Dealer Expo returning to Indianapolis through 2016

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Massive powersports trade show Dealer Expo has committed to keep its annual event in Indianapolis through at least 2016—extending its stay by five years.

Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Association officials announced the deal Monday morning, attributing the score to recent investments in Lucas Oil Stadium, a Indiana Convention Center expansion, and construction of the JW Marriott hotel complex downtown.

“Indianapolis will be an even stronger city host to Dealer Expo over the next five years,” Danny Phillips, executive vice president of trade show owner Advanstar Communications, said in a prepared statement.

Dealer Expo is one of the biggest events held in Indianapolis and among the top 100 conventions in the country. It draws about 36,000 attendees each year, generating more than $20 million in direct visitor spending.

While size matters in the case of Dealer Expo, so does timing. The show, which features motorcycle, ATV, personal watercraft and snowmobile products, is held in February—traditionally a slow month for cold-weather locations like Indianapolis.

The Circle City has bucked that trend, however, in part because of Dealer Expo’s 13-years-and-counting commitment. With the extension beyond next year, Indianapolis’ February 2012 convention calendar is full, ICVA said.

“Because of our climate-controlled skywalk system and connected facilities, cold-weather months continue to produce major convention bookings for Indianapolis,” said CEO Don Welsh.

After the 2012 Super Bowl, the city will host three major conventions: Dealer Expo, Pumper & Cleaner Environmental Expo, and the National Truck Equipment Association’s annual gathering. 


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!