INDIANAPOLIS REGION'SINDIANAPOLIS REGION'S

KEEPING PACE WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

CMS Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

I-65/I-70 Hyperfix. . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

Q & A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

MPA MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

IndyGo Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4

MPO Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5

Commissioning The People Mover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7

Tran Plan Process Re-certification . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9

Indianapolis Insights Milestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 11

Cunningham Promoted . . . . . Page 13

Bus Stop Re-design . . . . . . . . . Page 16

Irons In The Fire . . . . . . . . . . . Page 17

Components. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19

CAC Meeting Dates Set . . . . . . . Page 22

Seasonal Issues

There’s a lot to talk about in the newteMPO, including our new number-

ing system. Previously published issuesof the official newsletter of the regionaltransportation planning process haveroutinely assigned the winter issue tothe preceding year, even though only 10days of the season belong there. Thereason for this discrepancy is simple;teMPO started publication in spring sowinter just felt like the end of a year,even though our winter issues havealways been published in January orFebruary of the following year. This hasalways made us look late to press, eventhough our release date hits mid-season.

With this issue, we correct theanomaly. Now teMPO will be published

In This Issuecont on page 14, see CMS Update

W I N T E R 2 0 0 3

V O L U M E S E V E N

I S S U E O N E

65/70 Hyperfix

On Thursday, January 16th, the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT)revealed details of its much anticipated I-65/I-70 downtown improvement pro-

ject. In an effort to minimize traffic delays and constructioncosts, INDOT has elected to completely close the highwayinnerloop through downtown Indianapolis to traffic rather thanrestrict it to two lanes. The closure will impact an esti-mated 175,000 daily travelers who will need to findanother route to work starting May 26thwhen construction is scheduled to begin.

“Keeping the highway partially openwould more than double the length of theproject,” notes INDOT Commissioner J. Bryan Nicol.

cont on page 8, see 65/70 Hyperfix

cont on page 3, see Seasonal Issues

CMS Update

Among the many projects recommended by the MPO in its 2003 UnifiedPlanning Work Program (UPWP) is one called “Update of the Congestion

Management System (CMS).” This, like all projects in the UPWP, is described in ade-quate detail for the professional planners who need to review and evaluate the pro-gram before approving its implementation. However, the casual browser, includingmost of teMPO’s readers, may need more detail to truly understandwhat’s being funded and why. For this reason, we offer this secondinstallment in an on-going series of articles that focuses on UPWPprojects and what they entail.

“The CMS is really aplanner’s tool,” saysSweson Yang, AICP,MPO ChiefTransportationPlanner. “The pur-pose of updating the Congestion Management System is to make sure that it contin-ues to be the right tool for the job. We need to be able to trust the accuracy andtimeliness of the information it provides, so that our subsequent interpretation ofthat information will be on-target.”

AQ

P A G E T W O

I n Q & A, members of your MPO staff answer questions posed to them via voicemail, e-mail, regular mail or in-person. In this issue, MPO Senior Planners

Stephanie Belch and Philip Roth, AICP, discuss the motivations behind the region-wide Rapid Transit Study.

I’ve been seeing articles for the last few months about thenew Rapid Transit Study, but none of them explain why we’re con-centrating exclusively on ‘transit.’ At least conNECTions looked atboth transit and highway options for the NorthEast Corridor.Shouldn’t we be doing the same region-wide?

— Voice-mail question following the October CAC meeting

Roth: As the region’s primary transporta-tion planner, the MPO always tries to take abalanced approach to enhancing our area’stransportation system to meet current, andanticipate future, needs. That means consider-ing new and wider roads where appropriate, aswell as more and better transit options, andalternative modes of travel which are in grow-ing demand, such as bicycle and pedestrianroute systems. So, we haven’t changed ourplanning process. Just the opposite, in fact.

Our new Rapid Transit Study is concen-trating exclusively on transit options becauseof our commitment to thorough consideration.This study is being conducted, in part, inresponse to the conNECTions study ofNortheast Corridor Transportation. In Januaryof 2002, conNECTions’ Policy SteeringCommittee, headed by Indianapolis MayorBart Peterson, INDOT Commissioner J. BryanNicol, and State Senator Luke Kenley,approved the study’s recommended highwaywidening improvements (Option H5), buttabled the transit recommendation pendingfurther investigation. Our new study, calledDIRECTIONS (See related story, page 17), willfocus on the viability and cost-effectiveness ofa region-wide rapid transit system, concentrat-ing on travel corridor placement and preferred

ACRO-NYMBLE

Here’s a list of the acronyms used inthis issue. Refer to it to keep your

understanding letter-perfect.

ADT – Average Daily TrafficAICP – American Institute of Certified

PlannersAPM – Automated People MoverASCE – American Society of Civil

EngineersATMS – Advanced Traffic Management

SystemCAC – Citizens Advisory CommitteeCMS – Congestion Management SystemDEIS – Draft Environmental Impact

StatementDMD – Department of Metropolitan

DevelopmentDPW – Department of Public WorksFHWA – Federal Highway

AdministrationFRP – Fiberglass Reinforced PlasticFTA – Federal Transit AdministrationIDEM – Indiana Department of

Environmental ManagementIIA – Indianapolis International AirportINDOT – Indiana Department of

TransportationIRTC – Indianapolis Regional

Transportation CouncilIRTIP – Indianapolis Regional

Transportation Improvement Program ISTEA – The Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991MDC – Metropolitan Development

CommissionMIS – Major Investment StudyMPA – Metropolitan Planning AreaMPO – Metropolitan Planning

OrganizationO&M – Operations & MaintenancePIP – Public Involvement ProgramPLC – Primary Logic ControllerSIP – State Implementation PlanSTP – Surface Transportation ProgramTE – Transportation EnhancementTEA-21 – Transportation Equity Act for

the 21st CenturyTIP – Transportation Improvement

ProgramTMS – Traffic Monitoring SystemUPWP – Unified Planning Work ProgramUSEPA – United States Environmental

Protection AgencyVMT – Vehicle Miles Traveled

cont on page 18, see Q & A

&

Stephanie BelchMPO Senior Planner

QUESTIONSANSWERS

Philip RothMPO Senior Planner

P A G E T H R E E

I N D I A N A P O L I S M E T R O P O L I T A N P L A N N I N G A R E A

BooneMadison

Morgan

Johnson

Shelby

Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA)(Projected Urbanization By The Year 2020)

Eagle

Pike

Lincoln

Wayne

Buck

Creek

Sugar

Creek

White

River

Warren

Washington

Perry FranklinDecaturGuilford

LawrenceDelaw

are

Hancock

Washington

Pleasant

Clay

Washington

Center

Hamilton

Marion

Fall

Creek

Hendricks

winter through autumn (five issues,including the Special Edition) in its cur-rent calendar year. Read this one to

learn about INDOT’s I-65/I-70 Hyperfix,IndyGo’s new priorities, the plannedupdate of the Congestion ManagementSystem, the proposed expansion of the

MPO’s planning area (based on Census2000 data), progress on the IndianapolisInsights project, and more! It’s all here,and it’s all now (2003), in teMPO!

Seasonal Issues

(from page 1)

This map reflects the expanded MPO Metropolitan PlanningArea (MPA) as determined by Census 2000 data. The boundaryof this area has not yet been finalized.

DRAFT

P A G E F O U R

IndyGo Priorities

Having been introduced to teMPO readers in our October2002 Special Edition, new IndyGo CEO Gil Holmes ini-

tially resisted appearing again so soon in our pages. “I’d rathernot have the focus on me,” he said. However, changes current-ly underway at IndyGo prompted Mr. Holmes to meet with usfor a question and answer session focussed exclusively on thecompany’s new goals and priorities.

After seven months on the job,what is your first priority forIndyGo?

To change our internal culture.Some people may prefer to hearabout very visible, external changesbut, to me, it’s a case of “first thingsfirst”. I believe we need to re-orga-nize our thinking, and refine ourprocedures to meet the region’s pre-sent and future transit needs. And, Ithink the resulting benefits of thesechanges will be immediately visible.

How will a re-organized IndyGo look? Like an inverted pyramid, where the broad base of

IndyGo drivers, and the customers they serve, are on-top, sup-ported by layers of internal staff, including managers, corpo-rate officers, our board, and me. In this model, I’m at the bot-tom of the inverted pyramid.

How will it work? I and everyone who works on the “inside” of IndyGo

needs to ask him- or herself, “Does everything I do help tosupport our drivers and to meet the needs of our customers?Anything that doesn’t, we stop doing. Anything that does, werefine to make it even more effective.

It’s like the Army, where everything officers do is intendedto help the soldiers in the front lines. Our mission is to serveour customers. So, all of our internal jobs exist to make it easi-er for our point-of-sales people – our drivers andtransit store personnel – to meet customer needs.

What kind of needs are we talking about?First and foremost, the need to be heard

and considered. Let’s face it, IndyGo hasn’talways been very user-friendly. If you, as a cus-tomer, needed information on how to use us,how would you get it? Our old Bus Stop signsfeatured our phone number (See related story,page 16), but what if you don’t have a cell phone?

Doesn’t it just make more sense to identify the connectingroutes right on the sign?

Another area is our service intervals. I believe transit rid-ership is based on availability. In Chicago, where there’s a busor train every ten minutes, ridership is high. Here, where wehave 30-minute rush-hour intervals (60-minute, off-peak), notso high. I’d like to change that.

Are 10-minute service intervals possible here?We don’t know that yet. On some routes, during certain

hours, maybe. But we DO know that better service is possiblehere and we’re looking for ways to improve it. Getting the bestutilization of every route is a priority goal for us. So, we’llspend a little time on route structure refinement and analysisbefore jumping the gun on service intervals.

Do you have the money you need to fund changes?Too soon to tell. Remember that IndyGo has only about

half the fleet and budget of other transit providers in cities ofsimilar size. In fact, transit organizations in many smallercities, like Dayton and Peoria, are better funded than we are.So, there’s clearly a limit to what we can afford to change rightnow. However, until we thoroughly evaluate what we’re doing,we won’t know what that limit is.

Are there low-cost improvements you can make?Sure. I think those with the biggest impact happen at the

point-of-sale where our image is built. These include makingsure that our buses are clean, and that our drivers are friendlyand well-groomed. These are not high-cost concerns, but they

Gil HolmesIndyGo CEO/President

cont on page 6, see IndyGo Priorities

“Seventy-percent oftransit riders are

either coming from, or going to, work.”

P A G E F I V E

MPO Profile

Meet Michael O’Loughlin, a career transportation plannerwith a one-of-a-kind job and an outlook to match.

Michael is the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Byways ProgramManager for the Indiana Department of Transportation(INDOT). As such, he is responsible for a unique combina-tion of transportation issues and activities that no one else atINDOT, or in the state, oversees.

“Other states may assign oversight of bicycle and pedestrianissues to different planners. And, I would guess, few othersentrust their byways program to the same person. But I’m gladIndiana does,” he says. “This ‘twin focus’ has given me a com-prehensive perspective of our state’s alternativetransportation programs.”

Michael started in the Urban PlanningSection of INDOT in 1984, where he workedwith MPO Manager/Master Planner MikeDearing, then an INDOT employee.“Everyone in our section worked with MPOsback then,” he remembers. “Mike and I eachworked with three MPOs.” In 1994, Michaelwas given the responsibility of coordinatingthe state’s bicycle and pedestrian programs. In1997, byway issues were added to his work-load and, two years later, he joined INDOT’sMulti-Modal Division. “It was really the onlyplace to be for someone involved with themix of issues that make up my days,” he says.

In his position, Michael is commonlyasked what a “byway” is and he answers with the ease of some-one who enjoys his work and recognizes its importance. “Thenational program designates travel corridors of regional andnational significance as ‘byways’, based on their intrinsic char-acteristics,” he explains. Byways are designated for their cultur-al, historic, scenic, recreational, natural or archaeological quali-ties. “A good example is the Historic National Road,” saysMichael, of the route most Hoosiers associate with US 40. “InIndiana, the route deviates from 40 in several places, but stillforms a pretty direct route. Last summer the Historic NationalRoad was designated an All American Road through six states,from Baltimore to St. Louis. Part of my job is to preserve, pro-tect and enhance the segment that runs through Indiana.”

While conceding that the Byways Program is probably thefastest growing function he oversees, Michael is also quick topoint out the progress Indiana’s made in the areas of bicycle andpedestrian transportation. “Both programs are growing incredi-bly. In fact, they each take up about 60% of my time,” helaughs. “When I think of where we were just five years ago, I’mreally excited by the projects we currently have in the works.”

Three examples are especially close to Michael’s heart: InTerre Haute, an old rest stop that was closed in the mid-70’s

has been re-opened as a trailhead and rest stop. The locationwill serve both non-motorized trail users and national scenicbyway travelers. Now known as the Twiggs Rest Area, INDOTretains ownership, but Terre Haute Parks and Recreation main-tains it. And, the public is coming in droves! “Located alongthe Historic National Road, the National Road Heritage Trail isalready getting a lot of use,” Michael notes. “In fact, the com-munity is about to start Phase II of the rail/trail conversion, anda second trail head further east of the Twiggs site is needed tokeep up with demand. That’s a good problem to have.”

In Lake and Porter Counties, multiple cities, towns andcounties are working together to connect various trails into atrail network. The Erie-Lackawanna Trail involves five differ-

ent jurisdictions each doing their segment. TheOak-Savanna in Lake County will combine withthe Prairie-Duneland in Porter County to form a22-mile trail that will eventually link with theCalumet Trail. The Calumet is built on landdonated by Northern Indiana Public ServiceCompany (NIPSCO) near the Lake Michiganshoreline. “This is a model of local governmentcooperation for the good of its constituents andthe environment,” Michael says. “It’s an exampleof what people can get done when they worktogether.”

The most significant trail facility in the stateis probably the Cardinal Greenway. When com-plete, the 70-mile trail will connect Richmond toMarion and pass through five Indiana counties.Most of the trail is built on an abandoned rail

line acquired by a private non-profit group. About 30 milesare complete and open for public use now, including a 20-mile stretch through Muncie in Delaware County. TheCardinal Greenway, part of the cross-country AmericanDiscovery Trail, will be long enough to attract visitors fromother states to sample Hoosier hospitality.His own priorities are evident when Michael enjoys the rarefree moment. He bikes, gardens and is a supporter of envi-ronmental protection. He also travels most often to work viaIndyGo. “Either you believe in the benefits of alternativetransportation, or you don’t,” he says. “I do, and I supportmaking our regional transportation system as multi-modal aspossible.” Toward this end, Michael represents INDOT as amember of the MPO’s Multi-modal Task Force which includesamong its current initiatives installation of bike racks at pop-ular downtown destinations.

“I’m lucky. I believe in what I’m doing,” says Michael. “Iget to spend my work day, and off-hours, working to improveIndiana’s environment and mobility.”

Michael lives in Indianapolis with his wife of 30 years,Susan, and has a 27 year-old son, Eric.

Michael O’LoughlinINDOT Planner/Outdoor Promoter

make a huge impression on our customers. That’s why I wantto make sure we have them covered, while we consider highercost options.

What kind of options?Things like Park & Go lots, express bus routes, adding

extra buses to busy routes . . . the list is long and growing.And, remember, we’re already developing an electric or hybridpowered circulator service, our downtown transit center, andvan pool programs. In these ways, IndyGo is part of an innov-ative, responsive solution to community challenges, like rush-hour congestion. I want IndyGo to be recognized as a fullpartner in meeting the area’s needs.

Do you mean “needs” beyond transportation?Transportation is so integral to a community’s well-being

that I don’t think we need to look beyond it to see benefits inother areas. For example, employment. Seventy-percent oftransit riders are either coming from, or going to, work. So,clearly, the more responsive transit service is toemployer/employee needs, the greater benefit it offers to ourlocal economy. That’s the reasoning behind our IndyWorksand Access-To-Jobs Programs.

From an environmental perspective, look at the hybriddiesel/electric circulator service we’re starting downtown this year,or the bio-diesel buses we’re considering for the future that run onsoy-based fuel. Both would help improve our region’s air quality.

Now, consider what benefits might emerge if IndyGo builtan alliance with Allison Transmission. This one partnershipmight simultaneously benefit the region’s economy, employ-ment and environment. I think it’s this kind of synergy thatwill make public transportation an increasingly valuable com-munity asset.

How long will it take to build this kind of synergy?It’s been building for a while thanks, in part, to

the efforts of a committed staff and supportive board.Right now, we have a very transit-friendly city admin-istration – one that openly supports alternative trans-portation technologies and innovative programs.

We also have an increasingly strong relationshipwith the Metropolitan Planning Organization. They’vebeen quick to recognize the potential benefit transitoffers the regional transportation system. Thanks tothe MPO, we’re consistently “invited to the table” nowas a valued planning partner. I want to make sure thatwe’re making the most of that opportunity.

Where does your vision of the future IndyGocome from?

Ironically, some aspects of it come from the past.I spent four years of my childhood in a small town in

Southern Illinois. There, I thought the Greyhound Bus Driverwas a king. I can remember seeing his bus pull into town. Hewould step out, looking just great, and start helping peopledisembark. They were all smiling and happy, and he was theone who had gotten them there safe and in comfort. That’s agood image for us to keep in mind.

Another aspect from the past is a personal goal of mine;I’d like to grow IndyGo’s future fleet to the size it was 15 or 20years ago (286). That would be an increase of about 150buses. The only reason I’d have for doing this is to accommo-date all of the new riders we’ve attracted between now andthen.

In conclusion, is there anything else you’d like to tellteMPO’s readers?

Yes. Why not try riding the bus once in a while? I thinkthe improvements we’re making could change the way youthink about public transportation.

P A G E S I X

IndyGo Priorities

(from page 4) “I want IndyGo to be recognized as a fullpartner in meeting the area’s needs.”

“Let’s face it, IndyGohasn’t always been

very user-friendly.”

“

P A G E S E V E N

Commissioning

Clarian’s People

Mover

Commissioning the People Mover, orrepeatedly testing its various system

components so that their safe operationcan be eventually certified is on-going,”says Jeff Cavanaugh, ProjectSuperintendent for Schwager Davis, Inc.(SDI) of San Jose, California. In January,2001, SDI was awarded the contract todesign, build, and commission, Clarian’sPeople Mover System.“Commissioning is a process, notan event,” Cavanaugh explains.“We began pre-commissioningactivity last August and it contin-ues to this day, even as construc-tion on the system’s WalnutStreet Station continues.”

As reported in teMPO’sOctober 2002, Special Edition,the Clarian People Mover’sroute, initially proposed as8,000 long, was reduced to7,400 feet when two stations onWalnut Street were merged intoone. For this reason, the WalnutStreet Station, now nearly com-plete, reflects a more elaborate,upgraded design and representsapproximately one-quarter of allPeople Mover-related construc-tion work. Upon completion, itwill serve both Riley Hospital, via an ele-vated walkway, and Indiana UniversityHospital, the system’s southern mostdestination.

“It looks like the future,” saysCavanaugh. “From its slender guidewaystructure, to its sleek train bodies, to itsstate-of-the-art Allen-Bradley controlelectronics, this system represents thefuture of urban travel. And our commis-sioning activity is proving that its beautyis more than skin deep.”

The Clarian People Mover is an ele-vated, dual-rail guideway system provid-ing transit service among Clarian facili-ties for physicians, nurses and technical

personnel, as well as some ambulatorypatients and the public. An estimated500,000 people will ride the systemannually, at no charge. System capacitywill be 1800 passengers per hour, whowill be able to travel between MethodistHospital and the Riley/IU station inapproximately five minutes at a maxi-mum speed of 28mph.

Because the system will be fullyautomated, it is classified as anAutomated People Mover (APM). Trainswill run automatically between 5:30 AM

and 10 PM, and then be “on-call” untilthe next morning. A remote monitoringcenter will activate pagers for operationsstaff in case of emergency. The systemwill be staffed for 24/7 operations. Anoperator in the control room at all times,including on-call hours.

The system’s elevated concreteguideway structure is designed to be asattractive and economical as possible.On SDI’s recommendation, ClarianHealth Partners selected concrete insteadof steel for the guideway. SDI’s four-foottrack gauge allows for a relatively nar-row superstructure and the average 80-

foot span between columns minimizesthe number of support piers. There areonly 88 along the system’s entire 1.4mile route. To reduce ice and snowbuild-up on the guideway during winter,the superstructure is designed with openspace between the tracks.

The People Mover’s train bodieswere hand-fabricated in Switzerlandfrom aviation grade structural alu-minum. Each of the two 3-car trains fea-tures an innovative exterior design withlarge tinted windows and fiberglass rein-

forced plastic (RFP) nose sectionsat either end. Individual cars are22’L x 8 ‘ W x 10’ H 10’H (Nosevehicles are 28’ long.), with seat-ing for eight passengers andstanding room for 19. Each car isfully air-conditioned and has asingle 5’ wide bi-parting door forcenter station boarding. Theempty weight of each train is45,000 pounds.

SDI took delivery of thePeople Mover trains in April, 2002.The first train was installed on theguideway in May; the second inearly July. Throughout last sum-mer, SDI and its technology teamperformed pre-commissioning andrun-testing activities on the twotrains. Train A is now ready forfinal commissioning and certifica-tion-testing to proceed; Train B willbe ready in late March.

The People Mover’s Control Systemis fully automated and designed with thelatest advances in on-board programma-ble logic controllers and redundant safe-ty systems. This new-generation controlsystem was designed by PSI, Inc. ofWalnut Creek, CA and utilizes state-of-the-art Allen-Bradley control electronics.All operational functions are controlledby an on-board computer system andmonitored via wireless data communica-tion in a central control room located inthe Methodist Station. All relays andswitching devices are software con-

cont on page 12, see People Mover

Looking south along the People Mover Guideway beside Senate Avenue,toward the State Capitol Building.

“That would cost the local economy an estimated $80 millionin added travel time, wasted work time and fuel lost idling intraffic delays, not to mention its impact on the region’s airquality. We think shutting the highway down completely andpaying for construction speed is the best way to handle theproject.” INDOT will offer the contractor an incentive of up to$200,000 for each day the roadway is reopened before thescheduled August 18th completion date. The maximum bonuspossible is $2.6 million, which may be awarded for work doneprior to and during the closure.

Indianapolis’ innerloop, where I-65 and I-70 run togetherbetween the north and south split, was opened to traffic onOctober 15, 1976. Ripping up and replacing the pavement for33 bridge decks and 35 lane miles of highway will cost anestimated $28 million. This and all highway projects are fund-ed by INDOT’s construction budget which is fueled by gas

taxes. Construction bid-ding on the I-65/I-70

Hyperfix openedWednesday,January22nd. At

press time,no contractor

had yet beenannounced.

“We will do every-thing we can to complete this projectquickly,” says Nicol. “That’s why

we’re offering the early completionbonus, and why we’ve committed to anaggressive, 85-day construction schedule.That’s a short time frame for a project ofthis size, but we know the project isinconveniencing people, so we’re tryingto get it done and get out.” Once startedon Monday, May 26th, the day after the

Indianapolis 500, construction willproceed 24 hours a day, sevendays a week, for nearly threemonths. During that period,INDOT and its contractor willcomply with all local ordinances

concerning noise levels and plan to restrict theloudest construction activities to the daylight hours.

During this period, regional and “through state” traffic willbe diverted to I-465, which will remain construction-freethroughout 2003. Travelers approaching Indianapolis on I-65

65/70 Hyperfix

(from page 1)

teMPO is published quarterly by your Metropolitan Planning

Organization, part of the Department of Metropolitan Development. If you know of

anyone who would like to receive teMPO, or if you have any questions concerning its

publication, please call:

Mike Dearing (317/327-5139, mdearing@indygov.org)Department of Metropolitan DevelopmentMetropolitan Planning Organization1821 City-County Building200 East Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204-3310teMPO was written and prepared for publication by Whitman Communications, Inc.

cont on page 10, see 65/70 Hyperfix

I-65/I-70 Hyperfixat a Glance

What: A complete shut down of segments of I-65 and I-70 to rip-

up and replace the pavement of 33 bridge decks and 35lane miles of highway.

Where: The highway just east of downtown Indianapolis, where I-65 and I-70 run together.

When: May 26 through August 18, 2003. This 85-day construc-tion schedule, including 62 weekdays, will involve nonstopactivity 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Why: It’s badly in need of repair. “This is a double interstate andeverything has worn out twice as fast,” says INDOTCommissioner J. Bryan Nicol. These segments of highwayopened more than 25 years ago and have not undergoneany major reconstructions.

Who: This Indiana Department of Transportation project willaffect an estimated 175,000 daily motorists needing to findalternate routes around or through the city.

How much: Hyperfix will cost $28 million, paid for by INDOT’s con-

struction budget, which is funded through state and federalgas taxes. If the roadway is opened to traffic up to 10 daysahead of schedule, an incentive of up to $2.6 million willbe paid to the chosen contractor.

P A G E E I G H T

Tran Plan Process

Re-certification

Because we go through this everythree years, some people might feel

like it’s routine to us,” saysMPO Manager/MasterPlanner Mike Dearing of thetriennial review and re-cer-tification of the MPO’sregional transporta-tion planningprocess. “Nothingcould be furtherfrom thetruth,” he

says. “We workclosely as plan-ning partners throughout the year withmany of the federal and state agencyrepresentatives who conduct the review.So, we know them. Still, it’s humannature to feel a little nervous whensomething you care so much about isbeing evaluated.”

The Transportation Equity Act forthe 21st Century, the federal legislationwhich oversees all MPO activity,requires the review and certification ofthe transportation planning process inall urbanized areas with populationsover 200,000. Certification is a prereq-uisite to receiving federal funds for air-port, transit and highway transportationimprovements. In the Indianapolisregion, this certification process tookplace this year on March 10, 11th and12th, and was conducted by representa-tives of:• the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)• the Federal Transit Administration

(FTA)

• the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA)

• the Indiana Department ofTransportation (INDOT)

• and, the Indiana Dept. ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM).

As part of the review, most of theagenda for the March meeting of theCitizens Advisory Committee was dedi-cated to the re-certification process.Representatives from the reviewingagencies asked for public input on howwell the MPO does its job of conductinga cooperative, comprehensive and coor-dinated regional transportation plan-

ning process. Germane tothese comments waswhether or not citi-zens feel included,welcomed, andheard, in the process.

The MPOencouraged participa-

tion in this public forum through a vari-ety of ways. A special memo, sent to theMPO’s mailing list, promoted meetingattendance and stressed the importanceof the re-certification process. In addi-tion, participation in the public forumwas promoted via a media advisory sentto more than 30+ local news and public

affairs sources, paidadvertising in bothThe Indianapolis Star

and The Indianapolis Recorder, MPO hot-line messages (3127/327-IMPO), andinclusion on MPO web site (www.indy-gov.org/indympo).

“Efforts to include the public asplanning partners through outreach ini-tiatives like our School InvolvementProgram, our Community InclusionProject and our many PublicInvolvement Program strategies havegotten us high marks in the past,”explains Dearing. “So, it was reallyimportant to us that anyone who want-ed to be heard on the topic of how weconduct regional transportation plan-ning attended the March CAC Meeting.”The meeting was held 6:30 - 8 p.m.,Tuesday, March 11 in Room 107 of theCity-County Building, 200 EastWashington, downtown Indianapolis.Those who were unable to attend themeeting are encouraged to send theircomments to Joyce Newland, FederalHighway Administration, 575 N.Pennsylvania St., Indianapolis, IN46204 or joyce.newland@fhwa.dot.govon or before March 25.

For more information on the re-cer-tification of MPO’s TransportationPlanning Process, or on quarterly meet-ings of the Citizens AdvisoryCommittee, contact Mike Dearing at317/327-5139 ormdearing@indygov.org.

P A G E N I N E

“

Did YouKnow?

The Texas Transportation Institute has again identified the nation’smost congested cities. According the TTI’s 2002 Urban MobilityReport, Los Angeles is #1 with 136 hours of time wasted each yearby the average commuter in slowed or stopped traffic. Roundingout the top five: San Francisco (92 hours), Washington D.C. (84hours), Seattle (82 hours) and Houston (75 hours). Indianapoliscame in a distant 30th in daily traffic congestion.

and I-70 will start seeing construction warning signs 10 milesoutside of town. Only the ramp from southbound I-65 to theMichigan/Ohio/Fletcher collector-distributor will be closedinto downtown, although “exit only” lanes and surroundinglocal streets are likely to be heavily congested. Congestion inthe north split, however, will be eased with the addition ofanother lane on the Pine Street on-ramp to eastbound I-70. Inthe south split, the ramp from eastbound I-70 to southboundI-65 will also be widened, extending an additional travel lanesouth to the Raymond Street exit.

“Of the 85-day Hyperfix construction schedule, 62 daysare work days,” explains Nicol. “Many downtown workersprobably already have summer vacations planned during thisperiod which could ease congestion. However, INDOTencourages commuters to plan alternate routes to and fromwork now to minimize travel delay and inconvenience.”

Commuters approaching downtown on I-65 from thesouth side will be able to proceed as far north as the MarketStreet ramp. They will also be able to take the ramp to I-70West and use the exits to the southside of downtown.

Commuters traveling south on I-65 to downtown from thenorthwestside will need to exit onto eastbound I-70 or atMeridian Street. The Michigan/Ohio/Fletcher collector-distrib-utor will not be accessible.

I-70 commuters approaching downtown from the eastsidewill have limited access to the Michigan and Ohio Street exitsvia “exit only” lanes which will remainopen as far as the Ohio Street ramp.However, they will not have accessto the Fletcher Avenue ramp andwill not be able to merge overto southbound I-65.

Heading home fromdowntown at day’send will also takesome plan-ning. Withthe excep-tion of thePine Streeton-ramp to theinner loop, alldowntown on-rampswill be open. However,no one will be able to enterthe freeway north of downtownand head south, or vice versa. Also,major thoroughfares leading to andfrom downtown may be under construc-

65/70 Hyperfix

(from page 8)

Michigan St.

Vermont St.

New York St.

Ohio St.

Maryland St.

Co

lleg

e A

ve.

Shel

by

St.

Virginia Ave.

Fletcher Ave.

Massa

chusetts

Ave.

Co

lleg

e A

ve.

Lanes to be closed to through traffic

Lanes that will remain open during construction

New lanes to be added

cont on page 24, see 65/70 HyperfixP A G E T E N

P A G E E L E V E N

Indianapolis

Insight Milestone

T he Indianapolis Insight compre-hensive planning process reached a

major milestone in Autumn, 2002,when it completed land use mappingfor both the Pike and Wayne Townshipplanning areas. “These are the first ofeight planning areas we started to maplast spring as part of our Phase II activi-ty,” explains Keith Holdsworth,Principal Planner of the ComprehensivePlanning Section of the Department ofMetropolitan Development. “The map-ping process continues in the remainingsix, but we’re proud of how quickly andcooperatively it was handled in Pike andWayne Township,” he says. “It meansour procedures are working and thatpeople are embracing this process.”

As reported in the Summer 2002issue of teMPO, Indianapolis Insight isthe update of the Marion CountyComprehensive Land Use Plan whichstarted in September, 2000. This planhelps guide City decisions on land useand capital expenditures. Because thereis a close relationship between land useand transportation demand, the MPOhas followed the update’s progress close-ly. The purpose of Indianapolis Insightis to 1) identify shared community val-ues and 2) develop plan goals, objec-tives and implementation policies thatreflect those values, eventually result-ing in specific land use recommenda-tions.

Approximately one year ago, theMetropolitan DevelopmentCommission adopted IndianapolisInsight’s Community ValuesComponent as the first phase ofthe update. This document setsforth a framework for devel-opment of the update’s sec-ond phase of land useplanning and includesplanning principals,value statements andrecommendations for

new and revised policies, procedures,programs and ordinances as they relateto land use. It also provides a variety ofsupporting information, including chap-ters on city and county history, environ-mental conditions, population andhousing trends, and a glossary of plan-ning terms (See page 21 for orderinginformation).

As part of Phase II, its land use planmapping phase, Indianapolis Insightintroduced a new set of land use cate-gories. Land use categories are funda-mental building blocks of theComprehensive Land Use maps. Eachparcel of land in the county will beeventually labeled with one of these cat-egories as its land use recommendation.New categories were added to betterdepict historic land uses and to accom-modate new development trends. These include:

• Village Mixed-Use which refersto areas

intended to strengthen existing, histori-cally rural, small towns and cities withinIndianapolis as neighborhood gatheringplaces;

• Airport Related Mixed-Usewhich consists of commercial andindustrial land uses that are comple-mentary to airport development;

• Environmentally Sensitivewhich is a secondary land use classifica-tion that will overlay other categoriesand refers to land that possesses specialenvironmental or natural characteristicsthat will require careful attention withregard to development proposals.

In Pike and Wayne Townships, thepublic input portion of the land usemapping process involved a series ofseven meetings in each planning areaplus several special meetings. The topicat the first meeting was an overview ofthe Community Values Component.Subsequent meetings began with pre-sentations on a variety of topics includ-ing environmental factors, parks, expla-

nation of planning jargon, and areview of the mapping

standards.Then, meeting

participants brokeinto three smaller

groups. Each groupdiscussed a particular geo-

graphic area of the town-ship. Meeting attendees

were encouraged to move tothe groups whose topics were

of most interest to them.Within these small groups,

planning staff presented theirland use recommendations and

rationale. Group discussion evalu-ated the appropriateness of the

staff proposals. Though generally inaccord, meeting participants and

staff made a few changes at everymeeting.

Pike Township SpecificsLand Use Planning meetings in Pike

cont on page 20, see Milestone

P A G E T W E L V E

trolled. The control system is pro-grammed for automatic acceleration fromstations, maximum cruise speed, deceler-ation at curves and station approach andstopping at stations. It also incorporatescomplete fail-safe features for train pro-tection and safety, including speed con-trol, direction and location monitoring,collision avoidance, braking, stoppingand door control.

But how are these intricate systemcomponents, each a highly com-plex system itself, tested andcommissioned for operation?“That depends on the part,” saysCavanaugh. “There are three ver-ification and validation methodsused to test system componentsand functions,” he explains. “Thefirst is Analysis, which evaluatesa component or functionthrough review of engineeringdocumentation, calculations, etc.The second is Inspection orphysical examination of a com-ponent or function. And, thethird is Testing, both direct andindirect, which evaluates a com-ponent or function under actualoperating conditions.”

Back in early 2001, the clients andthe SDI team looked at approximately15 different train lay-outs before select-ing one. When the train car shellsarrived here from Switzerland, SDIbegan assembly in the yard at 337 W.11th St., including axle assembly, drivemotors, suspension components, HVACand electrical wiring. “So, when pre-commissioning activity started last sum-mer, we were really double-checkingour own work in all areas of systemoperation,” Cavanaugh notes.

To insure safe operation, the PeopleMover system relies on integrateddesign redundancy. For example, con-trol system wiring employs dual PrimaryLogic Controllers (PLC) to manage thesame aspect of operation. A third, PLC

reviews readings from these dual con-trols. For example, if the load sensors,which monitor weight capacity for eachtrain, have the same reading, operationcontinues. If not, the PLC notes the dis-crepancy, triggers system operationchecks and ultimately, could interruptservice. The PLC ultimately controlsprogramming.

Redundancy is also built into thePeople Mover’s communications system.The Methodist Hospital Station, thenorthern most terminal, houses the sys-tem’s safety and security monitoring sta-

tion and maintenance shop. This stationand the trains will keep in-touch usingdual frequencies to relate all information,including emergency; on-boardaudio/visual messaging; heating, ventila-tion and air conditioning system opera-tion; smoke detection; fire alarm; mar-keting messages, and more. “As an APM,the critical nature of the People Mover’son-board communications system cannot be overestimated,’ says Cavanaugh.“Ninety-nine, point nine percent of thetime it’ll have nothing to report, but itstill assures rider peace-of-mind.”

After nearly seven months of suchpre-commissioning testing, the formalcommissioning of the People Mover istentatively scheduled to proceed in lateFebruary – right on schedule withClarian Health Partners’ original time-

line. By that point, SDI will have docu-mented a schedule of both test proce-dures and results that meet the ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineering)Performance Code. When City andClarian officials, and their consultants,sign off on the process, formal commis-sioning is complete.

“We’re very close right now,” notesGlendal Jones, the Clarian PublicRelations Coordinator on the project.“People here are very eager to ride thetrains and enjoy the comfort and conve-nience of this system.”

Cavanaugh agrees. “Giventhe scope of the project, it’scome together incredibly fast,thanks to the professionalismand cooperation of all involved.Still, everyone wants to startenjoying the benefits thatprompted the system’s conceptand construction; the fast, effi-cient movement of people andequipment among ClarianHealth facilities.”

Insuring the continuation ofthose benefits after formal com-missioning will again be SDIwhich was awarded a separatethree-year operations and main-

tenance (O & M) contract. The contractspecifies a pro-active maintenance pro-gram, requiring the services of thirteenO & M personnel, including manage-ment, and shift work. “Mechanicalrepairs will be done at night,” notesCavanaugh. “After all, people who savelives will depend on the People Mover.How it’s maintained should reflect that.”In this regard, Cavanaugh noted that theclosing of United Airlines’ Indianapolisfacility was timely, if unfortunate. “Wehad our pick of their most experiencedpeople,” he says. “It was a great way tohelp this project and the community.”

For more information on the com-missioning of Clarian People Mover,please contact Clarian Public RelationsCoordinator Glendal Jones at (317) 962-4540.

People Mover

(from page 7)

One of two People Mover trains leaves the Methodist Hospital Stationwhich houses the system’s safety and security monitoring facilities andmaintenance shop.

PAGE THIRTEEN

Cunningham Named MPO

Principal Planner

In January of this year, the Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO) announced the promotion of Steve

Cunningham to the position of Principal Planner. In his newposition, Steve succeedsMike Dearing who made theannouncement. Dearing waspromoted to MPOManager/Master Planner inDecember, 2002.

Cunningham joined theIndianapolis MPO in April,1988 as a transportationplanner. He had previouslyinterned in the Division ofPlanning in 1986. In 1989,Steve was named SeniorTransportation Planner. Hisresponsibilities nowinclude:

• Supervision of the City of Indianapolis’ TransportationImpact Analysis process for proposed development

• Coordination of the development and updating of theOfficial Thoroughfare Plan for Marion County

• Travel demand modeling and traffic-forecasting• Air Quality Conformity Analysis – a pre-requisite to federal

endorsement and funding of the region’s Long-RangeTransportation Plan and Indianapolis RegionalTransportation Improvement Program

• Railroad issues and planning• Airport area planning• Contract and work program management

“I’m happy to haveSteve succeed me asPrincipal Planner, and tobe able to continue relyingon him in the future,” notesDearing. “He’s been an assetto the regional trans-portation planningprocess foralmost 15years, andour plan-ning part-ners havecome totrust in hisobjectivity andprofessionalism.”

An Indianapolisnative, Steve Cunninghamearned a Bachelor of Sciencedegree from Ball StateUniversity, Muncie, Indiana,where he majored in PoliticalScience with a concentrationin Urban and Regional Studies.He also holds a minor inGeography. Steve currently residesin the Irvington area with his wifeof 12 years, and their two children.

You can reach Steve in his newcapacity as MPO Principal Planner bycontacting him at 317/327-5403 orscunning@indygov.org.

Did You Know?The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that the number of

drivers and passengers who buckle up continued to increase last year. In 2002, 75%

of all travelers used seat belts regularly. That’s four percentage points higher than

just two years earlier (2000-71%) and a whopping 17% increase over eight year

(1994 -58%). The largest two year increase came between 1996 (61%) and 1998

(70%) when seat belt use grew 8%. This coincides with increased enforcement of

existing seat belt laws and public awareness advertising (“Buckle up. It’s the law!”).

PAGE FOURTEEN

BackgroundInitially conceived in 1993, in response to federal ISTEA

requirements, the Congestion Management System (CMS) wasdeveloped to provide transportation planners with timely trans-portation effectiveness/efficiency measures to inform planningactivities. Its initial purpose was to develop strategies for mitigat-ing congestion in heavily traveled corridors. The MPO built theCMS in 1995/1996 and immediately incorporated it into its cri-teria for scoring Indianapolis Regional TransportationImprovement Program (IRTIP) project proposals. The IRTIP doc-uments federally funded transportation improvements pro-grammed for our area over a three-year period.

At its heart, the CMS is a performance-based system formanagement of existing and new transportation facilities throughtravel demand and operational management strategies. One defi-nition of a CMS is “a document explaining how congestion is tobe addressed in the planning process.” According to federal regu-lations, the CMS must be capable of identifying the location andseverity of congestion, and must identify elements of operationalmanagement strategies used to alleviate congestion.

Monitoring the effectiveness of these strategies allows forcontinual refinement of the CMS. Philosophically, the CMS is anattempt to control congestion while minimizing new construc-tion or expansion of congested facilities. This approach is basedupon the maximization of scarce resources and environmentalpreservation (through air quality improvement). The followingpages detail a scope of work for the update of the CMS.

In 1996, the MPO selected HNTB Corporation, a nationaldesign firm with Geographical Information System (GIS) capabil-ities, to update the CMS. This project will rely upon the existingCMS process and methodology. In order to update the CMS withcurrent information and available research, its approach providesa workflow based on the existing process. The CMS Update willbe accomplished through the following four tasks:

Task I. System DeterminationA. Establish CMS Steering CommitteeHNTB will conduct a project kick-off meeting with the

entire CMS Steering Committee, which includes MPO personnel.The purpose of this meeting will be to establish the projectschedule and to identify project milestones. The firstSteering Committeemeeting will includethe presentation ofthe evaluation of theprior CMS begun byMPO staff.

B. Establish Monitoring NetworkThe CMS Monitoring Network is established as the

Transportation Monitoring System (TMS) Network (all thorough-fares within the Indianapolis nine-county region). The updatedTMS Network is based upon the MPO’s 2025 travel demandmodel and will be made available from the Indianapolis TMSPhase II project (see TMS Phase II Enhancements, Autumn teMPO,Volume Six, Issue Three).

Task II. Update and Identify Congested CorridorsA. Database UpdateHNTB will update the CMS database (within the TMS) with

the most recent available data, including current Average DailyTraffic (ADT) figures, forecasted ADT figures, level-of-service(LOS), vehicle miles travels (VMT), number of lanes, pavementwidths, and travel times – all data items gathered and madeavailable by MPO personnel for data base inputting by HNTB.An important scheduling note to this task is that this work willfollow the update of the road network in the TMS Phase II pro-ject. This sequencing is recommended to ensure the latest roadnetwork and database linkages are in place before beginning theCMS update.

B. Prior CMS Evaluation UpdateHNTB will review and complete the evaluation of the prior

CMS that was started by MPO staff. This task will entail workingclosely with MPO staff to provide a final technical memorandumthat provides a:

• CMS Activities Status Report• State of the System Report Update• Performance Monitoring Report• Effectiveness Evaluation ReportC. Congestion DefinitionHNTB will develop three different techniques to define con-

gested travel ways, which will consider measures of accessibility,mobility, and system efficiency. The three alternatives will be pre-sented to the CMS Steering Committee in order to select arevised definition of congestion in the Indianapolis Region. Thealternatives will be based on several criteria that can be definedusing queries from the TMS and related data sets.

CMS Update(from page 1)

cont on page 15, see CMS Update

D. Establish CMS Target NetworkUsing the agreed upon definition of congestion, a

CMS Target Network will be established. Each corri-dor in the CMS Target Network will be identified witha unique numbering system for easy identification ofthe corridors throughout the rest of the study. Eachcorridor link within the TMS will be coded with anattribute as its unique CMS identifier.

Task III. Update Strategy Evaluations andApplication

A. Congestion Management StrategiesHNTB will examine and update the list of congestion man-

agement strategies as defined in the previous CMS study. Atechnical memorandum will be provided to document the eval-uation of the applicability of the strategies, as well as providedocumentation of any updates or new strategies that should beconsidered when managing congestion in the Indianapolis region.This task will not be a comprehensive re-write of congestion man-agement strategies, but will provide a review of the previouslydocumented strategies and provide insight into any new strategyopportunities.

B. Screening ProcessThe next part of this project will be the process for applica-

tion of the management strategies. HNTB will provide a reviewof the screening process used to analyze and recommend specificstrategies for each corridor within the CMS Target Network. LikeTask IIIA, this task will not reinvent the screening process.However, it will provide a review of the applicability of the previ-ously documented screening process to certain corridors andprovide insight into any new screening approaches.

C. Enhanced CMS DatabaseThis element will include the development of an enhanced

database in order to collect and disseminate detailed informationand digital photography on CMS Target Network corridors. Thistask will include the reformatting of the custom form in the TMSfor data maintenance and access of the enhanced CMS database.The requirements for this custom form will include a conversionprocedure in order to output a data layer that is easily sharedwith other agencies.

D. Apply Screening ProcessOnce the screening process has been revised, it will be applied

in order to establish recommendations specific for each corridor inthe CMS Target Network. Each corridor will be summarized with acorridor map, vital traffic statistics, and recommended congestionmanagement strategies. Each summary will provide a narrative thatdescribes the strategy selection process along with the professionalrationale for application of the strategies.

Task IV. ImplementationA. Strategy RecommendationsHNTB will define specific recommendations for CMS imple-

mentation. These will include specific recommendations forcoordination and data-sharing with other agencies in regards toareas of the target network. Certain areas and/or strategies willalso be identified for further study or as other vehicles for addi-tional phases of the CMS.

B. Process DocumentationA final report will be developed in order to document

updates to the project process and resulting recommendations. ADRAFT of the document will be presented and supplied to theCMS Steering Committee for their review. After a review periodof two weeks, comments and questions will be addressed. HNTBwill work with MPO staff to address suggested changes and toincorporate final edits and comments into a FINAL projectreport. At this time, HNTB will also assist with the installationwith the updated CMS database into the TransportationMonitoring System (TMS).

HNTB will also provide end-user training for the enhancedCMS database and its use within the TMS. This will entail anHNTB analyst sitting with up to three MPO staff members in theMPO offices to explain the use and maintenance procedures forthis database.

“Successfully updating the CMS means that the MPO willget more accurate and responsive transportation efficiency andeffectiveness measurements,” notes Kevin Mayfield, the MPOPlanner who helps coordinate the project with Yang. “With moreprecise information, we’re better able to develop effective strate-gies for minimizing congestion along our most heavily traveledcorridors.”

For more information on the TMS Phase II Enhancements,contact Sweson Yang at 317/327-5137 (syang@indygov.org) orKevin Mayfield at 317/327-5135 (kmayfiel@indygov.org.)

P A G E F I F T E E N

CMS update(from page 14)

P A G E S I X T E E N

IndyGo Sign

Re-design

Sometimes a picture isn’t worth athousand words. That’s what IndyGo

staff found out recently while workingwith area students on several schoolinvolvement projects, including an evalu-ation of the transit-provider’s image andservice (2000) and last year’s multi-modaltheme. “During one of these projects, thestudents pointed out problems with our‘BUS STOP’ signs,” explains RolandMross, IndyGo Director of Marketing.“Despite a pictogram of a bus, the stu-dents didn’t recognize these signs as busstops. They felt the design worked moreas an ad for IndyGo, featuring our name

and phone number, but never really say-ing, ‘Bus Stop’.”

Point taken. Throughout the fall,IndyGo solicited public input on the six

designs shown here, all of which featurethe magical term. “Each is intended toattract the public’s attention and to cre-ate awareness that a bus stops here,”says Mross. “Also, we’ve added informa-tion for the convenience of our riders,including connecting routes, fare infor-mation and maps of the service area.”

IndyGo is still evaluating publiccomment concerning the design candi-dates that will be critical to the final selec-tion process. “We hope to have a consen-sus early this year,” Mross notes.

For more information on IndyGo’s‘Bus Stop’ sign re-design project, contactRoland Mross at 317/614-9310 or(rmross@indygo.net).

Did You Know?The average number of miles Americans put on their primary vehicles each year hasgrown steadily since 1980. As reported in the October 2002 issue of the EnergyInformation Administration’s Monthly Energy Review, the annual average was 11,988miles in the year 2000. That’s 3,000 + miles more than in 1980 (8,813 miles) andalmost 1,500 miles more than in 1990 (10,504 miles)! No wonder the incidence andduration of congestion is growing.

PAGE SEVENTEEN

Irons In The Fire

CAC Begins 2003 MeetingsThe Citizens Advisory

Committee (CAC) began its 2003quarterly meetings on Tuesday,March 11, in Room 107 of theCity-County Building, 200 EastWashington, down-townIndianapolis.The CAC wasfounded by theMPO in 1994 to regu-larly share information, andseek public comment, on a variety of transportation plan-ning issues. Input gathered at CAC meetings is shared withthe Indianapolis Regional Transportation Council (IRTC).

Though most CAC meetings are held on the last Tuesdayof the month, this one was scheduled early to accommodatereview of the MPO’s transportation planning process by fed-eral and state agencies. At this meeting, representatives ofthe Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the FederalTransit Administration (FTA), the Indiana Department ofTransportation (INDOT) and the Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM) hosted a public forumto gather input on how the MPO’s planning efforts, includingthose aimed at encouraging and accommodating public par-ticipation in regional transportation planning, are perceived.Other scheduled agenda items for the meeting included areview of newly proposed amendments to the 2003-2005Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program(IRTIP) and a status report on the regional Rapid TransitStudy that began in November, 2002. As always, the meetingbegan at 6:30 PM and lasted a minimum of one and a halfhours.

For more information on the Citizens AdvisoryCommittee, contact Mike Dearing, MPO Manager/MasterPlanner, at 317/327-5139 or mdearing@indygov.org.

Planning Area Expansion Process“It’s far from finalized,” notes MPO Senior Planner Philip

Roth, AICP, of the proposed expansion he’s overseeing of theMPO Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). “We’ve just fin-ished meeting with all of the impacted communities and arestill addressing relevant issues and concerns,” he says of theprocess that began last fall. “The IRTC endorsed the pro-posed MPA in November. However, it still needs to beapproved by INDOT and, ultimately, Governor O’Bannon.”

To preview the MPO’s likely recommendation, check out

page 3 in this issue of teMPO. There, you’ll find a draft MPAshowing newly expanded boundaries that reflect theIndianapolis Urbanized Area (UZA) as defined by the 2000Census.

“The Bureau of Census defines an urbanized area as adensely settled territory that contains 50,000 or more peo-ple,” explains Roth. “Population growth in communitiesneighboring Marion County accounts for the proposedexpansion of our planning area.”

Communities that must be included in the new MPAinclude Cicero (Hamilton Co.), Noblesville (HamiltonCo.), Arcadia (Hamilton Co.), McCordsville(Hancock Co.), New Palestine (Hancock Co.),

Danville (Hendricks Co.), Pittsboro (Hendricks Co.),Bargersville (Johnson Co.), Franklin (Johnson Co.), Brooklyn(Morgan Co.) and Mooresville (Morgan Co.). Communitiesthat are potentially within the 20-year urbanization enve-lope, which regulations say must be considered, includeWhitestown (Boone Co.), Atlanta (Hamilton Co.) andGreenfield (Hancock Co.).

For more information on the MPO’s expanded MPA, oron the process to determine its final boundary, contact PhilipRoth at 317/327-5149 (proth@indygov.org).

Rapid Transit Study NamedFollowing an external review process, MPO staff mem-

bers selected “DIRECTIONS” as the official name for the newregional Rapid Transit Study. “There are a lot of sound com-munications reasons for developing identity elements for astudy,” says Mike Dearing MPO Manager/Master Planner.“Our previous work with conNECTions, the study ofNorthEast Corridor Transportation, proved to us that theright name and logo could help establish and maintain pub-lic awareness and top-of-mind recall throughout the study’sextended duration,” he says. “That’s important when signifi-cant public participation is a goal.”

cont on page 23, see Irons In The Fire

transit technologies. The idea is that if a region-wide systemcan be shown to work, using light or commuter rail, orexpress busways, it lends validity to use of these modes inany single, high-traffic route, like the Northeast Corridor

or between downtown and theAirport. Elsewhere, region-

wide systems thatshare theconvenienceand mobilitybenefits oftransit

throughoutan area have

proven to be themost successful.

Belch: These benefits are becoming even more widelyrecognized as the downside of single-occupant vehicle usebecomes increasingly apparent. The most recent UrbanMobility Study by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI,

2000) showed thatIndianapolis free-

ways became con-

gested during peak travel periods 64% of the time. That’salmost double what it was ten years before (25%) and nearlysix-times what it was in 1982 (11%). Because of this conges-tion, a lot of local drivers avoid the freeways by using sec-ondary roads, causing increased traffic volume in our neigh-borhoods. The TTI study says that Indianapolis motoristsnow drive a combined road and freeway total of 29 millionmiles a day, up 38% since 1990! Yet, our miles of pavedroadway increased only 10.5% for the same period, mainlybecause we no longer have adequate right-of-way availablefor road expansion.

Add to this that Indiana now has 5.2 million registeredcars and trucks, or one vehiclefor every 1.54 residents. Thattops the national average of1.46 per person.More peopletravelingmore milesmeanlongerperiods ofpeak con-gestion. The TTIstudy estimated thatrush-hour conditions on Indianapolis freeways lasted 7.2hours in 2000, compared with 4.2 hours in 1990 and 2.7hours in 1982. It’s no wonder we now rank 30th in conges-tion among major U.S. cities, a jump of 10 places in justfour years (TTI, 1996).

Roth: That same 1996 study set a price tag on our con-gestion of almost $400 million region-wide, or $505 perIndianapolis driver who, at that time, was stuck in traffic anaverage of 32 hours a year. Community-wide, the cost inadditional gasoline used due to congestion was estimated at38 million gallons per year! Now, of course, the numbers are

even worse.Belch: For all of these reasons, plus others

we haven’t even talked about, like our regionalair quality issues, and the need to increasemobility options for those who can’t or choosenot to drive, it makes sense to focus our cur-rent study exclusively on transit.

Roth: As we do, over the next 18 months,we hope that the public will participate inhelping us consider some new DIRECTIONS.

For more information on DIRECTIONS, theRapid Transit Study To Improve Regional Mobility, contact Stephanie Belch (317/327-5136,sbelch@indygov.org) or Philip Roth (317/327-5149,proth@indygov.org).

Questions & Answers

(from page 2)

Y o u r M P O s t a f f. . includes these people who would be happy to address your comments or

questions on any aspect of the transportation planning process:

Stephanie Belch • Senior Planner . . . . . . . .317/327-5136 sbelch@indygov.org

Steve Cunningham • Senior Planner . . . . . .317/327-5403 scunning@indygov.org

Mike Dearing • Manager/Master Planner . .317/327-5139 mdearing@indygov.org

Catherine Kostyn • Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317/327-5142 ckostyn@indygov.org

Kevin Mayfield • Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317/327-5135 kmayfiel@indygov.org

Philip Roth, AICP • Senior Planner . . . . . . .317/327-5149 proth@indygov.org

Sweson Yang, AICPChief Transportation Planner . . . . . . . . . . .317/327-5137 syang@indygov.orgFor more information on our regional transportation planning process, visit the MPO web site at www.indygov.org/indympo.

P A G E E I G H T E E N

P A G E N I N E T E E N

coMPOnents

To encourage awareness of, and informed participation in, itsregional transportation planning process, the MPO includes displayadvertising among the many communications strategies utilized in itsPublic Involvement Program. Featuring consistent use of the“iMPOrtant” format to build awareness and heighten recall, these adsappear in the City & State section of The Indianapolis Star, TheIndianapolis Recorder and other regional publications.

The ads shown here ran in December of 2002, or January,February and March (scheduled) of this year. From the top, the firstad ran on December 6th and February 12th in The Indianapolis Star(December 6th and February 14th in The Indianapolis Recorder). It pro-motes various ways the public can stay interested, informed andinvolved in the regional transportation planning process. Several of thestrategies mentioned, including the distribution of teMPO through allMarion County Libraries and the new MPO hotline (317/327-IMPO),were added to the Public Involvement Program in May of 2002.

The second ad focuses on the MPO Hotline, web site and publica-tions as great sources of transportation planning and participationinformation. Its slightly smaller size, though less impactful, permitsgreater frequency of insertion since it costs less to place. It ran in theDecember 12th Star and the December 13th Recorder.

The third ad invites all interested parties to the year’s first CitizensAdvisory Committee (CAC) meeting. This ad stresses the meeting’sfunction of serving as a public forum for the MPO’s triennial re-certifi-cation process. Every three years, the Federal Highway Administration,the Federal Transit Administration, the Indiana Department ofTransportation and other state and federal agencies review the MPO’sregional transportation planning process as part of re-certifying it. Re-certification is a pre-requisite for MPO-recommended transportationimprovement projects to be considered for federal funding. This adran in the February 19th and March 5th Star and the February 21st

and March 7th Recorder.The fourth ad also invites the public to the CAC meeting in a

slightly smaller size. It mentions other planned agenda items, includ-ing review of proposed IRTIP amendments and an update on theRapid Transit Study. It ran in the February 26th Star and the February28th Recorder.

The fifth ad encourages review of and comment on proposedamendments to the 2003-2005 Indianapolis Regional TransportationImprovement Program (IRTIP). The IRTIP documents federally fundedtransportation improvement projects programmed for our region overa three year period. The ad refers to a Legal Notice that will appear inthe same day’s paper and offer more detailed information on all of thenewly proposed amendments. This ad ran in the February 25th Starand the February 28th Recorder.

Through its various PIP outreach strategies, like display advertis-ing, the MPO will continue to inform its primary planning partner, thepublic, of upcoming participation opportunities.

Township began in May and ended in September, 2002.Nearly ninety different individuals attended at least one meet-ing during the process, exclusive of planning staff. Averagemeeting attendance was 23. Total attendance for the sevenmeetings was more than 160, which works out to approxi-mately 300 volunteer hours committed to this effort.

In most planning programs, early meetings are usually themost well attended. Attendance routinely drops off as the pro-ject proceeds with later meetings drawing smaller crowds.However, Pike Township’s Land Use Mapping process was anexception. Attendance built as this process continued. Theaverage number of participants at the first three meetings was16. The average attendance at the final four meetings was 29.

Among the many changes from the 1990-1993Comprehensive Plan for Pike Township resulting from thesemeetings are the areas designated by the new Village Mixed-Use category (see sidebar, this page).

One such area is New Augusta. Since the previous updateof the Comprehensive Plan, the Village of New Augusta hasbeen declared a local historic district, which will help to pro-tect the historic character of its structures. The Village Mixed-Use designation should help the area retain its traditional mixof land uses.

Another Pike Township area to receive the Village Mixed-Use designation is south and east of the intersection ofLafayette Road and 56th Street. This area is a combination ofvacant land, a brand new elementary school, and some 1960’sera residential and office development. The Village Mixed-Usedesignation for this site envisions uniting this area with a moreresidential, pedestrian-friendly street pattern so that it mightbecome a cohesive community rather than a disparate collec-tion of land uses.

Also of note in the Pike Township Comprehensive Planupdate is the designation of eight Critical Areas. In addition to thetwo Village Mixed-Use areas, six Critical Areas were established :• to protect water resources,• to protect residential and office areas from commercial andindustrial encroachment,• to protect commercial and industrial areas from residentialencroachment, and• to accommodate industrial expansion while protecting anotable woodland and area of deep slopes.Wayne Township Specifics

The Wayne Township planning area includes portions ofnorthwestern and southwestern Center Township. WayneTownship land use planning meetings began in June andended October, 2002. A separate meeting for the northwestern

P A G E T W E N T Y

cont on page 21, see Milestone

Milestone(from page 11) The Village

Mixed-Use CategoryAmong the many exciting new concepts Indianapolis

Insight has incorporated into the Update of the Marion

County Comprehensive Plan are new land use categories

like Village Mixed-Use.

Around 1900, the City of Indianapolis made up the

center of Marion County, along with a handful of small sur-

rounding towns. Since these towns were fully functioning,

separate communities, with their own business districts,

institutions and residential areas, their land uses were more

mixed than is typical in modern development practices.

Although Indianapolis has now grown out and around

these small towns, many of them wish to retain their dis-

tinctive, historic character. Until Indianapolis Insight, how-

ever, there was no established land use category to accom-

modate them. The Village Mixed-Use designation was

developed to serve this purpose.

Village Mixed-Use should be used for existing, histori-

cally rural, small towns that wish to continue as neighbor-

hood gathering places. It allows for a wide range of small

businesses, housing types, and public and semi-public

facilities. It envisions a mixed-use core of small, neighbor-

hood office/retail nodes, public and semi-public uses, open

space and light industrial development. Residential devel-

opment densities can vary from compact single-family resi-

dential development and small-scale multi-family residen-

tial development near the ‘village center’ to lower densities

outward from this core.

Potential development in these areas should focus on

design issues related to architecture, building size, parking,

landscaping and lighting to promote a pedestrian-oriented

“small town” atmosphere rather than focussing on residen-

tial density. Strip commercial development (integrated cen-

ters setback from rights-of-way by parking areas), large

scale free-standing retail uses and heavy industrial develop-

ment are generally inappropriate within this land use cate-

gory.

The Village Mixed-Use category can also be used in

undeveloped areas where the establishment of a village-

style development is desired.

portion of Center Township was held in September.Excluding City staff, nearly eighty different people attend-

ed at least one meeting during the process. Average meetingattendance was 25. Total attendance for the seven meetingswas more than 176, which equates to nearly 350 volunteerhours. As in Pike Township, participation grew as the plan-ning process continued. Average attendance at the first threemeetings was 17; at the last four, 36. The Northeast CenterTownship meeting was attended by 22 interested parties.

Again, as in Pike Township, the new Village Mixed-Usecategory designation was used in two Wayne Township loca-tions; Clermont and along Main Street in Speedway. Also, theAirport-Related Mixed-Use category was used in proximity toIndianapolis International Airport (IIA) This category express-ly excludes residential development due to airport-relatednoise. Several existing residential areas were given this desig-nation to discourage further residential development in them.

In addition to the two Village Mixed-Use areas, eight otherCritical Areas were established. Their designation is intendedto recognize:• a major street realignment,• re-development of a declining industrial area,• the interface of residential and industrial uses for the

protection of both,

• the interface of residential and commercial uses for the protection of both,

• future park space, and• a potential rapid transit station (see related story, page 2)

Presentations of the updated plan were made to theClermont Town Council and the Speedway Town Council. Inaddition, a joint meeting was held with Pike and WayneTownship residents to discuss issues of mutual concern alongthe townships’ common boundary.

New Land Use maps will be submitted for adoption for theentire county upon completion of the mapping process for alleight planning areas. This is likely to occur in mid-to-late 2004.For more information on Indianapolis Insight, the update of theMarion County Comprehensive Plan, including a schedule ofremaining land use mapping meetings, visit indygov.org/indi-ananapolisinsight. For a copy of the update’s Community ValuesComponent or the Land Use Mapping Handbook, contact theComprehensive Planning Section of the Division of Planning at317/327-5111 or use the order form supplied here.

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

Milestone(from page 20)

Indianapolis Insight’s Community Values Componentguides development of Phase II of the Comprehensive PlanUpdate and includes planning principles, value statementsand recommendations for new and revised policies, proce-dures, programs and ordinances. The first copy is availablefree-of-charge. Additional copies cost $5.00 each.

The Land Use Mapping Handbook is a short, user-friendlyguide to the land use mapping process. The Land UseMapping Handbook is available free of charge.

The Indianapolis Development Assets (IDA) book is anatlas of useful information on the population, economy, nat-ural resources, transportation, infrastructure, government,housing and quality-of-life of Marion County. The IDA bookis available for $15.00.

To receive any of these documents, fill out this form andsend it to:Division of Planning, Comprehensive Planning Section1821 City-County Building200 East Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204

Or, fax it to the Comprehensive Planning Section at317/327-5103.

Name

Address

City, State, Zip

■■■■ Indianapolis Insight Plan, Community Values Component

■■■■ Indianapolis Insight Land Use Mapping Handbook

■■■■ Indianapolis Development Assets Book.

Indianapolis Insight Order FormUse this form to order any of the following planning documents:

Did YouKnow?

A three mile section of Boston’s“Big Dig,” connecting theMassachusetts Turnpike with LoganInternational Airport a new eightlane expressway running under hecity, was opened the weekend ofJanuary 25th. The entire 7.8-mile system of underground highways,ramps and bridges is the nation’smost expensive public work’s projectever with a price tag of $14.6 billion.The final phase of the project willopen next year, allowing motorists todrive under, or into, the city without

the congestion that now delays traffic six to eighthours a day.

Though hundreds of miles away, Boston’s Big Digcould have a big impact on our region’s plannedtransportation system improvements. The January20th issue of USA TODAY reports that cost overrunsin Boston have prompted the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) to consider new systemrequirements for similarly sized highway projects.These include 1) greater responsibility and clout forMetropolitan Planning Organizations to reach con-sensus among affected city and suburban officials, 2) better public information programs to proactivelyaddress construction delay and cost-overrun issuesand 3) greater use of design/build contracts whichcommit a company to design and build a project for afixed price. The Big Dig’s new highways were built inthe traditional way: designed by the state and put upfor bid. Under this system, the chosen companiescould add charges as changes were required. Withdesign/build contracts, companies are responsible fortheir own changes and mistakes.

Currently, the FHWA lists about 20 major high-way projects nationwide with budgets of at least $1billion, including the Indianapolis region’s proposedfreeway construction and transit system. The costof these projects is currently estimated at $2.1 bil-lion by the FHWA, as reported in USA TODAY, withtheir status listed as in “Environmental Studies.”

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

CAC Meeting Dates Set

If you’re interested in staying informed of, and beingheard on, regional transportation planning issues, mark

your calendar now for the Citizens Advisory Committee(CAC) meetings scheduled throughout 2003.

As the region’s primary transportation planner, theMPO is responsible for conducting a coordinated, continu-ous and comprehensive planning process among its manyplanning partners, including the general public. In 1994,the MPO founded the Citizens Advisory Committee as away of soliciting informed public input on a variety oftransportation-related issues. This input, as well as publiccomments gathered via other outreach strategies, helps theMPO form its planning and project recommendations. AllMPO recommendations, and salient public input, arepassed on to the Indianapolis Regional TransportationCouncil (IRTC) which is the official decision-making bodyfor the regional transportation planning process. The IRTCcomprises both Policy and Technical Committees and rep-resents jurisdictions throughout metropolitan planningarea (MPA). This area is currently expanding to reflectCensus 2000 data concerning recent growth in the urban-ized area.

CAC quarterly meetings are open to the public andpromoted in MPO meetings, publications and mailings; onthe MPO hotline (317/327-IMPO) and web site(indygov.org/indympo); through the media; and, via paidadvertising in The Indianapolis Star and The IndianapolisRecorder. The meetings are usually held on the third orfourth Tuesday of the month in Room 107 of the City-County Building, 200 East Washington Street, downtownIndianapolis. They start promptly at 6:30 PM and lastfrom one and a half to two hours. Those unable to attendthese meetings may stay informed on the regional trans-portation planning process by watching WCTY (CableChannel 16) which broadcast casts them live and tapesthem for re-broadcast throughout the month.

CAC meetings are currently scheduled for:

• March 11 At 6:30 PM

• May 20 At 6:30 PM

• August 20 At 6:30 PM

• October 22 At 6:30 PM

For more information on the CAC or its upcomingmeetings, contact Mike Dearing at 317/327-5139 (mdearing@indygov.org).

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

MPO Communications Consultant Joe Whitman agrees.“A colloquial name, that establishes an informal tone andpositive associations, helps people feel more comfortablewith the study process. The official, longer name(Indianapolis Metropolitan Area Rapid Transit Study) can bea little intimidating,” he explains. “Consistent use of identityelements also ‘brand’ study activities, help differentiate thestudy from other planning initiatives which might otherwisecompete for attention, and aid and encourage media cover-age.”

The DIRECTIONS name and logo will be consistentlyused on public outreach elements for the Rapid TransitStudy, including its web site (indygov.org/indympo/rts), lit-erature, direct mail and media advisories. A theme line/dis-claimer will identify it as “A Rapid Transit Study ToImprove Regional Mobility.”

The general purpose of the Rapid Transit Study is toconsider the preferred placement of a region-wide transitsystem and the preferred transit mode(s) of travel, includingcommuter or light rail, or bus. It is budgeted at $1.5 millionand is expected to last 18-24 months. For more informa-tion, contact Philip Roth, AICP, at 317/327-5149(proth@indygov.org) or MPO Senior Planner StephanieBelch at 317/327-5136 (sbelch@indygov.org).

MPO On-lineMore people are remotely accessing regional transporta-

tion planning information than ever before, reports MPOPlanner Catherine Kostyn. Catherine is responsible for reg-ularly maintaining and enhancing the MPO’s web site

(www.indygov.org/indympo) which now boasts an averageof 1,500+ hits a day. “We saw 46,800 hits in January,” shesays. “Our site is updated on the weekend, so we notice anincrease in browsers early in the week, to check out what’snew,” she says. Available information includes planning doc-uments and maps, MPO publications, project and programspecifics, such as those contained in the 2003 UnifiedPlanning Work Program (UPWP), and hotlinks to the sitesof transportation planning partners, like IndyGo. “Popularfeatures seem to be our listing of upcoming meetings, andour library of past teMPO newsletters in pdf format,”Catherine notes.

In addition, more and more people interested in theregional transportation planning process are visiting theMPO Hotline at 217/327-IMPO, where weekly messagespromote upcoming public participation opportunitiesand items of general interest.

Irons In The Fire

(from page 17)

Did You Know?According to the Federal Highway Administration’s most recent data, the USA isNOT the world’s most car-crazy country. That honor goes to Germany which boasts511.2 automobiles per 1,000 residents. The US comes in second with 480.6, fol-lowed by France (463.2), Canada (444), Japan (394.3) and the UK (371.6).However, these totals do NOT include vans, light trucks or SUVs – one of America’smost popular vehicle types. So, we may still be leading the pack. . . off-road!

tion themselves. For exam-ple, Binford Boulevardwill undergo majorreconstruction this year, butthe Department of Public Worksplans to suspend all work activitybetween May 26th and August 18th.Many smaller projects will also be put on the fasttrack so as not to coincide with the Hyperfix sched-ule. North Meridian Street, between 86th and 96thstreets, will also be under construction during thesame period, but the city plans to keep two lanesopen in each direction.

“We are coordinating our efforts now to anticipateand minimize this summer’s congestion, and to keepcommuters informed,” says Paul Whitmore, PublicInformation Officer for the Indianapolis Department ofPublic Works. DPW is currently finalizing a spe-cial traffic management plan intended to aid cityresidents and first time visitors drawn to someof the city’s most popular annual venues. Nearly

50 major events are scheduled between lateMay and mid-August in Indianapolis,including Indiana Black Expo, the RCATennis Championships and the Brickyard400. The plan will include more signs,improved traffic signal timing to minimizecongestion, more rush hour parkingrestrictions to clear lanes, and strategiclane work on major thoroughfares such as

Capitol Avenue and Illinois, Pennsylvania and Delawarestreets. To improve traffic flow, some left-turn lanes will

be eliminated, while some right-turn lanes will be length-ened at major intersections. Fresh lane striping will alsoimprove traffic control.

“We’re still finalizing our plan, but we already havedozens of strategies to minimize congestion and inconve-nience,” Whitmore says. “As long as drivers respond tochanging conditions, and use the tools we’re putting at theirdisposal, they should be fine.”

For more information on INDOT’s I-65/I-70 Hyperfixproject, visit www.hyperfix6570.in.gov or contactMPO Principal Planner Steve Cunningham at317/327-5403 (scunning@indygov.org).

Metropolitan Planning Organization

1821 City-County Building200 East Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204-3310

Printed on paper with recycled contentPAGE TWENTY-FOUR

65/70 Hyperfix

(from page 10)

Stay “in the know” and

“on the go” by visiting

indygov.org/indympo or

calling the MPO Hotline at

317/327-IMPO!

INDIANAPOLIS REGION'SINDIANAPOLIS REGION'S

KEEPING PACE WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

Regional Rapid Transit Study . . . Page 1Cultural Trail Update . . . . . . . . . . Page 1Q & A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2Tran Plan Amendments Reviewed . . Page 3MPA MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3New IIA High Points . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5HyperFix Park ’n Ride. . . . . . . . . . Page 8The Future of Transportation . . . Page 9Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 13Irons In The Fire. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 232003 Earth Day Indiana Festival. . . . Page 26MPO Earth Day Ad. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 272003 MPO Public Survey . . . . . . . Page 28Mayfield Promoted . . . . . . . . . . . Page 29New MPO Comment Line . . . . . . . Page 31

Springing Into

Summer

After a very long, cold winter, springarrived . . . and immediately heat-

ed things up. Especially regional trans-portation projects for your MPO and itsmany planning partners. Just asDIRECTIONS, the rapid transit study toimprove regional mobility, prepared tohold its Phase I Public Forums to pre-sent preliminary travel corridor andtechnology findings, the Cultural Trailconcept made a big hit with the localand national media, and attendees of itsown public workshops! Then, there wasIndyGo and its new luxury bus-basedPark & Ride service. And, of course,HyperFix – INDOT’s 85-day closing ofthe downtown stretches of I-65 and I-70that was predicted to cause traffic snarls

In This Issue

cont on page 14, see Rapid Transit Study

S P R I N G 2 0 0 3

V O L U M E S E V E N

I S S U E T W O

Cultural Trail Update

I f you’re one of the 300 or so attendees who participated in either or both of theMPO’s Cultural Trail Public Workshops, you may already know everything you

need to support this innovative concept. That was thereaction of the overwhelming majority of people whojoined MPO planners, consultants and elected offi-cials at the Artsgarden on St. Patrick’s Day,Monday, March 17th, and again on Monday, April28th. These meetings followed discussions thatMPO Manager/Master Planner MikeDearing had late last year with about thesame number of neighborhood associationmembers and stakeholders from the areas

cont on page 4, see Cultural Trail

cont on page 3, see Summer

Regional Rapid Transit Study

Among the many projects recommended by the MPO in its 2003 UnifiedPlanning Work Program (UPWP) is one called the “Regional Rapid Transit

Study” which regular teMPO readers may already recognize as DIRECTIONS, therapid transit study to improve regional mobility. Like all projects listed in the UPWP,DIRECTIONS is described in adequate detail for the professional planners who needto review and evaluate the project before approving its implementation. However, thecasual browser may need more detail to truly understand what’sbeing funded and why. For this reason, teMPOoffers this third installment in an on-goingseries of articles focussed on 2003 UPWPprojects and what they entail.

DIRECTIONS is an 18-24 month,three phase study being conductedby the Indianapolis MetropolitanPlanning Organization (MPO), theregion’s primary transit planner. Itis a cooperative effort of 26 feder-al, state, municipal and county agencies. Thepurpose of this study is to evaluate the viability and cost-effectiveness of rapid transit

AQ

P A G E T W O

In Q & A, members of your MPO staff answer questions posed to them via voicemail, e-mail, regular mail or in-person. In this issue, MPO Manager/Master

Planner Mike Dearing discusses the MPO’s role in affecting regional transportationsystem improvements.

“Now that the new DIRECTIONS study is underway, and con-sultants are once again looking at incorporating the benefits ofpublic transportation into the greater Indianapolis area, I have toask: Why haven’t you already done this? Isn’t this whatconNECTions was all about? Didn’t that study recommend usingtransit in the northeast corridor to reduce traffic congestion andimprove air quality? What’s the hold up?! As a transit-supporter, Ihate to see more money wasted on studies when the MPO could beapplying it to the already-recommended solution.

— Voiced at several DIRECTIONS Public Forums, April & May, 2003

To answer your question, I have to makeclear what the role of the MPO is in the regionaltransportation planning process. Sometimes,when we identify ourselves as “the region’s pri-mary transportation planner,” I think peopletake that to mean that “we’re the boss, we’re incharge.” Not so. We don’t have the power toapprove transportation projects, or to implementthem. Those powers rest with other groups. Weare the primary planning group and, as such,our job is to gather the information necessaryfor those who make the decisions to reach aninformed conclusion.

In our area, the decision of whether or notto proceed with a proposed transportation pro-ject rests with the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Council (IRTC). The IRTCis composed of a Policy Committee (elected officials) and Technical Committee(planners and engineers). Its 46 members represent the 23 communities locatedwithin the metropolitan planning area.

The MPO is responsible for providing relevant information (and recommenda-tions based on these findings) to both the IRTC’s Technical Committee which eval-uates the information, and the IRTC Policy Committee which decides whether ornot to proceed. The IRTC can accept or reject the MPO’s recommendation. If thedecision to proceed with a project is made, then an implementing agency, such as

ACRO-NYMBLE

Here’s a list of the acronyms used inthis issue. Refer to it to keep your

understanding letter-perfect.

AGT – Automated Guideway TransitAICP – American Institute of Certified

PlannersAIP – Airport Improvement ProgramATMS – Advanced Traffic Management

SystemCAC – Citizens Advisory CommitteeCMAQ – Congestion Mitigation & Air

QualityCMS – Congestion Management SystemDMD – Department of Metropolitan

DevelopmentDPW – Department of Public WorksEDA – Economic Development

AdministrationFAA – Federal Aviation AdministrationFHWA – Federal Highway

AdministrationFTA – Federal Transit AdministrationIAA – Indianapolis Airport AuthorityIIA – Indianapolis International AirportINDOT – Indiana Department of

TransportationIPD – Indianapolis Police DepartmentIndyGo – Indianapolis Public

Transportation CorporationIRTC – Indianapolis Regional

Transportation CouncilIRTIP – Indianapolis Regional

Transportation ImprovementProgram

MDC – Metropolitan DevelopmentCommission

MIS – Major Investment StudyMPA – Metropolitan Planning AreaMPO - Metropolitan Planning

OrganizationPIP – Public Involvement ProgramSIP – State Implementation PlanSTP – Surface Transportation ProgramTAZ – Traffic Analysis ZoneTE – Transportation EnhancementTEA-21 – Transportation Equity Act for

the 21st CenturyTIP – Transportation Improvement

ProgramUPWP – Unified Planning Work

Programcont on page 24, see Q & A

&

Mike DearingMPO Manager/MasterPlanner

QUESTIONSANSWERS

Tran Plan

Amendments Reviewed

At the June 17th meeting of theCitizens Advisory Committee

(CAC), MPO Principal Planner SteveCunningham presented detailed informa-tion on a newly proposed amendment tothe Indianapolis Regional TransportationPlan. This document provides planningsupport for federally funded transporta-tion projects proposed for our region andis amended, as needed, to meet the area’smobility needs and the changing sched-ules and priorities of the MPO’s varioustransportation planning partners.

“The Plan helps guide the devel-opment of our transportation system forthe next twenty-plus years,” explainsCunningham who oversees its develop-ment. “With the help of planners, engi-neers, elected officials and the public, itensures that facilities and servicesrequired to support the region’s travelneeds are anticipated and available. Italso provides decision-makers withinformation on which to base their pro-ject priorities.”

The newly proposed amendment isin response to requests from the IndianaDepartment of Transportation (INDOT)and other regional agencies to modifycertain projects currently in the Plan or toadd new projects. These include thewidening of Rangeline Road in Carmel,the widening of I-465 west to 10 lanes,and INDOT’s I-69 Project.

Discussion at CAC meetings is justone way the MPO encourages publicreview of, and comment, on newly pro-posed Plan amendments. Display ads andLegal Notices, inviting public participa-tion in the current amendment reviewprocess ran in The Indianapolis Star andThe Indianapolis Recorder on June 13th.Detailed information on the amendment

was also sent to members of the MPO’sCitizen Advisory Committee. In addition,the amendments are available for reviewand comment at all Marion CountyPublic Libraries, local government offices,at the MPO’s office and on-line at indy-gov.org/indympo.

“Public comment is one importantway we keep our Plan on-track,”Cunningham notes. “Being able to usethe media, the internet, direct mail andour CAC meetings, which are broadcaston WCTY (Cable Channel 16), I amable to effectively solicit input in writingor via e-mail on a fairly tight schedule.

The public review and comment periodfor the current amendment began onJune 13, 2003 and ends July 7, 2003.All comments must be received by thatdate to be considered.

For more information on theIndianapolis Regional TransportationPlan or to comment on the currentamendment, contact Steve Cunninghamat 327-5403 or For more information orto comment on the 2025 RegionalTransportation Plan Update, call SteveCunningham at 327-5403 or e-mail himat scunning@indygov.org.

P A G E T H R E E

INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA

BooneMadison

Morgan

Johnson

Shelby

Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA)(Projected Urbanization By The Year 2020)

Eagle

Pike

Lincoln

Wayne

Buck

Creek

Sugar

Creek

White

River

Warren

Washington

Perry FranklinDecaturGuilford

Lawrence

Delaw

are

Hancock

Washington

Pleasant

Clay

Washington

Center

Hamilton

Marion

Fall

Creek

Hendricks

and commuter headaches but didn’t,thanks in part to coordination amongINDOT, the City of Indianapolis, IPD,and local media.

Think you’ve read it all? Whatabout progress on the new IndianapolisAirport project? Or, dozens of otherinfo-bits impacting the regional trans-portation planning process? To learn

more about these and other HOT newsitems, read on. ‘Cause teMPO’s got ‘em. . . and ain’t that cool?

Summer

(from page 1)

This map reflects the expanded MPOMetropolitan Planning Area (MPA) as deter-mined by Census 2000 data. The boundary ofthis area has not yet been finalized.

DRAFT

P A G E F O U R

most likely to be impacted, if the trail is implemented. Atthese, the general concept of a cultural trail was presented tothe community without specific routes, but the response wasthe same.

“The reaction so far has been very positive,” Dearingreports. “People haveraised questions aboutspecific issues, such ashow would the trailaffect on-street parking,but we’ve definitely got-ten a strong publicendorsement to contin-ue studying the subjectand working out thedetails.”

The concept of theCultural Trail is an out-growth of IndianapolisMayor Bart Peterson’sCultural DevelopmentInitiative and the down-town convergence of theRegional GreenwaysSystem. If implemented,the Cultural Trail wouldlink downtown’s newlydesignated cultural dis-tricts and attractions ofthe IndianapolisRegional Center with adedicated bicycle andpedestrian path system.This would support the City’s Cultural Development initia-tive, Indy Park’s successful Greenways Program, and theMPO’s on-going efforts to develop a more walk-able, bicycle-friendly community.

Envisioned as a continuous loop with several branches or

off-shoots, the Trail would offer travelers separation fromvehicular traffic in a park-like atmosphere through stronglandscape design and consistent identity elements. Its objec-tives would be to 1) connect downtown with other districtsand neighborhoods via the Greenway System, 2) engage thehistoric mile square, 3) link key cultural districts, 4) beginand end at White River State Park, 5) utilize the recently

completed Canal Walk,and 6) accommodatebicycle, pedestrian and,possibly, electric trolleybus.

As reported in theMay 19th IndianapolisStar, implementing theproject could cost anestimated $15 - $20 mil-lion. However, only afraction of this costwould represent tax dol-lars. Deputy Mayor JaneHenegar is quoted in thearticle as saying that taxdollars could be used as“seed money” to helpsecure grants to pay formore than half of theproject. Private dona-tions could account forthe rest.

Before potentialfunding of implementa-tion is even considered,however, the details ofthe concept need to be

worked out. To date, the MPO has spent $180,000 on prelim-inary concept plans as part of a region-wide pedestrian plan-ning study that is initially focusing on Center Township andwill ulitmately address pedestrian facility planning for theregion. This summer, an additional $152,000 is budgeted forfurther design and study work in an effort to identify thetrail’s optimum route alignment and to anticipate actual con-struction-related costs.

“This project should be viewed as a community invest-ment, both in quality-of-life and economic development,”says Meg Storrow, partner in Storrow Kinsella Associates, theurban design firm serving as primary consultant on theCultural Trail Concept. “Right now, cities across the countryare trying to create environments where businesses want tolocate, and employees want to live,” she explains. “The pro-ject we’re considering now is one-of-a-kind, both in vision

cont on page 6, see Cultural Trail Update

Cultural Trail Update

(from page 1)

This concept sketch illustrates that the Cultural Trail proposes to reconfigurethe use of the street. A dedicated bicycle trail will replace either an existingtraffic or parking lane depending on street carrying capacity. Distinctivepaving will designate the trail and sidewalk zones for trail continuity. In mostcases a strong landscape edge will be developed as a linear park to give thetrail a parkway character. Distinctive and special lighting will give the trailidentity and image as well as safety for its users.

teMPO is published quarterly by your Metropolitan Planning

Organization, part of the Department of Metropolitan Development. If you know of

anyone who would like to receive teMPO, or if you have any questions concerning its

publication, please call:

Mike Dearing (317/327-5139, mdearing@indygov.org)Department of Metropolitan DevelopmentMetropolitan Planning Organization1821 City-County Building200 East Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204-3310teMPO was written and prepared for publication by Whitman Communications, Inc.

P A G E F I V E

New IIA High Points

Work on two major projects – one soaring into the skyand a second at ground level – is now well under way

on Indy’s west side.While different in scope and size, both projects are inte-

gral to construction of the new Indianapolis InternationalAirport, which has been in the planning stages for nearly ageneration.

One of the current projects involve erecting a new AirTraffic Control Tower and terminal radar control building onairport grounds. The other, relocating a section of Interstate 70and building two new highway interchanges adjacent to theairport.

“These two projects represent a giant step toward con-struction of a new midfield terminal at the airport – which willserve as a dramatic gateway toIndianapolis for future genera-tions of airline passengers,” saidIndianapolis Mayor BartPeterson.

The new Air Traffic ControlTower will soar more than 300feet into the sky – and literallytower over the airport andadjacent highway system.

The $32 million facilitywill be centrally locatedbetween the two main airportrunways to support construc-tion of the new midfield termi-nal and future air traffic opera-tions. Because of FederalAviation Administrationrequirements, the new towercomplex must be completedand occupied before construc-tion can proceed on the newterminal building.

The new tower will incor-porate a unique cab design, which will provide a 360-degreeunobstructed view to air traffic controllers. The adjoining two-story building will include offices, equipment space, and aTerminal Radar Approach Control facility. The structures willbe linked by an enclosed walkway. Tower construction will becompleted in 2004; commissioning will take place in 2005.

The new control tower will replace the existing 140-foottower, which opened in 1972.

“The FAA is very proud to partner with the IndianapolisAirport Authority in creating this new Air Traffic ControlTower,” said Cecelia Hunziker, Regional Administrator (Great

Lakes), Federal Aviation Administration. “We are excited aboutthe continued air traffic growth in the Central Indiana region,and we’re pleased to be a part of it.”

The I-70 project involves moving approximately fourmiles of interstate about 1,200 feet southward and construct-ing one dedicated interchange to serve the new airport and asecond interchange to serve Six Points Road.

The $160 million project – which will stretch from theIndiana 267/Plainfield exit on the west to the I-465 inter-change on the east – will support and enhance long-term air-port development opportunities by realigning and lowering I-70 next to the existing southern-most runway. This will allowfor future taxiway construction over the highway to link theexisting airfield runway and taxiway system with airport landsouth of the interstate. The project also will provide space foradditional development along the southern runway, where

Federal Express is currentlysqueezed between the airportrunway and the highway.

The work also will providea smoother, safer roadway forthe approximately 55,000 peo-ple who travel I-70 daily;increase highway capacity byadding mainline and collector-distributor lanes; and providedirect access from I-70 and theairport to Six Points Road andnearby commercial areas.

Scheduled for completionin November 2004, the projectis a collaborative effort involv-ing the Indiana Department ofTransportation, the City ofIndianapolis, the IndianapolisAirport Authority, andHendricks County.

“This project is an exampleof how effective state and localcooperation can lead to tremen-

dous benefits for Indiana’s residents,” said INDOTCommissioner J. Bryan Nichol.

The I-70 project exemplifies local engineering and con-struction ingenuity. The effort involves digging a deep cut inthe earth to allow for the lowering of I-70. The cut will beapproximately one mile in length, more than 40 feet below thesurface at its deepest point, and about 400 feet wide at itswidest point.

Contractors will move approximately 2.9 million cubicyards of dirt for the project, which also involves relocating

cont on page 32, see New IIA High Points

P A G E S I X

and benefits. No other city is evaluatingsuch an integrated initiative to supportalternative transportation, culture andthe arts, health issues and urban designinnovation. It answers the question,“Will downtown Indianapolis be a goodplace for cars or people in the future?With projects like the Cultural Trail,the answer is clearly people.”

Possible Design Principles that areguiding the Cultural Trail include:• continuous accessibility • combined bicycle, pedestrian and

trolley usage• separation from other vehicular traffic• special intersection plazas where

bicycles and pedestrians can safelyconverge at crosswalks

• strong linear ‘park’ landscaping• easy recognition/identification though

strong and consistent use of identityelements, such as graphics and furnishings

The overall route of the Downtown Cultural Trail will capture the incom-ing but incomplete spokes of the regional greenway system and allow them toconverge on and encircle the core of the regional center, DowntownIndianapolis. White River State Park is just one of many attractions it wouldserve, but for purposes of this narrative it can be viewed as a starting and end-ing point of the following clockwise Cultural Trail tour:

The West CorridorThe Canal (1a): This wonderful traffic-free walkway serves the almost completeWhite River State Park and its amazing attractions such as Eiteljorg, NCAA, theState Museum, the Medal of Honor Memorial, Military Park and the Zoo. It willconnect with the multiple greenways that are or will be coming into the Parkalong the White River.

West Street (1b): The Canal is a pedestrian priority corridor so it would be sup-plemented by an off-street multi-use path along the west side of West Street thatwould capture the growing pedestrian and bicycle using population of IUPUI aswell as the Medical Center further north. It would dovetail into the University’sintention to create a more pedestrian-oriented campus and link its large popula-tion to downtown, while facilitating an important leg of the Cultural Trail loop.

The North CorridorWalnut Street/Memorial Mall/North Street (2a): This section springs from theCanal or West Street near the Madame Walker Theater. It embraces the newlibrary and the open space of American Legion/War Memorial Mall, beforereturning to North Street towards the beacon of the two Riley Towers atAlabama Street.

North Street Option (2b): An Alternative to the route above would be to useNorth Street between the Canal and the Memorial Mall, although additional

right-of way and an additional pedestrian bridge over the Canal would berequired. Discussions with Canal stakeholders will help make that choice.

The Massachusetts Avenue-Monon Trail Connection (2d): An offshoot from theNorth Street/Alabama Street intersection, it will zig-zag to engage MassachusettsAvenue at three key intersections on the way to the Monon Trail. Special inter-sections will serve as traffic calmed gateways onto the Avenue’s pedestrian-friendly “rooms”.

The East CorridorAlabama Street (3) turned out to be the preferred north-south corridor on theeast side. It has capacity to lose a lane of traffic, and is strategically placedbetween Downtown and Lockerbie Historic District. It engages theMassachusetts Avenue Cultural District at a good entry point, and connects withCity Market, the Market Square development area, and the City CountyBuilding.

The Southeast CorridorVirginia Avenue (4a) and the College-Louisiana Loop (4b) link the southeastneighborhoods, anchored by an emergent Fountain Square, with the RegionalCenter. Opportunities include a skyline viewing mid-point rest stop at theInterstate open space, and potential connection to Pleasant Run Trail andGarfield Park and their neighborhoods.

The South/Central CorridorMarket Street (5a) and Washington Street (5b), in combination, constitute theprime pedestrian corridor in downtown Indianapolis, with thriving cultural,hospitality, retail, state and city government attractions and venues along theirlengths. The Historic National Road of Washington Street leads directly intoWhite River State Park to complete the tour.

cont on page 31, see Cultural Trail Update

Cultural Trail Update

(from page 4)

The workshops resulted in selection of a series of Cultural Trail route corridors illustrated on the map above. Projectplanning consultant Storrow Kinsella Associates describes those corridors as follows:

1a

2a

2d

3

4a

4b

5a

5b

4a

2a

2b

1b

1b

P A G E S E V E N

Name _______________________________________________________

City_________________________________________________________

Street Address ________________________________________________

State _____________________________________ Zip_______________

Telephone ______________________ Fax _________________________

Email Address ________________________________________________

The Cultural Trail, as envisioned, is rich with amenities. Please give us someguidance on priorities that we need to address. Please rank the five (5) mostimportant elements to include with the trail, 1 being the most important.

Also, please indicate the importance of each feature to the Cultural Trail Concept.

Rank Agree Disagree Neutral____ Lighting for safety ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■

and imagery

____ Transit that parallels the ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■

Cultural Trail

____ Transit that provides connections to ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■

Cultural Trail and other downtown destinations

____ Bike Rental ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■

____ Integrate art into the furnishings ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■

and elements of the trail

____ Placemaking art such as sculpture ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■

____ Seating and places to pause ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■

____ Storytelling kiosks or words at ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■

crosswalks about regional history, events, or special features

____ Outreach kiosks for shuttle connections ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■

to the Children’s Museum or Indianapolis Museum of Art

Any other ideas we should consider? ______________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Please fax (317/327-5103 ) or mail the completed survey to: Catherine Kostyn, Metropolitan Planning Organization, 1821 City-CountyBuilding, 200 East Washington Street, Indianapolis, In 46204-3310.

This urban greenway would link thenewly created Cultural Districts and accessthe cultural attractions of downtownIndianapolis! It would connect with the rapid-ly developing Indy Parks Greenways system tolink many Indianapolis neighborhoods toeach other and to downtown along linearpark corridors. These corridors dramaticallyexpand both recreational and alternativetransportation opportunities for citizens andvisitors alike.

Two public workshops have sought citi-zen input on the Cultural Trail, and haveasked the question, “Should this concept beimplemented?”.

Attendees of Workshop 1 (March 17,2003) gave enthusiastic support for the con-cept of a Cultural Trail, indicated preferencesfor the routes it should follow, and providedmany ideas for how it could be developed.

Workshop 2 (April 28, 2003) showedthose route preferences and ideas, and addi-tional detail of the trail.

Next Steps include more detailed designstudy, and the development of a technical“scoping” report for preferred route locations.The scoping report will investigate infrastruc-ture, traffic, and other environmental impactsin sufficient detail to establish probable costsfor the overall project. Parallel exploration offunding opportunities and partnerships willfurther determine feasibility.

A Decision to Build will hinge on the fitof available funding mechanisms to the pro-jected cost, and continued community-widesupport for the concept. The results of thisquestionnaire will be one measure of commu-nity support. More opportunities for individ-ual stakeholder input will occur over the nextseveral months.

Please take a few minutes to respond to thequestions shown here and share your ideas onhow to make this system the best it can be.

REACHING CONSENSUS ANDMOVING FORWARDALONG THE CULTURAL TRAIL

P A G E E I G H T

Hyperfix Park ‘n Ride

If the predictions of traffic congestioncaused by INDOT’s Hyperfix project

still have you a little hyper, take heart.IndyGo, Marion County’s public trans-portation provider, may have a solutionfor you.

On May 19, IndyGo started its newmillion dollar, tax-supported Park &Ride Program to offer northeastsidecommuters relief from the traffic conges-tion and long delays caused by an esti-mated 175,000 vehicles crowding ontosurface streets while Hyperfix closesstretches of I-65 and I-70 in downtownIndianapolis (For more information onHyperfix, see teMPO Volume Seven,Issue One). The construction project

started May 26 and is scheduled to last amaximum of 85 days. Until completed,commuters used to traveling the inter-states into downtown will have to findanother way there. And, for some, thatcould be IndyGo’s Park & Ride.

“Maybe no one will use this service,but we don’t think so,” said J. BryanNicol in the May 8th issue of TheIndianapolis Star. “We think this is goingto be too good an opportunity to avoidthe stress and strain of traffic conges-tion,” he noted. “Just sit back, read thepaper and take a leisurely ride to work.”

Program ParticularsA fleet of 18 luxury buses from the

Free Enterprise System, a company withlocations in Louisville and Indianapolis,is providing the ride. Each bus featuresreclining seats, on-board restrooms,mini-tables for lap-tops, and cup-hold-ers for beverages. But the most popularamenity is the Opticom traffic signalchanger – a control that allows the dri-ver to keep traffic lights green longerand buses moving through intersectionsfaster.

“That’s our ace in the hole,” GilHolmes, IndyGo President and ChiefExecutive Officer told The Star. “As longas we can keep people comfortable andmoving, I think everyone will enjoy theride.”

Park & Ride service is picking uppassengers at three locations within thenortheast corridor, our region’s busiest,including the Target Superstore at I-69and 116th, Fort Benjamin Harrison, andGlendale Mall. They depart every 15minutes during peak travel periods from7:00 – 9:00 AM and 4:30 to 6:30 PM.INDOT officials say that northeast corri-dor commuters were targeted for thisservice because research indicated thatthey would be most affected by Hyperfixcongestion. Rides will cost $2 for around trip and begin or terminate at

four downtown locations: Pennsylvaniaand Ohio Streets: Delaware and McCartyStreets; Madison Avenue and MerrillStreets; and, Illinois and WashingtonStreets. Off-peak hours, the Park & Ridebuses run every half hour in Fishers atmid-day and every 35 to 40 minutes atGlendale at mid-day. There is no serviceon Saturdays or Sundays.

“This is a real opportunity to showpeople that pubic transportation can bepart of the solution in the future,” saysHolmes, who has voiced his desire for alarger fleet and special bus priority laneson local roads and highways in the past.“The reality is we’re approaching grid-lock, and we need to find safe, conve-nient and effective alternatives to thesingle occupant vehicle.”

Elsewhere, park& ride bus service isan everyday part ofcommuting.According to theAmerican PublicTransportationAssociation, which

tracks bus, train and ferryuse, cities of comparablesize to Indianapolis encour-age use through promotionand infrastructure improve-ments. For example, thereare nearly 2,300 all-dayparking spaces inColumbus, Ohio. InCincinnati, there are 1,800.

In larger cities, like Houston, there are30,000!

But in Indianapolis, there are none.“That’s one of the things that has to

change,” says Holmes, “and I’m hopefulthat Hyperfix will prove to have a silverlining. That it will provide the impetusfor some people who work regular hoursin one downtown location to give transita try. There will never be a better time.”

IndyGo’s Hyperfix Park & Ride ser-vice is scheduled to end August 15. Formore information, visit www.hyper-fix6570.in.gov or www.indygo.net.

The Future of Transportation:

Will the auto and airplane

reign supreme?

By Alex Marshall

The following first appeared in the May, 2003 issue ofPlanning, the newsletter of the American PlanningOrganization. Leading off a special issue dedicated totransportation concerns, the article caught the attention ofMPO staffers who recommended its use in teMPO. It is re-printed here with the express permission of its author andPlanning magazine.

Shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union at the end ofthe1980s, the political scientist Francis Fukuyama caused

a sensation with an essay called “The End of History?” It pos-tulated that, with Communism’s near-demise, the struggleamong rival political systems had ended with a permanent vic-tory for democratic capitalism. All that was left to do was torefine it.

Is something similar happening with the way we getaround? Has our transportation system reached “the end ofhistory”? Will the auto and the airplane continue to reignsupreme? Or will something new come along to remake ourworld, as it has in the past?

The context for these questions is this: Since about 1800,revolutionary changes in our transportation systems have cre-ated new types of cities, neighborhoods, and housing, whileleaving old ones to whither away, or become antiques.

If history is an indication, we are due for another revolu-tion. The car and the highway, and the airplane and the air-port, have been dominant for almost a century. By compari-son, canals lasted about 50 years, streetcars about the same,and railroads about a century as dominant modes of travel.

Yet some people say the automobile and the highway areso imbedded in our landscape and lifestyles that nothing willever challenge them. In effect, they say we have reached theend of the historical road.

“It’s hard to imagine a fundamental change because theautomobile system is so flexible,” says urban historian RobertFishman, author of the 1989 history of suburbia, BourgeoisUtopias, and a professor at the University of Michigan at Ann

Arbor. “All I canimagine is a bet-

ter bal-

ance with a revisal ofthe train and transit con-nections that have been soshamefully neglected.”

That doesn’t mean thatchange won’t come, just that wemay not know it until it is upon us.Fishman recalls the scholar who, around 1900, predicted thatthe automobile would not go far because it couldn’t match theutility of the bicycle.

Hovering over this discussion is a single word: sprawl.Our car-clogged environment is the product of our transporta-tion system. Highways and airports produce low-densitysprawl.

Decades ago, streetcars and subways made cities denser byattracting housing and businesses. Will the changes that arenow being promoted – from high-speed trains to personal jetpacks – have the same result, encouraging developmentaround new transit hubs, or will they make sprawl evenworse?

The past as prologueSix words summarize the history of transportation over

the last two centuries; canals, railroads, streetcars, bicycles,automobiles, and airplanes. Each mode remade the economyand the landscape. Each was generally adopted only after gov-ernment got behind it financially and legally.

The canal era started in earnest in 1817, when New YorkState sold $7 million in bonds to pay thousands of laborers todig a 350-mles trench from Albany to Buffalo. When the ErieCanal went into service in 1825, it opened the entire Midwestto shipping and made New York the commercial hub of theNew World. Other states and cities frantically dug their ownchannels in an unsuccessful effort to catch up.

Spurred in part by these efforts, other cities began invest-ing in a new technology – railroads – that gradually replacedcanals. The railroad created railroad cities, like Atlanta, andconverted canal cities, like Chicago, into railroad cities.

Because the first racks were often laid along the firstcanals, the canal cities tended to prosper even as the water-

P A G E N I N E

cont on page 10, see Future of Transportation

ways declined in importance. Economists call this phenome-non “path dependence” (even as they debate its significance),and it still occurs. New York City is no longer dependent onthe Erie Canal, but it’s because of the canal that the rail lines,highways, and airports are located in and around the city.

From 1880 to 1925, when the railroads were at their peak,thousands of miles of track stretched to every corner of thecountry. Urban palaces like New York’s Grand Central Stationwere built to shuttle passengers in and out of the cities. Few rid-ers could have imagined that within their lifetimes, weedswould grow along miles and miles of abandoned track.

Although the automobile dates back to the 1890s, driverswere scarce until cities, towns and states began paving roads –in part at the urging of bicyclists. The League of AmericanWheelmen convinced the Department of Agriculture to createthe Bureau of Public Roads, forerunner of the FederalHighway Administration.

At first, railroad companies lent their political muscle tothe “good roads” effort, with the idea that better highwayswould get rail passengers to the stations more easily. Even so,in 1922, 80 percent of U.S. roads were dirt and gravel.

After Word War I, cars and later airplanes, served by pub-licly funded roads and airports, began to supplant the passen-ger rail system and its intimate companion, the streetcar.During the war, massive railroad congestion forced somefreight traffic onto trucks. Soon states and the federal govern-ment began investing more in roads and airports, and less inrail service.

As urban historian Eric Monkkonen noted in his 1988book, America Becomes Urban, governments and taxpayerslargely paid for this country’s transportation systems. NewYork State built the Erie Canal. Federal and state governmentsgave away a fifth of the nation’s total land area to the railroads.

Congress, at the urging of President Dwight D.Eisenhower, financed the Interstate Highway System. Citiesand states built airports. Even the New York City subways,although operated by private companies at first, were builtwith public dollars.

Each of these transportation innovations – canals, rail-roads, streetcars, cars, highways, and airplanes – created newways to live and work, and thus new types of neighborhoodsand cities.

The banks of Schenectady, New York, are still lined withthe ornate buildings created during the heyday of the ErieCanal. The streetcar era, which lasted from the late 19th cen-tury to World War II, led to thousands of streetcar suburbs atthe fringes of 19th century cities. And of course, the highwayand air travel system created the current pattern of low-densi-ty sprawl that defines our built environment.

The next big thingGiven this history, with one mode regularly superceding

another, it would appear that we are due for a big change inhow we travel, and thus in the form of our cities and towns.“Nothing really revolutionary has occurred since the Wrightbrothers and the combustion engine, and that’s now about 100years old,” says Elliot Sander, the director of the Rudin Centerfor Transportation Policy and Management at New YorkUniversity.

What might the next big thing be? Among the possibilitiesis the nifty Segway, the “gyro-scooter’ that takes off in thedirection it’s pointed. Or it could be the Solotrek HelicopterBackpack, which so far exists only in prototype versions. Strapit on, and the rotating blades do the work. There’s also the

Future of Transportation

(from page 9)

P A G E T E N

Did YouKnow?In 1922, 80% of U.S. roadswere dirt and gravel.

Did YouKnow?Federal and state govern-ments gave away a fifth ofthe nation’s total land areato the railroads.

Did YouKnow?Though built with publicdollars, New York City subways were initially oper-ated by private companies.

cont on page 11, see Future of Transportation

Airboard, which hovers four inches off the ground and costs amere $15,000. Of all these, the Segway actually seems to beliving up to some of its hype.

Maybe the revolution will come in the form of small air-planes. In his 2001 book, Free Flight: From Airline Hell to aNew Age of Travel, writer James Fallows, who is himself apilot, foresees a future where people use small planes as theywould taxis or rental cars for short flights between the thou-sands of small airports that now are under capacity.

High-speed hopesRail is another, more likely, option. High-speed rail net-

works are common in Europe and Japan, and in theory theyhold great promise in parts of the U.S., particularly in theNortheast, where population density is about the same as inGermany. Both German and French trains scoot along at 200m.p.h. Congress has come tantalizingly close to funding a newor improved train network, and even conservatives are gettingbehind it.

Meanwhile, various states and coalitions of states areaggressively lobbying to create or preserve high-speed corri-dors, under the assumption that being in the high-speed loopwill be as important as being part of the interstate system wasin the 1950s.

North Carolina is creating a “sealed corridor” for high-speed rail across the state. California and Florida have bothreceived federal grants for high-speed programs. The nine-state Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio andWisconsin), is pushing for a high-speed network with Chicagoas its hub (Editor’s Note: For more information on theMidwest Regional Rail Initiative, see teMPO, Volume Five,Issue Three).

On the national level, Amtrak is running what might becalled its “almost high-speed” service, Acela Express, in theNortheast Corridor. But Congress, which perennially discussesreorganizing or even killing Amtrak, has yet to really getbehind any national rail policy, although some members arequite passionate about it.

The Buck Rogers version of high-speed rail, a magneticlevitation train, has been around for a while, but workingexamples are still scarce. Demonstration models exist inGermany, Japan, and even Norfolk, Virginia, but the only realworking version is in China, where Shanghai has just finisheda $30 billion maglev line that reaches 250 m.p.h. and travels19 miles between airport and downtown in eight minutes,compared to an hour by taxi.

In theory, maglev trains, which float above the tracks onmagnets, could reach a speed of up to 500 m.p.h. And there is

sign of renewed interest at home: The Federal RailroadAdministration is administering a national competition for theconstruction of a working maglev line in the U.S.

Whether it’s maglev or a Segway, the challenge in predict-ing radical change is that by its very nature it tends to beunforeseen.

“We’re very bad at predicting those big discontinuities,”says Bruce Schaller of Schaller Consulting, a transportationfirm in New York. “It’s like the Internet. I remember in theearly 1980s, I visited a friend at Stanford who had e-mail onthe early ARPA network. I said, ‘That’s really cool.’ But I neverthought about it as something I could do.”

In fact, most transportation planners are conservative intheir predictions. “I would not be investing in jumbo heli-copters, dirigibles, personal rapid transit systems, motorizedscooters, or powered roller skates, although they sure wouldbe fun,’ says Elliot Sanders of the Rudin Institute.

Autophiles and phobesTo its defenders, the automobile is irreplaceable, no matter

what the predictions. If we run out of oil, they say, we canswitch to hydrogen fuel cells. If gas prices skyrocket, we canbuy smaller cars. If global warming increases, we can reduceemissions. And if our roads become overwhelmingly congest-ed, we will simply build more roads.

“I don’t think congestion will stop the automobile,” saysJose Gomex-Ibanez, Derel Bok Professor of Urban Planning atHarvard University. “I think the solution to congestion is tospread out more. There’s no doubt that we will have moremass transit in the future, but as people get richer in placeslike China, are they going to want to drive, and be mobile,and maybe drive SUVs? The answer is yes.”

“The automobile will continue to be the dominant modeof getting around,” says Mark Kuliewicz, traffic engineer forthe America Automobile Association in New York. “Cars maybe powered by something other than gasoline, and hopefullysoon, but they’ll still be there.”

But auto travel is dependent on roads. And an increasingnumber of critics believe that the expanding highway universe– what historian Kenneth Jackson has called “the big bang ofdecentralization that started in he 1920s” – has about reachedits limit.

Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association inNew York, argued in a speech last year at the World EconomicForum that for political, financial and practical reasons, it isbecoming increasingly difficult to build more highways. Moreand more citizens accept the fact that we cannot build our wayout of congestion and sprawl, he said.

Yaro pointed out that highway construction has drasticallyslowed in the tri-state New York metropolitan area. From

P A G E E L E V E N

Future of Transportation

(from page 10)

cont on page 12, see Future of Transportation

1951 to1974, the region’s highway system added some 54miles a year. In the last decade, it has added only four milesper year.

The message is clear, said Yaro in an interview. “I stronglybelieve that we’ve used up the capacity of our 20th centuryinfrastructure systems, and we’re going to need a heroic andvisionary (and expensive) set of new investments to createcapacity for growth in the 21st century.”

A key investment, he says, would be “new or significantlyupgraded intercity rail systems in the half-dozen metropolitancorridors where high-speed rail makes sense.” Yaro is essential-ly endorsing some version of the high-speed or improved railnetworks described above.

Smart roadsMost experts foresee increasing use of high-tech or “smart”

technology to wrest more capacity from overloaded roads. Inits more elaborate forms, smart technology includes things likeimbedding highways with magnets which would pull cars andtrucks along at 100 mph and stop them when needed.

It also includes self-braking cars; geographic positioningsystems that allow drivers (or their cars) to maneuver aroundtraffic jams; and computer chips and scanners that enable gov-ernments to price highways and charge drivers for using them,with different rates for different times.

The latter, usually called congestion pricing, is the HolyGrail of transportation specialists. Although once consideredpolitically impossible, the idea of paying for using roads maynow be acceptable to a public searching for a way out of con-gestion – even if it means ending one of the last arenas of egal-itarianism, the highway.

Highway space “is a scarce resource, and if it is scarce, wehave to manage it. In a market economy, this means pricing,”says Sigurd Grava, professor of urban planning at ColumbiaUniversity, and author of the new book, Urban TransportationSystems: Choices for Community.

“This will be the first time we will manage the use of thepublic right-of-way. In the past, anyone has been able to walk,ride a horse, or use a motor vehicle without restrictions exceptfor traffic control. But this is changing,” says Grava.

By definition, congestion pricing would eliminate trafficjams on any highway or road in the country. But at whatprice? In a federal experiment on Interstate 15 in San Diego,drivers paid as much as $8 during peak periods for conges-tion-free travel on an eight-mile stretch of highway. At lessbusy times, prices dropped to 50 cents.

In 2000, transportation planners with the Portland,Oregon, Metro regional government modeled how congestionpricing could change the region if used on key highways. They

found that citizens would buy smaller cars, drive less, and livecloser to where they worked.

With evolving computer technology, drivers could becharged for using even a neighborhood street. In March, at theinstigation of Mayor Ken Livingstone, London began chargingdrivers to enter the center city. Automatic cameras recordlicense plates and drivers are sent a bill. The plan has alreadyreduced local traffic by 20 percent and won over many of itsinitial opponents.

Managing traffic, with “smart cars” or congestion pricing,or something else, has the potential to add substantial capacityto our road network, say many experts.

“We’ve doubled and tripled the number of planes in theskies in the last generation, even though very few new airportshave been built,” notes a federal highway official who chose toremain anonymous. “We’ve done it through better air trafficcontrol.” She believes that we could the same with our roadsby taking advantage of available technology.

On the groundWhether the future simply brings better cars, or Star Trek-

like transporters, cities and towns here and abroad will changeas a result.

In France, the high-speed rail network is producing newcommuting patterns. For example, some Paris residents com-mute to Tours, a medium-sized city about 150 miles to thesouthwest. Train time: 58 minutes.

In Atlanta, the excessive highway building of the last fewdecades has produced both suburban sprawl and, paradoxical-ly, a revival of inner-city neighborhoods as suburbanites growweary of gridlock. In New Jersey, old railroad towns are reviv-ing because of substantial transit investments such as the new,$450 million rail transfer station in the Meadowlands.

Looking ahead, Yaro and several others see a future inwhich new transit lines make suburbs all over the U.S. more

P A G E T W E L V E

Future of Transportation

(from page 11)

Did YouKnow?Over the last few years,mass transit use hasincreased faster than highway use, somethingthat hasn’t happened in half a century.

cont on page 30, see Future of Transportation

PAGE THIRTEEN

coMPOnents

To encourage awareness of, and informed participa-tion in, its regional transportation planning

process, the MPO includes display advertising amongthe many communications strategies utilized in itsPublic Involvement Program. Featuring consistent useof the “iMPOrtant” format to build awareness andheighten recall, these ads appear in publicationstroughout the region, including the City & State sec-tion of The Indianapolis Star and The IndianapolisRecorder.

The ads shown here ran in April, May or June ofthis year. From the top, the first ad, or size variationsof it, ran in 34 regional newspapers throughout theDIRECTIONS study area (see media list, page 18.) Itencouraged attendance and participation in a seriesof Public Forums where the study’s preliminaryfindings were presentated for evaluation. Thesefindings concerned potential travel corridors andpossible transit modes for use in a region-wide rapid tran-sit system. If implemented, such a system could helpreduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and increasemobility options throughout the area.

The second ad encourages public review and com-ment on an amendment to the Regional TransportationPlan. It ran in the June 13th issue of The Indianapolis Starand the June 13th issue of The Indianapolis Recorder. Ineach case, the ad ran in tandem with a Legal Notice whichprovided more detail on where and how to provide inputon the amendment which proposes to modify projectsalready in the Plan, or to add new projects includingINDOT’s I-69 project. All public comment must be sub-mitted by July 7th for consideration. Those with questionsor comments concerning the Transportation Plan amend-ment may contact the planner-in-charge, MPO PrincipalPlanner Steve Cunningham.

The third ad invites all interested parties to the year’ssecond Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting. Thead mentions planned agenda items, including amend-ments to the Regional Transportation Plan andImprovement Program, proposed IndyGo fare changes,and an I-69 presentation by INDOT. It ran on June 11thin The Indianapolis Star and on June 13th in TheIndianapolis Recorder.

Through its various Public Involvement Program out-reach strategies, including display ads like these, the MPOwill continue to inform its primary planning partner, thepublic, of upcoming participation opportunities.

I M P O R T A N T

For more information on transportation planning,

call 327-5135 or visit www.indygov.org/indympo.

The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) invites you to a

Citizens Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday, June 17, at 6:30 PM.

Agenda items will include proposed amendments to the Indianapolis

Regional Transportation Plan and Improvement Program, proposed

changes in IndyGo fares, and a presentation on the I-69 project by

INDOT.Join us in Room 107 of the City-County Building, 200 East

Washington, downtown Indianapolis.

I M P O R T A N TThe Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) invites you toan Open House on DIRECTIONS, the Rapid Transit Study ToImprove Regional Mobility. Phase I of this 18-24 month studyhas already identified potential travel corridors and transit tech-nologies that could be used in a regional rapid transit system.Tell us what you think at the meeting nearest you.April 24 - Greenwood Town Hall, 2 N. Madison AvenueApril 29 - Cumberland Community Life Center, 10612 E.Washington St.April 30 - Plainfield Town Hall, 206 W. Main StreetMay 14 - Fishers Town Hall, 1 Municipal Drive (Open House, 11 AM -2 PM, will be held at the adjacent TrainStation)May 15 - Indianapolis City-County Building, 200 E.Washington Street (Open House, 11 AM – 2 PM, will be in Rm.118. Evening Presentation/ Open House will be in the PublicAssembly Room.)All meetings will include an Open House from 11 AM - 2 PM,and a Presentation/Open House from 6:30 - 8:30 PM.For more information, call 327-5142 or visitwww.indygov.org/indympo/directions.

I M P O R T A N T

For more information on transportation planning, call 327-5142 or visit www.indygov.org/indympo.

The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)invites your input on an amendment to theIndianapolis Regional Transportation Plan.

This document provides planning support for fed-erally funded transportation projects proposed forour region and is being amended to meet changingneeds and schedules.

The proposed amendment is in response torequests from the Indiana Department ofTransportation and other regional agencies to modi-fy certain projects currently in the Plan or to addnew projects, including INDOT’s I-69 project.

For more information on where and how toreview and comment on this amendment, betweennow and July 7th, see our Legal Notice in today’spaper.

PAGE FOURTEEN

to help reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality andincrease mobility options throughout the area. Phase I of thisstudy, which began in December, 2002, concerns the develop-ment of a region-wide transit concept plan, including theidentification of potential travel corridors and preferred transittechnologies for further evaluation. This phase is also examin-ing in detail a possible transit link between downtown and theairport.

Phase II of DIRECTIONS will work with the Concept Planto identify high priority transit segments. Each of these seg-ments including, but not limited to, the downtown-to-airportroute, will be the focus of a rapid transit feasibility study dur-

ing this phase. Phase III will assess the strengths and weak-nesses of the rapid transit alternatives within the highest prior-ity segments and identify how the implementation of thesealternatives might proceed.

Potential CorridorsTo develop a comprehensive list of potential transit corri-

dors for further evaluation, DIRECTIONS’ planners first con-sidered established traffic analysis zone (TAZ) travel capacitytotals, which identify the region’s busiest travel routes. Thehighest capacity routes were then analyzed for frequency andduration of peak hour congestion to yield a traveldemand/capacity supply ratio. The routes with the highestratios where then examined for characteristics that might rec-ommend or discourage their inclusion in a region-wide rapidtransit system. Such characteristics might include the presenceof existing rail infrastructure (recommend) or delicate environ-mental or historically significant elements (discourage).

Through this preliminary evaluation process, a set ofpotential rapid transit corridors has been identified for furtherevaluation. The list of potential corridors includes:from downtown Indianapolis . . . • North/Northeast to Fishers, Noblesville and Cicero• Northeast to Pendleton and Anderson• East to Cumberland• Southeast to Shelbyville• South/Southeast to Greenwood and Franklin• South/Southwest to Mooresville and Martinsville

Rapid Transit Study(from page 1)

cont on page 15, see Rapid Transit Study

Boone

Morgan

JohnsonShelby

HancockHendricks

Hamilton

Marion

Madison

Indianapolis

Sheridan

Arcadia

Cicero

Anderson

Pendleton

Lapel

Lebanon

Whitestown

Zionsville

Westfield

CarmelFishers

Greenfield

Fairland

Shelbyville

Franklin

Whiteland

Greenwood

Martinsville

Mooresville

Plainfield

Danville Avon

Lawrence

Speedway

Beech Grove

Brownsburg

Noblesville

RTS Study Area

Municipalities

Study Area MapThe DIRECTIONS study area, shown here, includes most ofthe region’s major communities and incorporates all ofMarion County and most of the surrounding eight counties.It is home to 1.5 million people and nearly 700,000 house-holds (in all nine counties), ranking the GreaterIndianapolis region 29th among America’s largest metropoli-tan areas. Like other metropolitan areas overly dependenton single-occupant vehicle use, our region is suffering theeffects of traffic congestion, including chronic rush hourdelays and diminished air quality.

• West/Southwest to Plainfield• West to Avon and Danville• West/Northwest to Lebanon• and North/Northwest to Zionsville.

Others potential corridors completely outside of MarionCounty include:• from Anderson south to Shelbyville• from Shelbyville west to Franklin• from Plainfield north to Brownsburg• and, from Anderson west to Noblesville.

Preferred TechnologiesAs a first step toward recommending a set of transit tech-

nologies to include in a regional rapid transit system, DIREC-TIONS’ planners assessed to strengths and weaknesses of allthose listed here. By studying existing installations, each wasevaluated for technological constraints, alignment feasibility,affordability, attractiveness and user convenience. Importantquestions concerned accessibility (Is the technology easy touse in the Indianapolis environment?), adaptability (Can the

technology operate in the Indianapolis environment, integratewith other systems, and be upgraded in the future?), environ-mental impact (How does the technology change the naturaland human environments?) and capacity responsive (Is thetechnology capable of meeting the range of projected ridershipdemands?).

This preliminary transit assessment resulted in the follow-ing conclusions:• An Automated People Mover System has a strong potential

for providing high levels of service and connectivity.• As a rule, elevated transit technologies are superior to at-

grade Light Rail Transit.• Commuter and diesel multiple unit (DMU) technologies are

appropriate for a downtown link to the airport, but aremainly geared more toward suburban, rather than urban,transit needs.

• Bus Rapid Transit is the most flexible of the transit technolo-gies being considered.

In general, planners recommend that the MPO consider acombination of transit technologies within an easy-to-use net-work. In order to achieve the best value, all transit technolo-gies will continue to be considered, while alternative travel

P A G E F I F T E E N

Rapid Transit Study(from page 14)

cont on page 16, see Rapid Transit Study

Conventional RapidTransit Systems

Conventional LightRail Transit (LRT)

SystemsCommuter Rail

Diesel Multiple Unit(DMU) Systems

Bus TransitSystems

Advanced ElevatedTransit Systems

Light Guideway and Feeder Transit Systems

Elevated RapidTransit System At-grade LRT

Bus RapidTransit Systems

Automated RapidTransit Systems

Automated People Mover Systems

Subway TransitSystem Elevated LRT Guided Bus

High PerformanceMonorail Systems

Med. Performance Monorail Systems

Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) LRT Electric Trolley Bus Fast Transit Links

Cable-driven Transit Systems

Various Clean FuelAnd Electric Buses Personal Rapid Transit

Selected Elevated Transit Technologies Under Development

Candidate Transit Technologies

corridors are being selected. The final selection of recom-mended transit technologies will be made during subsequentstudy phases following a competitive evaluation process andextensive public involvement. Current front runners includelight and commuter rail, express busway and automatedguideway transit (AGT) systems, such as the Clarian PeopleMover in downtown Indianapolis (See the Autumn, 2002 andWinter, 2003 issues of teMPO for more information on theClarian People Mover.).

Public InvolvementNo matter how effective, economically feasible or environ-

mentally-sensitive a regional rapid transit system is, it won’treduce traffic congestion or improve air quality unless the pub-lic accepts and uses it. So, the MPO has initiated a multi-faceted Public Involvement Program to invite public input andencourage sustained participation throughout the study process(see side bar). “Because of the importance of DIRECTIONS onregional transportation planning, and because the MPO consid-ers the public its key planning partner, we definitely think it’sworth the effort and expense to make ourselves and our pre-liminary study findings accessible to public review and com-ment,” says Mike Dearing, MPO Manager/Master Planner.“Even in a tight budget situation, we’re convinced of the plan-ning benefits our investment in public involvement yields.”

Five public meetings concerning DIRECTIONS’ prelimi-nary findings were held throughout the region during themonths of April and May. These included:

Thursday, April 24 at Greenwood Town Hall2 N. Madison Ave, Greenwood, IN 46142

Tuesday, April 29 at the Cumberland Community Life Center 10612 E. Washington Street, Cumberland, IN 46229

Wednesday, April 30 at Plainfield Town Hall206 W. Main Street, Plainfield , IN, 46168

Wednesday, May 14 at Fishers Town Hall1 Municipal Drive, Fishers, IN 42038(A daytime Open House was held between 11 AM – 2 PM atadjacent Train Station)

Thursday, May 15 at the Indianapolis City-County Building 200 E. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204

Each meeting day consisted of an Open House from11AM – 2 PM, and a Presentation/Open House from 6:30 PMto 8:30 PM.

Rapid Transit Study(from page 15)

Did you know: •Indianapolis freeways now become con-

gested during peak travel periods 64%of the time. That’s more than doublewhat it was ten years ago (25%) andnearly six-times what it was in 1982(11%)!

•Regional rush hour conditions last 7.2hours a day, compared to 4.2 hours in1990 and 2.7 hours in 1982.

•Indianapolis motorists drive a combinedroad/freeway total of 29 million milesper day, up 38% since 1990! Yet, ourmiles of paved roadway have increasedonly 10.5% for the same period, becausewe no longer have adequate right-of-wayavailable for road expansion.

•Area drivers lose an average of 43 hoursto traffic congestion per year, more thanone work week!

•Indianapolis now ranks 30th in conges-tion among major U.S. cities, a jump of10 places in just four years!

•No wonder so many people are seekinga better way to get around by askingDIRECTIONS

(SOURCE: Texas Transportation Institute 2000 Urban Mobility Study)

cont on page 17, see Rapid Transit Study

P A G E S I X T E E N

“Most attendees had open minds about the study’s findings,but these meetings also attract transit’s strongest supporters andseverest critics,” Dearing notes. “Giving people a forum to expresstheir views, and gathering often contradictory public input for fur-ther consideration, are reasons we hold these meetings.”

Despite extensive advertising, frequent media coverageand a large direct mail program, meeting attendance was light.“There are so many, more immediate regional transportation-related issues coming before the public right now, like CityFix,HyperFix, the Cultural Trail Concept and IndyGo’s new Parkn’ Ride Service,” observes Philip Roth, AICP, MPO SeniorPlanner and Co-Planner In Charge of DIRECTIONS, alongwith MPO Senior Planner Stephanie Belch. “I think many peo-ple made a choice to concentrate on those, knowing that ourstudy is in its early stages.”

Belch agrees. “Early in the study is actually the best timefor people to make themselves heard, before decisions aremade that set the course for the rest of the process, but mostdon’t see it that way,” she says. “Many people think that it’llbe years before a study recommendation is approved forimplementation, and that there will be plenty of time to beheard before that happens. And that’s true,” Belch laughs.“The MPO is known for facilitating a continuous, compre-hensive public involvement program, so people have multi-ple opportunities to contact us. In cases like this, though, itworks against us because people feel no pressure to getinvolved.”

For these reasons, the MPO made the most of the timeand participation of meeting attendees by providing in-depthpresentations on the study background, process and prelimi-nary findings. Elaborate exhibits offered detailed infor-

mation on various aspects of study considerations includingpopulation and employment projections, travel desire lines,land use considerations and transit technology characteristics.“We and our consultants presented a ton of information,” Rothsaid, “but we wanted to share as much as we could with thepeople who took the time to get involved in the process early.”

Armed with this background, meeting attendees wereencouraged to question planner findings and suggest alternateperspectives. Each attendee also received forms to rankGoals/Objectives for Regional Rapid Transit System Planning(page 19) and to rate four different regional rapid transit plans(pages 20, 21 & 22).

“When we started our meetings, we were asking people toreact to just three model plans,” Dearing points out. “But weadded a fourth based on early public input. None of thesesamples plans are intended as finished models, so none arelikely to become eventual recommendations. But each hascharacteristics that we want the public to react to, to helpdirect our future work.

The results of the public ranking/ratingexercise will be reported in a DIRECTIONS

Special Edition of teMPO later this year. Ifyou’d like your opinions included in

those results, fill out the forms foundhere (pages 19 - 22) and mail them to:Philip Roth, Metropolitan PlanningOrganization, 1821 City-CountyBuilding, 200 East Washington Street,Indianapolis, IN 46204. For more infor-mation on DIRECTIONS, visitwww.indygov.org/indympo or contactMike Dearing, MPO Manager/MasterPlanner at 317/327-5139(mdearing@indygov.org).

PAGE SEVENTEEN

Rapid Transit Study(from page 16) Is your Group Seeking

DIRECTIONS?If your group would like a presentation on

DIRECTIONS, the Rapid Transit Study to ImproveRegional Mobility, and to be surveyed on the

study’s preliminary findings, contact MPO SeniorPlanners Philip Roth, AICP (317/327-5149,

proth@indygov.org) or Stephanie Belch (317/327-5136, sbelch@indygov.org). Group presentation dates are available for scheduling

throughout the summer.

P A G E E I G H T E E N

Sharing DIRECTIONSDirect Mailing of 25,000 postcards promoting the Phase IPublic Meetings. Cards were mailed at random but in pro-portion to population density. For example, Marion Countyrepresents 54% of the total number of households within thestudy area, so 54% of the cards were distributed to zip codeswithin Marion County. Other household/mailing representa-tions include Boone County (3%), Hamilton County (11%),Madison County (8%), Hendricks County (7%), HancockCounty (3%), Morgan County (4%), Johnson County (7%)and Shelby County (3%).

Publications like teMPO and CAC Minutes have featuredDIRECTIONS information since last fall, well before thestudy’s official start.

Web site (indygov.org/indympo/directions) where back-ground information, study timeline and public surveys areavailable.

MPO Hotline (317/327-IMPO) which fea-tures a new message each week promot-

ing public participation opportunities,including DIRECTIONS presenta-tions.

Paid Sponsorship messages onWFYI Radio and Television fea-turing information on DIREC-TIONS and referringlisteners/viewers to the study’sweb site.

Literature, in both Englishand Spanish, gives back-ground information and

findings to-date, as wellas tools for furthercontact. These

brochures are used atpublic meetings and have

been distributed at sites throughoutthe study area including Public Libraries and

30 Latino-related locations.

Public Meetings, the first five of which have already takenplace, and the last of which was broadcast live on WCTY(Cable Channel 16) and subsequently re-broadcast through-out the month of May. The next series of public meetings istentatively scheduled for fall of this year.

To increase public awareness of and participation inDIRECTIONS, the rapid transit study to improve regionalmobility, the MPO is implementing a multi-tiered publicinvolvement program. Information on the study and itsupcoming participation opportunities has been made avail-able through:

Advertising in 34 regional newspapers, including:• Anderson Herald Bulletin• Beech Grove SouthSide Times• Danville Republican• Franklin Daily Journal• Greenfield Advertiser/Daily Reporter• Greenwood Challenger• Hancock County Image• Hendricks County Flyer• Indiana Herald• Indianapolis Business Journal• Indianapolis Prime Times• Indianapolis Star, City & State• The Indianapolis Star, StarNorth• The Indianapolis Star, Hamitlon County AM• The Indianapolis Star, StarWest • The Indianapolis Star, StarSouth• La Ola Latino Americana • La Voz de Indiana• The Lebanon Reporter• Martinsville Reporter Times• Mooresville/Decatur Times• The Noblesville Ledger• Northwest Press• NUVO • Speedway Town Press• Southside Challenger• Topics- Northeast• Topics- NorthCentral• Topics- Northwest• West Indianapolis Community News• West Side Community News • Westside Flyer • Westside Messenger • Zionsville Times Sentinel

Media Advisories sent to 59 regional print, radio and TVnews providers, resulting in dozens of articles, broadcastitems and features, radio interviews, and inclusion in allmajor Community Calendars. To date, seven DIRECTIONSadvisories have been released.

P A G E T H R E E

•La

nd U

se E

nhan

cem

ents

•Sm

art

Gro

wth

Ini

tiat

ives

•Tr

ansi

t C

ompa

tibi

lity

•R

egio

nal A

ttra

ctiv

enes

s &

Des

tina

tion

s

•A

ir Q

ualit

y•

His

tori

c•

Thr

eate

ned

& E

ndan

gere

d Sp

ecie

s•

Noi

se

•C

onge

stio

n R

elie

f•

Min

imal

Rig

ht o

f W

ay N

eeds

•Sp

eed/

Com

fort

/Saf

ety

of C

omm

ute

•C

onne

ctiv

ity

of D

eman

d/A

ctiv

ity

Cen

ters

•C

ost

Effe

ctiv

enes

s•

Stim

ulus

for

Im

prov

ed L

ocal

Bus

Sys

tem

•A

ppro

pria

tene

ss o

f Te

chno

logy

for

Reg

ion

•M

obile

Wor

kfor

ce•

Red

uced

Tra

ffic

Dis

trib

utio

ns t

o C

omm

unit

ies

•St

imul

ate

Eco

nom

ic D

evel

opm

ent

•E

nvir

onm

enta

l Jus

tice

•V

isua

l/Aes

thet

ic I

ntru

sion

s•

Con

nect

ivit

y of

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds t

o Jo

bs•

Job

Cre

atio

n

•C

onfli

cts

wit

h E

xist

ing

Frei

ght

Rai

l Lin

es•

Supp

orts

New

Mid

field

Ter

min

al a

t A

irpo

rt•

Supp

orts

New

Dow

ntow

n In

dian

apol

is T

rans

it C

ente

r•

Supp

ort/

Con

nect

wit

h O

ther

Tra

nsit

/Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Syst

ems

Gen

eral

Goa

lsSp

ecifi

c O

bjec

tive

s

Ran

kC

omm

ents

on

Cri

teri

aC

omm

unit

y D

evel

opm

ent

Cri

teri

a

Reg

iona

l Rap

id T

rans

it S

tudy

Pu

blic

Ou

trea

ch M

eeti

ng

Gen

eral

ized

Goa

ls a

nd

Sp

ecif

ic O

bjec

tive

s fo

r R

egio

nal

Rap

id T

ran

sit

Syst

em P

lan

nin

g

PU

RP

OSE

:It

is t

he p

urpo

se o

f th

is in

itia

l rou

nd o

fPu

blic

Inv

olve

men

t O

utre

ach

to a

ccom

plis

htw

o th

ings

:

Ran

kin

g of

Com

mu

nit

y D

evel

opm

ent

Cri

teri

a.T

he M

PO s

eeks

cit

izen

inpu

t re

la-

tive

to

the

Rap

id T

rans

it S

yste

m p

lann

ing

proc

ess

in w

hich

the

MPO

is e

ngag

ed.

Spec

ifica

lly, t

he M

PO s

eeks

pub

lic in

put

onth

e pr

oces

s by

whi

ch r

apid

tra

nsit

cor

rido

rsar

e ch

osen

for

incl

usio

n in

one

of

seve

ral

pote

ntia

l Reg

iona

l Rap

id T

rans

it S

yste

mA

lter

nati

ves.

T

his

first

ste

p in

volv

es id

enti

-fy

ing

and

rank

ing

the

com

mun

ity

goal

s &

obje

ctiv

es (

i.e. C

omm

unit

y D

evel

opm

ent

Cri

teri

a), w

hich

a f

utur

e R

apid

Tra

nsit

Syst

em w

ill s

uppo

rt.

Scor

ing

Alt

ern

ativ

e R

apid

Tra

nsi

t Sy

stem

Pla

ns.

The

sec

ond

step

invo

lves

sco

ring

of

Alt

erna

tive

Rap

id T

rans

it S

yste

m P

lans

rel

a-ti

ve t

o th

e ex

tent

to

whi

ch a

spe

cific

pla

nsu

ppor

ts t

he a

chie

vem

ent

of t

he C

omm

unit

yD

evel

opm

ent

Cri

teri

a ag

ains

t w

hich

tha

tpl

an is

bei

ng e

valu

ated

.

Mai

l to

:Ph

ilip

D. R

oth,

AIC

P -

Indi

anap

olis

MPO

200

E. W

ashi

ngto

n St

., R

oom

184

1In

dian

apol

is, I

N

4620

4

Inst

ruct

ions

: Pl

ease

ran

k th

e m

ost

impo

rtan

t C

omm

unit

y D

evel

opm

ent

Cri

teri

a w

ith

a on

e (1

), t

he s

econ

d m

ost

impo

rtan

t w

ith

a tw

o (2

), e

tc.

Plac

e th

e ra

nk y

ou a

ssig

n in

the

box

at

the

righ

t of

eac

h C

omm

unit

y D

evel

opm

ent

Cri

teri

a.

In a

ddit

ion,

ple

ase

plac

e an

y co

mm

ents

whi

ch y

oum

ay h

ave

on a

ny s

peci

fic c

rite

ria

in t

he s

pace

pro

vide

d.

Max

imiz

e La

nd U

seBe

nefit

s

Max

imiz

eE

nvir

onm

enta

lBe

nefit

s

Max

imiz

e M

obili

ty &

Tran

spor

tati

onBe

nefit

s

Max

imiz

e So

cial

&E

cono

mic

Ben

efit

s

Max

imiz

e In

term

odal

Com

pati

bilit

y &

Bene

fits

P A G E N I N E T E E N

Tear

alo

ng p

erfo

ratio

n.

P A G E E I G H T E E N

Reg

iona

l Rap

id T

rans

it S

tudy

Scor

ing

Mat

rix

for

Pot

enti

ally

Via

ble

Reg

ion

al R

apid

Tra

nsi

t Sy

stem

s

Max

imiz

e La

nd U

se B

enef

its

Max

imiz

e E

nvir

onm

enta

l Ben

efit

s

Max

imiz

e M

obili

ty &

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Ben

efit

s

Max

imiz

e So

cial

& E

cono

mic

Bene

fits

Max

imiz

e In

term

odal

C

ompa

tibi

lity

& B

enef

its

Inst

ruct

ions

: O

n a

scal

e of

1 t

o 10

, ple

ase

scor

e th

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of e

ach

Alt

erna

te r

elat

ive

to a

ccom

plis

hing

eac

h of

the

fiv

e (5

) C

omm

unit

yD

evel

opm

ent

Cri

teri

a.

A s

core

of

ten

(10)

is y

our

indi

cati

on t

hat

the

Alt

erna

te t

otal

ly a

ccom

plis

hes

the

Com

mun

ity

Dev

elop

men

t C

rite

ria.

A

sco

re o

fze

ro (

0) is

you

r in

dica

tion

tha

t th

e A

lter

nate

doe

s no

t ac

com

plis

h th

e C

omm

unit

y D

evel

opm

ent

Cri

teri

a.

Plea

se s

core

eac

h of

the

fou

r A

lter

nate

sep

a-ra

tely

.

Alt

erna

te N

o.O

neA

GT

/CRT

/EX

B

Alt

erna

te N

o.Tw

oBR

T/L

RT/E

XB

Alt

erna

te N

o.T

hree

-ALR

T/C

RT/E

XB

Alt

erna

te N

o.T

hree

-BLR

T/C

RT/E

XB

•La

nd U

se E

nhan

cem

ents

•Sm

art

Gro

wth

Ini

tiat

ives

•Tr

ansi

t C

ompa

tibi

lity

•R

egio

nal A

ttra

ctiv

enes

s &

Des

tina

tion

s

•A

ir Q

ualit

y•

His

tori

c•

Thr

eate

ned

& E

ndan

gere

d Sp

ecie

s•

Noi

se

•C

onge

stio

n R

elie

f•

Min

imal

Rig

ht o

f W

ay N

eeds

•Sp

eed/

Com

fort

/Saf

ety

of C

omm

ute

•C

onne

ctiv

ity

of D

eman

d/A

ctiv

ity

Cen

ters

•C

ost

Effe

ctiv

enes

s•

Stim

ulus

for

Im

prov

ed L

ocal

Bus

Sys

tem

•A

ppro

pria

tene

ss o

f Te

chno

logy

for

Reg

ion

•M

obile

Wor

kfor

ce•

Red

uced

Tra

ffic

Dis

trib

utio

ns t

o C

omm

unit

ies

•St

imul

ate

Eco

nom

ic D

evel

opm

ent

•E

nvir

onm

enta

l Jus

tice

•V

isua

l/Aes

thet

ic I

ntru

sion

s•

Con

nect

ivit

y of

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds t

o Jo

bs•

Job

Cre

atio

n

•C

onfli

cts

wit

h E

xist

ing

Frei

ght

Rai

l Lin

es•

Supp

orts

New

Mid

field

Ter

min

al a

t A

irpo

rt•

Supp

orts

New

Dow

ntow

n In

dian

apol

is T

rans

it C

ente

r•

Supp

ort/

Con

nect

wit

h O

ther

Tra

nsit

/Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Syst

ems

Com

mun

ity

Dev

elop

men

t C

rite

ria

Gen

eral

Goa

lsSp

ecifi

c ob

ject

ives

P A G E T W E N T Y

P A G E N I N E T E E N

AGT,

CR

T, E

xpre

ss B

us

Alte

rnat

e N

o. 1Reg

ion

al R

apid

Tra

nsi

t St

udy

:R

egio

nal

Stu

dy C

orri

dors B

RT,

LR

T, E

xpre

ss B

us

Alte

rnat

e N

o. 2

PAGE YWENTY-ONE

P A G E T W O

LRT,

CR

T, E

xpre

ss B

us

Alte

rnat

e N

o. 3

-BLR

T, C

RT,

Exp

ress

Bu

sAl

tern

ate

No.

3-AR

egio

nal

Rap

id T

ran

sit

Stu

dy:

Reg

ion

al S

tudy

Cor

rido

rs

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

Irons In The Fire

Knozone Kickoff FestivalThe Doctor is in! On Saturday,

May 31, area residents turned out atBroad Ripple Park, 1610 Broad RippleAvenue with Dr. Kno and the rest ofthe Knozone team to kickoffthe summer ozone season.From 10:30 a.m. to 2:30p.m., there were free games, kidsactivities, display booths, food andmore!

The Festival, which was promotedto area families via print and radio adver-tising and flyers posted at popularpublic venues, included:

• A festival kickoff featuring MayorBart Peterson, Department of Public Works DirectorBarbara A. Lawrence and other special guests

• Hybrid-vehicle display

• Carnival games and rock-climbing wall

• Face-painting and caricature drawings

• Papa John’s Pizza and Ritter’s Frozen Custard

“I was a great way to teach people how they can helpIndianapolis battle bad air and breathe easier this summer,”says Senior Planner Kevin Mayfield, the MPO liaison to theIndianapolis Department of Public Works which has con-ducted the campaign for the last X years. “The people whoturned out take pollution, and having fun, very seriously.For more information on Dr. Kno and the KnozoneAwareness Campaign, contact Kelly Duncan at 327-2053(kduncan@indygov.org).

New Bike Map Makes CentsAs design work on the Bike Route Map progresses to

reflect recent infrastructure changes and to incorporate routesystems from surrounding areas including Greenwood,

Plainfield, Carmeland Fishers, the MPOis undertaking asearch for partners tohelp underwrite thecost of printing. “The

map is the single,

most expensive print piece we do,” says Mike Dearing MPOManager/Master Planner. “In 2001, it ran about $1.10 apiece and we gave away more than 10,000 of them. Thisyear, we plan on increasing the production quantity, and weneed help.”

To secure it, MPO Public Involvement ConsultantWhitman Communications, inc., undertook a three monthcampaign of telephone solicitation that followed up an initialmailing request from Dearing. “We spoke to a lot of nicepeople who were enthusiastic about the project,” notes JoeWhitman. “In fact, total pledges exceeded the $17,000+ we’llneed for printing, but some of our strongest supporters hadto withdraw their pledges due to the softening economy, thewar in Iraq (in the case of some media partners suffering lossof advertising revenues), and over extension of current spon-sorship commitments. I just hope they’ll keep us in mind forfuture partnership projects.”

The current list of underwriters who have confirmedtheir support include:

WISH TVIndy GreenwaysValley Bikes, in CarmelThe Marion County Health DepartmentThe Greenways FoundationCircle City Bicycle/Fitness

In exchange for their support, underwriters will beacknowledged on both sides of the new map in a “Sponsors’Corner” where they will be recognized for their investmentin regional health, improved air quality, increased mobilityand cycling safety.

If your company or organization would like to discussunderwriting opportunities for the new Regional Bike RouteMap, call Joe Whitman, Whitman Communications, Inc. at 317/262-2660 (whitman@netdirect.net).

MPO Certification MeetingOn Tuesday, March 11, a special session of the Citizens

Advisory Committee (CAC) was held in Room 107 of theCity-County Building, downtown Indianapolis. Like otherquarterly CAC meetings, this one was broadcast live onWCTY (Cable channel 16) and invited all interested partiesto offer comments and questions on presented agenda items.Unlike other meetings, however, this one was dedicated pri-marily to public review of, and comment on, the MPO’sregional Transportation Planning Process, an integral part ofa federal re-certification process conducted every three yearsby the authorized Certification Review Team which conduct-ed the meeting. This team was made up of representatives

cont on page 29, see Irons In The Fire

PAGE TWENTY-FOUR

the Indianapolis Department of Public Workswithin Marion County, is responsible foractually accomplishing the improvement.The implementing agency will varydepending on the nature of the trans-portation improvement and the jurisdic-tion in which the projectis to take place.

So, when you ask,“Why hasn’t the MPOalready incorporatedrapid transit technologyinto the region, I havetwo answers. The first is,“Because we don’t havethat power.” The secondis that the MPO DID recommend incorpo-rating a transit-based option into thenortheast corridor, but the decision-makingbody, in this case the study’s policy steeringcommittee which included IndianapolisMayor Bart Peterson, INDOT CommissionerJ. Bryan Nicol, and State Senator LukeKenley, decided that more information wasneeded before the transit option could beapproved. Their decision was based, in part,on the fact that American transit systemshave proven more effective at reducing trafficcongestion, and more successful in buildingridership, when they involve an entireregion, not just a single corridor. So, theMPO was directed to evaluate the feasibility ofa region-wide rapid transit system thatincluded the Indianapolis InternationalAirport as a destination.

That is the work currently underwaywith DIRECTIONS (see cover story). For transitsupporters like you, the process seems very slowand unnecessary. But our Phase I Public Forumshave shown us that not everyone feels like you doon the subject. While most of our meeting atten-dees bring an open mind to evaluate the study’spreliminary travel route and transit technologyfindings, some walk in dead set against transit inany form. On occasion, they accuse us of havingalready “made up our minds” or having “our ownagendas.” As I’ve already pointed out, that doesn’tmake sense, because the MPO is NOT the deci-sion-maker. Our job is to gather information

including relevant public input, both pro and con.The good news is that you can make yourself heard

by the MPO and shape both our findings andour recommendations through our extensive

Public Involvement Program. Inaddition to public meetings,you can contact the MPOPlanners-in-Charge ofDIRECTIONS (listed at the

bottom of this article), take thePhase I survey provided in this

issue of teMPO and on the MPO website (indygov.org/indympo), or leave

comments on the DIRECTIONS messageboard (indygov.org/indympo/directions)

or the new MPO Public Comment Line(317/327-8601).

Once you’ve done this, you can also makeyour position known to your representative onthe Policy Committee of the IRTC (A list ofvoting members of the IRTC Policy Committeeis included here for this purpose). As electedofficials, they welcome input from their con-stituents on topics of vital interest. In the caseof DIRECTIONS, let them know if you think

rapid transit is a good or bad idea for theIndianapolis region, and why. Also, give theminput on which routes you consider the highestpriority and what type of transit makes the mostsense to you. This is exactly the sort of informa-tion we pass along to the IRTC as the region’s pri-mary transportation planner on behalf of ourmost important planning partner, the public.

For more information on DIRECTIONS, therapid transit study to improve regional mobility,

contact MPO Senior Planners Stephanie Belch at317/327-5136 (sbelch@indygov.org) or Philip Roth,

AICP, at 317/327-5149 (proth@indygov.org).

Questions & Answers

(from page 2)

Y o u r M P O s t a f f. . includes these people who would be happy to address your comments or

questions on any aspect of the transportation planning process:

Stephanie Belch • Senior Planner . . . . . . . .317/327-5136 sbelch@indygov.org

Steve Cunningham • Principal Planner . . .317/327-5403 scunning@indygov.org

Mike Dearing • Manager/Master Planner . .317/327-5139 mdearing@indygov.org

Catherine Kostyn • Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317/327-5142 ckostyn@indygov.org

Kevin Mayfield • Senior Planner . . . . . . . . .317/327-5135 kmayfiel@indygov.org

Philip Roth, AICP • Senior Planner . . . . . . .317/327-5149 proth@indygov.org

Sweson Yang, AICPChief Transportation Planner . . . . . . . . . . .317/327-5137 syang@indygov.orgFor more information on our regional transportation planning process, visit the MPO web site at www.indygov.org/indympo.

PAGE TWENTY-FIVE

Armin AppleHancock County BoardHancock County CourthouseGreenfield, IN 46140Phone: 462-1105Fax: 462-1712

Mike BoothFishers Town Hall1 Municipal DriveFishers, IN 46038Phone: 595-3100Fax: 595-3100

James Brainard, MayorCity of Carmel1 Civic SquareCarmel, IN 46032Phone: 571-2400Fax: 535-8724

Dennis Capozzi, ManagerTown of Whiteland549 Main StreetWhiteland, IN 46184Phone: 535-5531Fax: 535-8724

Richard CarlucciTown ManagerP.O. Box 65Plainfield, IN 46168Phone: 839-2561Fax: 838-5236rcarlucci@town.plainfield.in.us

Dick Crane, Town CouncilTown of Zionsville45 Williamsburg CourtZionsville, IN 46007Phone: 873-2060

Ed Frazier, RepresentativeTown of Speedway5007 W. 14th StreetSpeedway, IN 46224Phone: 243-0107Fax: 240-1322

Charles Henderson, MayorCity of Greenwood2 North Madison AvenueGreenwood, IN 46142-3564Phone: 881-8527Fax: 887-5721

Gene HendricksMetropolitan DevelopmentCommission7324 Mendenhall RoadCamby, IN 46113Phone: 637-5334Fax: 267-3726ehendricks@telcocom.com

Gilbert HolmesIPTC/IndyGo1501 W. Washington St.Indianapolis, IN 46222Phone: 635-2100Fax: 634-6585gholmes@indygo.net

Steve HoltHamilton County Commissioner1 Hamilton County SquareNoblesville, IN 46060Phone: 773-5997Fax: 776-8454

Dan Johnson, Clerk - TreasurerTown of New Whiteland401 Mooreland DriveNew Whiteland, IN 46184Phone: 535-9487Fax: 535-7889

Terry J. Jones, DirectorHendricks County PlanningCommission355 S. Washington Street, #212Danville, IN 46122Phone: 745-9254Fax: 745-9347

Melina Kennedy, Assistant Deputy MayorOffice of the Mayor (Proxy for Mayor Peterson)200 E. Washington St., Suite 2501Indianapolis, IN 46204Phone: 327-3687Fax: 327-3980

Tom KleinTown of Avon6570 East US Highway 36Avon, IN 46123Phone: 272-0948Fax: 272-0949

Paul Maves(Proxy for Mark Branaman)6045 W. 29th PlaceSpeedway, IN 46224Phone: 293-2392Fax: 535-8724

Steven Niblick, Executive DirectorBoone County Area PlanningCommission116 W. Washington Street, Room 101Lebanon, IN 46052Phone: 1-765-482-3821Fax: 1-765-482-5241

Janice Osadczuk, ChiefPre-Engineering & EnvironmentDivision, INDOTIndiana Government Center North,Room N848Indianapolis, IN 46204Phone: 232-5468Fax: 232-5478josadczuk@indot.state.in.us

Mayor Bart PetersonCity of Indianapolis200 E. Washington St., Suite 2501Indianapolis, IN 46204Phone: 327-3600Fax: 327-3980

John Price, DirectorJohnson County HighwayDepartment1051 Hospital RoadFranklin, IN 46131Phone: 736-6586Fax: 738-5378

David Roberts, Airport DirectorBAA Indianapolis2500 South High School Road,Suite 100Indianapolis, IN 46241-4941Phone: 487-5003Fax: 487-5177

Jerry Rosenberger, Town ManagerTown of Westfield130 Penn StreetWestfield, IN 46074Phone: 896-5577Fax: 867-2200

Joanne SandersCity County Council5144 N. Carrollton AvenueIndianapolis, IN 46205Phone: 283-6040jmsanders@msn.com

Thomas Schneider, MayorCity of Lawrence9001 E. 59th StreetLawrence, IN 46216Phone: 545-6191Fax: 549-4830

Ron SullivanTown Council PresidentP.O. Box 29155Cumberland, IN 46229Phone: 894-6213(Proxy Dave Mikkelson, Town Manager)894-6213

Nannette Tungent, MayorCity of Southport6901 Derbyshire RoadSouthport, IN 46227Phone: 786-3585Fax: 784-6299 lntunget@cs.com

Mark WhiteTown of Brownsburg80 E. Vermont St.Brownsburg, IN 46112Phone: 852-1124Fax: 852-1135 markawhite313@hotmail.com

J. Warner Wiley, MayorCity of Beech Grove806 Main StreetBeech Grove, IN 46107Phone: 788-4979Fax: 788-4976

Indianapolis Regional Transportation Council:Policy Committee

Voting MembersNames in italics indicate elected officials

March 2003

2003 Earth Day

Indiana Festival

Planned and promoted by Earth DayIndiana, Inc (EDII), a not-for-profit,

grassroots organization, the Earth DayIndiana Festival has become the largestone-day environmental event in thestate and the first, free outdoor festivalof the year in the Indianapolis area. Thisyear, as always, the event was held onthe last Saturday of April (April 26) cul-minating ‘Earth Month.’ Its mix of envi-ronmental education opportunities,music, food, special events and arts &crafts activities again drew 15,000+attendees from the nine-county area.And again this year your MPO and itstransportation planning partners tookpart.

“Earth Day is observed nationallyon April 22, but we plan our festivalto cap-off a month-long environ-mental awareness effort, ratherthan be a stand-alone event”explains Deb Ellman, EDIIExecutive Director. “The firstweek of April, Indiana’s FirstLady, Mrs. Judy O’Bannon, heldan Earth Month kick-off news con-ference where she unveiled the 2003festival poster, and the festival’s open-ing ceremonies included IndianapolisMayor Bart Peterson who proclaimed itthe start of Earth Week in Indianapolis.”

The event, which was sponsored byenvironmental groups, private corpora-tions, government agencies and themedia, was held between 11:00 AM and5:00 PM at the American Legion Malland Veterans’ Memorial Plaza in down-town Indianapolis (N. Meridian Streetand North Street). Government agen-cies, non-profits, and environmentalproduct and service providers paid to beexhibitors, yet attendees are drawn tothe festival’s fun, family-oriented atmos-phere. Its purpose was to serve as aforum for the exchange of environmen-tal information, as reflected in this year’stheme “Energy Efficiency is the Key!”

Environmental information reachedmore than a million Central Indiana res-idents through the festival’s promotionalefforts and media coverage.

“That’s a big reason we invested inthe event’s newspaper insert,” explainsMike Dearing, MPO Manager/MasterPlanner. “The MPO is involved in anumber of environmentally-aware pro-jects and programs, as always. We want-ed to get ‘the word’ out, to encouragepublic participation in our on-goingtransportation planning process, and toendorse environmental awareness andconservation throughout the region.”

The MPO’s four-color, full-page ad,seen here in one color on page 27 (See

in it full color at indygov.org/indympo)describes seven planning initiativesintended to increase mobility options,reduce traffic congestion (and resultingpollution) and protect our local envi-ronment and quality-of-life. Theyinclude the Pedal & Park Program,again an Earth Day Indiana Festival par-ticipant, IndyGo’s new HyperFix Park& Ride Service, development of aPedestrian Route System Plan, DIREC-TIONS, the Rapid Transit Study toIncrease Regional Mobility, and theMulti-Model Task Force’s downtownBike Rack Initiative. In addition, readersare invited to participate in the trans-

portation planning process via CitizensAdvisory Committee (CAC) meetings,reading free MPO publications, dialingthe MPO’s Hotline (317/327-IMPO, orcalling Mike Dearing directly at317/327-5139.

The ad was distributed to TheIndianapolis Star’s 520,000 readers in theEarth Day Indiana Festival ProgramGuide (newspaper tabloid) on Thursday,April 24, two days before the event. Thepublication will also be distributed atpublic events throughout the remainderof the year, such as WFYI’s SesameStreet Festival, Touchstone Energy’s tentat the Indiana State Fair, the IUPUIVolunteer Fair, the Partners for PollutionPrevention Conference and the INRecycling Coalition Annual Conference.

This ad also appears on side one ofa flyer produced by the MPO to use in

mailings and at public meetings. Onside two appears the new 2003MPO Public Involvement ProgramSurvey, which invites public inputon current transportationimprovement priorities, involve-ment program strategies and onaspects of MPO-hosted meetings.

To take the survey yourself, turn topage 28 or visit the MPO’s web site

at indygov.org/indympo. In addition, several MPO planning

partners participated in the 2003 EarthDay Indiana Festival. GreenwaysFoundation volunteers, who operatedthe MPO-sponsored free, Pedal & Parkbike corral at the Pennsylvania & NorthStreets entrance were sheltered in MPOtents which also housed transportation-related literature. Nearby were IndyGo,promoting public transportationoptions, and Indy Greenways withwhom the MPO is currently collaborat-ing on the updating of the RegionalBicycle Route Map.

For more information on the MPO’sEarth Day Indiana Festival participation,or on the transportation planning pro-grams featured in MPO advertising,contact Mike Dearing at 317/327-5139(mdearing@indygov.org).

PAGE TWENTY-SIX

Transportation planning is your call. Get involved, and breatheeasier, by attending quarterly Citizens Advisory Committeemeetings, reading free MPO publications, dialing the weekly MPO Hot Line (317.327-IMPO), visiting the MPO web site (indygov.org/indympo), or calling 317.327.5139 for more information.

Worried about air quality and traffic congestion? Relax. As the region’s primary transportation planner, how to clear the air, and the intersection, is often our call.While insuring the present and future efficiency of the region’s transportation sys-tem, MPO plans also protect our environment and quality-of-life. Initiatives likethese promote the safe, economical movement of people and goods, while alsoincreasing mobility, encouraging travel alternatives, and cutting air pollution.

The MPO sup-ports the efforts of

planning partnerIndyGo to improve

public transportation,including this summer’s

expanded Park & RideProgram to ease downtown

congestion during the INDOT65/70 Hyperfix project. For more

information, visit hyperfix6570.in.gov.

A Pedestrian Route SystemPlan, now in development

with the MPO’sguidance, isaddressing the

need to improveamenities, such

as sidewalks,throughout the

region.

For a third year, your MPO is sponsoring free, secure bikeparking at these Greenways Foundation Pedal & Park events:

• Earth Day Indiana, Apr. 26• Broad Ripple Art Fair, May 10-11• Bike-To-Work Day, May 16• Talbot Street Art Fair, June 14-15• Indiana State Fair, Aug. 6-17• Penrod, Sept. 6

We developed the 327-mileMarion County Bike RouteSystem, in cooperation withIndy Greenways. Its map,updated this year to reflectinfrastructure improvementshere and in surrounding com-munities, will again be distrib-uted free at bike shops andpublic libraries, or by calling317.327.5149.

Need a quick, con-venient way to getaround without trafficdelay? Then, askDIRECTIONS. Thisrapid transit studyis now looking attravel corridors andpreferred technologies fora region-wide system andyou’re invited to participate. Learn moreat indygov.org/indympo/directions.

Founded bythe MPO in 2002,the Multi-ModalTask Force works toenhance mobility options whilealso promoting conservation and healthagendas. This year’s project: bike racksfor downtown’s most popular destinations.

Studies conduct-ed by the MPOoften recommendroadway expansion orenhancement. Byimproving traffic flow,we reduce travel time,fuel consumption andthe air pollution associat-ed with start/stop driving.

Transportation planning is your call. Get involved, and breatheeasier, by attending quarterly Citizens Advisory Committeemeetings, reading free MPO publications, dialing the weekly MPO Hot Line (317.327-IMPO), visiting the MPO web site (indygov.org/indympo), or calling 317.327.5139 for more information.

PAGE TWENTY-SEVEN

PAGE TWENTY-EIGHT

Please fax back your survey to 317.327.5103 (attention Mike Dearing) or mail it to:Mike Dearing, Metropolitan Planning Organization, 1821 City-County Building, 200 East Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3310.

You may also fill out this survey and learn of upcoming transportation planning meetings on the MPO web site at www.indygov.org/indympo.

The Metropolitan Planning Organization needs your informedinput to help improve both our regional transportation systemand our regional transportation planning process. As a start,please answer the following questions.System Please identify the top five transportation-related improvementsyou consider most important to preparing our region for the future,with 1 being most important.

_____ Widen existing roads

_____ Add roads, where space permits

_____ Improve signal timing

_____ Improve bus service inside Indianapolis

_____ Extend bus service to outlying communities, such asCarmel, Plainfield and Greenwood

_____ Develop a rapid transit system throughout the greaterIndianapolis region that could incorporate light or com-muter rail, express busways or automated guideway systems (AGT), such as the Clarian People Mover

_____ Improve existing, and build new, sidewalks

_____ Develop more concepts like the Cultural Trail Projectwhich, if implemented, would link downtown’s cultural dis-tricts with a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian path system

_____ Accommodate alternative travel options by adding relatedinfrastructure, such as bike racks, throughout the regionaltransportation system

_____ Other ________________________________________(please specify)

ProcessYour MPO tries to encourage and accommodate your participationin the regional transportation planning process in a variety of ways.Please check as many as you’ve heard about, read about or usedover the last year.

_____ Citizens Advisory Committee meetings open to the publicand broadcast on WCTY (Channel 16, Comcast andBrighthouse Networks)

_____ Free MPO publications, like teMPO and CAC Minutes, sentthrough the mail

_____ Free MPO publications, like teMPO and CAC Minutes,available at local libraries

_____ Public workshops held on transportation planning projects,such as the Glendale Neighborhood Study andDIRECTIONS, The Rapid Transit Study to Improve RegionalMobility

_____ Display advertising promoting upcoming meetings or publicreview and comment opportunities in The Indianapolis Star,The Indianapolis Recorder and other regional publications

_____ The MPO Comment Line (317/327-8601), which allows arearesidents to leave a transportation-related question or com-ment for the MPO anytime, day or night, for prompt follow-up

_____ The MPO web site (indygov.org/indympo) where trans-portation planning reports, maps, documents and generalinformation is available

_____ The MPO Hot Line (317/327-IMPO) where a brief message, up-dated weekly, describes upcoming participation opportunities

_____ Radio and television messages, such as those on WFYI,which direct listeners/viewers to the MPO web site (indygov.org/indympo) and Hot Line (317/327-IMPO)

_____ Transportation-related news stories presented by the localprint and broadcast media

_____ Other __________________________________________(Please suggest other ways to interest, inform and involve you in the regional transportation planning process.)

If you picked up this survey at an MPO-sponsored meeting, pleasetell us the topic of the meeting. ____________________________

_____________________________________________________

Did you find the information shared at the meeting to be clear, con-cise and well presented?

_____ Yes ______ No

How could we have made the meeting more involving from yourperspective? ___________________________________________

______________________________________________________

Optional If you would like to receive regional transportation planning infor-mation in the future, please provide the following information:

Name_________________________________________________

Address_______________________________________________

City___________________________ State____ ZIP ___________

Tear along perforation.

PAGE TWENTY-NINE

Mayfield Promoted

Kevin Mayfield has been named a Senior Planner of theMetropolitan Planning Organization. The announcement

was made in March of this year by Mike Dearing, MPOManager/Master Planner. With this promotion, Mayfield joins

Philip Roth, AICP, andStephanie Belch as an on-staff Senior Planner.

“It’s rare for us to havethree Senior Planners onstaff at-once,” notesDearing, “especially sincewe’re working kind ofshort-handed at themoment. But Kevin hasreally earned this positionthrough his attitude, hispeople skills and his hardwork.” The MPO staff,which currently totalsseven, lost a member when

Mike Peoni became Administrator late last year. Dearing hasbeen interviewing applicants for a Planner position ever since.

Mayfield joined the Indianapolis MPO as a transportationplanner in February, 1994. His previous experience includes

five and a half years as a Permit Technician in the Division ofNeighborhood and Development Services for the City ofIndianapolis. His current responsibilities include:• Mapping /Traffic Counts using AutoCad, Maptitude,

ArcView and Traffic Projection Modeling • Chairman of the Committee for Specialized Transportation,

Indianapolis Area FTA Section 5310 Grant Program • Traffic Impact Studies • Liaison to the DPW for the Ozone Awareness Program • Citizens Advisory Committee • Thoroughfare Plan & Street Facilities Inventory Plan.

“I’m really glad that Kevin is the sort of person who canbe in a job for nine years and continue to grow,” says Dearing.“It’s really worked out well for both him and the MPO,because he’s always been well liked by our planning partners.Now, we can continue to get the benefits of his experience andrelationships in a more senior capacity.”

In 1980, Kevin Mayfield earned a Bachelor of Science degreefrom Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, where hemajored in Public Affairs. He is an Indianapolis native and cur-rently resides on the northwest side where he frequently usespublic transportation to affect his daily commute downtown.Kevin has two grown daughters, Keena and Morgan.

You can reach the MPO’s newest Senior Planner by con-tacting Kevin at 317/327-5135 or kmayfield@indygov.org.

from the Federal HighwayAdministration (Kentucky, Indiana,Michigan, Midwestern ResourcesCenter/Chicago) and the FederalTransit Administration (Region5/Chicago).

Joyce Newland of the Federal HighwayAdministration - Indiana described the purposeof the discussion as three-fold. “We need tomake sure the review is conducted in accor-dance with federal law,” she said, “but we’realso looking for opportunities to improve theregional transportation planning process andto identify ‘Best Practices’ that can be sharednationwide.

During the comment period,Certification Team members asked several ofthe speakers how they had heard about theCAC meeting. The information strategies most

often mentioned included MPO publications,direct mail, newspaper advertising, televisioncoverage and spots on National Public Radio.

A total of nine meeting attendees spokeduring the comment period, the majority ofwhich offered very positive feedback on theMPO’s efforts to work with the public asplanning partners, including Pat Andrews ofDecatur Township who said, “The MPOknows the neighborhoods, the traffic routesand the flow of our communities. Plus, they

care. I feel the MPO offers an honestinvitation for public participationand works hard to facilitate theprocess.”

If you have a comment, positiveor critical, about how the MPO con-ducts any part of its responsibility,

call the MPO’s new 24-hour PublicComment Line (317/327-8601) or visit the

MPO’s message board at indygov.org/indympo.

Irons In The Fire

(from page 23)

P A G E T H I R T y

like the cities. Consultant Bruce Schaller notes that for the lastfew years, mass transit use has increased faster than highwayuse, something that hasn’t happened in half a century.

Cities evolve in unexpected ways. The introduction offreeways decimated many U.S. downtowns in the 1950s,something unpredicted at the time. Photos of downtownHouston in 1960, for example, reveal many surface parkinglots and a few tall buildings.

Today, tall parking garages have replaced much of the sur-face parking and the downtown is substantially denser.Perhaps in the future, more office buildings will replace thegarages and people will take commuter rail to work. In fact,the city is already building a light rail line downtown.

We could also go the other way. If auto use continues atthe same level and personal jets take off as Fallows and someothers predict, sprawl is likely to increase. New homes and

businesses would spring up around smallairports throughout the country.

An unstable mix of government subsi-dies, technological promise,

and private profit willdetermine what

comes next, and thiswill vary from place to place.

Indicators like wealth will not always offerreliable clues as to what transportation systems particular soci-eties will adopt.

Consider the humble bicycle. It’s used extensively inChina, which has a very low per capita income, and inScandinavia, which has a very high per capita income. InCopenhagen, more than a third of all commuters use bicycles.The point is that wealth alone does not adequately predicttransportation use. You might say that the Chinese use bicy-cles because they have to. The Danish, because they want to.

What planners can doFor the most part, U.S. urban planers work separately

from transportation planners, The average state or city plan-ning director tends to react to transportation decisions ratherthan to make them. Planners have tended to focus on zoningand land-use regulation, which is often auxiliary to the realwork being done by traffic engineers.

In a better ordered world, land planners would haveresponsibility for transportation planning (or supervise thosewho do it), and urban designers would be directly involvedwith state and federal highway planning.

We probably haven’t reached the end of history when itcomes to transportation. But whatever the future, it would bea better one if we had a broader range of choices. As a country,we have tended to lurch from one extreme to another. In the1890s, we had the most extensive rail system in the world –and one of the worst road systems.

By the 1950s, we had abandoned our widespread streetcarsystem. Today, we lack a decent passenger rail system but havegreat highways. Like the fiberoptic cable industry and thehigh-tech rage, transportation has proceeded in a boom-bustfashion.

When the next big thing does come along, let’s not be tooquick to abandon the proven modes. The past teaches not

only that change comes, but that the bestsocieties offer a range of transportation

choices, including using one’s own two feet.

About the AuthorAlex Marshall, an independent journalist in New

York City, writes and speaks about cities and the forcesthat create them. He is the author of How Cities Work:

Suburbs, Sprawl and The Roads Not Taken (University ofTexas 2001), and is a Senior Fellow at Regional Plan Association,

where he edits the newsletter, Spotlight on the Region. His work hasappeared in The New York Times Magazine, Metropolis Magazine,Planning Magazine, Newsday, The Washington Post, SalonMagazine, Architecture and Architectural Record. In recent years,he has emphasized transportation as the defining force in shaping thecharacter and form of a community. He is currently working on a bookfor Oxford University Press, Beneath the Metropolis about the subter-ranean realms of 12 major world cities. In 1999-2000, Marshall was aLoeb Fellow at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design, wherehe studied urban design, architectural history, political philosophy, lawand economics. In 1994, Marshall studied European city and suburbandevelopment as a German-Marshall Fund Fellow. Marshall holds amaster’s degree in Journalism from Columbia University in New York,and a bachelor’s in Political Economy and Spanish from Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

Reprinted with permission from Planning copyright May 2003 by the AmericanPlanning Association.

Future of Transportation

(from page 12)

PAGE THIRTY-ONE

• trail lighting for nighttime visibility and recognition• people ‘eddies and pockets’ for passing, pausing and learn-

ing about adjacent exhibits/attractions and, art and culturalelements at an interest-sus-taining frequency.

Also, the existing streetcapacity and width ofIndianapolis can easily accom-modate a dedicated trail with-in the downtown core, sincethe city already has a good dis-tribution of diverse attractionsand plenty of room for in-fill-ing as more develop.

Among the trail’s anticipat-ed benefits are economic andneighborhood developmentsupport; an integral linking ofthe city’s near-downtown museums, restaurants, entertain-ment venues and historic sites; a community health initiative;an image-enhancer for Indianapolis as a unique place; and,new connecting points for the Marion County GreenwaysSystem. Health behavior experts also say that such a trailcould make Hoosiers more aware of exercise – a good idea ina state that ranks high nationally in obesity and smoking.

“It could be a world-class amenity for a world-class city,”

says Indianapolis Major Bart Peterson who has called theCultural Trail concept one of the best ideas he’s heard for tak-ing Downtown to the next level. “There is a lot of work yet tobe done before we make a decision,” he notes, “but there is areasonable chance that this could happen.”

A decision by City officials on whether to move forwardon construction of the CulturalTrail is expected as early as thisfall. Before then, designers andengineers need to examine infra-structure along the proposedroute, suggest modifications, andupdate cost estimates. Armed withthese findings, at least one morePublic Workshop will be held.

“This concept has a lot goingfor it and I think that’s what we’vebeen hearing at our workshops,”says Dearing, who hopes the pub-lic will stay plugged into the

process to help evaluate subsequent study findings. “As trans-portation planning initiatives go, this one is relatively short,”he says. “It’s really important that people stick with it.”

For more information on the Cultural Trail Concept, visitthe MPO web site at indygov.org/indympo. To be heard onthe issue, fill out and return the Public Survey form foundthere or here on page 7, or contact Mike Dearing at 317/327-5139 (mdearing@indygov.org).

Cultural Trail Update

(from page 6)

New MPO Comment

Line

Got something to say about anyMPO study, plan or project? Then, wewant to hear it. Any time, day ornight, 24/7. Just call 317/327-8601and leave your comment or questionon our new automated PublicComment Line. What you say will beforwarded to the appropriate plannerand, if you leave your name andnumber for follow-up, we’ll get backto you.

“It’s another new strategy ofour Public Involvement Program,”says MPO Manager/MasterPlanner Mike Dearing. Like ourHotline (317/327-IMPO)which provides a weeklyupdate on upcoming public

participation opportunities, and ourweb site (indygov.org/indympo) whichoffers access to complete planningdocuments, our New Comment Line isintended to promote and facilitateincrease

public involvement,” he explains.“Our goal is to make it easier for peo-ple to take part in the regional trans-portation process.”

MPO Planner Catherine Kostyn isresponsible for checking messages and

forwarding them to the appropriatedepartment personnel. “Our aimis to respond within three daysor less,” she says. “It’s importantthat we address the transporta-tion issues causing concern, butjust as important that our key

planner partner, the public, knowstheir messages are being heard andconsidered. This is also the reason wepost message boards on our website.”

The MPO’s Public CommentLine became active in late April and

is now available for use.

Metropolitan Planning Organization

1821 City-County Building200 East Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204-3310

Printed on paper with recycled contentPAGE THIRTY-TWO

To leave a transportation-related comment or

question, try the MPO’sPublic Comment Line at

317/327-8601.

To get involved, dial the MPO Hotline At 317/327-IMPO.

more than 7,000 feet of exist-ing creek beds while creatingand preserving habitat for theendangered Indiana Brown Bat.

Since 1975, the IndianapolisAirport Authority has followed amaster plan for future airport develop-ment. That plan called for layout of twoparallel runways with a non-intersecting crosswind run-way while leaving room for a new “midfield terminal”complex between those runways and new highway accessfrom I-70.

Over the past 28 years, that plan has been developed,reviewed, modified and updated, but airport officials havealways worked toward eventual construction of a newIndianapolis International Airport that would meet theneeds of the region in the 21st Century.

In May 2002, the Indianapolis Airport Authorityselected Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc., (HOK), aninternationally known architecture firm, as MasterDesigner on the project. HOK will provide a compre-

hensive design solution that will focus on creating a uniqueand compelling gateway experience for the air traveler,while integrating state-of-the-art terminal design witharts and cultural expression.

Last October, the Airport Authority alsonamed Indianapolis-based Hunt ConstructionGroup and Turner Construction Co. to lead teamsof construction manager firms on the project. Thefirms will work with designers, architects, engi-neers and other consultants to oversee variousaspects of construction, including terminal, con-course and site development of the project, which

is estimated to cost $974 million.No state or local tax money will be used to

finance construction of the new airport or to repayconstruction bonds. Instead, construction is beingfinanced by a combination of federal grants, passen-ger facility charges, airline facility rents and aircraft

landing fees.The new Indianapolis International Airport is

slated to open in 2007. For more information on theproject, contact James Grass of Executive MediaConsultants at 317/231-7000 (jgrass@executivemedia.com).

New IIA High Points

(from page 5)

INDIANAPOLIS REGION'SINDIANAPOLIS REGION'S

KEEPING PACE WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

Pennsy Trail Update. . . . . . . . . . Page 1

I-69 Extension Project . . . . . . . . Page 1

Q & A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

MPA MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

MPO Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5

DIRECTIONS Survey . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6

Regional Pedestrian Route System Status Report . . . . . . . . . Page 7

I-69 Alternatives Comparison. . Page 12

IndyGo Blue Line Circulator . . Page 14

Irons In The Fire. . . . . . . . . . . .Page 19

CoMPOnents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20

Stephanie Belch has Class. . . . Page 23

Weathering the Heat

As changeable as Indiana’s summerweather, the issues recently domi-

nating the regional transportation plan-ning process have been diverse, fastmoving and, on occasion, stormy. Issuestopping the news over the last fewmonths include highway projects, tran-sit studies, new service introductions,on-going alternative transportation plan-ning, and greenways activity. Read aboutthe last first with Pennsy Trail Updateand find out why this newest trail willbe among Marion County’s mostunique. Also, find out what criteriaINDOT used to arrive at itsIndianapolis-to-Evansville route selec-tion in I-69 Extension Project and see aroute-by-route comparison of all the

In This Issuecont on page 16, see Pennsy Trail Update

S U M M E R 2 0 0 3

V O L U M E S E V E N

I S S U E T H R E E

INDOT I-69 Extension Project

After nearly three years of being in the news and on the minds of peoplethroughout Indiana, the I-69 Extension Project reached a significant milestone

on Wednesday, August 20th. That’s when the Indianapolis Metropolitan DevelopmentCommission (MDC) voted six-to-three to adopt Resolution 03-T-011 into theIndianapolisTransportation Planfollowing its ownpublic hearing. Thatresolution identifiesthe current SR 37corridor as the preferred alignment of the I-69 extension immediately south ofIndianapolis. This route had been recommended by the Indiana Department of

cont on page 8, see I-69 Extension

cont on page 3, see Weathering the Heat

Pennsy Trail Update

A trail is just a trail, right? If you’ve seen one,you’ve seen ‘em all.

“Not when it comes to the PennsyTrail,” says MPO Senior Planner PhilipRoth. “Eastside residents have sought thevarious benefits of a bike and hike trailalong the abandoned Pennsylvania Railcorridor so enthusiastically that more than600 of them signed a petition supportingits development back in 2000,” he notes.City officials have considered the project’smerits ever since, including at a June 18Public Hearing where, once again, theclear majority of attendees back the ideafor reasons of recreation, transportation,and economic redevelopment, no doubtnoting the effects the popular MononTrail has had on Broad Ripple and sur-rounding area. That trail draws an esti-

AQ

P A G E T W O

In Q & A, members of your MPO staff answer questions posed to them via voicemail, e-mail, regular mail or in-person. In this issue, MPO Manager/Master

Planner Mike Dearing discusses the MPO’s role in affecting regional transportationsystem improvements.

“We’ve covered the Indiana Department of Transportation’s I-69 Extension Project for a long time, including the July meetingof the MPO’s Citizens Advisory Committee and the recentIndianapolis Regional Transportation Council (IRTC) vote toendorse INDOT’s recommended route (along SR 37 south of down-town). So, I’ve got to ask; no matter what decision is made by theMPO, the CAC, or anyone else, doesn’t INDOT have the authority tobuild I-69 any way it wants to, as long as the Federal HighwayAdministration approves?”

- asked via e-mail by a memberof the local print media

Your question raises a legitimate issue but,remember, INDOT is one of the MPO’s trans-portation planning partners. Our efforts to con-duct a continuous and comprehensive trans-portation planning process within our region,and theirs to do the same throughout the state,wouldn’t be possible without long-term cooper-ation and good working relationships. That’swhat both organizations strive for (our mutualimplementation strategy), while serving thepublic good (our shared primary goal). So, notransportation planning or implementing agencywants to impose its will without regard for thevalid concerns raised by the jurisdictions andconstituents it impacts.

Having said that, I understand how you could be a little confused by the I-69 Extension Project. Because of the project’s scope and unique planning character-istics, “Who’s really in charge?” type questions are bound to come up. The answeris, we all are. INDOT is the primary planning/implementing agency on the project,while the Indiana metropolitan planning organizations impacted by the project’spath (Indianapolis, Bloomington, Evansville) are serving as consulting planningpartners.

Here’s why:Congress mandated the extension of I-69 from Canada to Mexico. For this rea-

son, it has to be built. Ignoring the mandate is not an option. In Indiana, it isINDOT’s ultimate responsibility to determine how the I-69 extension will be built.

ACRO-NYMBLE

Here’s a list of the acronyms used inthis issue. Refer to it to keep your

understanding letter-perfect.

AGT - Automated Guideway TransitAICP – American Institute of Certified

PlannersAPM- Automated People MoverCAC – Citizens Advisory CommitteeCEO – Chief Executive OfficerCMAQ – Congestion Mitigation & Air

QualityCMS – Congestion Management SystemDEIS – Draft Environmental Impact

StatementDMD – Department of Metropolitan

DevelopmentDPW – Department of Public WorksFHWA – Federal Highway

AdministrationFEIS – Final Environmental Impact

StatementFTA – Federal Transit AdministrationIIA – Indianapolis International AirportINDOT – Indiana Department of

TransportationIPTC/IndyGo – Indianapolis Public

Transportation CorporationIRTC – Indianapolis Regional

Transportation CouncilIRTIP – Indianapolis Regional

Transportation Improvement Program IUPUI – Indiana University/Purdue

University At IndianapolisLEDPA – Least Environmentally

Damaging Practicable AlternativeMDC – Metropolitan Development

CommissionMACOG – Michiana Area Council of

GovernmentsMCANA – Marion County Alliance of

Neighborhood AssociationsMPA – Metropolitan Planning AreaMPO – Metropolitan Planning

OrganizationNIFS – National Institute of Fitness &

SportsPIP – Public Involvement ProgramSPMS – Scheduling and Project

Management SystemTE – Transportation EnhancementTEA-21 – Transportation Equity Act for

the 21st CenturyTIP – Transportation Improvement

ProgramUSEPA – United States Environmental

Protection Agency USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife

Service

cont on page 4, see Q & A

&QUESTIONSANSWERS

Mike DearingMPO Manager/MasterPlanner

P A G E T H R E E

I N D I A N A P O L I S M E T R O P O L I T A N P L A N N I N G A R E A

BooneMadison

Morgan

Johnson

Shelby

Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA)(Projected Urbanization By The Year 2020)

Eagle

Pike

Lincoln

Wayne

Buck

Creek

Sugar

Creek

White

River

Warren

Washington

Perry FranklinDecaturGuilford

LawrenceDelaw

are

Hancock

Washington

Pleasant

Clay

Washington

Center

Hamilton

Marion

Fall

Creek

Hendricks

options considered. And, learn how theMPO has been working toward a multi-faceted plan for pedestrian mobility in

Regional Pedestrian Route System StatusReport. You’ll find all this and additionalinformation, including info on a recentDIRECTIONS telephone survey andsome HyperFax and figures you haven’t

seen yet, right here in teMPO, the MPO’sofficial newsletter of the regional trans-portation planning process.

Weathering the Heat

(from page 1)

This map reflects the expanded MPO Metropolitan PlanningArea (MPA) as determined by Census 2000 data. The boundaryof this area has not yet been finalized.

DRAFT

P A G E F O U R

They have recommended a route option called Alternative 3C,which follows the SR 37 corridor south of downtownIndianapolis (For a more complete description, see I-69Extension Project, page 1). This route will have significantimpacts in Perry Township, which is of concern to many in ourarea. It also includes a ‘new terrain’ route south of Bloomingtonwhich will put a highway through what is now natural wood-lands. A lot of people object to this recommendation for thesereasons. Even the Indianapolis MPO recommended anotherroute option (Alternative 4B) last fall, when our preliminaryassessment suggested 3C might adversely impact our regionalair quality standards. However, further air quality analysis hasproven this concern not to be warranted.

Although INDOT continues to support 3C as its recom-mended route, it has accommodated a number of MPO plan-ning suggestions. For example, we asked that, if the SR 37route is selected, INDOT 1) avoid the Mann Road route optionin Decatur Township, 2) add an interchange at SouthportRoad, 3) maintain access at Bluff Road, 4) maintain access at I-465 & Harding St., and 5) maintain access at other key thor-oughfares. Our suggestions were made as ways to minimize

the negative impacts on Perry Township by maintainingneighborhood and community accessibility. INDOT has

agreed to all of these suggestions, at least intheory. They’ll need to get into Tier II of

their project before actual implementa-tion details can be determined. But this

is definitely proof of an on-goingcooperative relationship, and of

INDOT’s willingness to lis-ten to its partners, especial-ly within the confines of

MPO planning jurisdictions.By federal mandate, every

urban area with a populationof 50,000 or more has a desig-nated metropolitan planningorganization. These MPOs arethe primary transportationplanners within their regions.We are the primary transporta-tion planner in theIndianapolis region whichincludes all of Marion Countyand parts of the surrounding

eight counties. As such, we are primarily responsible for coordi-nating the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Plan (long-term,planning document) and the Indianapolis Transportation

Improvement Program, or IRTIP (short-term,programming/implementation document). Any federally fundedproject must first appear in the Transportation Plan, before it canbe programmed for implementation in the ImprovementProgram.

If there is a single pointof confusion, and a basisfor your question, I thinkit’s here. To many, MPOs likeours appear to have a federalmandate that competes withINDOT’s. In projects like the I-69Extension Project, how canINDOT be the primaryplanner for the whole,while regional MPOs are theprimary planners of a piece?It can’t work withoutcooperation.

For this reason,INDOT proposed its I-69extension recommendation(3C) as an amendment toboth the IndianapolisRegional TransportationPlan and ImprovementProgram earlier this year.The amendments were endorsed by the Indianapolis RegionalTransportation Council (IRTC), in a near unanimous vote onJuly 30, 2003. The IRTC is the decision-making body onregional transportation issues and is composed of elected offi-cials from jurisdictions throughout the region. The MPOmakes transportation recommendations to the IRTC, forward-ing significant public input gathered at its Citizens AdvisoryCommittee meetings. (NOTE: It's only the SR 37/PerryTownship aspect of this recommendation that is locally contro-versial. The Indianapolis MPO's planning area does not extendsouth to Bloomington to warrant our official consideration ofthe new terrain concerns).

So, INDOT has no reason to avoid the cooperative region-al transportation planning process in an attempt to impose it’swill. INDOT representatives worked with the MPO, andaddressed both the CAC and the IRTC to make its case for 3C.On August 20th, INDOT Commissioner J. Bryan Nicol alsoaddressed the Metropolitan Development Commission (MDC)which voted to adopt the Tran Plan and IRTIP amendmentsinvolving the regional planning and programming of 3C asresolutions in a 6 to 3 vote. For these reasons, INDOT can pro-ceed with the I-69 Extension Project in the Indianapolisregional planning area once it has the FHWA’s blessing.

Questions & Answers

(from page 2)

MPO Profile

Meet Dr. Susan R. Moriarty, a physician with a healthy inter-est in alternative transportation. An advocate of physical

exercise, she has been “on the trail” of a cure for Central Indiana’sproblems with sedentary lifestyles and poor nutrition. “Regularphysical activity and good nutrition are key factors to remainingfit and decreasing the odds of developing common health prob-lems like high blood pressure, heart disease, osteoarthritis, TypeII Diabetes and many types of cancer,” she explains. “We’re luckyto have a regional transportation system that is incorporatingnew infrastructure improvements that help address these needs,like our bicycle route system, the pedestrian route plan now indevelopment, and a growing network of greenway trails. Theseare the reasons I’m involved with transportation planning.”

Raised as a physician’s daughter on Indy’ssouthside, Susan earned her medical degreefrom Indiana University in 1983, did her resi-dency in internal medicine at St. VincentHospital, then her fellowship in infectious dis-ease at Indiana University Medical Center. Shestarted in private practice in 1988, specializingin infectious disease and practicing mainly atSt. Vincent Hospital in northwest Indianapolis.In April, 2002, she accepted the position ofDirector of Clinical Preventive Services at theMarion County Health Department, part of theHealth and Hospital Corporation of MarionCounty, which also includes Wishard HealthServices (Wishard is the city’s public hospital.)

“I saw this position as an opportunity to promote the pre-vention of some of the chronic diseases and conditions we seeincreasing in our community,” Dr. Moriarty explains. “I don’tthink it is so important that anyone ranks Indianapolis as thetwelfth, tenth or even fifth fattest city in the nation. What’simportant is that we are seeing more and more children develop-ing Type II Diabetes, and other health problems, as a result of thedecline in physical activity and changes in eating habits that haveoccurred over the past few decades. This job allows me to workwith a variety of people in our community to develop strategiesthat help individuals understand these health issues. We hope tofind ways to promote healthier lifestyle choices as a means ofpreventing disease and achieving a higher quality-of-life.”

One such initiative in which Dr. Moriarty is involved is Indyin Motion, a free program currently taking place at eight IndyParks. With instructors provided by the National Institute ofFitness and Sports (NIFS), Indy in Motion offers area residents theopportunity to increase their exercise regimen through a variety ofphysical activities including walking, indoor aerobics, muscle-ton-ing and strength-training. Since the program’s inception ninemonths ago, more than 1,800 participants have signed up to workout in a supervised, recreational environment. “There are many

people in our community who are ready to make positive changesin their lives and they are welcoming this program,” she notes.

Another such program is the Indiana Coordinated SchoolHealth Council, which focuses on improving the physical andmental health of the state’s school-age children to improve theirlearning ability. It is programs like these that quickly led Moriartyto transportation planning and the MPO.

“I first became involved with Indy Parks through our part-nership in the Indy in Motion program. Then I was invited tojoin the MPO’s Multi-modal Task Force in October, 2002. It’s agreat place to bring a medical perspective to alternative trans-portation planning,” she explains. “Increased mobility optionsand increased physical activity happen to be complementarygoals. The healthier our transportation system, the more oppor-tunities each of us has for getting and staying healthy.”

In addition, Dr. Moriarty recently joinedthe Board of Directors of the GreenwaysFoundation, the non-profit charitable trustwhich promotes the expansion, enhancementand use of the greenways system throughoutCentral Indiana. “This group is another hugeplus for our area,” she says, as if to justifyanother commitment in her already busyschedule. “Even as a frequent greenways user, Iwasn’t always aware that a private organizationwas responsible for some of the trail amenitiesthat I enjoyed, including volunteer clean-ups,benches and new tree plantings. They alsowork to expand the greenways system into thesurrounding counties. Once I found out all

this, I wanted to be involved in their mission.” Dr. Moriarty and her husband, Dr. Bill Allen, can often be

found on the Central Canal Towpath near their home, biking orwalking Airedale terriers Zottie and Hoosier III. “We haveenjoyed many hours on the Canal Towpath, the White RiverGreenway, and the Monon Trail, as well as more recent tripsalong the newer greenways,” she says. “We use the greenwaysmainly for recreation, but they’re also a terrific transportationoption – a convenient, healthy way to get around.”

Sounds like just what the doctor ordered!

Dr. Susan R. MoriartyOn the trail of healthier lifestyles

teMPO is published quarterly by your Metropolitan Planning

Organization, part of the Department of Metropolitan Development. If you know of

anyone who would like to receive teMPO, or if you have any questions concerning its

publication, please call:

Mike Dearing (317/327-5139, mdearing@indygov.org)Department of Metropolitan DevelopmentMetropolitan Planning Organization1821 City-County Building200 East Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204-3310teMPO was written and prepared for publication by Whitman Communications, Inc.

P A G E F I V E

P A G E S I Xcont on page 22, see DIRECTIONS Survey

DIRECTIONS Survey

It’s an important tool in our public involvement program forthis study,” says MPO Senior Planner Philip Roth of the

recently completed transportation telephone survey intendedto inform Phase II of DIRECTIONS, The Rapid Transit StudyTo Improve Regional Mobility, as well as other initiatives of theMPO’s regional transportation planning process. The survey,designed and conducted by The Kensington Group in associa-tion with Whitman Communications, concerns the public’scommuting habits and preferences in travel mode characteris-tics. The MPO, and DIRECTIONS’ primary consultantSchimpeler-American, also helped guide the content develop-ment of the survey which was conducted in mid-July.

The rapid transit study began in December, 2002 and isexpected to last 18-24 months. Its general purpose is to con-sider the preferred placement of a region-wide transit systemand to evaluate a wide array of technology options, includingcommuter or light rail, or bus. If implemented, such a systemcould help reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality andincrease mobility options throughout the area. The study willalso answer questions raised by the conNECTions study ofnortheast corridor transportation concerning the feasibility ofrail service throughout the region and will examine in detail apossible transit link between downtown and the airport.

“We’re using three different types of criteria to help usachieve our study goals while evaluating various systemoptions,” Roth notes. “Community Criteria concerns thingslike congestion mitigation, economic development and envi-ronmental impacts. System Criteria deals with aspects of oper-ation, cost and efficiency,” he explains. “User Criteria is morepersonal information. It has to do with what’s important topeople when they commute. And, for that, we had to go to thesource.”

One of the goals of the survey is to determine the relativeimportance of transportation selection criteria to area resi-dents. Respondents, chosen at random, were asked to rank

“

Travel CharacteristicsSurvey Definitions

For the purpose of the Transportation Telephone Survey, the travel characteristics were defined

in the following way:

Travel Time- this refers to the amount of time it usually takes you to

get to work or to get home from work.

Reliability - this refers to the dependability of a particular mode oftravel to get you to and from your destinations in the

time and manner expected.

Personal Costs- this refers to the amount you pay for transportationincluding any daily fares for public transportation or

the total cost of using a personal vehicle such as fuel, insur-ance, parking and up-keep.

PersonalComfort/Convenience

- this refers to the physical amenities like adjustable seats and climate control, as well as weather-related aspects

of travel including the impact of inclement weather and having the flexibility to change your route

or schedule as needed.

Personal Safety- this refers to protecting you or your belongings while

waiting for transportation or while traveling in a vehicle.

Regional

Pedestrian Route

Plan Status Report

When work began in 1998 onwhat became the Marion County

Bike Route Plan, the project was to con-sider both bicycle and pedestrian routesand facilities. The MPO, its lead consul-tant on the project, HNTB Corporation,and its project steering committee allquickly recognized that the issues con-cerning each of these modes were dis-tinct and complex enough to warrantindividual attention. For this reason,development of a pedestrian route planwas put on-hold. . . temporarily.

“It was clear to us that we couldn’tdo a decent job of developing routeplans for both bike and pedestrians inthe time and with the dollars allotted,”explains MPO Manager/Master Plannerwho was planner-in-charge of the projectat the time. “We opted to develop thebike route plan first, because areacyclists had waited 13 years for a newmap and because the issues involvedwith developing the region’s first pedes-trian plan had never been systematicallyevaluated. That was going to take moretime.”

Development of the Bike Route sys-tem for Marion County proceeded on-schedule with the Marion County BikeRoute Map being distributed to the pub-lic in October, 2001. That map is current-ly being re-designed to accommodateinsets of bike route trails in neighboringcommunities and should be re-issued inlate fall, 2003, as the Marion County &Surrounding Area Bike Route Map.

Still, proponents of improved pedes-trian facilities throughout the region didnot have to wait long to have their inter-ests addressed. For the last two years,the MPO and its lead project consultant,Storrow Kinsella Associates, Inc. (SKA),have been working toward a regionalpedestrian route plan by concentratingon the development of a series of com-plementary plan components.

“Our work with he MPO has fittogether very well,” says SKA partnerMeg Storrow. “Everything we’ve done,starting with the Special NeighborhoodStudy of the Glendale Area (1999 -2002), has dealt with alternative trans-portation planning and has informed thework that’s come after,” she explains.“So, we’ve been able to build on recentlocal findings and immediately use theacquired knowledge on the next step ofpedestrian plan development.”

To describe the significance ofthose steps to the RegionalPedestrian Route Plan, and to offer atimeline on past andfuture progress, SKAissued the followingStatus Report to theMPO and its vari-ous planning part-ners in late Mayof this year.

BackgroundDevelopment of an MPO-sponsored

Indianapolis Regional Pedestrian RoutePlan was initiated with the execution ofan agreement between the MPO andStorrow Kinsella Associates (SKA) inNovember, 2001. The contract was alogical extension of the alternative trans-portation planning work then underwayby SKA for the Special NeighborhoodStudy of the Glendale Area, in whichpedestrian, bicycle, and public trans-

cont on page 18, see Pedestrian Route Plan

P A G E S E V E N

Transportation (INDOT) following its long-term evaluation ofa dozen route alternatives which included computer modelingand comparative analysis of specific performance criteria aswell as 200-300 public meetings.

After having its recommendation approved by GovernorO’Bannon in January, INDOT requested that this project beamended into the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Planand the Indianapolis Regional Transportation ImprovementProgram, or IRTIP (Resolution 03-T-012) so that Tier II workon the project could proceed within the Indianapolis region,the MPO’s transportation planning area, using federal funds.All transportation projects financed with federal funds mustfirst be planned and programmed into these documents beforeimplementation. The Transportation Plan is a long-term plan-ning document that helps guide the development of theregion’s transportation system for the next 20+ years. With thehelp of transportation planners, engineers, elected officials andthe public, the Plan ensures that facilities and services requiredto support the mobility needs of the community and its futuregrowth are anticipated and available. It also provides decision-makers with the information upon which to base their projectpriorities.

By contrast, the IRTIP is short-term, documenting federal-ly-funded transportation improvement projects programmedfor the region using available dollars within a three-year time-frame. Before projects can be considered for inclusion in theIRTIP, they must first be included in the RegionalTransportation Plan. For this reason, the MDC voted on theTransportation Plan resolution before voting to adopt eitherthe resolution to amend the 2003-2005 IRTIP or the draft2004-2005 IRTIP, which included the I-69 extension project.All three resolutions were previously endorsed by the PolicyCommittee of the Indianapolis Regional TransportationCouncil (IRTC) at its July 30th meeting. The IRTC comprisesboth Policy and Technical Committees and represents juris-dictions throughout the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA).All MPO recommendations, and salient public input, arepassed on to the IRTC which is the official decision-making

body for the regional transportation planning process. The MDC affirmative votes clear the I-69 Extension pro-

ject, as recommended by INDOT, to proceed within theIndianapolis region. Over the next few months, INDOT willcontinue working with the public and local, state and federalagencies to complete the Final Environmental ImpactStatement (FEIS) and Tier I activity associated with 3C. AfterINDOT releases the FEIS, the Federal Highway Administrationmust approve its findings before the project can proceed. Oncean affirmative Record of Decision has been issued, Tier IIactivity on 3C will begin, possibly in Late 2003 or early 2004.

As part of the federal highway project which wouldextend I-69 from Canada to Mexico, INDOT’s recommendedroute, known at Alternative 3C, has been controversial, inpart, because of its anticipated negative impacts on the neigh-borhoods, residents and businesses of Perry Township. Thoseopposed to the alternative also cite its “new terrain” environ-mental impacts as an area of concern, referring to the pro-posed corridor’s route through natural woodlands south ofBloomington.

Pat Andrews, of the Marion County Alliance ofNeighborhood Associations (MCANA) voiced this dissentingopinion on behalf of her organization and Perry Township res-idents at a special meeting of the MPO’s Citizens AdvisoryCommittee on Thursday, July 24th, during which both sheand a representative of INDOT made 30-minute presentations,followed by two hours of questions and comments.

Andrews asserted that converting SR 37 south ofIndianapolis to interstate standards will destroy businesses andde-stabilize Perry Township neighborhoods by bisecting the

I-69 Extension

(from page 1)

P A G E E I G H T

cont on page 9, see I-69 Extension

area and inhibiting the easy access that currently exists. Shealso noted that 94% of all people expressing an opinion toldINDOT that they were opposed to a “new terrain” option for I-69’s extension. As an option, MCANA and many PerryTownship residents endorsed Alternative Route 1 which fol-lows I-70 and US 41 southwest of Indianapolis, upgrading thealignments to interstate standards.

“We definitely appreciate the concerns raised at this, andat all of our public meetings. And, where feasible, we’vechanged aspects of the alternatives being consid-ered to respond to those concerns,” says LyleSadler, INDOT Project Manager. “For examplewe initially considered using Mann Road forthe extension, but ultimately agreed with theobjections we heard that questioned the senseof building an entirely new highway corridorrather than using an existing one,” heexplains. “Also, we’ve increased access pointsalong Alternative 3C in response to sugges-tions from the MPO and Perry Townshipresidents, including one at SouthportRoad.” Changes of this type, Sadler notes,are well within the parameters ofINDOT’s study to find the best way ofextending I-69 through Indiana.

“That’s our mission on this project,” notedINDOT Commissioner J. Bryan Nicol at the July 24thCAC meeting. “Congress mandated the extension of I-69 fromCanada to Mexico and my job is to facilitate it in Indiana.” Forthis reason, a No-Build Alternative, often recommended bycritics of the I-69 Extension Project, is no option at all. “Wehave a choice in how we implement this project, not inwhether or not to do it,” says Nichols. “Of the twelve alterna-tives we considered, none would have made everyone happythroughout the state. Even the Indianapolis MPO initially rec-ommended another option (4B) for its lesser cost and lowerimpacts on the human environment. But I’m satisfied that we(INDOT) uniformly applied the evaluation criteria to all thealternatives and have recommended the one that will performthe best and offers the greatest benefits to Indiana over time.”

By comparison, Route 1 was judged least preferred byINDOT of all twelve alternatives considered and scored loweston all nine project goals, including lowest Indianapolis toEvansville time savings, lowest accessibility increase and low-est long term economic increase.

In selecting a recommended corridor for the extension ofI-69 through southern Indiana, INDOT considered the follow-ing project goals which were developed from DemonstratedNeeds and State and National Policies Criteria:

Transportation Goals• Core Goal - Improve the transportation linkage between

Evansville and Indianapolis (currently the worst of anymajor urban center in the state)

• Core Goal - Improve personal accessibility for southwestIndiana residents.

• Reduce safety problems in Southwest Indiana.• Reduce existing and forecasted congestion on the highway

network in southwest Indiana.

Economic Development Goals• Increase accessibility for southwest Indiana businesses to

labor, suppliers and market• Support economic development which includes a sustain-

able variety of businesses and industries• Support economic development which benefits a wide spec-

trum of southwest Indiana residents

National I-69 Goals• Core Goal - Facilitate interstate and international movements

of freight and people through the I-69 corridor in a mannerconsistent with national I-69 policies• Connect I-69 to major intermodal facilities in southwestIndiana.

Selection of a preferred corridor began with the identifica-tion of multiple route concepts through southwest Indiana.Screening criteria for these concepts included performance (ofidentified project goals), cost, and geographic diversity. Thispreliminary screening resulted in five routes (and sevenoptions) being selected for further evaluation (For details onthese 12 Alternatives, see pages 12-13). Detailed evaluation

P A G E N I N E

I-69 Extension

(from page 8)

cont on page 10, see I-69 Extension

criteria, used to assess the benefits and disadvantages of eachalternative, included environmental impacts on farmland,forests, wetlands and threatened/endangered species; perfor-mance of Indianapolis-to-Evansville travel time savings, per-sonal accessibility, freight movements, crash reductions andpersonal income gains; and, project cost.

Following evaluation of all the alternatives, and review ofthe comments it received from both the public and governmentagencies, including the United State Environmental ProtectionAgency (USEPA) and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service

(USFWS), INDOT performed a systematic comparison of alter-native strengths and weaknesses which resulted in four alterna-tives being identified as good overall performers with no unac-ceptable negative impacts. INDOT, and its primary project con-sultant Bernardin Lochmueller & Associates, Inc. of Evansville,characterized the final four as follows.

Alternative 4C• Scored high on two core goals and medium on one• Scored high on five of the remaining six goals• Has a mid-range cost of $1.3 - $1.5 billionBut,• has the highest wetland impacts of all remaining alternatives.

Ultimately, INDOT doubted that 4C could pass theSection 404 LEDPA test – a prerequisite for federal funding.

Alternative 4B• Has a relatively low cost: $1 - $1.1 billionBut,• Performs far poorer than 3C and clearly poorer than 2C• Performs high on only one core goal, medium on one core

goal and low on one core goal

• Performs only marginally on remaining six goals• Second only to 4C in farmland impacts• Has about the same wetland impacts as 3C• Has serious potential for inducing sprawl

INDOT concluded that 4B offered only marginal perfor-mance along with some high environmental consequences.

Alternative 2C• performed better than 4BBut,• has a relatively high cost: $1.47 - $1.74 billion• costs about the same as 3C ($1.6 - $1.8), but doesn’t per-

form as wellINDOT found that 2C, though a strong

contender, does not offer as high a value tocost ratio as 3C.

Alternative 3C• outstanding performance on all three coreproject goals: • outstanding performance on remaining sixproject goals• minimal impacts to the human and natur-al environments

INDOT recommends 3C as the bestinvestment in transportation and economicdevelopment for Indiana, now and in thefuture.

INDOT designation of Alternative 3C assuch, considers the following:

Indianapolis-Evansville Connection• 3C is the most direct route between Evansville and

Indianapolis of all considered. • 3C will save 26 minutes travel time by 2025• 3C will shorten 14,100 vehicle trips between Evansville

and Indianapolis per day, resulting in 1.1 million vehicle hourssaved annually

• 3c will save $1.4 billion over 20 years in driver time andvehicle operating costs

Regional accessibility• With 3C, 166,000 more people will be within 3 hours

of the state capital• With 3C, 360 more people will be within one hour of a

major college or universityFreight Savings

• 3C will save 4,300 truck hours daily• 3C will save $50,000,000 in freight costs per year• 3C will save more than $1,000,000,000 in freight costs in

20 years!Crash Reduction

• 3C will prevent more than 1,500 serious crashes (one ofmore persons seriously injured) annually

I-69 Extension

(from page 9)

cont on page 11, see I-69 ExtensionP A G E T E N

P A G E E L E V E N

• 3C will prevent more than 31,000 serious crashes in 20years, or about 40,000 serious, transportation-relatedinjuries

Personal Income Growth• 3C will help increase the personal income of southwest

Indiana residents by $162 million annually• 3C will help increase the personal income of southwest

Indiana residents by $3.2 billion over 20 year While presenting these findings at the June and July

meetings of the MPO’s Citizens Advisory Committee, INDOTand its consultants addressed some of the comments madeby Indianapolis MPO concerning Alternative 3C. InNovember, 2002, the MPO raised concerns over the poten-tial impacts 3C would have on the region’s Nitrogen Oxidepollution budget when giving INDOT’s consultant team the“worst case scenario”. Those comments were included in theproject’s Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Months later, the MPO revised its analysis of 3C’s possi-ble air quality impacts while evaluating proposed amend-ments to the Regional Transportation Plan (in anticipation ofthe IRTC and MDC meetings). “We found that the proposedamendments, including Alternative 3C did not exceed ourregion’s maintenance budget,” says MPO Chief PlannerSweson Yang. “Our Conformity Analysis Report, like theTransportation Plan amendments request, is still subject toEPA and IDEM review,” he notes. “That fact may relieve someof the people who question the timing of our analysis revi-sion.”

Project consultant Vince Bernardin also noted during hisCAC presentation that the MPO’s comments have alreadyinfluenced INDOT's I-69 Extension recommendation. “TheMPO asked us to avoidusing Mann Road if weselected the SR 37 (3C)alternative and we’vedone that,” he said.“The MPO also sug-gested an interchangeat Southport Road andwe’re already planningfor that. During ourdetailed traffic opera-tion studies and simu-lations planned for TierII, we’ll have to see ifwe can maintain accessat Bluff Road, I-465and Harding Street,

and at other key thoroughfares as the MPO requested, butthat is our goal.”

Bernardin explained that while Tier I of the DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is a broad planningprocess, resulting in a 2,000 foot-wide preferred route corri-dor, Tier II study would determine the highway’s final align-ment. In Tier II, traffic in urban areas, like Indianapolis andBloomington, would be studied in much greater detail.During this phase INDOT, working closely with regionalplanners and the public, will determine the exact numberand location of interchanges, bridges and service roads. Healso noted that 3C would be designed and built using thelatest construction and drainage technology to protectaquifers and water supplies.

Over the next few months, INDOT will continue work-ing with the public and local, state and federal agencies tocomplete the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)and Tier I activity associated with 3C. After INDOT releasesthe FEIS, the Federal Highway Administration must approveits findings before the project can proceed. Once an affirma-tive Record of Decision has been issued, Tier II activity on3C will begin, possibly in late 2003 or early 2004.

INDOT reports that state officials are working on a long-term financial strategy to fund the new highway. Federal dol-lars will cover at least 80 percent of the estimated $1.7 bil-lion price tag. “While this project will require significantstate resources, it will not take away funding from otherhighway projects,” Commissioner Nicol notes.

For more information on the I-69 Extension Project andAlternative 3C, visit the project web site at i69indyevn.org orcall the toll-free hot line at 1-877-463-9386.

I-69 Extension

(from page 10)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2A

Alternative 2B Alternative 2C

Alternative 3A Alternative 3B

HENDRICKS

MARION

MORGAN

OWEN

MONROE BROWN

JOHNSON

KNOX

GIBSON

VANDERBURGH

WARRICK

SPENCERPERRY

PIKECRAWFORDDUBOIS

MARTIN

GREENE

CLAY

PUTNAM

VIGO

POSEY

SULLIVAN

DAVIESS

LAWRENCE

HENDRICKS

MARION

MORGAN

OWEN

MONROE BROWN

JOHNSON

KNOX

GIBSON

VANDERBURGH

WARRICK

SPENCERPERRY

PIKECRAWFORDDUBOIS

MARTIN

GREENE

CLAY

PUTNAM

VIGO

POSEY

SULLIVAN

DAVIESS

LAWRENCE

HENDRICKS

MARION

MORGAN

OWEN

MONROE BROWN

JOHNSON

KNOX

GIBSON

VANDERBURGH

WARRICK

SPENCERPERRY

PIKECRAWFORDDUBOIS

MARTIN

GREENE

CLAY

PUTNAM

VIGO

POSEY

SULLIVAN

DAVIESS

LAWRENCE

HENDRICKS

MARION

MORGAN

OWEN

MONROE BROWN

JOHNSON

KNOX

GIBSON

VANDERBURGH

WARRICK

SPENCERPERRY

PIKECRAWFORDDUBOIS

MARTIN

GREENE

CLAY

PUTNAM

VIGO

POSEY

SULLIVAN

DAVIESS

LAWRENCE

HENDRICKS

MARION

MORGAN

OWEN

MONROE BROWN

JOHNSON

KNOX

GIBSON

VANDERBURGH

WARRICK

SPENCERPERRY

PIKECRAWFORDDUBOIS

MARTIN

GREENE

CLAY

PUTNAM

VIGO

POSEY

SULLIVAN

DAVIESS

LAWRENCE

HENDRICKS

MARION

MORGAN

OWEN

MONROE BROWN

JOHNSON

KNOX

GIBSON

VANDERBURGH

WARRICK

SPENCERPERRY

PIKECRAWFORDDUBOIS

MARTIN

GREENE

CLAY

PUTNAM

VIGO

POSEY

SULLIVAN

DAVIESS

LAWRENCE

ORANGEORANGE

ORANGEORANGE

ORANGEORANGE

P A G E T W E L V E

I-69 Evansville-To-Indianapolis Route Alternatives

Alternative 1 was Non-Preferred

• Cost: $810,000,000 - $1,040,000,000

• Low Natural Environment Impacts

• High Human Environment Impacts

• Performs Lowest on Three Core Goals

• Lowest Indy-Evn. Time Savings

• Lowest Accessibility Increase

• Lowest Freight Improvement

• Lowest Performer on Three OtherGoals

• Long-Term Economic Growth

• Widely-Distributed Economic Growth

• Intermodal Freight Improvement

• Rated low on all nine project goals

Alternative 2A was Non-Preferred

• Cost: $1,090,000,000 – 1,270,000,000

• Moderate Natural EnvironmentImpacts

• Low – Moderate Human EnvironmentImpacts

• Performs Low on Four Goals

• Freight Movement (Core Goal)

• Business Accessibility

• Crash Reduction

• Congestion Relief

• Performs High on No Goals

Alternative 2B was Non-Preferred

• Cost: $1,170,000,000 - $1,370,000,000

• Moderate Natural EnvironmentImpacts

• Low – Moderate Human EnvironmentImpacts

• Performs Low on Three Goals

• Freight Movement (Core Goal)

• Business Accessibility

• Crash Reduction

• Performs High on No Goals

Alternative 2C was Preferred

• Cost: $1,470,000,000 - $1,740,000,000

• Moderate Natural Environment Impacts

• High Human Environment Impacts

• Performs High on Six Goals

• Freight Movement (Core Goal)

• Business Accessibility

• Crash Reduction

• Congestion Relief

• Long-Term Economic Growth

• Widely-Distributed Economic Growth

• Performs Medium on Other Three Goals

Alternative 3A was Non-Preferred

• Cost: $1,290,000,000 - $1,380,000,000

• High and Unacceptable Impact toNatural Environment (BeanblossomBottoms)

• Low Impact to Human Environment

• Performs High on All Three Core Goals

• Performs High on Three Other Goals

• Intermodal Freight Access

• Long-Term Economic Growth

• Widely-Distributed Economic Growth

Alternative 3B was Preferred

• Cost: $1,650,000,000 - $1,820,000,000

• Moderate Natural EnvironmentImpacts

• High Human Environment Impacts

• Performs High on All Three Core Goals

• Performs High on All Other Goals

• High Access Improvement to CraneNaval Surface Warfare Center

Alternative 3C Alternative 4A

Alternative 4B Alternative 4C

Alternative 5A Alternative 5B

HENDRICKS

MARION

MORGAN

OWEN

MONROE BROWN

JOHNSON

KNOX

GIBSON

VANDERBURGH

WARRICK

SPENCERPERRY

PIKECRAWFORDDUBOIS

MARTIN

ORANGE ORANGE

ORANGE ORANGE

ORANGE ORANGE

GREENE

CLAY

PUTNAM

VIGO

POSEY

SULLIVAN

DAVIESS

LAWRENCE

HENDRICKS

MARION

MORGAN

OWEN

MONROE BROWN

JOHNSON

KNOX

GIBSON

VANDERBURGH

WARRICK

SPENCERPERRY

PIKECRAWFORDDUBOIS

MARTIN

GREENE

CLAY

PUTNAM

VIGO

POSEY

SULLIVAN

DAVIESS

LAWRENCE

HENDRICKS

MARION

MORGAN

OWEN

MONROE BROWN

JOHNSON

KNOX

GIBSON

VANDERBURGH

WARRICK

SPENCERPERRY

PIKECRAWFORDDUBOIS

MARTIN

GREENE

CLAY

PUTNAM

VIGO

POSEY

SULLIVAN

DAVIESS

LAWRENCE

HENDRICKS

MARION

MORGAN

OWEN

MONROE BROWN

JOHNSON

KNOX

GIBSON

VANDERBURGH

WARRICK

SPENCERPERRY

PIKECRAWFORDDUBOIS

MARTIN

GREENE

CLAY

PUTNAM

VIGO

POSEY

SULLIVAN

DAVIESS

LAWRENCE

HENDRICKS

MARION

MORGAN

OWEN

MONROE BROWN

JOHNSON

KNOX

GIBSON

VANDERBURGH

WARRICK

SPENCERPERRY

PIKECRAWFORDDUBOIS

MARTIN

GREENE

CLAY

PUTNAM

VIGO

POSEY

SULLIVAN

DAVIESS

LAWRENCE

HENDRICKS

MARION

MORGAN

OWEN

MONROE BROWN

JOHNSON

KNOX

GIBSON

VANDERBURGH

WARRICK

SPENCERPERRY

PIKECRAWFORDDUBOIS

MARTIN

GREENE

CLAY

PUTNAM

VIGO

POSEY

SULLIVAN

DAVIESS

LAWRENCE

PAGE THIRTEEN

I-69 Evansville-To-Indianapolis Route Alternatives

Alternative 3C was Preferred

• Cost: $1,640,000,000 - $1,810,000,000

• Moderate Natural EnvironmentImpacts

• High Human Environment Impacts

• Performs High on All Three Core Goals

• Performs High on Five Other Goals

• High Access Improvement to CraneNaval Surface Warfare Center

Alternative 4A was Non-Preferred

• Cost: $960,000,000 - $1,040,000,000

• Moderate Natural Environment Impacts

• Low Human Environment Impacts

• Performs Low on Four Goals

• Personal Accessibility (Core Goal)

• Crash Reduction

• Business Accessibility

• Congestion Relief

• Performs High on No Goals

Alternative 4B was Preferred

• Cost: $1,040,000,000 - $1,120,000,000

• Moderate Natural Environment Impacts

• Low Human Environment Impacts

• Performs High on Two Goals

• Indy-Evv. Time Savings (Core Goal)

• Intermodal Freight Access

• Performs Medium on Four Goals

• Freight Movement (Core Goal)

• Long-Term Economic Growth

• Widely-Distributed Economic Growth

• Congestion Relief

Alternative 4C was Preferred

• Cost: $1,340,000,000 - $1,500,000,000

• Moderate – High Natural EnvironmentImpacts

• High Human Environment Impacts

• Performs High on Seven Goals

• Performs Medium on Two Goals

• Personal Accessibility (Core Goal)

• Intermodal Freight Access

Alternative 5A was Non-Preferred

• Cost: $1,610,000,000 - $1,810,000,000

• High and Unacceptable Impact toNatural Environment (Tincher Pond)

• Performs High on Seven Goals

• Includes Two Core Goals

• Performs Medium on Two Goals

Alternative 5B was Non-Preferred

• Cost: $1,670,000,000 - $1,850,000,000

• High and Unacceptable Impact toNatural Environment (Tincher Pond)

• Performs High on Seven Goals

• Includes Two Core Goals

• Performs Medium on Two Goals

IndyGo Blue Line Circulator

It’s fast, unexpected and a breath of fresh air. It’s IndyGo’snew Blue Line Electric Circulator which began downtown

service on Tuesday, August 5. Mayor Bart Peterson,Congresswoman Julia Carson and IndyGo President/CEOGilbert Holmes joined downtown civic, cultural and businessleaders at the Eiteljorg Museum of American Indian andWestern Art to celebrate the launch of the innovative transitservice.

The Blue Line features a fleet of five electric hybrid busesdesigned to transport passengers comfortably with near zeroemissions. The buses, manufactured by Ebus of Downey,California, feature interior climate control, seats for 22 passen-gers each, and complete handicap accessibility. Their technolo-gy involves transforming the energy of the moving vehicle intoelectric power. The circulators can be fully charged in approxi-mately one hour. Each vehicle has auxiliary power to supportthe on-board battery system. The buses are classified ashybrid-electric because of the addition of a micro-turbine.

Blue Line service is now available along the corridorbetween Washington and Maryland streets. It is designed totransport passengers to a variety of business, commercial andinstitutional venues along downtown’s main east-to-west corri-dor. Service is available seven days a week from 9 AM to10:30 PM, for just 50 cents a ride.

The Blue Line route has nine stops that provide local resi-

dents and tourists easy access to Indianapolis’ premiere down-town civic and cultural sites, including:• Indianapolis Zoo/Botanical Gardens, Washington Street;

• Victory Field, Maryland Street at Max Schumacher Wayeastbound;

• Indiana Convention Center, Maryland Street, just east ofWest Street;

• RCA Dome, Georgia Street, between Capitol and IllinoisStreets;

• Circle Centre Mall, Meridian Street at Maryland Street;

• Indiana Repertory Theatre, Washington Street at IllinoisStreet;

• Indiana State Capitol, Washington Street, near GovernmentCenter Place

• White River State Park/Eiteljorg Museum/Indiana State

• Museum/NCAA Headquarters/Indianapolis Zoo,Washington Street;

• Victory Field, Maryland Street at Max Schumacher Way,westbound.

Hotels located along the circulator route include TheCanterbury, Courtyard by Marriott, Crowne Plaza, Embassy

cont on page 15, see IndyGo Blue Line

PAGE FOURTEEN

P A G E F I F T E E N

Suites, Hampton Inn, Hyatt, Indianapolis Marriott downtown,Omni Severin, and the Westin Hotel Indianapolis. Shoppingand dining attractions along the route include Circle Centreand some of the city most popular restaurants.

“At any given time, there is a tremendous amount of activ-ity taking place downtown,” says Gilbert L. Holmes, IndyGoPresident and CEO. “The Blue Line will make it easier foreveryone to experience all of the great downtown attractionsIndianapolis has to offer.

IndyGo worked closely with nearly 20 downtown-basedorganizations to ensure that the Blue Line meets the needs ofits passengers. These included the Arts Council ofIndianapolis, Circle Centre, the Cultural Tourism Initiative,Eiteljorg Museum, Greater Indianapolis Hotel LodgingAssociation, Indiana Repertory Theatre, Indiana StateMuseum, Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, IndianapolisConvention & Visitors Association, Indianapolis Downtown,Inc., Indianapolis Restaurant Association, Indianapolis Zoo,NCAA Hall of Champions, Victory Field and White River StatePark.

“This has been a unique partnership,” Holmes explains. “Itis one of the first projects of its kind in the nation to tietogether public transportation, commerce and the arts.Because of the strong support of our project partners, the Blue

Line is going to be a success.”To help it look like a success, the Arts

Council of Indianapolis commissionedlocal artist Andrea Eberbach to create col-orful artwork for the Blue Line fleet.Design firm Thrive3 adapted the artworkto the design of the buses. The vibrantmural represents Indianapolis’ arts andcultural amenities, including attractionsalong the circulator’s route.

The Blue Line is being fundedthrough a $2.5 million CongestionMitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grantfrom the Indiana Department ofTransportation (INDOT), accompanied bya matching grant of $625,000 from theCity of Indianapolis. In addition, IndyGoreceived a $17,880 grant from theCultural Development Commission forinstallation of the bus art.

For more information on the BlueLine Electric Circulator, contact IndyGoDirector of Communications Alvin Hayesat 317/614-9266.

IndyGo Blue Line(from page 14)

mated 1.2 million jogging, biking and walking visits per year,and has inspired economic growth in businesses suited toserve such an active clientele.

Like the Monon, the proposed Pennsy Trail will form aspoke in the regional bicycle and pedestrian route system,when completed. As envisioned, the Pennsy Trail will addanother five and a half miles of greenways to Marion County’sexisting 65 mile system. It would run parallel to WashingtonStreet from Ritter Avenue east to German Church Road. Analternative could start the trail west of Ritter to tie directly intoPleasant Run Trail. In either case, west-bound users of thePennsy will eventually be able to head downtown via thePleasant Run Trail and the proposed Cultural Trail. At MarionCounty’s eastern boundary, the Pennsy would connect with a

trail under development in Cumberland and, eventually, withan already completed trail in Greenfield.

“This has always been the idea behind the trails designat-ed as major spokes in the region’s bike/ped route system,”Roth explains. “They form major corridors into which neigh-boring communities can link. There’s already talk of pushingthis trail east beyond Greenfield to 600W in Hancock County,making the Pennsy Trail in Marion County a crucial but rela-tively small part of a much larger project.”

While common issues involved in trail planning havecome up at public meetings, few seem likely to pose obstaclesfor the Pennsy Trail. Eastside resident voicing safety concernshave been relieved to find out that the Pennsy, when complet-ed, will operate as a “daytime only” trail, as do all of theMarion County Greenways System trails. Sensors, embeddedin the pavement of the trials, help police monitor their usage.

Those worried about the impact thePennsy Trail will have on their propertyvalue also have been relieved to find out

that the news is good. Preliminaryresults of a study completed last fall bythe Center for Urban Policy and theEnvironment at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)

indicate that the sale price of homesincreased slightly within a half-mile of

the six Marion County greenways builtby 1999. The same has proven true for at

least one built outside the county. Todate, Marion County has seven. In that

study, researchers concluded that proximityto the trails was one of several factors thatupped home sale prices. The study, which

considered 10,000 homes sales, is

Pennsy Trail Update(from page 1)

I-465

Primary path of Pennsy Trail Alternate/proposed routes Trail connection

Arl

ing

ton

Ave

.

Washington St.

Shad

elan

d A

ve.

Sho

rtri

dg

e Rd

.

Fran

klin

Rd

.

Rit

ter A

ve.

Emer

son

Ave

.

Ple a sa

nt R un Trail

Proposed Pennsy Trail

cont on page 17, see Pennsy Trail UpdateP A G E S I X T E E N

being updated this summer with new cen-sus data.

Funding for the Pennsy is also unlikely toprove an obstacle, having been secured for sometime. The approximately $2 million needed toacquire right-of-way and develop the trail withinMarion County comes from relinquishment fundspaid by the Indiana Department ofTransportation (INDOT) to the City ofIndianapolis in exchange for taking overresponsibility for Binford Boulevard, an inter-state within city-limits. By comparison, devel-oping the eight mile Monon Trail from 10th Streetto Marion County’s northern boundary at 96thStreet cost $3.5 million. North of 96th Street, the City ofCarmel and Hamilton County is responsible for the develop-

ment and maintenance of the trail, which now extends northto 146th Street.

And what about right-of-way issues that can paralyze pro-jects for years? “I don’t foresee any problems,” says Ray IrvinIndy Greenways Administrator. “We plan on building thePennsy using a voluntary acquisition strategy, not eminentdomain. That means, we’ll simply detour around parcels ofland that property owners don’t want to give up,” he says.

Right now, determining exactly who the property ownersare seems to be the only hold-up. Planners are currentlywatching with interest several court cases that will determineto whom ownership of an abandon rail corridor reverts. Inreviewing the 100+ year-old documents between railroad com-panies and adjacent property owners, the court appears to beputting great weight on the “letter of the law”. If a documentrefers to an “easement” granted by property owners for thepurpose of rail service in exchange for financial compensation,ownership rights revert to the property owner. If a documentdescribes an outright purchase of land for cash compensation,

ownership is retained by the railroad. When ownership hasbeen established, planners will deal with the identified partiesto proceed with the acquisition phase of the Pennsy.

“Though it will be part of a much larger trails network,the Pennsy is already pretty unique,” says Roth. “It’s rare tohave a trail developed, or even proposed, with transportationand recreation as its primary reason for being. For example,the Monon Trail north of Fall Creek is primarily a sanitarysewer interceptor serving about 50,000 homes. It exists as partof a settlement from an Environmental Protection Agency law-suit,” he notes. “Fortunately it’s proven so popular that itsextension south of Fall Creek was justified for transportationand recreation reasons. “But the Pennsy is only the secondsuch example in Marion County,” he says. “I think that willmake its development phase, working with public transporta-tion planning partners who have sought its construction, a realjoy.”

For more information on development of the Pennsy Trail,contact MPO planer-in-charge Philip Roth at 317/327-5149(proth@indygov.org).

PAGE SEVENTEEN

Washington St.

Fen

ton

Ave

.

Post

Rd

.

Mit

tho

efer

Rd

.

Ger

man

Ch

urc

h R

d.

Connection to

Cumberland Trail

Pennsy Trail update(from page 16)

portation integration issues were exam-ined within a mile-square area of thecity centered on Glendale Mall. Thatstudy examined national pedestrianplanning models and established a pub-lic participation process. It also defined“hierarchical” pedestrian facilities inwhich population density and land usetypes (such as retail centers, schools,and employment concentrations) aremapped to show where pedestrianactivity concentrations occur, or wouldoccur if adequate facilities existed. Animportant supplement to that mappingwas obtained through public workshopfeedback and observation “on theground”. That hierarchical approachinforms walkway design guidelines as

well as prioritizationfor their implemen-tation throughoutthe overallMetropolitan

Planning Area. Deliverable Product:Special Neighborhood Study Report, issuedMay 17, 2002

Pedestrian Plan: Phase IThe first phase of the Regional

Pedestrian Plan established a regionalpartnership with the seven perimetercounties that are partially within theregional planning area (These includeHamilton, Boone, Hendricks, Morgan,Johnson, Shelby and Hancock Counties.In addition, neighboring MadisonCounty, a planning partner with its ownMPO, is considered). A day long work-shop co-sponsored by the MPO andfacilitated by SKA introduced a modelfor multi-jurisdictional communicationand planning for alternative transporta-tion that has become self-sustaining.Phase I work culminated with develop-ment of a work plan and timeline forthe nine Marion County Townships(Center, Decatur, Franklin, Lawrence,Perry, Pike, Warren, Washington, andWayne) and the Census 2000-definedplanning region beyond.

Deliverable Product: IndianapolisRegional Pedestrian Plan Phase I Report,issued October 21, 2002.

Pedestrian Plan: RegionalCenter Component

Concurrent and integrated withPhase I planning activities, the MPO

has sponsored study of the pro-posed Regional Center Cultural

Trail concept through on-callpedestrian planning ser-

vices by SKA. Anintense public

participa-tion

process has resulted in public and insti-tutional acceptance of a system oflinked bicycle-pedestrian corridorswithin the downtown Indianapolis dis-tricts known as the Regional Centerplanning area generally defined by theinner Interstate “box”. This CulturalTrail would function as the hub of ahierarchical pedestrian system in theregion's most intensely pedestrian andtransit-oriented environment. This hubconnects to the existing and plannedgreenway network that will threadthroughout the metropolitan area as thebackbone of an overall pedestrian sys-tem. The Regional Center component isnow in a technical scoping phaseplanned for release in late Fall, 2003.

Deliverable Product: Cultural TrailConcept Planning Report, to be issued Fall2003.

Pedestrian Plan: PhaseII/Center TownshipComponent (current)

Pedestrian Plan Phase II, forCenter Township, is in-process. A steer-ing committee of relevant/interestedagencies, including the MPO,Department of MetropolitanDevelopment (DMD)-Planning, DMD-Township Administrators, Departmentof Public Works (DPW), IndyGo, IndyParks and Greenways, County HealthDepartment (sponsor of walk-ability/walk-to-school initiatives),Accessibility Office and IndianapolisDowntown, Inc., has been established.Individual departmental interviews havebeen completed. Windshield surveys(drive-arounds and walk-arounds withplanning team and township adminis-trators for gaining on-the-ground

Pedestrian Route Plan

(from page 7)

cont on page 24, see Pedestrian Route Plan

P A G E E I G H T E E N

Irons In The Fire

People Mover Ribbon-CuttingOn the morning of Thursday, June 26, it was without a

doubt the hottest ticket in town as Clarian Health Partnersopened its much anticipated People Mover system for hun-dreds of local dignitaries, planning partners and representa-tives of the media at its Methodist Hospital PassengerStation. Clarian Senior Vice President of Government AffairsBruce Melchert served as master of ceremonies for the eventand introduced a number of speakers,including Craig Brater,Dean of the IUSchool ofMedicine,Clarian CEODan Evans andIndianapolisMayor BartPeterson whodescribed theClarian HealthPeople Mover as asignificant addition to ourcity. “Not only does itprovide a new, alternativeform of transportation to down-town Indianapolis,” he said, “it also is a vital link to a lifesciences framework that is an economic driver for CentralIndiana.”

Following the official ribbon-cutting, all presentboarded the system’s two, sleek, three-car trains for a fiveminute, 1.4 mile ride to the Riley-IU station, the system’ssouthern terminus. The following day, the public was invitedto ‘come aboard’ and has with enthusiasm ever since, some-times logging more than 6,000 passenger trips a day, notincluding Clarian personnel.

“We’ve had a few bobbles in the first month of oper-ation, but nothing serious,” says Jeff Cavanaugh, ProjectManager for Schwager Davis, Inc, of San Jose, CA the sys-tem’s design/build firm. “Just like a restaurant that holds itsgrand opening after a few months of operation, or a newluxury car that needs tweaking after the first 1,000 miles,we’re making small adjustments to the system,” Cavanaughnotes. “At other locations where we’ve built People Movers,it typically takes six months of daily operation to fine-tuneor adjust the technology. That’s really standard. We are in thefine-tuning process for the Clarian system now,” he explains.“Fortunately, the minor mishaps we’ve had have confirmedthe fail-safe nature of our system. Despite bruising our egos

in the media, passengers were never in jeopardy.” The tenother APM (Automated People Mover) systems designed andbuilt by SDI, in locations as diverse as Nevada and Hawaii,report a combined operational performance efficiency ratingof 99.6%, meaning that unexpected maintenance/repairinterfered with system operations less than one-half of onepercent of the time. “We’re confident of the same perfor-mance record here in Indy,” Cavanaugh says.

Buckling Up Higher than EverAccording to a federal survey released on August 25th,

more Americans than ever before are using their heads. . .and their seat belts! The survey, which was conducted inJune of this year, finds that a whopping 79% now buckle up,4% more than reported doing so just last year. “This isabsolutely beyond my wildest expectations,” NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Director

Jeffrey Runge told USA Today. The NHTSA hadhoped for 78%.

Runge credits “ClickIt or Ticket,” a multi-million dollar nationaladvertising campaign,for the increased usage.“It really shows whatcan happen whenwe focus our

resources,” hesaid. Runge estimatesthe increase in beltuse will save 1,000lives and prevent 16,000injuries in 2003-2004. Healso says it will save $3.2billion in health care andother costs.

So, is this good news forIndiana? Not necessarily. Thesurvey report also notes thatthe Midwest has one of thelowest belt usage rates in thecountry (along with theNortheast). Western andsouthern states have thehighest. Also note that peo-ple who drive pick-uptrucks are least likely tobuckle up. Those mostlikely? The muchmaligned SUV drivers.

cont on page 21, see Irons In The Fire

P A G E N I N E T E E N

P A G E T W E N T Y

coMPOnents

To encourage awareness of, and informed partici-pation in, its regional transportation planning process,the MPO includes display advertising among themany communications strategies utilized in its PublicInvolvement Program. Featuring consistent use of the“iMPOrtant” format to build awareness and heightenrecall, these ads appear in publications throughoutthe region , including the City & State section of TheIndianapolis Star and The Indianapolis Recorder.

The ads shown here ran in June, July and earlyAugust of this year. From the top, the first ad encour-ages public review and comment on an amendmentto the 2003-2005 Indianapolis RegionalTransportation Improvement Program., or IRTIP. TheIRTIP documents federally funded transportation pro-jects programmed for our region over a three yearperiod. This ad ran in the June 18th issue of TheIndianapolis Star and the June 20th issue of TheIndianapolis Recorder. In each case, the ad ran in tan-dem with a Legal Notice that provided more detail onwhere and how to provide input on the document.

The second ad also deals with the IRTIP. In thisad, however, the public is encouraged to review andoffer comments on the draft 2004-2006 IRTIP, whichwill begin in January. This ad ran in the June 19thCity & State section of The Indianapolis Star and theJune 20th issue of The Indianapolis Recorder. Again,accompanying Legal Notices provided more detail onhow and where the public could review and critiquethe planning document.

The third ad invited all interested parties to a spe-cial meeting of the MPO’s Citizens AdvisoryCommittee on the evening of Tuesday, July 24th. Themeeting, held at the request of the Marion CountyAlliance of Neighborhood Associations (MCANA),concerned the route of the I-69 Extension Project rec-ommended by the Indiana Department ofTransportation (INDOT). Its agenda items included30-minutes presentations by both INDOT andMCANA, followed by comments and questions forthe floor. To encourage attendance by area residentsmost impacted by the proposed use of the SR 37 cor-ridor for the I-69 extension, the meeting was held inPerry Township and advertised in The IndianapolisStar (City-& State, Star-South), The Southside Times,The Martinsville Reporter Times, The Mooresville/DecaturTimes and The Perry Township Spotlight.

cont on page 21, see coMPOnents

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

HyperFAXNow that age and wear problems troubling the I-65/I-

70 innerloop in downtown Indianapolis have beenHyperFixed at record speed, it might be a good time toreview some surprising facts about the early summer’s mostwritten about INDOT repair project. For example, do youwonder why the much anticipated traffic congestion didn’tclog surface streets, as predicted? Find out with the follow-ing HyperFax.

175,000Number of vehicles widely reported by the media as need-ing to find a new way into downtown Indianapolis via sur-face streets during each day of HyperFix construction

120,000Approximate number of daily downtown commuters (basedon employment figures), many of whom never travel theinnerloop to or from work

50,000 - 80,000Estimated number of ‘pass-through’ vehicles routed onto I-465 during HyperFix

33Number of bridge decks ripped out and replaced

35 Number of lane miles of pavement replaced

$34,000,000Project cost

$3,600,000Amount of early completion bonus earned by primary con-struction vendor

85Number of construction days originally scheduled for theproject

55Number of actual project construction days

Irons In The Fire

(from page 19)

The fourth ad promotes attendance at a PublicHearing conducted by the Metropolitan DevelopmentCommission (MDC) on various amendments to theIndiana Regional Transportation Plan, including the I-69 Extension Project. The ad ran in the July 24thissue of The Indianapolis Recorder and the July 28thissue of The Indianapolis Star.

Finally, the fifth ad encouraged all interested par-ties to participate in the same Public Hearing and tobe heard on two IRTIP amendment resolutions beingconsidered for adoption by the MDC. This adappeared in the August 1st issue of The IndianapolisStar.

Through its various Public Involvement Programoutreach strategies, including display ads like these,the MPO will continue to inform its primary planningpartner, the public, of upcoming participation oppor-tunities.

coMPOnents

(from page 20)

travel time, reliability, cost of use, comfort/convenience andsafety to determine which transportation characteristics aremost important to them while commuting. They were alsoasked to rate personal and public transportation options usingthese criteria. In addition, the survey questioned participantsabout their commuting habits, including how far they traveledone-way, how long it usually took, whether or not they rou-tinely make stops along the way (trip chaining) and, if so, howmany.

“What we learn from this survey will contribute to ourrapid transit study, but also help guide our transportationplanning efforts in other areas,” says Mike Dearing, MPOManager/Master Planner. “Our findings will beprojectable within the

study area, and also within each of four counties — Hamilton,Hendricks, Johnson and Marion. These counties experiencethe most intense commuter activity of the nine involved in theDIRECTIONS study.” To achieve this level of accuracy, the sur-vey conducted about 900 telephone inter-views lasting more than ten minutes each.

Though the survey data is still beinganalyzed, the following early findings areof interest to planners:

• Throughout the study area, peopleconsistently rank Personal Safety as themost important aspect of their travelmode, followed by Reliability, Travel Time,Personal Cost and Personal Comfort/Convenience. Only Hamilton County resi-dents put Comfort before Cost.

• The average commute within thestudy area is 15 miles one-way, withJohnson County residents driving an aver-

age of five miles further.• The average study area commute takes 23 minutes

one-way.• Eighty percent of all respondents say they normally trav-

el directly to and from work without making stops along theway. Of those who trip-chain, one-and-a-half stops per one-way commute is the average.

The transportation telephone survey is only part of theMPO’s on-going Public Involvement Program. Through tele-vised public meetings, group presentations, free publications,direct mail, advertising, media and public relations, a partici-pation hotline (327-IMPO), a 24-hour comment line (327-8601) and the internet, the MPO attempts to interest, informand involve area residents in the regional transportation plan-

ning process. For more information onpublic participation opportunities, or

to take the transportation survey

yourself, visit the MPO web site at www.indygov.org/indympo.For more detailed analysis of telephone survey findings, readthe upcoming issue Special Edition of teMPO (availableOctober 21) which will focus exclusively on DIRECTIONS.

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

Y o u r M P O s t a f f. . includes these people who would be happy to address your comments or

questions on any aspect of the transportation planning process:

Steve Cunningham • Principal Planner . . .317/327-5403 scunning@indygov.org

Mike Dearing • Manager/Master Planner . .317/327-5139 mdearing@indygov.org

Catherine Kostyn • Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317/327-5142 ckostyn@indygov.org

Kevin Mayfield • Senior Planner . . . . . . . . .317/327-5135 kmayfiel@indygov.org

Philip Roth, AICP • Senior Planner . . . . . . .317/327-5149 proth@indygov.org

Sweson Yang, AICPChief Transportation Planner . . . . . . . . . . .317/327-5137 syang@indygov.org

For more information on our regional transportation planning process and its public partici-pation opportunities, visit the MPO web site at www.indygov.org/indympo or call the MPOHotline at 317/327-IMPO. To leave a comment or question, call the MPO Comment Line, dayor night, at 317/327-8601.

DIRECTIONS Survey(from page 6)

Stephanie Belch

Has Class

Those who know her well probablyalready suspected it, but when

MPO Senior Planner Stephanie Belchexpressed her desire to return to schoolfull-time, many of the transportationplanning partners with whom she’sworked were shocked. Shegave notice right afterMemorial Day weekendand finished out themonth. Her last day wasJune 27th.

“Stephanie had beenwith us for nearly threeyears, and fit in from dayone,” notes Mike Dearing,MPO Manager/MasterPlanner. “She’s as respectedfor her knowledge andprofessionalism as she isliked for her people skills and sense ofhumor,” he says. “We hate to see he go,but wish her the very best with her newplans.

Those plans include remaining intown and attending Indiana University –Purdue University in Indianapolis(IUPUI) as a graduate, non-degree stu-dent. Though undecided as to whichdegree she will pursue, Stephanie islooking at both undergraduate andgraduate courses. Purdue’s School ofEngineering and Technology offer anumber of degree programs in whichshe’s interested, including a programfocussing on civil engineering. And,there’s always IU’s School of Public andEnvironmental Affairs, in which shereceived her undergraduate degree.

“I want to strengthen my technicalskills in areas that complement theknowledge and experience I’ve alreadygained,” Stephanie explains. “I’m readyfor that kind of a change and to stretchprofessionally, but it was still a harddecision. I’ll really miss a lot of the peo-ple I worked with at the MPO.” While afull-time student, she is likely to put her

planning know-how to work as a con-sultant to public and private sectorcompanies working on transportation-related projects.

Stephanie has worked in the trans-portation field since 1989. Just prior tojoining the MPO in 2000, she held theposition of Transit Planner at theIndiana Department of Transportation

(INDOT) in Indianapolis.She has also worked in theINDOT - Fort WayneDistrict and at the MichianaArea Council ofGovernments (MACOG),the metropolitan planningorganization for St. Josephand Elkhart Counties,which includes the cities ofSouth Bend, Mishawaka,Elkhart, Goshen, andNappanee.

Her most recent MPOresponsibilities included: • Preparation and maintenance of the

Indianapolis Regional TransportationImprovement Program (IRTIP),including monitoring of federal aidfunding

• Liaison to IndyGo/Indianapolis PublicTransportation Corporation

• Planner-in-Charge of theTransportation Enhancement Program

• Co-Planner-in-Charge ofDIRECTIONS, The Rapid TransitStudy to Improve Regional Mobility

Though born in Indianapolis,Stephanie grew-up in Fort Wayne. Beforereceiving her degree in Public Affairsfrom Indiana University, she worked forthe Citizen’s Action Coalition of Indianaand the Fort Wayne Parks and RecreationDepartment. Her career in transportationbegan in Fort Wayne as an INDOT con-struction-engineering assistant and awinter maintenance worker (includingon-call snowplow driver!).

“Her academic training and workexperience gave Stephanie a great dualperspective for a transportation planner,both broad and theoretical and detailed,practical,” Dearing explains. “I’d like tohave her come back and work with uson a regular basis, but she can’t,” hedeadpans. “Cause Stephanie has class.”

Stephanie now resides on the city’snear eastside and may be reached atsbelch@msn.com.

Stephanie Belch

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

Metropolitan Planning Organization

1821 City-County Building200 East Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204-3310

Printed on paper with recycled contentPAGE TWENTY-FOUR

Got a comment or question

for the MPO?

Call our new Comment Line,

anytime,at 317/327-8601.

Or, learn about upcoming public

participation opportunities

each week from the MPO Hotline

at 317/327-IMPO.

detailed information of existing facili-ties) took place in May and June.GIS-based mapping anddatabase is in develop-ment and modelingtechniques have beenestablished for definingcandidate pedestriancorridors, pedestrian dis-tricts, and transportationinterface patterns. Aninteragency workshopwill be held inSeptember, and a PublicWorkshop has beenscheduled for Thursday,October 7th at an as yetto-be-determined centrallocation. In the mean-time, township adminis-

trators are explaining the process anddistributing questionnaires about peo-ple's walking habits and desires at the

many neighborhood associa-tion meetings they attend.

Deliverable Product:Center Township Pedestrian

Plan Draft Report to beissued November, 2003.

PedestrianPlan: PhaseIII/OuterMarion CountyTownships

Upon completionof Phase II, the eightouter townships willbe “bundled” intotwo-township sets fol-

lowing theComprehensive Planmodel. The steering com-mittee will be joined by

additional members as those township'sconstituency representatives. Modelingand mapping techniques established inPhase I will be extended to these areas.

Deliverable Product: The OuterMarion County Townships Pedestrian PlanDraft, to be issued mid/late 2004.

The Indianapolis RegionalPedestrian Plan SummaryReport

This repot will combine CountyTownship components and the Regionalcomponents into a comprehensivepedestrian plan. As a summary report,it will include design guidelines andimplementation strategies. Completionestimated mid-2005.

For more information on theRegional Pedestrian Route Plan, contactMike Dearing of the MPO at 327-5139(mdearing@indygov.org) or MegStorrow of SKA at 639-3420(storrow@storrowkinsella.com).

Pedestrian RoutePlan(from page 18)

INDIANAPOLIS REGION'SINDIANAPOLIS REGION'S

KEEPING PACE WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

Airport Update. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

I-465 West Leg Project . . . . . . . Page 1

Q & A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

MPA MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

MPO Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5

Dixie Siding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7

MPO Adds Senior Planner . . . Page 10

DIRECTIONS Enters Phase II . . . . Page 11

Monon Completed . . . . . . . . . . Page 15

Pedal & Park Posts Record Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 17

Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18

Irons In The Fire . . . . . . . . . . Page 19

Year’s End

It seems that the long, hot summer of2003, with its diverse transportation

initiatives and controversies, includingHyperFix, CityFix, the I-69 Extensionproject and more, just didn’t want tocool down. Only weeks before the pub-lication of this issue, temperatures werestill regularly hitting the mid-seventies,though the calendar said the holidayseason was nearly upon us. Not surpris-ing to your MPO planners, the regionaltransportation planning process contin-ues still just as hot.

Check out the progress in andaround the airport with Airport Update,which gives a peek at details on the newIndianapolis International Airport pas-sengers terminal design, FAA-fundedControl Tower, and I-70 Fast Track con-

In This Issue

cont on page 12, see Airport Update

L A T E A U T U M N /

EARLY WINTER 2003

V O L U M E S E V E N

I S S U E F O U R

I-465 West Leg Project Background

You may have already read about it, heard about it, or just suspect that “they haveto do something about all that traffic on I-465 near the airport.” And, you’d be

right. Officially called “Energize 465” or theI-465 West Leg Corridor ReconstructionProject by some, this Indiana Departmentof Transportation initiative is proceedingon-schedule with preliminary and right-of-way engineering work now underway.Construction is currently slated to occurfrom 2007 to 2010.

“We have selected the Corridor ProjectManagement Consultants for the I-465 WestLeg Project,” notes Chris Baynes, INDOTProject Manager. “The team is HNTB and

cont on page 8, see West Leg Project

cont on page 3, see Year’s End

Airport Update

Beginning next year, Hoosiers will start to feel theimpact of three massive construction projects,

which are now reshaping the landscape of Indianapolis’west side.

These projects include site work for a dramatic new“midfield terminal” complex at IndianapolisInternational Airport (IIA), construction of a new airportAir Traffic Control Tower, and the building of two high-way interchanges and relocation of Interstate 70 justsouth of the airport.

While each project is being built independently,they are related in that each is designed to enhancefuture operations at the Indianapolis InternationalAirport while maximizing long-term area growth andeconomic development opportunities.

Destined to become local 21st century landmarks,each project will impact thousands of visitors and resi-

AQ

P A G E T W O

In Q & A, members of your MPO staff answer questions posed to them via voicemail, e-mail, regular mail or in-person. In this issue, MPO Manager/Master

Planner Mike Dearing discusses the importance, and success to date, of planningfor regional bicycle travel.

“I just heard that Indianapolis was denied ‘bicycle friendly’status by some government agency because we’re not doingenough to promote cycling as transportation. I’m not an avidcyclist, but it seems to me like we’re doing a lot. Does loss ofthis status cost us any future federal funding? And, if so,should we continue to spend local dollars on cycling programsthat aren’t paying off?”

- asked in-person by a public meeting attendee

Boy, this is how rumors get started.The news concerning Indianapolis as a “bicycle friendly community” isn’t all

bad. In fact, it’s good. In early October, the cities of Indianapolis and Carmel bothreceived Honorable Mentions for the progress they’ve made in making their com-munities more “bicycle friendly.” That’s never happened before, and we’re proud ofthis recognition. We also recognize that we’ve got more work to do and appreciatethe helpful suggestions made by the League of American Bicyclists on how wemight improve.

That’s who officially designates “bicycle friendly” communities – the League ofAmerican Bicyclists (LAB); not a governmentagency. The designation has nothing to do withfederal funding. It’s an honor, and one that wewill actively continue to pursue because, formany, this designation reflects a concern forquality-of-life, the environment, resident healthand freedom of movement – all important con-siderations to potential residents and employersalike. That’s why the MPO joined with the Cityof Indianapolis, the Indiana Bicycle Coalition,the Greenways Foundation and others to fill outthe extensive application paperwork. We’dnever done it before. So, to address your ques-tion, we haven’t lost the bicycle friendly status.In fact, this was the first time we, as a group,ever applied for it.

For the first time in 2003, LAB sponsored and administered this program as amulti-tiered “platinum, gold, silver or bronze “ award system, recognizing winningcommunities in May and, again, in October. In October, LAB recognized thirteencommunities for their longstanding commitment to providing safe accommodationand facilities for cyclists, and for their efforts to encourage bicycle travel as trans-

ACRO-NYMBLE

Here’s a list of the acronyms used inthis issue. Refer to it to keep your

understanding letter-perfect.

AICP – American Institute of CertifiedPlanners

BFC – Bicycle-Friendly CommunityCAC – Citizens Advisory CommitteeCIBA – Central Indiana Bicycle

AssociationCMAQ – Congestion Mitigation & Air

QualityCMS – Congestion Management SystemDMD – Department of Metropolitan

DevelopmentDPW – Department of Public WorksFAA – Federal Aviation AdministrationFEIS – Final Environmental Impact

StatementFHWA – Federal Highway AdministrationFTA – Federal Transit AdministrationGF – Greenways FoundationIAA – Indianapolis Airport AuthorityIBC – Indiana Bicycle CoalitionIIA – Indianapolis International AirportINDOT – Indiana Department of

TransportationINRD – Indiana Railroad CompanyIRTC – Indianapolis Regional

Transportation CouncilIRTIP – Indianapolis Regional

Transportation ImprovementProgram

IT – Information TechnologyLA – Land AcquisitionLAB – League of American BicyclistsLOS – Level of ServiceMDC – Metropolitan Development

CommissionMPA – Metropolitan Planning AreaMPO – Metropolitan Planning

OrganizationP & P – Pedal & ParkPE – Preliminary EngineeringPIP – Public Involvement ProgramSTP – Surface Transportation ProgramTE – Transportation EnhancementTEA-21 – Transportation Equity Act for

the 21st CenturyTIP– Transportation Improvement

ProgramUPWP – Unified Planning Work

Program

cont on page 4, see Q & A

&

Mike DearingMPO Manager/Master Planner

QUESTIONSANSWERS

P A G E T H R E E

INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN

PLANNING AREA

BooneMadison

Morgan

Johnson

Shelby

Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA)(Projected Urbanization By The Year 2020)

Eagle

Pike

Lincoln

Wayne

Buck

Creek

Sugar

Creek

White

River

Warren

Washington

Perry FranklinDecaturGuilford

Lawrence

Delaw

are

Hancock

Washington

Pleasant

Clay

Washington

Center

Hamilton

Marion

Fall

Creek

Hendricks

This map reflects the expanded MPO MetropolitanPlanning Area (MPA) as determined by Census 2000data. This new MPA was recommended for approvalby the Indianapolis Regional TransportationCouncil-Policy Committee in late 2002, and recom-mended for implementation by the IndianaDepartment of Transportation (INDOT) this year.Final approval was given by Governor JosephKernan in fourth quarter, 2003.

APPROVED

struction project. Find out in DixieSiding how public and private sectorpartners joined forces to keep trainshipments from regularly de-railing

morning rush hour traffic flow west ofdowntown. Get the low-down on theregion’s cycling successes and near-miss-es in Q & A and Pedal & Park PostsRecord Year. And, learn what DIREC-TIONS, The Rapid Transit Study ToImprove Regional Mobility, will be pre-

senting to the public in just two monthsfor review and comment. It’s all here,plus so much more, because teMPO, theofficial newsletter of the regional trans-portation planning process, never takesa holiday.

Year’s End

(from page 1)

teMPO FugitTiming is everything. Especially

for a publication reporting currentinformation in order to keep thepublic informed and involved in theregional transportation planningprocess. That’s the goal of yourMPO’s Public Involvement Programand of teMPO, its flagship outreachvehicle. Your MPO remains commit-ted to sharing information with ourvarious planning partners, amongwhom the general public is primary.

In 2003, teMPO did not publisha Special Edition dedicated to a sin-gle transportation-related topic, as ithas in previous years. However, in2004 the MPO will release a specialissue that examines the purpose,need, progress-to-date and futureprognosis of DIRECTIONS, TheRapid Transit Study To ImproveRegional Mobility. Get the facts, indetail and in time, to be heard at aseries of public meetings scheduledfor February, 2004. (see meetingschedule, page 16). Look for thenext issue of teMPO, coming inmid-February, and be prepared.

portation and recreation. There were no Platinum Level win-ners, but one Gold Level (Portland, OR), one Silver Level win-ner (Folsom, CA) and eleven Bronze Level winners, includingArlington, VA; Bloomington, IN; Boca Raton, FL; Brentwood,CA; Brunswick, ME; Chattanooga, TN; College Station, TZ;Gilbert & Mesa, AZ; Miami Beach, FL; and, Washington, DC

In bestowing the awards, League staff and reviewers con-sider several factors before granting bicycle-friendly communi-ty (BFC) status, including:

• The physical environment for bicycling – on-street facili-ties, trails, parking etc.

• Education programs to promote a “share the road” ethicamong cyclists and drivers

• Promotional initiatives to persuade people to ride or ridemore often

• Enforcement of traffic laws for both motorists and bicy-clists

• Future plans and evaluation techniques to improve condi-tions furtherIn its national press release on the awards, LAB mentioned

four communities by name that received Honorable Mentionsin recognition of “the important steps that have been taken tobecome bicycle-friendly, ” including Indianapolis and Carmel.Reviewers noted that in both communities “the popularMonon Trail is proving to be a remarkable catalyst.”

But our bicycle-friendly future does not rely on a singlegreenways trail. Don’t forget about the growing success of theMPO-sponsored Pedal & Park program (see related story, page17), the popularity of the Bike Route System and Map,IndyGo’s commuter-savvy Bike n’ Bus program, and the recentaddition of bike racks downtown – a project fostered this yearby the MPO’s Multi-Modal Task Force.

In addition, LAB suggested the following strategies forrealizing Indianapolis’ potential for being a great place to

bicycle:• Training of area engineers and planners to better

know the details of the Indianapolis Bicycle Plan andthe latest information on bicycle facility design andplanning

• Rapid implementation of the bike lane network andbike route system, especially along the city’s arterial

street network• Continued expansion of the trail network• Provision of bicycle parking throughout

the city, especially in commercial and majoremployment areas• Initiation of a “Safe Routes to School” pro-

gram to encourage bicycling (and walking)among school children and to make their school

journeys safer• Engage city agencies and political leaders

in the annual Bike-To-Work Day activities• Encourage the certification of a League

Cycling Instructor and the teaching of adult bicycleclasses through adult education programs.

Have we got a ways to go? Absolutely. Havewe already come a long ways, though? Withouta doubt! And the regional programs and poli-cies we already have in-place are working tobenefit everyone, not just cyclists, by improv-ing air quality, traffic flow, regional mobilityand residential health. That’s why they’reworth every penny we have spent, and will

continue to spend, on them.

Questions & Answers

(from page 2)

P A G E F O U R

P A G E F I V E

MPO PROFILE

Meet Tom Olsen, a public servant ascomfortable “pitching in” as he is

“presiding over”. Tom is an informationtechnology (I.T.) consultant by profes-sion, a civic leader by choice, and a longtime greenways volunteer by avocation.Through his personal dedication andhard work, he has energized others tohelp expand the health, transportationand environmental benefits of multi-usetrails. “I’ve been peddling the greenwaysfor a long time,” he says with a smile,obviously enjoying the word play.

As a board member and currentPresident of the Greenways Foundation,Tom is known by many for the variousoutreach programs he oversees to helpexpand and enhance our regional green-ways system. These include the annualWhite River Clean-Up, Donate-A-Bench,and the Pedal & Park program whichprovides free, secured bike parking toarea cyclists at greenways-adjacentevents throughout the spring and sum-mer. In 2001, he was also instrumentalin securing the MPO as program spon-sor. But most people don’t know wherethe path of advocacy and volunteerismstarted for Tom.

“My interest in multi-use trails reallystarted in Ohio about twelve years ago,”he remembers. “I was very favorablyimpressed with the Little Miami ScenicTrail which today stretches fromCincinnati to Dayton. It was muchshorter then, of course, but I reallyadmired this elegant re-use that turnedan eyesore into a vision.” The park com-bined the scenic Miami River with theabandoned narrow gauge rail corridorthat ran beside it. Even twelve years ago,the potential recreational, health, trans-portation and economic developmentbenefits of this multi-use solution wereobvious to Olsen, especially in smallcommunities like Loveland, Ohio at thetrail’s southern end. “It felt like BroadRipple does now,” he says, “a trail desti-nation that’s comfortable for long-timeresidents and tourists alike.”

This was the early 90’s andIndianapolis was just beginning to con-sider what to do with an abandoned railcorridor of its own. “I was interested inbringing home the advantages I’d seenin Ohio, and wanted to support the ideaof turning the Monon into a greenwaystrail, but I wasn’t sure how to go aboutit,” Tom says. “I met Lori Miser, thenManager of the MPO, and she encour-aged me to get involved as a citizen vol-unteer. As such, I participated in anearly Monon planning charette and,later, helped map the trail by walkingand photographing its segments.”

This experience led Tom to becomeactive with other trail-related groups,

including Rail Corridor Development,Inc., which he helped found with DianaVirgil. He also became involved with theIndiana Bicycle Coalition (IBC) and theCentral Indiana Bicycle Association(CIBA), two groups that he still sup-ports.

Up to this point, Tom had managedto be a trail advocate in his off-hours.His day job was as an information pro-cessing and technology manager at EliLilly & Company – his long timeemployer. That all changed at the end of1993 when Lilly offered its long-serviceemployees a voluntary early retirementpackage. Tom accepted, in part, to exer-cise his interest in public service.

“I had worked with Mitch Daniels at

Lilly on a blue-ribbon commission toidentify opportunities to save moneyand improve services provided by localgovernment,” he explains. “ThroughMitch, we began helping Mayor StephenGoldsmith in 1991. When I retired fromLilly, I offered my services to theGoldsmith administration and they putme to work full-time.” Initially oversee-ing the operation of the City’s troubledpublic golf courses, Olsen eventuallyserved in a variety of trouble-shootingposts, including Chief InformationOfficer and Director of EnterpriseDevelopment. Because of his back-ground and interests, he was alsoappointed to, and eventually becameChairman of, the 15-memberIndianapolis Greenways DevelopmentCommission. “We were an advisorygroup to the Parks Board, holdingmonthly meetings to encourage andaccommodate public input in the green-ways development process,” he explains.“This role let me enable other citizenvolunteers.”

Also in the mid-90’s, Tom was invit-ed to join the Board of the GreenwaysFoundation (GF), which had broadenedits mission from its days as “The WhiteRiver Greenways Foundation.” Today, GFis a charitable trust dedicated to theexpansion and enhancement of thegreenways network throughout CentralIndiana. As such, gifts made to theGreenways Foundation by qualifiedindividuals who itemize on their federaltax returns are deductible as charitablecontributions. The foundation solicitsdonations and makes grants in supportof greenway development, enhancement,operation and use throughoutIndianapolis and the surroundingregion. “It’s been a good fit for me,” saysTom, who has served as GF Presidentsince 2001. “We work to enhance allaspects of our regional greenways sys-tem, including transportation, health,economic development and environmen-tal benefits. That’s why we have board

cont on page 6, see MPO Profile

Tom OlsenPeddling The Trail

P A G E S I X

members from both the public and private sectors, who live inthree different central Indiana counties. It’s also why I vol-unteered to head up the Pedal & Park program – in part, tofocus attention on the transportation benefits of green-ways use.”

Five years ago, the program that would becomePedal & Park was a joint venture between the IndianaBicycle Coalition (IBC) and the GreenwaysFoundation. At that time, it was activeonly during the twelve days of theIndiana State Fair – a far cry from theprogram’s current spring/summer cal-endar. Back then, it also chargedcyclists for parking their bikes. WhenIBC decided to direct its energies else-where, the Greenways Foundationcarried on the program in cooperationwith the Central Indiana BicycleAssociation (CIBA) and, in 2001, gained theendorsement of the MPO as season sponsor.

“It’s a simple idea,” Tom explains. “The MPO actively sup-ports alternative transportation, like cycling, and also seeks toinform and involve the public through a variety of outreachinitiatives. Through Pedal & Park, the MPO now pays a dollarfor each bike parked in our Bike Corral at program events andwe distribute those proceeds to the not-for-profit organizationswhose volunteers supervise the corral.” The MPO also pro-motes Pedal & Park via public and media relations. “In return,we give the MPO ‘presence’ at these events by using the MPOtents for shelter and distributing MPO literature,” Olsen says.“It’s worked well and, for the last three years, the number ofparticipating cyclists has grown dramatically – proof that theprogram is meeting a definite demand.” This month, the MPOannounced its intention to fund Pedal & Park for a fourthconsecutive year in 2004.

So, will next year be “business as usual” for the Pedal &Park program, the Greenways Foundation, and its President?Hardly. As many regional cycling enthusiasts and multi-use

trail advocates already know, Tom Olsen will be moving towestern Washington state next spring, where he is currentlybuilding a new home. The move just about coincides with his10-year term limit on the GF board.

However, the Pedal & Park program will continue in thecapable hands of CIBA member Andy O’Donnell (317/873-2005, odar1@aol.com) with an administrative assist from GFTreasurer Bob Ott (317/844-4736, rott@fhlbi.com). “TheGreenways Foundation, and programs like Pedal & Park, havealways relied on the hard work and dedication of many volun-teers. I’m confident that they will continue to flourish after Imove. Otherwise, I don’t know that I could feel good aboutleaving,” Tom admits. “It’s like the foundation’s new signatureline says: ‘We keep the greenways growing.’ I’ve always justbeen a part of the ‘we’.”

Tom plans to move to Bellingham, Washington in May,2004, with his wife of 37 years, Marilyn, a professional writerand editor. They have three adult sons including Alex, theeldest, an Urban Projects Manager for the StudentConservation Association in Seattle who is currently bike-tour-ing Vietnam with his younger brother, Tim, a professionalphotographer. Tom and Marilyn’s middle son, Christian, is acomputer executive in the D.C. area.

Tom encourages anyone interested in the multiple benefitsof our regional greenways system to investigate the followingsites, and to get involved:

The Greenways Foundation: www. indygreenways.org, Central Indiana Bicycling Association: www.cibaride.orgHoosier Rails to Trails Council : www.indianatrails.orgIndiana Bicycle Coalition, Inc.: www.bicycleindiana.orgRails to Trails Conservancy: www.railtrails.org

teMPO is published quarterly by your Metropolitan Planning

Organization, part of the Department of Metropolitan Development. If you know of

anyone who would like to receive teMPO, or if you have any questions concerning its

publication, please call:

Mike Dearing (317/327-5139, mdearing@indygov.org)Department of Metropolitan DevelopmentMetropolitan Planning Organization1821 City-County Building200 East Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204-3310teMPO was written and prepared for publication by Whitman Communications, Inc.

MPO PROFILE

(from page 5)

Dixie Siding

If you’re one of the thousands of dailycommuters who travel West Street to

get into and out of downtownIndianapolis, you’ve probably alreadynoticed that Christmas came early thisyear. The long freight trains that fre-quently held up morning rush hourtraffic where tracks cross West Streethave seemed to disappear. And that’svery good news for the drivers of themore than 27,000 vehicles theIndianapolis Department of PublicWorks estimates pass that way each day.

“To store the trains in our SenateAvenue freight yard, we used to have todo some time-consuming car switching,and it wasn’t unusual for the West Streetcrossing to be blocked for up to 20minutes at a time,” says IndianaRailroad Company President and ChiefExecutive Officer Tom Hoback. “Sincethe trains frequently arrived during themorning rush hour, it wasn’t a good sit-uation for us or the commuters. We hadto find a solution.”

That solution was officially opened onWednesday, November 19, when repre-sentatives of the Indiana RailroadCompany and local dignitaries cut the rib-bon on a new railroad extension south ofthe city. Called the Dixie Siding, the6,000-foot line built adjacent to BluffRoad near I-465 allows long trains tobypass West Street altogether. “The WestStreet crossing remains active, so motoristsshould continue to exercise caution andwatch out for our other trains,” notesHoback, “but those longdelays are a thing ofthe past.”

The construc-tion project, begun in August, 2002, was a joint effort of the City ofIndianapolis, the Indiana Department ofTransportation (INDOT) and theIndiana Railroad Company (INRD)which paid two-thirds of the $1.5 mil-lion cost. INRD is a 155-mile regional

freight railroad which hauls some105,000 carloads of freight – more than10 million tons of goods – annually onformer Illinois Central tracks runningfrom Indianapolis and south-centralIndiana westward to Newton, Ill., near

Effingham. The company was foundedin 1986 and maintains headquarters inIndianapolis.

The remainder of the project’s costwas covered by a portion of the City’sCongestion Mitigation and Air Quality

(CMAQ) funds and INDOT’s IndustrialRail Service Fund.

Nearly 20% of the goods hauled byINRD trains – or 1.8 million tons ayear– is coal delivered to IndianapolisPower & Light’s Harding Street Stationvia 85-car trains carrying 9,000 tonseach. From there, the empty trains pre-viously were routed to the railroad’s ter-minal near Senate Avenue, just south ofWisconsin Street. That’s when the trainswould block intersections en route tothe terminal. “Our IPL coal tonnage rep-resents about 18,000 freight cars ayear,” says Hoback, “So a lot of peopledid a lot of waiting in the past. This railextension has changed all of that.”

Named for the wife of John E.Haselden, INRD Director of IndustrialDevelopment and Engineering Serviceswho designed the project, the DixieSiding does more than just give the railcompany flexibility in the timing andturnaround of its trains. It benefits theentire region.

“(The rail extension) helps keeptraffic flowing on roads in the down-town area and on the southside,”Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson toldThe Indianapolis Star. “That means betterair quality.”

Steve Cunningham, MPO PrincipalPlanner and planner overseeing mostrail-related issues, agrees. “As theregion’s primary transportation planner,the MPO does everything it can toimprove the safety and efficiency of ourtransportation system. Increasing mobil-ity options, and using different modes,such as rail and roadway, to move goodsand people around the region, helps dothat. But only if they can operate with-out obstructing one another. This newsiding helps insure that.”

For more informationon the new DixieSiding, contact

Thomas G. Hoback, President & ChiefExecutive Officer at the Indiana RailroadCompany (317/262-5140,tomh@inrd.com) or visit the INRD website at www.inrd.com.

P A G E S E V E N

Raymond St.

Sumner Ave.

Blu

ff R

d.Troy Ave.

Wes

t St

.

Hanna Ave.

Thompson Rd.

Epler Ave.

Whi

teRiv

er

I-465

Parsons Transportation Group.” Other state and regional trans-portation planners, including staff members of theIndianapolis MPO in whose planning area the project takesplace, will stay informed and involved in the projectvia regular INDOT updates. (EDITOR’SNOTE: Though the I-465 WestLeg Project is locatedwithin the MPO’s plan-ning area, the MPO isnot the project’s prima-ry planner. INDOT isthe primary planningand implementingagency for all inter-state improvementprojects.) But howwill the average citizenstay informed on theproject?

“This project has had anactive public information effortbehind it since its beginning,” saysSteve Cunningham, MPO PrincipalPlanner and the MPO’s regularINDOT liaison. “INDOT has heldregular public meetings during theproject’s early stages and has madepublic outreach efforts the responsi-bility of its consultant team. We’rehappy, though, to lend a hand wherewe can.”

Toward this end, teMPO will fea-ture regular updates on the projectas it proceeds to completion. In thisissue, we provide project back-ground and scope-of-work informa-tion: the why, where, what and howof the Energize 465 project. Withinthe next month, a project office willbe established as well as an 800number and a new website. Untilthey are up and running, all infor-mation quoted here comes from theINDOT project web site atwww.in.gov/dot/div/specialpro-jects/wsc.

BackgroundThe purpose of this project is to

add capacity to, and improve safety along, the west leg of I-465, from SR 67 to 56th Street. With this project, INDOTintends to reconstruct approximately 12 miles of I-465 as fourthrough-lanes in each direction, plus at least one auxiliary lane

in each direction, between a point south of the SR67 interchange (Exit 8) north to Exit 19, just

south of the 56th Street interchange.Currently, I-465 has three through-lanes

in each direction with the exception offour lanes that are provided south-bound between the AirportExpressway (Exit 11) and US40/Washington Street (Exit 12).Interstate 74’s west leg also travels

over I-465 between the southernlimit of the project and Exit 16

where it departs to the west, and I-70crosses I-465 in the project area (see

Airport Update, page 1). I-465 is a 53-mile circumferential belt-

way around most of the Indianapolis metro-politan area. This segment of thewest leg was built in the late 1950sand early 1960s on the fringe of theurban area. When this segment of I-465 was completed in 1961 and1962, the roadway featured only twolanes in each direction, although themainline bridges were built at thattime to accommodate three lanes ineach direction. Development in thestudy area occurred quickly after I-465 opened, and the third travel lanewas added in the median approxi-mately five years later in 1966 and1967.

I-465 serves both local andregional traffic needs for theIndianapolis area and also forIndianapolis International Airport.Additionally, an overall lack of north-south local roads with any degree ofcontinuity in the area has con-tributed to I-465’s high traffic vol-umes. Compounding the situation isthe fact that this was one of the firstinterstates constructed in MarionCounty and, as a result, used earlyinterstate geometric design standards.Its interchanges are also closelyspaced.

West Leg Project

(from page 1)

P A G E E I G H T

I-74

I-70

I-65

I-465

I-465

Rockville Rd.

16th St.

56th St.

10th St.

Eagle CreekReservoir

IndianapolisInternational

Airport

Geo

rget

ow

n R

d.

Lyn

Hu

rst

Dr.

Ho

lt R

d.

Man

n R

d.

Gir

ls S

cho

ol R

d.

Crawfordsville Rd.

Washington St.

Lafayette Rd.

Hig

h S

cho

ol R

d.

36

136

134

40

cont on page 9, see West Leg Project

P A G E N I N E

The roadway currently has 12-foot lanes and was built toa design speed of 70 miles per hour. Full access control isexercised. The maximum grade over the length of the roadwayis three percent. The existing rights-of-way are typically 200feet, but does expand to 260 feet in certain areas. The postedspeed limit is 55 miles per hour. Characteristics of the existinginterchanges along the route are shown below, from south tonorth.

Project Purpose and NeedThe purpose of this project is to upgrade interchange

ramp and mainline capacities, improve the deteriorating main-line and ramp pavement and bridges, and upgrade geometricconditions to current standards throughout the project length.The capacity and safety of I-465 will be enhanced in theprocess.

The roadway currently operates at level of service (LOS) Eduring parts of the day between US 40 to I-74. (EDITOR’SNOTE: The Level of Service designation is a range whichdescribes the quality of traffic flow, with A indicating free,unobstructed traffic flow and F indicating complete obstruc-tion of traffic flow. A desirable level of service for the corridoris LOS C; However, LOS D is the minimum for urban recon-struction projects.

In 2026, if the roadway remains three lanes in each direction, the entire corridor will operate at LOS F duringparts of the day. Overall, there would be 12 hours a daywhere large segments of southbound and northbound trafficwould be LOS E or F, if the roadway remains at three lanes.When the mainline is expanded to five lanes in each direc-tion, or four lanes plus an auxiliary lane, the mainline willoperate at no worse than LOS D, thereby meeting the goal ofthe project.

The following is a more specific list of deficiencies andsubstandard sections of I-465 that will be corrected with thisproject:

I-465 West Leg Deficiencies/SubstandardSections • At the I-70 and I-465 interchange, short weaving areas along

both mainlines cause operational problems.• The US 40 interchange loop ramps do not meet 25 mph

design standards.• The directional ramp for west to south movements at 10th

Street has a substandard 25 mph design speed.• The I-74 interchange cloverleaf loops do not meet design

standards for the radii of loop ramps and the short weavingsections cause operational problems on both mainlines.

• The 34th Street and 46th Street bridges over I-465 do notmeet vertical clearance standards.

Expected Design Features The basic future typical section will be an urban interstate,

with 12-foot lanes in a minimum 216-foot right-of-way, and a26-foot paved median with a concrete barrier. Inside and out-side shoulders will be 12 feet. Right-of-way needs may expandin areas of cut and fill and would be larger at interchangeareas. Allowable mainline grades would be still no greater thanthree percent. Full control of access will continue to be exer-cised.

Interchanges will also be reconfigured to improve bothsafety and capacity for travelers entering and exiting I-465, aswell as those traveling across the I-465 corridor.

Cost and SchedulePreliminary right-of-way acquisition and construction cost

are estimated at $400 million dollars, using 80 % federal fund-ing and 20% local matching funds.

The current schedule for the project has some advanceconstruction beginning in 2007, with construction within theI-465 corridor beginning in 2008 and lasting through the2010 construction season. Preliminary engineering, early utili-ty coordination, right-of-way engineering and the publicinvolvement process are well underway.

For more information on the I-465 West Leg Project, lookto future issues of teMPO, or contact Mark Urban of HNTB at636-4682 (murban@hntb.com).

West Leg Project

(from page 8)

Interchange CharacteristicsLocation

SR 67 (KentuckyAvenue)

I-70

AirportExpressway

US 40 (WashingtonStreet)

US 36 (Rockville Road)

10th Street

I-74/US 136/Crawfordsville Rd.

38th Street

Type

Folded Diamond

Semi-Directional

Semi-Directional

Cloverleaf

Cloverleaf

Semi-Directional

Cloverleaf

Partial Cloverleaf

AdditionalInformation

Folded to the east(Railroad on westside)

Directional Rampfrom NB I-465 toWB I-70

Directional Rampfrom SB I-465 toEB Airport Expwy.

Directional rampfrom WB 10th St.to SB I-465; SB C/D

Loop in NW quadrant only(WB 38th St. to SB I-465)

MPO Adds New

Senior Planner

The MPO had plenty to be gratefulfor this past Thanksgiving. After

working most of the year short-handed,MPO Manager/Master Planner MikeDearing successfully identified andhired a qualified candidate to take onsome of the department’s growing plan-ning responsibilities. On November24th, just three days before the holiday,Amy Inman joined the MPO staff as itsnewest Senior Planner.

“A year ago, we had a staff of eightdoing regional transportation planning,”Dearing explains. “But as our study areagrew, our staff shrank. We lost two peoplethrough promotion or attrition. It took awhile to locate someone with Amy’s qual-ifications and academic background.”

In 1997, Amy earned her under-graduate degree in EnvironmentalScience from Indiana University’s Schoolof Public and Environmental Affairs. Forthe first half of that year, she was also amember of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife’sConservation & Restoration staff whereher duties included preparing analysisfor restoration efforts using GeographicInformation Systems (GIS) and conduct-ing research to aid in the restoration ofprairies and reintroduction of extirpatedspecies in Northwestern Indiana. Frommid-1997 to early 2001, Amy wasGeographic Information SystemCoordinator at I.U. In this position, heraccomplishments included working onthe creation of a Campus Master Planfor land-use and utility infrastructure.

In January, 2001, Amy moved tothe Champaign-Urbana area where sheearned a Masters of Science degree inGeography (with emphasis in Urbanand Regional Planning) from theUniversity of Illinois. While there, shealso served as a Geographic InformationSystem Specialist in the University’sDivision of Planning & Design. Herduties there included assisting in acade-mic land-use planning for theUniversity’s Department of CapitalPrograms, modeling carbon uptake formonitoring air quality, and representingthe U of I on technical and policy com-mittees involving local governmentagencies. She graduated on the Dean’sList with a grade point average of 3.98.

But Amy isn’t all work and no play.“I have a lot of outside interests,” shesays, citing especially her pets. “I ridemy horse, Ebony, every chance I get.He’s still in Bloomington, along with myGreat Danes, Argus and Hartley. I missthem so much.” Other outside interestsinclude Amy’s work for Habitat ForHumanity and her fund-raising effortsfor the Monroe County Humane Society.

Now, in her new position as MPOSenior Planner, Amy’s responsibilitieswill include:

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathways• The Pennsy Corridor project• Co-Planner-In-Charge of DIREC-

TIONS, the Rapid Transit Study ToImprove Regional Mobility

• Co-Planner-In-Charge of theRegional Pedestrian Plan Study (seerelated story, teMPO, Volume Seven,Issue Three)

• The Transportation MonitoringSystem“Her plate will be pretty full, just

like the rest of us.” promises Dearing.“But she has terrific training and theexperience to handle it. We’re reallyglad to have her with us.”

To contact Amy about any of theprojects she’s coordinating, or to wel-come her, call 317/327-5646 or e-mailher at ainman@indygov.org.

Amy Inman, M.S.MPO Senior Planner

Did you Know? . . . This holiday season started with

a bang when 35,000,000 Americanstraveled more than 50 miles fromhome for the Thanksgiving week-end. That’s up almost 2.5% overThanksgiving weekend, 2002. Thevast majority, about 89%, relied onour nations highways and their ownvehicles to get from here to thereand back.

In the northeast, Amtrak estimated that it carried more than 500,000 over the 2003Thanksgiving weekend, promptingthe federally-subsidized rail carrierto add 70 trains for holiday service.

Y o u r M P O s t a f f. . includes these people who would be happy to address your comments or questions on any

aspect of the transportation planning process:

Steve Cunningham • Principal Planner . . . . .317/327-5403 scunning@indygov.org

Mike Dearing • Manager/Master Planner . . . .317/327-5139 mdearing@indygov.org

Amy Inman, M.S. • Senior Planner . . . . . . . . .317/327-5646 ainman @indygov.org

Catherine Kostyn, M.A. • Planner . . . . . . . . . . .317/327-5142 ckostyn@indygov.org

Kevin Mayfield • Senior Planner . . . . . . . . . . .317/327-5135 kmayfiel@indygov.org

Philip Roth, AICP • Senior Planner . . . . . . . . .317/327-5149 proth@indygov.org

Sweson Yang, AICP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317/327-5137 syang@indygov.orgChief Transportation Planner

For more information on our regional transportation planning process, visit the MPO web siteat www.indygov.org/indympo.

P A G E T E N

P A G E E L E V E N

DIRECTIONS Enters Phase II

DIRECTIONS, the Rapid Transit Study To ImproveRegional Mobility, has begin the second of three work

phases likely to take transportation planners well into the newyear. On September 17th, Phase I activity ended when theIndianapolis Regional Transportation Council (IRTC) reviewedand approved the study’s findings to-date and authorized theMetropolitan Planning Organization to initiate Phase II activitywith the help of Indianapolis Transit Consultants (ITC), a co-venture of several transportation planning, engineering anddesign firms.

The purpose of DIREC-TIONS is to evaluate the feasi-bility and cost-effectiveness ofdeveloping a region-widerapid transit system. If imple-mented, this system couldhelp reduce traffic congestion,improve air quality andincrease mobility optionsthroughout the area. In PhaseI, planners determined thelikely scope and primary trav-el corridors for such a system.These corridors, which cur-rently experience the highestcommuter activity in theregion, lead from downtownIndianapolis toward Avon,Cumberland,Fishers/Noblesville,Greenwood, Zionsville andthe Indianapolis InternationalAirport. During Phase I,which began in December,2002, the range of potentialrapid transit technologies was also narrowed from the originaltwelve to four, retaining Commuter and Light Rail, ExpressBusway and Automated Guideway Technology (AGT).

In Phase II of the study, planners intend to present thepublic with several specific route alignment and transit tech-nology recommendations for each of the identified corridors.“These corridors are our region’s busiest, with the most currentor projected commuter-activity,” says Mike Dearing, MPOManager/Master Planner. “We want the public’s help in deter-mining which alignments and technologies are locally pre-ferred to handle it.” A series of public meetings are tentativelyscheduled for this purpose in mid-February (see meetingschedule, page 16). By the end of Phase II in Spring of 2004,planners also hope to have consensus on an implementationstrategy that prioritizes the six corridors. “We want to begin

work where it will offer our region the biggest and mostimmediate benefits,” Dearing explained.

Though lasting only about half the duration of Phase I,the handling of Phase II is critical to the success of the rapidtransit study, especially how its findings are presented andreceived by the public. “Though we had multiple public meet-ings early in Phase I, I think the goals and potential benefits ofa regional rapid transit system were a little abstract for mostpeople to relate to,” says Philip Roth, the MPO Senior Plannerwho has overseen DIRECTIONS from the start. “For that rea-son, some of our meetings were lightly attended. So, to make

sure we were getting represen-tative information on regionalcommuting habits and travelcharacteristic preferences onwhich to base our recommen-dations, we also conducted aregion-wide telephone survey(see related article, teMPO,Volume Seven, Issue Three).”Survey findings contributed tothe selection of transit tech-nologies carried into Phase II.

“I don’t think abstractionwill be a problem in Phase II,”says Roth. “At each of our sixpublic meetings, people willbe presented with at least twoalignment options to considerfor the corridor adjacent towhere they live, along with anappropriate technology rec-ommendation. That makesthings pretty concrete in ahurry,” Roth notes. “They willalso be given a brief summaryof the alignment and technol-

ogy options being presented for the other five corridors. So, byattending these meetings, area residents can participate in theplanning process and get a good feel for how a future systemwould work.” Final alignment and technology selection ineach corridor will be made using the public input gathered atthese meetings.

Because of the critical role informed public input plays inthe transportation planning process, and becauseDIRECTIONS has a goal of identifying locally preferred routealignments and technologies, Phase II meetings will be pro-moted via an extensive outreach marketing program, as werePhase II meetings. To promote public attendance and partici-pation, the MPO will issue media advisories to nearly 60 print,radio and television news providers. Direct mail will also be

cont on page 16, see DIRECTIONS

Boone Hamilton

JohnsonMorgan

Han

cock

Shel

by

Hen

dri

cks

MPO Senior Planner Philip Roth illustrated several potential route alignmentswithin each of DIRECTIONS six travel corridors on the map above. By the end ofPhase Two in March, 2004, a locally preferred route alignment and technologyrecommendation for each will be identified.

dents daily. The impact of the I-70 project will be felt first, asconstruction crews plan to begin shifting interstate traffic tothe new pavement next summer.

“The City’s goals for the New Indianapolis Airportdemanded that the air-travel gateway for central Indiana bemodern, efficient and uniquely representative of the historyand future of our state,” says Indianapolis Mayor BartPeterson. “With each step we take, we move closer to creatinga stunning new facility that will maintain and enhanceIndianapolis’ position as the ‘Crossroads of America’ for gener-ations to come.”

At the Indianapolis International Airport itself, site prepa-ration and excavation is underway on the future airport termi-nal building and adjoining airplane aprons. In December,2003, City and airline officials announced plans to delay theopening date of the new terminal to 2008. Terminal design,site and control tower work will continue through 2004.

Preliminary apron grading excavation work includes strip-ping the topsoil, building an embankment, milling and remov-ing a portion of the old closed runway, and controlling waterflow and soil erosion. This work will involve moving morethan 1 million cubic yards of soil from existing stockpiles andon-site excavation.

Passenger Terminal BuildingThe new passenger terminal building will be the center-

piece of the new airport project. It will be built in the “mid-field” area of the airport property, between the two main exist-ing runways. The $974 million project includes a new termi-nal, concourse, and parking garage, as well as site preparation,utility and roadwork, and airfield improvements.

The new airport terminal building represents the mergingof economic opportunity, arts and culture, and the spirit ofIndianapolis in a single structure. As the aviation gateway toIndianapolis and the State of Indiana, the terminal buildingwill play a key role in defining the modern character of boththe city and the state.

P A G E T W E L V Econt on page 13, see Airport Update

Airport Update(from page 1)

The heart of the terminal building is a civic plaza – a centralgathering point whose circular shape recalls the shape of theCity’s central public space, Monument Circle. Although the plazawill serve the necessary functionsof both security and conces-sions, the room isdesigned to incorporateartwork, provide publicevent space, and enable visitors to samplethe character of Indianapolis and theregion.

The terminal roof is shaped to cre-ate a symbolic threshold to the city andstate, emanating from the civic plaza.The form is generated by joining thesheltering, centralized shape of an archwith the rise and fall of the buildingfrom check-in to departure.Encompassing high glass walls, thebuilding form will rise over the plaza toreveal a view of the aircraft apron andthe city skyline.

This terminal is designed as adynamic, changing form that reveals itspurpose as destination, gateway andpowerful civic symbol.

“Every sector of the central Indianacommunity – government, business,labor, travel and tourism, arts and cul-ture, and the traveling public – have agreat stake in the success of the NewIndianapolis Airport, and that successstarts with this design,” saidIndianapolis Airport Authority BoardPresident Lacy M. Johnson. “From everyperspective, this building will be pow-erful, unique and compelling.”

Construction of the new terminalbuilding is still scheduled to begin in the spring/summer of2005. Cost of the new Indianapolis Airport will be financedthrough a combination of federal grants, passenger facilitycharges, airline facility rents and aircraft landing fees. No stateor local tax money will be used to finance construction of thenew airport or to repay construction bonds.

For more information about the New Indianapolis Airport,visit www.newindairport.com.

Traffic Control TowerJust southwest of the airport terminal site, construction

also is proceeding on the new Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) Air Traffic Control Tower and radar control building.The tower shaft is more than half completed, and workersnow are assembling the 78-foot-tall tower cab. Workers willpiece the cab together on the ground to ensure its structuralintegrity, then use a 400-foot crane to lift large cab sectionsinto place in January.

When completed, the new tower will rise more than 300feet into the sky, soaring over the airport and adjacent highwaysystem. The $32 million facility will be centrally located

Airport Update(from page 12)

PAGE THIRTEENcont on page 14, see Airport Update

between the airport’s two main runways tosupport construction of the new passengerterminal and future air traffic operations.

The tower and control building are slat-ed to become operational in 2005.

“It’s going to be a sharp-looking build-ing, and the cab itself is exceptional,” saidProject Manager Randy Williams. “You’regoing to be able to see it from a lot of thewest side.”

I-70 Fast TrackFor many west side travelers and resi-

dents, the most dramatic and visible sign ofconstruction progress near the airport is theI-70 relocation and interchange project,called the I-70 Fast Track project by theIndiana Department of Transportation(INDOT).

This work involves moving approxi-mately four miles of interstate about 1,200feet south and constructing two new high-way interchanges – one to serve the newairport and a second to access the relocatedSix Points Road. Much of the pavement forthe new I-70 lanes has been poured andwork is now underway on construction ofthe “fly-over” lanes that will comprise thetwo new interchanges.

“Viewed from within the constructionzone, the entire project can be a bit over-whelming because of its magnitude,” said J.Bryan Nicol, Commissioner of the IndianaDepartment of Transportation, which isoverseeing the project. “We’re still settingthe massive forms for the new interchangebridges. When viewed from the interstate,Hoosier motorists can now see how magnif-icent this project is going to be and what a serious undertak-ing it is.”

Contractors have moved about 2.8 million cubic yards ofearth during construction, which also involved relocatingmore than 7,000 feet of creek beds. Much of the excavateddirt was banked in a massive mound along I-70.

The $160 million project will support and enhance long-term airport development opportunities by realigning andlowering I-70 next to the southern-most runway. This willallow for future taxiway construction over the highway to link

the existing runway and taxiway system with airport landsouth of the interstate. The project also will provide space foradditional development along the southern runway.

In addition, the work also will provide a smoother, saferroadway for travelers, increased highway capacity by addingmore collector and distributor lanes, and direct access from I-70 and the airport to Six Points Road and nearby commercialareas.

The bridges at the two interchanges will be finished nextsummer. The entire project is scheduled for completion inNovember, 2004. For additional I-70 Fast Track information,visit www.in.gov/dot/div/specialprojects/70airport/. PAGE FOURTEEN

Airport Update

(from page 13)

The foundations for a future taxiway have been an integral part of current construction activity. If built, the taxiway will enable aircraft to cross over the re-located section of I-70.

Photos courtesy of Parson Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, primary engineering consultant to INDOT on the I-70 Fast Track project.

P A G E F I F T E E N

Monon Completed

It’s 15.5 miles long, cost about $5.5million to construct over eight years

and is, by all accounts, the pride of theregional greenways system. It’s theMonon Trail, of course — the reclaimedrail right-of-way that now extends from10th Street in downtown Indianapolisnorth to 146th Street in Carmel – mak-ing it the longest existing trail in theregion’s growinggreenways network

On Wednesday,October 15th,Indianapolis MayorBart Peterson,GreenwaysAdministrator RayIrvin and other localdignitaries officiallyopened the 3.5 milesouthern end of trailwhose completionhad been held up bythis summer’sHyperFix construc-tion activity.HyperFix contrac-tors needed accessthe part of the areawhere the trail runsunder the interstate, just south of 15thStreet. Had it not been for this neces-sary delay, the trail would have beencompleted earlier as originally sched-uled.

“It may have taken longer than wewanted, but it was definitely worth thewait,” says Irvin. “I can’t think of a bet-ter use for federal TransportationEnhancement funds than greenway trailconstruction, and our local walkers, jog-gers, cyclists and rollerbladers seem toagree.” An estimated 1.2 million peopleuse the Monon Trail annually, making itthe most popular of the seven existingIndy Greenways. In addition to theTransportation Enhancement dollarsdispersed through the IndianaDepartment of Transportation, construc-tion of the Monon Trail benefited from

the financial support of a LillyEndowment grant.

More trails are included in the City’slong range plans. At present, transporta-tion planners are working on the devel-opment of the Pennsy Trail on the east-side which, when completed, will addanother 5.5 miles of greenways toMarion County’s existing 65 mile system(see Pennsy Trail Update, in teMPO,Volume Seven, Issue Three). “That’s real-

ly just the tip of the iceberg,” says Irvin.“With the area’s growing demand formobility options, and the MPO’s provencommitment to alternative modes oftransportation, we’re only just begin-ning. Someday, we envision a greenwaysnetwork that will provide extensiveregional transportation, as well as recre-

ation, opportunities. And we’re workingtoward that day as fast as we can.”

Mayor Peterson, an alternativetransportation and health/fitness advo-cate, seems to agree. Quoted at theMonon dedication in the October 16thThe Indianapolis Star, he said “The bestpart of all of this is the connectedness”and “We’re not even half done.” In theregion’s long range plans, at least anoth-er dozen or so greenway trails are

planned. “Our

Greenways Systemis too great aresource not toexpand and share,”Irvin explains. “Itoffers us economicdevelopment, recre-ational, health,environmentalimprovement andtransportation bene-fits. Everyoneshould have theopportunity toshare in these bene-fits and they will ifour greenways sys-tem keeps growing.”The completion of

the Monon Trail is another step in theright direction.

For more information on theIndianapolis Greenways System, contactRay Irvin at 317/327-7431(rirvin@indy-gov.org) or visit the Indy GreenwaysAmerican Trails award-winning web siteat www.indygreenways.org.

Pictured at the official opening of the 3.5 mile southern leg of the Monon Trail are Greenways AdministratorRay Irvin, Gleaners Food Bank President & CEO Pamela Altmeyer, Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson,Indianapolis Parks Director Joe Wynns, Indianapolis Greenways Development Commission Chair GregSilver, and President of the Old Northside Homeowners Association Peter M. Michael.

Did you Know? . . . According to “Amenity and Recreation Values of Urban Greenways” by the

IUPUI Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, “presence near the MononTrail or in a greenway conservation corridor has a statistically significant, positiveimpact on (property) sale prices.” Homes near the Monon Trail sold on averagefor $124,415, slightly more than 11% over the average price for the region. “Forhomes within one-half mile of the Monon Trail,” the study further asserts, “the(study) model estimates that 14.6 percent ($13,600) of the predicted sales priceis attributable to the trail.”

sent at random to 25,000 area residents in proportion to thatpopulation density within the study area. For example, sinceMarion County represents 54% of the households within theeight-county study area, 54% of the mailings will be sent tohouseholds within Marion County. In addition, 35 regionalpublications, such as the Topics newspapers, The IndianapolisRecorder, The South Side Times, The Greenfield Reporter and theStarWest, StarNorth, StarSouth and Hamilton County AM sec-tions of The Indianapolis Star will again encourage meetingattendance through display advertising.

“During Phase I, our investment in public relations, directmail and advertising paid off in top-of-mind awareness andrecall among the media,” says Joe Whitman, MPOCommunications Consultant. “The newspapers and broadcaststations gave our meetings great coverage in April and May,despite much more ‘immediate’ transportation-related stories,like HyperFix, CityFix and the I-69 Extension,” he says. “Wehope to use the post-holiday media slump to secure the samecoverage commitment in Phase II . . . and to convince thepublic that the time to get involved in DIRECTIONS is now,while alignment and technology decisions are being made.”

Late in Phase II, after public input from the meetings hashelped select the specific route alignment and technology rec-ommendation for each travel corridor, study planners will usefinancial, regional system benefit and commuter-impact crite-ria to identify the first corridor for system construction. “Thiswill be a delicate issue for us, because we want people toremember that this will be just the first leg of a system to bebuilt, not the only leg to be built,” says Dearing. “DIRECTIONShas always been about evaluating the feasibility of a region-widetransit system and, in all likelihood, we’ll begin constructionwhere funding availability and potential commuter benefitswill be the greatest,” he says. “We don’t know where that isyet, but our eventual selection process will be transparent toeveryone involved in the study.”

If, upon the completion of Phase II in March, 2004, find-ings indicate the feasibility of a region-wide rapid transit sys-tem, DIRECTIONS will enter its third funding phase. Phase IIIis expected to last until December, 2004. At the time, the 24-month rapid transit study which is budgeted at $1.5 million($1.2 million federal, $300,000 local) will have yielded alocally preferred region-wide rapid transit system and fundingsplan. For more information on DIRECTIONS current Phase IIactivities, and public participation opportunities, visit theMPO web site at indygov.org/indympo, or contact MPO SeniorPlanners Philip Roth, AICP, at 317/327-5149 (proth@indy-gov.org) or Amy Inman, M.S. at 317/327-5646 (ainman@indy-gov.org).

P A G E S I X T E E N

DIRECTIONS(from page 11)

DIRECTIONS PHASE II PUBLIC MEETINGS

As part of DIRECTIONS Phase II activity, the MPO willconduct a public meeting in each of the six travel corri-dors identified and approved for further study in PhaseI. At these meetings, area residents will be asked toreview and comment on route alignment options foreach corridor, including recommendations on whichtransit technology to use. As in Phase I, meeting atten-dance will be promoted via direct mail, media and pub-lic relations and display advertising in 35 newspapers.

All meetings will include an Open House/Presentationfrom 6:30 - 8:00 PM, unless otherwise noted.

February 17Zionsville Town Hall 1100 West Oak Street, Zionsville, IN 46077

February 18Cumberland Community Life Center 10612 E. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46229

February 19Trinity Wesleyan 9709 Allisonville Road, Indianapolis, 46250

February 24Arthur Baxter YMCA Pavilion 8202 US 31 South, Indianapolis, IN 46227

February 25 Brownsburg Town Hall 80 East Vermont Street, Indianapolis, IN 46112

February 26Indianapolis Public Library - Brightwood Branch 2435 North Sherman Drive, Indianapolis, IN, 46218

(NOTE: Because the library closes at 8:00 PM, this meeting has been scheduled for 6:00 - 7:30 PM.)

PAGE SEVENTEEN

Pedal & Park Posts Record Year

The Pedal & Park program which provides area cyclistswith free, supervised bike parking at popular greenways-

adjacent events throughout the spring and summer concludedits second consecutive record-breaking year in September. Theprogram, which was founded by the Greenways Foundation,has been sponsored by theMetropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO) since2001. As program sponsor,the MPO pays the foundation$1 for each bike parked in itsbike corral at Pedal & Parkevents. Proceeds are dividedamong not-for-profit organi-zations whose volunteerscontinuously monitor thecorral, including Indy ParksGreenways, the IndianaBicycle Coalition (IBC), andthe Central Indiana BicyclingAssociation (CIBA).

“This year, we providedfree, secured parking to1,230 area cyclists - a newseason high for Pedal &Park,” says GreenwaysFoundation President andprogram coordinator TomOlsen. “Despite some wetweather and extreme heat,we still managed to have arecord-breaking Earth DayIndiana, Indiana State Fairand Penrod Arts Fair, whichset a new one-day total of270 cyclists.” Other 2003Pedal & Park events includedthe Broad Ripple Art Fair,Bike-To-Work Day and theTalbot Street Art Fair.“Clearly, there is a growingdemand for alternative trans-portation opportunities, and we’re helping to meet it,” saidOlsen, who noted that not only are more regional cyclists usingthe program than ever before, but they’re peddling greater dis-tances. “We frequently saw people from northern HamiltonCounty and the Eagle Creek area at the fairgrounds this year.That’s between a 10 and 15 mile ride each way.” The 2003Indiana State Fair drew 777 Pedal & Park cyclists, also a recordfor the 12-day event which is often dominated by August heat.

Because the MPO guarantees Pedal & Park volunteers adaily minimum, the program collected a total of $2,545 thisyear over 19 event days. The proceeds were dispersed to pro-gram partner organizations in proportion to volunteer timecontributed. CIBA earned $1,837, followed by IBC with $357and the Greenways Foundation with $351.

“We consider our support of Pedal & Park an investmentin transportation system effi-ciency and regional health,”says MPO Manager/MasterPlanner Mike Dearing.“Thanks to programs likethis, more people than everare considering alternativesto car travel, which reducestraffic congestion andimproves air quality foreveryone.”

In 2004, the Pedal &Park program will gain anew coordinator as TomOlsen moves out of state (seerelated story, page 5). Long-time CIBA member AndyO’Donnell has volunteeredto take up the reins and isalready considering somenew ways to keep the pro-gram growing. “Thanks toeveryone’s hard work, we’reon a roll now,” he notes. “ I’dlike to build on our momen-tum by adding a few differ-ent events and by investigat-ing new, cooperative partner-ship opportunities.” Formore information on the2004 Pedal & Park program,including available days andtimes, call Andy at 317/873-2005 (odar1@aol.com) orvisit the Indy Greenwaysweb site at www.indygreen-ways.org/pedalpark.

The Pedal & Park program encourages the use of non-motorized transportation alternatives, and, in this way, servesthe Greenways Foundation goals of promoting travel alongIndy Greenways, distributing relevant recreational literature,and raising funds for its partnering not-for-profit organiza-tions. To volunteer as a corral supervisor, call 317/255-0559.

INDOT Commissioner J. Bryan Nicol (fifth from left) and a few of the State employees who participated in Bike-To-Work-Day on May 16, 2003.

Just a few of the 270 bikes that made the Penrod Art Fair the biggestsingle day event in Pedal & Park’s history.

P A G E E I G H T E E N

coMPOnents

To encourage awareness of, and informed participation in, itsregional transportation planning process, the MPO includes dis-play advertising among the many communications strategies uti-lized in its Public Involvement Program. Featuring consistent useof the “iMPOrtant” format to build awareness and heighten recall,these ads appear in publications throughout the region, includingthe City & State section of The Indianapolis Star and TheIndianapolis Recorder.

The ads shown here ran in August, September and October ofthis year. From the top, the first ad invited all interested parties to ameeting of the MPO’s Citizens Advisory Committee on the evening ofWednesday, August 20th. The meeting, the fourth of the year, dealtwith a variety of transportation related topics of public interest,including proposed program amendments, an update of the DIREC-TIONS Rapid Transit Study, and a presentation on noise barriersmade by the Indiana Department of Transportation. This ad ran inthe August 12th issue of The Indianapolis Star and the August 15thissue of The Indianapolis Recorder.

The second ad also mentions amendments. In this ad, howev-er, the public is encouraged to review and offer comments on pro-posed amendments to the 2003-2005 and 2004-2006Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program, orIRTIPs. IRTIPs document federally funded transportation improve-ments recommended for implementation in our area within a spe-cific three-year period. This ad ran in the September 2nd City &State section of The Indianapolis Star and the September 5th issueof The Indianapolis Recorder. In each case, the ad ran in tandemwith a Legal Notice that provided more detail on where and howto provide input on the proposed amendments.

The third ad again encourages attendance at a Citizens AdvisoryCommittee meeting. This one, the last of the year, was held onWednesday, October 22nd. Its agenda items included a review ofnewly proposed IRTIP amendments, an update on the regionalPedestrian Plan, and reports on two new MPO sub-committees: theNoise Abatement and Senior Mobility Sub-committees. The adappeared in the October 15th Indianapolis Star and the October 17thIndianapolis Recorder.

The fourth ad served a dual purpose, encouraging publicreview and comment on yet another round of proposed IRTIPamendments through November 12th, and inviting all those wish-ing to be heard to a public hearing of the MetropolitanDevelopment Commission on November 19th. This ad appearedin the October 29th issue of The Indianapolis Star and the October31st issue of the Indianapolis Recorder.

Through its various Public Involvement Program outreachstrategies, including display ads like these, the MPO will continueto inform its primary planning partner, the public, of upcomingparticipation opportunities.

P A G E N I N E T E E N

Irons In The Fire

New CAC Sub-CommitteesAt the October Citizens Advisory Committee

(CAC) meeting, MPO Manager/Master Planner MikeDearing spoke briefly about two new sub-commit-tees that have been formed advise the CACon specific areas of public interest: TheNoise Abatement Sub-Committee andthe Senior Mobility Sub-Committee.

The Noise Abatement Sub-Committeewas initially formed with residents of EastAvalon Hills and Lindberg Highlands – two areas wherehighway noise affects property values and quality-of-life. EastAvalon Hills in northeast Indianapolis was developed in the1960’s before I-465 was constructed and has since been neg-atively impacted by the change in type and volume of high-way traffic. The impacts of traffic noise became a seriousissue for the Lindberg Highlands area in southeastIndianapolis where I-65 and I-465 meet when a September,2002 tornado destroyed trees that previously screened theneighborhood from the highway. This sub-committee met forthe first time on October 20th to identify strategies for secur-ing noise abatement relief.

The Senior Mobility Sub-Committee began as an out-growth of regular roundtable discussions the MPO has heldwith seniors from OASIS, formerly known as Older AdultsService & Information System. “This effort to gain a seniorperspective on transportation issues parallels our school out-reach program,” Dearing explained. “Whether talking withstudents or seniors, planners can learn a lot about perceivedproblems and their possible solutions.”

To join either the Noise Abatement or Senior MobilitySub-Committees, or to suggest another sub-committee, con-tact Mike Dearing at 317/327-5139 (mdearing@indygov.org).

Community InclusionOn Thursday, November 20th, the MPO conducted its

sixth and final Community Inclusion Project (CIP) meeting ofthe year. The meeting was hosted by the IndianapolisDepartment of Public Works (DPW) at its Training Center atBelmont & Harding Streets. Agenda items included a follow-updiscussion of Sewers and Sewage, especially aroundthe Monon Trail at SutherlandAvenue, and ‘newbusiness’ topics likeAbandoned Cars &Towing and SafetyIssues In ParkPlanning.

“This meeting was typical of what we try to dothroughout the year,” says MPO Senior Planner

Kevin Mayfield, who coordinates and facilitatesthe Community Inclusion meetings with MPOPlanner Catherine Kostyn. “We regularly bringtogether residents from neighborhoods that aretraditionally under-represented in the planning

process with representatives from privateand public service providers, such as the

Indianapolis Police Department,IndyParks, DPW, even Indianapolis

Power & Light. Our goal is to encouragea free and open exchange of ideas, where citizens can voicetheir concerns and suggestions directly to the people whocan help them.”

Kostyn agrees. “It’s all about feeling heard in a friendly,non-confrontational setting,” she says. “We meet every twomonths with members of neighborhood organizationsthroughout Center Township and serve a simple lunch.People talk, and issues get identified for further action.” TheCIP currently attracts 30-50 participants per meeting withattendance steadily growing since its inception in 2001.

For more information on the Community InclusionProject, contact Kevin Mayfield (317/327-5135,kmayfiel@indygov.org) or Catherine Kostyn (317/327-5142,ckostyn@indygov.org).

conNECTions Final EISconNECTions, the Study of the Northeast Corridor

Transportation, was again in the news early this fall as itsFinal Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was releasedfor final review and comment. Following the comment peri-od, which ended December 21, 2003, a Record of Decision(ROD) will be considered for approval by the FederalHighway Administration. The ROD is anticipated to beapproved early in 2004.

The purpose of conNECTions, which started in mid-1998,was to identify locally preferred, financially feasible strategiesfor mitigating the effects of traffic delays and lack of mobilityoptions that frustrate rush hour travelers in the NortheastCorridor, our region’s busiest, which stretches from downtownIndianapolis northeast to Noblesville. Throughout the courseof the study, the public was encouraged to work with the teammembers from the MPO and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &Douglas, transportation engineering consultants, to develop alist of travel options for consideration. A series of evaluativesteps, including computer-modeling and cost-benefit analy-sis, was used to cut the original list of 14 options down, firstto eight and, finally, to two.

cont on page 20, see Irons in the Fire

Metropolitan Planning Organization

1821 City-County Building200 East Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204-3310

P A G E T W E N T Y

PRESORTEDSTANDARDU.S. Postage

PAIDIndianapolis, INPermit No. 803

Printed on paper with recycled content

The study’s public participation program culminatedwith INDOT conducting two Public Hearings in mid-November, 2001. By that time, the Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement had been available for public review andcomment for 45 days. The public comment period contin-ued through January, 2002, when the study’s Policy SteeringCommittee, comprised of Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson,INDOT Commissioner J. Bryan Nicol and State Senator LukeKenley, met. At that time, the committee decided to proceedwith the highway expansion option recommended by thestudy team. Highway Alternative H5, as it was designated, isan intermediate expansion option in the northeast quadrantthat will increase the roadway capacity of I-465, I-69, StateRoad 37 and I-70.

The committee determined that additional informationwas needed before proceeding with a major transit invest-ment. They did not approve any of the rail-bus transitoptions identified by the study to proceed. Instead, theyrequested further study of a transit system that could 1) beregional in nature, and 2) include a transit route from down-

town Indianapolis out to the airport, as the most successfulsystems elsewhere in the country do. These goals are, inpart, the purpose of DIRECTIONS, The Rapid Transit StudyTo Improve Regional Mobility, which is now in-progress (seerelated story, page 11).

Following the Record of Decision for the Final EIS, thehighway expansion projects will proceed to the design andconstruction phases.

Irons In The fire(from page 19)

Stay informed and involved in

our regional transportation

planning process three ways:

• Call our new Comment Line,

anytime, at 317/327-8601 to

leave a comment or question.

• Learn about upcoming public

participation opportunities

from the MPO Hotline at

317/327-IMPO.

• Or, visit the MPO web site in

depth information at

www.indygov.org/indympo.