Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Thoroughfare Plan Traffic Scenarios
X. THOROUGHFARE PLAN (Plate 10) A. Introduction As requested by the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, significantly greater emphasis has been placed on thoroughfare planning in the 1990 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 related specifically to the land uses and are sufficiently accurate to support the level of detail of 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 are updated, including a new proposal for park- ways and modified geometric standards. 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. It is recom- mended 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. 'Carmel 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. - 106 - 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 Carmel-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 Carmel-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 have not yet been approved by the Plan Commission. • 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" estimate of needs. It is most useful in planning for rural areas of the township where ultimate residential build-out 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 Carmel, 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 routes are less than three years old. Traffic demand estimates for the programmed and build-out scenarios relate future traffic growth to anticipated land use changes and add this growth to existing traffic levels to provide an approximate base for - 107 - 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, Clay Townsi.ip 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 genera- tion rates (trips per dwelling unit, square feet of office, etc.) from the current 1'1'E Trip Generation Report are applied to identify a base number of peak-hour trips from each zone. For non-residen- tial 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 reflects the relationship between and among the traffic analysis zones of Carmel and those of Indianapolis. Distribution from zones in western Clay Town- ship (not included in the Indianapolis model) was estimated based on the distribution of trips from Carmel zones. The result is a trip table for each future land use scenario. These 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 - 108 - 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 were estimated for major roadways, and a "first choice" route was identified to provide the quickest path between each zone. Estimated trips between zones (from the trip tables) were 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 unrestrained assignment) to existing trips provides an estimate of future travel for each growth scenario, based on the path motorists 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. Land Use Scenarios and Associated Trip Generation For the programmed scenario, land use changes are limited to those developments which have been previously 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.1. 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 table below, assumed densities are less than the maximum allowable by the Comprehensive Plan to reflect general limitations to development such as roadways, slopes, etc. 'Although 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. - 109 - Maximum Density per Assumed Density per Major Land Uses Comprehensive Plan Acre of Undeveloped Land 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 peak-hour trip generation is illustrated for each zone in Figures X.1 & X.2. As illustrated by these figures, 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.3 through X.6 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 Carmel. 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. - 110 - Figure X.1: Peak Hour Trip Generation (AM) - 111 - Figure X.2: Peak Hour Trip Generation (PM) - 112 - a X _� 2 O W a) u. G D _ a) co Ot - co > co (C) a) U— a' 1.x. 0 o co Q • ,� Ir Z - co 1_, COTMM - co cr W O � _ car co w . U. N cop aj a Q Q r Z F- W0 aW J C O 4 o ag 0 2 2 - CO > o 0 CD 17; Z o o CCZ CC CID Z N. ELJ OI I I I J 1 a. O O O O O O O O ~ Occ W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q LOO LO 0 In (C) J = Cr) CO N CV T1- -I I JD >WI-0JWC/) a.W= IO=C W O CC OC O Q I O }- --1 \ - 'cr- m 2 w o 3L.2 Q, Dco o o - co co > _c U9 - n CO LLOD LL. O - CO Qz t � ^ - C I- ,- vd _ d' CC 0D CC OC _ CO } o CO W _ Q _ N CO CD CU > > a. Q Q _ 1- Z E-- LIJ CD -JW CL O Z Z- CO wCL LLI CL CD CO o O a) COWw Lii Z co ZY W 0 L.11z O - ti a CO < > 2J LLJ 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0r•-• c.) w o o 0 0 0 0 o a < Ln o to o to o 10 co co N N T- T' U = JD >L1.12-C)-111/0 awcC IODCC - W O MCC CLO 0E- \41 M '',e 1.1Z wI 2 a rn J co 0 �; ro U - co LL T co co Q O CC _ ts) 1--* (f) a) . w 0CI) - ") >- co w I-- N 0 Z 1._ LU co J Z Lu 73 Z Z - o wa Z 2 °m °m _ CM Z W _. Z Z h` w w Z cc 20 CC o _ co W Z N a ¢ 0 2J 21 1 1 1 1 1 N. o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 1z is) O LO 0 L() O LO Qui Cr) C) N N *- r V 2 J >WI-OJwu) Q W2 2022 - W O M 2 [t 0 ¢ 2 01- - in w. i.Z W o m __I 00 C co N. U _ co c0 T CO < 0 CC - 10 CO CC CO.M_� _ co CC CO CC Q 0 Z W Q cv a 13. 0 M Q C - z 1- W CO ¢ z J W Z Z co w a n. C� a) 0 0 > ° Z2 co co - 0) Zw > Z C _ c UJW O 2 0 - co cf) N. aa. : - W 1 1 1 I 1 1 h 0 11 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 cr Uw O 0 O O O O 0 Q IC) 0 It) 0 to 0 10 CO C'7 N CV •t- 7-- U 2 1 C7 J >W2-0JWC/) 0-LUCC I0=Cr W O M 2 Cr0 < I C.) 1- , We. c. U.S. 31 was most heavily influenced by adjacent commercial development during the 1980s. This is dramatically illustrated by the growth of northbound traffic during the morning peak hour, when work trips are most predominant. There were almost three times as many northbound trips in 1989 than there were in 1981. During the eight-year period, southbound traffic during the morn- ing 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 Carmel to Indianapolis, it now serves that function nearly equally in each direction. It is significant to note that the unused capacity available for "reverse commuting" during the 1980s is no longer available to meet future needs. There is insufficient data available to identify traffic growth trends on other major roadways in Carmel 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 on past traffic growth trends. 5. Minimum System Needs (Programmed Scenario) The location of approved developments in Appendix Figures A.1 and A.2, and the associated trip generation patterns for the programmed scenario (Figures X.1 and X.2), indicate that future traffic growth will continue in a pattern similar to the 1980s. U.S. 31 will continue to be influenced primarily by nearby commercial development, and Keystone Avenue will be influenced by residential growth in eastern Clay Town- ship. Rates of growth for commercial and residential developments are influenced by different factors, and market forces make specific timeta- bles difficult to define. No specific target year is assumed for the programmed scenario. It is recognized that some approved develop- ments may not be fully implemented and others will be added. In light of these offsetting factors and since approved development provides the most reliable base available for estimating limited growth, the pro- grammed scenario is considered the minimum development condition for estimating future thoroughfare needs. New trips were 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 - 117 - Table X.1 ESTIMATED DAILY TRAFFIC LEVELS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS MINIMUM FUTURE NEEDS (PROGRAMMED SCENARIO*) Estimated Daily Traffic Route Section Existing** Future U.S. 31 I-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 Carmel 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. 15,000 17,000 131st St. to 136th St. 9,000 10,000 106th Street Range Line Rd. to U.S. 31 11,000 15,500 116th Street Gray Rd. to Keystone Ave. 14,000 18,500 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: INDOT (U.S. 31 & Keystone Ave.) City of Carmel (local roadways). - 118 - 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 not surprising, given the demon- strated effect of commercial development on U.S. 31 traffic flow during the 1980s. As indicated by Table X.2, the Carmel 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 proposed new developments (not yet reviewed by the Cannel-Clay Plan Commission). Even 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 basic approaches for meeting the needs of the programmed scenario 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 see '` nitcrnativc3 represent three distinct approaches to meeting the excess north-south traffic demand generated along U.S. 31. They differ significantly in terms of cost, impact, and flexibility in accommodating future growth. They are generally described below. - 119 - Table X.2: 1980's Developments - 120 - 1. Skdtai';.:Plaif.Alternativc 1 - Arterial Improvements (Figure X.7) ................................ This option relies on a strategy of 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 Pennsylvania St. 103rd - Carmel Dr. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes Range Line Road* 96th - 116th St. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes College Avenue* 96th - 116th St. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes Spring Mill Road* 96th - 116th St. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes * As a "subalternate," a new four-lane north-south roadway between Spring Mill and U.S. 31 (as shown in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan Update) would make widening of Spring Mill and either Range Line Road or College Avenue unnecessary to meet the excess traffic demand of the programmed scenario (see Figure X.8). - 121 - Figure X.7: Sketch Plan 1 - 122 - Figure X.8: Sketch Plan la - 123 - 2. €e '< 't ' " 2 - Township Line Road Interchange (Figure X.9) g g 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 I-465 and Township Line Road (Towne Road in Hamilton County). Mgt riaits4tefnative 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 - Carmel 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 I-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 - 124 - Figure X.9: Sketch Plan 2 - 125 - 3. Sketdf"P#at`Altcrnative 3 - U.S. 31 Interchange (Figure X.10) 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 I-465 and a point north of 116th Street, and a six-lane arterial is assumed north to 146th Street. Interchanges would be provided 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 et `> Altemath'e: Route Limit Change U.S. 31 I-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 - Carmel Dr. From 4 lanes to 6 lanes Gray Road 96th - 116th St. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes Pennsylvania St. 103rd - Carmel Dr. From 2 lanes to 4 lanes 106th Street Range Line - U.S. 31 From 2 lanes to 4 lanes The three alternatives 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. Each alternative is formulated to meet the basic demands of the programmed scenario. They differ in flexibility (to accommodate additional growth), socioeconomic impact, and cost, as indicated in Table X.3. - 126 - Figure X.10: Sketch Plan 3 - 127 - Table X.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF CONCEPTUAL SKETCH PLANS SKETCH PLAN 1 & la 2 3 Township line U.S. 31 CHARACTERISTIC Widen Roadways Rd. Interchange Freeway Flexibility Little or no Limited available Excess Capacity unused capacity capacity on available to accom- Towne Road modate additional growth Congested condi- tions on U.S. 31, Pennsylvania, and Spring Mill Road Socioeconomic Impact Significant impact Moderate impact. Some disruption Changes due to right-of- near interchanges way needs and right-of-way re- (relocations unlike- high traffic quired and traffic ly) volumes in impacts to new residential areas areas, but areas Maintenance of are mostly traffic impacts undeveloped. during construction Spring Mill Rd. congestion detri- mental to residen- tial neighborhoods Estimated Cost $20 - 40 million $40 - 60 million $30 - 50 million (including R/W) It was recommended to the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee that U.S. 31 be proposed as a freeway, as shown in 1kalternative-3, to satisfy minimum future needs indicated by the programmed scenario. Although it is not the least expensive, it minimizes socioeconomic impact, and it is the only alternative which provides excess capacity to meet additional future needs. Review of buildout conditions, although not used to forecast "ultimate" demand on U.S. 31, strongly indicates the need for this flexibility (see the next section). Failure to accommodate excess demand on U.S. 31 will most - 128 - surely result in traffic diversion to Spring Mill Road and College Avenue, where congestion and impacts from high traffic volumes are more disruptive. Based on the conceptual tc ' b '$lteffratives-review, the U.S. 31 freeway alternative forms the basis of the updated thoroughfare plan. As detailed in the next section, 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 Carmel 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 Carmel 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 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 - 129 - that have controlled-access features and terminated crossroads; or a facility that has an occasional at-grade intersection. Primary Arterials: Primary arterials 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 arterials 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 Arterials: Secondary arterials are intended to collect and distribute traffic to primary arterials. Secondary arterials 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 arterials, 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. For the purpose of setting minimum geometric standards, the 1990 Amendment includes major collectors (formerly "collectors") and minor collectors (formerly "local access- commercial"). These designations are consistent with the classification system of Hamilton County. Local Streets: Local streets are intended to provide access to individual properties abutting the street. 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" 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 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 - 130 - 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 Carmel and Clay Township relate to the minimum right-of-way width and street pavement width for each functional class of thoroughfare. Reflecting proposed 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 Carmel, but not in Hamilton County. While the 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 Regula- tions, replacing conflicting 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. FOOPOhens ve lan`BuBd u( 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 were estimated for this scenario using the same methodology as previously applied to the programmed scenario. Unlike the pro- grammed 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. - 131 - to c L 9 y y C7 O C C C ❑ Q C C C v] G v) _ • •' to Z Z z z Z Z Z Z c y Z v a o w = ai Q1... Qr 3 W 'O C4 • v v C C C C C Q C G c v� ❑ r%� ,+ ccE O O O O O O O O O y C O o Z z z z z z z z o O Z 0 p pa C C 6J CZ a g Q g Q `z N Q Zya yy 88 8 8 z Z a Flo o 0• W ELI y > �. c WV) C7 ami cc.p Z 1 :: y o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 'Zr uja z z o X � 2 ato • W O y C3 H 0 2 - �- C a 4 z z �' en et to ben e in Z - w -o p "v rn Cn 67 rn ,Ay W O Z ^v .. .. 0 1. [ 8 y- :? cnNNri o v W• >-. a O O p 00 p p O OM Q CZ Z v tel ^ o in U v' 'c G >, GV a �c+1 N NI v N to to 3 c.O v - i., Ow 4U ,11 E 70 W W 'fl cC -0 0 '.; a, w 1) z y o c. a CC 0 3 L '- 0 U L U •-. v yw 3 V O a) as y w O UO ¢ Q -Er') ,...1°— O i�0, E"' I. K •z O O O �` OU (i. W LL H U U .] U o 0 0 7 ., CA Cc0 .-.N M.7 h V Evt . � V t'3 L -o >- o 0 a U c ,. dw ) o a w a ¢ a s v ¢ va TS 0 Z a. Local Needs at Build-Out The Comprehensive Plan (1985 and current update) 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 to the regional roadway network. Regional network changes are not likely to affect most of these localized needs. The timing of these roadway improvements would be determined by localized devel- opment rates and related increases in traffic demand. For local and collector roadways, the primary benefit of this Thoroughfare Plan Update is the identification of probable future roadway needs so that right-of-way can be preserved. 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 on regional roadways such as U.S. 31 and Keystone, underlying assumptions and specific results of the forecast methodology should not be considered reliable for determining €ltfuture needs. The most signifi- cant limitations are as follows: • 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-out 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-out is complete, northern Hamilton County would probably be extensively developed, resulting in fundamental changes in regional travel patterns. Likewise, additional migration into Carmel may reduce the length of work trips to local offices. These factors are beyond the scope of the forecast methodology used in this update. - 133 - • Regional Network Changes - As they pass through Clay Town- ship, U.S. 31 and Keystone Avenue are part of a much larger network of regional highways. Future changes to U.S. 421, Allisonville Road, I-465, and S.R. 32 could significantly affect regional traffic patterns. New regional roadways such as an outer belt around the greater Indianapolis area (conceiv- ably through the center of Hamilton County) could also have major effects on travel patterns. Regional network changes such as these cannot be reliably estimated for a build-out time frame, and ignoring them would lead to unreliable forecasts. glingdidijkirttalgad With the above limitations in mind, a review of build-out scenario forecasts provides some clues to future regional needs, as follows: (1) Future problems will continue to concentrate on U.S. 31 due to a large service area and high 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. >. Due:tc ess ttmations on U S. 31, a lam. txaf 4is `hurt system, such as that provided:b, 'ennsylvania Avenue and prpo wester t parallel canny#:.ww e sa >to:< e abng 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. Increased demand on Keystone Avenue is likely to ultimately warrant an upgrade to freeway standards from I-465 to 116th Street. Before build-out is complete, a Township Line Road inter- change at I-465 will be needed to maintain mobility in western Clay Township. (1)(6) Findings of the programmed scenario review provide a base which is quite conservative for a 10- to 20-year plan for Carmel and Clay Township. - 134 - 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 growth in regional roadways. The resulting plan is illustrated, in terms of functional class and lane widths, on Figure X.11. 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 local roadways should be connected to the regional highway network by four-lane arterials 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 Road/I-465 interchange is assumed in the development of this plan. A number of factors will influence future consideration of this - 135 - 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. 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 target 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. The rate of this growth will relate closely to market conditions. Recommendations 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 results directly to this commercial development, as indicated by the high growth rate of northbound traffic ("reverse commute" work trips) between 1981 and 1989. As shown by Figure X.5, 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 - 136 - Figure X.11: T. Plan (Func Class / lane width (?)) - 137 - freeway, with grade-separated interchanges, is recommended for U.S. 31. Initially, the freeway should extend past 116th Street, with interchanges at 106th and 116th Streets, and overpasses (or closure) at 103rd and 111th Streets. In consideration of the potential for 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 to six lanes north to 146th Street. Ultimately, the need for six lanes on all proposed freeway sections is indicated by traffic forecasts. Leal roadway improvements will ben sary to provide mess to abutting properties from U' S•31 K These Glade development of parallel collector roadways and improved east west connectors al ... .......:::: mterchan es,as:discus ate seed i€ Whereas traffic growth on U.S. 31 during the 1980s is attributable primarily to nearby commercial development, traffic growth on Key- stone 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 Figures X.3 and X.4, directional dis- tribution 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) to Carmel Drive. When anticipated residential growth in western Clay Township is considered, traffic forecasts suggest a need to extend the six-lane facility northward to 131st Street, and, ulrately a need to consider future freeway construction between I-465 and 116th Street. Keystone Avenue growth is likely to occur gradually in the 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. Thus, 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 s 1 t y f -not occur within the next 20 years. Additional studies will be needed to implement the recommended actions on either U.S. 31 and Keystone, 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 configurations, right-of-way needs, staging, maintenance of traffic considerations, and costs. Preliminary - 138 - reviews indicate that a "tight urban diamond" design could be used at 106th and 116th Streets on U.S. 31. North of 116th Street, an interchange at Carmel Drive 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 on U.S. 31 and, ultimately,Keystone Avenue should be verified by more detailed studies. Other thoroughfare plan recommendations in central Clay Township ere recommended-provide access to the U.S. 31 freeway or to serve local needs. The need for a parallel collector roadway system recommended in the 1985 Update along U.S. 31 is verified 0#41400#0004.14th traffic estimates developed for this 1990 Amendment. These four-lane roadways will be needed to provide local access to commercial develop- ments in the Meridian Corridor and to collect traffic destined for U.S. 31 interchanges. Roadway improvements (shown as six-lane arterials) on cross streets will be necessary between the parallel collectors to provide access to interchanges on 106th, 116th, and Cannel Drive. 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 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 County plans: ount} Plans.:.>:. t pys: rtioglowwit.440404tiOfftifI460StiffitatILSiJ: ' dalobe # rable :More. detailed Studies::>are recommen ve fy»>:1: lea i�tlit o th ov lass. 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. - 139 - 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 Range Line Road/96th Street, 136th Street/Smokey Row Road/Rohrer Road, and U.S. 31/Keystone Avenue/146th Street. 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. wth results�f'tis g�towth pattern€*zll be cont�:ued grad gra . area traffic growth as individual subdivisions,and_ are construct:- ;:An ecce tion is along 96th€ Street in t southeast e t township,which will soon be exuded across White River:> J- ,<: tipp*rjo,004:11.i.IMIMJII!ToD040:#40;#0Moti:.#040fplif,1)01#041 ter f but over the toiig terms,itis kft40pated that Dost tt the add s ea z this route will neem:to.;s : t patesl :40) *01 elopmezit._tn.>_thg.::azea ....An cxccption is along 96th Street in the .. . •. . -•. • . . . . .. -• •.• • • ... . �• -.• ... • e nat uetcd. 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 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 in this analysis) in eastern Clay Township indicates the following future needs for eastern Clay Township: a. Hazeldell Road - Extend between 136th and 116th Streets and widen to four lanes to serve as a north-south arterial for northeast Clay Township. This will accommodate a relatively large service area, reduce traffic demand on River Avenue, and provide a consistency with Hamilton County plans. It would be the only - 140 - four-lane north-south roadway east of Keystone Avenue and north of 116th Street. To enhance the character of this roadway through high quality residential areas, it is proposed as a parkway. 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 - Widen to four lanes from Keystone Avenue to White River, providing a four-lane roadway all the way across Clay Township. In terms of network continuity, widening 116th Street across the county is one of the most important improve- ments recommended in this plan. It is one of only two roadways (with 146th Street) proposed for four lanes across the entire town- ship. Traffic forecasts based on residential build-out in eastern Clay Township indicate a clear 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 Street and 126th Street. Lakes, subdivisions, and golf courses block opportunities to construct new roadways in this area, so east-west traffic is con- centrated on 106th, 116th, and 126th Streets. Consistent with other sections of 116th Street, this section is recommended for parkway construction, subject to constraints identified in project-level environmental studies. 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 Hazelldel 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 - 141 - development along this roadway. With the new bridge over White River, this roadway will also serve as a "back door" access to Castleton Shopping Center, an intensive commercial retail area located southeast of Clay Township in Marion County. The timetable for roadway improvements in eastern Clay Township will be dictated by the growth rate of residential development. Right-of-way should be reserved, in accordance with recommended geometric standards, for construction of these roadways when the need is indicated by increasing traffic volumes. < __ ra portation Demand Manage t D �'�:' �:'':�:'.:::,::": :. :.: .. ...... :::: .:. .:. :.:..:.:::::..+..:.:.::..:...}i:v::'::.:[.:.:..::.:...:..:...4:::.ii ::M1:r:'C?i.:?{<Y%y:"??i:ix ii%i;C:•iii:p:;:?!{!;^iiv <1�€any high-gr€�tyth; Sub�urbarx :a1'�aS; . �� Q1� cl �ana� �M� �emerged as an ef�'ecttve tit to reducuig traf�eort © > mature, a thoroughfare plan'idenhf�es anticipated�agt �ra�rements faz sp �fic roadways ox corrYdars 'f heseGttOJS: `V '< 7e tbo a :. supply of the system tin atterna#e (ttr s i tg '' ���rehicle tlemarid +during peak.penods of travel <`04 by ode, fregi7ency, ar routeo11¢vciug are ................... maybe effective in Larmel Clay towns rp ls, an pools (ridesharing programs) • ::>S agg end:c e7c to; ork hours rami;transtt;service N©n-reNcular modes (bicycles •_ Employee services (clay care, bank machines, postal �lities, and rets services to close proximity.:to reduce travel) While mane of the actions"listed are recommended m lieu of improvements of the thoroughfare pian, effec ve implemen t o cid+defer or tentiall eliminate future ca ital investments < `` entrai <c f ::S.ii::.j:y: :4}i:4i:4iii::•i ii Y'.::: i:4iiii3ii":t4ii: ilii::::::.�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::•::::::::•::•::::::::::•:::::::::::::._::::::::::•::::•::::.:::.:..:•:::::•:::::..........- commerctal office facilities within the Me dean Com�dor provides a unique opportunity for these strategies Consideration shoulc i e give to instituting rtdesharing programs (possibly ire conjuncti with �ianapolis, given existing commuting patterns}, staggeredlflexible work hours, a <unprov € t sit: sery ce fmplementation will require a cooperairve approach of ;::•�?L:.:'.V:i::::ii::i::.:'i::::...:::L::�....:..:..:...... .:::::::..:.:..:....:::::.:.......:'..:i'�:::.:.::.:..i.:::..:::.L.:::i::.:....Y:::.w.iii?::.::..:ry:.y;.�:.::Y.:::::::i'.iii::::::<..:v:;:::;.: multiple ag ies and strong support and participation cif: ,priv seer:. Whe it would be unrealistic to assume that future problems to ived t TDM acti s'<:::tl e benefits in terms :;o fuel cor sum on, air a d n se ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .: ':.i:.::.:.;:.i:.i:.i:.i:.;::.:.i:.;:'-i:;.;:<:.:.'..;:.;;:;:'..i:.i:.;.i:;.;i:.i' .;:.;;:-i>::.; :.;;.:ii:: ;.i::::. .':.:-:.;:;.iii:.i;:.:;.;:.i:.:. .i:.i:';.i:.iii':.i:.;:.i;;::::.:.:. :.::.::.ii":-:.ii:.:-:.:.:.;::' .i:.i:.:• pollution, d utilization of public faci ties are ikke y > << e a - 142 -