportation corridors and identification of those corridors for which action is most needed to prevent destruction or loss. FHWA - Region 5 -Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: Adopt policy and procedures for right of way (R/W) preservation; identify potential corridors; prepare information for report to Congress due 12/18/93. Possible Long Term Actions: Adopt process for considering corridor preservation as part of land use plan updates. Prioritize and schedule projects in LRP. MPO Response Right-of-way preservation and advance right-of-way acquisition along roadway, railroad and utility corridors will be addressed as part of the update of the Long Range Transportation Plan. The need to preserve right-of-way relates to Task 12 (Develop Alternative Modal Plans), Task 14 (Develop Future Multimodal Plan) and Task 15 (Develop the Financial Plan) of the "Interim Study Design". The study design will be modified to include more specific references to the preservation of right of way. Status Report The jurisdictions within the MPO attempt to preserve rights-of-way for the purpose of implementing future thoroughfare, improvements. The preservation of right-of-way occurs as part of the development process. Generally, property owners selling permits to develop land are asked to dedicate a prescribed amount of right-of-way before a permit is issued. Right-of-way is preserved in advance of development in order to implement roadway projects more efficiently and to avoid the eventual disruption to property owners. Right-of-way standards were developed as part of the first long range transportation plan prepared by the MTO in the mid-1960's and were most recently updated in 1990. However, right-of-way preservation and the use of the standards has been left up to the individual jurisdictions. For example, in Indianapolis the amount of right-of- way to be preserved is 33 prescribed in the Official Thoroughfare Plan for Marion County which is adopted as part of Comprehensive Master Plan for Marion County. In other counties, R/W preservation based on the thoroughfare plan is strictly voluntary. There are no policies for advance right-of-way acquisition. The issue of right-of-way preservation and advance right-of-way acquisition will be incorporated in the update of the long range transportation plan. Efforts should be advanced that will ensure regional consistency in right-of-way preservation in so much as it relates to transportation facilities planing regardless of political or civil boundaries. This should result in a cooperative effort on a regional basis for the consistent preservation of right-of-way and corridors in association with and as identified in the LRP. Further actions should also address the identification of railroad and utility corridors that have potential importance as components of regional land use and transportation plans and that should be monitored for future acquisition. The reports listed below document planning efforts pertaining to Factor 10. Official Thoroughfare Plan for Marion County, Indiana, 1991 Recommendations for Revisions to the Right-of-Way Standards, 1990 Indianapolis Regional Transportation and Development Study (IRTADS), 1968 34 FACTOR 11: MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT ISTEA Definition Methods to enhance the efficient movement of freight. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: Assess access to freight terminals; involve freight entities in 3-C process. Possible Long Term Actions: Establish freight advisory council, or other mechanism identified through the lNlS for private sector involvement in 3-C process. MPO Response Freight movement will be addressed in the Long Range Transportation Plan update in Task 12 (Develop Alternative Modal Plans) and Task 14 (Develop Future Multimodal Plans). Input from the freight and trucking industry will be sought through the Community Involvement Program (Task 2). The "Interim Study Design" will be revised to include specific references to freight movement thus ensuring that it is addressed in the plan update. Status Report No comprehensive activities specific to the movement of freight are currently undertaken by the NPO. However, the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) Rail Division, has in the past made updates on a semi-annual basis to the Indiana Rail Plan. The Rail Division is currently in the process of updating the 1987 Rail Plan. The INDOT Planning Division is currently working with the Indiana University Transportation Research Center on the development of a multi-phase Commodity Flow Study that will ultimately provide corridor level commodity movement and mode split information on a statewide basis. This study will be further supplemented in later phases by information from a transportation census recently completed. There have also been studies and plans prepared for specific improvements in the movement of freight. In particular, the Indianapolis International Airport has developed and implemented plans for increased and more efficient movement of air cargo. 35 The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor II. Indianapolis Urban Goods Movement Study - December 1980 Indiana Rail Plan - last updated 1987, update in progress Indianapolis International Airport Master Plan - Feb. 1991 Indiana Commodity Flow Study - In progress, phase I complete 36 FACTOR 12: LIFE CYCLE COSTS ISTEA Definition The use of life-cycle costs in the design and engineering of bridges, tunnels, or pavement. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions. Adopt policy for consideration of life-cycle costs (i.e. operations in addition to capital) in the evaluation of needs and projects. Possible Long Term Actions: Include in the LRP's Financial Plan operating and maintenance costs of listed bridge, tunnel and pavement projects. MPO Response Development of a Financial Plan (Task 15 of the Interim Study Design) specifies the use of life-cycle costs. This methodology will ensure that alternative plans are evaluated on an equal economic basis,and that the selected Long Range Transportation Plan is cost feasible. Status Report The principles of engineering economy require all costs to be considered when evaluating the relative costs of alternative actions. The use of life-cycle costs is another way of expressing this requirement. Life-cycle costs allow dissimilar alternatives, including transit alternatives, to be compared on an even basis. An approach to using life-cycle costs would be to calculate the equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC) for the capital cost, add annual maintenance and operating costs, and add the annualized cost of periodic major reconstruction or rehabilitation needed to maintain the economic life of the facility. This approach requires assumptions to be made regarding the economic life of each capital item, and a discount rate (time value of money). The cost of major rehabilitation of roads and existing pavement has been neglected in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area when calculating the funds that are expected to be available for new roadways. Current planning documents prepared by the Indianapolis MPO do not use life-cycle costs. Only implementation costs are programmed. Likewise, INDOT documents, including INSTIP, and the Directory of Proposed Highway Projects, while including costs for items such as bridge replacement and pavement rehabilitation projects, do not include 37 life-cycle costs for new roadway projects and major improvements to roadways and bridges. Costs are listed only for implementation. The City of Indianapolis is currently developing a pavement management system which should be completed by December 31, 1993. When complete, the system will provide reliable data on the actual cost of maintaining, and reconstructing roadways for a large portion of the transportation study area. These data are expected to prove valuable for the calculation of life-cycle costs. Additional data will be provided by the statewide Pavement Management System and Bridge Management System upon their completion by INDOT. The Long Range Transportation Plan will use life-cycle costs. For each project and alternative proposed and analyzed, costs will be developed for: Engineering, right-of-way construction, and other implementation costs. Annual maintenance and operating costs. Costs of periodic major reconstruction or rehabilitation as required to ensure the project's economic life. The economic life of each element of the implementation cost will be identified. For example, the economic life of right-of-way may be 100 years, while the economic life of pavement may be less than 20 years (the pavement management system will help here). Using an assumption for the discount rate, the EUAC of each element will be calculated. Most current analyses assume a discount rate of seven percent. Annual operating maintenance costs will be calculated on the basis of current operating experience. For the Long Range Plan, periodic major reconstruction or rehabilitation is considered to be a major cost above and beyond the usual maintenance cost which is required before the end of an element's economic life. For example, if after ten years certain types of pavement needed rehabilitation according to data from the pavement management system, the cost would be annualized and added to the EUAC. On the other hand, if the assumed economic life is 20 years, and it is found that only ordinary maintenance is needed over the first 20 years, and then it is most economical to totally reconstruct the pavement, then the costs of major reconstruction would already be accounted for by using a 20 year life, a discount rate, and calculating the EUAC. This demonstrates the need for accurate local data on pavement life and rehabilitation. Use of life-cycle cost is closely related to the ISTEA requirement that the Long Range Plan be financially feasible. Only by using life- cycle costs can the true financial feasibility of the Long Range Plan be assessed. The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor 12. Pavement Management Program for Indianapolis, in progress 38 FACTOR 13: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA ISTEA Definition The overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: Outline current methods for considering economic and energy efficiency effects during project development. Adopt adequate technical process for CAA compliance. Possible Long Term Actions: Effect early consideration of these effects during corridor studies for major investment projects. Show consistence with FHWA's EPS (4/90) and coordination with SIP. MPO Response The need to consider the overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions will be reflected in the evaluation of transportation alternatives and in determining project priorities. Input on these issues will be sought in Task 2 (Community Involvement) and Task 3 (Coordinate With Applicable Federal State and Local Agencies). This input will guide the development of the plan in Task 12 (Develop Alternative Modal Plans) and Task 14 (Develop Future Multimodal Plan). More specific consideration of social, economic, energy, and environmental issues will take place in Task 13 (Evaluate Plan in Terms of Cost Effectiveness and ISTEA requirement and in Task 16 (CAAA Conformity). Status Report ISTEA requires that transportation plans and programs shall consider "the overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions." The evaluation of these factors can then be merged with transportation related and other criteria to gain an overall system evaluation. Traditionally measures of social and economic characteristics have only served to quantify the magnitude and distribution of travel demands which the transportation system is to serve. The economic benefits and disbenefits of alternative transportation systems have typically been expressed as road user costs and benefits determined from the travel demand statistics and capital cost estimates. Now transportation system costs must further consider maintenance and operational expenses as a part of life cycle considerations. (See Factor 12). 39 Also in the past, little attention was given as to how the transportation system affects social and economic conditions and influences the locational decisions about where people live and where business locate. Now, the process calls for the analysis of the reverse relationships, a recognition that social and economic locational decisions, are partially the result of accessibility created by the transportation system. Energy consumption and mobile emissions have been traditionally estimated by travel simulation models to compare alternative networks. Now, the analysis must be carried further to demonstrate that transportation improvements do not degrade air quality. Furthermore, the process must consider the effect on the full range of environmental concerns. The most basic information about the social and economic characteristics of the region is contained in various documents and is available from the U.S. Bureau of Census. The Census data is readily available, has been summarized and published in several formats including published reports, computer tapes and disks. Social and economic values of the region are expressed through the Comprehensive Plans of the various jurisdictions. The economic value of the transportation system has only been measured in terms of benefits to road users. These benefits have been estimated as a part of the traffic simulation modeling process. Likewise, the modeling process provides gross estimates of fuel consumption and mobile source emission levels. Long range transportation planning will incorporate a structured evaluation process to enable social, economic, energy and environmental criteria to be considered. Appendix I contains some possible criteria for future discussion. The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor 13. The Comprehensive Plan for Marion County, 1991 The Comprehensive Plan for Carmel, Indiana, 199_ The Comprehensive Plan for Greenwood, Indiana, 1988 The Comprehensive Plan for Hamilton County The Comprehensive Plan for Johnson County The Comprehensive Plan for Hendricks County The Comprehensive Plan for Hancock County. 1990 Census Reports A - D, DMD, 1992 Add-on to the 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, 1992 1990 Census Transportation Planning Package (Not yet Received) 40 FACTOR 14: ENHANCE TRANSIT SERVICES ISTEA Definition Methods to expand and enhance transit services and to increase the use of such services. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions: Adopt a truly multimodal (hwys. & transit) needs evaluation/funding allocation process. Show consideration of ISTEA flexibility provisions. Possible Long Term Actions: LRP to reflect CMS identified transit solutions. Adopt project development guidelines that accommodate the integration of transit and highway operations. MPO Response The Long Range Plan update will refine the transit elements for the travel model in Task 5 (Determine Methods for Travel Model Update), Task 6 (Develop Roadways and Transit Network) and Task 9 (Calibrate 1990 Model) Information on transit needs will be gathered in Task 2 (Community Involvement) and Task 3 (Coordination with Applicable Agencies). Those needs will be further identified in Task 11 (Identify System Deficiencies). Task 12 (Develop Alternative Modal Plans) and Task 14 (Develop Future Multimodal Plan) will develop transit portions of the plan. Status Report The MTO and Metro are cooperating on several projects which will enhance transit service in this area and will provide input into the update of the Long Range Transportation Plan. The MTO is the lead agency in contracting with a consulting firm to develop a strategic plan that will guide the development of a comprehensive public transportation system which is more effective and responsive to the needs of the community. The plan which is currently under way is to be completed by January, 1994. It will examine the role of Metro's fixed-route system, specialized transportation providers and other agencies/organizations that are involved in the provision of public transportation. The plan will also identify strategies for redefining services to meet the needs of the community and to better support the community's overall objectives. The plan will be flexible enough to meet changing trends and environments but specific enough to ensure that measurable results are achieved. 41 The MPO and Metro are also cooperating in the geocoding of origins and destinations of transit patrons as indicated by a June, 1993 Metro transit User Survey. As Metro gathers more direct market research data, the MPO and Metro will jointly evaluate this data. It will Also be available for the Long Range Transportation Plan update. The MPO and Metro have both been active in trying to coordinate the transportation services provided to the elderly and disabled. Much of this work has been done through the Indianapolis Area's Section 16 committee headed up by the MPO. Metro and the MPO most recently worked on a task force to develop recommendations to address issues related to Medicaid transportation. Based on the task force's recommendations, Metro is currently having discussions with the State of Indiana that may result in savings for the State and additional revenue for Metro if the Medicaid system uses Metro more extensively. If the reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor 14. Comprehensive Service Analysis for EPITC/Metro - July 1990 Strategic Plan for Public Transportation - in progress 1991 Annual Report Indiana Public Transportation - INDOT Transportation System Management (TSM Process Report - Nov 1991 Washington Street Transit Mall Study - April 1992 An Analysis of Metro's 1993 Transit User Survey - in progress 1992 Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation Annual Report 42 FACTOR 15: TRANSIT SECURITY ISTEA Definition Capital investments that would result in increased security in transit systems. FHWA - Region 5 Guidance Possible Short Term Actions Assess current transit security features of capital projects; identify needs. Possible Long Term Actions: LRP to reflect consideration of PTMS output. Adopt and implement policy for project development that ensures incorporation of the most cost effective transit security features. MPO Response Consideration of transit security will be coordinated with Metro staff under Task 3 (Coordination with Applicable Federal,State, and Local Agencies). Transit security will be considered in Task 12 (Development of Alternative Modal Plans), and Task 14 (Development of Future Multimodal Plan). Status Report There is not a current emphasis n providing for capital investments that would result in increased security in transit systems. The Comprehensive Service analysis report references inadequate conditions at park-and-ride lots including lack of lighting, telephones, shelters and other amenities. In addition, many of Metro's bus stops include nothing more than a sign on a pole and lack proper amenities such as shelters, lighting and seating. The reports listed below document the planning efforts pertaining to Factor 15. IPTC/Metro Comprehensive Service Analysis - 1990 Indianapolis Capital Improvement Program Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program (IRTIP) Transportation System Management Process Report - Nov 1991 IPTC/Metro Standards of Service Report - 1981 43 APPENDIX A STUDY REVIEW COMMITTEE INDIANAPOLIS LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE STUDY REVIEW COMMITTEE STUDY STAFF AND CONSULTANTS (Rev. 9/3/93) STUDY REVIEW COMMITTEE Lou Ann Baker Office of the Mayor 200 East Washington Street, Suite 2560 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Robert Faris, Sr. Town of Speedway 1829 Cunningham Road Speedway, IN 46224 PHONE: 317-236-6322 Ed Ferguson, Planning Director City of Greenwood 2 North Madison Avenue Greenwood, IN 46142 PHONE: 317-881-8698 FAX- 317-887-5616 Mr. Gordon Gilmer, Councilman City of Indianapolis 8621 Green Braes Indianapolis, IN 46234 PHONE: 317-291-8445 Roger Johnson, Long Range Planning Director Town of Fishers 1 Municipal Drive Fishers, IN 46038 PHONE:317-577-3507 FAX: 317-577-3505 James Maslanka IPTC/METRO P.O. Box 2383 Indianapolis, IN 46206 PHONE:317-635-2100 FAX: 317-634-6585 Study Directory Page 2 (Rev. 9/3/93) Dan Orcutt, Executive Director Indianapolis Airport Authority 2500 South High School Road, Box 100 Indianapolis, IN 46241 PHONE:317-487-5001 FAX: 317-487-5034 Walt Reeder, III, Highway Engineer Hendricks County Highway Department P.O. Box 51 Danville, IN 46122 PHONE:317-745-9236 FAX: 317-745-9347 Gunnar Rorbakken, Chief of Transportation Planning Indiana Department of Transportation Indiana Government Center North, Room 901 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 PHONE:317-232-2380 FAX: 317-232-1499 Mayor Thomas Schneider City of Lawrence 4455 McCoy Street Lawrence, IN 46226 PHONE: 317-545-6191 Tom Stevens, Director of Highways Hamilton County Highway Department 1717 East Pleasant Street Noblesville, IN 46060 PHONE:317-773-7770 FAX: 317-776-9814 Larry Tucker, P.E. Federal Highway Administration Indiana Division 575 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 PHONE:317-226-7492 317-226-7341 Study Directory Page 3 (Rev. 9/3/93) Mayor Nannett Tunget City of Southport 6901 Derbyshire Road Southport, IN 46227 PHONE: 317-881-7725 Tom Welch, Carmel City Engineer City of Carmel I Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PHONE:317-571-2441 FAX: 317-571-2426 Clay Whitmire Department of Transportation 2360 City-County Building Indianapolis, IN 46204 PHONE:317-327-4700 FAX: 317-327-4577 Mayor J. Warner Wiley City of Beech Grove 806 Main Street Beech Grove, IN 46107 317-788-4979 DMD - PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Lori Miser, Senior Planner Department of Metropolitan Development Planning Division 129 E. Market Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 PHONE:317-327-5136 FAX: 317-327-5103 Study Directory Page 4 (Rev. 9/3/93) Michael Peoni, Senior Planner Department of Metropolitan Development Planning Division 129 E. Market Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 PHONE:317-327-5133 FAX: 317-327-5103 Sweson Yang, Project Manager Department of Metropolitan Development Planning Division 129 E. Market Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 PHONE:317-327-5183 FAX: 317-327-5103 CONSULTANT TEAM Vince Berardin Berardin-Lochmueller Associates Suite 606 Hulman Building Evansville, IN 47708 PHONE:812-426-1737 FAX: 812-426-7369 Joann Green Claire Bennett Associates 5435 North Emerson, Suite 300 Indianapolis, IN 46226 PHONE:317-541-0400 FAX: 317-541-0411 David C. Hoeh, Assistant Project Manager The Corradino Group 200 South Fifth Street, Suite 300 North Louisville, KY 40202 PHONE:502-587-7221 FAX: 502-587-2636 Study Directory Page 5 (Rev. 9/3/93) Kenneth D. Kaltenbach, P.E, Project Manager The Corradino Group 200 South Fifth Street, Suite 300 North Louisville, KY 40202 PHONE: 502-587-7221 FAX-502-587-2636 James Klausmeier Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum 47 South Pennsylvania, 9th Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204-3622 PHONE:317-636-1552 FAX: 317-636-1345 Fred Sanborn, Senior Vice President Resource Planning Associates, Inc. Transportation Systems Group 6043 Gibson Street East Lansing, NH 48823 PHONE: 517-337-9436 FAX- 517-332-2547 APPENDIX B STUDY TASKS 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Interim Work Program addresses all of the ISTEA issues, provides an interim approach for meeting the October 1993 ISTEA deadlines, and a long-term approach for addressing in-depth all ISTEA requirements. Eight areas of emphasis for this study have been identified for the October 1, 1993 ISTEA deadline: Define new the Metro Planning Area Review and refinement of the existing traffic model. Clean Air Act Conformity and Congestion Management. Integration of transit planning and transit agency involvement into the Long Range Plan as required by ISTEA. Development of Financial and Capital Plans for Transportation. Defining a process for broader citizens participation. Beginning a process of Transportation Demand Management. Providing new socioeconomic data projections from the 1990 Census The Interim Work Program that follows describes all activities that should be accomplished for the project. The Products section for each task describes what part of the task will be complete for the October ISTEA deadline, and what parts will be finished either by the end of the calendar year or at a later time beyond the advertised project time and budget. The Consultant Team will develop a Technical Memorandum or Report and a briefing for each task. The City and the Consultant Team both acknowledge that the Interim Work Program described here are based on FHWA Interim Guidance on ISTEA dated April 6, 1993, and Metropolitan Planning Notice of Proposed Rule Making, as published in the Federal Register on March 2, 1993; and that changes in Guidance and Rules issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) might require changes in the scope, schedule, and budget of this project. Should such changes occur, procedures for changes in work described elsewhere in this agreement will be followed to accommodate the requirements of USDOT (see Appendixes 1, 2, 3). 1.2 TASK 1 - PURPOSE STATEMENT The purpose of Task 1 is to provide a study management structure for the effective and timely completion of the work. Accordingly, the proposed scope of services, methodology and schedule have been refined to constitute the Interim Study Design (i.e., detailed work program) for the effort. The Interim Study Design is presented in two phases of activity targeted for completion prior to October 1, 1993 and in some aspects prior to December 30, 1993. The Interim Study Design is offered for review, comment, and revision by the Study Review Committee prior to final draft and adoption. 2. PHASE I INTRODUCTION Based on the Consultant Team's recent ISTEA experiences and current responsibilities in other states to develop a restructured STIP process and link the TIP prioritized project selection process to the State Long Range Plan, the Consultant Team is especially sensitive to Phase One and Phase Two activities. These tasks will produce recommended changes to the existing modeling and programming processes in all states and UTOS. For the most part, the changes will stem from the implications inherent in the fifteen planning factors which presently are not linked to the priority list of financially feasible projects (three year period in one year increments) to be produced in the Transportation Improvement Program. This process, although introduced in the Interim Guidance on ISTEA Metropolitan Planning Requirements, is an early warning signal for adjusting the MTO suballocation process. It will require a clear linkage between the transportation objectives and planning criteria contained in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and a systematic project-ranking and priority system, which is the core ISTEA component in developing the ISTEA STIPs and TIPS. The four major components of a successful process developed in concurrence with the fifteen ISTEA planning factors will include: (1) the clear analysis and identification of transportation system and service 'needs," (2) identification of a financially feasible plan describing how the Long Range Transportation Plan can be implemented, (3) design of a restructured programming process consistent with the LRTP0 (ISTEA requirement), which enables the identification of prioritized projects (against the backdrop of ISTEA requirements), investment strategy analysis, and system and service balance and equity, and (4) the design of public, agency, and private involvement program, at the policy level to serve as a proactive review team to comment on the results of the ISTEA planning process, the technical linkages to the programming process, and the implications of the restructured process on the TIP and funding reallocations. An Interim Summary Report will be prepared at the end of Phase I activities. 2.1 TASK 1 - DETAILED STUDY DESIGN 2.1.1 Issues The Consultant Team will review the existing planning and programming processes against explicit and implicit ISTEA requirements. The results of this analysis will be employed to identify specific tasks and subtasks which need to be accomplished before October 1993, and between October 1993 and October 1994. Assessment of the impacts of the availability of the six plus management systems will be integrated within the analysis. The first of the issues relates to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and its relationship to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA). Section 134 of ISTEA requires that the development of a transportation plan in a non-attainment area must be coordinated with the process of developing transportation control measures in the air quality-related State Implementation Plan (SEP). Because of this need for coordination with the SIP planning process, a date of October 1, 1993 was established for completion of the transportation plan update. 2.1.2 Approach The Consultant Team, will develop a work program for both interim and long term elements. The interim elements will describe the immediate steps needed: (1) to update the transportation plan; (2) to satisfy the 'qualitative analysis' requirement for addressing the ISTEA factors, and (3) for achieving an initial "conformity determination by October 1, 1993. As part the interim analysis, the Consultant Team will conduct a brief analysis of the MTO's staff needs, and will provide recommendations on staffing required to meet ISTEA requirements. The long term elements will identify and describe the recommended permanent methodologies for addressing the ISTEA issues and will recommend work activities to be undertaken in future unified work programs of the agency. This aspect will require research and will, therefore, be submitted at a later date in the project. While the long term work elements will generally address quantitative, technical considerations, some qualitative work elements that deserve more time than the October 1 deadline allows will also be identified and included. It is important to note that some of the permanent ISTEA requirements are beyond the resources of this contract. In addition to focusing on such technical factors as "life cycle costs in the design and engineering of bridges", the land use and "environmental effects of transportation decisions", and the definition of the Congestion Management System, the long term work elements of the study design will focus on three other issues. The issues may be summarized as follows: In-house objectives such as sub-area analysis and modeling integration with the City's geographic information system, updated annualized forecasting capabilities, integration of the transportation planning process into a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative system. DMD staff have noted the need to upgrade in-house technical capabilities. The first relates to sub-area analysis and the second to GIS integration. The long term study design will evaluate all the reasonable options available for accomplishing these objectives and propose the most appropriate course of action. Regarding the development of a travel demand model capable of integration with the City's GIS, various intermediate options will be considered such as data transfer to a PC-based GIS designed for transportation planning applications. With regard to updating forecasting capabilities, USDOT wrote, "In the future, it is expected that the forecast period and the plan update schedule will be established so as to maintain a 20 year forecast period at all times, and that the ISTEA requirements will be fully addressed in the next update." (Italics added.) This moving forecast period will require changes in the way NTOs have maintained data sets and in their in-house forecasting capabilities. The long term study design will address proposed changes in procedural protocols and the development of in-house expertise in order to achieve enhanced forecasting skills. ISTEA requires that in the future, transportation needs should be identified through the development of six management systems relating to such diverse subjects as pavement management, bridges, traffic congestion, safety, public transportation, and intermodal considerations. At the same time, the planning process is supposed to remain "continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative". While the ultimate responsibility for these management systems rests with the State, and further, recognizing the fact that some of these "systems" require engineering (as opposed to planning) expertise, the MPO will nonetheless need to play a vital role in order to ensure that the overall process is well coordinated and remains truly "cooperative". Consequently, the long term study design will propose the formal establishment of inter-agency relationships and protocols intended to ensure that the intent of ISTEA is accomplished and that rationality in the ongoing planning process is achieved. 2.1.3 Products The end products of this work task will include: the Interim Study Design with project management and scheduling tools will guide the transportation plan update process and achieve a conformity determination by October 1, 1993. an ongoing Long Term Study Design will be prepared to guide future unified work programs, toward: (1) implementing permanent measures for addressing all the requirements of ISTEA; (2) achieving agency objectives regarding improved modeling/GIS capabilities; (3) improving in-house forecasting capabilities, and; (4) integration of the transportation planning process to meet the intent of ISTEA. 2.2 TASK 2 - COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT The Consultant Team will develop presentations to inform various levels of government, elected officials, private and public interest groups on the technical linkages between the ISTEA planning and programming process and anticipated management systems and models. These meetings will focus heavily on the long-term, sub-allocation implications of the restructured TIP process, the potentials to stratify various jurisdictional highway systems with respect to revenue responsibilities and the potential to alter the traditional jurisdictional roles for system investment and maintenance. 2.2.1 Issues Transportation Planning for the Indianapolis area in the past has had a technical focus. Travel simulation models have provided the rationale for the Thoroughfare Plan and its priorities. With few exceptions, there has been little community involvement in the Transportation Planning Process or in the establishment of the Thoroughfare Plan. By contrast, there has been a great amount of recent and meaningful Community Involvement on other, but related, public policy issues. For instance, the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce completed a thorough study and report in 1991 which outlined the infrastructure needs of Indianapolis. Also, a broadly based group of Indianapolis citizens is preparing visions and strategies for the future. The group, under the auspices of the Greater Indianapolis Progress Committee, has conducted surveys and meetings to build consensus on a variety of policy issues. The work of the group is continuing. The Indianapolis DNM has recently updated several neighborhood and Township Plans and has enlisted the involvement of citizens. The Congress of Neighborhood Organizations has been established as a communication network among neighborhood leaders and groups. Elsewhere in the transportation planning area, community involvement efforts have been made in Greenwood, Plainfield, Fishers and Carmel. The new Transportation Planning process will seek to involve the community by building upon established procedures and networks. 2.2.2 Approach The Community Involvement Process is incorporated into the study schedule, and management system. The Citizen participation Procedure will rely on established community organizations and their ongoing efforts to involve the general public, neighborhood representatives, and special interest groups. Introduction Public involvement during the preparation of the Interim Transportation Plan Update will include periodic informational bulletins and two series of five public meetings. Informational Bulletins Information four-panel bulletins will be prepared for monthly release to media, community organizations, special interest groups, and governmental officials. The list of potential recipients will be developed by the Consulting Team in consultation with the Study Committee. The format and design of the bulletin will be developed by the Consulting Team for the approval of the Study Committee. The format and design of the bulletin will bear the identification of the Policy Committee and will be issued under the signature of its Chairman and Vice-Chairman. The scheduled bulletins will discuss and illustrate the following topics: June 18: purpose of transportation plan update and announcement of public meeting schedule and sites; July 16: background information about transportation issues and announcement of public meeting schedule and sites; August 13: transportation planning procedures and announcement of public meeting schedule and sites; September 10: interim transportation plan and announcement of public meeting schedule and sites. Each camera-ready original bulletin will be submitted to the Committee which will arrange for it be to printed in required quantities and mailed. Public Meetings Two series of five similar public meetings will be conducted at various locations in the urbanized area (central, north, south, east, west). Fully accessible locations will be selected by the Committee which will be responsible for all physical arrangements including room fees, audio-visual equipment, etc. Each meeting will be conducted to encourage public participation. Displays of maps, charts, statistics and other materials will be prepared by the Consulting Team and made available to participants. The first series of five similar meetings will be conducted during evening hours of the week beginning July 19th to provide information about the transportation planning process and to elicit comments about regional transportation issues. Each meeting will be hosted by a public official who will introduce the Consulting Team. The Consulting Team will make all presentations and conduct the meetings according to the following agenda: 1. Introduction of Participants 10 minutes 2. Discussion of Transportation Planning Process 30 minutes a. Regional Growth and Development Process b. Metropolitan Planning Organization and Area c. Regional Travel Patterns and Demands d. Regional Transportation Network and Relationship to Planning Process e. Transportation Funding f. ISTEA Requirements and Implications 3. Small Group Discussions 30 minutes a. Identify Most Critical Transportation Issues b. Suggest Ways to Resolve Critical Issues 4. Reconvene Large Group 30 minutes a. Reports of Small Groups b. Discussions and Interactions 5. Conclusions and Wrap Up 10 minutes The second series of five public meetings will be conducted during the evening hours of the week beginning September 20th to provide information about the Interim Transportation Plan and to elicit comments about it. Each meeting will be hosted by a public- official who will introduce the Consulting Team. The Consulting Team will make all presentations and conduct the meetings according to the following agenda: 1. Introduction of Participants 10 minutes 2. Presentation of Interim Plan 30 minutes a. Critical Issues b. Resolution of Critical Issues 1. Policies 2. Plan Components 3. Funding 4. Project Selection Criteria 5. Priorities 3. Small Group Discussions 30 minutes a. Evaluation and Comment Regarding 1. Policies 2. Plan Components 3. Funding 4. Project Selection Criteria 5. Priorities 4. Reconvene Large Group 30 minutes a. Reports of Small Groups b. Discussions and Interaction 5. Conclusions and Wrap Up 10 minutes 2.2.3 Products Concise presentations will be prepared for all meetings of the various committees. Technical Memoranda and Interim Summary Reports will be circulated in advance of each meeting. All Memoranda and Reports will include both graphic and tabular displays to convey information in a "user friendly" style. The proceedings of each meeting will be documented, summarized, and considered in the conduct of the work. 2.3 TASK 3 - COORDINATE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES 2.3. Issues Both ISTEA (24 U.S.C 134) and CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401) require consultation with all potentially affected agencies and units of government in the development of a long range urban transportation plan. This coordination is intended to ensure that the social, economic and environmental concerns of these agencies are addressed in the plan in addition to transportation concerns. 2.3.2 Approach Three parallel agency consultation efforts will be undertaken in developing the long range transportation plan. At a minimum, these will include: (1) letter contact with all affected Federal and State agencies at the outset of the project requesting a written reply within a specified number of days; (2) continuous consultation with the Indiana Department of specified Environmental Management for all work tasks relating to SIP coordination and conformity determination, and; (3) ongoing consultation with representatives from the local units of government subsumed in the expanded study area. The rationale behind establishing letter contact with all potentially affected state and federal agencies is primarily to document the fact that these agencies have been given an opportunity to provide input into the planning process. It is recommended that the list used for "early coordination in the federal environmental review process (pursuant to EPA regulations) be used for this purpose. The difference between this and the environmental early coordination process is that the solicitation letter will not request input on an individual project, but rather will invite the agency to provide areas of concern (both geographic and issue-related) that they would like to see incorporated into the project evaluation process. The agency responses will become project evaluation criteria. Since the agency designated to update the State Implementation Plan is the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, close contact will be maintained throughout with this agency. Data requirements and methodological considerations pertaining to SIP coordination and the plan's air quality conformity determination will be developed in consultation with this agency. Additionally, local units of government will be contacted to ascertain input relative to project identification and preferences. The membership of the Study Review Committee will be inclusive and will provide an ongoing forum for project and issue related input. Finally, as the last year demonstrates, the planning and programming schedules for implementing ISTEA have slipped, at least for the near term. The principal areas of concern are: (1) the issuance of federal guidelines and the timing of them, (2) development of adaptation recommendations, and (3) the role of turn-key management system (models). The Consultant Team, through its contacts in the Washington transportation network, will continue to provide early insight and intelligence of federal directions for integration within the Indianapolis ISTEA program. Contact will also be maintained with the Indiana DOT with respect to their critical schedules, SLRIT and SIP development, and management system (model) implementation, such as the FHWA supplied Bridge Management System (PONTIS). 2.3.3 Products The products of this task will be the necessary agency coordination and a Technical Memorandum detailing the coordination process. All coordination activities described in this task will be accomplished during the 1993 calendar year as part of this contract. 2.4 TASK 4 - DETERMINE THE BOUNDARY OF THE NEW STUDY AREA 2.4.1 Issues This task will determine the extent of the urbanized area to be included within the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area for the purposes of the Long Range Transportation Plan Update. The Metropolitan Planning Area will include all areas which are anticipated to be urbanized by the 2020 target year. The Planning Area will determine, among other things, the limits of the travel demand model and inventories and projections of transportation facilities and socioeconomic data. Decisions will incorporate both measurable factors such as anticipated housing and employment densities, as well as political factors such as definitions of governmental jurisdictions eligible and willing to participate in the planning process. 2.4.2 Approach The Consultant Team will use decision theoretic to gauge the probabilities of population changes over the next twenty years in areas surrounding the 1990 urbanized area. Important inputs to this analysis will be 1990 Census data, and the location of the stations for the external O-D survey being conducted by TCG. The entire decision process will be coordinated with DMD staff, and with local agencies to determine which areas should be included in the Metropolitan Planning Area. In addition, matrices of benefits and liabilities to both groups (the City of Indianapolis and the proposed new areas) will be systematically assessed. This analysis will require significant coordination with all governmental jurisdictions that may be included in the area. The process of defining the Planning Area will follow ISTEA requirements. 2.4.3 Products The primary product of this task will be the definition of the Metropolitan Planning Area. A Technical Memorandum documenting the decision process will be produced. This task will be accomplished before the October ISTEA deadline. 2.5 TASK 5 - DETERMINE METHODS FOR TRAVEL MODEL UPDATE 2.5.1 Issues The purpose of this task is to establish the procedures that will be used to update the travel demand model in later tasks. It is expected that this task will identify short-term and long-term update programs. Major issues that will be addressed in this task include the fundamental decision on whether to maintain the based model or to convert the model to TRANPLAN. In the short-term will be used to update the travel model. Other major issues would be short-term model and network improvements, the need for surveys, development of transit networks, development of a mode choice model and transit assignment techniques, and integration of the modeling system with IMAGIS or other GIS programs. 2.5.2 Approach The Consultant Team will work closely with the DMD staff to determine the best procedures to update the travel demand model to meet ISTEA requirements. SOFTWARE MINUTP model should be maintained at least for the short-term activities that need to be accomplished for the 1993 calendar year. A model conversion effort during this time period would not greatly improve the transportation planning effort, and could delay time- critical products. There could be some long-term benefits to converting to TRANPLAN as its used becomes more widespread throughout the State, and as the Indiana Department of Transportation develops support capabilities for TRANPLAN. Other factors could include the need to move the model to OS/2 or a RISC machine as the Metropolitan Planning Area increases in size. The Consultant Team will work with the DMD staff to weigh the advantages and costs of conversion, and will make a recommendation on whether and when to convert the model. TRANSIT MODELS Other modeling decisions could be either long-term or short-term. ISTEA has placed a greater emphasis on multimodal planning. Thus, long-term activities should expand the model to include a transit modeling capability, and a policy-sensitive auto occupancy model for evaluating high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Development of new mode choice model for Indianapolis would require a series of surveys to determine local elasticities and other model constants. To do this a three step process is advised. The first step would be to include transit planning as a manual process for the October 1, 1993 ISTEA deadline. During this time, transit planning data could be assembled, service areas could be delineated, and strategic planning for expansion of services could be developed. At the same time, coding could begin for the existing transit system. The next step could be to put into place a borrowed mode choice model. The third step would be to begin planning for a new mode choice survey and model development. This step could begin after October. The main consideration for whether a new model and survey are needed will be the need to seriously consider fixed guideway transit. The Consultant Team will work closely with the DMD staff to determine whether a new mode choice model and surveys should be pursued. HIGHWAY NETWORKS This effort will determine the extent of the highway network and data requirements. The major input into this task will be the limits of the Metropolitan Planning Area from Task 4. Additionally, the general methods for coding highway networks and HOV networks will be reviewed. Methods for coding HOV networks will be coordinated with plans for mode choice and auto occupancy models. As a long-range effort, the Consultant Team will evaluate the advantages and level of effort required to link highway coding efforts to a GIS. Short-range activities will be limited to defining the effort needed to meet the October I ISTEA deadline. SURVEYS AND DATA DEVELOPMENT As part of the model updating effort, the Consultant Team will evaluate the extent and quality of all data sources and surveys on which the model is based. At a minimum the Consultant Team will define the updates to the existing model data for the newly defined Metropolitan Planning Area that need to be made for the analysis which must be completed by October 1993. Data requirements for other proposed (transit and HOV) models also will be assessed. Methods for forecasting data to 2020 also will be evaluated. A method for forecasting trip generation data developed by TCG, called the Simplified Land Allocation Model (SLAM), will be considered during this effort. For the long term, the Consultant Team will evaluate the modeling stream and its underlying data to determine whether new data should be collected. Potential sources for updating models, such as the CTTIP also will be considered. Recommendations for long-term data collection procedures will be made. The Consultant Team also will make recommendations on using SLAM or other procedures to evaluate the impact of new transportation facilities on land use. Finally, the Consultant Team will examine all aspects of the model to determine if short or long-term update or revision efforts are needed. The entire model chain, including trip generation (trip generation rates), trip distribution (average trip lengths and trip length frequency distribution), and highway assignment (capacity restraint techniques and speed/capacity assumptions) will be examined. 2.5.3 Products The product of this task will be a Technical Report that describes in detail the needed model development activities. The report will provide a plan for the short-term activities to be completed during the calendar year, and will provide recommendations for long-term modeling activities. Recommendations will describe methods and will include a detailed schedule and cost estimate of activities. The Technical Report will be complete during the 1993 calendar year as part of this contract. 2.6 TASK 6 - DEVELOP ROADWAY AND TRANSIT NETWORK AND TRAFFIC ZONES 2.6.1 Issues The purpose of this task is to develop the highway and transit network and to extend the zone system to encompass the entire Metropolitan Planning Area. It will involve a review of the existing highway network, adding network in the expanded area, coding an entirely new transit network, expanding the zone system to cover the expanding area, and possibly subdividing existing zones. 2.6.2 Approach Based on the extent of the Metropolitan Planning Area, and the proposed methods for model update as defined in earlier tasks, the Consultant Team will develop new highway and transit networks and traffic zones. The highway network will be expanded to cover all major roadways in the expanded area. Functional classifications of the roads will be examined to ensure consistency between the revised network and the existing network. It is expected that the network will be developed in MINUTP format, and NETVUE will be used for editing and display. Plots of the network will be developed on Calcomp plotter, the plots will display network data, providing a convenient method for verifying network attributes. The transit network will be developed from existing bus schedules. Both peak period and midday networks will be coded to allow proper representation of existing bus service. Resulting bus VMT, VHT, and peak fleet requirements from the network will be compared to Section 15 statistics to ensure that the model provides an accurate representation of transit supply. Care will be taken to properly represent reasonable exit speeds for each operating period, and to ensure consistency with the highway network. Changes in the zone system will be made after establishing the changes in the highway network because the network should define zonal boundaries. Two types of zonal changes will be made. The first will be the extension of the zone system in the expanded Metropolitan Planning Area. Zones will be delineated to be bounded by roadways and to follow political and Census boundaries. The second will be the subdivision of existing zones. This will occur in areas where new roads or increased densities prevent the existing zone system from adequately representing current and expected travel conditions. Standard practice will be followed in the definition of zones: homogeneity, honoring physical and political boundaries, and proper centroid loading of the roadway network. 2.6.3 Products The products of this task will be a revised highway network and zone system, and a new transit network for the Metropolitan Planning Area. The networks will be in MINUTP format, and plotted maps. The zone system will be developed in a computerized form such as Autocad or Atlas GIS, and will be plotted. Network development and zone structuring activities will be completed during the 1993 calendar year. A Technical Memorandum will be produced describing zone and network development all of these activities will be completed as part of this contract. 2.7 TASK 7 - COLLECT ROADWAY DATA AND TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION 2.7.1 Issues A new travel simulation model will be developed for the expanded transportation planning area. The model will rely on 1990 U.S. Census data to provide social and economic data for trip generation and distribution formulas. The simulated travel patterns will be calibrated against actual travel patterns as measured by traffic counts. Therefore, 1990 traffic counts will be required throughout the entire Study Area to enable the travel simulation model to be calibrated. 2.7.2 Approach Traffic counts within the Study Area are conducted routinely by the State, most localities, and several consultants. Traffic counting records will be collected from these sources for the years 1987 through 1992. The records from permanent traffic counting stations will be used to develop procedures for adjusting all traffic counts of a common 1990 year to correspond with U. S. Census data. All traffic counts will be plotted on maps and reviewed for reasonableness. Additional adjustments to individual counts will be made based on particular localized development conditions. Additional traffic counts may be required and will be requested from localities, and will be adjusted to represent 1990 values. 2.7.3 Products The products of this work will include: maps and tabulations of all traffic counts collected from agencies and consultants; documentation of procedures used to adjust counts to common 1990 basis; maps and tabulations of 1990 traffic counts; tabulations of traffic counts along various screenlines (rivers, political boundaries, etc.) separating distinct parts of the Study Area; tabulations of traffic counts along various cordon lines around distinct sub-areas (regional center, major generators, etc.). All traffic counts and roadway data will be collected and assembled during the 1993 calendar year. A Technical Memorandum will be developed to describe data collection. Additionally, a comprehensive Technical Report describing all Phase I activities will be prepared. All of these activities will be accomplished as part of this contract. 3. PHASE 11 Phase II activities cover the actual development of data and plans. The strategy is to assemble a qualitative plan for the October ISTEA deadline, to calibrate a 1990 model based on existing survey data by the end of the 1993 calendar year as part of this contract. An Interim Report on all Phase E activities will be produced as part of this contract. 3.1 TASK 8; - UPDATE 1990 AND 2020 ZONAL DATA 3.1.1 Issues It will be necessary to identify traffic forecasting variables that can be accurately measured and predicted for the region, the study area and its various sub-areas and traffic zones. A variety of resources, including U.S. Census and IMAGIS, are available. Procedures will be designed and clearly documented to use these resources to effectively quantify 1990 conditions and to provide insights of recent changes in development patterns and characteristics. The future characteristics of the region are linked to political and economic policies that may be national or global in scope. The form, shape, and extent of development and redevelopment activities within the region will be affected by market forces and by local governmental policies and initiatives. Inter-regional relocational decisions will become more significant as existing housing, buildings and infrastructure become functionally obsolete. The difficult issues is to envision the future of the region and to quantify that vision in terms of statistics that provide a realistic description of the form, shape, extent, and character of the future developed environment. 3.1.2 Approach The inventory and forecast of social and economic data will involve three steps: an analysis of the significant changes that have occurred between 1980 and 1990; a thorough inventory of 1990 characteristics; the forecast of future characteristics. The analysis of significant changes will rely on 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census data. It will be the objective of this analysis to quantify the changes that have occurred within the region, sectors, districts and zones. These changes will be compared with forecasts prepared in 1986 to validate or invalidate the forecasting assumptions and procedures used at that time. In particular, areas will be categorized in terms of their rates of decline or growth. A thorough inventory of 1990 social and economic characteristics will be prepared. It is recognized that much of the data will be available from the block files of the U.S. Census which will provide information about the numbers and characteristics of people and their residences. Non-residential measures, however, are not available from the U.S. Census. Therefore, secondary sources will be used to measure non- residential activity. Census and other data will be aggregated into common blocks, block groups, zones, districts and sectors. In addition, employment data for 1990 will be obtained from the Indiana Employment Security Division (IESD). This data will be compared with the 1990 Census 'journey to work' data, if available, and the discrepancies noted. It is important because of the discrepancies to establish correspondence between the Census and the EESD data and to make adjustments accordingly. The future vision of the region will be defined in collaboration with local groups and agencies through the Citizen Involvement Process. The quantification of the regional vision in broad terms of employment and population, will be done in consultation with the Indiana Department of Commerce, the Indiana State Board of Health, the Indiana University School of Business and others who are actively engaged in demographic and economic studies. The regional forecasts will be used as an overall control of the population and economic factors that will then be allocated to jurisdictions, sectors, districts and zones within the Study Area. The allocation process will be performed in a stepwise manner to assure that regional control totals are maintained. The allocation process will be accomplished in cooperation with the Working Committee and will recognize the local land use plans and policies of the various jurisdictions. The allocation process will refer to the 'analysis of change," described previously, as well as analyses of vacant lands and their propensities for development. In this regard, IMAGIS and other mapping sources will be interrogated. Throughout the forecasting and allocation process, consultation and advice will be sought from knowledgeable groups, individuals and agencies. 3.1.3 Products Two types of product will be produced: A Technical Memo to thoroughly document the analyses of change, the 1990 characteristics, and the future forecasts. The Report will describe all procedures and assumptions, and will tabulate and illustrate the results. _________________________ a See Socio-Economic Forecasts, Year 2005; Technical Memorandum 7, Parts A, B and C; prepared for Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development by Pflum, Klausmeier & Gehram Consultants; 1986. Data files in formats suitable for use in the traffic model and for other planning purposes. Record structures will provide for levels of aggregation required for system-wide as well as for sub-areas, subject to the demands and capabilities of the recommended model. Both products will be produced within the scope of this contract. 3.2 TASK 9 - CALIBRATE 1990 MODEL 3.2.1 Issues The purpose of this task is to calibrate a 1990 multimodal model that can be used to test highway and transit alternatives as required by ISTEA, based on methods and data assembled in earlier tasks. 3.2.2 Approach Model calibration will be conducted in two phases. The first phase will encompass the development of a 1990 travel demand model for the expanded area based on data assembled in earlier tasks, but without extensive surveys. These activities will be completed by the end of 1993 as part of this contract. The second phase might require survey data, would extend beyond the calendar year, and would be accomplished as part of future contracts. For the short-term the Consultant Team will conduct a 1990 validation of the travel model for the expanded area. Elements of the validation will include: Development of highway and transit networks for the expanded study area as described earlier. Examination of the trip generation model. If data become available from the 1990 CRP or other local sources, these data will be used to modify trip rates in the trip generation model. The trip length frequency distribution and average trip length will be assessed. Again, minor modifications could be made on the basis of the 1990 CTPP or other local data. Integration of the results of the external O-D survey that is being conducted by the Corradino Group. Modifications will be made to the external-external and external-internal trip tables and procedures. Mode choice and transit models will be incorporated into the model stream. A model will be borrowed from another area and updated to fit Indianapolis conditions. The transit model will provide a transit assignment capability for Indianapolis. Validation of the highway assignment process. This will assess the capacity-restraint procedure, and could require adjustments to the trip generation and distribution model elements. Validation of the highway assignment model will include comparison of volumes and counts for screenlines and cutlines; calculation of percent root-mean-square-error (RMSE) for @ with counts for volume groups and by type of facility and land use; and comparison of counted versus assigned VMT by type of facility and land use. It is expected that these activities will be completed as part of this contract. For the long term, the Consultant Team will implement the long-term recommendations developed in Task 5. Activities include: Redevelopment of the trip generation and trip distribution models based on local survey data. Development of a mode choice model using elasticities from local surveys. Integration of all network data into a comprehensive GIS/data base system. Conversion of the MINUTP-based model to operate using other software, if this is determined to be desirable. As explained earlier, long-term modeling activities are expected to extend beyond 1993 and beyond the time and financial resources of this contract. 3.2.3 Products The products of this task will be a calibrated multimodal travel demand model in the framework, a Technical Report documenting model development a Users Manual, and technical training for DMD staff. These activities would be completed by the end of 1993 as part of this contract. The model will be a "turn-key' operation for the Division's PC Local Area Network. For the long-term, additional model development activities would occur. Documentation and training also would be provided, but these activities would extend beyond 1993 as part of future contracts. 3.3 TASK 10 - DEVELOP 2020 HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT NETWORKS-AND ASSIGN 3.3.1 Issues The purpose of this task will be to develop and code the 2020 highway and transit networks and produce highway and transit assignments. Activities in this task will include developing the existing-plus- committed (E+C) conditions and Interim Plan networks identified. This task also will include development of all future year model input data not covered in other tasks. It is expected that these activities will occur on a path separate from the development of a plan to meet the October ISTEA deadline. 3.3.2 Approach The Consultant Team will develop and run the future year alternatives. This will include alternative highway and transit networks, and the E+C condition. Major activities for this task will include: Development of E+C highway and transit networks. The Consultant Team will work with DMD staff to determine the extent of the highway and transit systems which are committed and for which funding has been identified. These networks will be coded, and a 2020 model run will be made to identify deficiencies. The Interim Plan alternative will be coded and tested. This will be the alternative assembled for the October ISTEA deadline. Model results for the Interim Plan are not expected by October 1, but would be produced before the end of the calendar year. Model runs will be made in the framework. Evaluation data will be produced in the form of listing and plots. Types of evaluation data could include: Listings and color-coded plots of volumes, capacities, V/C ratios. Listings and plots of bus boardings and line volumes. V/C listings for screenlines and cutlines. VMT and VHT estimates. Additionally, the Consultant Team will add procedures to the model for estimating construction and right-of-way costs keyed on link-by-link construction codes, and for estimating emissions of air pollutants. These procedures will be applied as part of this task to allow evaluation of costs and air quality conformity. 3.3.3 Products Products of this task will be the travel forecast associated with the E+C and Interim Plan alternative, and modeling data that will be used for evaluation. The Consultant Team will develop a standard model log for recording the details of each run and presenting model results. A log will be completed for each model run. Model output for the E+C network and the Interim Plan alternative will be completed as part of this contract. 3.4 TASK 11 - IDENTIFY SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES 3.4.1 Issues The purpose of this task is to identify roadway and transit deficiencies in the E+C and Interim Plan to guide the development of alternative Long Range Plans. 3.4.2 Approach The Consultant Team will identify highway and transit deficiencies for the E+C and Interim Plans in terms of major roadway links, screenlines, and cutlines expected to be overloaded in the 2020 target year. Data for this analysis will be produced by the travel model. The Consultant Team will work with the DMD staff and the committee structure to define standards for level-of-service and V/C ratios, as well as transit service standards and vehicle loading standards. The goal here will be to establish a consistent procedure for identifying roadway and transit improvement needs at the transportation systems level. Considerable emphasis will be placed on maintaining the quality of service on existing facilities. Using the data from the model runs, the Consultant Team will produce a deficiencies memorandum for each alternative. The deficiency memo will illustrate for each alternative V/C ranges for roadways in the network, and transit service levels and any expected overloading problems. These memos will form the basis for developing and refining alternative plans. 3.4.3 Products The primary product of this task will be an assessment of highway and transit capacity and service deficiencies for the E+C and Interim Plans as documented in a standard memorandum for each alternative. This assessment will be completed as part of this contract for the E+C and Interim Plan networks. 3.5 TASK 12 - DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE MODAL PLANS 3.5.1 Issues The purpose of this task is to develop alternative multimodal transportation plans that meet ISTEA requirements, and respond to the deficiencies that would be identified in Task 11. The development of alternative modal plans will follow ISTEA guidelines for Major Metropolitan Transportation Investments. Like several other tasks, this task will be developed at two levels. During the first level the Consultant Team will work with the DMD staff, and local agencies within the expanded Metropolitan Planning Area to assemble the exiting Thoroughfare Plan and current local plans into an Interim Plan to meet the October 1993 ISTEA deadline. The interim plan also will address transit, bicycle facilities, pedestrians, transportation system management TSM), transportation demand management (TDM), and transportation enhancement improvements in a strategic and qualitative manner. The Interim Plan will not be tested with the travel model before October, but an estimate of the cost will be made so as to deal with ISTEA financial and priority requirements. The second level will provide a complete assessment of all modes, and will have the benefit of the multimodal travel forecasting model. The detailed descriptions of the individual modal plans will be implemented in the second level of planning. Work on the project covered in this contract will include developing and running 2020 models for the Interim Plan and the E+C network. Major revisions of the Interim Plan and the development of detailed modal plans for transit, bicycles, pedestrians, TDM, and enhancements will extend beyond the schedule and budget for this contract. 3.5.2 Approach HIGHWAY ELEMENT The highway element of the plan will take into consideration all highway projects whether funded privately or publicly. Interim Plan. An Interim Plan will be developed to meet the ISTEA October deadline. The Interim Plan will be a combination of the adopted Thoroughfare Plan and other local plans to include all of the expanded Metropolitan Planning Area. The Consultant Team will work with the DMD staff, local planning agencies, and the committee structure to identify projects, priorities, and expected costs, so that projects included in the Interim Plan can be balanced with expected financial resources. The Interim Plan also will include an overview and qualitative assessment transit, bicycle, pedestrian, TDM, and enhancement improvements. The Interim Plan will be evaluated in terms of cost-effectiveness and ISTEA requirements in Task 13, and financial plan will be developed as described in Task 15. Long-term Highway Alternatives. Using the Interim Plan as a starting point the Consultant Team will develop alternative highway plans to address the highway service and capacity deficiencies identified in Task 11. Each alternative plan will use different approaches to adding the needed highway capacity in selected corridors and across major screenlines and cutlines. Long-term highway alternatives could include corridor and subarea studies. Some alternatives will include major capital improvements while others will focus on management of existing highway assets. Highway alternatives will be coordinated with transit and TDM strategies. For example, a low-capital highway alternative could be combined with greatly increased transit service and TDM options; while a high-capital highway alternative could be paired with modest increases in transit service and minimum TDM program. The long term highway element also will consider goods movement, preservation of right-of-way, and connectivity between urban and rural areas. As part of this contract the Consultant will work with DMD staff to initiate the development of alternative highway plans. Development of the alternatives will consist of a qualitative description of alternatives that appear to be appropriate for Indianapolis based on an assessment of the Interim Plan. Complete development of the alternatives, including network development, is beyond the time and budget resources of this contract. TRANSIT ELEMENT ISTEA places a greater emphasis on transit planning than earlier federal programs. To meet the October ISTEA deadline the Consultant Team will perform a qualitative evaluation of transit services. This evaluation will integrate any existing transit planning activities into the overall transportation planning program, and will identify possible strategies and opportunities for the expansion and improvement of transit service in the area. The Consultant team will add an initial transit modeling capability to the travel modeling. This will include coding the existing transit network and borrowing a mode-choice model, and adapting it for Indianapolis and MINUTP. This effort will not be on the critical path of the October ISTEA deadline, but will produce a transit model as part of this contract. For the longer term, beyond the scope of this contract, detailed analysis should be conducted as mandated by ISTEA. These should include Transportation Control Measures (TCMS) in support of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) which rely on and are related to transit planning activities. A qualitative analysis of these issues will be conducted as part of this contract. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT The Interim Plan will describe a program of TDM strategies which must be considered for Indianapolis as required by ISTEA and the CAAA. The Interim Plan will provide a "shopping list" of programs, and will comment on the activities which appear to be promising for Indianapolis. Following is a discussion of three levels of TDM programs, which could be considered. A wide range of TDM options are available for consideration. First, these options cut across all modes of transportation. Second, transportation demand management options can be categorized as either actions to influence the choice of mode or to shift the period of demand or as either actions to avoid congestion or to mitigate congestion. Third, the options tend to involve little capital investment and focus on the policy components of the transportation system. Finally, successful transportation demand management training programs must have three components: a legal basis, incentives and parking policy. In communities with successful programs, the Clean Air Act Amendments have provided the legal underpinning and compulsion for TDM'S. The first TDM program would include voluntary activities such as: Improved traffic signal timing. Growth management to encourage development to go where the roadway infrastructure is adequate. Traffic impact studies to identify needed improvements and responsibilities to support development. Elimination of parking subsidies for employees. Marketing effort to major employers to provide information and incentives relative for modal shift such as ridesharing, vanpooling, transit subsidies/passes/vouchers, etc. Rideshare program. Vanpool program. Inclusion of features for alternative modes in site design. Alternative work hours for hourly and salary employees. Freeway incident management program. The second TDM program would continue to include voluntary activities, but would include capital investments such as: Interconnection of traffic signals in major corridors. Traffic impact fees. Negotiated demand management agreements. Provision of off-site improvements necessitated by development. Require preferential parking for high occupancy vehicles. Require major employer participation in transit voucher program. General policy to control the location, supply and pricing of parking in downtown. The third TDM program would include mandatory activities as well as capital investments such as: Computerized control of traffic signal system. Adequate transportation facilities ordinances. Trip reduction ordinances. Mandatory designation of preferential parking for high occupancy vehicles. Specific policies to locate parking on the perimeter of downtown, to limit the supply of off-street parking for employees and to control the price of parking. As mentioned earlier, for this contract TDM win be addressed in a qualitative manner, producing a "shopping list" of measures that could be appropriate for Indianapolis. BICYCLE ELEMENT The Interim Plan will integrate any existing bicycle plans into the long-range planning process as part of this contra@ and will outline a procedure that would be used in subsequent contracts for bicycle planning as required by the multimodal aspects of ISTEA. Following is a discussion of typical steps in a bicycle planning process. The bicycle transportation planning process is similar to the processes used for other elements in long-range planning, except insofar as its user base is distinct. For this reason community involvement is a key element of developing a long-range plan. The following process may be used to develop a long-range plan: 1. Organize for the planning process. 2. Identify community issues and needs. 3. Define goals and objectives. 4. Collect base data. 5. Identify existing and potential users. 6. Identify needs, opportunities, and constraints. 7. Establish major demand corridors and focal points. 8. Use established planning principles and design and location criteria. 9. Develop alternative plans. 10. Use evaluation process and criteria. 11. Evaluate alternative plans and recommend preferred plan. 12. Adopt plan. 13. Develop phasing and implementation plan. The procedure described above is an idealized plan and would require significant dedication of resources. The process can be simplified insofar as identification of community needs and data collection. Contact with identifiable user groups and identification of major bicycle generators is a significant first step in achieving an overall approach to a plan. PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT The Interim Plan will bring any existing pedestrian plans and planning activities into the long-range planning process. Activities in this contract will be limited to integrating existing plans into the Interim Plan. Ultimately, in subsequent contracts, more detailed pedestrian planning activities should be pursued to support the multimodal requirements of ISTEA. Following is a discussion of typical pedestrian planning activities. Development of the pedestrian element of the long-range plan would have a focus on the central business district and pedestrian facilities as links between major generators in the transit system. With respect to the downtown, where the existing sidewalk network provides universal multi-directional opportunities for pedestrian access, the focus would be on general planning principles related to street furniture, sidewalk widths, and locations known to be hazardous to pedestrians. The second element of a downtown pedestrian plan could relate to the potential for extension of a second-level pedestrian system There are many important issues in development of such a system related to ownership, maintenance, hours of operation, who can use the system, and access to the street level. These issues are unique and distinct from issues related to pedestrian activity at the street level. The other significant element of a pedestrian plan, applying on a regional level relate to planning principles and requirements of site development. For example, typical developments are set well away from major arterials such that transit users are forced to walk significant distances to their final destinations. Frequently, there is little accommodation for the pedestrian in making these connections. Site development and zoning requirements would be examined to determine what sort of changes could be made to benefit pedestrians without restricting or constraining development. Applications could be to retrofit existing facilities by enhancing pedestrian connections and by changing requirements for new developments. The process for developing such a plan would have to include significant representation by the private sector. In the case of the downtown, this could be the Chamber of Commerce, business associations representing the downtown or various subgroups representing portions of the downtown. Regarding new development, it would be wise to invite representatives of the building and development community to incorporate their views of the best way to improve access by pedestrians to their developments. 3.5.3 Products Products of this task will be an Interim Plan to meet the October ISTEA deadline. The Interim Plan will be completed by October 1993, and will contain elements of the Official Thoroughfare Plan, and existing plans from newly-added areas of the Metropolitan Planning Area. The Interim Plan also will include a qualitative assessment that will establish the direction of and opportunities for intermodal and multimodal transportation planning. 3.6 TASK 13 - EVALUATE PLANS IN TERMS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND ISTEA REQUIREMENTS 3.6.1 Issues The purpose of this task is to provide an evaluation process for choosing the best multimodal transportation plan for Indianapolis. The evaluation process will be put into place as part of this contract, and the Interim Plan will be evaluated. The emphasis of the evaluation process will be to minimize system deficiencies and maximize the use of existing facilities as mandated by ISTEA, and cost-effectiveness. The role of the Consultant Team will be to develop evaluation data, develop handouts and presentations, and provide an evaluation framework for integrating the modal plans. 3.6.2 Approach The Consultant will work with the DMD staff and the MPO committees to develop a formal evaluation process. The Consultant Team will develop a traditional approach based on goals and objectives, and a ranking system. If desired by the DMD staff, TCG's Ranker/Rater/Valuer evaluation system could be put into place. This procedure is operational on a microcomputer and can be executed during meetings of the NTO committees. Major steps in the evaluation process include: (1) Develop a set of goals and objectives for the multimodal plan. The starting point for this process will be the MPO's existing goals and objectives. (2) Define the required evaluation data. The Consultant team will prepare a technical memorandum describing how evaluation data to support each goal category will be calculated. Care will be taken to ensure that all ISTEA requirements are met, and that cost-effectiveness measures are included. The evaluation process will consider the social economic, energy, and environmental effects of the plans. A Technical Report on the Evaluation Methodology will be produced. (3) Meet with the MTO committees to determine the relative importance for each group of transportation goals. (4) Run the model for each alternative and calculate evaluation data according to the procedure described in the Technical Report. (5) Organize the evaluation data for presentation to the committees. the evaluation data will be organized to illustrate the degree to which each multimodal alternative meets each goal. Evaluation materials will include matrices, maps, and text. (6) Meet with the committees to score the alternatives. A typical approach would be to solicit input from all MTO committees, but to use the Technical Committee and MTO staff (DMD) to rate the alternatives. 3.6.3 Products Products of this task will be a Technical Memorandum describing the evaluation/plan selection process. The Interim Plan will be evaluated as part of this contract. 3.7 TASK 14 - DEVELOP FUTURE MULTIMODAL PLAN 3.7.1 Issues The purpose of this task is to refine the Interim Plan identified in Task 12 to form the recommended 2020 Long Range Multimodal Transportation Plan. It is likely that revisions to the plan will be made based on input from the NEPO committees, deficiencies identified in the evaluation process, coordination required between the modal plans, and financial resources identified in Task 15. It should be noted that the resulting plan will still be an Interim Plan. 3.7.2 Approach The Consultant Team will assemble data from the evaluation process to refine the recommended plan. The travel demand models will be applied to verify that all deficiencies have been corrected to the degree financially feasible and possible for an Interim Plan. Following the refinement of the Plan, the Consultant Team will assist the DNID staff in presenting the Plan to the NFPO for approval, and presenting the plan at a public hearing. 3.7.3 Products The product of this task will be the adopted 2020 Long Range Multimodal Transportation Plan. A Technical Report will describe the development of the plan. The adoption of the Interim Long Range Plan probably will occur as part of this contract. 3.8 TASK 15 - DEVELOP THE FINANCIAL PLAN 3.8.1 Issues The primary issues for this task are to identify the financial resources that could be feasibly made available for the Long Range Multimodal Transportation Plan, and to balance the costs of the plan with the resources. Major activities will be to develop the plan costs and to estimate financial resources. 3.8.2 Approach One of the most difficult aspects of traditional planning and programming, vis-a-vis the new ISTEA, rests in the area of isolating the final twenty year plan, given uncertainty about the future, and the relationship of that plan to the preparation of three-year TIPs. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that construction cost estimates vary, and maintenance costs that were often considered somewhat unlinked to investment strategy are growing disproportionately in many jurisdictions. The approach will be: (1) prepare a Work Plan stating clearly the entire ISTEA program and sequence of tasks over the most likely time of total implementation, (2) convene a group of citizens, public and private investment groups, and private providers to serve as an advisory group, (3) conduct a separate analysis and projection (under uncertainty) of the costs of maintenance, (4) array the results of the deficiency analysis under cost matrices by improvement category and improvement types for all modes, (5) prepare three levels or scenarios of available revenues, (6) analyze the potential for other sources of funding and evaluate the finding with the study committee and the advisory committee, (7) based on the results of the analysis and policy positions of local officials and groups, select the projected level of maintenance and capital investment which, in the short term (five plus years), is reasonable, and (8) from the analysis and selected short term plan, define several levels of investment and maintenance costs which fit within the window of optimistic and pessimistic funding projections after the year 2000 for the rest of the twenty-year plan. The consultant will develop a project priority and selection process and apply the process to the Interim Plan. The Interim Plan will be adjusted to reflect financial feasibility as a result of the analysis. As the TIP process is institutionalized and revenue streams become more predictable, the TIP can be adjusted in a self-adaptive fashion, and the LRTP can be recast to reflect issues, such as: (1) maintenance costs, (2) construction costs, (3) state transportation user revenues (gas and weight or value fees), (4) federal infrastructure program, (5) non-traditional innovative funding opportunities, (6) federal transportation revenues, (7) non-capital transportation assistance, (8) privatization, and (9) transportation enhancement projects. The Consultant Team will develop procedures for estimating the costs for each alternative. These will be full life-cycle costs including the costs of construction, right-of-way, maintenance, transit vehicle purchase and replacement, transit operating costs including staff and administration, and the cost of administering TDM and other programs. Similarly, the Consultant Team will estimate expected revenues between now and 2020, based both on historical trends and new programs. Care will be taken to ensure that funds used for purposes not included in the plan are excluded. New and innovative revenue sources also will be considered. 3.8.3 Products The product of this task will be a Tech Memo on financial resources, cost estimation procedures, and the financial feasibility of the Interim Plan. This effort will establish the availability of funding for transportation and the methods for estimating costs using life- cycle costs. The financial analysis of the Interim Plan will be completed by October, 1993. 3.9 TASK 16 - CAA CONFORMITY This task describes how the various elements of the transportation plan will be reviewed with respect to conformity with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 3.9.Issues Marion County is a non-attainment area for ozone, falling in the marginal range. As such the impact of long-range transportation plans on the level of pollutants that have caused non-attainment, in this case ozone, has to be estimated. In the case of ozone nonattainment areas, impacts of the transportation plan on the generation of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCS) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), (both of which contribute to ground level ozone pollution) must be estimated. Projected emissions would have to be within the emissions "budget" established by the SIP that demonstrates how the area will attain the ozone standard by the deadlines established in the Clean Air Act. All elements of the long-range plan must eventually demonstrate a benefit to air quality. On January 11, 1993, the U.S. EPA published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to implement the transportation conformity provisions in Section 176 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). "Conformity" is defined in the CAAA as the assurance that transportation plans and programs meet the goals set forth for air quality improvement in State Implementation Plans (SIPS) for cleaner air. The CAAA further specifies that transportation plans, programs, and projects: 1) not worsen existing violations of air quality standards, 2) not create any additional violations of standards, and 3) not delay attainment of the standards. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MYOS) and the Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administrations (FHWA and FTA) must affirm that transportation plans, programs, and projects are in conformity before approving them. A major part of the regulation is aimed at ensuring that transportation authorities consult with local air agencies and the public in developing transportation plans and determining whether the plans conform to clean air goals. The purpose of this task is to establish a methodology that will ensure that elements of the long- range plan meet conformity criteria. 3.9.2 Approach The consultant approach would begin with the Notice of Proposed Rule Making published on January 11, 1993 by U.S. EPA. There is no assurance that this Notice of Proposed Rule Making will in fact reflect the ultimate conformity guidance that may be applicable as time goes on. There are already dissenting views with respect to the rule making. Nevertheless, it is a first step and it is the basis on which conformity decisions Will be made for the time being. The rule is an extension of guidance issued on June 7,1991, when the EPA and DOT signed the 'Guidance for Determining Conformity of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects with Clean Air Act Implementation Plans during Phase 1 of the Interim Period'. These procedures remain in effect until the final rule on conformity is published in the Federal Register. At that point, Phase 2 of the interim period starts and will continue until the SIP revisions containing emission budgets are approved. The procedures during Phase 2 contained in the draft rule are revised from those in the June 7, 1991 guidance. It is anticipated that the rule will be finalized in September of 1993. The adoptions of conformity procedures in individual conformity determinations are subject to public comment. And the consultant will make recommendations to the NTO on how to respond to reasonable requests from environmental organizations and the public for information related to conformity and other decisions. EMIS will be used to evaluate the transportation plan for air quality conformity. EMIS is a computer program that is a post-processor for the highway assignment model. It calculates total emission of air pollution on a daily basis using MOBILE emission factors. Emissions for HC, CO, and NOx based on vehicle miles of travel (VMT), capacity- restrained highway speeds, and MOBILE emission factors. Emission factors can be assigned to roadways based on area type and facility type. It then summarizes emissions by area type, facility type, and zone or a grid system (user-specified). The emission associated with a particular transportation plan can then be compared to those for the base (no-build) condition, clearly showing whether the plan increases or decreases emissions. While current versions of EMIS function with MOBME 4.1 and TRANPLAN models, the procedure can be easily modified to work with MINUTP and MOBILE 5. The Consultant Team proposes to make these modifications and apply ENUS to the Indianapolis Interim Plan as described earlier. This will be done by the October deadline. Adjustments to the Interim Plan will be made as required to achieve conformity. 3.9.3 Products The product of this task will be a methodology and criteria by which individual transportation improvement projects can be evaluated with respect to their conformity under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The conformity determination would be completed by October 1993, for the Interim Plan. A Technical Memorandum describing the conformity determination will be produced. 3.10 PHASE 11 SUMMARY REPORT The Consultant Team will prepare a comprehensive Summary Report detailing all activities accomplished during Phase 11 (Tasks 8 - 16). APPENDIX C METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY DOCUMENTATION CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS STEPHEN GOLDSMITH MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: IRTC Technical and Policy Committee members FROM: Lori Miser DATE: August 30, 1993 SUBJECT: Proposed Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary BACKGROUND The proposed Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) boundary depicted on the attached map was not approved by the Policy Committee at the August 19th meeting due to a request for more information regarding how the boundary was determined. Because of the issues raised at the meeting the transportation planning staff has completed a packet of information (enclosed) that explains the three independent methods used to delineate the proposed MPA. In addition, for those of you who would like to discuss this issue in more detail, we have scheduled a special technical briefing for September 9th to be held in the Planning Division's 5th floor conference room at 9:00 a.m. The Planning Division is located at 129 East Market Street, Suite 500 in downtown Indianapolis. All IRTC members are encouraged to attend. Please call me, Todd Lang, Mike Peoni or Steve Cunningham at 327-5151 to let us know if you will be attending. Approval of this planning boundary is critical to our future transportation planning efforts and relates directly to our ability to comply with regulations of the 1991 Internodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The transportation planning staff has worked closely with a MPA Boundary Task Force consisting of representatives from all the affected jurisdictions. SUMMARY INFORMATION Designating a Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) is required by the 1991 ISTEA. The planning boundary defines the area to be included within the MPO planning process and is determined by agreement between the MPO and the Governor. At a minimum, federal law requires that the MPA include the 1990 Census Urbanized Area (illustrated in the enclosed packet of information) and the contiguous areas likely to become urbanized within the next 20 years. Generally the expanded urbanized area is to be based on growth assumptions of 1000 persons per square mile. The size of the MPA has no impact on the amount of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds allocated to the Indianapolis Urbanized Area. These funds are based on the urbanized population as defined by the 1990 Census. Projects within the UTA but outside the 1990 Census Urbanized Area (called the "fringe area") are eligible to use the urbanized area's STP funds at the discretion of the IRTC/MTO. It is unlikely that the IRTC/MPO would choose DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 129 EAST MARKET STREET. SUITE 500 - INDIANAPOLIS. INDIANA 46204 PHONE:(317) 327-5151 - FAX: (317) 327-5103 to use urban STP funds in the fringe area. The fringe area would continue to be eligible for rural STP funds. Therefore the urban and rural areas within the MPA would not be competing for funds. There is no funding advantage to the fringe area, they would be eligible for the rural STP funds with or without inclusion in the MPA. However, because all federally funded projects located inside the MPA boundary must be included in the IRTIP, inclusion of the fringe area in the UTA would change the way they access federal funds. The fringe areas would be required to work with the MPO for the programming of projects as opposed to working directly with INDOT for funding if included in the M[PA boundary. Due to the specific programming concerns expressed by the representatives of the fringe areas, the attached memorandum of understanding was drafted. The memorandum notes that for IRTIP programming purposes the fringe areas will continue to select and program the projects of their choice and the IRTC/MTO will not further prioritize and will automatically approve rural STP funded projects submitted for inclusion in the IRTIP. In addition, a letter (attached) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was also drafted noting that additional prioritization by the MPO will not be required. The FHWA letter also notes in point 2 that the development of a long range transportation plan for the metropolitan area will require the MTO and the fringe area jurisdictions to work cooperatively in the development and prioritization of projects for the area. Since final ISTIP-A regulations regarding the update of the Long Range Transportation Plan are not yet available we are trying to interpret the guidelines as best we can at this time. The long range plan guidelines discuss project selection, project prioritization, fiscal responsibility and cooperation and coordination in the development of the plan. The development of the long range plan was discussed with the MPA Boundary Task Force and it was the consensus of the group that the development of that plan would be done cooperatively so that projects included in the plan would reflect the needs of the small areas as well as the needs of the region. Thus, the memorandum of understanding notes that the long range transportation plan update may result in a revised project selection process, thus possibly superseding portions of the memorandum of understanding. Until we actually receive final federal regulations on the development of the plan and we begin the actual work, we will not know the full implications on our planning and programming processes. It is not our intent to increase the IRTC/MPO authority over projects in the fringe areas. We are attempting to comply with ISTIP-A and provide for a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process so that we can adequately address the needs of each jurisdiction and the region. NEXT MEETING DATES Following the technical briefing on September 9th, a joint meeting of the IRTC Technical and Policy Committees will be held on September 15th at 8:30 at the Speedway Town Hall Council Chambers, located at 1450 North Lynhurst. Please note that the entrance to the Council Chambers is located to the rear of the building. The purpose of that meeting will be to resolve the MPA boundary issue and to obtain the endorsement of the Policy Committee so that this recommendation can be referred to the Metropolitan Development Commission for approval. If you have any questions about this material or any other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me at 327-5136 or Mike Peoni at 327- 5133. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MP0) THE INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL (IRTC) AND THE COUNTIES OF HENDRICKS, BOONE, HAMILTON, HANCOCK AND JOHNSON REGARDING THE EVALUATION, SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS IN THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA (MPA) "FRINGE" FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (IRTIP) WHEREAS, the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTF-A) requires that Long Range Transportation Plans be updated for areas designated as Transportation Management Areas (TMA's) by October 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, the ISTEA stipulates that the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area should include, at a minimum, the 1990 Census defined urbanized area (UZA) for each metropolitan area and the surrounding area forecast to become urbanized in a 20-year planning horizon, and WHEREAS, the transportation planning staff in conjunction with the Corradino Group consulting team and a metropolitan planning area task force, examined the demographic trends and population projections for the metropolitan area and designated a metropolitan planning area (MPA) boundary that meets ISTEA requirements, and WHEREAS, the MPA boundary includes all of Marion County and portions of Hendricks, Boone, Hamilton, Hancock and Johnson Counties, and WHEREAS, the jurisdictions contained in the (MPA) but not included in the 1990 urbanized area boundary, referred to as the fringe area, will be required to submit projects requesting the use of federal rural Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to the MTO for inclusion in the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program (IRTIP), and WHEREAS, the MTO has the responsibility for developing transportation plans and programs that meet the needs of the region, which are fiscally responsible and are selected based on a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative (3-C) planning process; NOW, THEREFORE, until the update of the Long Range Transportation Plan is completed and approved, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The fringe area jurisdictions will continue to evaluate, select and prioritize projects proposed for rural STP funds in their respective counties and submit them to the MPO for inclusion in the IRTIP. 2. The fringe area jurisdictions will be fiscally reasonable and only submit projects to the M:PO for inclusion in the IRTIP that will be considered by the Indiana Department of Transportation (IDOT) for funding. 3. The MPO staff will work with the fringe area jurisdictions, if requested and needed, to define, develop, examine and/or refine projects to meet the requirements of the rural STP funding process. 4. The MPO staff, the IRTC and the MTO will not further prioritize fringe area jurisdiction's projects without the cooperation of the fringe area jurisdiction in question. 5 . The M[PO staff, the IRTC and the UTO will program and automatically approve rural STP funded projects submitted by the fringe area jurisdictions for inclusion in DOT's statewide transportation program without further authority or veto power over the proposed rural STP projects. All parties further agree to and understand that the development of the update to the Long Range Transportation Plan will necessitate cooperation to develop a list of fiscally achievable, prioritized projects, including projects using rural STP funds, that reflects the needs of each individual area as well as the region. The Long Range Transportation Plan will be used as the overall guide for the development of the region's transportation system and will form the justification for the IRTIP, which is the area's programming document for transportation projects. Once the Long Range Transportation Plan update is completed and approved, elements of this memorandum of understanding may be superseded by the project selection process defined in the updated plan. August 26, 1993 Katherine Lyon Davis Attention: Mr. Gunnar Rorbakken D R A F T Dear Mrs. Davis: Subject: Metropolitan Area Boundaries During recent meetings of the IRTC Long Range Plan subcommittee, questions regarding the planning requirements for projects located within the "fringe area" of the proposed Metropolitan Planning Area have arisen. The "fringe area" is that area between the existing Urbanized Area Boundary and the proposed Metropolitan Area Boundary (required by 23 USC 134). The following information on the planning requirements for projects located in the "fringe area" is provided for your use. This information is based upon our review of Title 23 USC, discussions with our Regional office and guidance provided by our Headquarters office: 1. Projects prioritized and submitted by the "fringe area" jurisdictions for inclusion in the MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), will not require any additional prioritization by the MPO. 2. The development of a Long Range Transportation Plan for the metropolitan area, will require the MPO and "fringe area" jurisdictions to work cooperatively in the development and prioritization of projects for the metropolitan area. 3. Projects in the "fringe area" and outside the nonattainment area will not be subject to the air quality conformity process. 4. The use of Planning funds (PL) is limited to the Metropolitan Planning Area, unless specifically required to complete the planning activity (i.e. the Development of the Long Range Plan). Please call Jose M. Campos at (317) 226-5353, if you should have any questions. Sincerely yours, Arthur A. Fendrick Division Administrator By: Robert L. Burch Assistant Division Administrator cc: Information Packet Proposed MPA Documentation August 26, 1993 The three different methods described in this information packet all support the proposed MPA boundary presented to the IRTC Technical Committee on August 5, 1993 and the Policy Committee on August 19, 1993. Staff believes the proposed MPA boundary represents a reasonable yet conservative estimate of the future year 2020 Indianapolis Urbanized Area. Several of the work maps referred to in this information packet were too large to reproduce. If you have interest in reviewing these maps or have any questions regarding the attached information please contact Lori Miser (327-5136) or Mike Peoni (327-5133). Method "A" Consultant's (PKG) Analysis MEMORANDUM To: Mike Peoni Date: 26 August 1993 From: J. P. Klausmeier Project: #1938 - Indianapolis Regional Transportation Plan Subject: Definitions - Urbanized Area Expansion Map INTRODUCTION This memorandum briefly describes the procedure for defining the limits of the Indianapolis Urbanized Area by the year 2020. The procedure was completed using two different sets of population projections: 1. Indiana County Population Projections; by Indiana University; Indiana State Board of Health; 1983 2. Indiana State and County Population Projections; by Jerome N. McKibben, et al; Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis; 1993. Both sets of projections resulted in similar conclusions about the extensiveness and shape of the Urbanized Area by the year 2020. PROCEDURE Township estimates of horizon year (2020) population for the 8- county Indianapolis region were derived by township trend calculations using the previously edited Indiana State and County Population Projections. The procedure for these calculations, described in a separate memorandum (attached) allowed for township growth or decline relative to each county. Sub-township allocation of population change was developed by establishing weighted township-to-census tract factors using 1990 U.S. Census tract geography. Weighing was subjectively estimated to express historic growth and development patterns, land use and physical character, and county and/or township planning documentation. Township-to-tract multipliers applied to (2020) township population estimates enabled calculation of average census tract density (pop./sq. mi.) for the horizon year. Using the U.S. Census 1000 persons/sq.mi. threshold (from urbanized area definition), tract densities were mapped in 100 person/sq.mi. interval classes over the 8-county region. Tracts with average density near or below the 1000 pop./sq.mi. threshold have a reasonable probability of containing areas above the threshold. (1) A smoothed generalization of the tract density map, taking into account development and land use patterns previously mentioned, was produced for consideration of the potential for expansion of the urbanized area. This potential may be expressed as identification of areas at a region-wide scale which would enclose sub-areas (as worded in the 1990 U.S. Census). RESULTS The map of potential expansion of the urban area by year 2020 is drawn with three classes -moderate, extensive, and expansive. Class definitions applying to areas which might be added to the urbanized area are interpretive rather than formal statements. (1) Moderate Growth Assumptions In addition to Marion County and areas on its periphery already enclosed by the urban area boundary; a high degree of probability for continued urban development, both commercial and residential. (2) Extensive Growth Assumption In addition to areas in (1), areas with continued development, but of a primarily residential character - not excluding moderate to low density development; expansion of sewer and water utilities is. presumed. (3) Expansive Redefinition Areas added by enclosure of detached moderate-to-high development and of lower density residential development beyond utility service areas; contiguity to areas added by more restrictive definition; local/township jurisdictional homogeneity. -2- 2 1938/C-45/42 MEMORANDUM To: Mike Peoni Date: 26 August 1993 From: J. P. Klausmeier Project: #1938 - Indianapolis Regional Transportation Plan Subject: Estimation of Year 2020 Township Populations INTRODUCTION This memorandum briefly describes the procedures for allocating to Townships the projected populations of the various Counties. The County projections were taken from the following sources: 1. Indiana County Population Projections, by Indiana University; Indiana State Board of Health; 1983. 2. Indiana State and County Population Projections; by Jerome N. McKibben, et al; Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis; 1993. PROCEDURE Historic population by township was taken from the 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census. Growth or decline of each county and township ( absolute change and percent change) for the ten year 1980-90 period were combined with the 1990 county population to calculate the effect of continued (linear) change for the succeeding ten year 1990-2000 period. The sum of initial township estimates was then compared to the county control total for year 2000. The difference between the initial estimate and the control total, whether positive or negative, was distributed proportionally to all townships, both growing and declining, to balance the township sum with the county control. The methodology, using a computer spreadsheet, is described in the following paragraphs. A. The difference between the township sum and the county control total was interpreted as a net difference induced by the initial linear change by township. This definition recognizes that both growth and decline by individual township can occur whether the county is growing or declining as a whole . B. The ratio between the sum of growing townships and the sum of declining townships (calculated by linear rates of change) was used to transform the net difference (county total), whether positive or negative, into proportional positive and negative components. -1- Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. INDIANAPOLIS URBAN AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN Population Statistics Years 1990 and 2020 Inside Outside Marion County Marion County Area Total Year Description Populatiom Pct. Population Pct. Population 1990 Urbanized Area 797,159 87.1 117,602 12.9 914,761 1990 Metropolitan Area Moderate 797,159 82.1 173,559 11.9 970,718 Extensive 797,159 80.3 196,091 19.7 993,250 Expansive 797,159 78.2 221,711 21.8 1,018,870 2020 Metropolitan Area Moderate 827,490 79.4 214,505 20.6 1,041,995 Extensive 827,490 77.4 241,310 22.6 1,068,860 Expansive 827,490 75.2 273,352 24.8 1,100,842 POPULATION AND HOUSING TRENDS AND FORECASTS EIGHT COUNTY INDIANAPOLIS AREA August 4, 1993 INTRODUCTION The attached tabulations and graphs provide historic and projected population and household data for the eight county Indianapolis area. The historic (1970, 1980, 1990) data is taken directly from reports of the U.S. Census Bureau. The projected population data is taken directly from the report, Indiana State and County Population Projections, prepared by IUPU at Indianapolis; 1993. The projected number of households is a result of the methodology reported in following paragraphs. POPULATION . . . COMPONENTS OF CHANGE The population of the eight county area is expected to continue to increase at a steady but modest rate from about 1.1 million in 1970 to about 1.4 million in 2020. However, changes in the age composition of the population have significant planning implications that affect the demand for housing, the need for jobs, the amount of educational resources, and the demands on the transportation and other infrastructure components. The tabulations and graphs provide an indication of the components of change in these age groupings: 0 to 19 years pre-school and school aged persons who typically are dependents in households. 19 to 64 years working aged persons who generally form households that may include younger dependents. over 64 years retired aged persons who live in households usually without dependents. The tabulations and graphs indicate that the group aged 19 to 64 years will account for most of the population increase while the group 0-19 years will decrease in number. The over 64 year age group will continue to increase, but at a faster rate as "baby boomers" grow older and live longer. -1- The shifts in the age components are evident in the number of persons per household. The average number of total persons per household in 1970 was 3.20 when the 20-64 age group comprised 51.8% of the total population. By 2020, that age group will comprise 59.8% of the population and persons per household will decline to 2.54. POPULATION ... THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING Family households are formed and headed by persons in the 20 to 64 year age group. It is expected that there will continue to be about 1.6 persons of this age group per household. The 0-19 year group are dependents in households headed by others. In 1970, there were 1.27 persons of this age group per household. Because this group is expected to decrease in number, there will be only about 0.62 persons of this age per household in 2020. The over 64 age group will increase in number and in household size. As a result of these shifts, the average number of total persons per household is expected to continue to decline and the demand for housing will outrace the general increase in total population. For instance, between 1990 and 2020 the population is expected to increase by 14.2% while the number of households will increase by 17.2%, creating a demand for 82,720 additional housing units, not accounting for a demand to replace dilapidated housing or units displaced for other types of development. CONCLUSION Forecasts indicate that the population of the eight county area will increase 14.2% between 1990 and 2020, adding nearly 178,000 persons to the region. Because of shifts in the age composition, there will be a resulting demand for 17.2% more housing units, an increase of nearly 83,000. There will be an additional need to replace dilapidated housing or units displaced for other reasons. -2- Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Method "B" MPO Staff's Analysis MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Transportation Planning Section DATE: July 20, 1993 RE: 2020 Population Projections This memorandum describes the procedures used by the MPO staff in developing future population projects for the purpose of defining the "Metropolitan Planning Area" (MPA) consistent with the requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. OVERVIEW Data Used Staff used the "Indiana State and County Population Projections" prepared by the Department of Sociology, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis. The projections have benefit of the 1990 Census results and were provided to staff by the Indiana Department of Transportation. Census information from 1990 and 1980 was also used. Procedures 1. The relationship between the proportional share of the Census Urbanized Area and the County MSA for 1980 and 1990 was analyzed. Although Madison County was added to the Indianapolis MSA as a result of the 1990 Census, it was excluded from this analysis for ease of comparison. 2. The ratio between the Urbanized Area and the MSA was found to be .72 in 1980 and .73 in 1990. The 1980-1990 trend was extrapolated to a constant ratio of .75 for the year 2020. 3. The .75 was applied to the RTU year 2020 population projections for each county making up the MSA excluding Madison County. This resulted in an overall increase of 156,334 persons (17%) in the Urbanized Area by the year 2020. 4. The population increase was converted into square miles, by county, assuming a population density of 1000 persons per square mile which is consistent with the criteria for an urbanized area as defined by the Census Bureau. 5. Using work maps showing the 1970, 1980 and 1990 Census Urbanized Areas, the square miles calculated from the 2020 population projections were plotted based on past and anticipated growth patterns as well as the professional judgement of staff and others. 6. The boundary derived thus far was 'rounded off to include entire townships (where reasonable) for ease in developing future population projections. 7. The results of this effort were compared to the work previously completed by PKG and John Neal. 8. A map showing the proposed MPA and a briefing memorandum was sent to the MPA task force for their review. 9. Two meetings were held with the task force and modifications to the Proposed MPA were made based on comments received. The modifications included: a. Tom Stevens of Hamilton Co. recommended only a portion of Washington Township be included. b. Roger Johnson of Fishers recommended Fall Creek Township be extended up to 126th Street to the north and Brooks School Road to the east. c. Joe Copeland of Hancock Co. recommended the areas included in Buck Creek and Sugar Creek Townships be expanded to include the Mt. Comfort Airport and New Palestine. d. Ed Ferguson recommended that Clerk Township be excluded from the MPA. Results Results The attached map, tables and graphs illustrate the results of this activity. The staff and MPA task Force members believe the proposed MPA represents a reasonable, but conservative estimate of the future 2020 Indianapolis Urbanized Area. Proposal MPA Boundary Designation BACKGROUND Designating a Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) is required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTIP-A). It defines the area to be included within the MPO planning process and is determined by agreement between the MTO and the Governor. At a minimum the MPA is to include the 1990 Census Urbanized Area and the contiguous areas likely to become urbanized within the 20 year planning forecast period. Generally the expanded urbanized area is to be based on growth assumptions of 1000 persons per square mile. The size of the MPA has no impact on the amount of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds allocated to the Indianapolis Urbanized Area. These funds are based on the urbanized population as defined by the 1990 Census. Projects within the M:PA but outside the 1990 Census Urbanized Area (called the 'fringe area') are eligible to use the urbanized area's STP funds at the discretion of the MPO. It is unlikely that the MPO would choose to use urban STP funds in the fringe area. The fringe area would continue to be eligible for rural STP funds. Therefore the urban and rural areas within the UTA would not be competing for funds. There is no funding advantage to the fringe area, they would be eligible for the rural STP funds with or without inclusion in the MPA. However, because all federally funded projects located inside the MPA boundary must be included in the IRTIP, inclusion of the fringe area in the MPA would change the way they access federal funds. The fringe areas currently work directly with DOT for funding. If they become part of the MPA their projects would have to be programmed in the IRM through the MPO. Because there is no funding cap on the amount of rural STP funds a given area can receive, the MTO would be required to program all projects submitted by the fringe areas. However, the outlying jurisdictions are hesitant to have the area currently outside the MPO's planning jurisdiction included within the MPA due to this additional programming requirement. In their view, the elected officials within their jurisdictions would perceive this requirement as giving the MPO control over their projects. The MPA must be defined in time to meet the October 1, 1993 ISTEA deadline. Larry Tucker (FHMPA) and Gunnar Rorbakken (MDOT) have encouraged the MPO to define the UTA as soon as possible. Toward this end the MPO has established a sub-committee of the Long-Range Transportation Plan Update Study Review Committee. Members of the sub-committee are: Roger Johnson, Town of Fishers Jose Campos, FH(MPA) Tom Stevens, Hamilton County Carter Keith, INDOT Walt Reeder, Hendricks County Dave Cleaver, IDOT/DPW Joe Copeland, Hancock County Mike Peoni, Indpls MPO Ed Ferguson, Johnson County Lori Miser, Indpls MPO Jerry March, Boone County Jim Klausmeier, PKG Defining the MPA boundary will involve both technical and political considerations. The intent of the ISTEA is clear in that the (MPA) is to be defined based on anticipated growth in order to plan for future regional transportation needs. However, consensus based on real or perceived advantages and disadvantages on the part of the affected jurisdictions will drive the decision making process. With these factors in mind, the following narrative and attached map form the staff recommendation for the (MPA) boundary. The proposal reflects the comments received from the UTA sub-committee. It has been approved by the IRTC Technical Committee contingent upon receipt of a letter from the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration which stipulates that the projects within the metropolitan planning area but outside the urban boundary, proposing to use funds other than Indianapolis area urban funds, will be included in the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program (IRTIP) without MPO review, prioritization or competition with other similar projects at the IRTIP level. MPA Boundary Proposal This proposal assumes the Urbanized Area's population will increase by 156,334 persons (17%) over the next 27 years (from 9l4,426 to l,070,760 persons). This assumption is based on the recently published population projections prepared by the Sociology Department at IUPUI and past trends regarding the proportion of the MSA's population which is urbanized. The boundary was initially delineated based on past growth patterns and assuming an average township population density of 1000 persons per square mile. The boundary was smoothed out to include entire townships to facilitate development of future projections in subsequent plan updates (see attached map). The area within this boundary includes approximately 985,773 persons based on the 1990 Census. Pros 1. The boundary is based on anticipate growth. 2. Similar results were derived using other methodologies by independent sources which validates the reasonableness of the growth estimate used in this proposal. 2. The long range plan will include the future anticipated urbanized area and therefore address future regional needs. 3. The boundary is based on technical assumptions/methodologies which are verifiable and meet the intent of the ISTF-A. 4. Required consensus building will help resolve issues related to the fringe area and the inclusion of projects in the IRTIP and thus result in an improved working relationship between Indianapolis and the small areas. Cons 1. More time may be required to reach consensus on the proposed boundary due to perceived fringe area concerns. August 19, 1993 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Method "C" Analysis by John Neal Principal Planner, Planning Division MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation Planning Section FROM: John Neal DATE: July 23, 1993 RE: Projected Population Densities An important element of forecasting the year 2020 urbanized area is the future population density. one method is to identify those areas that might attain a population density of at least 1000 persons per square mile during that time period. This workpaper presents one approach to population density forecasts for the outlying counties of the former eight-county Indianapolis Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Unit of Land Area For this approach the basic unit of measure is the census block group. Each census tract is divided into 3 to 8 smaller units known as a block group. While the actual urbanized area is defined using census blocks, given the long term nature and inherent imprecision of these forecasts, the block group is probably adequate. Calculations The first step is to calculate the 1990 population density using census data. This step was performed on all block groups in the surrounding counties (Boone, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, Morgan, Shelby). On the attached worksheets, these figures are presented in the fifth column for each county. The second step is to calculate a projected year 2020 density for the block groups. The key assumption is a growth rate for the area in question. For this approach it was decided to use the growth rate forecast for the county by the IUPUI Department of Sociology 1993 series of population projections. Within a county this is a geographically "neutral" assumption (i.e. each block group will grow at the same rate as the county as a whole). While one can debate the likelihood of this occurring, it does simplify the forecast. Projected densities were calculated for these counties: Boone County 4% growth by year 2020 Hamilton County 46% growth by year 2020 Hendricks County 17% growth by year 2020 Johnson County 24% growth by year 2020 Projected densities were not calculated for the other counties. The low 1990 densities in the non-urban block groups coupled with the slow growth predicted for the counties would not yield a substantive increase in the number of block groups with population densities greater the 1000 persons per square mile. Results The results of the calculations are presented in the sixth column of the attached worksheets for Boone, Hamilton, Hendricks and Johnson counties. The existing urbanized block groups and block groups projected to reach urbanized densities were hand drawn on a wall-sized MSA workmap. A smaller, unmarked version of the MSA census tract map is attached for reference. It is possible to do other versions of the calculations using different growth assumptions. These could be tailored to reflect the prevailing views on growth in some of these counties. JWN:J Attachments Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. APPENDIX D PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. PUBLIC MEETING - SEPTEMBER 1993 INDIANAPOLIS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION- PLAN UPDATE MEETING PURPOSE: To introduce the public to the planning process, solicit interest in continued involvement, solicit opinions on the transportation challenges facing the area and provide the opportunity to comment on the 15 ISTEA factors. AGENDA 1. INTRODUCTION OF TOPIC Update of the Long Range Transportation Plan II. EXISTING PLAN Last Update Study Area Key Players Implementing Agencies Use of the Plan III. EFFECTS OF THE NEW PLAN Expanding the Study Area Intermodal Increasing Community Involvement Maintaining/Making Better Use of the Existing System Financial Plan IV. OPPORTUNITIES/CHALLENGES Limited Funds Methods of Travel and Choices Air Quality New ways To Solve Congestion Problems Regional Focus V. PROGRESS TO DATE/WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Study Progress October 1 Deadline New Study Area Socioeconomic Forecasts Identifying Project Priorities Financial Plan Citizen Participation VI. QUESTIONNAIRE Questions and Answers (10 minutes) Completion of Questionnaire VII. 15 ISTEA FACTORS Presentation of 15 ISTEA Factors VIII. ADJOURN FOR INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS OF ISTEA FACTORS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Recently passed federal transportation law requires full public participation in the long range transportation planning process. Public meetings, newsletters, press releases, open policy meetings, community transportation planning workshops, advisory committee, and public hearings are all ways to keep the public informed and the planning process open for participation. You are invited to become a participant in determining the future of the Indianapolis regions's transportation system, what elements will receive funding, and what mobility options will be available through the year 2020. WHO TO CONTACT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS LONG RANGE Fishers New Whiteland TRANSPORTATION PLAN Mr. Roger Johnson Mr. Ken Lennox UPDATE Director of Long Range 299-7500 Planning Mr. Michael Peoni Town of Fishers Whiteland Indianapolis DMD 849-6260 Mr. Fred Brinkman Division of Planning President Town Board 327-5151 Westfield Town of Whiteland Mr. Paul Satterly 535-5531 Specific Transportation Westfield Traffic Engineer Projects 636-4682 Marion County Boone County Hancock County Beech Grove Mr. Bill Hall County Mr. Joseph Copeland Beech Grove City Engineer Mr. Jerry March Hancock County Highway 895-2585 Boone County Area Engineer Planning Commission 462-1112 Indianapolis 482-3821 Mr. Gary Abell Hendricks County Indianapolis Department Zionsville of Transportation Mr. Brad Yarger Mr. Walt Reeder 327-4700 Zionsville Traffic Hendricks County Engineer Engineer 745-9236 Lawrence Mr. Lamar Zigler Lawrence City Engineer Hamilton County Johnson County 545-5566 Carmel County Mr. Tom Welch Mr. Michael Buening Southport Carmel City Engineer Johnson County Planning Mr. George Julius 571-2441 Commission City Clerk of 736-3723 Southport 786-0824 County Mr. Tom Stevens Greenwood Speedway Director of Highways Mr. John Meyer, Jr. Mr. John Myers Hamilton County Greenwood City Engineer Speedway Town Highway Department 887-5230 Engineer 773-7770 887-5230 September 1993 Indianapolis Long-Range Transportation Plan Update Questionnaire The purpose of this questionnaire is to solicit your opinions on how we can better involve the public in the update of the 20-year long- range transportation plan for the Indianapolis Region. We need your help to tell us what you believe are the transportation challenges facing the Indianapolis Region and how they can best be met. (Please Print Your Responses) 1. The long-range transportation plan is going to be updated over the next 18 to 24 months. How do you think the study team can best involve the public to ensure the public's views are being considered? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 2. What are your suggestions for future public meetings in terms of location, time, day of week, length of meeting, meeting format? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 3. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 allows local areas flexibility in meeting their transportation needs. The following fist are possible options for improving the efficiency of our existing and future transportation system. Please review this list and rank them from most important (1) to least important (11) in terms of how you view each option in meeting our future transportation needs. Repave existing streets ______ Improve traffic signal timing ______ Provide more turn lanes ______ Organize rideshare programs ______ Build carpool lanes ______ Widen existing roads ______ Build new roads ______ Provide more bike lanes ______ Provide more sidewalks ______ Provide better bus service ______ Build rapid transit ______ Other ______ 4. What do you believe are the most important transportation challenges facing the Indianapolis Region today? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 5. How do you think we can best meet our existing and future transportation challenges? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 6. Other comments. ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 7. Please check the location of the meeting you are attending. Edison Jr. High ________ Greenwood City Building ________ Speedway Town Hall ________ Lawrence City Hall ________ City of Carmel ________ Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire! APPENDIX E STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES EXCERPT FROM THE 1993 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DOCUMENTATION FOR THE INDIANAPOLIS URBANIZED AREA The City of Indianapolis 1979 State Implementation Plan revision contained a number of TCM's related to the reduction of hydrocarbons and ozone. Most of the TCM's for hydrocarbons have been implemented and nearly all of the ozone SIIP projects are complete. Table I presents an implementation summary of transportation projects included m the Indianapolis SIP revision. The 1979 SIP also discussed a number of improvements to the central business district (CBD) transportation network. Those improvements are listed and discussed below. 1. Washington Street Transit The Washington Street Transit Mall has been studied since the early 1980's but has not yet been implemented. The current routing structure, referred to as the downtown loop, was determined to be more efficient for the transit system and the patrons that utilize it. Rather than have one central location (i.e. a transit mall) where the buses converge, the buses travel through the downtown loop serving a number of key transit stops. AU buses serve the loop, making the system easy to understand and use in the downtown area. 2. Downtown Traffic Signal Interconnection and Computerization This is a major signal interconnection project that is in progress. The benefits to the downtown area from signal timing and interconnection, including delay reduction and the improvement of vehicle speeds, are significant. 3. Downtown - Indiana University/Purdue University of Indianapolis (RTUI) Shuttle This shuttle service was initiated in 1978 to connect the IUPUI campus with the downtown area. Due to a significant drop in ridership and the need to reduce operating costs throughout the transit system, this route was discontinued in 1991. Currently, the transit system services are being reevaluated and there is some consideration being given to reinstate the IUPUI shuttle route. 4. Transit Improvement Program Major revisions to routes and schedules occurred in the early 1980's, significantly improving the efficiency of the system. The estimates at the time projected the improvements would eliminate 2,000 miles of vehicle travel from the CBD. Those improvements have been maintained and refined, including the implementation of the downtown transit loop. 5. Carpool Program Statistics from the Indianapolis Department of Transportation note that, in 1992, the ridesharing program contributed to an annual reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMI) of over 1,600,000 miles. The average monthly reduction in VMT attributable to ride-sharing was 139,500 miles. Likewise, the average monthly reduction in air pollutants (nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide) was approximately 57 tons. 6. Flexible Work Time Flexible work hours were implemented in the early 1980's and continue to be encouraged to reduce the concentration of traffic during the morning and afternoon rush hours. 7. City Taxicab Ordinances Taxicab ordinances were implemented which eliminated the practice of "cruising" for customers in the CBD, thus reducing the vehicle miles traveled for the downtown area. This policy remains in effect today. Table I Implementation Summary of Transportation Projects Included in the Indianapolis SIEP Revision TSM Projects (1977-1979) Approach Widening Status Allisonville Rd. and 46th Street Complete 34th and Georgetown Road Complete 34th Street and Moller Complete 71st Street and Zionsville Road Complete Fletcher, Shelby, and Grove Complete Allisonville Road and 62nd Street Complete Allisonville Road and 65th Street Complete Allisonville Road and 71st Street Complete Allisonville Road and 75th Street Complete Allisonville Road and 79th Street Complete Westfield Blvd. and 75th Street Complete Signal Interconnection/Timing Optimization New York Street from I-70 to Emerson Avenue Complete Michigan Street from I-70 to Emerson Avenue Complete Washington Street from High School Road to White River Parkway West Drive Complete Arlington Avenue, 21st to 30th Street Complete Shadeland Avenue, Eastgate Shopping Center to 38th Street Complete Emerson Avenue, 30th Street to 46th Street Complete Washington Street, Southeastern to Shortridge Complete 29th Street, Central to Boulevard Place Complete 30th Street, Winthrop to Boulevard Place Complete Regional Center Interconnect/Phase H Complete TSM Projects (1980-1982) Approach Widening Status 16th Street and Tibbs Complete 16th and Alabama Complete (signal modernization only) 16th and Illinois Complete 16th and Capital Complete Table I (continued) Approach Widening Status 16th and Senate Complete Emerson Avenue and 10th Street Complete Emerson Avenue and English Avenue Complete East and Hanna Complete (lane re- striping) East and National Complete (signal modernization only) Washington Street and High School Road Complete Sherman and English Complete Tibbs and Lafayette Complete 10th Street and Tibbs Complete Beechway Drive and W. 10th Street Complete Rockville and Mickley Complete 10th and Franklin Complete College Ave./Westfield Blvd./ Broad Ripple Avenue Complete 38th and Northwestern Complete 71st Street and Michigan Road Complete Shelby and Carson Signal moderni- zation on hold 16th and Kessler Dropped 86th and Ditch Road Complete Hanna and Bluff Delayed 16th Street and Sherman Complete (R.R. improvement only) Sherman and Massachusetts Dropped 46th and Shadeland Complete Signal Interconnection/Timing Optimization 16th Street from Livingston to Cunningham In progress Morris from Plainfield to White River Parkway Complete 10th Street from Grand to White River Pkwy. Complete College from 86th Street to 19th Street In progress English from Shelby to Pleasant Run Pkwy. Complete Prospect from Shelby to Sherman Complete U.S. 31 from Kessler to Terrace Avenue Complete Table I (continued) Long-Range Transportation Plan Projects Street Widening Airport Expressway, 4 lanes divided, Holt Road to Kentucky Avenue Complete West 10th Street Bridge, 6 lanes divided Complete Sherman Drive, 4 lanes, Albany to Raymond Complete Post Road, 4 lanes divided, 38th Street to Pendleton Pike Complete West 10th Street, 4 lanes divided, Penn. Central R.R. to I-465 Complete East 86th Street, Westfield Blvd. to Keystone, 4 lanes divided Complete East 56th Street, 4 lanes, Roxbury to I-465 Complete East 56th Street, 4 lanes, Roxbury to Emerson Complete West 71st Street, Michigan Road to Ditch Road Complete Stop 11 Road, Madison Avenue to Penn Central Railroad Complete Capital Ave. McCarty to South Street Complete Southport Road, Sherman to I-65 Complete Southport Road, I-65 to Emerson Complete East 30th Street, 4 lanes divided, Arlington to Shadeland Complete Central Business District Transportation Control Measures Measure Status 1. Washington Street Transit Mall Downtown transit loop implemented 2. Downtown Traffic Signal Interconnect In progress 3. Downtown - IUPUI Shuttle Discontinued/may be reinstated in 1993 4. Transit Improvement Program Continuing 5. Carpool Program Continuing 6. Flexible Work Hours Continuing 7. Taxi Cruising Enforcement Continuing APPENDIX F CMS CONTENT CMS CONTENT CMS Content - The CMS is to cover: areas of consideration, performance measures, data collection and system monitoring, cation and evaluation of proposed strategies, implementation of strategies, and evaluation of the effectiveness of implemented strategies. Under areas of consideration, the MPO is to identify and assess the level of congestion for travel corridors and facilities with existing and potential recurring and nonrecurring congestion. The description of system characteristics should be of sufficient detail to reflect the cumulative effects that a combination of physical improvements and/or areawide transportation policy decisions may have on transportation system performance. Under performance measures, the MPO is to establish indicators for identifying and monitoring the extent of congestion and for evaluating the effectiveness of congestion reduction and mobility enhancement capabilities. Under data collection and system, the MPO is to establish a continuous program of data collection and system monitoring to determine and monitor the duration and magnitude of congestion. Under identification and evaluation of strategies, the MPO is to assess the performance and expected benefits of traditional and nontraditional strategies ensuring the most efficient use of the existing and future transportation systems. The strategies include: transportation demand management measures (rideshare, alternative work hours, telecommuting, parking management), operations improvements (intersections and roadway widening, channelization and geometric and signalization improvements), measures to encourage high occupancy vehicle use (public transit improvements, HOV lane provisions, guaranteed ride home program, and employer trip reduction ordinances), congestion pricing, growth management and activity center strategies, access management techniques, incident management, application of intelligent vehicle-highway system technology, and the addition of general purpose lanes. APPENDIX G TSM PROCESS REPORT TSM PROCESS REPORT Identification of Congested Corridors and Facilities The TSM Process report identifies intersections with levels of service "E" and "F" and with high accident rates, peaking characteristics, transit system characteristics which include express routes and park- and-ride routes, the present rideshare program and paratransit services. For the time being, the 1991 Transportation System Management Process Report identifies levels of service of "E" and "F' as unacceptable. Identification and Evaluation of Proposed Strategies To date, the best source of CMS strategies is the 1991 Transportation System Management Process Report. Under transportation demand management measures, the Indianapolis Rideshare Program began in January of 1981. Operated by the Indianapolis Department of Transportation, the program includes areawide rideshare matching, customized employer-based ridesharing programs, and an effective ridesharing marketing/promotional effort. In addition, the Ford Motor Company sponsors five vanpools for its plant. The 1987 Regional Center Parking Study analyzed several parking alternatives and the Study was updated in 1990. The short- range strategies call for increased development of remote park-and- ride facilities, development of intercept parking at the Inner Loop (freeways at the edge of downtown Indianapolis), and coordination of intercept parking opportunities for downtown IUPUI campus, Convention Center and White River Park. Long-term parking strategies include additional intercept parking and development of supportive parking management policies downtown. The Analysis of Alternative Transportation Control Measures of 1981 assess work hour rescheduling such as staggered work hours, shortened work weeks and flextime. Although flextime was found to be the most effective technique, the ability of government to implement such work hour rescheduling is limited. The 1991 TSM Process Report also describes prior bicycle and pedestrian facility planning efforts. Under traffic operations improvements, the 1991 TSM Process Report documents traffic signalization improvement efforts and traffic operations improvement efforts. Some of the major findings follow and the reader should refer to the TSM Process Report for additional detail. The Indianapolis Department of Transportation's Indianapolis Signal System Control Study in 1981 reported that 450 of the 630 traffic signals were interconnected and that 90% should be. In 1988, the performance of the 79 interconnected signal systems was evaluated, and it was recommended that state of the art traffic control equipment be installed in 69 of the subsystems through a ten-year implementation program. By 1989, the Regional Center Signal Interconnection Project was completed with the modernization and interconnection of about 170 signalized intersections in downtown Indianapolis. The Indianapolis Department of Transportation anticipated interconnecting a vast majority of the traffic signals over the next five Under implementation of strategies, the MPO is to identify for each strategy the implementation responsibility, time frame and anticipated funding source. Under evaluation of effectiveness of implemented strategies, the MPO is to establish a process for the periodic assessment of strategy effectiveness considering the adopted performance measures. This will guide future actions on the most effective strategies for further implementation. Additional Requirements for Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Presently designated as a marginal nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and ozone, Indianapolis can only include highway projects which significantly increase capacity for single occupant vehicles (SOV) in the Transportation Improvement Program for federal funding provided the projects are part of an approved CMS. As a minimum., a carpool/vanpool (rideshare) program must be included in the CMS, Long Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program. To include highway projects that increase SOV capacity in a corridor, the CMS must demonstrate that alternative demand reduction and operational strategies would not adequately address travel demand needs. In effect, a project adding significant SOV capacity cannot advance unless it is part of and consistent with the CMS or is required to implemented under an "adequate public facilities" ordinance. Only projects that have advanced beyond the NEPA process and which are being implemented are exempt. Further, as a nonattainment area, Indianapolis must indicate how the Transportation Control Measures (TCMS) of the Section 108 of the Clear Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 and other operational management strategies are being implemented. APPENDIX H SUMMARY OF IDOT's PMS In summary IDOT's PMS includes: 1. Pavement condition data collection and analysis: Pavement condition index (PCI) data collection, input, and analysis for thoroughfares and primary 2. Rideability Index Develop a rideability index data collection methodology and incorporate the rideability index as a weighted evaluation factor in the analysis of alternative capital improvement programs. 3. Graphics Display: Develop graphic linking routines between IMAGIS Informap II, DA/PAVE, ORACLE, and AutoCAD. This will allow the results of the pavement analysis to be graphically displayed on the maps. A bridge database will be extracted from the Indiana DOT's existing PARADOX database. 4. Training On-site training of five DOT staff on the use of DA/PAVE software system and graphics display capability. APPENDIX I POSSIBLE EVALUATION CRITERIA Economic Criteria The evaluation of the long range plan will attempt to measure (either quantitatively or qualitatively) the regional non vehicular economic benefits and disbenefits of the transportation system alternatives. Some of the non-vehicular economic factors that may be considered are: 1. Service to existing economic activity production centers of the region as measured by accessibility factors. 2. Development of new economic activity centers of the region that are consistent with the comprehensive plans. 3. Land values that are changed as a result of shifts in the quality and configuration of the transportation system. 4. Inter-regional economic connections as measured by accessibility to external stations d connectivity to other urban centers. 5. Relocation considerations that disturb the existing fabric of economic activity. Relocation of businesses can be directly measured in terms of dollar Costs, employees, and Productive capacity. Relocations of businesses (or roadways) often displaces markets or customers through new patterns of movement, barriers to movement, or actual relocation Of market customers. Social Criteria The evaluation of the long range plan will attempt to measure (either quantitatively Or qualitatively) the non-vehicular social benefits and disbenefits of the transportation system. Some of the non-vehicular social factors that might be considered are: 1. Residential relocation as measured by dwelling units, families and persons directly affected. 2. Residential renewal as measured by how transportation can serve to stimulate the renewal and revival of housing in older portions of the region. 3. Neighborhood identity as measured by how the transportation system serves to reinforce or degrade existing neighborhood boundaries. 4. Opportunity measures as determined through evaluations of the spatial relationships of homes and work places. Work trip length distribution curves, and accessibility indices can be used in this evaluation process. 5. Preservation of traditional and historical neighborhoods and structures as measured by locational, visual, and noise impacts of transportation facilities. 6. Conformity with community and neighborhood goals and plans that represent sub-regional values. 7. Integration with plans and visions that represent regional consensus. Specific Planning Criteria In addition to the social and economic criteria, there are a number of other distinct criteria that should be evaluated in the transportation planning process. These specific criteria may include: 1. Service to the central business district and other regional focal points as measured by accessibility indices. 2. Service to transportation termini such as airports, truck terminals, and rail terminals. 3. Open space preservation and compatibility. Transportation User Criteria The system evaluation process will consider and compare all aspects of transportation user costs and benefits including: annualized capital improvement costs, maintenance and operating costs, accident costs, energy costs, and time costs. The travel simulation model will be designed to enable costs to be segregated by mode and by facility types. Energy Consumption The energy consumed by users of alternative transportation systems will be estimated through the travel simulation process. The travel simulation model will be designed to enable energy consumption to be segregated by mode and by facility types. Air Quality Mobile source emissions will be estimated for alternative transportation systems throughout the travel simulation process. The travel simulation model will be designed to enable emissions to be segregated by area and facility type. Overall System Evaluation All criteria will be organized and fully described. Qualitative and/or quantitative measurements will be prescribed for each to enable alternative systems and financially attainable programs to be compared.
