|
Greater Lafayette Area Transportation and Development Study
GREATER LAFAYETTE AREA TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT STUDY TIPPECANOE COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION AUGUST 1991 Click HERE for graphic. TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR 2010 TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR 2010 GREATER LAFAYETTE AREA TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT STUDY prepared by the Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission Staff in Cooperation with: The Indiana Department of Transportation U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Overall Work Program Element 545 A Part of the Comprehensive Plan Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission 20 N. Third Street Lafayette, IN 47901-1209 John Downey, President James Hawley, Executive Director AUGUST, 1991 LIST OF OFFICIALS TIPPECANOE COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION 1991 John T. Downey - President Larry Nelson - Vice President Francis Albregts Ronald Corbett Paul Finkenbinder Mark Hermodson Keith McMillin Robert A. Mucker - Secretary and Legal Counsel John Green Hubert Yount Shirley Shelton C. Wesley Shook James Weiss Paul Winstead Joe Yahner ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE James Riehle - Mayor, City of Lafayette (Chairman) Sonya Margerum - Mayor, City of West Lafayette Keith McMillin - President, County Commissioners James Andrew - President, County Council John Downey - President, Area Plan Commission Jerry Ledbetter - President, Lafayette City Council Dean Rothenberger - President Pro Tem, West Lafayette City Council James Schrader - Chairman of the GLPTC Anne Glade - President, Lafayette Board of Works Carter Keith - Indiana Dept. of Transportation Lawrence D. Tucker - Federal Highway Administration Sherry McLaughlan - Director, Lafayette Redevelopment Don Sooby - City Engineer, Lafayette Gordon Kingma - Executive Director, Lafayette Chamber of Commerce Harold Michael - Chairman, Technical Highway Committee James D. Hawley - Executive Director, APC (Secretary) GREATER LAFAYETTE AREA TECHNICAL HIGHWAY COMMITTEE Harold Michael - Joint Highway Research Project (Chairman) James Hawley - Area Plan Commission (Secretary) Don Sooby - City Engineer, Lafayette Opal Kuhl - City Engineer, West Lafayette Steve Murray - County Engineer Lt. Gene Reed - Lafayette Police Department Capt. Charles Molter - West Lafayette Police Department Carter Keith - Indiana Department of Transportation Planning Division Darryl Huyett - Indiana Department of Transportation Crawsfordsville District Lawrence Tucker - Federal Highway Administration Liz Solberg- - Railroad Relocation Office Marty Sennett - Greater Lafayette Public Transportation Corporation Robert Stroud - Purdue University Airport Robert Mucker - Attorney for Area Plan Commission AREA PLAN COMMISSION STAFF James D. Hawley - Executive Director *Bernard Gulker - Assistant Director Sallie Lee - Assistant Director Michael Sanders - Principal Planner Donald Lamb - Planner Kathy Lind - Planner *Doug Poad - Transportation Planner *Anson Gock - Transportation Planner Marlene Mattox-Brown - Drafting Technician Margy Kohler - Drafting Technician Glenda Robinette - Executive Secretary Linda Toman - Bookkeeper Virginia Pattison - Recording Secretary * Principally Responsible for Writing and Editing this Report TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR 2010 INDEX Chapter Page 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................1 Reasons for Transportation Planning .............................1 Local Organization and Process ..................................2 Major Local Issues ..............................................3 The 1978 Plan: A Review .........................................4 2 THE UPDATED PLAN ................................................7 Background ......................................................7 An Overview .....................................................9 Projected Costs ................................................17 3 CREATING INPUT FOR THE TRAFFIC FORECAST MODEL ..................19 Population Growth ..............................................19 Dwelling Units .................................................21 Employment .....................................................22 Autos Per Dwelling Unit ........................................24 Distribution By Traffic Zones ..................................25 4 THE MODEL AND MODELLING PROCESS ................................27 The Road Network Component .....................................27 The Calculations ...............................................28 QRS II .........................................................30 Calibrating the Computer Model .................................31 5 TESTING AND EVALUATING OUTPUT: ALTERNATIVE NETWORKS ............33 Evaluating Criteria ............................................33 The Current Network And The No-Build Alternatives ..............35 Accounting For Committed Projects ..............................39 Solving Problems Beyond 2000 ...................................44 6 THE PLAN AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION ................................65 The First Ten Years: 1991 - 2000 ...............................68 The Last Ten Years: 2001 - 2010 ................................73 Meeting Community Goals ........................................77 TSM, TIP, And The Thoroughfare Plan ............................79 Traditional Funding Sources ....................................82 Alternative Funding Sources ....................................83 A Few Words Of Caution .........................................83 APPENDICES Page App 1: Public meeting on the Transportation Plan for 2010 .....................................................86 App 2: Major components of the 1978 Transportation Plan: Accomplishments through 1990 ......................109 App 3: Input data by type, traffic zone and year ................112 App 4: Funding sources for transportation related projects ......127 LIST OF FIGURES Page Fig 1: Study Area ...............................................11 Fig 2: Traffic Zones: Urban and Rural ........................12-13 Fig 3: Transportation Plan for 2000: Urban and Rural ............14 Fig 4: Transportation Plan for 2010: Urban and Rural ............15 Fig 5: 1989 Existing Road Network: Urban and Rural ...........36-37 Fig 6: 2000 No-Build Road Network: Urban and Rural ...........40-41 Fig 7: 2010 No-Build Road Network: Urban and Rural ...........42-43 Fig 8: 2000 Transportation Plan Urban and Rural ..............46-47 Fig 9: 2010 No-Build Based on 2000 E+C: Urban and Rural ......48-49 Fig 10: 2010 Alternative Network: Urban and Rural .............50-51 Fig 11: 2010 2nd Alternative Network: Urban and Rural .........54-55 Fig 12: 2010 3rd Alternative Network: Urban and Rural .........58-59 Fig 13: 2010 Optimal Network: Urban and Rural .................60-61 Fig 14: 2010 Transportation Plan: Urban and Rural .............62-63 Fig 15: 2010 Functional Class: Urban and Rural ................66-67 LIST OF TABLES Page Tbl 1: Transportation Plan for 2010: Summary of Projected Costs ....................................................17 Tbl 2: Authorized Population Projections for Tippecanoe County ...................................................20 Tbl 3: Dwelling Unit Counts and Projections, 1987 through 2010 .....................................................22 Tbl 4: Employment Counts and Projections, 1987 through 2010 .....................................................23 Tbl 5: Distribution of Personal Vehicles by Housing Density or Type ..........................................25 Tbl 6: Comparison of Model-Generated and Actual Adjusted INDOT Screen Line Traffic Counts, for Base Year 1989 .....................................................32 Tbl 7: Urban Miles of Level of Service D, E, F by Functional Classification of Roads, for all Alternate Networks Tested ................................38 Tbl 8: Comparison of Features in 2010 Alternative Networks Tested ..........................................52 Tbl 9: Staged Implementation Program for Network Improvements, by Jurisdiction, 1991 - 2000 ............70-71 Tbl 10: Staged Implementation Program for Network Improvements, by Jurisdiction, 2001 - 2010 ............74-75 Chapter I INTRODUCTION In September 1978, the consulting firm of Vogt Sage & Pflum completed its Final Report on the Greater Lafayette Area Transportation and Development Study. That report -prepared for the Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission -included a Transportation Plan adopted by the Commission the previous December, with additional sections on plan phasing, financing and implementation. Three years later, the Report was included as an element of the Comprehensive Plan for Tippecanoe County. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted first by the Commission and then by its five member governments: The Cities of Lafayette and West Lafayette, the Towns of Dayton and Battle Ground, and unincorporated Tippecanoe County. This work represents an update of that original Transportation Plan, and as such, an amendment to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. It becomes a part of the continuous process of planning and implementation which brings our growing community the transportation improvements it so clearly needs. The plan, like its predecessor, is the product of a cooperative effort, involving public officials, agency staffs and citizens of the community. The process which has generated alternative solutions to our major issues, and ultimately the plan itself, has been discussed, tested and evaluated in open forum, through the efforts of the Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission and its staff. REASONS FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Transportation planning is important to the community for a number of reasons: It helps us work effectively within the always difficult funding situations facing proposed transportation projects. Rising construction costs and falling revenues require public officials to spend funds in the most effective way possible. Project expenditures can best be made through sound planning and fiscal programming, within a system-wide context. It helps us find our way through the maze of local, state and federal agencies charged with project implementation responsibilities. The transportation plan and its implementation program call for the coordinated spending of more than a dozen sources of transportation funds. It is crucial that all agencies 1 controlling these funds actively participate so that funds are made available as they are needed. It notifies the public, the development community and other government agencies of an established and approved transportation framework. Without a plan, development and redevelopment projects cannot be designed to be consistent with community needs. It provides a basis for enforcement of local regulations. The plan standardizes zoning, subdivision and other ordinances regarding right-of-way reservation, setback controls, design standards and access controls. It fulfills the federal mandate for a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative transportation planning process. This Federal Aid Highway Act requirement must be met if local communities are to receive available funds to assist with transit, highway, railroad and airport facilities and operations. Each year the area is "certified" as being eligible for federal aid if the process is functioning effectively. Decertification means USDOT funds cannot be obtained in the urbanized area for transportation projects. Full certification of our transportation planning process was first achieved on June 30, 1978; we have been recertified annually ever since. In short, the transportation planning process gives us an effective way to coordinate the full variety of available financial resources on a continuing and comprehensive basis. LOCAL ORGANIZATION AND PROCESS The Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission is designated by the Governor to be the official "Metropolitan Planning Organization". Thus, in addition to local and state mandated functions related to planning and zoning, we are the responsible local agency for transportation planning and for review of all federally assisted projects and programs within the County. Our Executive Director and supporting staff carry out technical tasks that lead to adoption of a transportation plan, such as the one documented here. The Area Plan Commission also encompasses three standing committees -- Administrative, Technical Highway and Citizens Participation -- to oversee the planning process and to advise on important decisions and resolutions. Each was involved in this planning process. The Administrative Committee receives the counsel of elected and appointed officials involved with policy, 2 administrative and fiscal decisions. Members of this committee ultimately have important responsibilities in implementing the plan recommendations. The Technical Highway Committee gains the advice and knowledge of various agency engineers, planners, traffic police, and transit operators. Members have important responsibilities for designing, operating, and maintaining the transportation system. The Citizens Participation Committee receives ideas and comments from a representative group of persons from throughout the private sector of the community. These citizens provide important observations in evaluating plan alternatives. The assembled goals and objectives that give direction to comprehensive planning in Tippecanoe County were generated through the efforts of the Citizens Participation Committee. Their 1976 Plan It program reached hundreds of citizens within APC's jurisdiction. That work is summarized in Chapter II of the Greater Lafayette Area Transportation and Development Study Final Report, which contains the original 1978 plan. A full presentation can be found in the 1976 APC publication, Goals and Objectives Formulation Process. In this report, we address the specific goals and objectives relating to transportation in Chapter 6. An additional source of input into the current planning process was provided when the Plan Commission invited members of the public to voice their views at three additional meetings. These sessions were held in late August and early September, 1990. They were well publicized by local media, and were well attended by interested, responsive community members. Appendix 1 contains a list of meeting sites, dates and attendees, plus written responses prepared by our staff to those who made comments and suggestions. MAJOR LOCAL ISSUES This work addresses a number of major on-going local transportation issues. We can solve some of these within the next twenty years. Others will need the continuing attention of local officials and citizens for some time to come. Some may never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. However, we have examined issues in the context of a total transportation system. Alternatives have been weighed and recommendations made which seem to offer reasonable solutions. Our urban area is bisected by the Wabash River. As such, we are always concerned with moving vehicles over bridges as 3 efficiently as possible. Traffic continues to increase on our bridges, and projections indicate even more vehicular trips in the years to come. The 1978 plan called for an additional river crossing south of the urban area to take pressure off our three urban bridges, and to reduce traffic on streets leading to and passing through downtown. The Indiana Department of Transportation has begun preliminary engineering for this project -- now referred to as US231 Relocation -- and construction of a new bridge and highways feeding it should be completed before 2000. But additional planning must be done to help move bridge-related traffic through and around West Lafayette in the years after 2000. The Lafayette Railroad Relocation Project -- with its early phases complete, and work scheduled to continue for another dozen years or so -- is a big, expensive, and sometimes inconvenient job. But it will certainly lower our fuel consumption levels, enhance our quality of life and make our transportation infrastructure safer and more efficient for both the railroads and those driving local streets. Relocating the railroads from 5th Street and the diagonal N&W corridor to the riverfront can only increase the vitality of Lafayette's downtown by making it more accessible and more attractive. GLPTC's buses continue as the main source of public transportation in our urban area. Mass transit -- even at GLPTC's scale -- adds flexibility to our urban area transportation system, represents an energy efficient way to travel, and increases mobility of the young, the poor, the elderly and the handicapped. Increased ridership is vital to our community's well-being. But more than ever, we must deal with a series of "network-oriented" -- as opposed to "project-oriented" -- issues. We are witnessing industrial expansion to the east, significant commercial development along our arterials, record-breaking enrollments at Purdue University, and residential expansion in all directions. Our roads are noticeably more congested, delays are longer, and safety at key intersections can be questioned. Alternative networks have been evaluated in terms of these issues and others relating to social and economic factors. THE 1978 PLAN: A REVIEW The Transportation Plan adopted in 1978 served as the foundation for later efforts in the Greater Lafayette Area. Like this updated version, it too was intended as a guide for the development and construction of roadway projects. However not all recommendations, proposals and objectives have been met. 4 The steps used to develop the previous plan were, in effect, the same ones we follow in the current version: development of necessary parameters, testing of alternative solutions, and determination of which projects would be of most benefit. What differs this time is that we no longer need to rely on consultants with high-power computers to generate traffic forecasts. We can now do these ourselves, at considerable savings in cost and time. Those involved in the 1978 process explored a number of alternatives, from which a single plan was chosen. Choices were based on system costs, service quality, economic, social and environmental impacts. After determining a single alternative, five-year incremental plans were developed. Each project was "staged" within a specific five-year period according to its expected benefit. The 1978 Plan included a list of 23 "major component" roadway projects, ranging from Railroad Relocation to specific intersection improvements. We have seen significant progress on some projects; others have been delayed for a lack of funding. Some were not "staged" until after 1990. Between 1978 and 1985 the Environmental Impact Statement and Final Design of the Railroad Relocation Project were completed. Construction of the first phase -- the Wabash Avenue Underpass -- was completed in 1987. The State Road 26 Replacement Bridge -- Phase 2 -- is currently under construction; it should be completed by late 1991. The Ninth Street Underpass has been let, and should be built by late 1992. CSX Relocation will follow, with construction beginning as soon as late 1991. We expect work to begin on the final phase -- N&W Relocation -- later this decade. We continue to see progress on the US 231 Road Relocation and Bridge Project. After conducting a public hearing on its Environmental Impact Statement in 1987, the State decided to extend the southern terminus of the project from County Road 350S to about 0.85 miles south of County Road 500S. The Design Hearing on the south segment was held in September 1990. The State has scheduled right-of-way acquisition for 1991 and construction letting for 1993. In 1988, Lafayette's Earl Avenue project -- a four lane improvement between South and Main Streets -- was completed. In West Lafayette, improvements at the Brown Street/State Street/River Road intersection were completed. Also, Kalberer Road (County Road 350N) is now ready for construction. out in the county, County Road 350S has now progressed to the right-of-way acquisition phase for the section between existing US 231 and Concord Road. At the time of Plan adoption in 1978, the SR 225 Bridge over the Wabash was closed because of its condition. The State 5 decided not to build a new bridge but did replace the deck to allow its continued use. Several major intersection improvements have been made along "component" corridors since 1978: Main Street at Kossuth and at Earl; South Street at Sagamore Parkway; Teal Road at 9th, 18th, and Sagamore; and, Yeager at Northwestern. In other developments, the Lafayette City Council in early 1990 established tax increment financing districts along Creasy Lane to finance the extension of Creasy Lane from State Road 38 to Brady Lane and the reconstruction of Creasy between State Roads 26 and 38. The Area Plan Commission amended the Thoroughfare Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan in 1988, shifting the so-called "Beck-Brady" corridor further south and west. Twyckenham Boulevard, built in the early 1980's, thus became part of the corridor between 9th Street and County Road 50E. The reader will find a full progress report on the 1978 Plan's 23 "major component" projects in Appendix 2. 6 Chapter 2 THE UPDATED PLAN BACKGROUND This amendment to the Transportation Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Tippecanoe County identifies transportation needs based on historic trends, current circumstance and projected population and employment growth, set within the context of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The modelling process we used recognizes that traffic pattern forecasts are a function of: -- the type and nature of existing and projected roads; the -- interrelationships between land uses, including their distribution and intensities; and the socioeconomic -- characteristics of the population being served. Previous origin-destination studies show that 67% of our automobile trips have home as an origin or destination. Further, 15% of our home-based trips get us to or from work while the rest are made for shopping, socializing, recreating, getting medical attention, conducting personal business, or getting to and from school. The traffic forecast modelling process is based on this hypothesis: When relationships between current travel patterns and land use can be mathematically defined through reasonably accurate data, then that mathematical model can be used to generate future travel patterns based on projections of future land use. The model then becomes a tool first for anticipating network problems that will result from future land use patterns, and second for testing solutions to those problems. Later on, the model will allow us to keep evaluating the roadway network as new or unforeseen developments occur, and to measure the traffic impact of specific proposed projects. The model relates population and employment by assigning vehicle trips -- between places where we live and places where we work, go to school, shop, etc. -- to the available system of roads. We created a computerized network, replicating the community's system of major roads. We divided land within the study area into traffic zones -- in this study, 174 of them -- each with a "centroid" and one or more "connectors" to major nearby roads in the network. Each traffic zone was assigned a number of dwelling units, a ratio of autos per dwelling unit and a number of retail and non-retail jobs. We used standardized "levels of service" to gauge traffic congestion. They reflect a given stretch of road's ability 7 to handle a given traffic volume. They range from A to F: A represents a virtually empty road; C, adequate traffic flow; and F, gridlock. Physical factors, such as number and width of lanes, determine how much traffic a road can handle. Using color-coded lines, levels of service for road segments can be easily mapped, based on current and projected traffic volumes. The resulting graphics clearly demonstrate which road segments are handling traffic loads, and which ones are not, which roads can be projected to be congested, and which solutions will work. In order to "calibrate" a traffic forecast model -- that is, make it resemble real life -- one first assigns each traffic zone actual number of dwelling units, average autos per dwelling unit, and job counts for a recent year. The model is then run, generating a series of traffic volumes for each segment of every major road. The model-generated volumes are then compared to actual traffic counts made during the same time period. Minor adjustments are made to "connectors" and "centroids" until model-generated traffic volumes closely match actual traffic counts. We successfully calibrated our model on 1989 data, and then began to assign each traffic zone two additional sets of numbers: the first set to represent expected population and employment in the year 2000, the second for 2010. Population growth was based on officially-accepted projections; employment growth and vehicles per dwelling unit were extrapolated from historic patterns. With the help of local government officials, we assigned projected population and job growth to traffic zones in the context of the Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Using the calibrated model, we then generated many scenarios representing traffic patterns in 2000 and 2010. In each case , projected volumes for road segments were translated into Level of Service (LOS) maps. Some scenarios showed what our traffic situation would be like with "no-build" options, in which the current highway network is simply maintained and not expanded. Some showed what would happen if we build only those new highway projects for which funding has already been committed. Others demonstrated aspects of an expanded and otherwise improved network designed to fix current and anticipated problem areas. In the end, at the advice of the Administrative, Technical and Citizens Committees, we put together a single, optimal plan for 2010 as our designated preferred alternative. That plan is based on today's existing street system, all projects for which funding is or is likely to be committed by 2000, plus reasonable solutions to problems projected to arise after 2000. The optimal plan brings nearly every road segment to a level of service no worse than C by 2010. 8 Finally, again in consultation with local officials and the general public, we prepared a realistic, staged implementation program, based on cost estimates and anticipated financial resources. With the federal budget picture as clouded as it is, we can only guess at the nature and amounts of federal and local funding that will be made available over the twenty years covered by this plan. But our plan is an optimal one, filled with solutions to most of our congestion problems. We will be prepared to improve our highway network as funds become available. AN OVERVIEW Like its predecessor, this update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan covers the "urbanized" portion of Tippecanoe County (Figure 1). This urbanized area -- also called the study area -- includes Lafayette, West Lafayette and surrounding portions of unincorporated Tippecanoe County, out to and including the incorporated towns of Dayton and Battle Ground. It represents the developed core of the County plus those areas within which we can expect some level of development over the next 20 years. We have created 174 distinct traffic zones within the study area. In order to run the traffic forecasting model, we have assigned each zone its own set of current and projected numbers of dwellings, jobs and autos per dwelling unit. Figure 2 identifies traffic zones in the urban core and surrounding areas. We continue to stress a ring-road or circumferential approach to solving our current and anticipated traffic problems, supplemented by improvements to our radial streets that carry traffic from the periphery to the center. We visualize this plan in two, ten-year increments, one ending in 2000, the other in 2010. Figure 3 shows planned changes through 2000. We have included all network improvements that are currently being developed, that have been programmed in our Transportation Improvement Program, and that are part of the state's Highway Improvement Program. All these projects are scheduled to begin construction this decade. We call this the Committed Network for 2000, and we expect to have accomplished much by then: All phases of Railroad Relocation will either be completed or at least begun. The new downtown State Road 26 bridge will be in operation. Columbia and South Streets will be made one-way west and east respectively to serve the new bridge. CSX relocation from 5th Street to the riverfront will be complete. Those phases -- 3 and 4 -- will include the new 9th 9 Street underpass, new ramps at the east end of the Harrison bridge, a new arterial from the bridge to Canal Road, plus downtown improvements resulting from the move. Phase 5 -- N&W relocation -- should be underway, including underpasses for SR 25 and US 52 beneath relocated N&W tracks. The biggest roadway improvement will be realignment of US 231 to a new Wabash River crossing south of town. At its north end, US 231 will connect to a four-laned South River Road. South of the new bridge, a new road will be built to carry US 231: four lanes from the new bridge on down to County Road 350S, then two lanes for another two miles, where it will join current US 231 south of McCutcheon High School. County Road 350S will be expanded to a continuous major two- lane highway connecting State Road 38 (at County Road 475E) west to the new US 231. This creates a southern bypass of our urban areas from I-65 virtually all the way to Purdue. One way pairs will be created in the West Lafayette Village area and its traffic pattern altered. Traffic capacity on many roads will be expanded to handle increasing volumes. State Road 38 from US 52 to the Elliott Ditch will be five lanes wide. All of these roads will be improved to four lanes: Lindberg Road (from Northwestern to McCormick), Creasy Lane (from Greenbush to State Road 38), McCarty Lane (from Main Street to Creasy), Union Street (from 21st Street to the Bypass), Canal and Duncan Roads (from 9th Street to the Bypass), and State Road 25 (from the Bypass north to Dry Owl Creek). Improved two-lane highways will move more traffic along Haggerty Lane (from State Road 38 to Dayton Road), Kalberer Road (from Yeager to Soldiers Home Road), and County Farm Road (from Kalberer past Harrison High School). Similar improvements to County Road 500/475E have now been completed. There will be a few more new roads as well. Brady Lane will connect from South 18th Street to current US 231, using existing Twickenham Boulevard as a middle segment. Maple Point Drive will connect US 52 to State Road 38, just south of Tippecanoe Mall; a reconstructed Ross Road will intersect it. Creasy Lane will be extended southwest to intersect US 52 and connect directly to Brady Lane. Figure 4 includes improvements optimally programmed for construction after 2000 and before 2010. Changes from our present network are clearly indicated. If we grow as anticipated, in the directions indicated by the Land Use 10 Click HERE for graphic. 11 Click HERE for graphic. 12 Click HERE for graphic. 13 Click HERE for graphic. 14 Click HERE for graphic. 15 Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the completion of these improvements will allow us to travel freely and safely into and throughout the study area, with a minimum of traffic congestion. (The reader will find a graphic representation of the actual Transportation Plan for 2010, with roads designated by functional classification, in Figure 15, in Chapter 6.) Again the biggest roadway improvement will involve realigning US 231. This project will create a western bypass around our urban area. A new four-lane road will carry traffic from the US 231/South River Road intersection around the east and north sides of Purdue Airport, across State Road 26 on up to McCormick Road, just before it crosses Lindberg. From there, McCormick will be widened to four lanes up to a new two-lane, southwest-to-northeast connector to Cumberland Avenue at US 52. The north end of McCormick will become a four-lane facility. Harrison Street will be extended west across south campus to meet realigned US 231 north of the airport. Once more a number of roads will be widened to handle increased traffic volumes. South Street will be reconfigured to three lanes from 18th Street to Earl Avenue. A number of roads will be improved to four lanes: Union and Greenbush Streets (both from the Bypass to Creasy), Earl Avenue (from Union to Main), Main Street (from South to McCarty), Teal Road (from 4th to 18th), Brady Lane (from 18th to US 52), South 4th Street (from Teal Road to State Road 25), pre-alignment US 231 (from State Road 25 to Beck Lane), and State Road 25 (from Workman Lane to pre-alignment US 231). A new four-lane road, Park Drive East, will connect State Road 26 with McCarty Lane, just west of I-65. The plan serves as an overview, a system-wide description of major capital improvements. There are and will be other localized concerns about traffic circulation and operations that we do not address. But this broad overview does help member governments view their own objectives within the context of area-wide needs. This update of the 1978 plan continues to meet community-wide social and economic goals and objectives established earlier. But, of course our world is rarely as predictable as we would like. Unimagined changes will happen, which will require us to modify objectives and solutions to problems. We remain alert to the realities of urban development which may require us to modify previously developed strategies. As such, a plan is not an end in 16 itself but rather a means of satisfying and attaining our current goals and objectives. PROJECTED COSTS Clearly, it will cost a lot of money to complete all components of the Transportation Plan for 2010. We project the total over 20 years at just over $214 million, in constant 1990 dollars. Proposed State Highway projects make up 43.3% of the total, Railroad Relocation 29.3%. Improvements to our network of local streets and highways account for 25.4%. The remaining 2.0% would result from private development. The lion's share of these expenditures would be made for projects begun before 2000, some 78.0% of the 20-year total. But that includes two committed, heavyweight projects: Railroad Relocation, and the new south river bridge associated with US 231 Relocation. Those two efforts alone account for $114.2 million of the pre-2000 total of $167.0 million, a very hefty 68.5%. Anticipated costs are summarized in Table 1. Click HERE for graphic. In the remaining chapters of this updated transportation plan, this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Tippecanoe County, we will provide an in-depth look at how the plan was created -- the numbers we used as input, the modelling process, the resulting output -- the details of its proposals, and how it is to be implemented -- project staging and financial resources. We encourage those readers interested in the history of transportation in our community to read Chapter I in the 17 Final Report of the Greater Lafayette Area Transportation and Development Study. The Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan for Tippecanoe County contains a history of planning in the community and extensive information on the land and its people. 18 Chapter 3 CREATING INPUT FOR THE TRAFFIC FORECAST MODEL QRS II, the traffic forecasting model we use to generate future traffic volumes, requires three kinds of demographic data to do its work: numbers of dwelling units, numbers of jobs, numbers of vehicles per dwelling unit. These numbers, real and projected, must be supplied for each traffic zone within the study area, and for each key year in the planning process. For us, that meant 1989 -- the base year for calibrating the model -- and 2000 and 2010. 2000 represents the middle of our 20-year time frame, 2010 the end. QRS II generates traffic volumes by mathematically interrelating all three kinds of input data. The theory behind the interrelationship is simple: Given a network of roads to travel on, if QRS knows where people live, where they need to get to, and how many cars they have to get there, then QRS can tell us what roads they will take, and in what numbers. These three basic measures -- dwelling units, employment, autos per dwelling unit -- are each in part a function of population. We could not create reliable input for the model without a set of population projections covering the time frame of the plan. Equally important, we could not distribute the input to each of the 174 traffic zones without an accepted guide to community growth. The Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan fulfilled that function. This chapter then describes how we arrived at the numbers we used as input for the traffic forecasting model and how we distributed them within the 174 traffic zones. POPULATION GROWTH For transportation planning purposes, we are required to use population projections prepared by the state's official demographers. These projections are prepared every few years by the Indiana University Business Research Center for the Indiana State Board of Health. The most recent county-by-county ISBH/IBRC projections appeared in 1988. Over the years, the state's demographers have modified and improved their population estimating and projection techniques to current levels of expertise. The US Census Bureau now accepts their work as official Census Bureau estimates of population. only a few states nationwide have been granted that recognition. 19 ISBH/IBRC projections of future population levels are purely "demographic". They are based on each county's historic birth, death, in-migration and out-migration rates only. The projections are not "econometric". As a matter of policy the state's demographers "do not attempt to integrate alternative economic scenarios that are the aspirations of development agencies." But in our case, an "alternative economic scenario" had to be "integrated" because it had already progressed beyond the "aspiration" stage by the time the 1988 projection series was released: Construction was already underway for the Subaru-Isuzu Automotive assembly plant, with plans for 3,200 employees by 1992. With unemployment levels historically at about 3% in Tippecanoe County, we felt no choice but to anticipate additional, non-historic levels of in-migration to fill not only those jobs, but others that would inevitably be generated by SIA's presence. We felt that the official projections had to be adjusted upwards to match the new reality of SIA's presence and its expected influence on our future. We presented our argument -- and our own projections of SIA's likely effect -- to representatives of ISBH, IBRC, INDOT and FHWA. In essence, they agreed with us, and authorized us to use modified projections for planning purposes. Table 2 shows these modified population projections. Click HERE for graphic. With a certain confidence, we can now expect our county's population to fall within the ranges presented in these projections. Because it is always better to plan for too many rather than too few, this transportation plan update assumes a 2000 population of 144,000, and a 2010 population of 150,000. Note: Our work on the analytic components of this Transportation Plan was completed well before preliminary 1990 Census data was made available. Based on recent 20 reports, our 1990 population has been set at 130,598, a little lower than projected. This number is still subject to US Census Bureau revision before July 1, 1991.) DWELLING UNITS As of 1987, we knew exactly how many dwelling units there were in the county, because we had just counted them. As part of our ongoing program of data collection, we conducted a "windshield survey" of the entire county. We drove all the highways, streets, private drives and alleys, and noted every home and apartment we found. There were 45,158 of them. By counting building permits issued after the count, we determined that there were 46,558 dwelling units ("DUs") in the county when we began the input phase of this study in Spring, 1989. That served as our base year data. We also knew that the estimated population of the county at the time of the windshield survey was about 130,300, according to county consultants Bernardin Lochmueller and Associates. About 16,000 of that total lived in group quarters, like university dorms, fraternities and sororities, nursing homes, and the like. That meant that an estimated 114,300 people lived in 45,158 DUs, an average of 2.53 per dwelling unit. Our next step was to project the total number of DUs we could anticipate in 2000 and then 2010. To do this, we needed to know two things: how many more people would need to be housed, and what the average number of persons per dwelling unit would be. The additional population was easily determined: Our population projections (Table 2) called for 144,000 in 2000, and 150,000 in 2010. If there were 130,300 people estimated in 1987, then 13,700 more would need to be housed by 2000, and another 6,000 in the 10 years after. (We felt it reasonable to assume that the total number in group quarters would remain constant at about 16,000 over the 20 years.) We had to estimate the average number of persons per DU for 2000 and 2010, because that number has changed a lot over the past decades. It has dropped from 3.21 in 1960, to 3.00 in 1970, to 2.59 in 1980. Bernardin Lochmueller estimated it to be 2.53 in 1987. We assumed that household size would continue to decrease over the next 20 years, but at a slowing rate. We chose to use 2.45 as the persons per dwelling unit figure for 2000, then 2.40 for 2010. 13,700 more people, at 2.45 persons per DU, means about 5,600 new dwelling units between 1987 and 2000; 6,000 more people, at 2.40 persons per DU, means about 2,450 new dwelling units between 2001 and 2010. We also needed to 21 account for what we came to call "thinning". Every existing 1980 household averaged 2.59 persons. But because we projected a drop in household size to 2.45 in 2000, then 2.40 in 2010, we also needed to project enough new DUs to simply house the those already accounted for. Put another way, the same number of people would need to be housed in more dwelling units. Using the same kind of arithmetic, we determined that about 2,350 new units would be needed by 2000 because of thinning, with another 1,100 or so by 2010. The numbers of additional dwelling units needed are summarized in Table 3. Click HERE for graphic. EMPLOYMENT We derived our base year data on employment from a number of sources. We had on hand Indiana Department of Employment and Training Services (IDETS) figures for 1987, and only needed to update them to 1989. To do this, we used aerial photography, our own windshield survey, R.L. Polk & CO.'s Lafayette City Directory, the GTE Yellow Pages, Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce employment surveys, and place of work coding materials we were preparing for the 1990 US Census. Several employers, especially the larger ones, were contacted. And in a few instances, we conducted some brief field surveys. IDETS reported 63,200 jobs in Tippecanoe County in 1987. We arrived at a 1989 base year total of 66,500 jobs, country-wide. That number was later confirmed when IDETS figures became available for the first quarter of 1989. The difference between their figures and ours was under one 22 percent. These totals represent "establishment" or non-farm employment. Employment service figures showed us there were also about 885 farm workers employed within the county. We projected employment figures for 2000 and 2010 by tying them to projected increases in the numbers of dwelling units. The number of jobs per household has increased a lot over the last several decades. Changes in lifestyles and economic necessities have brought many more women into the labor pool. In 1989, jobs per household stood at about 1.25 in this county. We decided to keep that figure and, because we projected the actual number of persons per household to continue to decrease, have it represent a slight increase in the ratio of jobs to total population. At 1.25 jobs per household, and 7,950 new dwelling units between 1987 and 2000 and an additional 3,350 between 2001 and 2010 (Table 3), that figured to an increase of 9,950 jobs by 2000 and another 4,450 in the ten years after. QRS II requires that employment figures be divided into "retail" and "non-retail" components before being inputted to the model. State Employment figures show that over the years, retail jobs have grown as a percentage of total employment: 14.6% in 1960, 14.7% in 1970, 16.3% in 1974, and 18.2% in both 1987 and 1989. Because of the levelling off shown in the past few years, we decided to project an 18.2% retail component for both 2000 and 2010. Table 4 summarizes our employment counts and projections: Click HERE for graphic. 23 AUTOS PER DWELLING UNIT QRS II requires us to input information on non-business vehicles in the form of autos per dwelling unit ("autos/DU"). We would have preferred to derive zone-by-zone counts of registered personal vehicles, but we were not given access to the data by the local License Branch. We were able to obtain overall figures for vehicle registrations in 1987, the year of our windshield survey. In that year, 71,375 vehicles were registered in Tippecanoe County. That included 60,600 cars, 8,035 trucks and 2,740 motorcycles. Assuming half the trucks were for personal rather than business use, we estimated a total of 67,350 personal vehicles in the county at that time. With 45,150 households counted, that averaged out to 1.5 autos/DU. Generally speaking, the number of autos/DU is related to housing density: the lower the density, the higher the number of cars per household. The 1978 plan was based on a distribution that included 1.06 cars per multi-family unit, 1.57 per medium density unit, 1.62 per rural unit. We were able to supply numbers for several density categories based on research performed since the 1978 plan was adopted. Work done by the West Lafayette City Engineer's Office indicated an average of 1.97 autos/DU in densely occupied student neighborhoods. This was important information, because it runs contrary to the general rule that high density yields low auto counts. Our own research showed that in non-student-oriented multi-family complexes, autos/DU averaged about 1.2. Our windshield survey gave us information on numbers and densities of dwelling units, license branch data gave us a handle on the number of personal vehicles, and local research pinpointed the relationship between households and vehicles for some typical housing situations. With that in hand, we did some calculations and established the relationships between housing densities and autos/DU shown in Table 5. We used these autos/DU figures for each of our three key years: 1989, 2000 and 2010. We hypothesized that a continuing increase in autos per person would be offset by a continuing decrease in persons per dwelling unit, as previously described. 24 Click HERE for graphic. DISTRIBUTION BY TRAFFIC ZONES In the 1978 plan, land within the study area was divided into 164 traffic zones. For this update of that plan we modified the zones in two ways. First, we increased the number of zones within the study area to 174, by dividing some of them into smaller areas. This was done in places that have either developed rapidly since 1978, or are expected to within the next 20 years. Secondly, we divided the remaining rural portions of Tippecanoe County outside the 1978 study area into 22 new zones. A few traffic zone boundaries were adjusted as well. Our first task was to assign base year data on dwelling units and retail and non-retail employment to traffic zones. For DUs, this was done by superimposing traffic zone boundaries on aerial photos we used in collecting land use data during our 1987 windshield survey. We simply counted the number of dwelling units in each zone, and added to that the number of permits issued, by zone, between the time of the survey and the beginning of the study. Because IDETS figures on employment were provided by address, we were then able to assign retail and non-retail jobs to traffic zones as well. Base year figures were derived by updating 1987 IDETS numbers using sources previously discussed. With base year data mapped, and projections in hand for new DUs and retail and non-retail jobs for 2000 and 2010, we invited representatives of our local jurisdictions to join us in distributing projected numbers to traffic zones. This was accomplished in several sessions. As previously noted, the Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan served as our guide. The Land Use Element projects locations for residential, commercial and industrial expansion, while identifying those portions best suited to open space and agricultural uses. 25 It was developed within the context of the previously noted goals and objectives that form the basis for our comprehensive planning efforts. The Land Use Element has been amended three times. Two of those updates reflect unforeseen changes that are now likely to result from the extension of utilities to a broad area surrounding the SIA site west of Dayton. Neighborhood planning by residents of Lafayette's Union/Salem Corridor created a third amendment. We also recognize other changes since the plan was adopted that have not resulted in amendments. For instance, the Land Use Element calls for little residential expansion west of the University. Ten years ago, sanitary sewer service was unavailable and existing septic system technology was unable to handle local soil conditions. Those circumstances have changed, and we can now project new housing in that part of the community. Our group first assigned all "drawing board" projects to their appropriate traffic zones. Those are the residential and commercial projects that have begun the approval process but have not as yet been built. We then assigned the remaining dwelling units and retail and non-retail jobs projected for 2000 to traffic zones based on the Land Use Element and our own combined knowledge of changing local circumstance. We followed that by assigning additional DUs and jobs to zones that are projected to be built between 2001 and 2010. Following historic patterns, we made two-thirds of projected DUs single family homes, the rest apartments. These were distributed in areas that either traditionally or are projected for those kinds of residential uses. Also, based on IDETS data, we assigned a total of 1.7 farm worker jobs for each square mile of land within rural or predominantly farmed traffic zones. We handled the task of assigning autos/DU differently. our staff established a base year representative housing density for each traffic zone by examining the "windshield survey" aerial photos: Each zone was assigned one of the six density or housing type categories listed in Table 5 above, either MU, HI, ME, LO, RU or ST. We altered those assignments for 2000 and 2010 as previously undeveloped or sparsely developed areas were projected for residential use. Traffic zones containing no residences were assigned no autos/DU ratio. The full set of input data -- covering DUs, retail and non-retail employment and autos/DU for the base year, 2000 and 2010 -- can be found in Appendix 3 at the end of this report. 26 Chapter 4 THE MODEL AND THE MODELLING PROCESS Transportation system modelling is a complex process that provides planners with a very powerful tool for forecasting future travel patterns. It helps planners, engineers, and elected officials make sound decisions on road improvements needed to meet future travel demands. It is the sine qua non of transportation planning; we simply cannot plan without it. A transportation model such as the one we used -- QRS II, described below -- is composed of a series of mathematical formulas, designed to perform a specific set of calculations in a specific sequence, and a sort of computerized geography within which the formulas operate. THE ROAD NETWORK COMPONENT The geography consists of links, nodes, zones, centroids and connectors. Any highway system can be described as a network, made up of streets and intersections. In a transportation model the streets are called "links", and the intersections "nodes". As we have noted before, "zones" are the geographical areas into which all land in a study area is divided. Zones do not overlap, and there are no gaps between them. The highway network and the zones have to be integrated, or attached to each other. This is done by assigning each zone a special kind of node called a "centroid", which is then linked to the highway network with a centroid "connector". The centroids hold each zone's data. The geography has to be customized to the community. That is, we needed to build a computerized version of our own network of roads and highways, by assigning and entering attributes to every link and node. Each link, or road segment, was attributed an exact length, and was described with regard to travel speed, vehicle capacity and base traffic volume. Each node, or intersection, was described too. That description included data on traffic signals, built-in delays associated with turning movements, and any unusual characteristics. In the real world, every dwelling unit and every place of employment serves as an origin and a destination for vehicle trips. In the computerized model that simulates the real world, each traffic zone is supplied with a single centroid that serves as the computerized focal point for all origins and/or destinations within a given zone. As such, we needed to place each centroid properly within its zone to 27 approximate actual land use and driving patterns, and then connect them accurately to their surrounding links. The zonal information incorporated in each centroid is this: -- the average number of autos per households, -- the total number of retail employees, -- the total number of non-retail employees, -- the total number of occupied dwelling units, and -- the intrazonal trip time. "Intrazonal trip time" refers to a theoretical average of how long it takes to drive from inside the zone to its connecting link or links. It is calculated for each zone based on its area in square miles, and its average driving speed, and is then attributed to the centroid. THE CALCULATIONS To understand the modelling process, we need to understand the sequence of calculations performed by the mathematical formulas. There are three stages: trip generation, trip distribution and traffic assignment. "Trip generation" determines how many person- trips are going to begin or end in each zone. "Trip distribution" determines how many of those trips are going to go from any given zone to any other given zone. "Traffic assignment" converts person- trips to vehicle-trips and assigns them to specific links in the highway network. Trip Generation. During the trip generation stage, mathematical formulas convert input data on employment and dwelling units into the number of person-trips that either have an origin or a destination in each zone. A zone's "trip production" is the number of trips beginning in that zone; it's "trip attraction" is the number that end there. For modelling purposes, not all trips are alike. Three kinds must be distinguished. Those trips between home and work, or work and home, are called "home-based work" trips. Those made to or from home to or from places other than work are called "home-based non- work" trips. Finally, those with neither origin nor destination related to the home, such as trips from work to a retail store, are called "non-home-based" trips. This information on kinds of trips can be gathered in one of two ways. Origin and destination (0-D) studies poll motorists at survey points on the highway network. These are time consuming, very costly and inconvenient to the public. Also, there are standard tables that provide general information. But these are not specific to a given community. 28 The Greater Lafayette Area had already participated in an extensive O-D study in the 1970's. That work indicated that our own local trip productions and attractions follow this pattern: home-based work, 15%; home-based non-work, 52%; and non-home-based, 33%. However, the traffic zones that define the Purdue campus have trip attraction and production rates quite unlike rates in most other zones. That has to do with the relative locations of dormitories and other student housing, classroom and administration buildings, parking and recreational facilities, and the ways in which people travel within and to those zones. In this update we continue to use production and attraction rates for these university zones first developed for the 1978 Transportation Plan. Not only do trips have to be classified by purpose, but they also have to be grouped by where they come from and go to. Thus there are "internal" trips and a few kinds of "external" trips. Internal trips have both an origin and a destination within the study area. External trips have either an origin or a destination within the study area but not both ("internal-external" or "external- internal"), or simply pass through the study area but neither begin nor end there ("external-external"). In the geography of transportation modelling, an "external station" is placed on the outer edge of the study area where each major road crosses it. Information is then attributed, or stored, in each external station in much the same way that it is stored in a centroid. In this case, the stored information is based on the number of trips crossing the study area boundary, whether internal- external, externalinternal or external-external. We determined numbers of internal-external and externalinternal trips by examining rush hour traffic counts at external station points. Because the number of trips leaving and entering the study area were about equal, we could postulate that at the external stations, trip productions and attractions were equal. Based on methodology developed by Bernardin and Lochmueller in their US 231 relocation study, we chose to calculate and include only external- external trips made on I-65. Trip Distribution. Trip distribution is the second stage of the mathematical process, when the model calculates trips made between each zone and every other one within the study area. The distribution formulas mathematically link zonal productions and attractions to simulate travel patterns. Once current travel patterns are accurately simulated, the same mathematical relationships can be used to determine 29 future travel patterns by using future productions and attractions estimated for each zone. Historically, the most successful and best documented technique for distributing trips within an urban area is the "gravity model". This mathematical concept relates trip interchange between zones in two ways. First, the number of trips is directly proportional to the relative attraction of each zone; second, the number is inversely proportional to a function of time separation between zones. Simply put, zones with a lot of homes and/or jobs in them produce and attract a lot of trips to and from other zones. But the longer the travel time between zones, the fewer trips there will be. Trip Assignment. Traffic assignment is the third, and last stage in the mathematical process. Here the model converts person-trips to vehicle-trips and then assigns them to links in the network. A trip is assigned to the shortest time path available between its origin and its destination. The process at first assigns all interzonal trips to the same shortest time path link in the network; that is called "all-or- nothing assignment". But logically, if all trips were made on the same link, that link would quickly become congested, and thus stop being the shortest time path. To bring traffic volumes and travel times back into sync, traffic assignment formulas are run over and over again to achieve "equilibrium traffic assignment". That is, enough of the interzonal trips get shifted to other available routes to keep the primary link as the shortest time path. QRS II Historically, calculations involved in the transportation modelling process were done by hand, later by mainframe computers. But the advent of desktop computing with enough memory to store sophisticated software, has revolutionized the field. We no longer have to incur tremendous costs in either time or consultant fees to model future transportation needs. Local planners now do the work at their desks. We can collect and generate the needed data base and enter it rather quickly. The computer runs the full process, and in a comparatively short time gives us back volumes and travel times for the whole network, complete with zonal production and attraction figures, link volumes, interzonal trip totals, etc. Today we can choose from a number of desktop software packages designed for transportation modelling. The best 30 one on the market for a community the size of ours is user friendly QRS II. As stated in the introductory section of its Reference Manual, "The Quick Response System II (QRS II) is a computer program for forecasting impacts of urban developments on highway traffic and for forecasting impacts of highway projects on travel patterns (p.l)." The program is authorized by Alan J. Horowitz of the Center for Urban Transportation Studies, at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, and published by AJH Associates of the same city. It has most recently been published as Version 3.0, copyright 1990. The Federal Highway Administration has recognized and recommended the use of QRS as a forecasting tool for small to medium sized cities since 1981, when an earlier version was released. QRS II takes all socioeconomic inputs described in Chapter 3, and performs all trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment calculations described here in Chapter 4. Part of its output is in the form of traffic volumes projected for each link in the network. CALIBRATING THE COMPUTER MODEL As we have noted, the model becomes a reliable predictor of future travel demands and patterns only if it accurately simulates current conditions. Thus before the model can be used it must be "calibrated", or adjusted, to do just that. We calibrated the model by inputing base year (1989) dwelling unit, autos/DU, and employment data centroid-by-centroid, running the model, comparing the output to actual 1989 traffic counts, and then making adjustments. We did this repeatedly, until we achieved a high level of accuracy. We adjusted things like centroid locations and link and node attributes. Traditionally, a transportation model is calibrated based on actual traffic volumes taken at "screen lines" and "cut lines". Screen lines are imaginary lines bisecting the community at key locations. We use the Wabash River as our screen line because it roughly divides the study area in half, and there are few points to cross it. Cut lines divide the community at lesser points. A transportation model is considered to be accurate enough for use as a predictor of future traffic volumes if it can first be calibrated to within 15% of actual traffic counts. Table 6 shows how our calibrated model did in comparison to actual (seasonally adjusted) traffic counts taken by INDOT in 1989, the base year: 31 Click HERE for graphic. We were able to better the 15% standard at every one of the six Wabash River crossings. And in total, our model-generated screen line counts were just 3.73% higher than INDOT's actual, seasonally adjusted counts. Also, model-generated cut line counts at 59 locations along US 52 and 231 and State Roads 25, 26, 38 and 43 were just 3.18% less than INDOT's actual, seasonally adjusted counts. With the model successfully calibrated, we could proceed with the job at hand: to see the impacts of projected population and employment growth on our transportation network, and to test alternative solutions to lessen those impacts. 32 Chapter 5 TESTING AND EVALUATING OUTPUT: ALTERNATIVE NETWORKS As we have noted before, when relationships between current travel patterns and land use can be mathematically defined or modelled, then that mathematical model can be used to generate future travel patterns based on projections of future land use. We had assembled our demographic data, projected it to 2000 and 2010, and assigned it to specific traffic zones as future land use. We had computerized our existing road network, and calibrated the traffic forecasting model to within 4% of actual base year traffic counts. Our next step was to create a series of alternative road networks, use the calibrated model to test and evaluate their efficiency, and then choose among them. The first road network we needed to evaluate, of course, was the current one. That would then show us the extent of our current problems, and serve as a benchmark against which we could measure possible solutions. To see what would happen to traffic patterns if we continued to grow but made no improvements at all to our roads, we created two worst-case, "No-Build" scenarios, one each for 2000 and 2010. To test the net effect of new projects already in the pipeline for the 1990's, we created an "Existing Plus Committed" (E+C) Network for 2000. To determine what additional problems would need to be solved as we continue to grow after 2000 E+C, we created a "E+C-then-No- Build" scenario for 2010. To see how we could alleviate traffic problems that would still need to be solved after 2000 E+C, we created a series of "Alternate Networks", and finally one "Optimal Network", which then evolved into this updated Transportation Plan for 2010. EVALUATION CRITERIA We needed to find an appropriate measure of network efficiency to compare proposed transportation networks to each other. When the model is applied to data in any existing or proposed network, the resulting output comes in the form of traffic volumes along each link. But volume alone -- sheer numbers of vehicles -- is not a useful measure of efficiency: The effect of 20,000 vehicle/day on 33 four-laned, 65mph I-65 is simply not comparable to the effect of 20,000 vehicles/day on Main Street with its two lanes, parking maneuvers and frequent traffic signals. As motorists or passengers, and as planners, we are really not concerned with how many cars are on the road. What worries us is how congested the road is. Congestion delays us, causes accidents, slows down delivery and increases the cost of goods and services, wastes fuel and adds to pollution. The prime purpose of transportation planning is to minimize congestion. And thus the best measure of efficiency for any alternative transportation network is how well it reduces congestion. The planners' measure of congestion is called "Level of Service" (LOS), which can also be determined mathematically. The LOS for any link in the network is a function of traffic volume and specific characteristics along that link: number of lanes, travel speed, turning movements, parking lanes, traffic signals, etc. There are six Levels of Service, ranging from "All to "F": At LOS A, traffic flows freely, there are no restrictions on vehicle maneuverability, and drivers feel physically and psychologically comfortable. LOS B is virtually as free. LOS C describes a stable rather than free flow of traffic. Cars move in discernable groups, called platoons. Drivers have less freedom to choose speed, must be more vigilant when changing lanes. This results in mildly increased driver tension. At LOS D, traffic flow is unstable. Drivers notice decreased physical and psychological comfort levels, brought on by slowed but tolerable driving speed, decreased maneuverability and an increasing accident potential. At LOS E, the road is operating at or near capacity. Drivers feel uncomfortable, with little or no control over speed or lane choice. Traffic alternately speeds up and slows down, and accident potential becomes high. LOS F represents a breakdown in the flow of vehicles, a forced flow. Stop-and-go traffic produces high levels of physical and psychological discomfort in drivers. Tempers are frequently lost. 34 As drivers, we would like all our roads to operate at free flowing LOS A or B. As taxpayers and planners we realize this to be impractical. We cannot afford to build largely empty roads. Instead, officials strive to plan, design and build roads that will operate at LOS C standards during peak hour usage. And that is how we evaluate and compare transportation network alternatives. The object is to eliminate or at least minimize the difficult miles of LOS D, E, and F in the network, in favor of LOS C. Alternatives that transform segments of LOS D, E, and F solely into LOS A or B would likely be very effective but prohibitively expensive; those that fail to achieve LOS C are less expensive but insufficiently effective. A balance must be struck. Clearly there are other measures that must be applied when comparing alternate solutions to transportation network problems. Cost, even independent of LOS, is one. For instance, it may not be fiscally feasible to buy the right-of-way needed to widen a narrow road already lined with homes. We must consider social factors as well: An effective solution may well be useless if for instance a new road must be built that would split a neighborhood in half, or that would force many families to relocate. And sometimes heavy traffic and pedestrian flows make an unsafe mix. Thus the best physical solutions often must be tempered with fiscal restraint and social responsibility. THE CURRENT NETWORK AND THE NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVES Many of us have begun to comment on how congested our streets have become. Figure 5 shows us in graphic form what we have already begun to experience behind the wheel: The Harrison and Main Street bridges and stretches of Sagamore Parkway, Grant Street, South 4th Street and US 231, Teal Road and 9th Street are already operating at LOS F. Other parts of Sagamore Parkway and South 4th Street show up as LOS E, along with parts of 18th Street, and State Roads 26 and 38. LOS D is even more common, and there are lots of segments already operating at LOS C. (For readability, we have left LOS A and B off all LOS graphics.) Table 7 serves as a guide to our current and anticipated traffic problems, and as a way to compare proposed solutions. Here we show the number of miles of roads operating at LOS D through F currently, and as projected for various 2000 and 2010 alternatives by the model. Table 7 breaks down those miles by standardized roadway type: primary and minor arterials, collectors and local roads. Our current situation shows up in the column headed "1989". The bottom rows show network-wide totals of LOS D-F mileage. We will refer to Table 7 frequently throughout the rest of this chapter. 35 Click HERE for graphic. 36 Click HERE for graphic. 37 Click HERE for graphic. 38 As of 1989, we already had 17.9 miles of roads operating beyond the acceptable design standard we call LOS C: 8.3 miles of LOS D, 5.1 miles of E, and 4.5 miles of F. That is about 12% of our road network. Three-quarters of the problems are occurring on our biggest and busiest streets, our primary arterials. The numbers certainly corroborate our real-world experience. But notice the next two column totals, the ones for our two No-Build scenarios. If we were to grow in population and jobs as expected, but build no new roads, and widen no existing roads, our total of LOS D-F miles would likely double in 20 years. No-Build scenarios for 2000 and 2010 project 26.8 and 35.0 miles of LOS D-F respectively, with 13.5 and 20.5 of those miles at LOS F alone. Notice too how the problems seem to spread out, and include more minor arterials, and some collector and local roads as well. The locations of all this projected congestion can be seen in Figures 6 and 7. The network breaks down along lengthy stretches of Sagamore Parkway, Main Street and State Road 38, out State Road 26, across Teal Road, and up and down 4th, 9th and 18th Streets and Canal and North River Roads. These then are our worst-case scenarios, our do-nothing alternatives. ACCOUNTING FOR COMMITTED PROJECTS Barring major economic misfortune -- a possible but unlikely circumstance -- our worst-case traffic nightmares will not come true. Progress, at least through 2000, is already planned although not guaranteed. Some improvements are already under construction; others have had rights-of-way acquired or have at least undergone preliminary engineering studies. We anticipate still others that have been programmed in our Transportation Improvement Plan and the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, or are part of the State's Highway Improvement Program. These are all facets of 1978 Transportation Plan implementation. We call all of these projects, added to our present system, the Existing Plus Committed (E+C) Network. For planning purposes, we consider E+C to be our base for 2000, a springboard for additional improvements in the following decade. Please refer to the section titled "AN OVERVIEW" in Chapter 2 of this report and its Figure 3, for a full description of 2000 E+C. But how well off will we be, from a traffic congestion point of view, if all these anticipated improvements are made by 2000? The answer comes as no surprise, it is: We will be better off than we are now! Subjecting the 2000 E+C network to the model shows us that we can expect less miles of LOS 39 Click HERE for graphic. 40 Click HERE for graphic. 41 Click HERE for graphic. 42 Click HERE for graphic. 43 D-F in 2000 than we had in 1989. Table 7 shows us a network total of 13.9 miles of LOS D-F for the 2000 E+C network, compared to 17.9 miles in 1989. The good news is that 13.9 is about half the 26.8 miles we could expect with 2000 No-Build. That difference is rather significant, especially when comparing the network totals for projected miles of LOS F: 2000 No-Build shows 13.5, 2000 E+C registers just 2.5 (even less than 1989's 4.5). Figure 8 shows projected LOS and traffic volumes for 2000 E+C. The worst problems seem to be confined to Sagamore Parkway from Underwood to State Road 38, South Street and State Road 26 East, Main Street, and Teal Road from 4th to 18th Street. Notice the new south river bridge (relocated US 231), and the positive effect it has on 4th, 9th and 18th Streets and the Harrison bridge. Despite those expected improvements in the network, the implication remains clear. As we continue to grow, we must keep pace with network improvements to solve some of our traffic congestion problems. Compare 2000 E+C and 1989 (Figure 5) regarding Sagamore Parkway West, Brady Lane, Salisbury Street and North River Road. It comes then as no surprise that if we were to build our 2000 E+C network and then make no further improvements through 2010, our congestion problems would again worsen considerably. We call this the 2010 E+C network, with LOS and traffic volumes seen in Figure 9. Between 2000 and 2010, LOS D-F mileage would increase from 13.9 to 24.3 (Table 7), with a near tripling in LOS F from 2.5 to 7.4 miles. In the 2010 E+C scenario, congestion worsens on Sagamore Parkway, Teal Road, South 4th Street and US 231, and 18th Street. The 2010 E+C alternative can be seen in a positive light only when compared to the 2010 No-Build option. SOLVING PROBLEMS BEYOND 2000 The projected 2010 No-Build and 2010 E+C networks found us losing ground on traffic congestion, rather than gaining. By testing the 2010 E+C network, what we did gain was knowledge. We became aware of problems still likely to plague us after completing all committed projects, and as we continue to grow past 2000. Armed with this information, we began to test a series of alternative networks, each with a set of proposed projects intended to solve the traffic problems of 2010. These alternate solutions will be compared to 2010 E+C as seen in Figure 9. Table 8 shows the features of all four 2010 alternative networks we subjected to the traffic forecast modelling process. They all assume 2000 E+C as a base. Alternatives 44 1, 2 and 3 were developed from suggestions provided by the Technical Highway, Administrative and Citizens Participation Committees, plus some of our own. The fourth alternative, which we call the Optimal Network, combines the most effective features of the other three plus the most successful of a number of features tested independently of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Alternative 1 would widen parts of five important arterials -- Earl, Main, Brady, Teal and South 4th -- from two to four lanes. A US 231 connector would extend from the south river bridge at South River Road around the east and north sides of Purdue Airport, across Airport Road to SR 26 west of town. West Lafayette's Cumberland Avenue would cross US 52 at the University Inn and run due south to an intersection with McCormick Road near Cherry Lane, creating a western ring road with US 231. With Railroad Relocation complete, the no longer needed N&W right-of-way which cuts Lafayette diagonally would be rebuilt as a two-lane street. Ferry would be extended east from Earl to a connection with SR 26 just before the Post Office. Ferry and South would then operate as a one-way pair from Perrin Avenue to the Post Office: eastbound on South, westbound on Ferry. How well does all this work? Comparisons need to be made to 2010 E+C -- which is where we would be after completing all committed projects but making no further improvements past 2000 -- and to our situation in 1989, our base year. Table 7 shows us that 2010 ALT1 would be a significant improvement over 2010 E+C, and would leave us just a bit better off than we were in 1989. A network total of LOS D-F for 2010 ALT1 of 16.8 miles would be much better than 2010 E+C's 24.3 miles; and it is a little less congested than 1989's 17.9 miles. Projected LOS levels and traffic volumes for 2010 ALT1 are shown in Figure 10. Compare these to 2010 E+C (Figure 9). Notice how effective widened streets and the US 231 connector to the south river bridge would be in alleviating congestion on Sagamore Parkway and around campus. The south river bridge would already be operating at LOS D. Also notice how extending Beck Lane to US 52 would create such an attractive route that it would instantly function at LOS F, a potential disaster in a residential neighborhood. And extending Cumberland would place a heavy burden on McCormick just west of campus. Traffic volumes indicate a real need for this western ring road, but the ALT1 configuration seems to be the wrong one. The proposed new road in the former N&W right-of- way seems to have little effect on improving traffic flow in Lafayette. 45 Click HERE for graphic. 46 Click HERE for graphic. 47 Click HERE for graphic. 48 Click HERE for graphic. 49 Click HERE for graphic. 50 Click HERE for graphic. 51 Click HERE for graphic. 52 As Table 8 shows, Alternative 2 for 2010 shares Alternative l's more effective features and adds some new ones to test. The major differences deal with other ways to connect the south river bridge with campus and the north side of West Lafayette. Instead of ending the US 231 connector at State Road 26, 2010 ALT2 would continue it to the north in a new right-of-way all the way up to McCormick Road above Lindberg; McCormick would be widened to four lanes from that point on up to US 52. And rather than going south, the Cumberland extension would go southwest to meet the newly four-laned segment of McCormick. Also, near campus, Grant and Chauncey would be extended south to connect directly with South River Road as one-way pairs. A new road would be built through Park East, just west of I-65 to connect State Road 26 with McCarty. ALT1's very disruptive Beck Lane widening and its ineffective N&W road placement were dropped from 2010 ALT2. 2010 ALT2 proved to work quite well when tested with the traffic forecasting model. Table 7- shows just 13.8 miles of LOS D-F for ALT2, including only 1.1 miles of LOS F. That constitutes a major improvement over 2010 E+C's 24.3 miles of LOS D-F with 7.4 miles of LOS F, and 1989's 17.9 miles of D-F (4.5 of F). ALT2 showed a clear improvement over ALT1 as well, with three fewer miles of LOS D-F, and a 2.4-mile decrease in LOS F. ALT2 projected LOS and traffic volumes are shown in Figure 11. Compare these with 2010 E+C (Figure 9) and 2010 ALT1 (Figure 10). Notice how eliminating ALT1's Beck Lane extension would redistribute traffic to Teal, Brady and County Road 350S, but would cause no capacity problems for these roads beyond LOS C. That is an improvement over ALT1. The Grant and Chauncey extensions would attract nearly 10,000 vehicles each between relocated US 231 and campus, but in the process would generate lots of congestion around State Street. That does not work well at all. Notice how extending US 231 beyond State Road 26 to McCormick near Lindberg, attracts about as many vehicles as ALT1's close-in configuration, but reduces LOS from F to C. That too is an improvement. In Alternative 3, we kept ALT2's best features, proposed widening McCarty Lane, created a one-way pair out of 5th and 6th Streets downtown, projected the Prophetstown site as a state park location, and dropped the troublesome Grant and Chauncey extensions (Table 8). But the major feature to be tested was a proposal to relocate State Road 26 from State Street on campus to an extended Harrison Street south of campus. The idea here was to promote safety by separating vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In this set-up, Harrison Street would be extended east from Chauncey, across South River Road to intersect with the downtown State Road 26 bridge. To the west, Harrison would be extended south of 53 Click HERE for graphic. 54 Click HERE for graphic. 55 the campus to intersect with the previously proposed US 231 connector north of the airport. In ALT3, traffic coming off the south river bridge would move north on South River Road to Harrison, where it would pick up State Road 26. Network totals of LOS D-F (Table 7) show 2010 ALT3 to be about as effective overall as ALT1 (16.5 miles compared to 16.8), and of course an improvement over 2010 E+C (24.3 miles). But ALT3 would not serve as well as ALT2, with its 13.8 miles of LOS D-F. The source of difficulties in ALT3 can readily be traced to the proposed east and west extension of Harrison Street. New roads can often attract more traffic than they are designed to handle, and can have spillover effects on other roads as well. Figure 12 shows the impacts of the Harrison Street proposal: LOS F on Harrison, more traffic on Grant, Chauncey and South River Road in West Lafayette, and LOS F on the downtown bridge. That in turn would put more traffic back on South 4th, Main, 9th, 18th, South and Columbia in Lafayette. Although this seemed an interesting solution on paper, the model showed that it would not work well and created more problem areas. ALT3's proposed widening of McCarty would generate more traffic on that road, but still not enough to warrant four lanes; pairing up 5th and 6th Streets had little effect. Adding the Prophetstown site as a state park -- using projected traffic volumes supplied by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources -- proved informative: We could see that the current road network would be able to handle the additional traffic without further improvements. Finally, we created an Optimal Network for 2010. 2010 OPT was assembled from the best features of ALT's1-3 and the most successful of a whole group of additional features tested independently of ALT'sl-3. 2010 OPT's features are, of course, summarized in Table 8. The McCarty widening was dropped, while these were added: Union, Greenbush, State Road 25, "old" US 231 and South Street (three lanes only). The eastward extension of Ferry was dropped, along with its one-way pairing with South. Grant Street's extension to South River Road was revived, but not Chauncey's. The eastern extension of Harrison was dropped, but the western extension was kept. We added one-way pairs around campus to the pre-2000 base network: State Street eastbound, Wood Street westbound; Grant (State to Northwestern) and Chauncey (Wood to North) northbound, Northwestern (Grant to State) southbound. Among those potential features that we tested and then rejected for being either ineffective or counterproductive were these: 56 -- another try at a road to replace the no longer used N&W right-of-way; -- six-laning State Road 26 from I-65 to US 52; -- six-laning US 52 from Teal to State Road 25N; -- dropping the Cumberland extension; -- two- and four-laning South from 18th to Earl. Just how "optimal" then was our proposed Optimal Network? The next- to-last column of Table 7 shows the results of applying the model to 2010 OPT. Clearly, much was accomplished when we took the best of ALT's1-3 and added the independently tested changes. Overall network totals of LOS D-F dropped to a much more tolerable 10.1 miles. More pleasing was the total absence of LOS F mileage, and a reduction in LOS E mileage to just 2.9. Also no collector nor local roads tested worse than LOS C. A glance at Figure 13 shows the benefits that 2010 OPT would bring. The worst stretches of Sagamore Parkway would improve, and traffic at the four Wabash River crossings would be better distributed, with fewer vehicles using the closer-in State Road 26 and Harrison bridges, and more using the US 52 and south river crossings. In summary, 2010 OPT presented us with many fewer miles of traffic congestion than we had in 1989, about 44% fewer. This is a clear indication of the effectiveness of 2010 OPT. We expect to grow by 20,000 people, add 10,000 dwelling units and 11,000 jobs, and still reduce our traffic congestion problems by 44%. As noted in previous chapters, we then sought additional input on 2010 OPT, not only from our Technical Highway, Administrative and Citizens Participation Committees, but also from the general public. These meetings generated a number of suggestions for additional changes to the optimal Network. We used the model to test these, and ultimately made two changes to 2010 OPT. The first of these involved widening State Road 26 from two to four lanes from I-65 to County Road 500E. Four lanes can handle the 22,000 vehicles/day projected for 2010 at LOS C, while two lanes would have operated at LOS D and E. Secondly, as suggested by the Mayor, we tested and then incorporated a proposal not to extend West Lafayette's Grant Street to South River Road. The City felt that opening Grant to much higher traffic volumes would be too disruptive to the student-populated, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood south of State Street. In this case factors other than traffic volumes and LOS had to be considered, and properly SO. This change also worked well from a modelling perspective: By not running additional traffic up Grant 57 Click HERE for graphic. 58 Click HERE for graphic. 59 Click HERE for graphic. 60 Click HERE for graphic. 61 Click HERE for graphic. 62 Click HERE for graphic. 63 Street from the south river crossing, congestion could be lessened in the Village. One last look at Table 7 shows how these two changes to 2010 OPT would further reduce traffic congestion mileage. The final column - - 2010 PLAN -- represents the Transportation Plan for 2010 which we present to the Area Plan Commission and its five member jurisdictions for adoption. Notice 2010 PLAN's network totals of 6.9 and 2.4 urban miles of LOS D and E, and no miles of LOS F. This total of 9.3 miles of LOS D-F marks an improvement of 0.8 miles when compared to 2010 OPT's total of 10.1. 2010 PLAN shows no LOS D-F for collectors or local roads, and no LOS E-F for minor arterials. 2010's network totals of 6.9 miles of LOS D, 2.4 of LOS E and a combined total of 9.3 are unsurpassed in any previous alternative tested. Figure 14 shows traffic volumes and LOS for this final version. Notice there remain just a handful of congested urban and rural road segments. Those showing LOS D are: -- Sagamore Parkway from South to Kossuth and from Cumberland to Morehouse; -- 18th Street from Greenbush to South and just south ofKossuth; -- 4th Street from Main to Kossuth and Beck to Brady; -- new US 231 from State Road 25 to South River Road; -- Harrison bridge and a few spots on its west end; -- the Columbia and South one-way pair downtown; -- State Road 26 near the Post Office; -- Teal Road between 18th and 22nd; and -- the western extension of County Road 350S from former US 231 to new US 231. Those still at LOS E are: -- Sagamore Parkway from Union to Greenbush and from Soldiers Home Road to Salisbury; -- the Union and Salem one-way pair between Harrison bridge and 9th Street; and -- State Road 26 from Creasy to I-65. 64 Chapter 6 THE PLAN AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION This Transportation Plan, in its final form, is the product of computerized modelling and human deliberation. We have based it on today's street system, built it on projects we expect to be funded by 2000, and augmented it with reasonable solutions to problems likely to arise after 2000. Our plan describes a two-stage process. Each stage covers a decade's time: 1991 through 2000, 2001 through 2010. The first decade includes improvements we can expect; the second covers improvements we will still need. We stress again that this plan serves as a way to achieve community- wide goals. It is not an end in itself. We know that conditions and needs will change over time; we can project the future but we cannot see it. Through this plan, we can only provide an overview, a framework, a context for addressing change over time. It is not the intention of this plan, its authors, or its adopting jurisdictions to only seek these solutions. Responsible agencies will be alert to the realities of urban development, and will modify these strategies as needed. As we noted in Chapter 2, the tab for completing all these projects comes to just over $214 million in constant 1990 dollars. Because of the cost and chronically scarce funding, the plan's proposed network improvements must be staggered over time. We cannot build them all at once. And before construction can begin, each improvement must first be engineered on the drawing board. Then, unless enough right-of-way is already controlled, there must be negotiations with adjoining property owners to acquire it. Money must be allocated to complete these jobs before construction can start. And construction can take weeks, months or years depending on a project's complexity. Figure 15 shows how our road network will look if we were to complete all proposed improvements by 2010. In this version, all improvements are integrated into the network, and all roads are designated by functional classification: freeways, arterials and connectors. Figures 4 through 7 in Chapter 2 highlight just the road improvements projected for each decade. These should be referred to when reading this portion of the text. We have worked out the timing of these improvements in joint meetings of APC staff, the city engineers and the county highway engineer. The resulting "staged implementation programs" have been presented to and been endorsed by both the Technical Highway and Administrative Committees. The reader will find these programs in Tables 9 and 10, further 65 Click HERE for graphic. 66 Click HERE for graphic. 67 on in this chapter; there is one for each decade. For clarity, each proposed improvement has been assigned a letter and number which will be used in the text and in the tables. The letter is keyed to the jurisdiction responsible for building the improvement: L = City of Lafayette; W = City of West Lafayette; T = Tippecanoe County; I = Indiana Department of Transportation; R = Railroad Relocation; and P = Private developers. The proposed timing takes into account a number of factors: -- financial resources expected to be available; -- project implementation lead time; -- system flexibility requirements; -- coordination with other community development -- projects; and -- responsible fiscal management. THE FIRST TEN YEARS: 1991-2000 The portion of the plan dealing with the 190s matches up committed projects with anticipated growth patterns. We continue to promote a ring-road, or circumferential, approach to solving traffic congestion problems, as we had in 1978. Improved outer loops will be supplemented by better radial streets carrying traffic from the periphery to the center. For a graphic summary of committed projects, see Figures 4 and 5 in Chapter 2. Table 9 shows the corresponding Staged Implementation Program, by jurisdictions. One ring-road will be created by widening Creasy Lane, connecting it to Brady Lane, and extending Brady to current US 231 (by way of Twyckenham Boulevard). A second ring will connect County Road 475E and State Road 38 (near the SIA plant) to a widened County Road 350S, extended west to a new US 231, west of its current path. The western leg of both rings will be the new US 231 alignment, with its new south river bridge to a widened South River Road. Creasy Lane (L-4 and T-4) will be widened to four lanes in stages, first from Greenbush to State Road 26, then from State Road 26 to McCarty Lane (by the City) and on to State Road 38 (by the County). As a two-lane road, Creasy already serves as a major north/south corridor on the east side of Lafayette. Widening Creasy will draw even more traffic off congested US 52. A new road near IVY Tech will connect Creasy and Brady Lanes (L-3). This will take some pressure off Teal Road and provide better east-to-south access. The southern stretch of the ring will be completed by extending Brady Lane from its current terminus at 18th Street to 68 intersect with current US 231 (L-7): four new lanes will be built from 18th to 9th, where Brady will become Twyckenham Boulevard; four lanes will also be built from the west end of Twyckenham (at County Road 50E), terminating at current US 231. To build the second new ring, County Road 350S will, in several stages, be beefed up to a wider two-lane configuration, and extended to the northeast and to the west (T-3). The northeast extension will run from US 52 up to State Road 38 (where it will join County Road 475E). The western extension will run from County Road 50E, across current US 231 to end at the new US 231 alignment. The western leg for both these rings will be the much needed, long- heralded, realigned US 231 with its new Wabash River bridge (I-3). Beginning about a mile south of McCutcheon High, a new US 231 will veer off slightly west of its current alignment (which becomes 4th Street in Lafayette), across the river (between the Lafayette sewage treatment plant and Eli Lilly), to South River Road. Nearly all of it will be four-laned. South and North River Roads will be beefed up to four lanes from the new bridge on the south to the Harrison bridge on the north. Ramps will be built connecting North River Road to the Harrison bridge. South of the river, new US 231 will be a limited access facility. Except for intersections with County Roads 500S, 400S, extended 350S, 275S and State Road 25, vehicles will not be permitted to enter the road. That means no tangle of driveways, and a much better traffic flow. For the first time, motorists from the east and south sides of Lafayette, from Dayton and beyond, and from northbound US 231 and I- 65, will not have to drive through downtown Lafayette to get to Purdue University and the Westside (West Lafayette). Traffic congestion downtown, on the downtown bridges and on South 4th Street, will be significantly reduced. on the down side -- until a western bypass around West Lafayette can be added in the second decade -university-bound traffic will still funnel through West Lafayette's Levee and Village. The plan calls for significant improvement to our network of radial roads in this first decade. Radial roads are those that carry vehicles to and from the center of town. Most of these projects involve widening existing facilities. Four projects are designed to relieve congestion north and east of downtown. To improve access from the north, Duncan Road from US 52 to Canal Road, and Canal from Duncan to North 9th Street, will be widened to four lanes (L-5 and L-6). To speed traffic north of town, State Road 25 will be four-laned from I-65 to Dry Owl Creek, about a mile to the northeast (I-1). Union Street is to be four- laned from 21st 69 Click HERE for graphic. 70 Click HERE for graphic. 71 Street to the US 52 Bypass (L-2), and McCarty Lane from Main Street, across the US 52 Bypass to Creasy Lane (L-1). Widening Union Street will improve access to West Lafayette for traffic using the Harrison bridge. Increased capacity on McCarty will relieve some of State Road 26's problems, and open up land to industrial expansion. Three projects to be built before 2000 will improve driving conditions to the southeast. Haggerty Lane (County Road 200S) will be widened and repaved from State Road 38 to Dayton Road, but will remain in a two-lane configuration (T-1). The improved road crosses lands designated for residential expansion east of I-65, and passes the SIA plant and territory designated for industrial development west of I-65. The State will continue its improvements to State Road 38, from the western end of its current reconstruction all the way to the US 52 Bypass (I-2). This segment will include curbs, gutters and five lanes of traffic. The center lane will permit left turns from both directions. This will improve access to retailing at and near Tippecanoe Mall, and will make the drive from I-65 to downtown easier. Expansion of Tippecanoe Mall and the addition of a second, smaller retailing center to its south, will bring improved vehicular access to the area: At the south end of Tippecanoe Mall, Maple Point Road, to be developed privately, will connect State Road 38 to US 52 with two lanes of traffic (P-1). As part of this effort, Ross Road will be reconstructed to connect to Maple Point Road from the south, and will no longer end at State Road 38. West of the river, several projects will be implemented to ease congestion problems. Lindberg Road from Northwestern Avenue out to McCormick will be reconstructed as a widened two-lane road (W-3). The awkward, jogged intersection at Salisbury Street and Kalberer Road will be straightened as part of the on-going two-lane widening of Salisbury from Cumberland to Kalberer and Kalberer from Salisbury to Yeager (W-1). The rural extension of Salisbury -- County Road 5OW (County Farm Road) -- will also be reconstructed as a widened two-lane road from Kalberer past Harrison High to County Road 600N (T-2). To help move traffic safely through the Village, some two-way streets will be converted to one-way only (W-2). State Street will run one-way west from Chauncey to Sheetz. Eastbound traffic on State will turn south on Sheetz one block to Wood Street which will be one-way east to Chauncey. Vehicles will run north one block on Chauncey then turn east again on State. Grant Street will be one- way north from State to Northwestern, Chauncey one-way north from Wood to Columbia, and Northwestern one-way south from Grant to State. 72 Downtown Lafayette will have a new set of one-way pairs as part of the enormous and on-going Railroad Relocation project. The State Road 26 replacement bridge will connect to South and Columbia Streets rather than to Main Street. To accommodate traffic flow, South Street will become one-way eastbound from the bridge to Five Points, with Columbia Street one-way westbound from Five Points to the bridge. All aspects of Railroad Relocation will either have been completed or at least begun by 2000 (R-1 and R-2). A new riverfront corridor in Lafayette will carry both the CSX and N&W lines that currently run up 5th Street and across town diagonally. Phase 1, the Wabash Avenue underpass, was completed several years ago. Phase 2, the State Road replacement bridge will be completed by perhaps late 1991. Contracts have now been let for the 9th Street underpass, Phase 3, and a late 1992 completion date projected. Phase 4 will encompass all remaining activities involved in relocating the CSX tracks. The east end of the Harrison Bridge will be reconstructed at a higher elevation to pass over the riverfront railroad corridor; a new arterial road will be built east of the riverfront corridor from the 9th Street underpass to 3rd and 4th Streets; tracks will be removed from a reconstructed 5th Street to the new corridor; and the Big Three Depot -- the current Railroad Relocation Office -- will be moved to "Depot Plaza" at the foot of Main Street, to serve once more as a railroad station. The Main Street Bridge will be converted to pedestrian use, possibly with commercial and/or recreational features added. Phase 5, the N&W relocation, will at least be underway. The railroad corridor will pass through the CSX shops near the Monon neighborhood, and over Sagamore Parkway and State Road 25. New underpasses will be built to accommodate both highways. The unused tracks will be removed. Future use of the former N&W corridor will be determined by decade's end; tests of it as a vehicular arterial proved ineffective. THE LAST TEN YEARS: 2001-2010 The plan's second decade calls for a continuation of our now familiar highway improvement theme: build ring-roads and improve the radials that serve them. These proposed improvements, generated and tested by the traffic modelling process, are summarized graphically in Figures 6 and 7 in Chapter 2. Table 10 shows the corresponding Staged Implementation Program, by jurisdictions. The second decade's most ambitious project will complete the western leg of the new circumferential road system. Newly aligned US 231 will be extended from its intersection with 73 Click HERE for graphic. 74 Click HERE for graphic. 75 South River Road all the way to US 52, west of West Lafayette (I-6). In a first phase, four new lanes will be built from the South River Road intersection, around the east and north sides of Purdue Airport, across Airport Road, then on up to meet State Road 26 east of the Newman Road intersection. To link this with the south side of campus, Harrison Street will be extended from its western terminus at Marsteller Street, southwesterly to the US 231 extension (P-2). In a second phase, US 231 will be extended from its State Road 26 intersection in a new four-lane limited access corridor to join McCormick Road near its intersection with Lindberg; McCormick will then be four-laned to carry US 231 from that point north to US 52. To relieve congestion on West Lafayette's north-south arterials, Cumberland Avenue will be extended from its current terminus at US 52 southwesterly to intersect McCormick Road (W-4). This two-lane road will connect West Lafayette's northside residential neighborhoods to the west side of campus, the airport, and the rest of the ring-road to Lafayette's south and east sides. This configuration will provide more and better ways to access the campus and the airport. That will take some of the pressure off streets in the Levee and the Village. Also, motorists from the west will be able to avoid heavily traveled Sagamore Parkway when traveling to retail activity in and around Tippecanoe Mall, or to I- 65. The southern legs of two inner loops will be strengthened as well. Brady Lane, more heavily travelled for having been extended east and west in the 190s, will be further improved to four lanes between 18th Street and US 52 (L-9). Even further in, a series of projects will improve travel along State Road 25S from Workman Lane to South 4th Street (I-4), up and down South 4th from Beck Lane to Teal Road (I-7 and I-8), and out Teal from South 4th to South 18th (I-9). These all involve widening to four lanes. (We have advocated widening Teal Road since the 1978 plan; after 2000 it becomes essential.) The east side of that inner loop will be improved by four-laning Earl Avenue from Main Street north to Union (L-10), further relieving pressure on Sagamore Parkway in Lafayette. Improvements to the radial arms of the network will all involve adding traffic lanes. To better handle residential traffic going to and from the developing northeast, Union and Greenbush Streets will both be four-laned from Sagamore Parkway east to Creasy Lane (L-11 and L-12). Both improvements will ease congestion on Sagamore Parkway and State Road 26. 76 State Road 26 itself will be widened to four lanes from I-65 to County Road 550E (I-5), to accommodate new residential development east of the Interstate. Further in town, South Street, from Earl Avenue to 18th, will be reconfigured as a three-lane rather than two-lane facility (I-10), thus increasing its capacity. Because it runs from the heart of the city to the retailing centers to the southeast, and interconnects with major arterials along the way and beyond, Main Street has always been a very attractive path to travel. Its attractiveness will only increase with time. Congestion on Main Street will finally be relieved after 2000 by widening it to four lanes between South Street and Earl Avenue (L- 8). Finally, private development of commercial Park East properties in the southwest quadrant of the I-65/State Road 26 interchange, will add an important north-south connector in that part of town. A two- lane road will be built by the developers to connect State Road 26 to the north with McCarty Lane to the south (P-3). MEETING COMMUNITY GOALS In Chapter 1 we alluded to the adopted goals and objectives that give direction to the comprehensive planning process in Tippecanoe County. The reader can find these in our 1976 publication, Goals and Objectives Formulation Process. Here we will reprint only the single goal and multiple objectives established for transportation planning, and then evaluate how this Transportation Plan measures up to them. GOAL I ---------- Develop a coordinated, safe, and interrelated transportation system, integrating thoroughfare, public mass transit, air facilities, rail systems, pedestrian ways and bike ways to adequately serve the entire community, compatible with anticipated land use, economic development, financial resources, and cooperative governmental and citizen action; linking Tippecanoe County and the Greater Lafayette area with the region, state and nation. OBJECTIVES ---------- -- Plan for, design and develop a balanced multi-modal transportation system. -- Develop an area-wide circulation network to accommodate present and-anticipated future-traffic demands. 77 -- Provide maximum accessibility to the area's major activity centers. -- Upgrade where possible, the circulation capacity of existing thoroughfares. -- Require that improvement projects utilize modern safety and design standards to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. -- Encourage the development of a highway system that diverts through traffic away from residential neighborhoods while providing accessibility. -- Minimize railroad/vehicle conflicts where possible. -- Reduce negative environmental effects in future transportation systems by recognizing social, environmental, and historical values of the community. Traffic circulation and highway capacity will be much improved as we continue to build concentric ring-roads with widened radial roads to carry traffic between our residential neighborhoods and those places where we work, shop and go to school. Short connectors and extensions turn discontinuous north-south and east-west streets into valuable ring roads at relatively low cost. Crosstown and through traffic will be kept on our perimeters. Earl Avenue, Creasy Lane and County Road 500E will join with Teal Road and State Road 25, Brady Lane and County Road 350S to create well placed and useful eastern and southern legs of these rings. The new US 231 alignment from well south of Lafayette to northwest of West Lafayette will form the western leg. The broad flood plain of the Wabash River and Wildcat Creek make any northern leg beyond Sagamore Parkway impractical from both cost and engineering perspectives. To get us from our rings to our centers, Greenbush and Union Streets, Main Street/State Road 38, South Street/State Road 26 and Salibury Street/County Farm Road will all be widened. It will be easier for us to work downtown, study at the University, shop at the Mall, visit a friend at the hospital. To protect homes and businesses, new construction -- and its disruptions -- will be kept to a minimum. The network will be improved mostly by extending, connecting and widening existing roads. The principal exception, of course, is the realignment of US 231. A corridor has been selected that avoids developed areas. At most, just a handful of developed properties will need to be acquired and removed. Similarly, we rejected proposals to extend Grant and Chauncey Streets down to South River Road, or Harrison Street east to the downtown bridge, or Beck Lane to the Bypass. All of these proposals would have made travel to and from campus and out to the Mall a lot easier. But there would have been considerable cost in neighborhood disruption and lost safety. 78 The massive and on-going Railroad Relocation project helps integrate rail facilities into the transportation fabric better than ever before. In this case, we are really integrating by separating. By creating a new corridor for trains along the riverfront, we enhance our safety, save our time and keep our air cleaner. Public transit and air transportation facilities are key parts of the transportation system. Purdue Airport will benefit directly from a newly realigned US 231 and the improved circumferential road network. Drivers heading for the airport will no longer need to filter through downtown Lafayette and the Village. Preliminary plans to redesign the airport with its main terminal along South River Road are fully compatible with the proposed highway network. Clearly, buses and their passengers benefit from eased traffic congestion as much as drivers and passengers in cars and trucks. Transit related issues are thoroughly addressed in the Transit Development Plan,-as required-by the US Department of Transportation's Urban Mass Transit Administration. APC staff helped the Greater Lafayette Public Transportation Corporation prepare its most recent TDP in 1981; we will soon begin updating it. The TDP addresses GLPTC's current capacities, and projects its future needs. The major thrust of this updated Transportation Plan has been to find ways to help cars, trucks and buses make their way around and through our community. Obviously, there are other ways to get around. Many of us either walk or bike to work or school. Many more of us do these things for fun and for good health. Finding better ways to accommodate these transportation needs is not only a valid transportation planning function, but an essential one. To conserve fuel and keep our air breathable, we must get people out of their cars, and either on their feet or bicycles, or into vanpools or buses. We shouldn't need seven cars to take every eight of us to work each day, but we do. If we could change people's habits, fewer road improvements would be needed, and much money saved. These issues will be addressed as we enter the next phase of the on-going transportation planning process. That is called Transportation Systems Management, or TSM. TSM, TIP AND THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN TSM is one of four major tools we can use in the transportation planning process. Another, of course, is this long-range- Transportation Plan. The other two are the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the 79 Thoroughfare Plan, both of which also relate to long-range planning. Whereas a transportation plan takes a long-range, system-wide approach, a TSM is meant as a short-range plan for maximizing system efficiency. TSM projects are much smaller than transportation plan projects; they do not include proposals for new or widened roads. 1975 Federal guidelines for TSM include four types of planning objectives, and six kinds of planning projects. These are the objectives: -- Ensure efficient use of existing road space; -- Reduce vehicle use in congested areas; -- Improve transit service; and -- Improve internal transit management efficiency. These are the project categories: -- Traffic operations improvement programs; Preferential or exclusive lanes for high occupancy vehicles; -- Ridesharing promotion and activities; Provisions for parking; -- Pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and Provisions for public transit. The TSM, then, is an adjunct to the transportation plan: It complements the long-range effort with smaller, short-range projects to make the system more efficient. Efficiency helps us conserve energy, reduce pollution, and in general, enhance our quality of life. Our current TSM was prepared in 1979 by Pflum, Klausmeier & Wagner Consultants, the same people who put together the 1978 Transportation Plan. It highlighted important transportation corridors within our community, and suggested ways to improve them. Improvements included reconstructed intersections, better traffic signalization, pavement markings to simplify turning movements, and restrictions on parking, all to smooth the flow of traffic. The TSM also called for the purchase of additional buses, better routing, more bus shelters, better route maps and street signs, improved transit marketing and equipment maintenance. There were no proposals regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities, or car or vanpooling programs. In 1984, we amended the TSM. We provided a better way to prioritize the list of roads needing improvement, and substituted a list of 56 project locations in place of the original corridor designations. Many of the originally proposed projects were included. What was different was an emphasis on making specific improvements to high accident locations, determined through on-going staff research. 80 The next step for us, after adoption of this Transportation Plan, will be to start putting together a new TSM, specifically designed to complement this long-range plan. The TIP, or Transportation Improvement Program, is a capital budgeting tool that sets an on-going five-year timetable for funding transportation improvements. These projects come from both the Transportation Plan and the TSM. The TIP includes all projects which are at least partially funded by the US Department of Transportation. We prepare a new Annual Element (TIP/AE) for adoption each year, corresponding with the upcoming fiscal year. It specifies a timetable (much like our Tables 9 and 10), funding sources and the agency responsible for completing each project listed. These projects may be originated by any one of these six implementing agencies: the Cities of Lafayette and West Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, INDOT, GLPTC and the Purdue Airport. Each year, after federal and state review of the TIP/AE, we are notified which projects will actually be funded. As we have noted before, situations change over time. As such, TIP/AE projects are often drawn from those specified in the adopted Transportation Plan, but sometimes in a different time sequence. And in some cases, entirely new projects are included to help with new and unforeseen circumstances that have arisen since the plan's adoption. The Thoroughfare Plan is an element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Tippecanoe County. It combines the functional classification of roads -- freeways, arterials and collectors -- with specific design standards for each classification. As such, it derives from both the Transportation Plan and the Unified Subdivision Ordinance of Tippecanoe County. Roads are classified as either urban or rural. The dividing line is the US Census Bureau's Urbanized Area Boundary. Urban and rural roads are then further classified as being either residential, nonresidential or arterial. There are three subcategories of residential roads (place, local road, collector), two of nonresidential roads (local road, collector), and three of arterials (secondary, primary and divided primary). For each subcategory, standards are tabulated regarding: minimum right-of-way width, minimum pavement, side ditch and shoulder widths, maximum grade, and five more characteristics dealing with the geometry of curves and cul-de-sacs. The Thoroughfare Plan ensures that local governments and private developers will not only build new roads and widen existing ones to accepted standards, but will also help implement the Transportation Plan in the process. 81 Our most recent Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in 1981 and amended three times since. Adoption of this updated Transportation Plan means further amendment of the Thoroughfare Plan as well. We will further adjust the Urbanized Area Boundary, and we will designate and redesignate roads to match the functional classifications established for them in the Transportation Plan. TRADITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES Road construction costs are huge and can be very difficult for local jurisdictions to bear. And as time goes on, dollars for transportation related improvements become scarcer. We are finding that, each year, the gap widens between what is made available and what is needed to build necessary improvements. Thus, making transportation related fiscal decisions has become much harder and extremely crucial. Local officials have learned to be realistic in their expectations, and to carefully prioritize their lists of needed improvements. Because we do this, we are prepared to make informed decisions about what to improve when, as funds are found. Dollars from a variety of local, state and federal sources have traditionally been made available for street and highway related improvements. We list the principal ones here, and more fully describe them in Appendix 4: 1. Local Cumulative Bridge Fund; 2. Local Cumulative Capital Improvement Fund; 3. Local General Obligation Bonds; 4. Indiana Local Road and Street Account; 5. Motor Vehicle Highway Account: 6. Bridge Replacement Fund; 7. Federal Aid Primary; 8. Federal Aid Rural Secondary; 9. Federal Aid Urban; 10. Hazard Elimination Fund; 11. Interstate Reconstruction; 12. Minimum Allocation Fund; 13. Railroad Relocation Fund; and 14. Rail Highway Protection and Crossing Fund. All projects using Federal Aid Urban or Rural Secondary Funds that are to be built within the urbanized area boundary have to be programmed through the Transportation Improvement Program Annual Element (TIP/AE), prioritized, and then adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization. In our case, the Area Plan Commission is the MPO. Also, not all of these sources of funds are available for building segments of the road network; some can only be used to improve street safety at highway crossings. 82 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES Today, traditional sources may not provide enough funding to carry out all the projects proposed in this Transportation Plan. We list three alternative sources here, and once again, refer the reader to Appendix 4 for full descriptions: 15. Annual License Excise Surtax; 16. County Wheel Tax; 17. Tax Increment Financing; and 18. Thoroughfare Project Fund. The Excise Surtax and County Wheel Tax can provide extra funds for road construction and maintenance. These must be enacted at the same time. We have not done this in Tippecanoe County. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) provides extra dollars for public infrastructure improvements in a specified area. It is based on an anticipated increase in property taxes to be collected from future development within that area. Local government created five TIF Districts here in 1990. Two of them cover redevelopment areas at the core of our two cities; three establish economic development areas at the urban fringe. These are the districts and their jurisdictions: 1. Creasy Lane/Brady Lane Economic Development Area (Lafayette); 2. Levee/Village Redevelopment Area (West Lafayette); 3. Kalberer Road/Cumberland Avenue/Blackbird Pond Economic Development Area (West Lafayette); 4. Creasy Lane/Treece Meadows Economic development Area (Lafayette); and 5. Central Lafayette Redevelopment Area (Lafayette). A FEW WORDS OF CAUTION The reader will remember that this plan represents an optimal situation: This is as good as we can expect to get if funds become available to build all these projects by 2010. Realistically, this may not happen. Some projects may never get funded, others may not be realized until after 2010. And because community growth is fluid and can only be projected and not foreseen, new needs may arise that require entirely unforeseen projects to be proposed, included in a TIP/AE, funded and built. We also offer the reader this caution: Federal funding sources listed here and expanded on in Appendix 4, are based 83 on the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1987. Congress will amend that Act during 1992. Thus the type and availability of federal funding sources may change a little or a lot. And of course, changing economic conditions and shifting priorities always make the nature and extent of local and state funding uncertain as well. 84 APPENDIX 85 Appendix I PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR 2010 Meeting #1: WEST LAFAYETTE HIGH SCHOOL AUGUST 29, 1990 at 7:00pm CITIZENS ATTENDING: ------------------- Joseph Bement 275 Littleton St., WL Chris Camp 9-3 Ross Ade Dr., WL G.P. Carr 1136 Anthrop St., WL Lillian Cote 719 Bexley Rd., WL Paul Couts City Hall, 609 W. Navajo, WL Jon Fricker 250 Lincoln St., WL Steve Hardesty 1007 Quentin Ave., Monticello Ward Jamesen 712 Sugar Hill Dr., WL Evaro Krause 1414 Ravinina Rd., WL Joseph T. Krause 221 Connelly St., WL Scott Leewaart Cary Quad, PO Box 1023, WL Hon. Sonya Margerum 112 Seminole Dr. WL Norm Olson 1404 S.14th St., Laf Danielle Orr 422 Vine St., Apt. 5, WL Robert Pierret 2563 Nottingham P1., WL APC MEMBERS ATTENDING: APC STAFF ATTENDING: ---------------------- -------------------- John Downey Anson Gock Paul Finkenbinder Bernard Gulker Mark Hermodson James D. Hawley Larry Nelson Doug Poad Joe Yahner Jim Weiss 86 Meeting #2: JEFFERSON HIGH SCHOOL, LAFAYETTE SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 at 7:00pm CITIZENS ATTENDING: ------------------ Norman Beets 4410 Nottingham Dr., Laf Julie Bodensteiner 432 N. Grant St., WL Amanda Brandt 2514 S. River Rd., WL Charles Buhrmester 2501 Teal Rd., Laf Janet Buhrmester 2501 Teal Rd., Laf Rolande ErSelcuk 2238 Union St., Laf Bob Gloyeske 901 S.11th St., Laf R. Neal Houze 3342 Division Rd., WL Bob Mangus 6401 US52S, Laf Dale McHenry 715 Oaklawn Ave., Laf Greg Myszkowski 11410 US231S, Romney Norman Olson 1404 S.14th St., Laf George Omonlides 2238 Union St., Laf Jean Remo 1231 S. River Rd., WL Barbara Scott 2409 Teal Rd., Laf J. Frederick Whaley 6600 Wyandotte Rd., Laf Hubert Yount 70 Mary Hill Rd., Laf APC MEMBERS ATTENDING: APC STAFF ATTENDING: ---------------------- -------------------- John Downey Anson Gock John Green Doug Poad Mark Hermodson Michael Sanders Jim Weiss Joe Yahner 87 Meeting #3: TIPPECANOE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING, LAFAYETTE SEPTEMBER 12, 1990 at 7:00pm CITIZENS ATTENDING: ------------------- Julie Bodensteiner 432 N. Grant St., Apt. 1, WL Ed Cox 2734 Finchum Dr., Brownsburg Thomas G. Daulton 1008 1/2 Tippecanoe St., Laf David Drasin 901 Windsor Dr., WL Rolande ErSelcuk 2238 Union St., Laf Ed Evander 207 McCutcheon Dr., Laf Joseph Fletcher 1005 Devon, WL John Fricker 250 Lincoln St., WL James Ince 1952 S CR500 W, Laf Jeff Ince 705 Highland Ave., Laf Ken Konopasek 400 Northwestern Ave., WL Opal Kuhl 316 McCutcheon Dr., Laf Marlene Mattox-Brown 3838A Sickle Ct., Laf Sherry McLauchlan Laf.Comm.Devel., 324 Ferry St., Laf John Moison-Thomas Lafayette Railroad Relocation Earle Nay 600 Elm St., WL J.J. Neal 116 Drury La., WL John Nyenhuis 824 N. Chauncey St., WL Steve Schneider 2100 Robinhood La., WL Max Showalter WASK Radio APC MEMBERS ATTENDING: APC STAFF ATTENDING: ---------------------- -------------------- John Downey Anson Gock Larry A. Nelson Bernard Gulker Sue Scholer James D. Hawley Joe Yahner Doug Poad Michael Sanders 88 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:465-90 Mr. Dennis Finney 1017 S. 25th St. Lafayette, IN. 47905 Dear Mr. Finney; On behalf of the Area Plan Commission and its staff, we appreciate your input into our transportation model. With any improvements to the interstate (I-65), the designs must follow standards set by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in the Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. According to the manual, the rule, covering the distances between other interchanges, states that the minimum interchange spacing is one mile in an urban areas and two in rural areas. All three locations you suggested unfortunately are less than the one mile from the already existing ones. The traffic generated form the area along CR 400 East and Eisenhower Rd and CR 200N would be using the interchange at SR 25 according to our model. At the other location (CR 500E), McCarty is currently not programmed to be improved east of Creasy Lane. On state Road 38, beside the construction currently going on, the Indiana Department of Transportation is planning on improving SR 38 from the point where the new construction stops to US 52. Currently the improvements call for a five lane facility. You should probably see work on 'this section either late in '92 or early '93. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley. Executive Director 89 November 14,1990 Ref. No.:466-90 Mr. David Drasin 901 Windsor Dr West Lafayette, IN 47609 Dear Mr. Drasin: On behalf of the Area Plan Commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held September 12 at the County Office Building. Your question was concerning zoning and the development of businesses along new arterials already in place. A Land Use Plan has already been developed for the 2000 and 2010 projections. The land adjacent to the new thoroughfares would be controlled through that land use plan. Access to the new roadways will have some type of controls. We recognize your concern for bicycle safety and the need to promote bicycle use as an alternative commuting mode. Upon the adoption of this generalized roadway network Transportation Plan, we will. be begin work on a Transportation System Management Plan, which will focus on more narrow management approaches to implementing the overall plan. Bicycle-oriented strategies will have a place within this TSM. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley. A Executive Director 90 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:467-90 Mr. John Nyenhuis 8214 N. Chauncey West Lafayette, IN 47906 Dear Mr. Nyenhuis: On behalf of the Area Plan Commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held September 12 at the County Office Building. We recognize your concern for bicycle safety and the need to promote bicycle use as an alternative commuting mode. As we noted at those meetings, your input on these matters will be appreciated at several points in the ongoing transportation process. Upon the adoption of this generalized roadway network Transportation Plan, we will be begin work on a Transportation System Management Plan, which will focus on more narrow management approaches to implementing the overall plan. Bicycle-oriented strategies will have a place within this TSM. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley. AICP Executive Director 91 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:468-90 Mr. Ken Konopasek 400 Northwestern Ave. West Lafayette, In 47906 Dear Mr. Konopasek On behalf of the Area Plan Commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held September 12 at the County Office Building. When the new US 231 facility is completed, the existing facility will either go to the county or the city of Lafayette. The northern segment from Teal Road to the downtown area will transfer to the city. Old US 231 south of the intersection of SR 25 and old US 231 will go to the county. Concerning the intersection of Northwestern and Grant, the Indiana Department of Transportation has programmed improvements for the intersection in the very near future. The new US 231 by-pass would not affect this intersection improvement at all. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley Executive Director 92 November 13, 1990 Ref. No.:469-90 Mr. Jeff Ince 705 Highland Lafayette, IN 47906 Dear Mr. Ince; On behalf of the Area Plan commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held September 12 at the County office Building. When the Norfolk and Southern tracks are removed from their current corridor, the land remaining will be converted back to public ownership. At this time, it is our understanding that is not know who will receive the land. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley Executive Director 93 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:470-90 Mr. J.J. Neal 116 Arury Lane West Lafayette, IN 47906 Dear Mr. Neal; On behalf of the Area Plan Commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held September 12 at the County Office Building. During the phase of final testing, it was indicated to us that West Lafayette would like to improve Lindburg Road between McCormick and Northwestern Avenue. They proposed that construction would begin around 1996. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley. AICP Executive Director 94 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:471-90 Mr. Joseph Fletcher 1005 Devon West Lafayette, IN 47906 Dear Mr. Fletcher; On behalf of the Area Plan Commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held September 12 at the County Office Building. At our last meeting, you voiced a concern regarding SR 26 west of the campus area. According to our computer model, the traffic projections for that segment of SR 26 does not warrant any improvements in terms of widening. The current facility will be able to handle the projected traffic. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley. AICP Executive Director 95 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:472-90 Mr. Steve Schneider 2100 Robinhood Ln West Lafayette, IN 47906 Dear Mr. Schneider On behalf of the Area Plan commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held September 12 at the County Office Building. During the final phase of testing, it was indicated to us that West Lafayette would like to improve Lindburg Road between McCormick and Northwestern Avenue. They proposed that construction would begin around 1996. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley Executive Director 96 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:473-90 Ms. Marlene Mattox-Brown 3838A Sickle Ct. Lafayette, IN 47906 Dear Ms. Mattox-Brown On behalf of the Area Plan Commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held September 12 at the County Office Building. Currently we are planning very little growth along the South River Road Corridor in the years 2000 and 2010 transportation projections. At this time, there are no utility facilities in that area which would allow for future growth. There are no plans at this time to improve South River Road because of the traffic generated from the feast. While this only occurs during one weekend out of the year, the traffic from the remainder of the year does not warrant any improvements. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely James D. Hawley. AICP Executive Director 97 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:474-90 Mr. John Nyenhuis 824 N. Chauncy West Lafayette, IN 47906 Dear Mr. Nyenhuis; On behalf of the Area Plan commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held September 12 at the County Office Building. Given the size of the Greater Lafayette Area, High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes would be impractical, even for major thoroughfares such as Union Street. The time it takes for a person to travel to the downtown or 'to other sections of town are minimal. Even if the lanes were built, the time saved by using those lanes would be very small and the expense, very large. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D . Hawley, AICP Executive Director 98 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:475-90 Mr. Earle Nay 600 Elm Street West Lafayette, IN 47906 Dear Mr. Nay; On behalf of the Area Plan commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held September 12 at the County Office Building. Currently there are no plans in the 2010 Transportation Plan for a northern east-west corridor to complete the concentric ring around Lafayette, and West Lafayette. The corridor in which the new roadway would pass through covers a large amount of wetlands and flood plain. With this project, there would also be a need for several bridges over the Wabash River and I-65. The cost of this project would unfortunately be too exorbitant for the amount of traffic which would use the facility. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely James D. Hawley, AICP Executive Director 99 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:476-90 Mr. Frederick Whaley 6600 Wyandotte Road Lafayette, IN 47905 Dear Mr. Whaley; On behalf of the Area Plan Commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held August 29th at Lafayette Jeff High School. At this time, the connection of CR 350 South to CR 475 East is in the Preliminary Engineering stages. Overall, this segment is a portion of a larger project which will connect CR 350 South from the newly relocated US 231 project to SR 26 on the east side of Lafayette. At this time, that connecting segment is forecasted to be under construction in 1993. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley. AICP Executive Director 100 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:477-90 Mr. Norman Beets 4410 Nottingham Drive Lafayette, IN Dear Mr. Beets; On behalf of the Area Plan commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held August 29th at Lafayette Jeff High School. Currently the Indiana Department of Transportation is proposing the new US 231 relocation project to be a limited access roadway. This means that there will be no private driveways, or access points to business along the road. The relocation segment south of SR 25 is currently scheduled to be a four lane facility beginning at the CR 500S and then running the entire length worth across the Wabash River to the Harrison Bridge. Please call us it you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley. AICP Executive Director 101 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:478-90 Mr. Joseph T. Krause 221 Connolly Street Lafayette, Indiana 47906 Dear Mr. Krause: On behalf of the Area Plan Commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held August 29 at West Lafayette High School. You questioned why the proposed US231 relocation was not shown as connecting to South Grant and South Chauncey Streets. As you will recall City Engineer Paul Couts expressed concern about taking additional traffic through rather than around that densely populated student neighborhood. From a traffic engineering perspective you're right, but for other valid planning reasons (neighborhood continuity, public safety, etc.) we concur with the City's position. You also asked about compatibility between the Transportation Plan and Purdue Airport expansion plans. We noted that a proposed relocation of the main terminal to the South River Road side of the airport would be enhanced by US231 relocation along South River Road. We also understand that Purdue Airport was not awarded funding in this year's Build Indiana program. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely James D. Hawley. AICP Executive Director 102 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:479-90 Ms. Lillian Cote 719 Bexley Road West Lafayette, Indiana 47906 Dear Lillian: On behalf of the Area Plan commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held August 29 at West Lafayette High School. You noted the US 231 connector shown to the west of West Lafayette on the 2010 Plan, and asked why build a new road rather than using existing McCormick Road. Because existing McCormick Road directly accesses numerous properties, it would be too difficult to try to reestablish it as a limited access facility. We project 14000 vehicles a day on that proposed leg of US231 in 2010, making limited access a necessity. You also suggested the use of carpooling and park-and-ride facilities to help limit traffic to and from the University until roadway improvements can be made, or perhaps in place of them. We agree that too many people drive to work alone. We've just completed some field work that proves the point only too well: It takes 70 cars to get every 80 Tippecanoe County residents to and from work each day. At this time in our community, the penalties for commuting alone are insufficient -to keep us from doing it. We do need to be prepared should circumstances change enough to get us out of our, cars. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further.. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley. AICP Executive Director 103 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:480-90 Mr. Norm Olson 1404 South 14th Street Lafayette, Indiana 47905 Dear Mr. Olson: On behalf of the Area Plan commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meetings held August 29 and September S at West Lafayette and Jeff High Schools. We recognize your concern for bicycling safety and the need to promote bicycle use as an alternative commuting mode. As we noted at those meetings, your input on these matters will be appreciated at several points in the ongoing transportation process. Upon adoption of this generalized roadway network Transportation Plan, we will begin work on a Transportation Systems Management Plan, which will focus on more narrow management approaches to implementing the overall plan. Bicycle-oriented strategies will have a place within the TSM. Also, State hearings on proposed roadways in the design stage -- such as the one held September 27 on the south end of the US231 relocation project -- provide a good forum for your comments on accommodating bicyclists. As noted at the Westside meeting, there is some possibility of bicycle access being designed into the US231 project. At the September 12 public meeting at the County Office Building, Ed Cox of the Crawfordsville District Office of the Indiana Department of Transportation, responded to a similar inquiry by stating: "We are looking at the possibility of putting a bicycle route on South River Road ... I'm very certain that it will probably be built." Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley. Al Executive Director 104 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:481-90 Mr. Robert Pierret 2563 Nottingham Place West Lafayette, Indiana 47906 Dear Mr. Bob: On behalf of the Area Plan Commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held August 29 at West Lafayette High School. You asked about plans to straighten the Soldiers Home Road curves, and about plans to upgrade Lindberg Road. The Transportation Plan will include a project to widen Lindberg Road from two lanes to four between McCormick Road and Northwestern. Construction could begin in 1995. There are no immediate plans to straighten Soldiers Home Road, although some consideration may be given to such a project when we begin work on a Transportation Systems Management Plan after the overall Transportation Plan is adopted. The TSM will allow us to focus on narrower management approaches to implementing the overall plan. The recently approved Westport Planned Development -- a residential project to be built across the road from the Soldiers Home -- will provide some additional right-of-way which may eventually result in a softening of the radius on the second curve in that stretch of the road. Concerns you expressed about an intersection involving Cherry Lane, McCormick Road and a US231 extension proposed for 2010, cannot be addressed until that project enters its design phase years from now. At this stage the Plan is meant to be merely representative; design details come much later. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley. AICP Executive Director 105 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:483-90 Mr. R. Neal Houze 3342 Division Road West Lafayette, Indiana 47906 Dear Mr. Houze: On behalf of the Area Plan Commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held September 5 at Jeff High School. We would like to clarify our comments to you concerning population projections used to generate the Transportation Plan proposals. The Indiana Business Research Center, a division of the IU School of Business, prepares official projections for the Indiana State Board of Health, which then must be used by local governments for planning purposes. IBRC projections are purely "demographic", and not at all "econometric". They are based solely on historic birth/death rates and in/out-migration patterns; factors of economic growth are not included. The most recent (1988) series of projections was prepared while the SIA plant was being built in Tippecanoe County, but because of their demographic basis, could not take SIA related growth into account. Our staff modified the IBRC numbers to anticipate SIA's immediate and secondary impacts on population growth. These modifications -- and the methodology used to derive them -- were reviewed and accepted by IBRC and ISBH. The Original 1988 projections and the accepted modifications are as follows: YEAR IBRC PROJECTION MODIFIED PROJECTION ---- --------------- ------------------- 1990 128,710 132,000 - 136,000 1995 131,280 136,000 - 140,000 2000 133,540 140,000 - 144,000 2005 135,450 144,000 - 147,000 2010 136,740 147,000 - 150,000 106 And yes, we did take the conservative approach when using these numbers in the transportation modeling process. That is we used the high end of projected ranges: 144,000 in 2000 and 150,000 in 2010. There would be little point in proposing a roadway network that could be overcrowded by the time it was built. It makes more sense to have a system to grow into, rather than one we grow out of. Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley, AICP Executive Director 107 November 14, 1990 Ref. No.:482-90 Mr. G.P. Carr 1136 Anthrop Street West Lafayette, Indiana 47906 Dear Mr. Carr: On behalf of the Area Plan Commission and its staff, thanks for joining us and participating in the Transportation Plan public meeting held August 29 at West Lafayette High School. We used our QRS II model to test your suggestion about an east-west extension from South Campus, over South River Road, connecting to the new SR26 bridge to downtown Lafayette. We found that it does have a positive impact from a traffic engineering point of view: volumes on streets in the Village and on the Levee would be somewhat reduced. on the negative side, adding a lot of commuting traffic to Wood or Harrison Street would heavily impact the student-oriented residential neighborhood it would cross. Also, because South River Road would have to be bridged, a project like this would be prohibitively expensive for the amount of good it would do. in other words, not enough "bang for the buck". Please call us if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Again, thank you. Sincerely, James D. Hawley, AICP Executive Director 108 Appendix 2 MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE 1978 TRANSPORTATION PLAN: ACCOMPLISHMENTS THROUGH 1990 Railroad Relocation -- riverfront corridor: Wabash Avenue Underpass completed in 1987 SR 26 Replacement Bridge to be completed late 1991 Ninth Street Underpass to be completed late 1992 CSX Relocation scheduled for construction in late 1991 Harrison Bridge ramps CSX Track Work Depot Plaza New Arterial Pedestrian Overcrossing Reconstruction of Fifth St. N&W Relocation -- Future phases partially funded Lafayette Business District -- South & Columbia one-way pairs: With completion of SR 26 Bridge Fourth & Fifth one-way pairs revised to Third and Fourth with completion of CSX relocation Main Street -- four lane improvement between South and Earl: Intersection improvements at Kossuth and at Earl South Street -- four lane improvement between Main and Sagamore: Intersection improvement at Sagamore; traffic signal at 26th Erie-Elmwood-Greenbush Corridor -- four lane improvements to Elmwood and Greenbush and Erie extension along abandoned N&W corridor: No progress Union Street -- widening between Sagamore and Creasy: No progress Earl Avenue -- four lane improvement between South and State: Completed in 1988 between South and Main Farabee Drive -- extension of Farabee south to SR 38: No progress Creasy Lane -- extension to US 52 and reconstruction between SR 26 and SR 38: TIF District established to finance extension; no progress on reconstruction 109 Teal Road -- widening between 4th and 18th and extension to SR 38: Intersection improvements at 9th, 18th, and Sagamore Brady-Beck Corridor -- Brady Lane extensions at both ends; new roadway connecting Brady and Beck along N&W rail; widening: Thoroughfare Plan Amendment; Twykenham Blvd. built Road 350S -- extensions at both ends; improvements between Road 50E and Concord: ROW phase (1991 construction between existing US 231 and 9th) ROW phase (1992 construction between 9th and Concord) SR 43 (now US 231 S) -- four lane improvement from Road 500S to downtown: Traffic signal at Beck Bypass -- from Road 350S around WL and rejoin SR 43 at Road 500N: US 231 Road Relocation and Bridge Project scheduled for construction letting in 1993 Chauncey-Vine Corridor -- one-way pairs between Fowler and State; extension of Chauncey to S. River: No progress; Chauncey extension discarded alternate in US 231 EIS South River Road -- widening between the "new bypass" bridge and extension of Chauncey: This segment is part of the US 231 Road Relocation and Bridge Project State Street -- four lane improvement between University and Gates: No progress Yeager Road -- four lane improvement between Northwestern and Sagamore: Intersection improvement at Northwestern McCormick-Cumberland Connector -- four lane improvement to McCormick and extension of Cumberland: No progress McCormick Road -- reconstruction between Cherry and US 52: No progress Road 350N and Soldiers Home Road -- alignment improvements: Road 350N ready for construction; no progress on Soldiers Home 110 Intersection Improvements -- Brown/State/River and Duncan/N. Ninth: Completed a modified improvement at Brown (with traffic signal installed at River and Howard); no progress at Duncan Bridges -- SR 225, Newman, and S. River: Deck replaced 1988 on SR 225 bridge; no progress on Newman; S. River part of the US 231 Road Relocation and Bridge Project 111 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS41.GIF 112 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS42.GIF 113 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS43.GIF 114 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS44.GIF 115 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS45.GIF 116 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS46.GIF 117 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS47.GIF 118 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS48.GIF 119 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS49.GIF 120 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS50.GIF 121 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS51.GIF 122 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS52.GIF 123 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS53.GIF 124 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS54.GIF 125 GRAPHIC] \GLATDS55.GIF 126 Appendix 4 FUNDING SOURCES FOR TRANSPORTATION RELATED PROJECTS LOCAL SOURCES: -------------- 1. Local Cumulative Bridge Fund This fund is an important supplementary source of revenue for the construction and repair of county highway bridges, bridge approaches, and grade separations. Indiana statutes authorize county commissioners to establish a county-wide tax levy on assessed valuation of all taxable personal and real property to accumulate revenue for the fund. It may be levied annually or established for a period of five years and renewed for like periods of time. The tax rate may not exceed 30 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. 2. Local Cumulative Capital Improvement Fund Indiana statutes authorize cities and towns to establish a cumulative capital improvement fund to provide monies for several municipal purposes, including land acquisition for right-of-way, construction or improvement of streets and thoroughfares, and retirement of general obligation bonds. Monies for this fund are derived from levied taxes, not to exceed $1 per $100 of assessed valuation of all locally taxable real and personal property. The tax may be renewed annually or for any period not to exceed ten years. 3. Local General Obligation Bonds The cities of Lafayette and West Lafayette have the power to debt finance nonproprietary functional expenditures, such as roads and schools. This power is exercised by the sale of general obligation bonds. The general obligation bond indebtedness either city can incur in any given year is limited to a fixed percentage of the net assessed property value. The limited percentage is fixed by state law and may be changed by the state general assembly. General obligation bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing agency and are repaid through taxes levied on real property. 127 STATE SOURCES: -------------- 4. Indiana Local Road and Street Account The Local Road and Street (LR&S) fund was established by the 1969 Indiana General Assembly. The funds are derived from gasoline tax, drivers license and vehicle registration fees. Monies of this account are derived from 45% of the Special Highway User Account. The other 55% is deposited into the Primary Highway Special Account to be used by the Department of Transportation. The funds are dedicated for engineering, construction or reconstruction of roads, streets or bridges, as well as for payment of bonds and interest to finance any project of this type. Total monies collected for this fund are allocated monthly to counties and cities. Monies are allocated in reserve to local agencies based upon formulas accounting for registered passenger cars, population, and roadway mileage. Local units submit their applications for these reserve funds to the Auditor of the state on an individual project basis. 5. Indiana Motor Vehicle Highway Account These funds collected by the State from vehicle registration fees, licenses, operator licenses, automotive title fees, weight taxes and excise taxes on motor vehicle and trailers, are partially returned to local governments by allocation formula. Before distribution, 50 percent of the State Police Budget and the department of traffic safety budget are deducted from the total amount. The funds returned must be used for construction, reconstruction, maintenance or repair of street and allies in the municipalities and county highway or bridges in the counties. FEDERAL SOURCES: ---------------- 6. Bridge Replacement Fund Federal funding for Bridge Replacement is available for bridge projects involving the replacement or rehabilitation of bridges on any state highway, county road, or city or town street. To qualify, a bridge must have a sufficiency rating of less than 50% for replacement, and a sufficiency rating of less than 80% for rehabilitation. 128 Funds from the federal government are apportioned to the state of Indiana on the basis of square footage of deficient bridges and unit price of Indiana bridges compared to the total deficient bridges in the United States. Indiana portions are distributed 50% to the state and 50% to the counties. The federal matching share is 80% of the project costs. 7. Federal Aid Primary The current Federal Aid Primary (FAP) system consists of connected main highways selected by the state and approved by the Federal Highway Administration. These particular funds are apportioned to the states for expenditure on the FAP system by a formula based upon the area of the state, rural and urban population of the state and the postal mileage within the state. The cost of maintaining the FAP system is borne by either the state or local governments. The federal matching share is 70% of the project costs. 8. Federal Aid Rural Secondary Federal Aid Rural Secondary Funds are available for use on all rural secondary systems of states and counties. To qualify, a state highway or county road must be classified as a major collector, which is defined as a highway that: -- provides service to county seats but not as an arterial route; -- provides service to larger towns and other traffic generators; -- links traffic generators with nearby cities; and -- serves important intra-county travel corridors. Indiana currently allocates half of the funds to the state and half to the counties, based upon the area of the each county, rural population of each county, and postal mileage of each county, all as compared with the state. 9. Federal Aid Urban Urban funds provide federal aid sources to any city or town with a population over 5,000, for use on all urban system routes including city streets and state highways within an urbanized area. A street or state highway must be classified as an urban arterial or collector to qualify for urban funds. This includes all city streets with the exception of local streets and all state highways 129 not classified as Interstate or Primary. Funds can be used for projects on streets, bridges, railroad crossings, street signs, pavement striping, lighting, channelization and signalization. The federal share is 75%. These funds are apportioned to a state's cities and towns by one of two methods: attributable and non-attributable. Attributable funds are apportioned to cities and/or urbanized areas of over 200,000 population classed as Group I cities. Non-attributable urban funds are apportioned to cities and towns of 5,000 to 200,000 population. Federal policy states that cities and/or urbanized areas of 50,000 or greater population must also have their own TIP (Transportation Improvement Program). Cities of 50,000 to 200,000 population are classed as Group II cities and cities and towns with 5,000 to 50,000 are classed as Group III cities. The state apportions non-attributable urban funds based on the total population of each city and/or urbanized area to the total population of Groups II and III cities combined. 10. Hazard Elimination Fund Funds from this program are to be used on the Federal-Aid Highway System and off-system highways (the majority of these highways are under the jurisdiction of Local Public Agencies). These funds are apportioned to the Indiana Department of Transportation and Local Public Agencies on a 70/30 basis. Funds are used for correction and improvement of deficient characteristics at narrow bridges, on sharp curves, or at intersections with poor visibility or turning movements. The federal matching share is 90%. 11. Interstate Reconstruction Funds from this program are used to reconstruct interstate highway systems as designated by the Federal Highway Administration. The federal matching share is 90%. 12. Minimum Allocation Fund The 1987 Federal Highway Act establishes that a state shall not receive less than 85% of the estimated tax payment from that state paid into the Highway Trust Fund. Funds received by the state of Indiana under this provision will be equitably distributed between the Department of Transportation and Local Public Agencies. The distribution for FY 1991 is calculated by subtracting half the value of demonstration 130 projects of the top of the state's total Minimum Allocation apportionment and then the balance is distributed 75% to the Department of Transportation and 25% to Local Public Agencies, less the remaining half of the demonstration projects. These funds may be used in any funding category such as Federal Aid Urban, Federal Aid Rural Secondary, Bridge Replacement, Hazard Elimination, or Rail Highway Protection and Crossing Funds, but only for the construction of a project. The maximum amount of federal funds allowed from this fund to any Local Public Agency will be $3,000,000 in addition to an emergency project, during a five year time period. 13. Railroad Relocation Fund The Federal Government funds 95% for projects involving the relocation of railroads within large cities. Funds are allocated for specific projects only. 14. Rail Highway Protection and Crossing Fund The monies allocated from these funds are apportioned to Indiana for the installation and upgrading of rail highway protection warning devices and upgrading rail highway crossing surfaces. One-third is distributed to the Indiana Department of Transportation, and two-thirds to Local Public Agencies. These funds are used for construction or reconstruction of minimal roadway approaches to railroad crossings, construction and reconstruction of railroad crossing surfaces, and the installation of railroad crossing signals or gates. However, the funds may not be used for railroad advance warning signs or pavement markings that are required by Indiana state law. The federal share is 90%. ALTERNATIVE SOURCES: -------------------- 15. Annual License Excise Surtax The County Council of any county may adopt an ordinance to impose an Annual License Excise Surtax on passenger vehicles, motorcycles, and trucks up to 11,000 pounds. The County Council must concurrently adopt a County Wheel Tax. The license surtax must be at the same rate for each vehicle, and cannot exceed 10% or be less than 2%, but must be more than $7.50. 131 The surtax is collected by each branch office of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles at the time registration fees are paid. The branch office remits the surtax to the County Treasurer on or before the 10th day of each month. Before the 20th day of each month, the County Auditor allocates the money amongst the county, and its cities and towns, using the same formulas as the Local Road and Street Account. Before the 25th of each month, the County Treasurer distributes to the county, cities and towns the money deposited in the County Surtax Fund during that month. Surtax revenues received are to be used for the construction, reconstruction, repair, or maintenance of streets and roads in the jurisdiction. 16. County Wheel Tax A County Council may adopt an ordinance to impose an Annual Wheel Tax on buses, recreational vehicles, semitrailers, tractors, trailers, and trucks if they are not: a) used by the state or other political subdivision; b) subject to the Annual License Surtax; and c) operated by a religious or nonprofit youth organization for use to transport persons to services for the overall benefits of its members. The vehicles to be taxed must be registered in the county. In order to adopt the Wheel Tax, the County Council must concurrently adopt the Annual License Excise Surtax. The money generated from the County Wheel Tax may be used only for the construction, reconstruction, repair, or maintenance of roads and streets under its jurisdiction. 17. Tax Increment Financing A Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district is established by declaration of an allocation area by a county, city, or town. The use of TIF requires the designation of such an area and the determination of a base assessment date. These must be approved by the local plan commission and the legislative body of the city, town, or county. The property tax rate for the allocation area remains the same until the base assessment date expires. However, any net increase in assessed valuation caused by construction and thus a higher property tax rate is segregated, and the incremental property tax collected in the allocation area may be used to finance the construction of infrastructure that will be 132 affected by the development of the allocation area. 18. Thoroughfare Project Fund I.C. 36-9-6.1 The fiscal body of a unit that has adopted a thoroughfare plan under I.C. 36-7-4 may levy a tax of fifteen cents ($0.15) on each one hundred dollars ($100) of taxable property in the unit. The tax may be levied annually, in the same way that other property taxes are levied. The taxes collected are deposited in a separate and continuing fund called the thoroughfare fund. Payments or transfers from this fund can only be made for work related to the Thoroughfare Plan. 133
