Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Area Study • Mike Hollibaugh July 10, 1997 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to assist the Cities of Cannel and Indianapolis in conducting this study. We look forward to other opportunities to be of service in the future. Very truly yours, B TB CORPORATION )131441. 714)-&14-- John W. Myers, P.E., AICP, Project Manager cc: Mike Peoni, Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development I . . ~.....,..>> ;. ..... .... .... .. . ,_. .' .~. . . . ~ LriAleaSll.O/ 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard Base Conditions Transportation System The first task undertaken in this study was the assembly of existing transportation data for the roadway network in the study area. Existing transportation data and infonnation was collected from many sources including: the CanneUClay Township Thoroughfare Plan, the Indianapolis Transportation Monitoring System (TMS), the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Plan, Indianapolis Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian System Plan, and the Hamilton County Alternative Transportation (HCA 1) Plan. The focus of the study is the 96lh Street and Westfield Boulevard intersection. Affected roadways include 96lh Street east and west of Westfield Boulevard, Westfield Boulevard north and south of 96th Street, Real Street west of Westfield Boulevard, and Interstate 465 west of Westfield Boulevard. Existing characteristics of each roadway are discussed below. 96th Street is a two-lane roadway within the study area. To the east, between Westfield Boulevard and Keystone Avenue, 96th Street serves approximately 10,000 vehicles per day. To the west, between Real Street and College Avenue, 96lh Street serves approximately 5,000 vehicles per day. East of Keystone Avenue, 96lh Street is four lanes wide; west of College Avenue, it is a three-lane roadway. Since it fonns the boundary between Marion and Hamilton County, it is shown on both Indianapolis and Cannel-Clay Thoroughfare Plans. Both transportation plans indicate 96lh Street as a secondary arterial. Westfield Boulevard is a two-lane roadway within the study area. The name changes to Range Une Road in Cannel and Hamilton County, but in the interest of simplicity, it is referred to as Westfield Boulevard throughout this study. Westfield Boulevard serves about 15,000 vehicles per day within the study area. It is shown as a secondary arterial on both the Indianapolis and Carmel-Clay Thoroughfare Plans. The CarmeUClay Thoroughfare Plan and the Hamilton County Thoroughfare Plan suggest the ultimate widening of Westfield Boulevard to four lanes as a primary arterial. Real Street is a two-lane roadway segment connecting 96lh Street (west) to Westfield Boulevard. It was created when Interstate 465 was constructed. It is a minor arterial serving approximately 5,000 vehicles per day. Interstate 465 is a 6-lane freeway serving approximately 95,000 vehicles per day within the study area. It is elevated on fill in the vicinity of the Monon Corridor bridge, with a gradual downslope to the bridge opening under Westfield Boulevard. The high elevation of 1-465 west of Westfield Boulevard is one of the many factors to consider in evaluating a new 96th Street connection. 3 ~".. : ..~. HI,-' , , .',-,' .,' I' -t... n~...',' - 0". ... ... ..- ,., ','-' ~it1IAIea SII&Iy 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard intersection. Medium density residential is shown west of the MononCotTidor where several apartment complexes exist This is the most intense residential use existing in the study area as designated by the Washington Township Land Use Plan. Transportation Options 9P Sbeet Alignment Altematives Six alternatives for changes in the 96th Street alignment are evaluated in this study. These alternatives evolved from past area studies, staff input, and suggestions from citizens. These options represent realistic alternatives for which costs and benefits are to be considered. 1. Modified ExistinQ This option considers the application of traffic engineering solutions at the existing intersection of seih Street and Westfield Boulevard. This alternative would modify Westfield Boulevard to maintain a northbound left turn (ane at Real Street and provide a northbound right turn lane at 96th Street The existing Westfield Boulevard bridge over Interstate 465 would be widened under this alternative. (See Figure 2)- 2. liS. -Curve This option involves the construction of an "S. shaped roadway underneath Interstate 465, utilizing the abandoned Monon Corridor underpass. This alternative has been suggested in past studies by Hamilton County. (See Figure 3) 3. Modified "S" -Curve This option is a modified version of Alternative 2, with better roadway geometry. This option would require reconstruction of two 1-465 bridge structures in order to aUow the new roadway to pass under the interstate at a safe traveling angle. (See Figure 4) 4. 96th Street Bridee This option involves the construction of a new bridge across and over 1-465 directly connecting 96th Street from both sides. (See Figure 5) 5. 96th Street 8ridae "Skewed. This option is a modified version of Alternative 4 presenting a similar newly constructed bridge which is skewed at an angle to reduce the total size of the needed structure. (See Figure 6) 6. 96th to 101st Street Connector Road This option involves the construction of a new roadway which connects the intersectionaf 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard with College Avenue at or near 101st Street This route might ultimately connect with Pennsylvania Parkway parallel to U.S. 31 in Cannel. (See Figure 7) 7 II I I I ;.1 L. : I . i ~- C\J LU a: :J CJ - u.. I II II ~ f;i i< .......lIJ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~8 ~~ --~._r-~~ ~ en l CD c: CO - ~ <D -I W \.,.. .... () -0 :a CO :J .~ 0 .5 CD u .x \.- ~ 1...- u.. Q) ::J 0 :J co en 0- >- CO t- '+0- <D u ..........., : "- Ol 0 ~ ...... z 0 (]) C 0 .... en 0) 5 < 0 <J) ::: k 0 ....... en en <D c: ~ r, 0- L() z .x > c ,,) L() C\J CD <D Q) 0 0 :. - -0 OJ cry <' (:fT C\J ~ -0 .~ z -?C -0 z CD 3 <D > :r: > . ..:.- (]) a.. '+- 0 QUU'OIID INf. CfJ r- a: -0 ~ 0) ~ r- CJ LU 0 0.. -0 B en en E \.- Z ~ en ~ 0 CD a: LU t- o 0 w ......J ~ r.n d ~ 0 ~ ~I I I I i f -:.: t - :: .1 I., II f I / , ~\ If............ .~~ f. . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ... · · .lI':''''''''. --.--.---, · · · ..! :................,.......... . i I < k C) g e..,.,,'''''' AW t .1 f i cr) w a: :J CJ - u.. I '11 I; l\J Q) - ~~ E:::s ~9 -""'-<.1) ~== (IJ en c: co 0 Q. :;::: \... <.) <D :::J C -a ..... ~ ~ 0 c: +-' .- ::J en ~ c CJ .- ~ -a ..... 0 u. CO 0 OJ 0 >- .- f'.. CD ...c:: OJ a Q. .... ........ (\J en -a 01 a f8- .~ 1:J ~ C -i:: . ..Q ~ en Cf) 01 -0 CD Z -00 \",.. ~ 0 c CD co " co 0 -0 1:J CD ; -1 C C z ~ ...c:: co 3 ~ ~ ....... en 0- > en 1:J ~ . . a: E I -- en .c 0 :;j W a r- 0 :J > a- t;/) <( 0 en Cf) a: C'j ... CO UJ 0 :! (J 0 en a ~ 0 ~ C) il n I ) . .............., ,0 .. . f'-- LU a: :J CJ LL. i I j . i I ~ Cc 00 == :.= -- -- -- ~~ C\l0) - . Cf')Cf') -Et3- -Et3- >. CO ~ ~ ~ .. CO go.. Ceo <D.- >C <(~ Q)~ O)cn <D C =c:: Om Uo.. 00 ...... ......... ....... ......... <D m CD Q) l... \... ....... ......., (f)CIJ CfJ..c...c. 1--............. CfJ<D(Q omO) U Q ~ a:: (Qg: ~~ ~~ E~ ~~ :;q:a en <l) \- ::J ......, U :J \- ........ (j') Q.) 0) -a -;:: ..Q -a .... w (1) ~ <D ~ (J (J -a ~ -> 0 en ~ ~ E -a G (]) ~ ...... en l... co Z 0 -a 0 "+- ~ 0 c ......... ~ co ~ <D en ....... OJ CD CJ) a:: Q) C 0 "+- ....... (f) > c ~ z 0 Z <D 0 (]) ~ 0 C \.- 0 ~ C\J -a ::J a.. Cf') ~ CD en 0 ~ en Q) ~ en ::i > co .- 0 I ::J ..... Q. a: <D OJ 0 I-- rr a: LU ~ OJ t- CJ 0 CD w (f) c a: ~ ~ Z CI'J CO I LU 0 -l ~ ~1Jff=~ ~ ~An!8S1udy 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard The estimated cost of this alternative ($800,000) is higher than most intersection improvements due to the need to widen the bridge over 1-465. Nevertheless, thislevef of expenditure (or more) is necessary if thelevet of seMce at the 9611 and Westfield Boulevard intersection is to be maintained or improved. In the absence of other system improvements, it is recommended that traffic engineering improvements of Altemative 1 be implemented. Alternatives 2 through 5 use different paths to provide a direct connection for 96th Street east and west of Westfietd Boulevard. Altematives 2 and 3 pass under Interstate 465 at the Monon underpass. Altematives 4 and 5 pass over Interstate 465. Altemative 2 is the least expensive altemative ($2.1 million for a 4-tane roadway). Studies by Hamilton County have shown that 96th Street could be connected by means of an "S.' curve with the north-south portion passing through the existing Monon Conidor bridge under 1-465. Those studies also showed that it would be possible for this roadway to coexist with an extension of the Monon Trail through the same opening. The geometric characteristics of this alignment would be less than desirable for an arterial roadway. Lanes would need to be less than standard width through the underpass and the sharp curves approaching from each direction would limit the design speed to 30 miles per hour. Although it would meet the base objective of connecting 96th Street, Altemative 2 is not recommended for implementation. The sharp 30-mile per hour curves ending in an outside wall (the bridge) from each direction would constitute a public safety hazard which is inappropriate for an arterial roadway. Altemative 3 would "straighten>> the S-curve of Alternative 2 by enlarging the existing Monon Corridor bridge opening under 1-465. Due to the high cost of modifying bridges on this six- lane interstate highway. this would be the most expensive alternative ($6.9 million for 4 lanes). In the absence of dear benefit over Altematives4 and 5, Alternative 3 is not recommended. Alternatives 4 and 5 extend 96th Street over 1-465. Alternative 4 utilizes a straight alignment whereas the roadway is curved to provide a more favorable angle of crossing under Altemative 5. Although either alternative would meet the objective of connecting 96th Street, the cost of implementing Alternative 4 would be significanUy higher than Alternative 3 ($4.5 million versus $3.3 mHOon, respectively for a 4-lane roadway). Therefore, Alternative 4 is not recommended. Altemative 6 represents a different concept than the other altematives. West of Westfield Boulevard, 96th Street would remain unchanged. A new roadway connection would be constructed north of and parallel to 1-465 to connect 96th Street (east of Westfield Boulevard) with College Avenue at or near 101st Street This route could ultimately be linked with Pennsylvania Parkway to serve office buildings along the east side of the Meridian Conidor in Cannel. This alternative is different in terms of its potential regional traffic effects and its impact on established neighborhoods outside this study area. It would provide a new major arterial to connect commercial concentrations of northeast Indianapolis with the Meridian Corridor of Carmel. ~ ".~-I'-= ~. ~An!raSll.O/ 96th Street andWestffeld Boulevard Gen<<ated Trips Trip generation estimates are used to evaluate the direct effects of land use decisions on the transportation network. The trip generation of each Iand-use scenario of this study is induded in the table below. Table 1 · Trip Generation Regional Office Park 500,000 Square Feet IN OUT TOTAL Daily 2,855 2,855 5,710 AM Peak 819 101 920 PM Peak 113 642 755 Neighborhood Conmercial Center 100,000 Square Feet Pass-By Percentage = 30% TOTAL f r IN OUT TOTAL Daily 3,534 3,534 7,068 AM Peak 102 60 162 PM Peak 328 328 656 NON PASS-BY IN OUT TOTAL Daily 2,474 2,474 .,948 AM Peak 71 42 113 PM Peak 230 230 459 Residential Development (12 units/acre) 80 aaes == 960 units !-" .: IN OUT TOTAL Daily 4,584 4,584 9,168 AM Peak 160 454 614 PM Peak 568 306 874 Residential Development (3 units/acre) 80 aaes :I 240 units IN OUT TOTAL Daily 1,146 1,146 2,292 AM Peak 46 132 178 PM Peak 157 85 242 17 ~~ Sp& ~AlSlSII.ay 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard Land UseI Traffic Service Review In order to relate land use decisions with thoroughfare needs, traffic was estimated for a vacant site and for the four land use scenarios desaibed previously. Planning leveJ capacity analyses was conducted at the gadl StreetIWestfietd Boujevard intersection under each scenario. For the purpose of this analysis, the "Modified Existing" alternative (Alternative 1) was assumed to be in place for the service levels shown for the year 2015. The results are shown on the foUowing table. Vacant Under Capacity Under Capacity Near Capacity Residential - 3 units/acre Near Capacity Under Capacity Near Capacity Neighborhood Near Capacity Under Capacity Over Capacity Commercial Residential · 12 units/acre Over Capacity Near Capacity OverCapacity Regional Office OverCapacity Near Capacity Over Capacity Note: Modified Existing assumes the addition of a northbound right turn lane on Westfield Boulevard at 96th Street. As indicated in the table, the 96" Street and Westfield Boulevard intersection is predicted to be near capacity by the year 2015 due to background traffic growth. In terms of land use, all but the 12 unit per acre residential use would cause the intersection to operate over capacity. With the more intense land uses, volumes on Westfield Boulevard woufd be in the range of 18,000 to 24,000, indicating a need for widening Westfield Boulevard to four lanes. Preliminary studies indicate that the higher density development altematives could operate satisfactorily only if Westfield Boulevard was widened to four or more lanes, or if 96th Street were extended west as a 4-lane arterial to College Avenue (Alternative 6). The CarmeVClay Thoroughfare Plan and the Hamilton County Thoroughfare Plan suggest the ultimate widening at Westfield Boulevard to four lanes. In addition, the Hamilton County Thoroughfare Plan suggests the extension of 96th Street west from Westfield Boulevard under the Monon right-of-way. The extension of 96'" Street from College to Westfield is noted in the Hamilton County Five Year Plan as '0 be determined" with no fiunding assigned. There are no plans to widen 96th Street between Keystone and Westfield. To maintain acceptable sefYice levels, developments of more than 3 residential units per acre (or equivalent in trips generated) should not be considered for this site. 18 ~ . _,,-0. .,..' "__ ~ ~AleaStudy 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard Public Participation PubIc Meeting Process Three public meetings are induded in the study process to provide opportunities for comment by interested citizens and groups. At the first meeting, held March 6, 1997 at Orchard Pari< Elementary School, the study was desaibed and the public was asked to identify potential issues and provide initial input At the second meeting. held as part of the Nora Community Council meeting on April 3, 1997, the results of the altematives analysis were presented and preliminary recommendations were discussed. A third public meeting. held May 21, 1997 at Orchard Park Elementary School, comments on this draft report. Public Issues and Concerns Over 100 people attended the public meetings to discuss this project, indicating a high degree of interest by local citizens. Appendix A includes two memoranda which list some of the main points made at the meetings. A majority of the comments related to maintaining the residential character of the 96th Street corridor. Quality of life for residents was identified as an overriding issue. Concerns were also expressed about maintaining options for development at the Monon Trail through the study area. All of the questions and comments mentioned at the meetings and listed in Appendix A were considered in the preparation of this report. whether or not they are specifically addressed in text form. The overriding condusion is that residents want to maintain the residential character of the area, as reflected in current Comprehensive Plans, and would prefer to make roadway changes only to the extent necessary to address local needs. These views are considered in the recommendations of this report. To illustrate the depth of concern about maintaining the residential character of the 96lh Street corridor west of Keystone Avenue, a petition isinctuded as Appendix B. This petition, signed by over 400 local residents, urges the CarmeVClay P'an Commission to take actions to see that areas fronting 96th Street west of Meridian Street are residential in character. Conclusions and Recommendations 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard are part of the regional transportation natvvort< and fall under jurisdiction of several different agencies. Neither the widening of Westfield Boulevard or the extension of 96th Street to College Avenue are included in the current improvement programs of, the Indianapolis Region or CarmeUClay Township. The extension of 961h Street from College to Westfield is noted in the Hamilton County Five Year Plan as "to be determined" with no flund'ing assigned. 19 ~p~j ~UAleaSludy 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard Based on the analysis in this study, although certain movements experiencesignmcant delay the intersection of 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard will continue to operate at accepted levels of service if the vacant land in the study area is developed as a maximum of 3 dwelling units per acre residential as proposed by the CarmeVClay Township Comprehensive P1an. Traffic engineering modifications, as discussed in Recommendation 4 on the next page, would help to improve the safety on the facility for existing conditions as wen as future conditions. The overriding condusions from the public input to this study is that residents near the study area desire to maintain the residential character of the area as reflected in currentland-use plans and would prefer to make roadway improvements only to the extent necessary to address local needs. The "recommendations" in this report are not to be construed as final decisions. They are simply recommendations to the effected governing bodies to be acted upon at their discretion. Study recommendations have been presented (in italics) at appropriate points throughout this report. The following is a summary of recommendations in this study: 1. Transportation Alternatives 2 ("S.-Curve), 3 (Modified "S.-Curve), and 4 (96lh Street Bridge) should be removed as improvement options. 2. Plans for extending the Monon Trail .and/or other planned uses of the Monon Corridor bridge under Interstate 465 should proceed with no provision for joint use with 96th Street 3. Traffic conditions on 96th Street should be ctosely monitored following the opening of the 96th Street bridge over the White River as it pertains to the condusions of this study. The bridge is currently scheduled for opening in 1998. 4. The vacant land in the study area should be developed as a maximum of 3 dwelling units per acre as defined as the upper-end of the low intensity land use category provided by the Carmel/Clay Township Comprehensive Plan. 5. The traffic engineering improvements to the 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard intersection, as detailed in Alternative 1, should be implemented. 6. The option of constructing a bridge to connect 96th Street across Interstate 465 (as a skewed overpass) should be retained in the event of future demand. 7. The option to connect 96th Street to 101- Street (Alternative 6) should be subjected to further study to analyze the corridor at a regional level before given further consideration as a viable alternative. 20 BS/ae/lgS7 15:29 , \ 3175719593 C&D STAFFORD PAGE 02 ~(g ~. Three years ago, many residents along 96t11 Street brought their case before the ltunilton. County Commissioners" and requested that the street NOT be widened. Most homeowners aJOIIf ,(fI' . .StIW!t (primarily those residing west of Keystone all the way to Michigan Road) wanted to maintain a 4~ environment," and protect their homes from the perceived damage to property values. ThewidcrDng of 96" Street wu tantamount to highway reclassification. The ccmcems were weD founded. A wider street would have taken significant frontage from many homes. A secondary arterial would have become I primary arterial wiEhall the negative connotations and resulting implicationa. West of Keystone AVeDUe, 96* Street was predominantly residential in character. Increased traffic would have been another '&nai} in the coffin" for the bucoDc residential ambiance the area bad enjoyed: flat a viable aitemative to the residents. At that time, the Commissioners voted to rc-cwsify 96* Street., west oeu.s. 31, as a "collector. in support of citizen concerns. Who iniluenced the decision of the Commissionc:n to ~ their vote and nullify the coDcctive voice of the 96* Street homeowners? Carmel argues that houses along 116. Street would experience too great a 1081 of land and value were the street widened beyond 3 lanes. Are we to usumc the same does not hold true for homes along 96* Street? When the 96$ Street bridge over White River was con~ved, the original intent was to alleviate congested traffic scenarios on the far northeast side of Indianapolis -- not to create a principal urban arterial for southern Hamilton County (according to various presentations). Now it appears Hamilton County wants to reinvest time and money in widening 96* Street from county line to county line, as stated by a representative of the Carmel Department of Community Services. The next step in that scenario necessitates resolution to .~heir dilemmat' regarding the area at 96- Street and Westfield Boulevard. It cannot be stated often enough, but area residents remain opposed to such widening. If the Hamilton County intent is to provide an east/west principal arterial to remedy traffic congestion in eastern Hamilton County, 116dt Street was ALWA YS the most logical place to implement regional traffic alternatives. Carmel and Hamilton County representatives refuse to '11gb.t the battle" in the heart of Cannd and alienate those particular residents. Alternative 6 is an interesting approach to the situation, but the heart of the problem has been completely overlooked. Why hasn't there been any further discussion on the importance of 1166. Street and the potential widening to 4 lanes of that particular street? We appreciate the desire to connect eastern Hamilton County with the Meridian Corridor~ but not at the sole c:x:pcnse of southern Hamilton CoUDty taxpay~. For all the obvious reasons7 Alternative S would ultimately lead to a widening of 96dt Street east of Keystone; a venture we oppose. Dollars are already a significant issue with Hamilton County. Are we to assume that Marion County will pay for the construction of another bridge on 96ftJ Street? If so, we believe Marion County residents win have a great deal to say on that isaue. If not, where does Hamilton County plan to secure the money for the bridge? It is our uadentanding that Hamilton County is already facing some costly bridges over U.S. 31, including the resulting land acquisition. The national Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria and Procedures infonnation provides guidelines regarding arterial classification and placement. Obviously, placement is aubordirtate to the traffic patterns; however, Hamilton County (and to a certain extent the city of as/07/1997 22:23 3175719593 e&D STAFFORD PAGE a2 ~ ~ ~g May 6, 1997 Carol stafford 9546 Tamarack Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 Mr. Mike peoni DMO, civision of Planning 200 E. Washington street suite 1841 City-county Building Indianapolis, IN 46204 Dear Mr. peoni: As President of the Board, I am writing on behalf of the Sprinqmill Lakes at Tamarack Condominium Association which is comprised of 106 family units. This letter is in response to the draft report regarding the special area study of 96th and Westfield Blvd., prepared by HNTB Corp. (HNTB Job No: 24839- PL-001-007). Upon review, we find the study to be through and comp~ete in its recommendations to the various entities involved and would support the remarks referred to as "Conclusions and Recommendations" found of pages 19 and 20. Concerns still exist regarding the ability of involved governments and individuals to heed the advice they have sought (and paid for with our tax dollars) in this study. In particular, we strongly question what the underlying reason might have been to even cons,ider investing huge amounts of our tax dollars on this project when it is obVious to those who live on the northside, and supported by this study, that other intersections in the area are already operating over capacity. These should be addressed first, particularly since Keystone is already over capacity and more traffic is planned to be dumped when the White River bridge opens (who did that study without recognizing the potential problem the bridge would create?). The 96th St. and westfield intersection is not even near capacity, nor is it projected to be into the year 2015, UNLESS the current plan for medium density development is ignored or changed (which is our suspicion). The study plainly shows the need to disperse north/south traffic to other roadways by east/west movement. Inasmuch as 96th st. is low density/residential and historically listed as a secondary road, it would seem more appropriate to direct future tra!~1c flow where needed and already commercially developed - north of the interstate to Pennsylvania at 101