Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcomp. plan neighborhood improvements • The existing I-1 zoned area west, along Range Line Road and along Main Street. 2. Neighborhood Improvements The area of greatest concern with respect to residential deterioration is the Home Place area. For the most part, this area consists of modest homes beginning to show signs of incipient decline. The Plan addresses this area from the standpoint of the area's ability to provide alternative housing types and starter homes for Carmel/Clay Township's "next generation." Many of the problems in the Home Place area may be attributed to a lack of supporting infrastructure, particularly drainage and sewer facilities including street, sidewalks and curbs which are lacking in many places. Some improvements, notably sewers, have occurred since the 1985 Update. Installation of sewers in the area will do much to provide stimulus for upgrading of the neighborhood. Because the area is in the Township rather than the City, consideration should still be given to the potential for a state of Indiana Community Improvement Program (CEP) Grant for public improvements to help stabilize and complement private property investment in the area. Continued aggressive code enforcement is an important tool to maintain property improvement in areas such as Home Place. Consideration should be given to the imposition of a building permit surcharge to be used to capitalize a fund for continued reinspection of property conditions in Carmel/Clay Township as structures begin to age. 3. Housing Mix A review of the Carmel Zoning and Subdivision regulations indicates that adequate opportunity exists in these regulations for alternative types of housing developments. One of the problems that might have existed in the past was limited opportunity for development of alternative higher density uses, relative to the designation of appropriate areas for development on the Carmel/Clay Township Zoning Map. The recommended Land Use Plan for Carmel/Clay Township provides sufficient areas for consideration of alternative housing types. In particular, many of the Transition Areas provide an excellent opportuni- ty for encouraging mixed housing types of developments and cluster developments as transitions between higher and lower intensity development areas. - 104 - X. THOROUGHFARE PLAN A. Introduction As requested by the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, significantly greater emphasis has been placed on thoroughfare planning in the Amendment than was included in the 1985 Update. This 1990 Amendment uses selected land use scenarios as a basis for developing traffic forecasts to guide thoroughfare planning. The methodology is not intended to provide precise estimates for design. Rather, it provides order of magnitude forecasts suitable for identifying general facility types and lane requirements. The key point is that the traffic forecasts are a function of land use and the level of detail is sufficient to support Thoroughfare Plan recommendations. Since the technical level of analysis is more intensive for thoroughfare planning in the 1990 Amendment, and since five years of development and areawide improvements have occurred since the 1985 Update, most text from the 1985 Update has been eliminated in this chapter. Sections B and C of the 1985 Update have been replaced in the 1990 Amendment with "B. Traffic Forecasting and Minimum Future Needs, " and "C. Alternative System Concepts. " Sections D and E ("Proposed Functional Classifications" and "Proposed Generation Standards") are updated, including a new proposal for parkways. Section F ("Recommended Thoroughfare Plan") has been completely revised. B. Traffic Forecasting and Minimum Future Needs 1. Traffic Forecasting Scenarios A typical approach in thoroughfare plan development for an urbanized area such as this is to identify a target year (usually 20 years into the future), identify anticipated development for that year, simulate cor- responding traffic conditions, and formulate a final plan to meet identified needs. It is recommended that this process be considered for the next major update to the Comprehensive Plan. A target year modeling technique was not used in this update since an appropriate simulation model is unavailable' and its development is beyond the resources available for this limited update activity. Although a simulation model was not used, transportation recom- mendations of this update are directly related to future land use. 'Cannel is included in the Indianapolis area travel simulation model maintained by the Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development but western Clay Township is not. Extension and refinement of that model may be the best approach for developing tools to support future plan updates. - 105 - Generalized traffic levels have been estimated to correspond with three land use scenarios. These estimates are intended to guide the thorough- fare plan development process by providing three "reference points" with respect to level of development within Cannel-Clay Township. The scenarios are as follows: • Existing Scenario -Land use and traffic demand approximates 1989 conditions. • Programmed Scenario - This scenario includes existing land use plus additional development which has been approved by the Cannel-Clay Plan Commission but not fully implemented in 1989. No target year is identified, but it is assumed that this scenario provides a conserva- tive estimate of future needs since it does not include background traffic growth (such as from northern Hamilton County) or traffic from developments which were not yet been approved by the Plan Commission at the time of this study. • Build-out Scenario - Land use and intensity is generally defined by the proposed Comprehensive Plan. No target year is identified. Parts of this scenario will be implemented within 10 to 20 years; other elements may take much longer or may never be fully imple- mented. This provides an "upper limit" reference for estimating needs. It is most useful in planning for rural areas of the township where ultimate residential build-out of some areas is not unlikely, and in providing an indication of the potential severity of traffic congestion on major regional highways (U.S. 31 and Keystone Avenue). A direct correlation is not intended between the recommended thorough- fare plan and any one of the three scenarios investigated. Rather, generalized forecasts for each scenario guide thoroughfare plan develop- ment by indicating known conditions (existing scenario), likely condition of minimal needs (programmed scenario), and potential ultimate conditions (build-out scenario). 2. Traffic Estimation Procedure Estimated traffic demand levels for the existing scenario are based on traffic count data provided by the City of Cannel, Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), Indianapolis Department of Transportation (IDOT), and from traffic studies submitted to the Plan Commission during the past 10 years. For the most part, available traffic counts on major mutes were less than three years old at the time of the study. Traffic demand estimates for the programmed and build-out scenarios relate future traffic growth to anticipated land use changes and add this - 106 - a growth to existing traffic levels to provide an approximate base for analysis. Traffic demand estimates are derived from land use in three steps: trip generation, trip distribution, and network assignment. Each step is briefly described below. a. Trip Generation Trip generation is the process of estimating the number of new vehicle trips associated with each newly developed land use. For forecasting purposes in this study, Clay Township is divided into 24 traffic analysis zones, and land use changes are estimated for residential and non-residential uses within each zone. Peak-hour trip generation rates (trips per dwelling unit, per square feet of office, etc.) from the current ITE Trip Generation Report are applied to identify a base number of peak-hour trips from each zone. For non-residential land uses, rates are applied to specific developments in the programmed scenario and to total zonal estimates in the build-out scenario. Residential trips are generated on a zonal basis for both scenarios. Adjustments are made to reflect internal trips in mixed developments and pass-by trips for retail developments. The result is an estimate of new total trips to and from each traffic analysis zone. b. Trip Distribution • Trip distribution is the process of estimating destinations (or origins) for trips which begin (or end) in each traffic analysis zone. For individual developments, trip distribution estimates are often based on a review of movements at nearby intersections. Areawide studies rely on models which reflect the relative attrac- tiveness between zones (such as high residential and high employ- ment zones). For the purpose of this review, trip distribution is estimated based on relationships developed for the Indianapolis travel simulation model. The model estimates origins and destinations between and among the traffic analysis zones of Cannel and Indianapolis. Distribution from zones in western Clay Township (not included in the Indianapolis model) was estimated based on the distribution of trips from Cannel zones. The resulting trip tables provide an assumed beginning and ending point for each trip generated by new land uses. c. Network Assignment Network assignment is the process of identifying the most likely route for new trips and placing them on the network to estimate future traffic levels on individual roadways. Computer models ordinarily make "capacity-restrained"assignments,whereby traffic is - 107 - is shifted between alternate routes to balance network congestion. This reflects the tendency of motorists to seek a second choice route if their first choice becomes unduly congested. In this study, average speeds are estimated for major roadways, and a "first choice" route is identified to provide the quickest path between each zone. Estimated trips between zones (from the trip tables) are placed on those paths to forecast additional traffic for each roadway in the study area. For the base forecasts, capacity restraints are not considered. Adding future trips (from this unre- strained assignment) to existing trips provides an estimate of future travel for each growth scenario, based on the path motor- ists would choose if unimpeded by congestion. Alternatives accommodate these trips by improving overloaded routes or improving alternate routes to divert a portion of these trips away from congestion areas. In this study, these diversion effects are estimated manually to balance network service levels as a part of alternatives development. 3. r.417.4 UYe Sc n ariosand Ajsoc:iate .Trip Generation For the programmed scenario, land use changes are limited to those developments approved by the Carmel-Clay Plan Commission' as of March 1989. For the purpose of this review, these developments are assumed to be committed. Appendix Figure A.1 shows the location of all committed non-residential developments considered in the programmed scenario. Appendix Figure A.2 illustrates the distribution and magnitude of committed residential growth by traffic analysis zone. Related development information for committed developments is provided in Appendix A. For the build-out scenario, land use changes are estimated on a zonal basis by applying assumed densities per acre to the area of undeveloped land within each zone. As shown in the following table, assumed densities are less than the maximum allowable by the Comprehensive Plan to reflect general limitations to development such as roadways, slopes, etc. 2Although not within the jurisdiction of the Carmel-Clay Plan Commission, Village Park Plaza and Keystone at Meridian developments at 146th and U.S. 31 are included in this analysis. They have been approved by the Hamilton County Plan Commission. - 108 - Maximum Density per Assumed Density for Major Land Uses Comprehensive Plan Traffic Estimation r Low-Density Residential 2 units per acre 1 unit per acre Medium-Density Residential 4 units per acre 2 units per acre High-Density Residential Over 4 units per acre 6 units per acre Commercial (No Maximum) 10,000 sq.ft. per acre As described in a previous section, trips were generated from committed non-residential developments individually and from residential and build-out non-residential trips on a zonal basis. Resulting evening peak-hour trip generation is illustrated for each zone in Figure X.1. As illustrated by this figure, future traffic growth on U.S. 31 will be influenced primarily by nearby office development, while Keystone Avenue will be affected most by residential growth in eastern Clay Township. This is an extension of the traffic growth patterns of the 1980s, as discussed in the next section. 4. Traffic Growth Trends The only Clay Township roadways included in a regular counting program are U.S. 31 and Keystone Avenue (S.R. 431). Traffic counts are taken every three to four years on these routes by INDOT. The most recent counts were taken during July 1989. Based on INDOT data, Figures X.2 and X.3 illustrate peak-hour traffic growth trends, by direction, for Keystone Avenue and U.S. 31, respectively. The following observations can be made regarding the growth trends illus- trated by these figures: a. U.S. 31 is now the most heavily travelled roadway in Cannel. This has changed since the 1985 Comprehensive Plan Update. b. Keystone Avenue was most heavily influenced by residential growth during the 1980s. Traffic growth has been gradual, and the historic commuting pattern of heavy southbound (work) trips in the morning peak and northbound (home) trips in the evening peak continues to characterize Keystone Avenue traffic flow. c. U.S. 31 was most heavily influenced by adjacent commercial development during the 1980s. This is illustrated by the growth of northbound traffic during the morning peak hour, when work trips are most predominant. There were almost three times as - 109 - • 2 2 4 .; ge cl. • ol WE ♦ - r j ai E d E 1 cFoi ♦ ,b •I o 0 ♦ -.1 i 8 a 0 `€ GIJ 1141 Ct. • r d = O — q - — 4N• • • is N - GJ `4iN - Ni ME ct - U 0 ON ON ® I . ___ 1 1 E • I - O- N co CD 47 N N �. • /, y . it sn II si ■ El 1 . ,- ...„.77,- _ - --Di c� ...ni,.St ---7---i---,_________-. ^t I _:-1 _ ® i - :...''''':11. ;e N _. .. N N li It. iii sa . ■ • r .. • par••;u . • AI • I I 0^ J� 1 X i X - 1 1 r I --7/•N-.un.�ass semi, r • �, - _ . / ( . �+ • cil[ - I = i �' All .:r = N}_ XX -1 FIEli X X _._ ._iN■Na l ■ a, MORNING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME Keystone Ave. (S.R. 431) N. of 96th St. 3500 ✓ 3000 - E H i 2500 - c I E 2000 - • 1500 - SOUTHBOUND H 1000 - O R 500 - NORTHBOUND 0 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 YEAR EVENING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME Keystone Ave. (S.R. 431) N. of 96th St. 3500 ✓ 3000 - E H i 2500 - c S 2000 NORTHBOUND E 1500 - R H 1000 • - O SOUTHBOUND U R 500 - 0 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 YEAR Keystone Aye. Traffic Growth T's Figure X-2 1990 Carmel - Clay Comprehensive Plan Update HNTB MORNING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME Meridian St. (U.S. 31) S. of 116th St. 3500 ✓ 3000 — E I H 2500 - c L E 2000 - E 1500 - E SOUTHBOUND R H 1000 - 0 u R 500 - NORTHBOUND 0 l 1 ti I 1 I III 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 YEAR EVENING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME Meridian St. (U.S. 31) S. of 116th St. 3500 ✓ 3000 — E H i 2500 - c L E 2000 - • 1500 — NORTHBOUND E R H 1000 - 0 R 500 - SOUTHBOUND 0 ti I I I I I I I I 2 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 YEAR U.S. 31 Traffic Growth Trends Figure X-3 1990 Carmel - Clay Comprehensive Plan Update many northbound trips in 1989 than there were in 1981. During the eight-year period, southbound traffic during the morning peak hour increased by almost half. d. For the first time (in 1989), northbound U.S. 31 traffic volumes exceeded southbound volumes south of 116th Street during the morning peak hour. Whereas U.S. 31 has always served as a commuter route from Cannel to Indianapolis, it now serves that function nearly equally in each direction. In that regard, commercial development along U.S. 31 has had a balancing effect on traffic flow, providing an effective return on transportation system investment. Nevertheless, the significant high level of unused capacity available for "reverse commuting" during the 1980s no longer exists. There is insufficient data available to identify traffic growth trends on other major roadways in Cannel and Clay Township. This does not hinder forecasting, since future traffic volumes in this study are esti- mated based on land use characteristics rather than historic traffic patterns. S. Minimum System Needs (Programmed Scenario) The location of approved developments (Appendix Figures A.1 and A.2) and associated trip generation patterns (Figure X.1) indicate that future traffic growth will continue in a pattern similar to the 1980s. Although the rate of growth may differ, U.S. 31 will be influenced primarily by nearby commercial development, and Keystone Avenue will be influenced by residential growth in eastern Clay Township. Rates of growth for commercial and residential developments are influenced by different factors, and market forces make specific timetables difficult to define. No specific target year is assumed for the programmed scenario. It is recognized that some approved developments may not be fully implemented and others will be added. In light of these offsetting factors and since approved development provides a reasonable base for estimating limited growth, the programmed scenario is considered the minimum development condition for estimating future thoroughfare needs. New trips are estimated for the programmed scenario and added to existing traffic volumes in the manner described previously in this section. Table X.1 shows existing and forecasted traffic volumes for major routes where anticipated increases are most significant. As indicated in the discussion of forecast methodology, the forecasts represent an unrestrained condition, whereby motorists pick the quickest - 113 - Table X. 1 `-' ESTIMATED DAILY TRAFFIC LEVELS AT SELECTED L OCA TIONS MINIMUM FUTURE NEEDS (PROGRAMMED SCENARIO*) Estimated Daily Traffic Route Section Existing** Future U.S. 31 1-465 to 103rd St. 43,000 64,000 111th St. to 116th St. 40,000 58,000 116th St. to 136th St. 29,000 41,000 131st St. to 136th St. 22,500 30,000 Keystone Ave. 96th St. to 98th St. 37,000 44,000 106th St. to 111th St. 32,500 38,000 116th St. to Cannel Dr. 29,000 31,000 126th St. to 131st St. 24,500 27,000 Range Line Road 96th St. to 103rd St. 10,500 12,000 Carmel Dr. to 126th St. 1 5,000 17,000 131st St. to 136th St. 9,000 10,000 106th Street Range Line Rd. to U.S. 31 11,000 1 5,500 116th Street Gray Rd. to Keystone Ave. 14,000 18,5(X) Range Line Rd. to U.S. 31 11,500 16,500 131st Street Range Line Rd. to U.S. 31 7,700 9,500 * The Programmed Scenario includes existing traffic plus estimated traffic from developments already approved by the Carmel-Clay Plan Commission. These needs are considered minimal since no through traffic growth or new developments (beyond those approved in mid-1989) are assumed in this scenario. ** Traffic count sources: 1NDOT (U.S. 31 & Keystone Ave.) City of Cannel (local roadways). - 114 - route without regard for congestion-related delay. The needed additional capacity can be provided by improving the "first choice"route or by increasing capacity of parallel routes to encourage trip diversion. These options are considered in defining improvement alternatives. As indicated by Table X.1, the greatest needs created by implementing the approved developments of the programmed scenario will occur within the Meridian Corridor. This is consistent with the demonstrated effect of commercial development on U.S. 31 traffic flow during the 1980s. As indicated by Table X.2, the Cannel Department of Community Development estimates that approximately 2.5 million square feet of commercial development was completed between 1980 and 1989. The programmed scenario includes another 3.2 million square feet of commercial development in the corridor, without regard for any pro- posed new developments (not yet reviewed by the Cannel-Clay Plan Commission before March, 1989). This estimate is conservative compared to the build-out potential of the Comprehensive Plan. Using assumed development rates previously described in this chapter, it is estimated that an additional 7.5 million square feet of commercial devel- opment could ultimately be implemented in the Meridian Corridor. The programmed scenario also indicates minimum needs for Keystone Avenue and various local arterial roadways. Means of providing the additional capacity to meet these needs are explored in the next section. C. Alternative Transportation System Concepts Three sketch plan alternatives were reviewed during the 1990 Comprehensive Plan Update process. Each sketch plan alternative is formulated to provide sufficient network capacity (at or near Level of Service D) to serve the programmed scenario, and each would involve multiple jurisdictions (local, state). The sketch plans represent distinct approaches for meeting future traffic needs. They differ primarily in how they accommodate excess north-south traffic demand generated along U.S. 31. A key element of each sketch plan is the reconstruction of the 1-465/U.S. 31 interchange, scheduled for construction in 1991. • The three sketch plans vary in cost, impact, and flexibility in accommodating future growth. Each sketch plan is generally described below. - 115 - Table X.2 �-- MERIDIAN STREET CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT 1980 TO 1989 APPROX YEAR NAME OF PROJECT SQ. FT. 1980 K S M Building 20,0W 1981 Fidelity II (Browning) 74,00+0 Restaurant at Fidelity (Browning) 11,000 1982 Fidelity 1/I (Browning) 162,000 Continental Training 40,000 1983 Indiana Farmers Insurance 55,000 Mark I (Browning) 178,000 Hewlett Packard 40,0W 1984 Mark II(Browning) 196,000 Speedway Gas Station 3,000 Eagle Creek Nursery 3,000 II Penn Mark (Browning) 94,000 1985 III Penn Mark (Browning) 35,000 Ritz Charles 30,000 St. Vincent's Hospital 126,000 Meridian Medical Center Bldg. 1 (Duke) 47,000 1986 Green on Meridian Bldg. 1 30,000 Summer Trace Retirement Center 254,000 I Penn Mark (Browning) 149,000 Conseco 160,000 1987 Meridian Plaza I(E & L) 64,000 Meridian Place I(E &L) 29,000 Green of Meridian Bldg. 2 30,000 Pickett Suite Hotel 90,000 Meridian Plaza III(E & L) 115,000 1988 Meridian Place 1I(E & L) 40,000 Meridian Place Shoppes (E & L) 18,000 Pennwood Bldg. 1 (T-Crowe) 37,000 Meridian Plaza 11 (E &L) 116,000 Pennwood Bldg. 2 (T-Crowe) 37,000 1989 111 Congressional Blvd. (Browning) 178,000 11711 Penn (Kosene & Kosene) 55,000 Meridian Medical Center Bldg. 2 (Duke) 47,000 Dunker!), Point Center 8,000 Pending occupancy in December of 1989: Unisys (T-Crowe) 63,0W Marriott 80,800 Source: Cannel Department of Community Development, January 1990. - 116 - I. Sketch Plan 1 - Arterial Improvements (Figure X.4) This option relies on a strategy of establishing four-lane collector roadways along U.S. 31 and widening existing roadways to meet future needs. It includes the following elements: Route Limit Change U.S. 31 106th - 146th St. From 4 lanes to 6 lanes Keystone Ave. 98th - Carmel Dr. From 4 lanes to 6 lanes Gray Road 96th - 116th St. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes Range Line Road 96th - 116th St. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes Pennsylvania St. 103rd - Cannel Dr. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes West Collector Road 103rd - Cannel Dr. New 4-lane Roadway - 117 - ... X ..., (41•-• as -a • 'S I 5 C.. . § 0 lz c., g ›.• ,,,, C ,.., C,„) •••••• - .. ••'•;' Z ii if, 2 2 "' ...ft• -i a) ; :•-. ea 0 cli 3 Q.) •CI • .2'4... • .. • ' a.'6 0,- ea • ! .., I I oe •_. • b_ciJ c. 4.4 cc tfl.) • _ _____.____z___ ..= ...0.... ..i.n (3) ...,... X S.d r.T.1 Ow . _._ _• . C E Gd ••- -.- •••• --. , ... 1:2 C .... ..i.. U . . .... .•%.•,,, • -- • - ••.• P'l ..:.7t,67 cs•- . • C..) • ... • ••••rl • . - Cir) 7. . •4 = F ". _ • ' :7 z — - 61 CZI------. U 0 ON CT• • ig 4 il "q........" -_.... _ ... _ - , /'I, 1._ ,•• :, p 11 -- —., i I 1 ! 7 I •". •••' I .•-- ... I l'i \,........./ • • N., „ ... , P.II,NA'a ...‘.... ...... ...• -.......--....-..I..- ' ---.....-.....__.......,,, .. , •„, 017 C,Q1,In0 o Pt't., a'30,11•it'0 •, rti i /res.).....; ' 1 ,.. , .• ' . ,Pt•I 4,..thl.“1„., ••••• 4! „....• ., '" • • - - _ • _•• • ,..... / ••• • .-. . --. • . ' . , •• . ...__ --___ --___. ......... Ns ::t ..#1..:-..I.!' • ,• ..' ! ... / . •.:" • : - ' • ,, ...... g c',.., • ›- '7 ,--/ a , -.... g. . ....5 g 1 \ 1 • i Z....r.'• , ' RA kl/e.01,I i 1 t••- - I pd Liu*Crj,1 1 i I I i •/ . . / I I . / 1 I I t I. / I • 7 .. . : i 1 t.,: , .1-• 1.- _ . T.-' ... 1 , '• ..• .... -........7j, 0,,,,,..0.Th-•-.. .-.J.-....----..................- -.........--.-........ .. .... -11..../.141IXIS 11 i I m 11111 '. •• • ,.. ••••• ••• ..• Z \ • S'Itr%°"4 ..............----...-. l :.'NI'•Z.2: X 2. Sketch Plan 2 - Township Line Road Interchange (Figure X.5) As this plan update was under way, an announcement was made by INDOT that a statewide interchange study had made a "favorable recommendation" regarding a new interchange at 1-465 and Township Line Road (Towne Road in Hamilton County). Sketch Plan 2 assumes the interchange will be constructed and makes maximum use of Towne Road to meet north-south travel needs indicated by the programmed scenario. The following improvements would be required: Route Limit Change Keystone Avenue 98th - Cannel Dr. From 4 lanes to 6 lanes Gray Road 96th - 116th St. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes Pennsylvania St. 103rd - Cannel Dr. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes College Avenue 96th - 116th St. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes Towne Road 1-465 - 116th St. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes 106th Street Town Rd. - U.S. 31 From 2 lanes to 4 lanes 116th Street Towne Rd. - U.S. 31 From 2 lanes to 4 lanes Towne Road/I-465 Construct Interchange • - 119 - et 02S a X Ct S•43 " -c:-') L:.• i Eir CI. .• • `•-4 1 • -- - = 6 •,§ 6 di b ia e,i § CI (.9 ri) r...- ••=r or ori col gc tx . • w z 5 Li. :14 . . • Cir) : I I• ii:-6 .,...7 ...6.‘" ,.....,;.,..-• • 'J.: ...4, ...." ' - ..,..- 0 CL) .-. .."0.[-. 1.1 - .... . ., • CI, „,,, ... ......... ... . -- • ..._. • . ••.... tz c.....) . .. , .• ........ . tt . . C...) . 1-..• . . (1) 7 . EZ. 7 •.. • al - .. .. ' ..................-........-......-....... ......-...............- •--.-...................--...-...-................-_...._-, Con) '.• . C:. . . . . ON- .. • 01 i...I - • _ . . ....J s•n............................................r,f ° -. ..• .. ., . ---.• -- 7 .• .... // , \'.. /, - _ -•• ..- .._. -- • i 1 .?,-..t:Ls.\—.........i..---: • — 1 - --i k., 7-:,- ...._-/. •• .0-- : ''---, .., •-t. • - ...... p,..0%.-t,.A..4-4.1:-P2,09b : I ••••..--..- ok—r-p7.71,7.-,7--'-'77--- -- I : /..' " • -„,,•‘,:-. i , - v•-4-fir•Fii-;•-ger 1--.%, / • t• __ • V : ii , I —_-1111111=MmmllMNMmmggaelIllMIMIMnyIMMIIIIIMMM.nl 4e .-e • L , ,., , .. . , :kV.'1.4.,r.....,- r , ;• • .. : iz rr....•••••••••• --— •,. ..•, ... ' . .. 410 •, - ,.--* .`:. - •.... -...d . ‘ a , • • • i . 7 . . - . . - „... .. .:-r• : .1 . - • .....' - . • - ... ...- — — — —--- • 3 -e. 1 =L ' i! ; .. . -! -110 1 ,-. ... 1 1 kg aw.v.1 .• . • / I I•1 _--... 1 ! 1 _t ' •.... ,.I;!7. 7., 7:1 ..". • E.• V 1 7 '..-s -E.-• tp ........../ • ii. : ..: P• :.:• . • .., - .. - — — -------„---- ' r„.,4 .0.1100lialtS. ; .......... ....... .......... -..............--...-...,_..-„„___ ...., ,t 1 t . 1 t al 1.1 , - .•-.... . I 2 • , ...„• „... _ ,. \ .. ________._ ____ •.- • . . 3. Sketch Plan 3 - U.S. 31 Interchange (Figure X.6) This alternative would accommodate future excess north-south demand directly by raising a portion of U.S. 31 to freeway standards. A six-lane freeway is assumed between 1-465 and a point north of 116th Street, and a six-lane arterial is assumed north to 146th Street. For review purposes, interchanges are assumed at 106th and 116th Streets. Other cross streets on this section would terminate at U.S. 31 or bridge U.S. 31 without direct access. The following major components are included in this Sketch Plan: Route Limit Change U.S. 31 1-465 - 1/2 mi. north 4/6 lane arterial of 116th St. to 6 lane freeway with interchanges at 106th & 116th Streets Keystone Avenue 98th - Cannel Dr. From 4 lanes to 6 lanes Gray Road 96th - 116th St. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes Pennsylvania St. 103rd - Cannel Dr. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes 106th Street Range Line - U.S. 31 From 2 lanes to 4 lanes The three sketch plans are simplistic in that capacity is provided to meet total north-south excess demand without detailed study of intersection and interchange characteristics or requirements. Nevertheless, they provide sufficient information for selecting a conceptual approach to meeting future needs. The sketch plans are formulated to meet the basic demands of the programmed scenario. Differences in flexibility (to accommodate additional growth), socioeconomic impact, and cost are indicated in Table X.3. - 121 - M r' + ri H V ::cn • Z ..0 a .�: sol - °-` o III) 2 ED •� cp ow 0 CZ U . • • _ a) • U 0 CT Ch 1 .1 Gly Fu.y ye0---^..•"'. ......w J - S - sea inimmisosi i z 411 • • • -1 i ,.� raj - I Pd , I I / t • rte_ ._.•.... _,''''. rnr_ CYI(-I fh.17. Y 1 W 11. - c—'ti.. 2 . . Table X.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF CONCEPTUAL SKETCH PLANS SKETCH PLAN 1 2 3 Township line U.S. 31 CHARACTERISTIC Widen Roadways Rd. Interchange Freeway Flexibility Little or no Limited capacity Excess Capacity surplus capacity still available on available to provided Towne Road accommodate additional growth Congested condi- tions on U.S. 31, Pennsylvania, College, and Spring Mill Road Socioeconomic Impact Significant impact Moderate impact. Some disruption Changes due to right-of- near interchanges way needs and Additional right- (relocations unlike- high traffic of-way needs and ly) volumes in traffic impacts in residential areas new areas (mostly Maintenance of undeveloped). traffic impacts during construction Congestion on and near U.S. 31 detrimental to residential neighborhoods and commercial development potential Estimated Cost $20 - 40 million $40 - 60 million $30 - 50 million (including R/W) None of the major elements of the sketch plans were ruled out by the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee. Recognizing the potential magnitude of future needs, and probable extended timeframe for implementation, the Committee recommended continuing investigation by a Comprehensive Plan study group of these alternatives. The Committee stated - 123 - that nothing should be done prior to the next major plan update (5 years) to jeapordize implementation of major sketch plan components. The Thoroughfare Plan will include a combination of roadway improvements shown in the sketch plans, including U.S. 31 improvements (including 1-465 interchange recommendations in 1991), parallel roadway construction, and arterial roadway widening. Review of build-out conditions, although not used to forecast "ultimate" demand on U.S. 31, indicates the need for this flex- ibility (see the next section). Failure to accommodate excess demand on U.S. 31 will most surely result in traffic diversion to Spring Mill Road and College Avenue, where congestion and impacts from high traffic volumes are more disruptive. Based on the conceptual Sketch Plan review, the U.S. 31 freeway alternative forms the basis of the updated thoroughfare plan. As detailed in Section F, build-out conditions were reviewed to guide the formulation of additional elements to complete the Thoroughfare Plan recommendations. D. Proposed Functional Classifications Most of the 1985 Update text related to functional classification remains valid. The 1990 Amendment suggests changing the name of some classifications to provide a correlation with the functional classification system of Hamilton County, and additional classifications have been added to allow designation of parkways within Clay Township. In order to make circulation improvement recommendations for the City of Cannel and Clay Township, it is necessary to first classify various thorough- fares and streets by function in terms of trip length and purpose, location and level of access provided. Once this functional classification has been accom- plished, recommended minimum geometric design standards can be specified for each functional class to be used as guidelines for upgrading the existing network of thoroughfares and streets. When used in conjunction with roadway alignment proposals, the functional classification system serves as an important guide for determining the extent of new road construction that should be undertaken within a given area proposed for development. Its primary purpose is to ensure that sufficiently wide rights-of-ways are reserved along the routes of existing and proposed alignments to accommodate anticipated future levels of traffic. The following functional classifications have been used in the recommended Thoroughfare Plan for Cannel and Clay Township: Freeways: Freeways are used primarily by interstate and intrastate traffic. A beltway such as Interstate 465, however, serves an important local function like that of an expressway, despite its classification as a freeway. A freeway - 124 - is a divided highway designed to have full control of access, with no traffic crossing at-grade and provides for the movement of high-speed traffic access or service to abutting property. • Expressways: Expressways are arterial highways for through traffic, whose main purpose is to move traffic rather than to provide access to individual properties. An expressway is a divided highway with full or partial control of access and a limited number of at-grade intersections. An expressway may be of various types: a facility entirely at-grade; a facility with frontage roads that have controlled-access features and terminated crossroads; or a facility that has an occasional at-grade intersection. Primary Arterials: Primary arterial carry both local and cross-county traffic, link various communities and settlement clusters and move traffic to and from such major traffic generators as employment centers, shopping centers, the downtown area, and other similar traffic generators. Primary arterial carry both intermediate and longer distance traffic, extensively utilizing traffic control devices to facilitate traffic flow within urban/developed areas. Regulations of "curb" cuts is often necessary. Secondary Arterial: Secondary arterial are intended to collect and distribute traffic to primary arterial. Secondary arterial provide service to specific traffic destinations, allow easy movement from one neighborhood to another within the same part of an urban area, and provide crosstown traffic movement. A secondary arterial is similar to a primary arterial with respect to collecting and distributing traffic, except that a secondary arterial serves smaller traffic-generating resources such as community-oriented commercial areas, primary and secondary schools, major recreation areas, churches and other similar land uses. Collector Streets: Collector streets take traffic from the local access streets, carry over a short distance and distribute it to secondary and primary arterial, so the traffic can then move to its destination. As the name implies, a collector street serves the primary purpose of "collecting" local traffic and delivering it to the next higher-order street. Local Streets: Local streets are intended to provide access from the arterial and collector roadway system to individual properties. They also provide additional right-of-way for placement of utility lines, drainage and sewer facilities and on-street parking. Local access streets should be designed to discourage through traffic between neighborhoods. In the 1990 Amendment, the "local" designation replaces the previous "local access-residential' and 'local access-commercial' classification. Parkways: Parkways represent a special classification of arterial roadway. A parkway is a divided roadway with special landscape treatments within the median and along the edges of the roadway. Geometric standards allow for - 125 - sufficient right-of-way for sidewalks, bike paths, and other amenities in addition to landscaping. Aesthetically, parkways offer an opportunity to enhance the attractiveness of the community as a whole. From a functional standpoint, parkways provide additional flexibility for meeting future needs. The wider right-of-way provides the opportunity for future expansion by adding lanes to the median, without compromising the basic parkway character of the route. Two parkway designations are used (primary and secondary), corresponding to the two arterial classifications described in this section. E. Proposed Minimum Geometric Standards Minimum design standards are useful not only for regulating construction of new thoroughfares and streets but also for evaluating existing conditions to determine deficiencies and program improvements to existing thoroughfares and streets. The design standards pertinent to this recommended Thoroughfare Plan for Cannel and Clay Township relate to the minimum right-of-way width and street pavement width for each functional class of thoroughfare. Reflecting proposed functional classification changes from the 1990 Amendment, these proposed standards are outlined in Table X.4. Most of the minimum geometric standards proposed here are consistent with the recently updated standards of Hamilton County. Exceptions are parkways (not included in county classifications) and the local and collector standards, which address parking in Cannel, but not in Hamilton County. While the functional classifications and minimum design standards in Table X.4 are a part of the recommended Thoroughfare Plan of the Comprehensive Plan Update, they should also become a part of the City's and Township's Subdivision Regulations, replacing conflicting classifications and standards in that document. In this way, the recommended Thoroughfare Plan would identify proposed new roadway alignments and functional classifications, while the Subdivision Regulations would impose standards on all roads, both existing and proposed roads identified in the recommended Thoroughfare Plan. It should be noted that while minimum geometric standards (including number of lanes) are intended as a guide to provide for orderly development and reservation of right of way, exceptions may be warranted on certain routes to accommodate site-specific conditions. It is not the intent of this plan to supercede project-level studies which identify right of way or lane reductions to reduce community impact. Neither is it the intent of this plan to specify project timetables or specific alignments for new roadways. These are appropriate topics for project-level studies. - 126 - eo F. v W b 4 O. et• Zv v v v v v v .— ..3 •65 L ,,, ,v, > rb II o • R '. `— r 'T >"3 o a 88 � � o V w_ Cr) ki y V '� a R. Q cC -. -� .+ v v V Z • E v v O 8 O O4. - a C O k � � La vy O oc L. e Q) W V " v y O a o cs b 'e • '".. F. v a. .I .: '0 0 0 o a v v fl A 4`, - - a a a M tt M1, �, eo`1 -2 v u it 4' s .� no Q 3 w 'ts hii. 1/4° o r�. of ` O �f �! 'j '1' eh W 4 v v . c..•_ N N s_ •N ��! o �i .�� y O Q b7 h b • O O O .D C4. L, ZV at o �r v � v c• � "L. ° 3 -� O ^1 N N N i� �` v V .Y r.a L r v ,A Chi C G Obi CC V ts -O C N j� • v CC ts ii 33 F. -,3 4 v L. c o` ,„ o o ... ° F b = o� �o o_ opo �a H rs cal c et 4 t)!' i Ci 4 d 4 o F. Comprehensive Plan Build-Out 1. Build-out Scenario The "build-out'scenario assumes that Clay Township is fully developed in the manner represented by the Comprehensive Plan. Future traffic levels are estimated for this scenario using the same methodology as previously applied to the programmed scenario. Unlike the programmed scenario, no attempt is made to address all demands indicated by the analysis. Forecasts from the build-out scenario are useful for evaluating localized needs in the more undeveloped portions of the county, but the results are not sufficiently reliable to estimate future re- gional needs (e.g., U.S. 31 and Keystone Avenue). The use of the build-out scenario to review localized and regional needs is discussed in the following paragraphs. a. Local Needs at Build-Out The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (existing as well as recommended) assumes that all of Clay Township will ultimately be developed. In eastern and western Clay Township, most undeveloped areas are planned for residential use. When these areas are developed, they will require local and collector roadways for access and for connection w the regional roadway network. Regional network changes are not likely to affect most of these localized needs. The timing of these roadway improve- ments would be determined by localized development rates and related increases in traffic demand. For local and collector roadways, the primary benefit of this Thoroughfare Plan Update is the identification and preservation of rights-of-way to meet probable future roadway needs. The build-out scenario is effective in guiding the estimation of these future roadway and right-of-way needs, since they are not likely to be affected by regional demographic and transportation network changes. Local, collector, and some arterial components of the recommended Thoroughfare Plan are intended to serve the local needs identified by the build-out scenario. b. Regional Needs at Build-Out With respect to plan build-out effects ects on regional roadways such as U.S. 31 and Keystone Avenue, underlying assumptions and specific results of this forecast methodology cannot be considered reliable for determining ultimate future needs. The most signift- �. cant limitations are as follows: - 128 - • Long Time Frame - Although local and collector roadway needs may occur early in the planning period due to early localized development,full traffic loading of regional roadways to serve a build-ow scenario would most likely exceed any reasonable planning period. Full build-out could conceivably take 40 years or more. • Demographic Changes -An underlying assumption in the fore- casting methodology is that home, work, and travel relation- ships will follow generally historic patterns. Over the extended period of build-out, these relationships are almost sure to change. By the time build-ow is complete, northern Hamilton County would probably be extensively developed, resulting in fundamental changes in regional travel patterns. Likewise, additional migration into Cannel is likely to reduce the average length of work trips to local offices. These factors are beyond the scope of the forecast methodology used in this update. • Regional Network Changes -As they pass through Clay Town- ship, U.S. 31 and Keystone Avenue are part of a larger network of regional highways. Future changes to U.S. 421, Allisonville Road, 1-465, and S.R. 32 could significantly affect regional traffic patterns. New regional roadways such as an outer belt around the greater Indianapolis area (conceivably through the center of Hamilton County) could also have major effects on travel patterns. Within the scope of this study, regional network changes such as these cannot be reliably estimated for a build-out time frame, and ignoring them would lead to unreliable forecasts. A comprehensive, large-scale planning study is needed to address these issues. 2. Future Regional Needs With the above limitations in mind, a review of build-out scenario forecasts still provides some clues to future regional needs, as follows: (1) Future problems will continue on U.S. 31 due to through traffic growth, a large service area, and concentrated commercial traffic demand. (2) Even partial development of commercial property within the U.S. 31 overlay zone north of 116th Street will require extension of the proposed freeway north from 116th Street. (3) Due to access limitations on U.S. 31, a local traffic distribution system, such as that provided by Pennsylvania Avenue and a - 129 - proposed western parallel connector, will be necessary to serve abutting commercial developments. (4) Demand will continue to increase on Keystone Avenue due to residential development and a lack of north-south travel oppor- tunities between Keystone Avenue and White River. (5) Although not likely during the next twenty years, increased demand on Keystone Avenue may ultimately warrant an upgrade to freeway standards from 1-465 to 116th Street. (6) Before build-out is complete, a Township Line Road interchange at I-465 will be needed to maintain mobility in western Clay Township. (7) Findings from the review of the programmed scenario provide a base which is quite conservative for a for a Cannel and Clay Township Thoroughfare Plan. G. Recommended Thoroughfare Plan The recommended Thoroughfare Plan has been developed using the programmed scenario as a base. Local, collector, and arterial roadway improvements are added to serve localized developments as indicated by the build-out scenario, and regional improvements are added to address modest additional traffic growth on regional roadways. The resulting plan is illustrated, in terms of functional class and lane widths, on Figure X.7. Figure X.8 presents a recommended 20-year roadway improvement plan, whidi corresponds to the thoroughfare plan. As noted in Section E, "Proposed Minimum Geometric Standards, "final configurations and timetable of these improvements will depend on project-specific studies and demonstrated need. It should be noted that this Thoroughfare Plan is based on 1989 data and studies. Although the results are suitable for supporting an areawide plan, they are not sufficient to replace traffic impact studies for specific developments. The Plan Commission will continue to request that updated traffic data and studies be submitted with development proposals. Some deviations from standards have been identified in formulating the Thoroughfare Plan. Figure X.8 indicates three-lane construction for a section of 116th Street, although its functional classification would suggest more. Figure X.7 indicates right of way constraints to parkway construction on both 116th and 146th Streets, even though they are designated as parkways. Similar adjustments to geometric standards may be recognized elsewhere by the Plan Commission on a case-by-case basis, as indicated in Section E, Proposed Minimum Geometric Standards. - 130 - T 1 L.F to2ets Y A t Q .1:7) flj fa 233a mha. Q ffi g3 R m a °) IliTad ; .$LL aw N. ) J E.------\\\ e ' ' ,�1p :II1IIN .7 r if .- i •■ • n To c L 7---- I INIMIk o r--IIN a- \ U It .....>"--7 ea M as 'en. mg Li I P>11 •. . r.... .. U cf,)tegi 1 cs• ) ,../..) Li .. , 5. I v / ..0 110 ---11 CI PI I I I I•I I I I 11,' 41 J P iii .41.1, kit I V ! • : •- EA) Akin• •e-( • )D•Wt% N4l : l -,c, walk`'� •• vroll.,, �Y�O � + � H ..tli1 liarV , X. Y-A II s , tri �_ ,.-,.--"'"u 1111111111111111 S`r. Asn a ,MilE221 I Al PM eux16 i-'t1i'1I2 o Rd A .10 / J c � m � og• Pti tatia 1--rja7 jo m• re oio r `- en c vr o mcEci •c Eco e .w I. otl ooH m °� c m o 0 ES m B o 0 os maul 0 co m c co CO c « v o a / / E n o .0 3 c C N .ce C t r - e p _n L L L "� F. �s $ \ • _ 6a m E o 0 �+ +s _ 2 vi i7 o C n n ! •- : cu�,oco<� 1:)' c c .• o c o - • 1 1, E a o e m 'o • m o r fags ZI Q > w o • (97 wroae) j l ? ) S �--� c C.) •-,...i) --. o ct \ • 1t .els g 8C met g •J �- its m � E �y 2 isCD O . , ' o 0.r 04.4. 74=. 1 ' gill L 0 U "1""7"------. 4.1) \''''''''...-----,:'.......-L--**4:44 III' i J la.•w cJ _ g c 1 ,. a - c 6. a,,.,o - ,. ---r te.... U ` j----)I o a a 1 E ` I liii- .. c . , ■0"i ill tir VI I • i I QRl,eti N T l I It /pi ...... ... P4�b 1 Rf erDtl>t.p ) . ,. • \ , 8S7 ••SS •••• w II Ir •..r_�NI OM OD �MVMMIN RI owl }�- I o o Ill° w wo � o ET -'7 j://' '' ;'7 io f 7 � f flhU ww.o ri a Ijj vLo(� 1 hflIH es / 0 >. O 14- _ s En ? E c c » c qi o Q ° -0 o 0 o Q 7 a a e « c m ` ° 00 .� _ L \ m i ti G £ E O E o ° € "2 1" c e i i O & \ -, 8 o 0 m of 0 o ,° pp ....11:, flu 114100114 o m V ... o a.23 E _o c m O °z. '5 O ° O ° *--\1....- 7` �1• OIT > ° C �S � �^ __ _ tt (off _ 2 N y o U O c O t._ 1 l 7 tee) ZT / -) i� In recognition of differing area characteristics, and for clarity of discussion, the Thoroughfare Plan is described below in terms of western, central, and eastern sections of Clay Township. 1. Western Clay Township (Boone County Line to Spring Mill Road) Both the 1985 Update and the 1990 Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan propose the lowest density of development in the western portion of Clay Township. Principal exceptions are anticipated commercial areas along Michigan Road at the southwestern corner of Clay Township and at unspecified locations near major intersections of Towne Road. An analysis of traffic conditions for build-out of western Clay Township indicates that most of the low density residential development of the area would be well served by the existing system of the two-lane roadways. Forecasts indicate that these two-lane roadways should be connected to the regional highway network by four-lane arterial located at two- to three-mile spacing. Consistent with thoroughfare plans for surrounding areas (including central Clay Township),it is recommended that Towne Road, 116th Street, and 146th Street be widened to four lanes in the future to serve this area. In recognition of the quality of residential areas anticipated for development in western Clay Township, a parkway classification is proposed for these widened roadways. In terms of right-of-way, this would also provide flexibility for expansion over the long term, in case demographic changes result in higher volumes of through traffic than considered here. Two additional network changes are recommended for western Clay Township. Both relate to regional traffic influences outside the county. Michigan Road, as it passes through the corner of Clay Township, is designated as a four-lane primary arterial. This would be suitable to meet Hamilton County needs. Based on growth patterns of Marion County and Boone County, however, a higher standard may ultimately be necessary. This roadway is under the jurisdiction of INDOT. Although not included in Hamilton County, it should be noted that a Township Line Road/I-465 interchange is assumed in the development of this plan. A number of factors will influence future consideration of this interchange, and it has not yet been included in the Indianapolis Thoroughfare Plan or the INDOT Highway Improvement Program. Nevertheless, from a long-term Carmel-Clay Township perspective, this interchange will be needed to relieve congestion at I-465 interchanges with Michigan Road and U.S. 31. - 133 - There is no urgency to implement any of the recommended thoroughfare plan components in western Clay Township. Improvements should be made commensurate with needs dictated by development. Most important in the near term will be the reservation and acquisition of right-of-way for the proposed parkways and improvement of two-lane roadways to minimum geometric standards. 2. Central Clay Township (Spring.Mill Road to Keystone Avenue Central Clay Township is currently the most developed portion of the study area and includes the primary areas planned for commercial and high density development in the future. Two limited access highways (U.S. 31 and Keystone Avenue) serve the predominant north-south regional travel needs of Hamilton County and points north. Based on the traffic forecasts developed in this 1990 Amendment, traffic demand will continue to increase on U.S. 31 and Keystone Avenue in a manner similar to the growth experienced during the 1980s, although the rate of this growth may differ, depending on market conditions. Recom- mendations for these routes represent the most significant thoroughfare plan changes proposed in this 1990 Amendment. Due to the impact of these proposed changes on other area roadways, this section addresses future needs of each of these facilities first, followed by discussion of other anticipated roadway needs for central Clay Township. As indicated in previous sections, total traffic volume on U.S. 31 increased by 80% (south of 116th Street) between 1981 and 1989. During this period, approximately 2.5 million square feet of commercial development was constructed in the corridor. Although a portion of this growth is attributable to through traffic, most of the growth relates to work trips, as indicated by the high growth rate of northbound traffic ("reverse commute" work trips) between 1981 and 1989. As shown by Figure X.3, these movements increased by approximately 185% south of 116th Street during this period. Based on an estimate of trips generated in the programmed scenario (approved developments, neglecting new developments and additional through trips), traffic on U.S. 31 will increase by another 45% (from 40,000 vehicles per day to 58,000 vehicles per day) south of 116th Street. At this level, acceptable service (Level of Service D or better) can no longer be provided by at-grade intersections. Therefore, a freeway, with grade-separated interchanges, is recommended for U.S. 31. Paralleling land-use and traffic growth patterns, the freeway should be constructed in stages, from south to north, beginning at the I-465 interchange. Improvements scheduled for this interchange in 1991 are essential for providing adequate service in the near term. They will adequately serve the proposed new freeway section, based on traffic forecasts from the Programmed Scenario. - 134 - Estimated minimum needs, based on Programmed Scenario traffic levels, indicate that the freeway should extend just past 116th Street. In consideration of the potential for through traffic growth and future development of commercial areas within the Meridian Corridor north of 116th Street, the recommended Thoroughfare Plan extends the freeway to a point north of 131st Street, and widens existing U.S. 31 six lanes north to the vicinity of 146th Street. Ultimately, the need for six lanes on all proposed freeway sections is indicated by traffic forecasts. For the purpose of estimating generalized costs and to verify potential feasibility, interchanges were initially assumed at 106th and 116th Streets in developing the sketch plan for the U.S. 31 freeway alternative. Improvement recommendations for local roadways in the immediate vicinity of the U.S. 31 freeway assume interchanges at these �• two locations and at 126th Street. It is emphasized, however, that the final configuration of the freeway and its interchanges must be determined in detailed engineering studies beyond the scope of this review. This planning process has verified the need for a freeway facility. Engineering studies necessary to better define the facility should be conducted in the near-term so that right-of-way can be reserved to minimize the cost and impact of construction. Regardless of the final configuration of the U.S. 31 freeway, local roadway improvements will be necessary to provide access to abutting properties. These include development of parallel collector roadways and improved east-west connectors at interchanges, as discussed later in this section. Whereas traffic growth on U.S. 31 during the 1980s was influenced by nearby commercial development, traffic growth on Keystone Avenue resulted mainly from residential growth in central and western Clay Township. Traffic increased on Keystone Avenue (north of 96th Street) by 20% between 1981 and 1989, from 31,000 to 37,000 vehicles per day. As shown on Figure X.2, directional distribution of traffic flow on Keystone Avenue indicates that it continues to serve commuter traffic between Carmel residences and Indianapolis employment centers. • Future land use scenarios suggest that this trend will continue. A review of minimum needs from approved developments (programmed scenario) indicates that Keystone Avenue should be widened to six lanes between 98th Street (where the existing six-lane section ends) and Carmel Drive. When anticipated residential growth in eastern Clay Township is considered, traffic forecasts suggest a need to extend the six-lane facility northward to 131st Street, and, ultimately, a potential eTh need to consider future freeway construction between I-465 and 116th Street. Keystone Avenue growth is likely to occur gradually in the - 135 - future, as it did in the 1980s. The service area of this roadway is large, extending eastward to White River, due to the "funneling" effect of the river and a lack of alternate access points to I-465 and Indianapolis. The potential need for a freeway standard on Keystone Avenue is based on assumed build-out of residential areas in eastern Clay Township. This level of development is not likely to occur within the next 20 years. As stated previously, additional studies will be needed to implement the recommended actions on either U.S. 31 or Keystone Avenue, especially where interchange construction is proposed. Since both facilities are state highways, it is assumed that INDOT will direct or participate in these studies. Major topics would include interchange locations and configurations, right-of-way needs, staging, maintenance of traffic and costs. Preliminary reviews indicate that a "tight urban diamond" design could be used at 106th and 116th Streets on U.S. 31, although options exist for alternative interchange locations between these major roadways. North of 116th Street, an interchange at Carmel Drive/126th Street seems the most feasible, but alternatives exist regarding interchanges at 131st, 136th, or some combination of movements connecting with more than one cross street. All components of proposed freeway construction must be verified by more detailed engineering studies. Other thoroughfare plan recommendations in central Clay Township provide access to the U.S. 31 freeway or serve local needs. The need for a parallel collector roadway system recommended in the 1985 Update along U.S. 31 is verified and strengthened by traffic estimates developed for this 1990 Amendment. These four-lane roadways will be needed to provide local access to commercial developments in the Meridian Corridor and to collect traffic destined for U.S. 31 inter- changes. Roadway improvements on cross streets will be necessary between the parallel collectors to provide access to interchanges. In this plan, six-lane arterial connections are shown at 106th, 116th, and Carmel Drive. These plans may require modification depending on the final location of interchanges as indicated by engineering studies. The combination of the U.S. 31 freeway, parallel collector roadways, and interchange connectors will operate as a system, supporting the need for a high degree of cooperation by local and state officials in future planning activities for this corridor. Other recommended improvements in central Clay Township are more limited, reflecting the mature development of the area. New roadway links are proposed to extend 126th Street from Range Line Road to Guilford Road, and to extend Guilford Road from 116th Street to 111th Street. The plan also proposes widening College Avenue and Range Line Road to four lanes between 116th Street and the Hamilton/Marion - 136 - County line. Traffic volumes should be monitored and a need demon- strated prior to implementing these improvements, but right-of-way should be acquired or preserved, in accordance with recommended geometric standards, as the opportunity arises. Two east-west roadways in central Clay Township are proposed for future widening: 116th Street and 146th Street. The need to widen 116th Street is indicated by current and forecasted volumes, and is warranted for network continuity as well as for serving specific traffic demands. Widening of 146th Street is recommended across the full width of the township to provide east-west mobility through that area. This is consistent with Hamilton County plans. In spite of physical limitations, a grade separation of 146th Street at U.S. 31 would also be desirable. More detailed studies are recommended to verify the feasibility of this overpass. In this plan, parkway standards are recom- mended for 116th Street and 146th Street, subject to socioeconomic impacts of right-of-way acquisition, as indicated by project-level environmental studies. Three locations within central Clay Township have been identified as requiring additional detailed geometric studies due to unusual roadway configurations and improvement constraints. These are Westfield Boulevard/96th Street, 136th Street/Smokey Row Road/Rohrer Road, and U.S. 31/Keystone Avenue/146th Street. Channelization or signalization improvements are underway or planned at each location, but long-range needs may warrant more extensive improvements. Each location is subject to development which may preclude future options for improvement. 3. Eastern Clay Township (Keystone Avenue to White River) Most of eastern Clay Township is expected to continue its past development pattern of low to moderate density residential land uses. The results of this development pattern will be continued gradual growth in area traffic as individual subdivisions and homes are constructed. An exception is along 96th Street in the southeast corner of the township, which will soon be extended across White River to I-69, east of Clay Township. This will relieve other east-west routes in the short term, but ultimately, it is anticipated that most of the additional capacity of this route will be needed to serve future commercial development in the area. More than other areas of Clay Township, the eastern section is affected by existing barriers to travel and limitations to potential roadway development. The most significant barrier is White River, extending northeast to southwest along the eastern township boundary. Bridges currently exist at 116th Street and 146th Street, and an additional bridge - 137 - is planned for 96th Street. Other barriers are I-465 to the south and Keystone Avenue to the west. Although Allisonville Road (east of White River) provides an option for north-south travel, it is congested and difficult to access. As a result, Keystone Avenue and White River tend to "funnel" residential traffic to the I-465/Keystone Avenue interchange. This has impacts for future Keystone Avenue traffic volumes (as discussed in the previous section) and for local roadways throughout this part of the township. A review of build-out conditions for medium density housing (two units per acre for estimating traffic effects) indicates the following future needs for eastern Clay Township:0a. Hazeldell Road - Extend this roadway on new alignment between 116th Street and Cherry Tree Road, and widen to four lanes between 96th Street and 146th Streets to serve as a north-south primary arterial for northeast Clay Township. This will accommodate a relatively large service area, reduce traffic demand on River Avenue north of 116th Street, and provide a consistency with Hamilton County plans. It would be the only four-lane north-south roadway traversing the entire township east of Keystone Avenue. To enhance the character of this roadway through high quality residential areas, it is proposed as a parkway north of 116th Street. b. Gray Road - Widen to four lanes between 116th Street and 96th Street. This would serve north-south residential traffic south of 116th Street, and it would provide an alternative to Keystone Avenue through this section of the township. The need to widen this section is indicated by traffic forecasts. If Hazeldell Road is constructed as proposed north of 116th Street, further widening of Gray Road to the north should be unnecessary if development is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. c. 116th Street-As in previous Cannel-Clay Township Thoroughfare Plans, early drafts of this 1990 Amendment indicated a need for four through lanes between Keystone Avenue and White River. Traffic forecasts based on residential build-ow in Eastern Clay Township indicate a need for this roadway capacity. This is due in part to a lack of east-west roadways connecting Keystone Avenue and Gray Road between 96th and 126th Streets. Lakes, subdivisions, and golf courses block opportunities to construct new roadways in this area, so east-west traffic is concentrated on 106th, 116th, and 126th Streets. `� In a parallel activity, underway while this plan was being completed, the 116th Street Study Committee was appointed by the - 138 - mayor to review the corridor-specific benefits and impacts of widening 116th Street. The committee reviewed a wide range of material and interviewed numerous individuals knowledgeable about this corridor. It was the finding of this committee that the traffic benefits of widening the roadway to four lanes or more would be outweighed by negative social and neighborhood impact, leading to a recommendation of three lanes (two-through/one-left turn)for this corridor section. Consistent with the recommendations of the 116th Street Study Committee, Figure X.8 shows 116th Street as a three-lane roadway between Keystone Avenue and White River. As stated previously, a parkway character is intended for this corridor although full parkway right-of-way is inappropriate due to potential negative impacts on adjoining properties. It should be noted that reducing the number of through lanes on 116th Street from four to two may increase the warren: for additional capacity on alternate routes. (This contingency was recognized by the 116th Street Study Committee.) Given the advanced stage of this plan at the time of the Committee's announced recommendation, and the relatively slow rate of growth in Eastern Clay Township, additional review of alternate parallel routes is left to the next Comprehensive Plan Update. d. 146th Street - This roadway is recommended as a four-lane parkway, consistent with identified need and recommendations for the remainder of Clay Township. e. 126th Street - Traffic forecasts indicate that four lanes will be needed from Hazeldell Road to Keystone Avenue to serve sur- rounding residential development. As with 116th Street, this need relates to traffic concentrations resulting from the funneling effect of White River and the lack of east-west parallel roadways be- tween Gray Road and Keystone Avenue. f. 106th Street - Traffic forecasts indicate a need for four lanes between Gray Road and Keystone Avenue for the same general reasons as for 116th Street and 126th Street. g. 96th Street - A need for six lanes east of Keystone Avenue is indicated by traffic forecasts which consider planned commercial development along this roadway. With the new bridge over White River, this roadway will also serve as a "back door" access to Castleton Square Shopping Center, an intensive commercial retail area located southeast of Clay Township in Marion County. - 139 - The timetable for roadway improvement in eastern Clay Township will be dictated by the growth rate of residential development. Right-of-wa should be reserved, in accordance with recommendedy standards, for construction of these roadways when the need is geometricindicated by increasing traffic volumes. H. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) In many high-growth suburban areas, (TDM) has emerged as an effective tool pr�canon demand management its nature, a thoroughfare plan identifies anticipated cgapiitoimprovement fic gor specific roadways or corridors. These actions serve to increase the capacity or "supply of the system. Y An alternate (or supplemental) approach is to reduce vehicle demand during peak periods of travel. The goal of TDM actions is to influence the way people travel to work, either by mode, frequency, or route. Following are typical TDM strategies may be effective in Carmel-Clay Township: which • Car pools, Van pools (ride sharing programs) • Staggered or flexible work hours • Improved transit service • Non-vehicular modes (bicycle, walk) • Employee services (day care, bank machines, postal facilities, and retail services in close proximity to reduce travel) While none of the TDM actions listed are recommended in lieu of physical improvement of the thoroughfare plan, effective implementation could defer or potentially eliminate future capital investment. The concentration of commercial office facilities within the Meridian Corridor provides a unique opportunity for these strategies. Consideration should be given to instituting ride sharing programs (possibly in conjunction with Indianapolis, gg given existing commuting patterns), sta staggered/flexible work hours, and improved transit service. Implementation will require a cooperative approach of multiple agencies and strong support and participation of the private sector. While it would be unrealistic to assume that future problems can be solved solely by TDM actions, the benefits in terms of fuel consumption, air and noise pollution, and utilization of public facilities are likely to make the effort worthwhile. - 140 - XI. ORIGINAL DOWNTOWN PLAN A. Introduction No amendments to the 'Original Downtown Plan" as originally published in the 12.8111.12.4.4C ndate are proposed at this time. Accordingly, text that follows is just as it appeared in the 1 original the In most instances, the downtowns of today have evolved from ukaoand town settlement clusters of yesterday. Over time, trends in the pop the market's buying habits have played a major role in determining the makeup of these core areas; as a result, the characteristics and functions of1 in order for the the Central Business District(CBD) have changed accordingly area to remain competitive in the marketplace. Until recently, these core areas, comprised of several diverse land uses, have been able to associated a stable position in the market place. Recent suburban catalysts in changing the retail and industrial growth have been the primary Y composition and perceived image of downtowns. �afflu uen thmarket of the malls and shopping centers are located closer to the more suburbs, many downtown stores and businesses have relocated to these areas. As a result, many downtowns have been tleft ew uses,vacant r tab ild nuses gs and storefronts and have been unable to attract s attractive as those in the past. The combination of these circumstances has ms to their decline and deterioration. �- affected many business districts and has Carmel is no different. What began as 14 plats (subdivided �who owned landin 1837 by ael t Warren, the founder of Carmel, and threequickly dt the corner of present-day Range Line Road and Main Street) q y into a village that served the area's population. Several mills, a dry goods store, and a church that housed the first school were among those services provided to the early residents of Bethlehem, the original name given to • Carmel. This area in the vicinity of Range Line Road and Main Street became the major hub of Carmel and Clay Township as the area continued to grow and new businesses and industriess o� � themselves. mon �h i has shifted away from downtown Carmel nrahppinemphasis a d malls in the immediate vicinity, downtown Cannel has shown several indications of the beginnings of decline and deterioration. The downtown's • historic image as the central focus and primary commercial activity center has weakened and eroded. downtown by The purpose of this Original downtownestablishs to focus statementsn ofeproblems and looking at existing conditions; to opportunities; and to develop a concept plan to serve as a guide for upgrading the area in an effort to maintain and enhance its pre sent town�specuS. "This plans deals with the part of the overall y an area from Second Avenue on the th StreetmSmokey Row the south.' on the north, Carmel High School on the east, and - 141 -