- I'll go ahead and call this meeting of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Committee to order
- as vice chair. I believe that our chair is online today and if we could just go around and names and
- organizations let's go ahead and start over on my left today. Julie Thomas Monroe County Commissioner
- Andrew Seabor serving as proxy for Mayor Thompson.
- And then Hopi Stasberg City Council Transportation Corporation Board of Directors John Kennedy proxy
- for Sam Tobin Hawkshit from the Citizens Advisory Committee Scott Ferris Monroe County Planning Commission
- Linnea Wellings in dot proxy for Rebecca Packer. Good morning. Nate Nichols City of Bloomington Public
- Works Department serving as a proxy for director Adam Wason.
- Can you hear me now. That's better. Yeah I think that it might have been on our end but wonderful.
- Thank you. Never never led this meeting before so I'm going to have to pay careful attention to the agenda.
- So first thing we need approval of the agenda for today. So it looks like the agenda includes some minutes
- and our usual communications from chair and vice chair officers committees several pieces of reports
- no old business a couple pieces of new business public comments and then some more communications. Does
- anybody have any thing that they want to add or comments on.
- Can I get a motion motion to approve the agenda and a second. Second. Thank you so much. We're going
- to need a roll call on the motion to approve the agenda since we have a member online today. Seymour.
- Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
- Yes motion passes. Great. Thank you so much. First on the agenda then is the approval of the minutes
- from May 29th of this year. Were there any corrections or comments to be made on these minutes by anybody.
- Do I have a motion to approve motion to approve the minutes. Thank you for that motion and seconds.
- If there's no comments we please call the roll on that motion to approve the minutes Ferris.
- Yes. Kennedy abstain. Wellings. Nickel. Yes. Ridge. Yes. Thomas Stasberg. Yes. Horn abstain. Seaborg. Yes.
- Motion passes. Great. Thank you so much. I want to take note of Jason branch coming in. You start on
- time and I come in five minutes late. Jason Bannock with IU. Thank you. Thank you so much. We just approved
- the minutes.
- Communications from chair and vice-chair. I do not have any communications today. Lisa. Do you have
- anything to communicate? I don't except thank you for stepping up for me some computer upgrades out
- here Wonderful. I hope that those go smoothly Any communications from officers and or committees John
- Kennedy from the CAC the CCAC met Wednesday evening
- and Recommended to the policy committee that you approve the two tip amendments that will be on the
- agenda today Wonderful I Can provide an update from the TAC? TAC met this past Wednesday the 22nd Also
- recommended approval of the new business items that are listed here. There's one thing we talked about
- and we can discuss this more when we get to this item, but
- Item number eight point two about the state safety performance targets. We did have some language we
- wanted to include with that. So that was an issue that we discussed at length. But other than that we
- recommended approval. Thank you. Okay great. Thank you. Sounds like we need to discuss that more when
- we get to it. Next reports from staff Katie. Thank you.
- Item six point one the state of Indiana is currently updating their strategic highway safety plan which
- is a multi-agency document. That guides the state's traffic safety efforts over the next five years.
- It is also what will be used to kind of help establish the next
- Targets for the next phase not the not the call for projects starting this fall, but the one after that
- in two years So if you have 10 to 15 minutes, they're accepting public comment through a survey and
- it will help in dot prioritize safety concerns That are most important to you Next wanted to share that
- the state of Indiana is also updating their state rail plan and
- that guides the state's rail infrastructure investments and policies. Their website includes an overview,
- the draft plan, summaries, and then a link to submit feedback. So again, if you have a moment and you
- wanna take a look at that, we just wanted to inform you about it. The feedback is all the way at the bottom.
- Third is another public input opportunity, this time at the federal level. So the Federal Transit
- Administration is seeking input from the transit industry and the public about how to assess public
- transportation service quality across realms of safety and security cleanliness, universal accessibility,
- service data availability, and reliability.
- So they there's only like 41 comments so far. So but they're accepting comments till August 3rd. No
- further questions. I'll go on to the crash dashboard. There's been an update to the crash dashboard
- in that the staff went through and proofed
- and cleaned up and added gps data corrected gps data to a number of the crashes for calendar year 2025
- that's been added to the crash dashboard crash dashboard was created two years ago by the staff and
- by the information technology services department please feel free to look at that whenever you get
- the chance let us know if you have any questions on that
- We also want to note that the 2018 and 2019 data have been removed to maintain consistency with a five-year
- trend used by the Department of Transportation to cap information shown on the dashboard. Past crash
- information is still available in various locations. It's available on the MPO website. We've got crash
- report going back to 1996 if you're so interested in something like that.
- The MPO also helps to find other ways in the future to consolidate and share trend data. If you have
- any questions, please let me know, or Katie, either one of us. Next item we have is an early coordination
- letter from the Indiana Department of Transportation. This early coordination letter is for State Road
- 45 over an unnamed tributary of Griffey Creek,
- 0.38 miles east of Interstate 69 in Monroe County. If you look in the packet, yeah, there it goes,
- thank you. That'll show you the approximate location and then the next one will show you the specific
- location of where that's at. If you have any comments, concerns regarding this project, please respond
- to the early coordination letter. The consulting firms and the
- consulting agencies also would be of interest to that. If there are no further questions, I'll go on
- to the, yeah, I'll let you scroll through that. Yeah, there's the reason right there. Okay, a crushed
- pipe, probably 30 years old would be my guess. We also wanna let you know about recent,
- Indiana Department of Transportation roadway safety audits that were conducted last week. State of Indiana
- takes usually they select the worst of the worst or the ones they have concerns about from the district
- offices and those determine how many roadway safety audits are completed in any any one area in any
- one given year. This year we had three
- locations that underwent roadway safety audits last Thursday. This was a multiple multiple district
- and central office and a local team. We all met first project which was examined with State Road 45
- between Industrial Boulevard and Curry Pike. I affectionately refer to this as Wally World.
- This is the area where you've got Walmart Sam's Club and a number of other areas, which is a high High
- traffic. I'll wait till Katie gets down there This is a high traffic movement area a lot of turning
- movements a lot of what I would call property damage crashes rear end side swipes turning movements,
- it's not what I would call a serious
- Uh, injury type of location, but the frequency is disturbing given the volumes that are out there. Uh,
- that was the first one examined by the roadway safety audit team from the central office and from the
- Seymour district. Second location that we examined was stick road 45 and Kinzer Pike and Rogers street.
- I will get up there.
- Okay this is on State Road 45 46. There's been a increase in traffic in the last two to three years
- went from something like 36 37000 vehicles a day up to 42 or 40000 vehicles a day. We don't know why
- the increase probably because of increased development along the corridor.
- Directional split is a 50-50 on either side of the intersection there. We've got the concerns here are
- not only serious injuries, but also what I would call pedestrian movements or vulnerable road user movements,
- where we've got a number of people walk to the Kroger, which is up in the northwest corner, the upper
- left-hand corner of the intersection.
- A lot of people walk to that intersection and as a result of that there's deep concern about vulnerable
- road users. The traffic safety engineer for the district Seymour district as an experiment went up and
- went up to that corner and tripped the pedestrian walk on that activated the pedestrian walk and we
- immediately had a backlog.
- of traffic on Roger Street and that backlog lasted for almost 20 minutes. We've also got an issue too
- and some of that westbound to eastbound movement traffic there stopping past the stop bar. Don't know
- what we're going to be able to do about that. Anyway this we spent almost an hour on this intersection
- out there observing all of the movements.
- Now the roadway safety audit team will report back latter part of September or first part of October
- on what they're what the alternatives were that were considered and what proposed actions are. The third
- intersection we looked at was State Road 446 and Morris Pike. Well she gets down to see what for 46
- and Morris Pike Lampkins Ridge Road.
- The concern here is that in well in 2016 17 18 and 19 this was one of the top intersections in terms
- of crashes even though that's got a lower volume on it. So as a result the district upgraded the intersection
- in 2020 calendar year 2020 where the stop
- stops that were made into flashing, they removed an overhead beacon, flashing beacon, which was impossible
- to see and actually no one ever saw it. Yeah, you can see the flashers right there on the stop. The
- volumes here are roughly around 8,000 vehicles a day on State Route 446. Some of that is seasonal because
- you get campers, motorboats, trailer track,
- Well trailers with motorboats and houseboats and all of that that are on the on the corridor. But that's
- usually from roughly May until the end of well I'm sorry until Labor Day. And then after that it drops
- off. The one issue we note there is on the west leg of that intersection somewhat of a grade differential there.
- And as a result, the automobiles come up in a eastbound movement and they stop on the stop bar and actually
- they're stopping past the stop bar to check their sight distance. The sight distance to the north is
- almost unlimited actually. We verify the sight distance to the south and the sight distance to the south
- is adequate. And then also if you're on the east leg of the intersection and you're looking
- looking to the south or looking to the north you've got adequate sight distance. The Department
- of Transportation also added a left turn movement there. So if you were northbound on 446 and you wanted
- to go westbound on Moore's Pike you could do so. And that reduced a number of the right angle accidents
- or crashes property damage crashes. But still it's a problem again.
- We discussed the idea of doing a minor roundabout at the intersection, but the problem with a roundabout
- is you've got all of the utilities. You can see those there. Utilities up above, and you'd have to have
- a massive relocation of that. We also talked about the idea of making it a four-way stop, but I don't
- know if that really meets the warrants since the volumes on Steward 446 are much greater than they are
- on the other two legs. Anyway, the audit team will,
- take all of this under consideration. Again, give us a report at the end of September, the first part
- of October, and we'll make sure that everybody is aware of what happens there. And that's all I've got
- in the way of roadway safety audits unless anybody has any questions. Okay. If not, we'll move on.
- Next item, the MPO will be issuing
- fiscal year 2028 2032 call for projects. We'll be doing that middle part of August to the end of August.
- The funding which we've got projected available. Normally we would have a total of approximately five
- and a half five point two five point five million dollars available for funding projection though is
- that we'll only have somewhere around four point six million dollars available.
- So a real dollar loss and inflationary increase in costs will be including in that the normal what I
- would call surface transportation block grant projects will also have what I would call the normal highway
- safety improvement program call for projects. All of that will be well we'll we'll have a 30 day 30
- day period.
- for all of the LPAs to respond. The LPAs would include Town of Ellisville, Monroe County, City
- of Bloomington, Bloomington Transit, and Area 7 Agency on Aging, or what's called rural transit. I'd
- be happy to answer any questions anybody may have on that. We'll have much more on that on the next
- meeting next month. No questions? You know the dates that you're gonna do the call for projects?
- Do you know the dates of when you're going to put out for the 30 days? We're looking at mid-August to
- the end of August and then it would be 30 days after we issue the call. Tentatively right now it's the
- last week of August. We want to give everybody 30 days which should be ample time and the last two to
- three months we've been saying
- Beware beware the call is coming. So that way it's not and no one's caught by surprise Some of these
- may be new projects and some of these may be continuation of existing projects that are already programmed
- in the current transportation improvement program Does that answer your question? Yeah, I was hoping
- it was gonna be earlier in August, but that's what I was trying to plan on I appreciate it. Thank you
- We can make it earlier if you want
- I would take it earlier. Whatever works for everybody, we'll make it work. Okay, well, yeah, I mean,
- we have a draft package put together and we have a draft schedule, which has been assembled for several
- months. Whether we can meet that schedule or not is dependent upon the Indiana Department of Transportation
- Central Office. Central Office will be doing their call for projects in the middle of, I'm sorry, the
- first week of September to second week of September.
- and then they will be having a series of public meetings at the Seymour District in September initially,
- and then they'll also have another one in October. NDOT is looking to have their statewide transportation
- improvement program adopted somewhere around March or April of next year, which makes us nervous because
- Federal Highway Administration has been challenged in terms of reviewing everything
- Because of staff shortages, so we're being Katie and I are being very aggressive on what we're doing
- to allow ample time for federal highway review Any other questions Okay, thank you Just wanted to share
- item 6.8 just wanted to share a few updates on some of the projects receiving
- federal funds through the npto. So the city's downtown curb ramp improvements phase 4 project. The letting
- date was changed from October to December of this year due to consultant submission delays. The high
- street project is currently doing its utility road relocation is ready for letting although we did have
- to change the letting from September to October.
- due to a federal highway delay. Second Street project, as I'm sure you're all aware, is in construction.
- Crosswalks Phase 3 and curb rate ramps Phase 5 are both in design. Crosswalks Phase 4, the consultant
- selection is anticipated for the end of this year. Dunn Street is in its right-of-way acquisition phase
- at the moment.
- College and Walnut, as you may recall, has two phases that have been merged into a similar year, and
- consultant selection for design is underway. Dillman Bridge, number 83. The right of way is starting
- in the next month or so, and the contract is with Aegis.
- Eagle Sim bridge nine nine twenty two the county has met with IU officials and other partners and bridge
- utility relocation will start soon. High friction surface treatment on Fairfax Road. The RFP was posted
- for construction engineering services just recently.
- And it has been awarded and will begin soon. Rockport Bridge, number 308, is under construction and
- anticipated completion is tentative, but perhaps around October. That road bridge, number 79, has been
- executed and is starting the federal aid process.
- And in terms of NDOT projects of interest, the intersection improvements on SR45 and Pete Ellis, between
- Pete Ellis and the bypass, utility relocations are in progress. No utilities have indicated they will
- close Pete Ellis or SR45 during their relocations. However, there will likely be lane closures during
- the relocations.
- And the only utility that really needed a lane closure is CBU water city of Bloomington water and they
- are coordinating with the contractor to install during their lane closures. And then if you see the
- link to the spreadsheet that's in the agenda there's more detail on timelines for utilities utility
- relocation that more detail than you ever wanted to see.
- Any other questions? Okay, moving on. I have a question. Okay. Could you restate College and Wal-Mart,
- the update on that, please? Consultant selection for design is in progress. Okay, so evidently there
- is a design for College and Wal-Mart. What's the requirement?
- Has a requirement ever been published. Has a weapon proposed. If you have a design you have to have
- a requirement for the design. Has a requirement ever been published so the public is aware of what the
- design is going to be. We can check.
- Director seabor can speak to this a little bit. Yeah, I don't believe that anything has been published
- formally yet. Yes, that's my understanding is the city's ongoing corridor study for college and walnut
- is still Pending I know it's been a discussion in these meetings in the past There will be public updates
- and public opportunities the ultimately the project that study needs is
- Several a couple commission City Commission and the City Council's review. Right now what is underway
- is just a consultant section for a design consultant. A design has not been selected but we are just
- trying to get the ball rolling because it takes time to get things in place. But I do expect in the
- coming months that more news will be shared and there will be more public discussion on the corridor
- study. Thank you. Thank you. That addresses your concern.
- Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions about those things? Wonderful looks like there's more reports
- Yes, thank you Item six point nine just a quick quick note to you on an item that was updated in the
- tip That did not require committee review The city Bloomington's downtown curb ramps phase four project
- due to some
- delays in environmental and design process. The decision was made to update to move the construction
- phases from fiscal year 26 to 27. And this wasn't a concern really for the MPO because it does not use
- MPO funds. It's in here because it's using other other federal funds that were awarded to the city as
- part of a special call for projects.
- safety call This is the same award that the Monroe County got for their Fairfax Friction surface treatment
- project Okay item six point ten So this is simply
- document for your information for now to Get you introduced to the concept. So this is more more information
- on the amendment Modification process so this describes this multi-layer process that we have to go
- through There has various levels of review at federal state and local so we have this document called
- the tip but this also applies to
- Our other documents such as the MTP as well. So in federal law, they have very kind of broad definitions
- of what an amendment to the document is considered and what is considered a modification. I've written
- those here for you. And then at the state level, they have more specific standards in terms of how they
- take those general federal definitions and
- They've they've coordinated with Federal Highway to come up with these standards of how they treat or
- what they determine is an amendment or a modification and This determines whether how long they post
- it to how long the state posts it to their website for review Before sending it to Federal Highway So
- you can see it's a little bit more specific And then we
- also have our own level of review locally and where we can create our own policy for what you guys would
- like to review and see before it then gets sent to in dot and ultimately federal highway. And so our
- current policy for this is in our participation plan. And I've pulled out the portions that are just
- related to the tip and put them here for you so that you can see
- Now we haven't been following this to a tee. I've actually just been giving you way more specific changes
- than this for a long time now just just so that you all can see as much as possible. So we've been showing
- you more specific things. But this is this is the process that we have right now where we have a major
- amendment section and
- Those require 30 days of review and all committees can see those changes. And then we have a minor amendment
- classification where the citizens advisory and technical advisory committees don't need to see it, but
- it does have to be approved by the policy committee. And then we have an administrative approval amendments
- policy, which is close to the
- you know, federal and state definitions of modification. And those are lesser changes. And we,
- at one point, dictated that it does not require the 30-day comment period, does not require CAC and
- TAC review, and it only requires a three-day notice to policy committee members via email.
- So that's what we have. And moving forward, we may come and present proposed changes to this policy
- to you to bring it better into alignment with current state and federal processes. And so this is just
- for you to start thinking in all of your free time. If you have specific things you would like to see
- or things you really don't care to see,
- you know the changes don't mean that much to you and you don't think that the committee needs to review
- it then feel free to like write those down and save them for a time when we propose some changes to
- this policy or feel free to you know brainstorm on it in in the meantime.
- Great. Thank you. I think that that wraps up all of the reports from staff. Does anybody have any questions
- about any of those? Any of those items At this point Okay, I actually do have a clarification on the
- 6.6 the road safety audits if we can go back to that path I just want to make sure that what I heard
- from you was right that
- While you guys were out there somebody triggered the pedestrian walking going across forty six traffic
- safety five. Right. And that caused a 20 minute backup on Rogers. Yes. OK. Northbound northbound movement
- on Rogers north. And what time of day were you guys there. We were there. Yeah. Noon hour noon ish. OK.
- Yeah, well I was thinking about that to you at summer so there's not this is some students and there's
- a lot of student housing in that area, but but that's also not when that intersection is horribly backed
- up when School gets out both Arlington Elementary and also North High School that gets crazy on on concern
- for and we did observe two pedestrians prior to his triggering We observed two pedestrians initially
- and then 15 20 minutes later is when he went over there and Hit the trigger and then that's when the
- backup happened and actually one of the vehicles a southbound to westbound turning movement from Kinzer
- in other words, they were Driving south on Kinzer and they were turning west onto the bypass one of
- them almost
- Yeah gave him an intimidation Movement and he gave them the evil eye but and we were concerned about
- that but Yeah, because they're normally the vehicles aren't looking for pedestrians and that's the issue
- that we're worried about it's not That we've had any pedestrian Incidents at that location. It's about
- the potential that that's got us deeply concerned and
- Well and there have been pedestrian incidents at that location in. Yeah. In the past. Yeah. In the past.
- And then the Department of Transportation also has in a longer range program putting a pedestrian sidewalk
- on the north side of the bypass between college Walnut and Kinzer. That sidewalk would be a protected
- sidewalk with a barrier wall. But that is probably four to five years out.
- before construction would begin on that. That would facilitate the safe movement of pedestrians in that
- area, at least on the north side of the bypass. But that doesn't necessarily address that intersection
- specifically itself. Yeah, it certainly doesn't help the crossing distance. OK, thank you so much. And
- we did discuss a wide variety of options and taking into consideration the bridge project of NDOTs,
- the pedestrian bridge to the west,
- that project is forthcoming and then the sidewalk that Pat was speaking about and even talking about
- cascades, you know, and what is the best, you know, what is the best path, way to create that path across
- the bypass using all of those elements. And we talked to him a bit about the concept of moving the bridge
- to Kinzer and it sounds like the hesitation
- With that is that it would take a lot of right of way, a lot of additional funds to make the appropriate
- decline, you know, coming down onto Rogers or coming down onto Kinzer Pike. And another alternative
- would be to create a tunnel underneath the highway, which it sounds like they're hesitant to do because
- They fear vandalism of lights and folks, just the unsafety feeling of the tunnel, which they'll still
- be thinking about it, but I don't know that that would be as much of an issue for us, the vandalism
- part of it, or the unsafety part of it, but those are some of their initial thoughts about the bridge
- moving to that location.
- Thank you. Was there any consideration about narrowing the road there at all because there's like significant
- shoulder and quite wide lanes and We would we would love to do that but the Federal Highway Administration
- as of two weeks ago narrowing travel lanes is a verboten That's a safety countermeasure that was
- out there on Federal Highway's Web site one of twenty eight one of twenty eight safety countermeasures
- proven safety countermeasures out there narrowing travel lands. But that one was removed two weeks ago
- along with a few others. OK. Thank you. It also sounds like the capacity is too much for a roundabout
- but I don't know that some sort of peanut roundabout I don't know the official name for that.
- Like a double roundabout between College of Walnut and Kinzer I don't think that's necessarily out of
- the question, but it's something they'll also look into as well Great, thank you. It's also called a
- double dog bone. What I couldn't it's called a double dog bone Double dog bone Yeah, double dog bone. Yeah, but
- That that's pretty far out there, right? But certainly the turning the Even if even if lanes can't be
- reduced in size the the turning radius is pretty large You know, they don't doesn't require cars to
- really slow down very much which is the as a primary hazard for pedestrians so You know, I do I do believe
- that's something they'll be working to address. The question is, you know How big of a change are they
- going to make?
- You know and how much funding will it require. That was that was another thing the 85th percentile speed
- on the west side of that intersection was 55 miles an hour even though it's posted 45. They're coming
- off of the interstate or coming off of what I would call a modified freeway and they're still up to
- speed. The 85th percentile.
- On the east side of that intersection was only somewhere around 50 to 45 miles an hour. So it was within
- the speed limit on the east side but on the west side there 10 miles an hour above posted speeds. Great.
- Thank you so much for all that additional information. Any other questions Mr. Harris. I wasn't to bring
- this up but I think it's relevant. Number one.
- With respect to when these audits are conducted the point was brought up closer. We can. How about now.
- That's OK. I wasn't going to bring it up but I think it's relevant and it was brought up just a couple
- of minutes ago. All these audits should be done when the students are here because all around Bloomington
- as well as we all know it's saturated right now. It's a pretty pleasant drive in certain elements of
- the city right now.
- So I would suggest that in future audits, and there may be a timing issue, et cetera, et cetera, because
- of when these reports are due, but I would suggest that they be done when the student population is
- present, because you're going to get a much different picture when the students are here than when they're
- not. The second point that I would bring up, and it's really a question, and that is that for years
- now we have brought up
- the issue of public safety with respect from Grand, this is 10th Street, from Grandview all the way
- up to Russell Road, and those folks were familiar with that roadway over there. There is no shoulder,
- it's very narrow, there are no sidewalks, and because of the increased student population, because of
- the more apartment complexes, because of the church,
- which has now expanded exponentially in the school there and such it. And we have people walking along
- that roadway there pushing strollers. I've seen skateboards. I've seen all sorts of folks being exposed
- particularly when you go from Grandview going going east as you come over that hill. You cannot see
- people on the other side. So from an audit standpoint has this
- piece of roadway between Grandview up to Russell Road after hearing some of the concerns I've heard
- on the ones that you're actually talking about. Has that ever reached the level of an audit. No it has
- not really reached a level of audit on steward forty five to forty five from the bypass to Pete Ellis
- to up to Russell Road.
- There's not been an audit done on that even though we have had a fatality down now. They're now on the
- bottom of that hill there as you go up to these are these audits are selected on a statewide basis in
- relation to other corridors in the state. And so from a process standpoint to do we this body or you
- representing our as the MPO staff to see more do you get a chance to provide an input.
- Yeah, there may have been an audit done in the past because Russell Road down to the bypass is slated
- for projects. I mean, those projects are in the timeline. I don't think it would have made it to the
- point of being scheduled for federal, for state funding if there hadn't been a safety audit done at
- some point, but it was likely years ago.
- Okay so that the argument well the data point would be that if it's a scheduled project then an audit
- is not something you would normally do on a scheduled project. It is something you would do on a project
- before it gets to the point of being scheduled for funding. Yes. So there likely was a safety audit
- done at some point. I'm unaware. It just may not be in our memory of things. Okay. My point I'm making
- is is that the
- The project for the from essentially Pete Ellis all the way up to Russell Road has been pushed FY 31.
- I believe 32. I think that's 32. And so if you in fact had an audit that talked about an increased public
- safety requirement that would help facilitate hopefully moving that project to be completed in an earlier
- date that's my only point I'm making since that project has made it to the point of
- getting on the schedule for state funds then my point is there is likely already a safety audit that
- has been done for that entire stretch but I encourage you to if you want to submit I end up for you
- ticket to ask that's something you could do all right you've answered my question thank you great thank
- you very much are there any other questions on the reports from staff
- Okay, let's go ahead and move on then we don't have any old business on the agenda new business we have
- resolution FY 20 2701 proposed changes to the 2026 2030 BMC MPO tip Yes, we have some changes to make
- the tip the first is the addition of a new in dot projects two of them, although they are
- The general category is already in the tip, so we already have fiscal year funding for seven and eight
- in here for traffic signal modernizations at various locations in the Seymour district, but they are
- adding on some projections for 29 and 30 funding. Again, this is not specific to us yet, but there could
- be some of these projects for us in the future, and getting it in
- Our document helps speed up all of the approval processes in the future. Similarly the second amendment
- is we'd like to add to in dot projects for raised pavement markings at various locations in the Seymour
- district. Again this is already in the tip but this is an addition of
- funds for projected for fiscal year 29 and 30 this is also general category funding for the Seymour
- district, which is the district we're in and More specific allocations will be determined at later times
- Third we Were asked by in dot to update the
- Project for 446 between SR 45 and Morris Pike or s between SR 46 and Morris Pike So this is that north-south
- road that That has it's been in the tip for a while, but they have removed the HMA overlay portion of
- the project or they're proposing to remove it and
- they've changed the title to bicycle pedestrian facilities on SR 446. They've also had to move the right
- away phase out to 29 and the construction phase to 32. And this decision would have been just made based
- on their own prioritization and funding levels. This project we did have a discussion with the city county
- city folks county folks and in dot a year ago last April or so to discuss the pedestrian facility portion
- of this project and the city and county both advocate for a multi-use path. However the funding in does
- not fund they have specific ways that they categorize
- what they find and sidewalks in a specific with a specific with I think six feet or so is the max that
- they will find the only the only occasion when they will find something wider than that is if a multi
- use path happens to be cheaper than the sidewalk or if the local public agencies decide to help with
- the funding.
- So as of now it is it's it's just a sidewalk because there's not been any further discussions on that
- and there probably won't be since it's been pushed out a few years. The fourth change is to update the
- county's SR 37 and Dillman Road intersection improvement project. So after we moved this project to
- a new fiscal year and we moved the college and Walnut project.
- projected timeline to a different year. We reorganize the funding. You were with us through all of this
- and we ended up with hundred and twenty two thousand leftover after the exchanges that we did in left
- over in fiscal year twenty eight. And then we met with the county highway department and city of Bloomington
- engineering department.
- kind of because both of those LPAs had projects in fiscal year 28 that could use the funds and we ultimately
- have decided to propose to you that we give those funds to the 37 South and Dillman Road project. And
- so this update adds that hundred and twenty two thousand to the right away phase for this project.
- Thank you. I think that looks like that. Does anybody have any questions about any of these tip amendments.
- All right. Seeing none I think that that means that we need to go to public comment around this. I don't
- see any members of the public in the room. Are there any members of the public on zoom. There is one
- but he'll raise his hand if he has something.
- If the member of the public on zoom would like to comment on the tip amendments Now is the moment that
- you can raise your hand Using the raise hand option after the reactions tab Has there been a hand raised
- okay, great then we'll go ahead and close public comment and then return back to the committee if anybody
- has any comments Otherwise, I'll take a motion
- Would anybody like to move approval of a move approval of resolution FY twenty twenty seven dash one
- proposed changes to the FY twenty twenty six to twenty thirty MPO tip. Do I have a second. I'll second.
- Thank you so much. With a motion and a second we please call the roll on approval of resolution twenty
- twenty seven oh one.
- Yes Seaborg. Yes Warren. Yes Stasburg. Yes. Bannock. Yes. Thomas. Yes. Ridge. Yes. Kennedy. Yes. Wellings.
- Yes. Ferris. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you so much. Let's go ahead and move on to the second piece of
- new business resolution FY 20 27 0 2.
- Okay, the resolution is on page 32 and 33. On page 34, beginning of page 34 is a memorandum from the
- staff concerning the national performance safety targets required by the Indiana Department of Transportation
- for the Federal Highway Administration. These are for calendar year 2027 performance targets. This is
- part of the National Transportation Performance Management System.
- Required as a strategic approach for using system data to make informed investment and policy decisions
- to achieve goals established by the Congress the targets the Measures performance measures which we
- identify as targets. They identify as targets also include the number of fatalities the rate of fatalities
- per 100 million vehicle miles traveled and
- number of serious injuries the rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled the number
- of non motorized fatalities and no non motorized serious injuries going down into well they use a five
- year rolling average. I'll go into the details of the data the statistics here in just a minute. We
- use our five year rolling average to come to these numbers. State of Indiana's calendar year 2027.
- performance targets include fatalities at seven hundred seventy seven the rate of fatalities at zero
- point nine seven per one hundred million vehicle miles traveled number of serious injuries two thousand
- nine hundred the rate of serious injuries for one hundred million vehicle miles traveled three point
- six two and the number of non motorized fatalities and serious injuries equals four hundred and fifty
- three. Now this reflects a
- two percent straight line reduction as published in the Indiana State Highway Safety Plan in twenty
- twenty two the baseline. I'll go down to the to the graphs here. My mouse works OK go down to the graphs
- the data I'm sorry the first year.
- I'm going to do a deep dive on all of this so that way all of you understand exactly how the numbers
- come about because there have been questions in previous years about how did they derive the numbers
- that they achieved or the targets they hope to achieve. First table there is the state of Indiana fatal
- and serious injury crash data from 2014 to 2025. You can see the fatalities were at seven hundred and
- forty five.
- back in 2014 and in 2025 there were eight hundred and forty four. Now the volume on that is per hundred
- million vehicle miles traveled seven ninety one point seven one back in 2014 up to nine ninety seven
- oh two in calendar year 2025. If you adjust that for the fatality rate in other words what your what
- your volume is for the number of fatalities you can see it was zero point nine four one.
- back in 2014 and then in recent years in twenty twenty four zero point eight seven six and in twenty
- twenty five zero point eight four seven serious injuries. There's no there's been no definitional change
- on fatalities fatality as a fatality but on serious injuries there's been a series of definitional changes
- on what constitutes serious injury.
- Prior years, serious injury was determined by the officer completing the report in the field itself.
- If he determined that he or she determined that somebody was seriously injured, it was marked as thus.
- And then in more recent years, it was if they required a transport to a medical facility or a hospital,
- that was classified as a serious injury. And then the definitional change came about
- just in recent year and that is much more specific. I won't go into the detail on what that is but we're
- looking at serious injuries what the definition is definition was was three different factors. But anyway
- going back to 2014 33 3338 and then in 2025 looking at four thousand four hundred ninety eight.
- Serious injury rate there four point two one five in twenty fourteen four point five one one in twenty
- twenty five non motorized fatalities and serious injuries. These are the total for the state of Indiana
- in twenty fourteen through twenty twenty five point sixty one in twenty fourteen five hundred nineteen
- in twenty twenty five.
- The non motorized fatalities these are pedestrians and bicycles and then I was informed yesterday that
- this also includes buggies or strong buggies. It has to be a vehicle vehicle to a non motorized type
- type of movement. In other words a pedestrian pedestrian or a scooter to a pedestrian or a bicycle put
- to a pedestrian doesn't qualify in these statistics.
- You can see the non motorized went from 90 back in 2014 126 in 2025 non motorized serious injuries.
- Again this is subject to the caveat of what is a serious injury. It's been a moving definition from
- 2014 371 to 393. Then if you go to the next table.
- You're looking at this as a five year rolling average five years what I would call data smoothing. This
- is a statistical methodology required by Congress through Congress and the Federal Highway Administration.
- You look at the 2014 to 2018 fatalities eight hundred and thirty three point four and then adjusted
- for a VMT.
- is eight hundred and seven point eight two but then if you look at twenty twenty one twenty twenty five
- eight hundred ninety six fatalities and that's adjusted to eight point nine one point one for the volumes
- the rate of fatalities then is one point zero three in twenty fourteen twenty eighteen one point one
- eight slight rise in twenty twenty one to twenty twenty five serious injuries thirty three seventy five
- in the smoothing there from 2014 to 2018 up to four thousand and twenty six in twenty twenty one twenty
- twenty five. Same goes for the rate of serious injuries four point one. I'm sorry. Four thousand one
- hundred oh yeah. Okay.
- Got an extra decimal point an extra number in there that should only be three digits out four point
- one seven nine and then that's supposed to be four thousand five hundred ninety five and then the rate
- of serious injuries from that then boiling that down to the next table the final table. This is where
- we get I affectionately call where we get the
- the actual goals of the county calendar year 2021 was the baseline volume here for fatalities eight
- hundred and eighty three the rate of fatalities one point one zero two serious injuries three thousand
- two hundred ninety five serious injury rate four point one one and then the non motorized fatalities
- and serious injuries five one four point four and then applying the two percent reduction in
- You probably will ask why 2 percent. Why not 5 1 on 10 1 on 50. Well the 2 percent is achievable.
- So the 2.2 percent was the adopted rate for calendar year 20 22 20 23 24 25 and 26. You can see how
- it performs. There's been a drop in the fatalities from 20 23 4 5
- And then in six in terms of the targets then you look at the serious injury rates. There's also been
- a subsequent drop there to the non motorized and serious injuries. You'll see that that one is actually
- dropped also. And then the targets which are in the memo in our staff memo reflect the current current
- targets that the Department of Transportation has that they will turn in.
- to the Federal Highway Administration the end of this month seven hundred seventy seven fatalities zero
- point nine six nine. The rate two thousand eight hundred ninety nine rounded up to twenty nine hundred
- for the serious injuries. The rate there is three point six one and then four hundred and fifty two
- point well actually four hundred and fifty three is what it will round up to.
- And that's a lot of data but I wanted to show you exactly how this came about. So that way you get an
- understanding of the process. I'll be happy to answer any questions anyone may have. Thank you. Does
- anybody have any questions. I just make more of a comment than a question but at the TAC level on Wednesday
- we saw this exact same presentation that Pat just provided and I
- I think it's fair to say that we always struggle with this. The rate of fatalities and we understand
- what in doubt is presenting here and we also understand that these are maximum numbers. But I think
- it's pretty safe to say that it's sobering to see these numbers and being asked to approve these every
- year kind of makes us talk a little bit at the TAC level about just overall goals and safety and
- I think, ideally, we at the TAC would like to see a zero fatality rate. And that's something that, although,
- again, this is constrained by NDOT, and this is, you know, they have their own limitations here as well.
- And they're certainly looking at safety as a priority. But I think we felt comfortable in saying that,
- you know, we could accept these numbers.
- We'd like to put a asterisk or disclaimer or however we wanted to note that here that we should have
- zero. And so really kind of the crash targets and fatalities really should be that that should be the
- target. So T.A.C. came up with some some draft language and we'd like to offer that as maybe some good
- language to have here at the policy committee as well.
- like to add to the Indiana fatality crash profile from twenty twenty one to twenty twenty five fatalities
- predominantly on rural in rural sections predominantly on local routes predominantly they involve roadway
- departure. In other words the vehicle went airborne which indicates excessive speed. They typically
- are a younger driver somewhere under the age of 26.
- And also it also involves passenger vehicles not commercial vehicles the typical serious injury for
- the same crash profile for twenty twenty one twenty twenty five predominantly urban again local routes
- predominantly turning or ankle movements and roadway departures youngest drivers youngest drivers meaning
- somebody under the age of 30 or so and typically passenger vehicles again.
- So these are the Department of Transportation has a limitation on what they can do with the state route
- if the issues are on a local level. And the city of Bloomington has an adopted division zero goal which
- was in the safe roads and streets for all plan adopted in December of twenty twenty four. State of Indiana
- does not have a vision zero but they have a goal towards zero quote unquote
- which is used by somewhere around 22 to 25 different states. Nate would you like to share the proposed
- language from the T.A.C. And I think you just had it up there. There we go. Right here is disclaimer.
- You want me to read it Hopi. Well I think that it would be good maybe to read it and yes just in case
- somebody watching this afterwards that doesn't have access to the screen fatalities and serious injuries
- that result from crashes on public streets can and should be prevented. The TAC believes that zero fatalities
- and zero serious injuries is a more appropriate goal or target for in dot and MPOs to pursue.
- However, the TAC understands that in dot safety target declaration numbers are intended to convey only
- an incremental change towards safer streets and not an ultimate goal. Furthermore, the TAC understands
- that these safety performance targets primarily affect distribution of federal funding and would not
- be used to justify fatal or serious injury crashes as acceptable.
- As such the TAC recommends that the MPO policy committee approve the in dot safety performance targets.
- Thank you. Are there other comments or questions or follow ups to that. Mr Seymour I just I.
- I appreciate the more detailed presentation. I know every year like Mr. Nickle presented this is an
- awkward topic to be reviewing and discussing. I think in the past in my mind ideally I appreciate MPO
- staff are presenting this. Ultimately this is coming from in that though and in my ideal world in that
- somebody from in that safety would be here presenting this. So maybe we could get more into the in-depth
- questions. But this is me just leading to maybe an observation that I'm having
- A part of me wishes, of course, for a better or more reduction in these types of crashes, but as you
- see in these charts over time, INDOT's numbers are incrementally changing over the years, and it does
- become relatively significant, and so while their goals continue to decrease, the observation I have
- is that the actual numbers are not, and so the discrepancy continues to grow,
- And so I appreciate that their goals and targets are decreasing, but the observation I'm having and
- just wanting to reflect on is that the actual crashes are not. And so just ultimately my question to
- INDOT or to others is, what are we going to do to try to actually achieve these goals? And that is more
- just not something directed to anybody at this meeting.
- Thank you. Any other thoughts on this? Did we lose Lisa online? No, I just got her out of the way. OK,
- that's fine. I just wanted to I just wanted to make sure if she had a hand up for anything that I was
- acknowledging her. I have kind of a similar comment that I'll go ahead and make based on Mr. Seaborg's
- comment that I
- What I heard you say was that in that was meeting their targets in 22 23 24 et cetera based on the baseline.
- But what I see in the chart above that of the five year rolling average fatalities and serious injuries
- the not only are the numbers increasing overall but the rate of serious injury is also increasing as
- is the rate of fatality based on volume.
- So I was a little confused at how they could actually be meeting their targets if their overall rates
- are actually increasing not decreasing under the current legislation. They must meet their targets 22
- 23 24 25 and 26. They've met the targets in two out of the four years so far.
- We have a five year period here currently right now. They met the targets in two of the years and the
- jury is still out for calendar year twenty twenty six. The fatality rate the fatalities have actually
- gone down. The serious injuries have gone up and going back to what I'd previously said this isn't the
- Indiana Department of Transportation. They're happening on a local level.
- outside of the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation. So if they fail to meet three out of
- the five years they fail to meet three out of the five years there'll be a reassignment of funding to
- Highway Safety Improvement Program projects won't be any net loss of funding but it'll be a reassignment
- to HSIP type projects.
- You know in in dot has only a certain amount of control over this because it's the entire state. But
- if if the issues the fatalities are happening on the local level and serious injuries are happening
- on the local level I'm not sure what can be done on that with respect to that other than shifting additional
- safety funds to a local level. I hope that answers your question. Well no I guess I'm still a little
- confused because
- Mean we have a couple different charts here one is the actual year-over-year data and one is the five-year
- rolling average data and so I'm looking at the at the rolling average data and Not Like seeing decreases
- particularly but the individual years sometimes there are decreases and sometimes there are increases
- so is it that I
- Decide that compliance. We're looking at the single year. No, we're looking at For compliance, it would
- be calendar baseline. The baseline is calendar year 2021 Okay, so it is looking at the yeah the last
- year the last chart Yeah, the baseline is calendar year 2021
- So the real target years are twenty two twenty three twenty four twenty five. Okay. As individual years.
- Yes. Okay. Okay. As individual years and then that will be thrown into a rolling average. Okay. Once
- those are over with the rolling average could be somewhat confusing in that you could conflate that
- with current and it's it's really to just show performance more than anything else over time.
- And again that definition of what's a serious injury has been fungible over the last three times three
- times it's been fungible ever since 2014 Mr. Horn You mentioned that a portion of these statistics fall
- within a local
- jurisdiction outside of the state's control Do we know in our MPO district how we are contributing to
- that? That sub statistic of local numbers Yes, we've got that data. I don't are we helpful or hurtful
- Well fatalities are extremely rare
- So it's almost like a lightning bolt coming down as an act of God. That's that's good news. So however
- we investigate all of those aggressively immediately to examine is there a causal factor there that
- in the road performance or operation or whatever serious injuries. I believe those are down but I don't
- have I mean that's something we don't have at our fingertips right now.
- But but that's something that that has a body and as participants various entities can work on yes to
- to help meet the goals as Suggested by the technical advisory committee Yeah, I I know the city this
- county in the city Have been very aggressive whether the balance of some of the other counties
- and communities in Indiana which have
- what I would call fiscal challenges or professional service challenges. In other words they don't have
- the engineering staff. That's a different story particularly in the rural areas urban areas. It's it's
- very aggressive. That's really helpful. Thank you. I don't know if you were here a couple of meetings
- ago. We provided some some crash data. I missed me. I did miss me.
- It's showing up here, but it's also linked on our website. If you wanna go to the crash data page, there's
- a memo where you can see, or look in the previous packet, you can see the summary of 2025 crash data,
- as well as some of the past trends. Fatalities have increased. However, within our, the MPO area,
- Where did it go. Okay so 10 out of the 14 total crashes in 2025 that resulted in a fatal war within
- the MPOs metropolitan planning area.
- 43 out of 62 of the total crashes resulting in serious injuries were within the metropolitan planning
- area Thank you, I also did actually Let me just add one thing somebody did mention at that meeting they
- requested that we break that down by State Road by owner of the road
- in particular local versus state because that is very relevant information as well. So we hope to provide
- more information in the future. But if you want to take a look at this memo it's got some interesting
- things in it. Thank you. I also like I was reading through this going didn't we already do this this
- year. And maybe it was this year or maybe it was last year. But I recalled that there were a couple
- of meetings that we got significant data
- And that was all earlier this year. Great. There was a meeting over in McCloskey that there was a lot
- of data presented that around our own crashes and I'm just going to express gratitude right now to our
- staff who got that together to be able to detail that. It's not just this packet there was a there was
- a whole nother packet I think that had additional information in it.
- But to your point, Doug, I think the more specific tracking of our crash data would be essential for
- determining tip funding in the future. Yes. All right. Any other questions, comments? All right. So
- at this stage,
- I guess I'm looking for a motion of approval or I guess the other piece is if anybody wants to add in
- any additional language similar to what the TAC added in to their recommendation for approval and what folks
- thoughts are on that. I feel like I remember adding in language last time we did this, and I can't quite
- remember exactly what it was. I don't know if anybody else has a better memory than I do. I do have
- that. I can bring it up in a minute if you want. I think that that would be great. You have the language
- that we kind of like added in last time.
- Last time last year we said I moved to approve the state's targets as presented and strive locally to
- exceed these targets. Over the next year I moved that the NPO pursue planning area goals related to
- serious injury and fatality crashes to work toward a goal of zero serious injury and fatal crashes.
- And when was that.
- January of this year. Okay, I thought that it was this year. I'm like am I imagining that was like this
- year's been really long Okay, and we're already doing this again. Are we just ahead this year or were
- we behind last year way ahead? What we're way ahead this year. Okay, we have It's mandatory that we
- we adopt these by February of every year and it depends on what the workload is and when they get us
- the numbers the numbers were
- what I call modified last year. They gave us the numbers in August of last year. They always give us
- the numbers in August and then sometimes they modify them sometimes they don't. And we're taking the
- well we're taking the guess that they're not going to modify them this year. So we're talking to them
- now in August and therefore we don't have to wait until January February for adoption. OK. OK. So we're
- still kind of within that.
- over the next year pursuing toward area goals and it sounds like you guys are continuing to do that.
- Yes. Great. Thank you. So do we have any kind of a motion around this resolution. Don't everybody talk at once.
- I taught high schoolers so I can just sit here for a while. We are ahead on this right now. We could
- also motion to postpone continuation of this until next month if we want to consider our options on
- what kind of emotion we would like to have this year. I'd also be open to that sort of emotion.
- And I just remembered that while you all are thinking about that we can go to public comment. There
- is still no public commenters in the room but if we still have the member of the public online if they
- would like to comment at all on resolution 20 27 0 2 regarding the Indiana Department of Transportation
- safety performance targets now would be the moment that they can raise their hand. Do we have a hand raised.
- hoping maybe that would give you guys more time to think about what kind of motion but We are back to
- Mr. Seaborg, I'm I'm probably like everybody struggling with this a part of me feels I want to say I
- don't know how much what we say if we add anything it will make a meaningful difference, so I'm just
- and and I ultimately reflecting that our
- CAC and TAC ultimately did recommend that we support this So I'm going to make a motion to do that I
- also if somebody feels Strong opinions. Otherwise, like it could be deferred We could add an extra therefore
- statement if somebody wanted to develop that for a future meeting, but just for the sake of time
- And for discussion purposes I move the MPO resolution FY 20 27-02 adoption I move approval of this state
- of Indiana DOT calendar year 20 27 safety performance targets Thank you, is there a second I'll second
- Okay, I'll give that second to mr. Horne I guess I
- So there's a motion and a second on the table to adopt as is. So this is the moment if somebody would
- like to potentially add an extra clause or whatnot. This is the moment where you should speak to that.
- Otherwise we'll do a vote. This might be an opportunity we could potentially even if we feel like this
- would be appropriate we could just literally take the TAC
- language and basically include this with our adoption if everyone feels comfortable with that I'm not
- sure how it would how it would float with the state to just take the exact language because it specifically
- says TAC in there and if we do want to take some language I guess like I would personally prefer given the time
- To postpone this until next month and then actually come prepared with Similar language to the TAC if
- that's what is desired Can there be a straw poll right now like how many people would desire that versus
- just doing the straight approval because we have to do this vote I don't want to lose quorum right now
- I made the motion
- Would welcome tabling it or potentially even just adding this as one of the therefore statements and
- replacing the term TAC with BMC MPO policy committee And including that within this I don't have a strong
- enough, but I'm open to any and all of those things If that's the only thing holding us back as to language,
- I think we're all in agreement the
- The intent here so we can maybe wordsmith this quickly and if everyone feels comfortable with the language
- we can proceed if not, I don't think we're under a time crunch. So if we did punt this the next month,
- I don't think that's a concern. Okay, I just saw Katie is making some quick amendments on the fly. It now reads
- Fatalities and serious injuries that result from crashes on public streets can and should be prevented
- the BMC MPO policy committee believes that zero Fatalities and zero serious injuries is a more appropriate
- goal or target for in dot and MPOs to pursue However, the BMC MPO policy committee understands that
- in dot safety target declaration numbers are intended to convey only an incremental change towards safer
- streets and not an ultimate goal furthermore the BMC
- MPO Policy Committee understands that these safety performance targets primarily affect distribution
- of federal funding and would not be used to justify fatal or serious injury crashes crashes as acceptable
- as such the BMC MPO Policy Committee approves the in dot safety. Can we scroll up? In dot safety performance
- targets calendar year
- calendar year 2027 in dot safety performance targets, mr. Seabor would you receive that as a friendly
- amendment to your original amendment to Approve I I do is that it would be an additional therefore statement
- within the resolution Is that a good enough motion for staff? Mr. Horne, you seconded that. Yes. Okay.
- Wonderful. Are there any comments around this? I
- Great let's go ahead and vote then on resolution twenty twenty seven oh two as mended through the statement
- that I just read which is the TAC statement slightly modified for the for our body. We please call the
- vote. Seaborg. Yes. Horn. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Bannock. Yes. Ridge. Yes.
- Yes. Kennedy. Yes. Ferris. Yes. Wellings. Motion passes. Great. Thank you so much. That wraps up new
- business. We are on to public comment. That member of the public is still online. Now is the moment
- for you to raise your hand and have some minutes to speak on something that was not on the agenda.
- Has a hand been raised. OK. Moving on then communications from committee members on non voting matters
- not included on the agenda. Does anybody have anything. Seeing none upcoming meetings we have the
- Technical Advisory Committee meeting on August 26th at 10 a.m We have the Citizens Advisory Committee
- meeting also meeting that same day at 5 30 p.m And then our next policy committee meeting is August
- 28th at 10 30 and if there are no other announcements We are adjourned. Thank you