Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-03-11-91 CARMEL CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEE TING MINUTES MARCH 11, 1991 7:00 P.M. ONE CIVIC SQUARE/COUNCIL CHAMBERS The special meeting of the Carmel City Council was called to order by Mayor Dorothy J. Hancock. Council members in attendance were Tom Irvin, Frank Fleming, David Adams, Alan Potasnik, Lee Lonzo, Minnie Doane and Annabelle Ogle. City Attorney Steve Andrews and Clerk-Treasurer Susan Jones were also in attendance. Mayor Hancock stated this was not a public hearing. Hancock said that following the presentation of the 116th Street Task Force, only the Council will have an opportunity to ask questions. Mayor Hancock stated the projected timetable for the TIMETABLE: project. Hancock said there would be at least three additional times for public input. The task force has also opened its meetings for public input and the procedure following this meeting will be as follows: The Board of Public Works and Safety will request a recommendation from the Council and an additional appropriation to fund preliminary engineering for design. The Council will hold a public hearing on the additional appropriation. The Board of Public Works and Safety will instruct the engineering firm todesign the improvement and apply for federal funding. The Mayor noted that this community will come up with the design but will also ask for federal funding. Hancock said those were our tax dollars and it will not determine the design. The design will be determined first and the city will request federal funds. If the project is approved for federal funding, the State will hold another public hearing. Hancock stated that beyond that, the Council will need to appropriate the local share of funds for engineering, right-of-way and construction costs. At that time, there will be another public hearing. A complete transcript of the report 116TH STREET COMMITTEE REPORT: and slide presentation is attached to the minutes. A complete transcript of the MAYOR'S STATEMENT ON 116TH STREET. statement is attached to the minutes. Councilor Irvin asked John Schuler if he had any COUNCIL REMARKS: thoughts on how the Council can work with Hamilton County. Schuler stated he has already had contact with the Hamilton County Task Force and has moved forward in working with the Hamilton County Commissioners. Schuler went on to state that the Hamilton County Commissioners were the ones who asked the 116th Street Task Force to study the project all the way to the Fisher's city limits. Councilor Irvin also expressed a concern about people using the center lane for passing. Schuler stated the key was to keep the speed at 30 m.p.h. Schuler also stated this concept is used on Carmel Drive and it doesn't appear to be a problem. Councilor Potasnik thanked the committee for all of their work and stated he was pleased to see democracy working. Councilor Potasnik said that democracy is working when it takes a controversial issue such as this and turns it into a solution. Councilor Potasnik requested that members of the Plan Commission also receive a copy of this study. Councilor Potasnik asked how this plan differed from the Woodbrook Study Group's Plan. Bonnie Liggett, a member of the 116th Street Task Force, stated it differed in two ways. One, the plan did not take into consideration the intersections and two, their plan asked for planters in the center lane that would not be used for left turns. Councilor Fleming also thanked the committee for all of their work and discussed the need for sidewalks on the northside, in front of the golf course. John Schuler stated their might be a liability factor in putting sidewalks along side of a golf course and wasn't sure of putting pedestrian traffic at such a large intersection. Councilor Fleming asked about trees. Tom Dapp, a consultant to the 116th Street Committee, stated that saving trees was definitely part of the design criteria. Councilor Ogle thanked the committee for their time and effort. Councilor Ogle asked about the center lane being used for a passing lane and also going from 5 lanes to 3 lanes and then in some areas using 5 lanes again. Schuler stated the committee did not want to use an "accordion" effect and took into consideration future growth. Again, Mr. Schuler stated, he did not believe the center lane would be used for passing if the 30 m.p.h. speed limit was enforced. Councilor Lonzo thanked the committee for their work and stated he was overwhelmed by the information he received. Councilor Lonzo asked about a pedestrian crosswalk in front of Woodbrook Elementary School. Schuler stated that a pedestrian crosswalk would be included in the design. Councilor Lonzo also had concerns over the center lane. Mr. Schuler stated that many engineers looked at this plan and recommended it for this project. Schuler stated the emphasis was on reduced speed and enforcing the speed limit. Schuler also stated the center lane would be oversized. Councilor Adams stated he was very impressed by the committee's study and appreciated the spirit of compromise that was used in developing this plan. Councilor Adams asked if anyone had concerns over not being able to obtain federal funds. Schuler stated no. Councilor Adams asked if there would be a traffic light at Haverstick. Schuler stated no. Councilor Doane thought the committee did a marvelous job on the presentation and asked about the Fisher's boundary. Mr. Schuler stated that the boundary line was 3/4 mile east of Eller Road. Councilor Adams asked about the Fisher's plan. Schuler stated the proposal was done but has yet to be presented to the public. Mayor Hancock asked about additional traffic signals. Schuler stated that a light would be proposed in front of Union State Bank, west of Keystone and eventually one at Eller Road. The light at Eller Road is outside the city limits of Carmel. Mayor Hancock also thanked Hal Espey for taping the proceedings so people could watch this at home. There being no further business before the Council the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Susan W. Jones, Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED: ATTEST: Susan W. Jones . 116th Street Committee Final Proposal March 11, 1991 Patti Apolzan, President of the Woodbrook PTO also 8poke at the public hearing, making the task force aware of the petition circulated by the PTO members. The petition, which calls for three lanes on 116th Street, includes 1,233 signatures. Public input at the two open forums overwhelmingly supports solutions which include changes of no more than three lanes on 116th Street. Our final information gathering meeting was held on December 12,1990, with Wes Bucher, Director of the Department of Community Development. He presented to the committee the Carmel-Clay Comprehensive Plan update. This ended our formal presentations and we began to finalize our plan and presentation. Certainly it would be fair to say that by the time that these presentations ended, we felt that we knew a tremendous amount about the traffic problems of not only 116th Street, but most of Hamilton County as well. The specific task of the committee was to study the 116th Street traffic problem and make recommendations for improvements. However, in struggling with the task assigned, after digesting voluminous amounts of information, and listening to various speakers, this committee has concluded that the 'problem' is not 116th Street. Instead, traffic congestion on 116th Street is but a symptom of a regional traffic problem. The regional traffic problem is in substantial part comprised of limited east-west access over the White River. Therefore, this committee respectfully suggests that further study be conducted of other east-west streets with particular emphasis on widening other roads in a manner similar to the recommended design for 116th Street and also the possibility of acquiring or placing another bridge across the White River. This committee has a strong commitment to the community that is Carmel, to the safety of our children, and to the adults who enjoy walking along 116th Street. This committee also knows that it is necessary to have an infrastructure which can handle the needs of today and also tomorrow. This committee is not anti growth, but very pro-planning. As we began to study this problem of efficient traffic movement we looked back at the planning that had been done in the past. I would like to share with you three slides that show how our community could have looked if these plans had proceeded. The 1959 Major Street and Thoroughfare Highway Plan had incorporated a by pass and parkway system to move future development traffic in a manner that would not gridlock existing primary roads. The 1961 Plan still shows the By-Pass, which was called the Clay trafficway, as an outer belt. Carmel Drive was to go north and become an inside circle of an inner city collector. 126th Street is extended west of US 31 and Gray Rd. is the north south parkway that is the eastern leg of the By-pass. The 1968-1971 Plan has now eliminated all of those future plans and it looks like Carmel as it exists today. I will not speculate on why the changes were made, but only make a comment. Those planners who spent time studying the future proposed to save us from the confusion and malcontent we experience today. I only hope that the plan we present tonight will not go the way of the 1959 and 1961 Plans. Our plan has the people in mind who will suffer the most by uncontrolled development. Our plan understands that we must not only provide for those who want to develop and move into this community today, but also protect those who already live here, whether their length of residence be one, five, or twenty-five years. It is because we came to know of past plans and present development that we became somewhat actively involved in the Carmel-Clay planning process. You all know of the letters we wrote to you, and to the Plan Commission, respecting the Brenwick development and the Comprehensive Plan Update, which letters are again attached to this report. We feel very strongly that foresight can go a long way toward, if not reducing the traffic load on 116th Street, then at least not significantly increasing it. Everyone is now talking of, and planning for, the HazelDell extension. The Comprehensive Plan Update shows this as an extension south to 116th, with an apparent dead end there. The Noblesville and between traffic it is expected to carry must then go somewhere on 116th Street just to get further south. If the traffic is going south to Castleton, it will need to use 116th as far as Eller Road. If it is going south to Indianapolis, it will use 116th to get to Gray, Keystone, or Meridian. This committee's suggestion is that HazelDell's extension north of 116th Street and the River Avenue extension south of 116th Street be adopted as set forth in the proposed Thoroughfare Plan of the Hamilton County Comprehensive Plan, rather than the proposed Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan. This plan would align these roads and provide a path for traffic to 96th Street. This suggestion is specifically made based upon the Committee's opinion that the Hamilton County Plan provides the better solution for HazelDell and 116th Street traffic. The 96th Street extension and expansion will not be given half a chance to relieve 116th in particular, or Hamilton County traffic in general, unless we can get traffic to it without using 116th Street. HazelDell needs not to dead end into 116th, but to extend further south all the way to 96th Street. If this is done, then we will have the other much needed north-south arterial, without putting much of an added load on 116th. We, as a committee, probably feel as strongly about this one issue as about any particular recommendation we have. Finally, this committee suggests that further study snd consideration be given to the development of an east-west corridor linking I-69 and US 31, and eventually linking I-65. This corridor, utilizing a portion of SR 32, should serve to eliminate a substantial portion of the regional traffic congestion existing today and serve as a southern link for a Noblesville bypass. Let me now introduce Brett Schmidli, who will present to you the traffic counts and other engineering data which support and give rise to our recommendations. Good evening everyone. Tonight I would like to take a few minutes to describe for you some of the background technical information and the analysis of this information that our group has considered in arriving at our recommendations. This information includes traffic counts at various points along 116th Street, engineering data, and advice from a number of professional consultants. Using this information, we have tried to understand where our traffic problems are today, and how they will change in the future. With this information, we have tried to develop a recommendation for 116th Street that addresses how to handle a reasonable amount of traffic on 116th Street while minimizing any negative impact on those who live on or near 116th Street. This required us to try and balance the safety and needs of those Carmel residents on or near 116th Street, those Carmel residents who use 116th Street, and the general population who use 116th Street both now and in the future. The traffic counts and engineering data that we have used as the basis for our analysis of the traffic situation has come from a variety of sources. We have used information from INDOT (Indiana Dept. of Transportation), engineering consultants for both Carmel and Fishers (Butler Fairman and Seufert, HNTB, and A & F Engineering), and some advice from a Civil Engineering Professor form Purdue, Dr. M. Cassidy, who was kind enough to spend an afternoon (rush hour) studying our 116th Street traffic situation. In addition to this information, we also made a number of important assumptions in helping us to plan a recommendation for today and the future. These can be summarized as follows: 1. Safety considerations should receive a very high priority 2. An acceptable design target for a "reasonable" amount of traffic would be a wait of no more than one light cycle during normal rush hour conditions. We assessed this target based on current traffic counts, the recommended design for 116th Street, and a projected growth in traffic of 2.5% per year out through the year 2010. 3. Although the g rowth rate projected i8 a reasonable one. It does rely in part on the other regional improvements to traffic that will be needed to prevent a disproportionately large increase in trafflc growth on 116th Street. 4. And lastly, we assurned that we would minimize the impact on the local community by accommodating the traffic volume with the minimum amount of pavement. Based on the current traffic counts for 116th Street and the projected 2.5%/Year growth, we can see that the traffic volumes will grow considerably over the next 20 years. At present, the daily trafflc volume along 116th Street varies from 14,000 to 17,000 vehicles, and during the rush hours (generally between 8 and 9 in the morning and 5 and 6 in the evening) the hourly traffic volumes peak at about 10% of the daily volumes. At the projected growth rate, this traffic volume will be at around 20,000 vehicles per day by the year 200 and at around 25,000 vehicles per day by the year 2010. Using this projection of traffic volumes over the next 20 years, we can compare the amount of anticipated traffic to the capacity that our recommended design will handle. I will try to walk you through this analysis with the next several slides, which show an estimate of the traffic volumes for each section of 116th Street included in our study. We will start with the section from Rangeline Rd. to Keystone Av. For each of the traffic summary slides that I will be showing you, the expected peak capacity for each section of the road (expressed in vehicles per hour) is shown in black. Then, the projected amount of traffic that the section of road will need to handle to meet our target definition for "reasonable" traffic today, in the year 2000, and in the year 2010 are shown in green, blue, and red, respectively. When the projected traffic volumes exceed the expected peak capacity, there will be delays of more than a single light cycle or traffic backups. For the section of road between Rangeline and Keystone, we would recommend one lane of through traffic in each direction as the primary design. This would provide for a peak capacity of about 1500 vehicles per hour in either direction, which compares &vorably with the projected traf~ic volumes until about the year 2010 (at which time we would expect between 1450 and 1500 vehicles per hour during peak periods). At the intersection of Keystone and West 116th Street, the roadway would be widened to a six lane with two lanes westbound, two lanes eastbound, a left turn only lane, and a right turn only lane. This is necessary because of the limited amount of green time that 116th Street is allowed (this will probably not increase since priority is given to Keystone, a State highway). Even with this improvement to the intersection, we can see that there will begin to be a problem with the through traffic by the year 2000, and that this problem may be quite severe by the year 2010 if the 2.5% growth continues throughout the next 20 years. The difference in the capacity and projected volume numbers would suggest that there would be a significant backup of eastbound traffic at the Keystone intersection during evening rush hour (perhaps a half mile or 80 based on 150 to 200 cars at 20 feet per car). There would also be a problem with the number of right turns. However, this analysis doe8 not assume right-turn-on-red. Some of the other issues to be considered in this section of road are listed on this slide. There are numerous turns into the shopping areas on the north side of the street. To prevent these turns from restricting the through traffic, we would suggest that there should be a right turn and left turn lane along these shopping and business areas. There is slso a problem created by traffic trying to turn eastbound onto 116th Street from the eastern most exit from the shopping area. This situation might be improved by adding a traffic signal at an alternate exit from the shopping area further to the west. To avoid the backup of traffic turning right from 116th Street onto southbound Keystone, a right-turn-on- red would be recommended. This will probably require that an extra (acceleration) lane be added to southbound Keystone. The next section of road is from Keystone Av. to Gray Rd. As with the first trafflc summary slide, the expected peak capacity for each section of the road (expressed in vehicles per hour) is shown in black. And, the projected amount of traffic that the section of road will need to handle to meet our target definition for "reasonable" traffic today, in the year 2000, and in the year 2010 are shown in green, blue, and red, respectively. For the section of road between Keystone and Gray, we would recommend one lane of through traffic in each direction as the primary design. This would provide for a peak capacity of about 1500 vehicles per hour in either direction, which compares favorably with the projected traffic volumes until about the year 2005 (at which time we would expect between 1450 and 1500 vehicles per hour during evening rush hour going eastbound). At the intersection of Keystone and East 116th Street, the roadway would be widened to a five lane with two lanes westbound (one of which would also provide for right turns), two lanes eastbound, and a left turn only lane. This is necessary because of the limited amount of green time that 116th Street is allowed (this will probably not increase since priority is given to Keystone, a State highway). With this improvement to the intersection, we can see that there will not be a problem with the through traffic until the year 2010. There would be a problem with the number of left turns, causing a backup by the year 2000. However, this backup would not be very severe and of limited duration during morning rush hour. At the intersection of Gray Rd. and West 116th Street, the roadway would be widened to a five lane with two lanes westbound, two lanes eastbound (one of which would also provide for right turns), and a left turn only lane. Even with this improvement to the intersection, we can see that there will begin to be a problem with the through traffic by the year 2005, and that this problem may be quite severe by the year 2010 if the 2.5% growth continues throughout the next 20 years. The difference in the capacity and projected volume numbers would suggest that there would be a significant backup of eastbound traffic at the Gray Rd. intersection during evening rush hour (perhaps a half mile or so based on 100 to 150 cars at 20 feet per car). Some of the other issues to be considered in this section of road are listed on this slide. There are numerous left turns into the driveways and streets on both sides of the street. To prevent these turning vehicles from impeding the flow of traffic, a center left turn lane is recommended along this section of road. In addition, there needs to be special consideration given in this area to vehicle and pedestrian traffic to Woodbrook Elementary. The last section of road analyzed is from Gray Rd. to River Av. For the section of road between Gray and River, we would again recommend one lane of through traffic in each direction as the primary design. This would provide for a peak capacity of about 1500 vehicles per hour in either direction, which compares favorably with the projected traffic volumes until about the year 2005 (at which time we would expect between 1450 and 1500 vehicles per hour during evening rush hour going eastbound). At the intersection of Gray Rd. and East 116th Street, the roadway would be widened to a five lane with two lanes eastbound, two lanes westbound (one of which would also provide for right turns), and a left turn only lane. With this improvement to the intersection, we can see that there will not be a problem with the traffic by the year 2010. At the intersection of River Av. and 116th Street, the roadway would be three lanes, with one lane westbound, one lane eastbound, and a left turn only lane. Even with this improvement to the intersection, we can see that there will begin to be a problem with the through traffic by the year 2005, and that this problem may be quite severe by the year 2010 if the 2.5% growth continues throughout the next 20 years. The difference in the capacity and projected volume numbers would suggest that there would be a significant backup of eastbound traffic at the River Av. intersection during evening rush hour (perhaps a mile or so based on 250 to 300 cars at 20 feet per car). Some of the other issues to be considered in this section of road are listed on this slide. These are the volume of left turns that are expected into the new additions along 116th Street and onto northbound River Av. at the White River, and the need to develop a future intersection at HazelDell Rd. To summarize the findings of our analysis of the various sets of traffic count and engineering data, as compared to our recommended solution for the 116th Street problem, we can first conclude that this design will accommodate a reasonable volume of traffic to meet our projected needs until about the year 2005. At this point in time we will begin to exceed the ability of 116th Street to handle the projected traffic without significant backups during rush hours. However, it will not be the three lane design that will cause the problem, since the intersections will be the limiting factor in the capacity of traffic that the road can carry. Let me now introduce Tom Dapp, who will present our plan for 116th Street. Tom will describe in detail the conceptual design, using some of the aerial photos to indicate where the improvements to 116th Street migbt occur. Let me now introduce Dave Wilcox, who will present information on the potential financial impact and financing options for this study. Funding for major street improvements such as those proposed for 116th Street can come from several sources. These include federal, state, county, city, and funds provided by traffic impact fees. 1. Federal funds come primarily from gasoline taxes which are paid at the pump and provided to the states by congress for approved projects. It can be rightfully argued that we should attempt to get back what we have paid in to these funds. In the Indianapolis Metropolitan area, the federal funds are allocated through the Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program (IRTIP). A list of the major improvement projects in the area compete for these funds on the merit of each project and the availability of funds. Some of these funds are also distributed for use on Federal Aid Secondary, where the roads are not in a metropolitan area. 2. State funds come from state fuel taxes and vehicle registrations. State funds could be used for the improvement of Keystone intersection provided the state initiates the project. 3. County and city funds for highways come from the Wheel tax and the motor vehicle excise surtax which is a pair of optional taxes which may be enacted by the county. Hamilton County has these taxes in effect. In addition, both county and city receive a share of the state fuel tax. Revenue from these taxes is used to construct, reconstruct, repair or maintain streets and roads of the county and of the cities and towns in the county. This money is distributed to the county and to the cities and towns in the county on the basis of population and comparative street and road mileage and vehicle registrations. The county also has a cumulative bridge fund which comes from property taxes. While it is not a large fund, it could assist in improving the bridge over White River. 4. Traffic impact fees are a relatively new source of funds for road construction share developers pay fees based on the traffic generated by their developments. While this technique is in use in Indiana, there is some question as to its legality. Since the developers are currently participating in the construction of streets and abutting roads as a part of plat approvals, it does not seem prudent to pursue impact fees for this project. The extensive traffic study and projections required would do nothing but delay thiB project further. As can be seen, a combination of funding techniques are available and desirable for use in this project, based on the part of the road under consideration. The sections and funding possibilities are: 1. For 116th Street within the Carmel City Limits (possibly excepting the Keystone intersection) could be funded with 75% IRTIP and 25% Carmel funds. 2. For the 116th Street and Keystone intersection we could use State and Federal funding if the project is initiated by the State. Or if it is initiated by Carmel we could use 75% IRTIP and 25% Carmel funds. 3. For 116th Street between the city limits of Carmel and Fishers, we could use 75% IRTIP Federal Aid Secondary and 25% County funds, or possibly some cumulative bridge funds. An estimate of the costs for the 116th Street project from Rangeline to the Fishers City Limits is approximately: Rangeline to Keystone $1,050,000 Keystone to Carmel City Limits $ 2,925,000 Carmel to Fishers City Limits $ 2,625,000 Bridge Improvements $1,750,000 Gray Rd. Intersection (Not Included) $ 820,000 From the viewpoint of the local resident, it seems prudent to utilize federal funds to the greatest extent possible. Possible disadvantages might include federal domination of the design standards which could force designs into the project which are not desired by the local residents. We many times refer to it as 'losing local control' over the project. In the case of the proposed improvements to 116th Street, we have been assured by John Speidel, an engineer from Butler Fairman and Seufert, that our design can meet federal design requirements and should qualify for federal funding. The key element in obtaining funds for roadwork is the completion of engineering plans of the improvement. This work will determine the extent of the project and the amount and type of funding available to support it. The engineering work is paid for totally by the governmental unit undertaking the project. Inspection costs might be shared. Once the work is identified, the project will normally be put into the IRTIP. Here the project will vie for highest priority with others from the greater Indianapolis area which also are in the IRTIP. When the project rises to the top part of the list, the state will direct that the acquisition of right-of-way may begin. When the funds are available for the construction work, the state will direct the construction portion of the project to begin. The anticipated time frame for this to take place is completion of plans by the end of 1991, right-of-way acquisition during 1992, and the construction during 1993 and 1994. It must be realized that this is only an estimated time frame, and probably represents the earliest schedule which may be expected. Until the project is engineered and on the IRTIP list, it cannot proceed toward funding. There is some concern that funds may be limited for projects outside the city of Indianapolis, which may result in the ability to fund only one project at a time. With the 96th Street project being further along than 116th Street, it is probable that 116th Street may be delayed an additional amount. This ends the review of the posible project finances and schedule. At this time I would like to turn the presentation back over to John Schuler to summarize. In summary and conclusion, I want you to understand both what our proposal is and why it is what it is. It is for a three lane 116th Street from Rangeline Rd. on the west to the western city limits of Fishers on the east. The intersections at Rangeline, Keystone, and Gray are larger and require much more than three lanes, but everywhere else along the length of 116th, we propose one through lane going east, one through lane going west, and one center left turn lane. Envision Main Street in front of the High School and the Library if you will. It is not beautiful; the neighborhood will lose some character; but it is, we think, a reasonable compromise. Some of us wanted to leave the street alone, as only two lanes, but improving the major intersections. Some of us wanted three lanes with acceleration and deceleration lanes at each corner, which in fact, with those lanes tapering in and out and the closeness of all the street cuts to each other, amounts to having four or even five lanes of pavement across much of the length of 116th Street. Nothing -- no one proposal -- totally satisfied every one of us. So our three lane proposal is a compromise -- a compromise which we think will work. Steve Huntley, of the Noblesville Plan Commission, told us that just such a three lane street handles well 22,000 to 23,000 vehicles per day on Conner Street in Noblesville -- a street which, even worse, is a hazardous carrier route with many semis traversing it. We think that such a street can work for us too. And, we think that maybe it will prevent too much more induced traffic from following the improvement. This is one thing which greatly concerns us. There's certainly enough traffic now, and will continue to be, with just natural growth. Professional after professional told us that a well- designed widened roadway would induce and attract more traffic. Just as we don't want a dead-ending extended HazelDell to result in more traffic, neither do we want our improvements themselves to cause the same thing. Generally speaking, we came to firmly believe a number of things: First, that the major intersections -- Keystone and Gray in particular -- cause the bulk of the traffic problems on 116th Street. Second, that traffic now, and in at least the 15 year future, does not warrant more than three lanes. Third, that if we overbuild, we will induce more traffic. Fourth, that the so-called 116th Street traffic problem is not just that, but rather a regional Hamilton County traffic problem, and improving, or 'fixing' any one street will not resolve that problem. Fifth, we saw great merit in what some proposed to us in the way of a traffic 'fingering' system. As Bill Fehrebach of A & F Engineering acknowledged, "As a traffic engineer, we love to try to disperse traffic, but as traffic grows, we have a question: do we make one facility wide enough to handle the traffic, or very wide, or do we make several facilities semi-wide to handle the traffic. Do we try to concentrate it on one corridor and make it move fast and quick and safely, or do we concentrate it on three or four corridors and maybe have it a three lane or two lane road and a high volume of traffic. Those are the kinds of questions we ask ourselves." We asked ourselves that too. And the public asked us that. And that is the biggest question we came to ask ourselves. Not only do we know that we don't, especially with the school there, want the traffic to move any faster than it already does, but we also know that 'fixing' one street can't 'fix' all of Hamilton County's east-west traffic problems. Other streets will have to be studied. A bypass north of Carmel connecting I-69 with the Meridian corridor makes tremendous sense. We can't, and you can't, just narrowly ask 116th Street to resolve all of the problems -- because it won't. You need innovative, wide- ranging rethinking of our current road system, and you need creative solutions to the problems we have today. You also need to tie transportation planning to land use planning. As Mr. Huntley told us, "there really is no separation between the two." And Mr. Peoni reiterated that, "land use decisions are critical." In addition, we need to begin to get more innovative as to how we, as a community, deal with problems like the increasing traffic due to continued growth. We need to begin to eliminate traffic, not just deal with it after it is a problem. This will mean the use of incentives to encourage carpooling, the increased availability and use of mass transit, increased opportunities for tele commuting, and other methods to eliminate cars on our roadways. So, we have compromised. And, in that light we ask you to look forward with us beyond just 116th Street. Look at land use, as you look at the streets, roadways, and character of our city. Go ahead and improve 116th, but don't over-improve it. Make it three lanes - - because three lanes is enough. And make it safe -- not just with sidewalks and curbs, but with a retained 30 MPH speed limit -- which we strongly recommend be strictly enforced. We appreciate the faith you have put in our exhaustive conduct of this study. We only hope that you will give it credibility by following our recomInendations. Thank you very much. This concludes our presentation. At this time, the committee will entertain questions.