The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHNTB Letter to Jef Davis 4/19/91 HF11 B HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN &BERGENDOFF 225,\ortb ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS Neu,Jersey Street Indianapolis,Indiana March 19, 1991 46204-2135 (317)636-4682 FAX(317)633-0505 Mr. Jeff Davis, President Carmel-Clay Plan Commission 40 E. Main Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Comprehensive Plan Update 116th Street Recommendations Keystone Ave. to White River Dear Mr. Davis: We recognize and appreciate that the Plan Commission (and City Council) must ultimately decide on components of this plan, considering many factors in addition to the technical input of HNTB. We are aware of the recommendations of the 116th Street Committee as announced last week, and offer the following review of planning background and options. PLANNING BACKGROUND 1. HNTB has recommended a minimum of 4 lanes for this section of 116th Street based on estimated future travel demand and network continuity. 2. HNTB recommendations are based on technical analysis of trips generated by future land use represented in the comprehensive plan. As you know, site specific corridor studies were not conducted. 3. As a parallel activity, the Mayor's 116th Street Committee reviewed available technical data in the context of corridor-specific issues and recommended a maximum of three lanes (with selected intersection improvements) for this section of 116th Street. PLAN COMMISSION OPTIONS 1. Show four lanes in the Thoroughfare Plan, recognizing that the plan is long-term, and all plan recommendations are subject to demonstrated need and more detailed engineering studies. Indicate right-of-way limitations to full four-lane parkway construction. OR 2. Show three lanes on 116th Street, reflecting community consensus as indicated by the recommendations of the 116th Street Committee and others representing the community. orins.Charles T.leennrgan PE.Camel J.Splgar PE.John L.Cotton PE.Robert.S.Coma PE.Donald A.Cowes RE.James L.Tuttle.Jr PE.Han,.E.Schan PE. Cry r:.r:,lboman Ala.Gordon H.Slane,Jr.PE.Harvey K.Hahenond,Jr PE.Stephen C.GoOcaro PE.John W.WePub..Jr.PE.Pccharo O.F3ecketan PE.P,chard L.Earhan AIA. Dounias LPrescott PE.Ronald L Hartle PE .PC.Parc, E Pobrson PE.Stanley t.Mast PC-.Walter Sh:n ku PE.Frank T LJnen Pc. A.eaa,a s Ke >II T.Lin. CPA.Pobr.rtc W.Southern PF H' C] F3 n I • r Fr I M r rAiE. u en •P�. P c PE - E3.O PE S' A 'h PE H u f3u PE a l M a E.Oo Pt.Mlrh rel P 1 .•F F Rooney P Pf-. PE.T N. -A'A.D E. .k PF J E.K Jty J vunAC Myhre PC Carl J.M L PE.RE.Glenn F Elnrk ra ul D ". P - PE 0 fl er s PC.t I- L.t]rl A P,n(. AIA,Pob,:rt A Lo�rk PE. mC.Srdul k PF "] A 'Mester F'-.` ] �� r U.l.MrC:lt PF rn. A ..rr PF P A Yar<�s s.PE FChristopher C.n e>nU ASLA AILP RnlanU W Fe r,rr.r.l ulA. 17��n M Ivan PF.,.rry K A novo PIA Raymond ..Ala r A<.. VA t,M AIA.latah,F;W .PF.Ma, l FD Mi.., F I .' L.V r , ,n,LA,iln MA. NV { IL.t-v v,•�. U t]H _.- f (.A.C I,a.T%.C �:C] F i+ ^LJ. Ott A -.r VA.AL L:A r3a Wn Pnm - la„5 _rn •..MN. r.I:r I .T. . nn.Ti( InUlnr„prrl:..:.IN,Ir vim• l:A,K.e A] k N .nom A r 'rr p.tM arm.FL.Mrlw r 11 ]L V A Mr. Jeff Davis, President Carmel-Clay Plan Commission Page 2 March 19, 1991 DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS Option 1: Four Lanes 1. In a technical sense, this option is designed to serve modest future residential development in Eastern Clay Township. Recent studies by others indicate that the need is not immediate to serve existing traffic. 2. Short-term improvements such as intersection modifications and three-lane sections are not inconsistent with the long-range focus of the plan, but a potential for additional future need is recognized. 3. The technical basis of plan development, relating type and intensity of land use to areawide traffic demand, is maintained in the plan. 4. The draft Thoroughfare Plan and Comprehensive Plan document would require no adjustment at this stage other than indicating right-of-way restrictions to full parkway construction. Option 2: Three Lanes 1. This option would not necessarily refute the technical findings of the Thoroughfare Plan study. Rather, it would represent a value judgment which considers public input and localized impacts in addition to future mobility needs. 2. This option would affect future distribution of east- west trips in the area, and may warrant provision of additional capacity on alternate routes. This scenario is not considered in the current recommended plan. 3. Given the overall importance of adopting a revised plan in the near term, it may be best to defer consideration of additional capacity on alternate routes to the next update. Future needs on 116th Street could be reconsidered as well, if the need is indicated by changing conditions. 4. Thoroughfare Plan text and recommendations in this update would remain largely unchanged. In a technical sense, HNTB long-range recommendations are the same. We would add a paragraph citing extensive community review of the 116th Street issue and would relate the judgment of the Mr. Jeff Davis, President Carmel-Clay Plan Commission Page 3 March 19, 1991 Plan Commission that traffic demand issues are considered to be outweighed by corridor-specific issues, leading to the designation of a three-lane section for this portion of 116th Street. Reference could be made to additional review of alternate routes in future studies. After all this time and effort, I regret my inability to attend this important meeting. Hopefully, you will find these comments helpful. We have been pleased to provide technical input to the Steering Committee and Plan Commission in developing this Plan. We hope you find this review helpful as the process nears completion. Very truly yours, HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF John W. Myers, P.E. Project Engineer JWM/l j c cc: Mr. Wes Bucher Ms. Joann Green