Carmel Multimodal System Plan by storrow|kinsella: strategies places connections

ONE MILE

H AL

F MILE

walk w a

THE MULTIMODAL SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF CARMEL INDIANA

Multimodal System Plan for the

City of Carmel, Indiana

FINAL DRAFT April 16, 2010 Prepared by: Storrow Kinsella Associates Inc

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana

Acknowledgements CITY OF CARMEL

STAKEHOLDER ADVISORS

Mayor

Ehren Bingaman - CIRTA Mike Terry - IndyGo Samantha Cross - IndyGo Annette Darrow - IndyGo Roscoe Brown, Jr. - IndyGo Mo Merhoff - Carmel Chamber of Commerce Brenda Myers - Hamilton County CVB Laura Brown - RLS Anita Beverly - CICS Evelyn Vicens - CICS Elaine McGuire - Janus Teresa Steege - Janus Connie Sanders - Janus Sue Ritz - Boone County Seniors

James Brainard

Department of Community Services Mike Hollibaugh, Director David Littlejohn, Alternative Transportation Coordinator (Project Manager) Adrienne Keeling, Planning Administrator

City of Carmel Advisors Gary Duncan - Engineering Department Mike McBride - Engineering Department Nancy Heck - Community Relations Scott Brewer - Urban Forestry Daren Mindham - Urban Forestry David McCoy - GIS Services

INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Lori Miser, Executive Director Anna Tyszkiewicz, Principal Planner - Multimodal Catherine Schoenherr, Senior Planner Jeremy Moore, Senior Planner

STEERING COMMITTEE: Karen Bohn Ron Carter Steve Dillon Judy Hagan Nick Kestner Mark Westermeier

CONSULTANT Storrow Kinsella Associates Inc Indianapolis, Indiana This study was funded by a Federal Transportation Planning grant administered by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization and with matching funds provided by the City of Carmel. All graphics, photographs, and illustrations are by Storrow Kinsella Associates Inc unless otherwise noted.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Abstract This Multimodal System Plan for the City of Carmel proposes the development of a transportation system that promotes greater use of walking, biking and transit, and that identifies key district nodes to reinforce transit-supportive development, improve active living and intensify green infrastructure. Multimodal corridors are defined as corridors that accommodate these multiple modes of transportation and recommend specific streetscape characteristics to improve transportation options and that promote the economic performance of adjacent land uses. This transportation system reinforces Carmelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s district nodes (places) as destinations. Local transit circulators that link to a regional transit system, with stops served by taxis, parking, bike parking and other services, will support organizing downtown transportation services into walkable zones that allow workers, visitors, and residents to move from place to place with or without a car. The resulting balanced transportation system provides travel choice while managing current growth trends.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

iii

Principal References [1]

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization. MultiModal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines: Indianapolis Regional Center and Metropolitan Planning Area. Indianapolis. August 2008. http://www. storrowkinsella.com/projectwebs/0444-IndyDesGuide/ index.htm Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization. Multi-Modal System Plan: Indianapolis Regional Center. Indianapolis. March 2009. Vuchic, Vukan. Urban Transit Systems and Technology. Wiley and Sons 2007. Lindsey, IUPUI. Indiana Center for Urban Policy and the Environment impacts of the Monon Trail. 2003 (www. urbancenter.iupui.iupui.edu IUPUI. Indiana Center for Urban Policy and the Environment impacts of the Pennsy Trail. 2006 (www. urbancenter.iupui.iupui.edu City of Carmel. Downtown Master Plan and SmartCode: Charrette Book Version 04.06.09 Carmel, IN 2009. City of Carmel. C3 Consildated Comprehensive Plan. Carmel, IN 2009. City of Carmel. Civic Design Study: Guiding Design Principles for the Future of Carmelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Central Core. Carmel, IN January 2006. Source: National Transportation Database/ Glossary http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/Glossary.htm] Dittmar, H., Ohland, G., The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development, Island Press 2004. 2005 American Community Survey: http://www.census. gov/acs/www Source: Indy Connect website: http://www.indyconnect. org International Society of Arboriculture: Benefits of Trees. www.treesaregood.org/treecare/tree_benefits.aspx benefits including property values of 5-20%. http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/energysavings.html, kWh savings were derived from this source. http://www.epa.gov/hiri/strategies/level3_vegairquality. html http://www.appanet.org/treeben/default.asp CO2 and kWh savings were derived from this source. USDA: Midwest Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planning, PSW-GTR-199, November 2006 Steuteville, R., Langdon, P. et al, New Urbanism: Best Practices Guide, New Urban News Publications 2009. McGill, M.K. Data: Texas Transportation Institute, Urban Mobility Report 2009.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii Principal References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Chapter 1: Introduction and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2: Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Purpose of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Carmel Multimodal System Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Mission Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Carmel and Region Today: Multimodal System Planning Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Public Process Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Carmel Multimodal System Plan: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 How to Use this Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 How to Modify this Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Carmel Multimodal System Plan: Recommendation Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Key Map Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Key Map Attribute Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Key Map Map 1 Overview - Addressing the Economic Development Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Map 1 Attribute Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Map 1 Multimodal Development Districts and Nodes Map 2 Overview - Addressing the Transit and Mode Shift Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Map 2 Attribute Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Map 2 Multimodal Circulator Network Map 3 Overview - Addressing the Active Living Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Map 3 Attribute Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Map 3 Active Living Network Map 4 Overview - Addressing the Green Infrastructure Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Map 4 Attribute Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Map 4 Green Infrastructure Network Map 5 Overview - Addressing the Overall Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Map 5 Attribute Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Map 5 Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Table of Contents Chapter 3: Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Implementation Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Phasing Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Potential Funding Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Example Projects Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Example Project 1. Transit Feasibility Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Example Project 2. Education and Branding Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Example Project 3. Transit-Oriented Development around the Transit Center . . . . . . . 119 Example Project 4. Green Infrastructure: Modeling and Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . 121 Funding Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

APPENDICES Appendix A: Definitions and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Appendix B: Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

What is a Multimodal System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 What is a Multimodal System Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 What is Place-Based Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 What is meant by Multimodal Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 What is meant by Multimodal Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Why use Place-Based Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Green Infrastructure and Active Living Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 How is Place-Based Transportation Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 How does Place-Based Transportation Relate to SmartCode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 How is the Multimodal System Modified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Public Participation Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Committees and Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1) Purpose, Goals and Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2) Stakeholder Group Documentation IndyGo, CIRTA, CVB, Rural Operational Analysis/RLS, JARC coordinator, Boone County Seniors, Janus, CICS, Chamber of Commerce, Carmel Community Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Stakeholder Supplied Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3) Public Open House Documentation (November 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4) Online Survey and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5) Steering Committee/Stakeholder Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Table of Contents Appendix C: PBT Analysis and Context Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

CMSP Analysis and Results Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Base Information Context Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 1. Regional Context Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 2. City-Wide Context Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 2. Western Impact Area Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 4. Eastern Impact Area Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 5. Southern Impact Area Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 6. Downtown Core Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

vii

viii Final Draft 4/16/2010

Introduction 1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN The City of Carmel and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) partnered in the development of this multimodal system transportation plan for Carmel. The purpose of the plan is:

Downtown Carmel is a destination.

1. to develop an optimal “multimodal” transportation system for Carmel that achieves a balance between pedestrian, bicycle, public transit, and personal vehicle modes, while epitomizing a “Complete Streets” philosophy, and, 2. to develop a public transit component of that system that provides high levels of accessibility and mobility to residents and visitors while supporting “Smart Growth” and sustainable economic development strategies.

CARMEL MULTIMODAL SYSTEM PLANNING This plan, informed by previous and ongoing public input by the City of Carmel and its residents, constitutes a consolidation of Carmel’s transportation vision into one guiding document. This document is a plan for travel and connectivity options that more effectively link Carmel’s resident and visitor populations with their destinations and the region.

Downtown Carmel promotes bicycling and pedestrian connectivity.

An effective transportation system will provide more than just mobility options. It will also improve accessibility, strengthen the connections between community districts and land uses, promote economic development, strengthen local ecosystems and improve quality of life. Accommodating projected growth and maximizing transportation options positions Carmel to continue to thrive. A transportation system becomes optimal when all kinds of destinations: home, work, shopping, entertainment, and recreation can be accessed by a variety of travel options within a reasonable amount of time.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Introduction

With this broad purpose in mind, the City of Carmel crafted a guiding mission statement for this study.

MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Carmel Multimodal System Plan process is to develop a community-based transportation plan that provides policy guidance to integrate and balance traditional and multimodal transportation facilities with both existing and desired land use patterns, supporting sustainable Carmel’s investment in a new “City Center” is promoting development and improved quality of life. This mission is supported by four component goals:

economic development and reinforcing downtown as a destination.

Economic Development Goal Continue to leverage transportation infrastructure to concentrate land use intensity and economic development opportunities with emphasis on supporting Carmel’s core districts.

Transit and Mode Shift Goal Provide transportation options that offer easy to use public transportation for commuting and daily activities, with emphasis on walkable and bikeable distances. Establish a transportation interface between intra-city and regional transit. Enable a measurable shift from auto-dominated transportation toward a more balanced and sustainable overall system.

Active Living Goal Continue to create a transportation network that incorporates and integrates health-supportive transportation choices that encourage walkable and bikeable trips for recreation as well as transportation.

Green Infrastructure Goal Continue to incorporate stormwater management practices and urban tree canopy features into the public transportation infrastructure to improve Destinations along the Monon Trail connect people with the environmental quality of life and reduce the dining and social experiences. environmental footprint of the transportation system.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Introduction 1 ORGANIZATION OF STUDY The presentation of this study begins in this Introduction [Chapter 1] with a description of the context of Carmel and its region. That context has informed the development of an appropriately scaled and distributed transportation system that is specific to and supportive of Carmel’s current needs and future aspirations.

Carmel has high standards for its public infrastructure.

It proceeds to describe an overview of the public participation process and the consensus that derived from that process regarding goals and preferences for a balanced transportation system for Carmel. Chapter 2 and its set of descriptive maps summarize the recommended multimodal system plan components and their integration as a comprehensive system. The accompanying “attribute” tables are keyed to the maps to organize specific system features according to thoroughfare segments. This section describes and builds upon an underlying theory of land use and transportation management integration that is consistent with the city’s proposed “Smart Growth” policy for guidance of anticipated growth and development. Chapter 3 discusses implementation strategies as base recommendations towards development of a sustainable multimodal system that is phased to, and supportive of, Carmel’s managed growth objectives. It also lays out next steps that are prerequisite to effective system development, deployment and long term viability.

Carmel is a leader in developing and utilizing the Modern Roundabout to mitigate traffic congestion.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Introduction

Appendix A describes the concepts and key terms associated with multimodal transportation and Place-Based Transportation planning methodologies that inform the system plan, as well as their relationship to SmartGrowth land use planning and the related SmartCode regulations currently in development by Carmel. Note that this section, if perused in advance, will provide understanding of the best practices and terminology related to multimodal planning and its research basis that occur throughout this report. Appendix B documents the oversight committees (including the Steering and Advisory Committees), their proceedings and the decisions that guided Carmel has established identity programs for its Districts. plan development. It discusses the relevant antecedent and parallel planning efforts and their implemented components, both local and regional, that inform the plan. It documents the findings and recommendations derived from various input methods including surveys, interviews, and a public open house. Appendix C documents the analytical process (referred to as Place-Based Transportation Analysis) and results that were employed to determine and optimize proposed multimodal system network characteristics, efficiencies, and sustainability factors. This section provides the metrics validation that is intended to raise the system plan beyond assumptions to a reasonable level of predictive success, proportionate to its pre-feasibility stage, as necessary to justify the magnitude of investment that such systems require. The results of this analysis provided the preliminary recommendations. These recommendations underwent a public review process (overview later in this chapter more details are provided in Appendix B). The process proposed improvements that led to the final recommendations for the system plan presented in Chapter 2.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

06-CR-875 E

29S-

0-0 1

29-S-0 38-0-0 1

Clay Terrace Area

Village of West Clay 29-LS-116th Street

Zionsville

48-I-069-0-01

29-I-069-0-01

City of Carmel

Anson and School Cam

238 -

48-S-013-0-01

Noblesville

29-CR-Boden Rd

29-CR-Hazel Dell P

06-CR-650 E

HamiltonSoutheastern

Saxony Dev

Carmel Schools HamiltonSoutheastern

Fishers

Carmel Core

Madison1 Co Corporate Park

Business Park

I-465

Hamilton Co.

I-65

29-LS-96th Street

Marion Co. 86TH ST

Hancock Co.

I-69

32-CR-E 1000 N

82ND ST

McCordsville

82ND ST 79TH ST

I-65

-0 -0 36 -0

McCordsville

30-S-234-0-01

I-69 73RD ST COOPE R RD

56TH ST

Glendale

Brownsburg I-74

IMA

COLLEGE AVE

Pittsboro

McCordsville

71ST ST

30-CR-600 N

Oaklandon

Lawrence City Center

Hendricks Co.

-U 30

56TH ST

30-CR-200 W

Boone Co.

Corporate Park 38TH ST

30-CR-Fortville

06-CR-400 E

01 0506 06-S-267-0-01

-I06

06-CR-600 S

29-LS-146th Street

-01

06-CR-300 S

Whitestown

-0-0 -031 29-U

Ackerson Farms Dev

1-0 -42 06-U

06-LS-CR100 E

Introduction 1

30-CR-300 N

30TH ST

I-465

I-70

Cumberland

Regional Center

Avon 32-U-036-0-01

I 70

Legend: )

Carmel

County Line

US Highway

MPO Pedestrian Corridors

Water Bodies

Major Street

MPO Pedestrian Districts

Parks/Recreation

I-65 I-65

30-LS-CR600 W

10TH ST

32-CR-E 100 N

Future Mixed Use Dev

POST RD

RACEWAY RD

30-I-070-0-01

I-74

Spring Lake

Carmel’s relationship to the Central Indiana region.

CARMEL AND ITS REGION TODAY: MULTIMODAL SYSTEM PLANNING CONTEXT The Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is currently undertaking several regional transit plan initiatives, including Indy Connect [12]. This is Central Indiana’s Transportation Initiative, which is currently seeking public comment on how to improve transportation options and includes multiple modes of transportation. Indy Connect is meant to connect people to people and people to places in Central Indiana through expanded roads, commuter and light rail, enhanced bus service, as well as bike and pedestrian paths and walkways.

Carmel is utilizing its Multimodal System Planning effort to inform its interface with Indy Connect. In addition, several plans and planning efforts formed the foundation of the proposed study. These included [for a complete list of resources see Appendix B] the following:

Multimodal Planning:

Bike and Pedestrian Plan for the City of Carmel; Carmel’s Bicycle Route and Loops Plan Map; IndyGo COA; Regional Pedestrian Plan; Carmel’s Led by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning draft traffic congestion mitigation plan; Janus Organization (MPO), Central Indiana Regional Transit Shuttle Plan; and ICE route planning. Transportation Authority (CIRTA), and IndyGo, Indy Connect is a collaboration between private Corridor Studies: industry and public entities working toward a US 31; 116th Street; and 96th Street defined regional transportation future.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Introduction Thoroughfare Plan Map E 146th St Hazel Dell Pkwy

Gray Rd

Oak Ridge Rd

Carey Rd

W 146th St

W 141st St

E 136th St

Ditch Rd

Range Line Rd

W 136th St

Main St

E 131st St

West Rd

Old

River Rd

Me ri

dia

W 131st St

E 126th St Illinois St

W 126th St

122nd St S Guilford Rd

Pennsylvania St

Clay Center Rd

Carmel Dr

E 116th St

Meridian St

W 116th St

111th St

US 42

Pkwy Hazel Dell

Gray Rd

Keystone Parkway

gan

Michi

I-465

Westfield Blvd

College Ave

Spring Mill Rd

US 31

Ditch Rd

Towne Rd

Shelborne Rd

W 106th St

W 96th St

MAP LEGEND

THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP

Interstate

Secondary Arterial

Residential Parkway

Off-Street Commuter Trail

U.S./State Highway

Secondary Arterial (Proposed)

Residential Parkway (Proposed)

Grade-Separated Crossing

Primary Arterial

Secondary Parkway

Collector Street

Interchange Location

Primary Parkway

Secondary Parkway (Proposed)

Collector Street (Proposed)

Overpass Location

Urban Arterial

Urban Collector

Collector Street per NOAX Agreement

Roundabout Intersection (Existing)

Urban Arterial (Proposed)

Urban Collector (Proposed)

Residential Street

Roundabout Intersecton (Proposed)

Residential Street (Proposed)

River

1/4 MILE

1/2 MILE

3/4 MILE

1 MILE

Map Prepared by Ground Rules, Inc.

Carmel’s Thoroughfare Plan Map - part of the C3 Comprehensive Plan

Last Revised 02-17-2010 CARMEL CLAY COMPREHENSI VE PLAN

Development Plans: Gramercy plan; Legacy Development; Carmel has managed its growth to become a Providence/Old Meridian plan (incorporated in the leader in combining many of the advantages SmartCode). of urban living within the context of a suburban community. It is truly a City of Neighborhoods as Carmel’s Comprehensive Planning Efforts: expressed in the Civic Design Study and the C3 C3 Comprehensive Plan 2009; Thoroughfare Plan; Comprehensive Plan. A series of overlay zones Civic Design Study; Smart Code. has been established for neighborhoods within the incorporated city and some that are outside, The multimodal plans all advocate greater such as Homeplace, and the area bounded by interconnections between modes and route Michigan Road, 116th, 96th and Spring Mill. coordination. Several of the corridor plans have also recommended improving linkages both within Carmel is situated roughly 15 miles north of the corridor areas as well as to other areas of Downtown Indianapolis. It has a population of Carmel. The development plans propose quality over 68,000, with over 1 million square feet of neighborhood centers and better connections to office and retail space. In this context, it is the the surrounding areas. The more comprehensive second largest urban cluster in Central Indiana plans expressed visions that advocate being after Downtown Indianapolis. Carmel comprises a healthy, green, economically-vital “City of an area of over 39 square miles. Neighborhoods”.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Introduction 1

Another of the informing documents, the proposed Regulating (â&#x20AC;&#x153;zoningâ&#x20AC;?) Plan map from October 2009 from the SmartGrowth planning process (SmartCode) shows mixed use development proposed for the Carmel City core. The SmartGrowth planning process is still underway and updates will be integrated into the Multimodal System Plan.

Carmel, in addition to its regional importance, has a number of distinct advantages with respect to multimodal system planning. It has engaged in planning processes that encourage mixed use node development and ensuring that those development policies are friendly to multimodal development. It has planned and built substantial bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. It is forward-

thinking in terms of integrating green infrastructure and sustainability measures, and encouraging synergy between departments to achieve them in an integrated way. However, Carmel is not without its challenges. Its principal business corridor, while a dominant presence in the regional economy and an

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Introduction

important factor in Carmelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growth, exhibits characteristics of conventional business park arrangements, including large office buildings separated by parking lots, making access to the area difficult without a car. In the past, Carmel has developed at a relatively low residential density (averaging about one dwelling unit/acre) compared to many cities with successful transit [10]. This low-density, auto-centric development pattern can present a challenge for traffic management, mixed land use and transit. Carmel has consequently undertaken extensive traffic and development projects in order to move Carmel toward its vision for the future [7]. This multimodal system plan acts as a next step to manage transportation, guide economic development, and enhance livability through improving its pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections and reinforcing its neighborhood nodes.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Introduction 1 PUBLIC PROCESS OVERVIEW Multi-Modal System Plan Open House Wednesday, November 18th Carmel, IN The City of Carmel will hold an Open House to address the City’s ongoing Multi-Modal System Plan with the public. Carmel residents are encouraged to attend and provide feedback.

Where and When: The meeting will take place on November 18th, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the Monon Center (East Building, Banquet Hall B) in Central Park. Enter from Westfield Ave.

What is the Multimodal System Plan: The Multi-Modal System Plan is a study addressing transportation of all forms within the city of Carmel. Earlier this year the City of Carmel was awarded a grant through the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization to conduct a study to identify and develop a transportation plan for Central Carmel. This study will provide future guidance for all modes of transportation within the city including vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit.

Outcomes: The goal of this study is to create a community based transportation plan that provides policy guidance to integrate and balance traditional and multimodal transportation facilities with both existing and desired land form patterns that will support development and improve quality of life in Carmel. The Open House will provide explanatory information on the process, the benefits and the impacts of a multimodal system plan.

Your input: The purpose of this Open House is to gather public input to help develop the study. You will be asked about the places and destinations you would like a multimodal system to serve. You will also be asked about your preferences of routes to get to these places and destinations. Information will be available to take home to allow you more time to consider the possibilities and add input.

Flyer from the Public Open House held on November 18, 2009.

Carmel has initiated a “SmartGrowth” planning effort to improve upon the City’s historical Euclidean zoning practices that have become a less sufficient guide for the continued development of the community. The SmartCode process, which transforms SmartGrowth concepts into a unified development ordinance, proposes to reorganize the downtown area away from the rigid separation of residential and commercial uses characterized by the current regime. Rather, it encourages implementation of mixed-use environments with development patterns that emphasize walkability and convenience to all ages and abilities, and respects the appropriate transition between neighborhoods and adjacent land uses. As part of this process, Carmel needed a “smart” transportation component of its overall planning effort that would serve this “smarter” development pattern. Carmel requested a parallel transportation planning effort to improve and complement its Thoroughfare Plan with planning grant assistance from the MPO. This planning effort employed Place-Based Transportation (PBT) methodology, which coordinates land use and transportation planning [See Appendix A for more details on PBT and its relation to SmartCode]. Public feedback from the SmartCode process had expressed concerns about balancing transportation modes and land use needs. To address these concerns, Carmel created a series of oversight committees that included citizens, stakeholders, regional interests, and specialists both inside and outside city government.

These committees developed the mission statement for this smart transportation plan and its component goals (described in the Introduction). They brought together information Photo taken at the Public Open House held on November 18, from related planning work described earlier. 2009. [Photo Courtesy of Catherine Schoenherr] They also used as a starting point the extensive work on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that Carmel has already undertaken with the Carmel Access Bikeways. Data from diverse resources were also collected. As part of the research

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Introduction

necessary to re-plan the transportation network, a series of interviews with various stakeholders and specialists was conducted. These included regional and local transit specialists, and local business representatives. They also included city department specialists such as engineering, urban forestry, parks, redevelopment, utilities and community relations. The data and information were analyzed based on Place-Based Transportation principles and methods [see Appendix C for more details] and transformed into preliminary recommendations that were presented to the public in several forms: a public open house, an online survey, and targeted review by the stakeholder and steering committees. Responses were numerous, constructive and strongly favorable. There were, however, several changes and modifications suggested [See Appendix B for more details]. As a result, the preliminary recommendations were revised to address the comments and desires.

Carmel Multimodal System Plan - Public Feedback Survey Please check the five Carmel destinations that you travel to/from most frequently: Answer Options

1. 96th and Gray

15. Hazel Dell

29. Parkwood

2. 116th

16. Heart Center

30. Performing Arts Center

3. Carey

17. Homeplace

31. Smokey Row

4. Carmel and 3rd

18. Lakeshore

32. Southeast Carmel

5. Carmel Center Dr

19. Merchant Square

33. South Gateway

6. E. Central Park

20. Meridian Corners

34. South Penn

7. W. Central Park

21. Meridian Village

35. South Rangeline

8. City Center East

22. Mohawk/Gray

36. West Clay Village

9. Civic Square

23. North Penn

37. Woodland

10. Clay Terrace

24. Old Meridian Center

38. Cox Hall

11. Cool Creek

25. N. Old Meridian

39. St. Vincent

12. Creekside

26. S. Old Meridian

40. Clarian Medical

13. Education Center

27. Old Town

41. Legacy

14. Gramercy

28. Old Town West

42. Shelborne

Sample Survey Question

The final recommendations are presented in the next chapter. These will again be presented to the public for review. The results from the public feedback will be incorporated as the recommendations from this study are integrated into the C3 [7] update and update of the Thoroughfare Plan later in 2010.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2 Key Recommendations: A series of multimodal development districts with nodes that cluster destinations accessible by and supported by transit, bicycle and pedestrian networks.

CARMEL MULTIMODAL SYSTEM PLAN: INTRODUCTION

This Multimodal System Plan for the City of Carmel is intended to guide the development of complete multimodal networks and places for A series of transit circulators with a regional the City of Carmel. This system plan proposes transit connection on the central circulator. the development of a transportation system that (See diagram below) promotes greater use of walking, biking and Integration of bicycle and pedestrian networks transit, and that identifies key district nodes to to feed the transit system and the development reinforce transit-supportive development, improve district nodes. active living and intensify green infrastructure. Green infrastructure networks that complement Local transit circulators are proposed that link to a regional transit system, with stops served by and support the other networks, offering attractive recreational corridors, environmental taxis, parking, bike parking and other services. The circulators also support organizing downtown benefits and enhanced quality of life. transportation services into walkable zones that A “Complete Street” network that applies allow workers, visitors, and residents to move streetscape design templates supporting from place to place with and without a car. This economic development, transit, active living proposed transportation system reinforces and green infrastructure. Carmel’s district nodes (places) as destinations.

2 "!

! "

"! "!

" !

! "

O "

! " ! "

I "

Multimodal corridors are proposed that accommodate the multiple modes of transportation, recommending specific streetscape characteristics to improve transportation options and promote the economic performance of adjacent land uses. The resulting balanced transportation system provides for evolving travel demands while managing current growth trends. The recommendations of this plan are organized around the goals and mission for the study described in Chapter 1.

! "

"! " !

! "

North

Proposed transit circulators, connection to regional transit and phases (1-3) of their implementation.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

How to Use this Plan

Glyphs for Wayfinding in Map Sections

Each map section is composed of an overview, an attribute table or a series of attribute tables followed by the recommendation map. The overview describes the relationship of the goal area or mission to the recommendations and the implications of these recommendations.

Key Map section

The map demonstrates the key recommendations and their physical relationships. Each map displays the glyph for its section. All the glyphs used are shown at right.

How to Modify this Plan This plan reflects current trends and offers the best solutions to address multimodality in Carmel at this point in time. With this in mind, the plan is flexible and needs to be able to change over time. If a node location or district boundary needs alteration, there should be a properly located substitute of the appropriate scale both for development and the connections that sustain that development. Connections can also be changed, as long as an equivalent connection or connections suitable for all modes are provided. The plan provides more detailed explanations as to how to modify the plan or the streetscape recommendations while maintaining the performance provided by the templates. These can be found in Appendix A.

MC MC MC MC MC GI AL MS ED ED ED KM KM KM KM KM

The attribute tables provide the details of the recommendations of the multimodal districts, nodes and corridors displayed on the map. Some map sections have multiple tables that cover several pages to display all the details. Consequently, to distinguish these tables a series of glyphs is provided to demarcate which table the reader is using and correlate it to the map for the section. Each of these tables in a given section shares the id number and corridor segment name (shown in yellow) as a common reference for the other columns with differing information for each attribute table.

D N a b c 1 D N 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 a

b c

Key Map District Attribute Table listing district names and identifiers Key Map Node Attribute Table listing the associated nodes for the districts and their identifiers Key Map Corridor Segment Attribute Table which shows the segment start and end Indicates Key Map Corridor Segment Table listing source and base thoroughfare plan data for the segment Key Map Corridor Segment Table listing additional base thoroughfare plan attributes for the corridor segment Map 1: which addresses the (E)conomic (D) evelopment goal and the associated Attribute Table Multimodal development district Attribute Table Multimodal development district node Attribute Table Map 2: which addresses the Transit and (M) ode (S)hift goal and the associated Attribute Table Map 3: which addresses the (A)ctive (L)iving goal and the associated Attribute Table Map 4: which addresses the (G)reen (I)nfrastructure goal and the associated Attribute Table Map 5: addressing overall mission and providing details of the (M)ultimodal (C)orridor segments First multimodal corridor segment Attribute Table Second multimodal corridor segment Attribute Table Third multimodal corridor segment Attribute Table Fourth multimodal corridor segment Attribute Table

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2 CARMEL MULTIMODAL SYSTEM PLAN: RECOMMENDATION MAPS The Carmel Multimodal System Plan is presented as a series of recommendations displayed on a set of five maps, each corresponding to the goals set for the study and one compilation map [Map 5] that addresses the mission as a whole. Since there are over 1200 entries listed in the maps, a key map is presented first to help the plan user identify the district, node or corridor for which there are recommendations. A guide to these identifiers is shown below and corresponds to the identifiers in the attribute tables included with the Key Map Section. A summary of the maps included in this System Plan (Chapter 2) is as follows:

133

249

140

238

131

138

163

1 16

271

218

197

158

104

111 109

147

199

129

205

222

220

9 21

§ ¨ ¦

108

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\100317_Key Map_0831.mxd

221

256

" !

2 26

26 4

192

261

155

! "

235

146 145

127

164

421 t u

237

162

253

144

! "

173

11 9

87 89

236

148

93 132

142

128

! "

168

27 2 65

174

171

204

233

136

129

229

230

21 4 21 7

194

224

267 254 153

100

225 223

226

177

66 101 102

269 151

154

K 175

4 27

150

243 21 5

257

118

209

12 2

270

263

242

210 255

116

252

248 245

247

170

244

228

211

117

265

258

246 166

268

206

! "

178

Corridor Segment Identifier: # 188-Main Street from West to Shelbourne

I " 30

! "

W 16

114

189

190

139

! "

16 5

110

208

! "

183

130

203

! "

207

115

149

125

O "

191

U 176

167

13 5

180

5 19

AA 200

185

259

250

! "

181

172

201

202

3 19

169

186

187

184

31 t u

0 25

188

"! 120

273

141

49 45

1 24

6 15

! "

8 19

103

232

134

124

Carmel City Limit

157

District Identifier: AA-West Clay Village

I-465

The Carmel Multimodal System Plan (CMSP) presents a series of maps and associated attribute tables to provide detailed information on CMSP recommendations and guidelines. This Key Map provides unique identifiers for each of the network locations. The unique identifiers are ordered alphabetically by the name of District, Node or Corridor: Districts are labeled A-AC, Nodes are labeled 1-28 (large #'s), and Multimodal Corridors are labeled 1-274 (small #'s) With this key map, associated attribute tables list the locational details, base thoroughfare data and sources for each of the districts, nodes and corridors.

O " I " ! " ! " "!

§ ¦ ¨ I-69

Carmel City Limit Nodes 1-28

Multimodal Corridors

Transit Center (Preferred) Transit Center (Alternate) Nodes Phase 1 Nodes Phase 2 Nodes Phase 3

Placemaking Not Yet Constructed Connector Not Yet Constructed Local Not Yet Constructed Off-Street 0 Thru Proposed

1-274

Districts

A-AC

Campus

Regional Links

Central Business

Attribute Table Key Map Nodes, Corridors, and Districts Carmel Multimodal System Plan DRAFT - March 19, 2010

Transit Oriented Village Mixed Use Village Residential 0.25 0.5

1.5

2 Miles

North

This map is to be used for planning purposes only and should not be reprinted without the express written consent of the City of Carmel.

Node Identifier: # 14-Mohawk and Gray

Key Map: Identification of Corridors, Districts, and Nodes Key Map: The Key Map identifies the corridors, districts and nodes in one common location, and provides a key to all the map locations, supporting sources and base thoroughfare plan data attributes in one place.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 1: Multimodal Development Districts and Nodes Map 1 shows recommended multimodal development districts with nodes that offer opportunities to cluster destinations to connect with and serve a complete multimodal transportation network. The map addresses the economic development goal. Map 2: Multimodal Circulator Network Map 2 shows recommended multimodal circulators that connect Carmel to the regional transit system, and the local multimodal districts. The map addresses transit and mode shift goal. Map 3: Active Living Network Map 3 shows the multimodal system by mode and delineates how pedestrians, bicycles, and transit users access the district nodes via any one or a mix of modal options from anywhere within the districts. The map addresses the active living goal. Map 4: Green Infrastructure Network Map 4 shows a network representing some of the environmental benefits and impacts of the multimodal system recommendations. The map addresses the green infrastructure goal. Map 5: Multimodal Corridor & Public Space Network Map 5 shows the recommended application of streetscape guidelines to the multimodal places and connections of Carmel incorporating automobiles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. The map addresses the overall mission of the Carmel Multimodal System Plan. The context, concepts and implications of the recommendations are introduced before each map section. The abbreviation key at the head of each Attribute Table contains the definitions of the relevant attributes included in the tables and maps.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Key Map List of Districts and Nodes and their Identifiers Abbreviation Key ID:

Identifier ranging from A-AC of the alphabetically listed district names

District Name:

Alphabetical listing of the districts

Node Name:

Node at the center of the district

Node Number:

Identifier ranging from 1-28 of the alphabetically listed node names

Key Map Table: District and Node Identifiers ID (A-AC)

Dist_Name

Node_Name

Node_Number

96th Street District

Lakeshore

116th Street District

Clarian

Carey

Carmel Drive

South Rangeline

Central Park

Monon Center

Chesterton

Haverstick

City Center

Performing Arts Center

Clay Terrace

Creekside

Gramercy/Merchant Square

Gramercy

Hazel Dell

Homeplace

Learning Village

Education Center

Legacy

Meridian Corners

River

Oak Hill

Mohawk

Mohawk and Gray

West 96th St

TBD

Oak Ridge

Old Meridian

Old Meridian Center

Old Town

Old Town West

Parkwood/Heart Center

Heart Center

Pennsylvania

North College

16 23

Shelborne

Smokey Row

South Carmel

Southeast Carmel

West Clay Village

West Main Street

Old Meridian North

Woodland

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Key Map Table a. List of Corridor Segments Table Key ID:

Identifying number from 1-274 of the alphabetical name listing of the corridors

Name:

Alphabetical listing of the corridor

From SW:

The south or west end terminus of the corridor segment

To NE:

The north or east end terminus of the corridor segment

Key Map Table a. Multimodal Corridors: Segment Start and End ID (1-274) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Name 103rd 103rd 103rd 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 111th 111th 111th 111th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th

From_S_W Illinois Penn Spring Mill Cornell Gray Illinois Park Penn Spring Hill Spring Mill Stratford Woodlawn College College Penn Spring Mill Aaa College Gray Guilford HazelDell Illinois Long Branch Meridian Penn

To_N_E Penn College Ilinois Woodlawn HazelDell Penn Cornell Park Stratford Illinois Gray Spring Hill Monon Westfield College Penn Gray Guilford Woodcreek Aaa River Meridian Shelbourne Penn College

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Key Map Table a. Multimodal Corridors: Segment Start and End ID (1-274) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Name 116th 116th 116th 116th 117th 121st 121st 126th 126th 126th 126th 126th 126th 126th 126th 126th 126th 136th 136th 136th 136th 136th 136th 136th 136th 141st 141st 141st 141st 141st 146th 146th 146th 146th 146th 146th 146th 146th 3rd/4th 4th/2nd/Stadium 6 Points 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th Aaa Adams

From_S_W Shelbourne Stonewick Towne Woodcreek Congressional Auburn Creek West Brookshire Carmel Drive Gaskin Gray HazelDell Keystone River River Park Trail Shelbourne Tuscany Carey Ditch Lorenzo Oak Ridge Rangeline Smokey Row Spotswood Spring Mill Ditch Little Eagle Creek Quail Pointe Shelbourne West Carey Clay Terrace Little Eagle Creek Lowes Way Oak Ridge Rohrer Shelbourne Spring Mill Carmel Main Main College Gray Haverstick Keystone Monon Spring Mill Westfield 116th Carmel

To_N_E Towne HazelDell Illinois Stonewick College Shelbourne Auburn Creek Gray Brookshire Towne HazelDell River Carmel Drive River Park Trail River Tuscany Gaskin Gray Spring Mill Spotswood Rohrer Smokey Row Carey Ditch Oak Ridge Quail Pointe West Spring Mill Ditch Shelbourne River Lowes Way West Carey Rohrer Clay Terrace Spring Mill Oak Ridge Main 136th 136th Westfield HazelDell Keystone Gray Westfield College haverstick 126th City Center

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Key Map Table a. Multimodal Corridors: Segment Start and End ID (1-274) 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Name Arrowood Brighton/Dorset Broad Broad/Fairmount/Spotswood Brookshire Carey Carey Carmel Carmel Carmel Carmel Carmel Drive Carmel Drive Carmel Drive Carmel Drive Cherry Creek/Cherry Tree Cherry Tree Cherry Tree City Center City Center City Center City Center City Center City Center Clay Center Clay Center Clay Center Clay Terrace College College College College College College College College Congressional Congressional Congressional DeerRidge/Dove/Avian Ditch Ditch Ditch Double Eagle Driftwood Eden Estates Gaskin/Glebe Glebe Grace Grand

From_S_W Spruce Clay Center Glebe Main 126th 136th Hawthorne City Center Meridian Old Meridian Penn Aaa Eden Estates Keystone Rangeline HazelDell Avian Main 3rd Adams Carmel Congressional Penn Rangeline 116th Brighton Claridge Meridian 108th 111th 116th 117th 96th Penn Penn Penn 117th College Penn Gray 136th 141st Main 126th Smokey Ridge 116th 126th Towne Oak Ridge Main

To_N_E 146th Meridian Crossing Main Main Main Hawthorne 146th Rangeline Penn City Center Old Meridian Keyston 126th Eden Estates Aaa 146th HazelDell Avian Rangeline 3rd Adams Carmel Congressional Keystone Claridge Main Brighton 146th 111th 116th 117th Congressional Penn 108th Congressional 104th College City Center 117th Cherry Tree 141st 146th 136th Main Hawthorne Carmel Drive Towne Broad Rohrer Guilford

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Key Map Table a. Multimodal Corridors: Segment Start and End ID (1-274) 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

Name Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Guilford Gwynmere/Claridge Hancock Hansel/Lakeview Haverstick Haverwood/Arroweaf/Plantree/Tall Timber Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hazel Dell Hazel Dell Hazel Dell Hazel Dell Hazel Dell High Hoover Hoover Illinois Illinois Ivy Hill Keystone Keystone Keystone Kingswood Lakeshore East Lakeshore East Lakeshore East Lakeshore East Lakeshore West Lakeshore West Limberlost/Harrison Little Eagle Creek Long Branch/Spring Mill/Auburn Creek Lowes Way Main Main Main Main Main Main Main

From_S_W 106th 116th 126th 96th Deer Ridge Kingswood Main Wedgewood 116th Hoover City Center Lakeshore West 106th

To_N_E Kingswood 126th Main 106th Wedgewood 116th Deer Ridge 146th Old Meridian Clay Center Carmel Lakeshore East 116th

Ivy Hill

River

136th Driftwood Main Spruce 106th 116th 126th 96th Ivy Hill Carmel Drive 116th Village Loop 103rd 116th HazelDell 96th Carmel Lowes Way Gray 96th 96th Lakeview Stratford 106th Hansel 126th 141st

Driftwood Spruce 136th Smokey Ridge 116th 126th Ivy Hill 106th 146th City Center Village Loop Gwynmere 106th Meridian Crossing Haverton Carmel Lowes Way 146th Oldfield Lakeview Bauer Stratford 116th Hansel 116th Main 146th

116th

136th

Keystone Broad Brookshire Cherry Tree Ditch Double Eagle Gamet Gray

146th Ditch Gray Gamet Spring Mill River Double Eagle Harrison

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Key Map Table a. Multimodal Corridors: Segment Start and End ID (1-274) 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

Name Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main/131st Main/131st Meadowlark Park Trail Medalist Meridian Corners Meridian Crossing Meridian Crossing Meridian Crossing Monon Monon Monon Trail Montcalme/Meeting House New 121st New 126th New Ditch New Gramercy New Illinois New Legacy New Legacy 2 New Montcalme North West Park Trail Oak Ridge Oak Ridge Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Oldfield/Woodcreek Pebble Brook/Northwood Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania

From_S_W Guilford Harrison Hawthorne Meadow Meridian Meridian Corners Old Meridian Rangeline Shelbourne Spring Mill Towne Tuscany West 4th 4th Old Meridian River Main Dorset Illinois Meridian 111th Meadowlark Park Trail 96th Hoover Shelbourne West 116th Carmel 106th River Cherry Creek Hoover 126th 136th Grace Carmel Carmel Ford Old Meridian Penn Providence Kingswood Westwood 103rd 103rd 106th 122nd Carmel College

To_N_E Meadow Cherry Tree Road Brookshire Rangeline Old Meridian Meridian Meadow 4th Tuscany Meridian Corners Broad Towne Shelbourne Hawthorne Keystone Monon Tail 126th 136th Main Dorset Dorset Meadowlark Park Trail Rohrer 111th Broad Main Shelbourne New Montcalme City Center 116th 146th River Clay Center 136th Grace 146th Main Providence Main Meadowlark Park Trails Carmel Ford 116th River 106th College Congressional Old Meridian Main City Center

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Key Map Table a. Multimodal Corridors: Segment Start and End ID (1-274) 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274

Name Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Quail Pointe/Ponds Pointe Rangeline Rangeline Rangeline Rangeline Rangeline River River River River River River River River Park Trail Rohrer Rohrer Shelbourne Shelbourne Shelbourne Shelbourne Shelbourne Smokey Ridge Smokey Row Smokey Row Spotswood Extention Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spruce Spruce/Wedgewood Stonewick/Pebble Pointe/Bahill Stratford Towne Towne Towne Tuscany US31/Meridian West West Clay Trail West Park Trail Westfield Westfield Trail Westfield/Monon Connector Westwood

From_S_W Congressional Old Meridian 141st 136th 6th Carmel Main Nappanee 116th 126th 131st Northwood River Park Trail Tall Timber Westwood River 136th Grace 116th 126th 141st Main Main Driftwood Old Meridian Rohrer 136th 103rd 116th 136th 96th Main Ponds Pointe Hawthorne Arrowood 116th Lakeshore East 116th Glebe Main 126th 96th 121st Hoover 116th 96th 136th Monon River

To_N_E College Carmel Spring Mill Meridian Main Nappanee 136th 6th Westwood Main Tall Tilmber River Park Trail 126th 146th Northwood 126th Grace 146th 121st 136th 146th 146th 141st Hawthorne Rangeline Old Merdian 141st 116th Main Ponds Point 103rd 136th 146th Arrowood Gray 126th 106th Glebe Main 146th Main 146th 141st Broad 126th Carmel Drive 146th Westfield Trail Pebble Brook

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Key Map Table b. Source Planning and Thoroughfare Plan Data Abbreviation Key ID:

Identifying number from 1-274 of the alphabetical name listing of the corridors

Name:

Alphabetical listing of the corridor

Source:

The reference to the plan or study where the corridor typology was originally specified. MPO refers to the regional thoroughfare plan from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and CALT refers to Carmelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Alternative Thoroughfare plan.

ThPn_Class:

Refers to the existing thoroughfare classification for the corridor from the Thoroughfare Plan

TP_Min_ROW:

Refers to the mininum Right-of-Way (in feet) from the Thoroughfare Plan

Key Map Table b. Source Planning and Thoroughfare Plan Data for Multimodal Corridors ID (1-274) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Name 103rd 103rd 103rd 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 111th 111th 111th 111th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th

Source CALT CALT MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO

ThPn_Class Primary Arterial Residential Street Secondary Parkway Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Collector Street Collector Street Collector Street Primary Arterial Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Arterial Primary Parkway Primary Arterial Primary Parkway

TP_Min_ROW 150 50 130 100 100 150 100 100 100 150 100 100 90 90 90 140 140 140 140 140 140 150 140 150 140

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Key Map Table b. Source Planning and Thoroughfare Plan Data for Multimodal Corridors ID (1-274) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Source CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT CALT CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT MPO CALT_MPO CALT CMSP MPO MPO MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT MPO CALT_MPO CALT_CMSP CALT_MPO

ThPn_Class Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Residential Street Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Residential Parkway Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Residential Street Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Primary Arterial Primary Arterial Primary Arterial Primary Arterial Primary Arterial Primary Arterial Primary Arterial Primary Arterial Collector Street Residential Street Residential Street Primary Arterial Primary Arterial Primary Arterial Primary Arterial Primary Arterial Primary Arterial Urban Arterial Residential Parkway

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

TP_Min_ROW 140 140 140 140 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 90 50 50 150 150 150 150 0 150 150 90 100

Recommendations 2

Key Map Table b. Source Planning and Thoroughfare Plan Data for Multimodal Corridors ID (1-274) 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Source CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO MPO CALT_MPO MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CMSP CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO MPO CALT CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT_MPO CALT CTP

ThPn_Class Residential Street Residential Street Urban Collector Residential Street Residential Street Collector Street Collector Street Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Collector Street Secondary Arterial Collector Street Collector Street Collector Street Residential Street Residential Street Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Secondary Arterial Collector Street Collector Street Collector Street Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Collector Street Collector Street Collector Street Residential Street Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Proposed Urban Arterial

TP_Min_ROW 50 50 66 50 50 90 90 100 150 100 150 90 100 90 90 90 50 50 140 140 140 140 140 100 90 90 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 90 90 50 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 90

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Key Map Table b. Source Planning and Thoroughfare Plan Data for Multimodal Corridors ID (1-274) 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

Source CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT CALT_MPO CALT CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT MPO MPO MPO CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT_MPO CALT CALT CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO

ThPn_Class Secondary Parkway Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Parkway Secondary Arterial Secondary Parkway Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Urban Arterial Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Collector Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Residential Street Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Secondary Parkway Secondary Parkway Residential Street Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Secondary Arterial Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

TP_Min_ROW 130 100 100 130 100 130 100 100 90 50 50 50 90 50 50 50 50 50 140 140 140 140 140 50 100 100 130 130 50 140 140 140 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 140 140 140 140 140 140 140

Recommendations 2

Key Map Table b. Source Planning and Thoroughfare Plan Data for Multimodal Corridors ID (1-274) 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

Source CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT CALT CALT_MPO CALT CALT CALT CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT CTP CTP CTP CTP MPO CMSP CTP CTP CALT CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT CALT CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CAMT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO

ThPn_Class Urban Collector Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Urban Collector Urban Collector Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Urban Collector Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Urban Collector Residential Street Secondary Parkway Secondary Parkway Secondary Parkway Secondary Parkway

Residential Parkway Proposed Residential Parkway Proposed Residential Parkway Proposed Residential Parkway Proposed Collector Street Secondary Parkway Collector Street Proposed Collector Street Proposed Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Residential Street Residential Street Secondary Parkway Secondary Parkway Secondary Parkway Secondary Parkway Secondary Arterial Secondary Parkway

TP_Min_ROW 66 140 140 66 66 140 140 66 140 140 140 140 140 140 66 0 50 130 130 130 130 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 130 90 0 0 100 100 100 90 90 90 90 90 90 50 50 130 130 130 130 100 130

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Key Map Table b. Source Planning and Thoroughfare Plan Data for Multimodal Corridors ID (1-274) 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274

Source CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO MPO MPO CALT CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CMSP CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT MPO MPO CALT MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT CALT CALT CALT CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT_MPO CALT MPO CALT_MPO CALT CALT CALT_MPO CALT CALT CALT

ThPn_Class Secondary Parkway Secondary Arterial Residential Street Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Street Collector Street Collector Street Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Residential Street Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Street Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Parkway Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Residential Street Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Primary Parkway Residential Parkway US/State highway Residential Parkway Collector Street Residential Street

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

TP_Min_ROW 130 100 50 90 90 90 90 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 90 90 100 100 100 100 100 50 100 100 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 140 140 140 100 0 100 0 0 90 0 0 50

Recommendations 2

Key Map Table c. Thoroughfare Plan Data Abbreviation Key ID: Name:

Identifying number from 1-274 of the alphabetical name listing of the corridors Alphabetical listing of the corridor

TP_Lanes:

Number of lanes from Thoroughfare Plan

TP_Park_L7:

On-street parking status from the Thoroughfare Plan

PlntBuffer:

Indicates whether or not a planting buffer is required

TreePlotFt:

Indicates how wide (in feet) the planting buffer (plot) must be

Key Map Table c. Thoroughfare Plan Data for Multimodal Corridors ID (1-274) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Name 103rd 103rd 103rd 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 111th 111th 111th 111th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th

TP_Lanes 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

TP_Park_L7 Not Permitted Optional on 1 Side Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted 1 or 2 Sides 1 or 2 Sides 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted

PlntBuffer Required Not Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required

TreePlotFt 8 5 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 6

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Key Map Table c. Thoroughfare Plan Data for Multimodal Corridors ID (1-274) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

TP_Lanes 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 2

TP_Park_L7 Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted

PlntBuffer Required Required Required Required Not Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Not Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Not Required Not Required Required Required Required Required

Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides

Required Required Tree Walls Required

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

TreePlotFt 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 5 5 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 0 6

Recommendations 2

Key Map Table c. Thoroughfare Plan Data for Multimodal Corridors ID (1-274) 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

TP_Lanes 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4

TP_Park_L7 Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side 1 or 2 Sides 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted 1 or 2 Sides 1 or 2 Sides 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted 1 or 2 Sides 1 or 2 Sides 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted 1 or 2 Sides 1 or 2 Sides 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 or 2 Sides

PlntBuffer Not Required Not Required Tree Walls Not Required Not Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Not Required Not Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Not Required Required Required Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Required

TreePlotFt 5 5 0 5 5 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 0

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Key Map Table c. Thoroughfare Plan Data for Multimodal Corridors ID (1-274) 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

TP_Lanes 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4

TP_Park_L7 Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side 1 or 2 Sides

PlntBuffer Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Tree Walls Not Required Not Required Not Required Required

TreePlotFt 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 0 5 5 5 6

Optional on 1 Side

Not Required

2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 Side Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side

Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Required Required Required Required Required Not Required Required Required Required Required Not Required Required Required Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required

5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Optional on 1 Side

Not Required

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted

Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required

8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Key Map Table c. Thoroughfare Plan Data for Multimodal Corridors ID (1-274) 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

TP_Lanes 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4

TP_Park_L7 Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted 1 or 2 Sides

PlntBuffer Tree Walls Required Required Tree Walls Tree Walls Required Required Tree Walls Required Required Required Required Required Required Tree Wells

Optional on 1 Side Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted

Not Required Required Required Required Required

Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted

Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Tree Walls Tree Walls Tree Walls Tree Walls Tree Walls Tree Walls Not Required Not Required Required Required Required Required Required Required

TreePlotFt 0 6 6 0 0 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 5 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 6 6 6 6 8 6

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Key Map Table c. : Thoroughfare Plan Data for Multimodal Corridors ID (1-274) 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274

TP_Lanes 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 2

TP_Park_L7 Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 Side 1 or 2 Sides 1 or 2 Sides Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 or 2 Sides Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Optional on 1 Side Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Optional on 1 or 2 Sides

PlntBuffer Required Required Not Required Tree Walls Tree Walls Tree Walls Tree Walls Tree Walls Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Not Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Not Required Required Required Not Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Required Required Required Required

Optional on 1 or 2 Sides

Required

1 or 2 Sides

Required

Optional on 1 Side

Not Required

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

TreePlotFt 6 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 5 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 5

133

140

249

238 261

163

271

111 109

1 16

131

218 11

147

108

§ ¨ ¦

256

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\100317_Key Map_0831.mxd

199

129

220

138

104

222

205

221

2 26

! "

9 21

237

158

155

E 13

t u 421

192

145

127

164

197

! "

162

253

144

173

11 9

146

235

132

128

142

174

171

177

! "

175

14 34

236

148

204

170

154

168 229

232 230

! "

J 0

178

136

129

226

27 2

243 21 5

21 4 21 7

224 225 223

267 254 153

100

151

263

242

210 257 194

101

269

102

12 2

270

244

228

118

79 209 245

255

116

252

248

268

247

211

117

265

258

246 166

150

206

I "

! "

189

190

W 16

114

139

4 27

! "

183

125

115

16 5

110

! "

176

130

207

O "

208 203

167

149

180

O 77

13 5

5 19

AA 200

185

191

! "

181

172

201

202

169

186

187

184

188

3 19

259

250

120

273

31 t u

46 0 25

141

! "

6 15

1 24

157

8 19

103

233

134

124

Carmel City Limit

I-465

The Carmel Multimodal System Plan (CMSP) presents a series of maps and associated attribute tables to provide detailed information on CMSP recommendations and guidelines. This Key Map provides unique identifiers for each of the network locations. The unique identifiers are ordered alphabetically by the name of District, Node or Corridor: Districts are labeled A-AC, Nodes are labeled 1-28 (large #'s), and Multimodal Corridors are labeled 1-274 (small #'s) The associated attribute tables list the locational details, base thoroughfare data and sources for each of the districts, nodes and corridors.

O " I " ! " ! " "!

Nodes 1-28 Transit Center (Preferred) Transit Center (Alternate) Nodes Phase 1 Nodes Phase 2 Nodes Phase 3

§ ¦ ¨

Multimodal Corridors Placemaking Not Yet Constructed Connector Not Yet Constructed Local Not Yet Constructed Off-Street 0 Thru Proposed

1-274

I-69

Carmel City Limit Districts

A-AC

Campus

Regional Links

Central Business

Attribute Table Key Map Nodes, Corridors, and Districts Carmel Multimodal System Plan DRAFT - April 16, 2010

Transit Oriented Village Mixed Use Village Residential 0.25 0.5

1.5

2 Miles

North

This map is to be used for planning purposes only and should not be reprinted without the express written consent of the City of Carmel.

Recommendations 2 102

er Riv

232

126th lis t

Guilford

229

D el

109

P 17

erstick

Hav

Pennsylvania

Ivy Hill

131st

111th

Hazel Dell

421

v ia n

Aaa

223

Illinois

224

Spring Mill

226

Clay Center Hoover

Towne

Tr ail

rm Ca

West

Par k

21 4

ny 245

Tus

116th

W 16

e/ A

G Ca

122

r4 10

/Do v

189

183

121st

set Bri ghton/Dor

H ig

Main

184

id ge

136th

144

211

Oak Ridge

Ditch

6 Points

DeerR

31 Sm okey Row

131st

District boundaries based on radius of 5 minutes (1 mi.) bike to district node.

Kingswood

AC 11

tfo

106th

V L

I-465

Westfield

Monon Trail

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\100317_Modes_0831.mxd

District node #16 is North College. Its yellow center indicating development at this node is targeted for Phase 1 and the glyph indicates it is proposed as an alternative site for the transit center connecting to regional transit routes.

Rohrer

247

Shelbourne

West

Spruce

Hawthorne

136th

205

N 1

G r ac e

141st

Carey

146th

Gray

Carmel City Limit

118

District boundaries based on radius of 10 minutes (1/2 mi.) walk to district node.

i ve

A I-69

96th

Carmel City Limit The basis of the Carmel Multimodal System Plan is the existing pattern of districts and the thoroughfares that define and connect them to each other and to the region. The plan designates these districts according to multimodal district typologies ranging from Campus (along the US 31 corridor) to the lower density suburban pattern of Village Residential. It identifies the districts’ apparent nodes as opportunities to reinforce their inherent sense of place by focusing walkable-scale development and the clustering of amenities that support the convergence of multiple modes of district-linking transportation. Several of those nodes are candidates for the transit centers needed to connect the proposed Carmel multimodal network to regional transit systems.

Nodes & Transitions Multimodal Transitions

Multimodal Corridor Placemaking Placemaking bik

Proposed Placemaking Transit Center (Preferred) Transit Center (Alternate) Nodes Phase 1 Nodes Phase 2 Nodes Phase 3

District Typologies Campus Central Business Transit Oriented Village Mixed Use Village Residential

lk wa

North

0.5

5 e-

Mulltimodal Development Districts and Nodes Carmel Multimodal System Plan

min -10

DRAFT - February 26, 2010

Miles 1

This map is to be used for planning purposes only and should not be reprinted without the express written consent of the City of Carmel.

District E: Central Park District is targeted as a Campus typology; its node (15) is located along a placemaking corridor shown in magenta

Map 1: Multimodal Development Districts and Nodes Economic Development Goal Continue to leverage transportation infrastructure to concentrate land use intensity and economic development opportunities with emphasis on supporting Carmel’s core districts. Districts offer the opportunity for local identity, enhanced quality of life and for neighborhoods to coalesce into growth generators for economic development. Nodes represent clusters of destinations serving the districts. Carmel has five different kinds of districts that have been adapted from the Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines [1]. They are Central Business, Campus, Village Mixed Use, Village Residential, and Transit Oriented. These designations describe the different kinds of land uses and land use patterns that are present in the districts of Carmel.

These districts form the basis of Map 1 and guide the development patterns and the thoroughfares that define and connect them to each other and to the region. Map 1 identifies the districts’ nodes as opportunities to reinforce their inherent sense of place by focusing on walkable-scale development and the clustering of amenities that support the convergence of multiple modes of district-linking transportation. The node is the neighborhood destination, the transit stop and the focal point of multimodal amenities like benches, bike racks, tree canopy and improved crossing areas. The nodes are the most important locations for network accessibility. They are candidates for higher intensity neighborhood revitalization and economic development strategies. Nodes are key places along placemaking corridors. The nodes represent transit stops or hubs. average amenities to shows the transit-stop

a locale for constructing Stops should have above build ridership. This map nodes or “hearts” of each

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

neighborhood or district that is dependent on the node to provide access to local retail and restaurants, in addition to transit access. One of those nodes is suggested for a transit center (with one alternative location) needed to connect the proposed Carmel multimodal network to regional transit systems. To attain the intensity necessary to support transit, places with lower intensity or density would require a larger catchment area than for places with higher intensity or density. Consequently, to manage the intensity of nodes between US31 and Keystone, multimodal coverage was based on the 10 minute walk radius or 1/2 mile. Intensities and densities were lower in areas outside Carmel’s core. As a result, coverage is based on a 5 minute bike ride. To connect to transit in a sufficiently reliable way that would attract riders of choice, 15 minutes between busses (aka 15 minute headways) was selected as a maximum.

Nodes in this map have been identified as walkable centers of Carmel’s districts. This concept is two-fold, both as a place where people can access the network and as a place where the network provides access to clusters of essential goods and services. For this reason, the nodes are generally located at places that have often already been identified in other planning documents as serving some regional importance; or in areas that present unique development opportunities. District nodes are all associated with at least one corresponding placemaking corridor and other elements like multimodal transitions. This map locates the district nodes and associated features based on the context of the district and its local role in the transportation network. The location of the nodes and associated features can be adapted during plan implementation provided that alternate locations still continue to serve the associated placemaking corridors and the district.

Level 4: Vertical Structure Level: building height indicates a desire for goods, services and people to be in a central place, which is often described as an intensity of land uses and economic activity. Level 3: Economic/Land-Use Structure Level: the economic infrastructure, freight, service-providers, information infrastructure, education infrastructure, and district power must be accessible to all for least cost. This level allows all in the district to access the infrastructure, but does not provide it directly to all. Level 2: Movement Economy Level: suppliers utilize major thoroughfares into and out of the district.

Level 1: Node Intensity: Transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians become a significant market for the local node. Users can catch regional transit connections and access their “third place” and other services.

Overlays of Mode and Planning Levels co-align when using a Place-Based Framework

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

5 minutes 10 minutes

Recommendations 2

Multimodal District descriptions from the Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines [1]

Implications

Early phase development should include transit oriented development around the proposed transit center. The district recommendations 1. Central Business District are designed to create economic intensity in the A central business district is an area, often referenced as core or central area and preserve the residential “downtown,” that is characterized by a dense and closely village pattern outside this core. This can foster coupled mix of land uses. economic development, particularly on specific or niche scales. Nodal development has the potential 2. Village Mixed-Use District to foster a new market type such as “junior” box Smaller than a central business district, a village mixedretail and innovative stores with local ownership use pedestrian district is an area characterized by a dense serving niche markets (see examples following clustering of various types of destinations and activities page). Campus districts in particular need to surrounded by residential. act as a unified complex rather than islands of isolated destinations. Recognizing Carmel’s 3. Campus District unique character, this plan reinforces Carmel’s A campus district is an area characterized by a concentration multimodally-supportive development patterns of similar or related non-retail, non-residential uses such as a cluster of education, corporate, governmental, or institutional and presents a vision to support and invest in transit with economically viable infrastructure for uses. Carmel.

4. Transit-Oriented District A transit-oriented district is an area of dense mixed-use development oriented around a central transit node with a high concentration of residential development within walking distance of the transit station.

5. Village Residential District A village residential district is an area characterized by a clustering of residences, both single and multi-family.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Nodal development with mid-size and village scale retail services has the potential to provide new market opportunities.

A mid-size scale Walmart Stores in Edmonton, Canada.

Dennyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s restaurant with residential condominiums above in French Lick, IN.

A mixed-use gas station in Milwaukee, WI.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Map 1 Table. Multimodal Development District Attributes Abbreviation Key ID: Identifier ranging from A-AC of the alphabetically listed district names District Name:

Alphabetical listing of the districts

Node Name:

Node at the center of the district

Typology:

Applicable district typology from the Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines [1] describing the character and intensity of the what the proposed district should ideally become to support transit and needed development

Source:

The reference to the plan or study where the location was originally suggested as a district. CMSP refers to recommendations from this Carmel Multimodal System Plan.

Map 1 Table. Multimodal Development District Attributes ID (A-AC)

Dist_Name

Node_Name

Typology

Source

96th Street District

Lakeshore

Village Mixed Use

Corridor Study

116th Street District

Clarian

Campus

Corridor Study

Carey

Village Residential

CMSP

Carmel Drive

South Rangeline

Transit Oriented

CMSP

Central Park

Monon Center

Campus

CMSP

Chesterton

Haverstick

Village Mixed Use

Planned Development

City Center

Performing Arts Center

Central Business

Planned Development

Clay Terrace

Village Mixed Use

Existing

Creekside

Village Residential

CMSP

Gramercy/Merchant Square

Gramercy

Village Mixed Use

Planned Development

Hazel Dell

Village Residential

CMSP

Homeplace

Village Mixed Use

Existing

Learning Village

Education Center

Campus

Civic Design Study

Legacy

Village Mixed Use

Planned Development

Meridian Corners

Campus

CMSP

River

Oak Hill

Village Mixed Use

Existing

Mohawk

Mohawk and Gray

Village Residential

CMSP

W 96th St

TBD

Village Residential

CMSP

Oak Ridge

Village Residential

CMSP

Old Meridian

Old Meridian Center

Transit Oriented

Civic Design Study

Old Town

Old Town West

Village Mixed Use

Existing

Parkwood/Heart Center

Heart Center

Campus

Existing

Pennsylvania

North College

Campus

Civic Design Study

Shelborne

Village Residential

CMSP

Smokey Row

Village Residential

CMSP

South Carmel

Southeast Carmel

Village Residential

CMSP

W Clay Village

West Clay Village

Village Mixed Use

Existing

W Main Street

Old Meridian North

Village Mixed Use

Civic Design Study

Woodland

Village Residential

Civic Design Study

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 1 Table. Multimodal Development District Node Attributes Abbreviation Key ID:

Identifying number from 1-28 of the alphabetical name listing of the nodes

Name:

Alphabetical listing of the nodes

Source:

The reference to the plan or study where the location was originally suggested as a node. CMSP refers to recommendations from this Carmel Multimodal System Plan.

Phase:

Respective recommended development phase 1-3 for the N(ode). TC refers to the node recommended as first choice for the Regional Transit Center, TCA represents the alternative choice

Crossing:

Represents the transition or crossing type for the intersection of corridors at that location

Map 1 Table. Multimodal Development District Node Attributes ID (1-28)

Name

Source

Phase

Crossing

Carey

CMSP

Intersection

Clarian

CMSP

Intersection

Clay Terrace

Civic Design Study

Intersection

Creekside

CMSP

Intersection

Education Center

Civic Design Study

Intersection

Gramercy

Committee Rec

Intersection

Haverstick

Thoroughfare Plan

Roundabout (Proposed)

Hazel Dell

Committee Rec

Roundabout (Existing)

Heart Center

US31 Corridor Plan

Roundabout (Existing)

Homeplace

Civic Design Study

Intersection

Lakeshore

CMSP

Intersection

Legacy

CMSP

Intersection

Meridian Corners

US31 Corridor Plan

Roundabout (Existing)

Mohawk Gray

CMSP

Roundabout (Proposed)

Monon Center

Civic Design Study

Intersection

North College

Thoroughfare Plan/CMSP

1N, TCA

Roundabout (Proposed)

Oak Hill

CMSP

Intersection

Oak Ridge

CMSP

Intersection

Old Meridian Center

Old Meridian Plan

1N, TC

Intersection

Old Meridian North

Old Meridian Plan

Roundabout (Existing)

Old Town West

CMSP

Roundabout (Existing)

Performing Arts Center

Civic Design Study

Intersection

Shelborne

CMSP

Roundabout (Proposed)

Smokey Row

CMSP

Intersection

South Rangeline

CMSP

Intersection

Southeast Carmel

CMSP

Roundabout (Proposed)

West Clay Village

Committee Rec

Intersection

Woodland

CMSP

Roundabout (Existing)

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Map 1 Table. Multimodal Development District Corridor Attributes Abbreviation Key ID:

Identifying number from 1-274 of the alphabetical name listing of the corridor segment

Name:

Alphabetical listing of the corridor segment

Class 1:

Indicates the functional classification based on Place-Based Transportation (PBT) analysis (i.e. Placemaking, Thru, Connector, Local, or Off-Street)

Phasing:

Indicates for which phase, modifications are recommended based on importance to internal connectivity of the Carmel system

District:

Indicates district typology [1] where the corridor is located [see Map 1]

Map 1 Table. Multimodal Development District Corridor Attributes ID (1-274) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Name 103rd 103rd 103rd 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 111th 111th 111th 111th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th

Class 1 Connector Local Connector Connector Connector Connector Placemaking Connector Connector Connector Connector Placemaking Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Placemaking Placemaking Connector Connector Connector

Phasing 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2

District Campus Village Mixed-Use Campus Village Residential Village Residential Campus Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Campus Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Campus Village Residential Campus Campus

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 1 Table. Multimodal Development District Corridor Attributes ID (1-274) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Class 1 Connector Connector Connector Connector Local Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Local Connector Connector Connector Placemaking Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Thru Thru Thru Thru Thru Thru Thru Thru Connector Local Local Connector Connector Placemaking Connector Off-Street Connector Connector Connector Connector

Phasing 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 1

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

District Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Campus Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Campus Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Central Business Campus Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Transit Oriented

Recommendations 2

Map 1. Economic Development Table : Multimodal Development District Attributes ID (1-274) 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Class 1 Local Local Placemaking Local Local Connector Placemaking Placemaking Connector Connector Connector Placemaking Connector Connector Placemaking Local Local Local Connector Connector Connector Placemaking Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Placemaking Connector Placemaking Connector Connector Connector Connector Placemaking Connector Connector Placemaking Connector Local Connector Connector Connector Local Local Local Local Placemaking Local Connector

Phasing 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1

District Village Residential Campus Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Transit Oriented Transit Oriented Transit Oriented Transit Oriented Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Central Business Central Business Transit Oriented Transit Oriented Transit Oriented Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Campus Campus Campus Village Mixed-Use Campus Village Mixed-Use Campus Campus Campus Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Mixed-Use

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 1 Table. Multimodal Development District Corridor Attributes ID (1-274) 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

Class 1 Placemaking Connector Placemaking Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Local Local Local Connector Local Local Local Local Local Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Local Connector Connector Placemaking Connector Local Thru Thru Thru Local Local Placemaking Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Placemaking Connector

Phasing 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

District Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Transit Oriented Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Campus Campus Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential

Recommendations 2

Map 1 Table. Multimodal Development District Corridor Attributes ID (1-274) 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

Class 1 Placemaking Connector Connector Placemaking Connector Connector Placemaking Placemaking Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Placemaking Off-Street Local Connector Connector Placemaking Placemaking Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Connector Proposed Connector Proposed Connector Proposed Connector Proposed Connector Proposed Connector Proposed Placemaking Proposed Local Proposed Connector Off-Street Connector Placemaking Connector Placemaking Placemaking Connector Placemaking Placemaking Local Local Connector Connector Connector Placemaking Connector Placemaking

Phasing 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1

District Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Campus Village Mixed-Use Campus Village Residential Campus Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Campus Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Campus Campus Campus Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Transit Oriented Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Transit Oriented Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Campus Village Mixed-Use Transit Oriented Village Mixed-Use Campus

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 1 Table. Multimodal Development District Corridor Attributes ID (1-274) 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274

Class 1 Placemaking Connector Local Connector Placemaking Placemaking Connector Placemaking Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Off-Street Connector Connector Connector Connector Placemaking Placemaking Connector Local Connector Connector Local Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Local Local Local Local Connector Connector Connector Connector Thru Connector Off-Street Off-Street Connector Off-Street Off-Street Local

Phasing 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

District Campus Transit Oriented Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Central Business Transit Oriented Village Mixed-Use Central Business Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Campus Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential Village Residential Village Residential Village Mixed-Use Village Residential

226

! " ! ( ( !

!! ( (

! (

111th

§ ¨ ¦ The CMSP's basis is the existing pattern of districts and the thoroughfares that define and connect them to each other and to the region. The plan designates these districts according to multimodal district typologies. District center nodes reinforce place & economic development opportunities, cluster amenities supporting convergence of multiple modes of district-linking transportation accessible in <10 minutes - by foot within Carmel's core, by bike outside the core.

! (

Nodes & Transitions

( Multimodal Transitions !

O " I " ! " ! " "!

Transit Center (Preferred) Transit Center (Alternate) Nodes Phase 1 Nodes Phase 2 Nodes Phase 3

! "

( !

Carey

! "

( !

128

! (

" !

P 17

( !

AC 12

! (

Kingswood

( !

! (

( !

Z 26

( ! da

! ( ( !

! (

( !

! (

"! l is t

i ve D el

126th

Gray

174

Ri v er

a il

e W

233

rm Ca

! ( I-465

! (" !

Ivy Hill

(Main !

tfo

! ( ! ! (

" !

(( !106th !! ( 9

K 14

! (

( !

v ia n

e rstic

! (

ve /A

( !

ra St

! (

190

Aaa

223

225

I WD "

110

! (

!! ( (

22 !! (

( C ar 97! m

! (

183

/Do

Hav

116th

Monon Trail

! (

O T" 19

! (

Illinois

Spring Mill

! (

21 7

"! !(

t u X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\Final Maps\100319_CarmelCity_Districts2_0831.mxd

Pennsylvania

! (

421

Nodes 19 & 16 are candidates for a transit center that connects the multimodal network to regional transit systems.

Rohrer

211

6 Points

Clay Center

Towne

Tr ail Pa r k West

! (

M"!5

( 136th !

idge

Hazel Dell

( !

Hoover

! (

Oak Ridge

Ditch ny Tu s

ca 247

! (

"! ( !

! (

176

121st

( !! ( ( !

Guilford

246

Shelbourne

West

! (

! AB"

! ! ( (

21 (! !

! (

D ee r R

! (

( !

Spruce

Hig

! (

Main

! (

136th

! (

! ( 31 ( ( ! ! ! Smokey Row ( ( !

t u

C "1

! (

"! 206

! (

Hawthorne

! (

" !

! (

fie

Gr ac e

! (

141st ! (

! " ( !

! (

3! (

103

! (

146th

Westfield

Carmel City Limit

! (

96th

§ ¦ ¨ I-69

( !

Carmel City Limit

Multimodal Corridor Placemaking m -5 ke i b

Placemaking Proposed Placemaking District Typologies Campus Central Business Transit Oriented Village Mixed Use 1 North Village Residential

i 0m 1 lk wa

0.5

Multimodal Development Districts and Nodes Carmel Multimodal System Plan

DRAFT - April 16, 2010

Miles 1

This map is to be used for planning purposes only and should not be reprinted without the express written consent of the City of Carmel.

Recommendations 2 102

160

Carey

Riv

11 2

238

lis t

Me Gray 261

erstick

271

24 1

101249

155

i ve

108

Aaa

136

218

Hav 178

Kingswood 141

198

236

9 21

15 9

182

232

229

196

233

21 7 127

140

I-69 158

Monon Trail

3 17

176

121 126

Pennsylvania

144

21 3

21 6 21 4

194

227

Spring Mill

167

224 223

220 226

125 120

162

n ois

l Hazel Del

5 11

Ill i

t fo

258

171

211

256 254

6 Points 117

Clay Center

269

Hoover 165

126th

151

124

131

132 265

Broad

/ sk in Ga

Towne

Tra il

263

West

Park

Oak Ridge 1 3

228

Ditch

Shelbourne 246

248

T u s 26 ca 6 ny

Rohrer

257

133

247

180 268

West

245

9 12

153

Ivy Hill 16

es W

244

rm Ca

ra St

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\100317_Transit_CAB_0831.mxd

110

v ia n

161

ire

e/ A

179

109

111th

131st 100

r mel 104

id g130 e

8 55

ok s h

33 34

DeerR

/Do v

B ro

114 22

0 24

260

136th Hawthorne

117th

106th

156

5 183

H ig

122nd 122

Spruce 135

l Trai

Main

tfield

116th

I-465

103

421

Transit Center Circulator Loop connects all of the Phase 1 nodes and connects Carmel’s core to regional transit connections (dashed blue arrow).

157

3 12

set

Illinois

181

Brig hton/Dor

121st

190

187

3rd/4th

131st

9 14

7 19

27 e

Sm okey Row

136th

20 50

231

leb

199

G r a ce

141st

146th

Rangeline

Guilford

Carmel City Limit

118

Carmel Access Bikeways’ (CAB) West Loop converges on Nodes 23 and 4 and provides access to CAB express routes.

Westfield

96th

Carmel City Limit Carmel Access Transit The Carmel Multimodal System Plan proposes a multiple loop transit circu- Nodes and Transitions Carmel Access Bikeways lator network scaled to the spacing and density character of the identified Transit Center Loop West Loop multimodal district pattern. The system’s central circulator connects the Transit Center (Preferred) Monon Center Loop Village Loop closely spaced destinations of Carmel’s developing core area, including Clay Terrace Loop the Arts District and City Center, with one of two candidate transit center Transit Center (Alternate) City Center Loop locations for regional connectivity. The proposed system interfaces with West Clay Village Loop Node Phase 1 the Carmel Access Bikeway (CAB) that provides recreational and commuter Hazel Dell Loop bicycle connectivity, a key element of the overall multimodal system. Node Phase 2 Oakbrook Loop The circulator network is scaled to allow shuttle-scale service distances and headways. Its modularity allows deployment in segments as node 1 1.5 Regional Transit 0 0.25 0.5 Node Phase 3 densities rise to support ridership operational efficiencies. Transitions

Map 2: Multimodal Circulator Network Transit and Mode Shift Goal Provide transportation options that offer easy to use public transportation for commuting and daily activities, with emphasis on walkable and bikeable distances. Establish a transportation interface between intra-city and regional transit. Enable a measurable shift from auto-dominated transportation toward a more balanced and sustainable overall system.

Cool Creek Loop

Multimodal Circulator Network

White River Loop

Carmel Multimodal System Plan

Express Routes

DRAFT - February - 26, 2010

2 Miles

North

This map is to be used for planning purposes only and should not be reprinted without the express written consent of the City of Carmel.

complete system, one that allows passengers to travel to the important destinations within Carmel. A transit center will connect to the regional transit system, allowing connections to downtown Indianapolis and adjacent communities. Each transit stop is at a district node which connects to the bicycle and pedestrian routes that capitalize on the existing Carmel Access Bikeway (CAB) system. These bicycle circulator routes also serve this interdistrict connection function between districts. It should be noted that these circulators can become marketable identities for the areas they serve.

For viable multimodal transportation it is essential to connect the multimodal districts. Transit usually serves that function. Higher speed bicycle routes also can serve this interdistrict connection function Facilitating interdistrict travel and rapid access for close districts, especially in coordination with to nodes and regional connections, multimodal facilities provide travel choice competitive with transit stops. automotive travel. This has been shown in census and other surveys [11] to effect mode shift In Carmel, a transit system can be implemented as demand grows by utilizing phased implementation away from exclusive auto travel patterns, thus of circulator routes. The circulators connect reducing road congestion, as well as improving at several coincident transit hubs to create a environmental and community health.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Implications The spacing of the transit stops from the district edge corresponds to either a 10 minute walk (1/2 mile) or a 5 minute bike ride (one mile) outside Carmel’s central core. The difference relates to the need to have a sufficient pool of potential transit riders to sustain the transit system and stops. Because of the lower density outside Carmel’s core, a larger area is needed to create a pool of potential transit riders. It is also envisioned that the transit stops will be important locations for a bicycle share program, bicycle lockers, and a roomy, well-designed shelter Photo of downtown Denver showing a transit stop for at(with some climate control measures). Over street-level, at-grade and intermodal interconnections colocated with retail development. time, these stops can accommodate newspaper and food vendors, taxi stands, and/or possible park and ride and rideshare facilities. These facilities can enable using transit as a stepping stone in trips using other modes or accessing less frequented destinations or making transitions between modes more convenient. The first phase proposes a central circulator for the Carmel core, located along a placemaking corridor. Two other core transit circulators, one serving the US 31 employment corridor and one serving the major retail destinations of Clay Terrace and Merchants’ Square, are recommended for Schematic showing interconnection of a bike circulator (red) either the first phase or as a soon-to-follow second with the node (magenta) where local and regional transit lines (blue) can be accessed. phase. N

The system’s central circulator connects the closely spaced destinations of Carmel’s developing core area, including the Arts District and City Center, with a primary transit center location for regional connectivity on Old Meridian (Note an alternate location is also shown on the map on North College St.). The central circulator connects the current nodes with the highest potential ridership, and if implemented as a high-design system, will provide curb appeal and attract the choice rider. The parallel placemaking streetscape will enhance

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

2 "!

the cachĂŠ and promote an active pedestrian and bicycle corridor. ! "

"! "!

"! "! ! "

! "

"! "!

! "

O "

! "

I "

! "

"! ! "

! "

North

Carmel Access Bikeway (CAB) loops provide connections between districts and to nodes. Most nodes are on existing CAB routes and proposed additional bicycle facilities (See Map 3. Active Living Network) will connect bicyclists to all nodes.

To enable an affordable first phase, it is recommended that the initial transit technology be rubber-tired. The circulator network is scaled to allow shuttle-scale service distances and headways. Its modularity allows deployment in segments as node intensities rise to support ridership operational efficiencies. As circulator ridership increases and development advances along 3rd Avenue, a fixed rail system could be envisioned when funding becomes available. Map 2 also proposes a multiple loop transit circulator network scaled to the spacing and density character of the identified multimodal district pattern. This will eventually serve all of Carmel in later phases. The proposed system interfaces with the Carmel Access Bikeway (CAB)

2 "!

! "

"! "!

! "

" !

O "

! "

! " ! "

I "

! "

"! ! "

! "

North

Travelers at nodes (squares) can access local and regional transit connections with the proposed transit system. Shown in diagram: proposed circulators, regional transit and phases (1-3) of their implementation, along with the proposed (node with circle) and alterate (node with triangle) locations for a transit center.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

plan that provides recreational and commuter bicycle connectivity. Note that Map 3 (following) recommends some additions to the CAB to ensure connection to the nodes and to facilitate intermodal transfer to transit. Offering a series of important and easy connections to Carmel destinations and transit stops not only rebalances regional and local transportation, but enables a more attractive quality of life.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Map 2 Table. Multimodal Circulator Network Attributes Abbreviation Key ID:

Identifying number from 1-274 of the alphabetical name listing of the corridor segment

Name:

Alphabetical listing of the corridor segment

Bike_Route:

Indicates if and then which Carmel bike route runs along corridor segment

Tran_Route:

Indicates if and then which Carmel transit route runs along corridor segment

Map 2 Table. Multimodal Circulator Network Attributes ID (1-274) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Name 103rd 103rd 103rd 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 111th 111th 111th 111th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th

Bike_Route

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cool Creek Loop, 6 6 City Center Loop

Tran_Route

Monon Center Loop Monon Center Loop

Oakbrook Loop Oakbrook Loop White River Loop, 1

Monon Center Loop Monon Center Loop

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 2 Table. Multimodal Circulator Network Attributes ID (1-274) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Bike_Route

Cool Creek Loop City Center Loop West Loop, 4 West Loop, 11, 4 4 Cool Creek Loop, 3, 4 4 4 4 4 White River Loop, 1 West Loop, 4 4

Tran_Route West Clay Village Loop Oakbrook Loop Oakbrook Loop

Hazel Dell Loop Hazel Dell Loop

Hazel Dell Loop

West Clay Village Loop

Village Loop Village Loop Village Loop, 2 West Loop, 11, 2 2 2 2 2 West Loop 2 Village Loop, 2 2

Clay Terrace Loop Hazel Dell Loop West Clay Village Loop

West Clay Village Loop Hazel Dell Loop Clay Terrace Loop West Clay Village Loop West Clay Village Loop

Village Loop, 2 Clay Terrace Loop, Hazel Dell Loop

Oakbrook Loop Oakbrook Loop Monon Center Loop Oakbrook Loop Oakbrook Loop

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Map 2 Table. Multimodal Circulator Network Attributes ID (1-274) 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Bike_Route 3 Village Loop, 4 Village Loop Village Loop Cool Creek Loop, 3

Cool Creek Loop, 3

Tran_Route Circulator West Hazel Dell Loop Hazel Dell Loop Circulator Central West Clay Village Loop West Clay Village Loop Clay Terrace Loop Clay Terrace Loop, Oakbrook Loop

Cool Creek Loop 4 4 4 4 City Center Loop, 4 4 Village Loop, 4 City Center Loop City Center Loop

City Center Loop City Center Loop Cool Creek Loop Village Loop, 9 9 9 Cool Creek Loop Cool Creek Loop, 3 4 4 Village Loop

Transit Center Loop Hazel Dell Loop

Clay Terrace Loop, West Clay Village Loop Monon Center Loop Monon Center Loop Monon Center Loop Monon Center Loop Monon Center Loop Transit Center Loop, Monon Center Loop Monon Center Loop Transit Center Loop West Clay Village Loop

West Clay Village Loop

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 2 Table. Multimodal Circulator Network Attributes ID (1-274) 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173

Bike_Route Cool Creek Loop

Cool Creek Loop

Tran_Route Hazel Dell Loop Oakbrook Loop

Village Loop, 4 Cool Creek Loop, 3 White River Loop Cool Creek Loop, 3 3 Cool Creek Loop, 3 Cool Creek Loop 1 White River Loop, 1 White River Loop, 1 1 1 Village Loop 7 White River Loop

Oakbrook Loop

Monon Center Loop

Clay Terrace Loop Cool Creek Loop 3 3 Cool Creek Loop Cool Creek Loop, 3 Cool Creek Loop West Loop, 11, 2 11 9

Clay Terrace Loop West Clay Village Loop Hazel Dell Loop West Clay Village Loop Hazel Dell Loop

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Map 2 Table. Multimodal Circulator Network Attributes ID (1-274) 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223

Name Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main/131st Main/131st Meadowlark Park Trail Medalist Meridian Corners Meridian Crossing Meridian Crossing Meridian Crossing Monon Monon Monon Trail Montcalme/Meeting House New 121st New 126th New Ditch New Gramercy New Illinois New Legacy New Legacy 2 New Montcalme North West Park Trail Oak Ridge Oak Ridge Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Oldfield/Woodcreek Pebble Brook/Northwood Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania

Bike_Route

Cool Creek Loop Cool Creek Loop, 3

West Loop Village Loop, 7 9

Tran_Route Hazel Dell Loop Hazel Dell Loop Transit Center Loop Hazel Dell Loop Transit Center Loop Transit Center Loop Clay Terrace Loop, Hazel Dell Loop West Clay Village Loop

City Center Loop Village Loop, 7 7, 4 4 City Center Loop, 5 5 5 Village Loop

West Clay Village Loop West Clay Village Loop West Clay Village Loop

Village Loop

West Clay Village Loop West Clay Village Loop West Clay Village Loop Transit Center Loop, West Clay Village Loop Transit Center Loop, West Clay Village Loop West Clay Village Loop Transit Center Loop Transit Center Loop, West Clay Village Loop

City Center Loop City Center Loop City Center Loop City Center Loop City Center Loop Cool Creek Loop White River Loop, 1

City Center Loop, 4

Monon Center Loop Transit Center Loop

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 2 Table. Multimodal Circulator Network Attributes ID (1-274) 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274

Name Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Quail Pointe/Ponds Pointe Rangeline Rangeline Rangeline Rangeline Rangeline River River River River River River River River Park Trail Rohrer Rohrer Shelbourne Shelbourne Shelbourne Shelbourne Shelbourne Smokey Ridge Smokey Row Smokey Row Spotswood Extention Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spruce Spruce/Wedgewood Stonewick/Pebble Pointe/Bahill Stratford Towne Towne Towne Tuscany US31/Meridian West West Clay Trail West Park Trail Westfield Westfield Trail Westfield/Monon Connector Westwood

Bike_Route

4 Village Loop, 2

White River Loop White River Loop, 1 White River Loop, 1 White River Loop, 1

Tran_Route Transit Center Loop Monon Center Loop Clay Terrace Loop, West Clay Village Loop Transit Center Loop, Clay Terrace Loop Transit Center Loop, Clay Terrace Loop Transit Center Loop, Clay Terrace Loop Hazel Dell Loop Hazel Dell Loop

White River Loop, 1 Village Loop, 5 West Loop West Loop, 4 West Loop Cool Creek Loop

7 Village Loop, 7 Village Loop, 7, 2 Cool Creek Loop, 3 Cool Creek Loop Cool Creek Loop Cool Creek Loop 9 9

West Clay Village Loop West Clay Village Loop West Clay Village Loop West Clay Village Loop West Clay Village Loop

Monon Center Loop

West Clay Village Loop

West Loop West Loop, 11 4 Monon Center Loop White River Loop, 1

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

106

148

" " "

Ri v er

235

li s t

i ve

128

156

218

Hav 164

126 11

! (

Westfield

129

237

9 21

14 5

261

e rstic

271 199

§ ¦ ¨

( !

I-69

96th

147

160

Monon Trail

! (

24 1

140

82 81 249 65

Carey

168

233

231

Gray

113

105 104 111 109

( !

! (

121

222 226

197

21 3

225 223

153

n ois

Ill i

Aaa

21 2

21 4 21 7

227

Spring Mill 256

Rangeline

211

Oak Ridge 1 24

255

257

6 Points 102

Clay Center

269

151

Hoover

Towne 263

194

Broad

264

sk in Ga

T u s 26 ca 6 ny

244

Tr ail Pa r k West

Pennsylvania

116

118

248 245

247

228

Ditch

Shelbourne

268

West

Rohrer

258 117

246

166

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\Final Maps\100319_Transit_CAB_0831.mxd

( !

! (

4 12

( !

Carmel City Limit

The CMSP proposes a multiple loop transit circulator network scaled to Carmel Access Transit Nodes and Transitions Carmel Access Bikeways the spacing and density character of the identified multimodal district pattern. Transit Center Loop West Loop The system’s central circulator connects the closely spaced destinations Transit Center (Preferred) of Carmel’s developing core area, including the Arts District and City Center, Monon Center Loop Village Loop with a transit center for regional connections. Clay Terrace Loop Transit Center (Alternate) City Center Loop Hazel Dell Loop Proposed system interfaces with the Carmel Access Bikeway providing ! Node Phase 1 Oakbrook Loop interdistrict multimodal connectivity. ! Node Phase 2 West Clay Village Loop Overview and tables specific to this map are found on the preceding pages. ! 1 1.5 Regional Transit 0 0.25 0.5 Node Phase 3 Corridor characteristics are listed alphabetically and by corridor segment ID. ( Transitions ! *[Table on page 40 lists nodes alphabetically and by ID.]*

O " I "

126th

( !

! (

I-465

173

Kingswood

137

! "

8 7

( !

174 !

171

( ! ! (

( !

§ ¨ ¦

! "

Ivy Hill 15 4

144

! "

177

! 19 (

(( ! 106th (! !

( !

111th

! ( ( !

tfo

( !

ra St

t u 421

( !

6 87

! "

139

l Hazel Del

( !

v ia n

!Main (

178

r Ca

! "

7th

! " ( ! ! ( (! ! (

(! ! (

( !

9 23

es W

I " 11

r m e l 83

( !

146

110

idg11 e /D o

( !

165

( !

116th

97 ! (

!City Center (

22 !! (

! "

! (

( !

O "

183

( 136th !

( !

7 10

( !

84 86

( !

Illinois

167

"! !(

Main

120

DeerR

80 ks h ir o

5 13

121st

t ( rse!

182

260

B ro

! "

( (! ! ( !

21 (! !

" ( !

!185! ( (

172

( !

Brig hton/Do

( !

Spruce

Hig

( !

191

( !

Hawthorne

( !

143

141

! ( ( !

rail dT

27 e! ( ! b le

( !

Main

( !

136th

( ! 31 t u ( okey Row !

tfi e l

169

186

( !

3rd/4th

( !

184

200

( !

" !

( !

229

( !

G r ac e

( !

" ( ! !

( !

141st ( !

3! (

( !

8 19

( !

146th

( !

103

230

Guilford

Carmel City Limit

Cool Creek Loop

Multimodal Circulator Network

White River Loop

Carmel Multimodal System Plan

Express Routes

DRAFT - April 16, 2010

2 Miles

North

This map is to be used for planning purposes only and should not be reprinted without the express written consent of the City of Carmel.

Recommendations 2 102

147

Carey

11 3

155

160

er 2 39

237

238

161

lis t

159

23 5

261

Gray

Riv

11 2

145

143

i ve erstick

218

Hav

178

152

177

158

140

Westfield 271

Monon Trail

144

249

Aaa

175

196 198

126

125 120

n ois

221

3 17

119

Pennsylvania

204

220

255

Ill i

236

162

t fo

258

169

222

ra St

Kingswood 15 1

9 21

142

232

203

Guilford 35

150

226

148

253

224

167

267

223

Spring Mill

101

242

Oak Ridge 225

116 117

Clay Center

269 165

21 4 21 6

6 Points

254

124

106th

126th

l Hazel Del

15 111th 16

Hoover

211

228

131 132

Broad

/ sk in Ga 270

Towne

Tra il

115

246

209

248

ny ca Tus

256

Ditch

252

Shelbourne

268

West

182

257

133

264

247 180

263

107 110

13 4

Park

Ivy Hill 16

es W

153

8 131st

6 109

West

25 r mel

ire

245

ok s h

0 24

v ia n

117th

r Ca

e/ A

17 9

B ro

244

55 56

H ig

id ge 13 0 /Do v

206 205

Hawthorne

188

183

146

156

l Trai

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\100317_Modes_0831.mxd

1 17

122nd

128

I-465

5 189

DeerR

136th

421

tfield

116th

122

208

Illinois

21 Main

185

rset

207 202

Bri ghton/Do 14 9

192 57

121st

181

50 97

3rd/4th

Sm okey Row 190

105

199

leb

273

136th

135

200

201

131st

111

Spruce

69 62

1 3 9Gr ace

272

141st

3 Ke

7 19

146th

231

Rangeline

Carmel City Limit 75

118

Shows convergence of pedestrian, bicycle and transit routes on Node 27. Solid yellow lines indicate complete Multi-Use Pathways, dashed indicate incomplete pathways.

Rohrer

I-69

87 92

96th

Carmel City Limit The Carmel Multimodal System Plan integrates current bicycle and pedestrian initiatives with a new component, transit. It does so within a Complete Street philosophy wherein Carmel’s distributed key places become accessible and interconnected by walking, bicycling, and transit. That optimal connectivity can be achieved by spacing node and transit facilities no greater than can be accessed by a twenty minute walk in the core area, and by a twenty minute bicycle trip beyond the core. To achieve that goal, completion of the multi-use pathway system and development of the identified nodes is proposed to occur in phases based on their respective proximity to the central circulator loop.

Nodes & Transitions

Active Living Network

Modes Accommodated

Transit Center (Preferred)

Pedestrian & Bicycle Pedestrian Bicycle, and Transit

Carmel Multimodal System Plan

Transit Center (Alternate)

Existing Multi-Use Pathways

DRAFT - February 26, 2010

Nodes Phase 1

Partially Completed Multi-Use Pathways

Nodes Phase 2 Nodes Phase 3 Multimodal Transitions

0.25 0.5

1.5

2 Miles

North

This map is to be used for planning purposes only and should not be reprinted without the express written consent of the City of Carmel.

Map 3: Active Living Network Active Living Goal Continue to create a transportation network that incorporates and integrates health-supportive transportation choices that encourage walkable and bikeable trips for recreation as well as transportation. Recreational trails have been shown to increase residential land value [4,5,13] and become huge community identity features, as the Monon trail has demonstrated. However, recreational trails are insufficient by themselves to create healthy communities. Active (pedestrian and bicycle) transportation must be integrated into the design and planned operation of places, so that it becomes a part of daily activity. [For more details see Appendix A]

extended district or “place” for many purposes. Each place ideally has its centralized node, where one goes to school, picks up a gallon of milk or accesses transit to range further. Each transportation mode converges on these central places which in turn are connected by the larger pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks - a multimodal system. Spacing of these placecentered nodes is critical: travel distances must be reasonable - no more than 10 minutes to reach the node from anywhere within each district (by foot in the core and by bicycle outside the core). Once a traveler reaches the node, the rest of the region becomes accessible via transit. Map 3 presents each modal network with a different color illustrating their interconnection at the nodes of each district.

Multimodal connections enable walking and bicycling not only for recreational purposes, but also to enable residents to move about their

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Implications Map 3 integrates current bicycle and pedestrian initiatives with a new component - transit. It does so within a Complete Street philosophy wherein Carmelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s distributed key places become accessible and interconnected by walking, bicycling, and transit. Each of the modesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; networks is transformed into dedicated facilities in the streetscape design shown in Map 5. As the districts develop, multimodal connections must also be included. Therefore, a corresponding Complete Streets policies must be in place to ensure that future land use development is compatible with the Complete Street. It is also essential, since the area outside the core be based on bicycle commutes, to ensure that bicycle infrastructure makes commuting easy in

these outlying districts. Thus, bicycle parking, bike ports, bicycle street crossing along the key access routes, etc. are of the highest priority in making the districts function, thereby facilitating and encouraging active transportation.

Level 4: Composite makes an active living network that allows travelers to incorporate active living into daily lives.

Level 3: From the Circulator Network, interdistrict travel routes must be provided to serve district travelers and bring those from other districts to the district node.

Level 2: Off-Street and Road Network that must accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic

Level 1: Latent demand within district to serve bicycle and pedestrian traffic, but district must provide transit to allow longer distance travel

Overlays of mode/planning levels co-align and compose the active living network enabling travelers to incorporate active transportation into daily life.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Map 3 Table. Active Living Network Attributes Abbreviation Key ID:

Identifying number from 1-274 of the alphabetical name listing of the corridor segment

Name:

Alphabetical listing of the corridor segment

Modes:

Refers to which modes run along corridor - P(edestrian), B(icycle) and T(ransit)

MUP_Exist:

Indicates whether the Multi-Use Path (MUP) facility exists.

Bike_Links:

Indicates whether bicycle facility is a Multi-Use Path (MUP), Bike Lanes or Sharrow

Map 3 Table. Active Living Network Attributes ID (1-274) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Name 103rd 103rd 103rd 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 111th 111th 111th 111th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th

Modes PB PB PBT PB PBT PBT PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PBT PB PBT PB PB PBT PB PBT PB

MUP_Exist No No No Partial No Partial Partial No Partial No Yes No Yes No No No Partial Yes No Yes Yes No Partial No Yes

Bike_Links Lanes Lanes MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 3 Table. Active Living Network Attributes ID (1-274) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Modes PBT PBT PB PBT PB PB PB PBT PBT PB PB PB PBT PB PB PB PB PB PBT PB PB PBT PBT PB PBT PB PB PB PBT PB PBT PBT PB PB PBT PBT PB PB PB PBT PB PB PB PBT PBT PB PBT PBT PBT PB

MUP_Exist Partial No No No No Partial Partial No No Yes Partial Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Partial No Partial Partial No No No No Yes No No No Partial Partial Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes No Partial No Partial No No Partial Yes Partial No No Yes

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Bike_Links MUP MUP MUP MUP Lanes MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Lanes MUP Lanes MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Lanes MUP

Recommendations 2

Map 3 Table. Active Living Network Attributes ID (1-274) 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Modes PB PB PBT PB PB PBT PBT PBT PBT PB PBT PBT PB PB PBT PB PB PB PB PB PB PBT PB PBT PB PB PB PBT PBT PBT PBT PBT PBT PBT PBT PBT PB PBT PB PB PBT PB PB PB PB PB PB PBT PB PB

MUP_Exist No No No No No No No Partial No Partial No No No No No Partial No Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial No No No No No Partial No No No No No No No No No No Yes Partial Yes No No No No No No No

Bike_Links Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Lanes Lanes MUP MUP MUP MUP Lanes MUP Lanes Lanes MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Lanes Lanes Lanes Sharrow Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Sharrow MUP MUP MUP Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Lanes

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 3 Table. Active Living Network Attributes ID (1-274) 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

Modes PB PB PBT PBT PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PBT PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PBT PB PB PB PBT PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PBT PBT PB PBT PBT PBT PBT PBT

MUP_Exist Partial Partial No Yes No No No Partial Partial No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Partial No Yes Partial No Partial No

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Bike_Links MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Lanes Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Sharrow MUP MUP MUP MUP Sharrow MUP MUP MUP Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP

Recommendations 2

Map 3 Table. Active Living Network Attributes ID (1-274) 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

Modes PBT PBT PB PBT PB PB PBT PBT PB PBT PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PBT PBT PBT PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PBT PBT PBT PBT PBT PBT PBT PBT PB PB PB PB PBT PBT PB PBT

MUP_Exist No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes

Bike_Links Lanes MUP MUP Lanes Lanes MUP Lanes Lanes MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Sharrow MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Lanes MUP Lanes Sharrow MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Sharrow Sharrow MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 3 Table. Active Living Network Attributes ID (1-274) 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274

Modes PBT PB PB PBT PBT PBT PB PBT PB PB PBT PB PB PBT PB PB PB PB PBT PBT PB PBT PBT PB PBT PB PB PB PB PB PBT PB PB PB PB PB PB PBT PB PB PB PB PB PB PB PBT PB PB PB

MUP_Exist Yes Partial No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Partial No No Partial Partial No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Partial Partial No No Partial No Partial Partial Yes Yes No

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Bike_Links MUP MUP Sharrow Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Sharrow MUP MUP Sharrow MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Sharrow

106

133

Carey

148

! (

Ri v er

2 36

235

238

li s t

261

145

127

237

Gray 131

e rstic

! (

218

( !

129

147

! (

138

Kingswood

( ! 71

146

132

Hav

162

163

Westfield 271

Monon Trail

( !

k 72

" !

140

249

i ve

128

168

27 2

204

164

197

( !

9 21

! 19 (

199

104

222

111 109

! (

( ! 108

Pennsylvania

Aaa

134

226

220

n ois

Guilford 96

136

225

153

Ill i

242

21 7 21 4

224

223

267

Spring Mill 254

205

253 3

256

229

211

Oak Ridge

255 257

6 Points 101

Clay Center

269 151

Hoover

Towne 263

102

sk in Ga 270

Tr ail Pa r k

126th

( !

173

11 9

West

100

ca Tu s

Broad

245

Rangeline

258 228

116 118

209

248

Ditch

252

Shelbourne

268

West

117

265

246 166

247

144

! (

174

171

177

Ivy Hill 15

! ( ( !

139

es W

244

v ia n

l Hazel Del

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\Final Maps\100319_Modes_0831.mxd

! (

206

ire

! ( 23

16 5

o ks h

130

B ro

207

§ ¦ ¨

*[Table on page 40 lists node alphabetically and by ID.]*

! " ! " "!

Overview and tables specific to this map are found on the preceding pages. Corridor characteristics are listed alphabetically and by corridor segment ID.

! "

/Do

(Main !

Completion of network and development of the identified nodes will occur in phases based on respective proximity to central circulator loop.

! "

Nodes & Transitions

O " I "

tfo

221

The CMSP integrates current bike/ped initiatives with more extensive transit facilities, supporting a Complete Street philosophy wherein Carmel’s nodes become accessible and interconnected by walking, bicycling, and transit.

170

155

( ! ! (

! (

! ( I-465

! " ( !

! (

! "

( 111th 15 !

( 106th (6 ! !! (

! "

! (

r Ca

r me l

§ ¨ ¦

( !

idge 11 5

( !

178

ra St

! (

7th

13 7

t u

!( ! ( 16 ( !

421

( !

I " 11

114

Hawthorne

22 (! !

DeerR

( !

116th

189

! (

O "

!City Center ( 16 110 ( !

! " ( ( ! ! ( (! !

183

190

! (

" !

125

! (

141

! (

"! !(

Main

( 136th !

Hig

! (

! "

( !! ( ( 180!

21 (! !

( !

208

6 15

! (

rse! (t

3 19 181

rail dT

" ( !

Illinois

! (

13 5

!185! ( (

172

! (

Bri ghton/Do

203

167

( 35 !

! (

136th

! (

Spruce

120

tfi e l

4 !

121st

! (

t u

3rd/4th

169

273

! ( 31 ( ( ! ! ! Smokey Row ( 191 ( !

27 e! ! ( b le

Main

! (

200

! (

187

184

201

! (

202

" !

! (

1 2 4Gr ace

188

! (

141st ( !

" !

" ( ! !

103

! (

3! (

8 19

! (

146th

230

Rohrer

Carmel City Limit 58

! (

I-69

96th

( !

Carmel City Limit Active Living Network

Modes Accommodated Pedestrian & Bicycle Pedestrian Bicycle, and Transit

Carmel Multimodal System Plan

Transit Center (Alternate)

Existing Multi-Use Pathways

DRAFT - April 16, 2010

Nodes Phase 1

Partially Completed Multi-Use Pathways

Transit Center (Preferred)

Nodes Phase 2

Nodes Phase 3 ( Multimodal Transitions !

0.25 0.5

1.5

2 Miles

North

This map is to be used for planning purposes only and should not be reprinted without the express written consent of the City of Carmel.

Recommendations 2 Carmel City Limit 102

147

11 3

160

er Riv

2 39

238

161

237

lis t

159

23 5

261

Gray e rstick

218

Hav

178

152

177

158

Westfield 271

Monon Trail

11 2

145

143

ive 175

196

198

126

125 120 119

204

220

n ois

221

Ill i

258

3 17

Kingswood

222

tfo

236

162

255

ra St

42 2

169

106th

9 21

15 1

144

182

Carey 249

Aaa

Hazel Dell

15 111th 16

126th

142

231

155

232

203

Guilford

150

224

253

35 148

107

110

109

124

167

267

223

Spring Mill

101

242

Oak Ridge 225

117

226

r mel

13 4

Pennsylvania

165

Rangeline

211

228

6 Points 116

Broad 269

Clay Center 115

117th

D el

Ivy Hill 16

Hoover

21 4 21 6

131 132

209

Ga sk in / 270

Towne

es W

Tra

16 20

r Ca

153

8 131st

263

0 24

v ia n

West

Park

256

Ditch

252

Shelbourne 246

248

ire

e/ A

179

ok s h

Tus

188

Bro

245

Do v

189

High

244

Rohrer

257

133

264

247 180

268

West

Hawthorne

206

id ge/13 0

136th

183

DeerR

205

156

ail ld Tr

122nd

128

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\100317_GreenInfrastucture_0831.mxd

1 17

tfie

421

122

135

116th

207

12 111

Spruce

208

Illinois

202

21 Main

185

et hton/Dors

121st

181

192 57

Bri g

Sm okey Row 190

14 9

273

136th

3rd/4th

e leb

105

131st

199

201

1 3 9Gr ace

272

200

Green Restoration: Segment 199 displays the highest green performance (restoration) supplying significant green tree canopy and ROW available for environmental preservation uses while enticing users away from polluting transport means.

69 62

7 19

141st

146th

118

Green Elements: Segment 267 has the potential to add significant green elements to its streetscape, particularly in the form of street trees, but its vehicular traffic load diminishes its potential green benefit.

254

146

Green Corridor: Segment 217 adds street tree canopy and offers significant vehicular pollution reduction by attracting pedestrians and bicyclists to its destinations making for a green corridor.

140

I-465

I-69 90

96th

Carmel City Limit Proposed corridor typologies were evaluated to estimate the magnitude of green infrastructure benefit that accrues to multimodal corridor adaptation and parallel urban forestry, stormwater management, and traffic management strategies that Carmel is pursuing. The magnitude varies per a scoring system that considers factors such as CO2 reduction, energy savings through reduction of vehicle miles traveled, and stormwater runoff mitigation. An example is the estimated reduction of short vehicular trips through improved walkability, bicycle and transit access to nodes, and fuel savings and accident reduction achieved by conversion of signalized intersections to roundabouts. Similar benefits accrue to improved access to commuter transit.

Nodes & Transitions

Multimodal Transitions Transit Center (Preferred) Transit Center (Alternate)

Green Infrastucture Benefit

Green Infrastructure Network

Green Elements (Least) Green Connectors Green Corridors Green Restorations (Greatest)

Carmel Multimodal System Plan DRAFT - FEBRUARY 26, 2010

Nodes Phase 1 Nodes Phase 2 Nodes Phase 3

0.25 0.5

1.5

2 Miles

North

This map is to be used for planning purposes only and should not be reprinted without the express written consent of the City of Carmel.

Map 4: Green Infrastructure Network Green Infrastructure Goal Continue to incorporate stormwater management incorporating multiple benefits for stormwater management, utility corridor locations, practices and urban tree canopy features into the microclimate cooling zones, wildlife corridors public transportation infrastructure to improve and linear park space. the environmental quality of life and reduce the environmental footprint of the transportation [For more details see Appendix 1] system. Map 4 shows the proposed network of green Green Infrastructure recommendations heavily corridors and spaces. It presents a network impact the other components of the system plan that allows Carmel to continue to efficiently and by: sustainably serve its residents and visitors with connections to open space along travel ways providing comfortable pedestrian and biking that incorporate green elements into their design. facilities both on and off-street to enable and Street tree infrastructure has the ability to capture encourage people to walk and bike, CO2, cool streets and buildings and improve stormwater management. The multimodal nature defining public spaces as a network in of the corridors in this plan encourages the use harmony with the natural environment, creating a “green edge” along most multimodal of non-polluting facilities that allow transportation development districts and principal multimodal without having to drive cars individually. corridors, and

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Corridor typologies [See Map 5] were utilized to determine a Green Intensity benefit. Each typology was assigned a green value on a linear-foot basis for CO2 reduction, energy savings, stormwater reduction, and cost savings based on calculations of tree canopy benefits [13-17]. Furthermore, corridors that offer options which encourage more environmentally and health-friendly transportation options increase the green benefit, while corridors that principally convey through-traffic, encouraging more vehicle miles traveled, diminish the green benefit. As implementation occurs, additional design elements can be considered such as permeable pavements and rain gardens that will increase the Green Intensity benefit. The four tiers of impact determined by this value are shown below: Green Elements – which have green elements such as street trees, but whose net benefit is either small or negative. Green Connectors – which have significant green elements and significant green benefits. Green Corridors – which possess green street elements and significant reduction of potential pollution through a high capacity for nonautomotive trips. Green Restorations – actually reducing pollution by offering non-motorized travel facilities combined with sufficient green elements to have a net capture of CO2. These corridors also provide great connections to recreation, venues for stormwater management and corridors that bring cooling air to potential heat islands. As can be seen in the network of green corridors and spaces shown in Map 4, more intense green benefits are captured from the Off-Street corridor network, which in addition to recreation, provides a substantial tree canopy. The next highest benefit is shown by corridors that enable travel options other than that of automobiles in addition Different tiers of benefits for green infrastructure (from top) to substantial tree canopy and so forth. Those Green Connector, Green Corridor, and Green Restoration.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

corridors dominated by auto travel (e.g. US 31) are not likely to offer net green benefits, but the need to offset the negative effects should nonetheless be encouraged by substantial green infrastructure, including tree buffer yards and responsible water management, available in the large ROW.

Implications

Owen Park Greenway and Pond system in Madison, WI. A part of the stormwater management system in Madison, reducing critical erosion and sediment deposition. http://www.cityofmadison.com/engineering/stormwater/ OwenParkPonds.cfm

Green Infrastructure forms a significant component of Carmel planning activities and extensions of the existing networks are underway. It is important that future efforts be coordinated with other placemaking, transportation and development plans, to continue to take advantage of the role green infrastructure serves in the multimodal system. This infrastructure can also provide urban wildlife corridors and dedicated areas for green infrastructural elements like biosystems for stormwater solutions and creation of microclimate through vegetative massing, shading and open space.

Rain Garden for stormwater management along a thoroughfare in Portland, OR near the Portland Zoo.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Level 4: The overlays, incorporated into the district, create a green infrastructure network.

Level 3: Combining the two overlays creates a network that serves travelers and conduits for environmental needs.

Level 2: Green Infrastructure adds off-street trails and green streets.

Level 1: Open Space areas including parks, riparian corridors, floodplains and natural waterflows

Overlays of green components form the green infrastructure network.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Map 4 Table. Green Infrastructure Network Attributes Abbreviation Key ID: Identifying number from 1-274 of the alphabetical name listing of the corridor segment Name:

Alphabetical listing of the corridor segment

Length_Ft:

Length (in feet) of the corridor segment

Typ_GrnInf: Refers to the recommended Street Tree Infrastructure in terms of rows of street trees and size of trees in the Separation Zone (SZ - [1]) GrIntens:

Refers to Green Intensity if recommendations are implemented â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a value of the net index value for the benefits of the tree canopy per lineal foot of corridor â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a higher value meaning more benefits thanks to the tree canopy combining effects of CO2 capture, stormwater capture and tree cooling effects per total net cost of having trees (Range ~0 to 3000).

GIfctrs:

Refers to Green Infrastructure factors, if recommendations are implemented, that alter the net green intensity benefit based on pollution generated or not-generated as a function of opportunity to travel without using a heavily-polluting mode of travel (i.e. single occupancy automobile) rationalized based on CO2 production by the automobile relative to the ability of the street trees to capture it (Range ~-1000 to 3000)

TotalGI:

Combination of the Green Intensity and the Green Infrastructure factors that can improve or diminish the green intensity benefit. This is the value displayed on Map 4 (Addition of Grintens and GIfctrs).

Map 4 Table. Green Infrastructure Network Attributes ID(1-274) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Name 103rd 103rd 103rd 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 111th 111th 111th 111th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th

Length_Ft 1859 2560 1997 3668 3920 1087 1418 2058 5804 1593 3564 2217 2607 2777 2640 2722 8306 1594 966 6278 2367 1289 1576 693 2367

Typ_GrnInf 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 4 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 4 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ

GrIntens 427 171 295 427 427 427 640 427 427 427 427 640 427 427 427 427 295 295 295 295 2528 2528 295 295 295

GIFctrs 81 109 87 159 491 136 294 89 252 69 155 459 113 121 115 118 1041 69 121 273 504 380 69 87 103

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

TotalGI 507 280 382 586 918 563 934 516 679 496 582 1099 540 547 541 545 1337 365 416 568 3033 2908 364 382 398

Recommendations

Map 4 Table. Green Infrastructure Network Attributes ID(1-274) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Length_Ft 5320 2382 11197 676 857 2313 1647 1384 1868 1147 5410 5214 3341 1320 2879 1472 2611 5213 5204 4468 1041 2677 2342 2389 5332 2818 1498 2463 10689 3885 20826 5940 4747 5940 2703 1778 15918 5326 5786 3089 2588 2622 2744 1586 6347 3202 5360 2655 2069 1337

Typ_GrnInf Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 4 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Range dep on ROW Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

GrIntens 295 295 295 295 171 427 427 427 427 427 427 427 768 427 171 427 427 427 427 427 427 427 427 427 427 427 427 427 427 427 2681 2681 2681 2681 2681 2681 2681 2681 640 171 171 295 295 2739 295 2621 295 295 640 427

GIFctrs 667 299 487 85 142 101 72 173 464 50 235 227 1200 57 123 64 113 227 652 194 45 445 581 104 668 122 65 107 1340 169 -327 -142 -113 -142 -426 -280 -381 -127 1436 764 111 114 119 468 796 153 672 333 259 222

TotalGI 962 594 782 380 312 527 498 600 890 476 662 653 1968 484 294 491 540 653 1079 621 472 872 1008 530 1095 549 492 534 1767 595 -598 1259 1544 1259 2255 2401 -112 1406 2076 935 281 409 415 3207 1091 2774 967 628 899 649

Recommendations 2

Map 4 Table. Green Infrastructure Network Attributes ID(1-274) 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Length_Ft 2978 5631 1599 3127 2914 2728 2596 5511 868 3189 772 1315 4803 1719 2468 5431 450 3816 1275 3302 902 691 2564 4060 5053 1756 1092 3228 1846 2709 1018 1184 2067 1971 2132 2206 951 1351 1874 6073 2550 2497 2807 3078 1638 2226 2110 1523 2835 2560

Typ_GrnInf 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 4 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ

GrIntens 171 142 640 171 171 640 640 720 295 427 427 640 427 427 640 171 171 171 295 768 295 2739 295 427 427 427 427 720 427 427 427 427 427 427 640 427 640 640 640 171 427 427 427 171 171 171 171 768 171 427

GIFctrs 493 240 462 134 124 342 751 2277 215 530 192 273 209 75 1017 232 19 163 212 549 150 289 426 625 220 76 47 937 231 672 253 294 344 247 878 277 158 557 312 259 320 109 122 131 70 95 90 440 121 426

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

TotalGI 664 383 1102 304 295 982 1390 2997 511 957 618 912 635 501 1657 403 190 334 507 1317 445 3028 722 1052 646 503 474 1657 658 1099 679 720 770 674 1518 703 798 1196 952 430 746 535 549 302 241 266 261 1208 292 852

Recommendations

Map 4 Table. Green Infrastructure Network Attributes ID(1-274) 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159

Length_Ft 2139 5055 2537 5275 391 3350 4462 2899 9603 4910 1785 2450 5706

Typ_GrnInf Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ

GrIntens 720 295 720 295 427 295 427 427 640 171 171 171 427

GIFctrs 446 220 737 661 17 146 194 126 417 210 76 105 248

TotalGI 1166 515 1457 957 444 441 621 553 1057 380 247 275 675

5248

2 Rows med trees SZ

171

224

395

1564 1079 2616 2042 5617 5304 3781 5801 6887 1998 1777 2107 2224 6008 3653 28012 28012 28012 1439 5279

171 171 171 171 768 295 295 295 295 95 427 427 720 295 171 2681 2681 2681 171 171

67 46 112 87 704 231 164 252 299 85 77 92 919 999 156 -317 -317 -317 61 225

237 217 282 258 1472 526 460 547 595 180 504 518 1639 1294 327 -290 -290 -290 232 396

768

208

976

171 171 171 171 171 171

18 213 72 185 135 121

189 384 243 356 306 291

160

Lakeshore East

1004

161 162 163 164 165 166

Lakeshore East Lakeshore East Lakeshore West Lakeshore West Limberlost/Harrison Little Eagle Creek Long Branch/Spring Mill/Auburn Creek Lowes Way Main Main Main Main

432 4992 1689 4338 3167 2827

2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ or strategic plantings 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ

3570

2 Rows med trees SZ

142

152

295

2542 3802 1701 1491 5287

2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ

427 295 295 295 295

319 477 74 187 663

745 772 369 482 958

167 168 169 170 171 172

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Map 4 Table. Green Infrastructure Network Attributes ID(1-274) 173 174 175 176 177 178

Name Main Main Main Main Main Main

Length_Ft 3204 3501 1254 2239 1422 1812

179

Main

1590

180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221

Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main/131st Main/131st Meadowlark Park Trail Medalist Meridian Corners Meridian Crossing Meridian Crossing Meridian Crossing Monon Monon Monon Trail Montcalme/Meeting House New 121st New 126th New Ditch New Gramercy New Illinois New Legacy New Legacy 2 New Montcalme North West Park Trail Oak Ridge Oak Ridge Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Oldfield/Woodcreek Pebble Brook/Northwood Pennsylvania Pennsylvania

2931 1639 1422 2482 1626 762 1493 3610 3859 2923 1621 3715 2789 5546 1322 773 864 13100 4232 7947 6154 7656 3882 1792 3330 5413 3483 6611 4005 6328 2882 2684 1924 976 880 554 1240 1460 3838 3179 1960 3478

Typ_GrnInf Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 4 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ or strategic plantings 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Range dep on ROW 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Range dep on ROW Range dep on ROW Range dep on ROW 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Range dep on ROW 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ

GrIntens 295 2739 295 640 295 295

GIFctrs 402 1033 157 922 178 79

TotalGI 697 3772 453 1562 474 374

768

655

1423

640 295 720 640 295 295 295 295 295 295 640 2621 171 295 295 720 720 2621 2621 2621 427 427 640 427 427 295 720 171 427 2621 427 720 640 640 640 640 640 640 171 171 295 320

487 273 588 1022 71 96 65 157 168 127 535 633 119 241 328 319 357 2234 722 379 268 333 169 78 417 900 156 282 174 302 361 779 478 402 363 137 511 601 164 136 85 151

1127 568 1307 1662 366 391 360 452 463 422 1175 3254 290 536 623 1039 1077 4855 3343 3000 694 759 809 504 844 1196 876 453 601 2923 788 1499 1117 1042 1002 777 1151 1241 335 306 381 471

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 4. Green Infrastructure Table: Green Infrastructure Network Attributes ID(1-274) 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274

Name Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Quail Pointe/Ponds Pointe Rangeline Rangeline Rangeline Rangeline Rangeline River River River River River River River River Park Trail Rohrer Rohrer Shelbourne Shelbourne Shelbourne Shelbourne Shelbourne Smokey Ridge Smokey Row Smokey Row Spotswood Extention Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spruce Spruce/Wedgewood Stonewick/Pebble Pointe/Bahill Stratford Towne Towne Towne Tuscany US31/Meridian West West Clay Trail West Park Trail Westfield Westfield Trail Westfield/Monon Connector Westwood

Length_Ft 6056 1158 2329 1256 1045 1254 3861 2558 2107 1675 2612 2378 429 1587 2791 3684 2155 7046 2901 1750 3749 2327 2589 2641 2543 2497 5256 1236 3993 606 2712 8827 7809 3766 1842 2724 1410 1630 3570 7460 1127 6494 1389 7896 3277 31296 10941 2957 6072 12498 7521 1906 1435

Typ_GrnInf Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 4 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 4 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 4 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Range dep on ROW 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Lg tree Median & 2 Rows med trees SZ 2 Rows med trees SZ Range dep on ROW Range dep on ROW 2 Rows med trees SZ Range dep on ROW Range dep on ROW 2 Rows med trees SZ

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

GrIntens 295 2739 427 2739 2739 427 171 640 640 640 640 640 427 427 427 427 427 427 427 2621 427 427 427 427 720 720 427 171 427 427 171 427 427 427 427 427 768 171 171 171 171 295 295 295 427 2681 427 2621 2621 427 2621 2621 171

GIFctrs 759 484 387 525 437 209 165 635 868 690 434 980 19 69 350 160 94 883 126 83 163 101 325 331 530 725 659 53 991 26 116 384 339 164 231 118 61 70 152 319 48 814 60 343 142 -202 476 141 289 1567 359 91 61

TotalGI 1054 3223 814 3264 3175 635 336 1275 1508 1330 1074 1620 445 496 776 587 520 1310 553 2704 590 528 751 758 1250 1445 1085 223 1418 453 286 810 766 590 658 545 829 240 323 489 219 1109 356 639 569 -175 902 2762 2911 1993 2980 2712 232

Carmel City Limit 82

133

Carey

148

Ri v er

2 36

235

238

146

li s t

145

261

132

127

237

Gray

e rstic k

! (

128

ive

218

Hav

162

138

( !

129

147

163

Westfield 271

Monon Trail

! (

Kingswood

! (

( ! 71

140

249

168

27 2

229

164

197

199

104

111 109 108

( !

131

134

Aaa

106

204

Guilford 96

136

226

220

n ois

Ill i

242

21 7 21 4

224

223

267

225

205

253 3

Rangeline

211

Oak Ridge

255 257

Spring Mill 254

Clay Center 100

269 151

Hoover

Towne 263

102

Ga sk in 270

il Tr a P ar k Wes t

Pennsylvania 222

101

Broad

ny ca Tus

230

258 228

116 118

209

248 245

247

Ditch

252

Shelbourne

268

West

244

153

265

246 166

117

256

206

( !

9 21

! 19 (

126th

( !

173

11 9

! (

! "

174

171

177

Ivy Hill 15

es W

! ( ( !

139

144

! (

v ia n

Hazel Dell

ire

! ( 23

16 5

oks h

! (

130

Bro

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\FinalMaps\100319_CarmelCity_GreenInfrastucture_0831.mxd

*[Table on page 40 lists nodes alphabetically and by ID.]*

( !

O Transit Center (Preferred) " I Transit Center (Alternate) " ! " ! " "!

207

Overview and tables specific to this map are found on the preceding pages. Corridor characteristics are listed alphabetically and by corridor segment ID.

! "

D el

e/ A

(Main !

Benefits consider factors such as CO2 reduction, energy savings through heat island cooling, reduction of VMT with its associated CO2, & stormwater runoff mitigation. Similar benefits accrue to improved access to commuter transit.

Nodes & Transitions ( Multimodal Transitions !

tfo

Corridor typologies derive green infrastructure benefits from parallel urban forestry, stormwater management, and traffic management strategies.

! (

! " ( !

! (

ra St

I-465

! " ( !

! (

§ ¨ ¦

! (

r m el

170

155

( ! ! ( 221

! "

Hawthorne

111th 15

( 106th (6 ! !! (

( !

idge 11 5 /Do v

( !

178

141

13 7

! (

117th

22 (! !

D ee r R

( !

t u

(! ( ! 16 ! (

421

( !

I "

114

! (

! " ( ( ! !

190

189

!City Center ( 16 110 ( !

! "

116th

!! ( (

O "

183

125

! (

( 136th !

Hig

! (

21 (! !

( !

! (

( !

Main

rail

! (

"! !(

Illinois

! (

203

167

208

! "

191

6 15

" ( ! !

121st

! (

13 5

rse! (t

( ( 180! !! (

! (

Spruce

120

ld T

( 35 !

Bri ghton/Do

3 19 181

( ! 31 t u ( okey Row !

3rd/4th

! ( ( !

!e ! ( leb

!185! ( (

172

! (

136th

273

tfi e

Main

! (

169

200

! (

187

184

201

! (

202

" !

! (

1 2 4Gr ac e

188

! (

141st ( !

! " ( !

3! (

103

! (

8 19

! (

146th

Rohrer

6 Points

! (

§ ¦ ¨ I-69

96th

( !

Carmel City Limit

Green Infrastucture Benefit

Green Infrastructure Network

Green Elements (Least) Green Connectors Green Corridors Green Restorations (Greatest)

Carmel Multimodal System Plan DRAFT - April 16, 2010

Nodes Phase 1 Nodes Phase 2 Nodes Phase 3

0.25 0.5

1.5

2 Miles

North

This map is to be used for planning purposes only and should not be reprinted without the express written consent of the City of Carmel.

Recommendations 2 102

147 0

119

11 3 160

er Riv

11 2

2 39

238

161

237

lis t Me

159

145 143

23 5

Gray 142

e rstick

218

Hav 152

177

158

140

Monon Trail

261

249

175

196

178

126

198

221

Ill i n ois

258

125 120

Pennsylvania 220

204

255

144

182

Carey

155

101

i ve

Guilford

203

Aaa

226

148

224

150

124

223

167

267

231 232

225

117

Clay Center 115

211

Oak Ridge

242

228

254

6 Points 116

Broad 269 165

236

162

3 17

9 21

Kingswood

222

42 2

169

t fo

ra St

106th

Hazel Dell

126th

58 13 4

15 1

9 6

15 111th 16

Hoover

21 4 21 6

131

132

209

sk in / Ga 270

ail

Towne

107 110

Ivy Hill 16

8 131st

6 109

153

es W

263

25 r mel

D el

0 24

v ia n

117th

rm Ca

e/ A

West

ire

16 20

Park

256

Ditch

252

Shelbourne 246 248

ny ca

ok s h

id ge 13 0 /Do v

179

B ro

Tus

55 56

245

188

H ig

244

Rohrer

257

133

264

247

180 268

West

Hawthorne

l Trai

5 183

DeerR

206 205

136th

189

146

156

I-465

I-69 90

96th

Carmel City Limit

Transit Center (Preferred) Transit Center (Alternate) Nodes Phase 1 Nodes Phase 2 Nodes Phase 3

Multimodal Corridor Typologies* Modern Boulevard Social Street Pedestrian/Urban Pedestrian/Suburban Urban Link Suburban Link Quiet Street *Dashed lines represent proposed new roads.

OFF THRU CONNECTOR ST

Nodes & Transitions Multimodal Transitions

PLACEMAKING

The Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network map identifies Carmel’s existing and potential key places and the connectivity network that will provide bicycle, pedestrian and transit access to and between them. The plan indicates nodes, the approximate centers of those places, as points of convergence of the proposed multiple transportation modes, using existing corridors. Those corridors are redefined using the multimodal terminology shown here. The system development strategy is to encourage transit-supportive, walkable-scale density at these key places through public space design guidance (Smart Code) and targeted infrastructure investment.

LOCAL

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\100317_MMCorridor_0831.mxd

1 17

122nd

128

421

tfield

116th

122

135

207

12 111

Spruce

208

Connector corridor segments (orange) bring and transition travelers in all modes to the slower Placemaking corridors, the locus of most destinations.

21 Main

185

rset

Illinois

202

Bri ghton/Do 14 9

192 57

121st

181

190

50 97

Smokey Row

3rd/4th

273

136th

105

e leb

131st

199

201

272

200

Placemaking segments (pink) allow for all modes to enjoy the clustering of activities and pleasant sharing of the streetscape found at these end-of-trip sites, where they can comfortably park once and visit many destinations.

141st

3 Ke

1 3 9Gr ace 7 19

146th

Rangeline

Spring Mill

253

Carmel City Limit

118

Thru corridors (brown) allow higher speed travel for all modes, but should run along district edges.

Westfield 271

Commuter/Urban Commuter/Suburban Connector/Urban Connector/Suburban Modern Parkway Off-Street

0.25 0.5

1.5

District Typology Campus Central Business Transit Oriented Village Mixed Use Village Residential Regional Links 2 Miles

North

Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Carmel Multimodal System Plan DRAFT - February 26, 2010

This map is to be used for planning purposes only and should not be reprinted without the express written consent of the City of Carmel.

Map 5: Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Mission Statement Develop a community-based transportation plan that provides policy guidance to integrate and balance traditional and multimodal transportation facilities with both existing and desired land use patterns, supporting sustainable development and improved quality of life. Map 5 illustrates the application of the Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines [1]. Thru corridors connect to the adjacent communities of Carmel or its internal multimodal districts, and Connector corridors link the district edges to the Placemaking corridors at the centers of the multimodal districts where the nodes are located. Local corridors and OffStreet corridors complete the multimodal system. Multimodal Transitions, such as gateway portals or roundabouts are shown at the intersection of corridor types or at the edges of districts. The

elements displayed in Maps 1-4 will be achieved through the application of the Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines [1]. The design guidelines provide direction for the design of the streetscape, creating a ‘Complete Street” network.

Implications These corridor and public space design elements are provided in multimodal corridor design “typologies”. The typologies are described in the regionally adopted Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines [1] which details the components and associated amenities recommended to be included in the implementation of the Multimodal System Plan.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Conceptual cross section applications from the Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines as shown in Map 5, showing functional class and typology:

Clearance Height

8-10 Sidewalk

Tree Parking Vehicle Lane Lawn

Bike Lane

Tree Lawn

Vehicle Lane

Turning Lane

Pedestrian Refuge

Vehicle Lane

Tree Lawn

Bike Vehicle Parking Tree Lane Lane Lawn

8-10 Sidewalk

The Placemaking Multimodal Boulevard concept applies to Old Meridian near the proposed Transit Center. Placemaking corridors generally have the highest number of destinations in a given district, usually located at the center of a district. They handle the most multimodal traffic of any corridor, are pedestrian-focused (e.g with wide sidewalks and pedestrian activity zones) and have a lower speed for faster modes sharing the space. These corridors have substantial landscape features and public art, attracting pedestrians and playing a vital green infrastructure role.

Clearance Height

(2)

Multi-Use Path

Tree Lawn or Bus Transit Way

Vehicle Lane

Turning Pedestrian Lane Refuge

(2)

Vehicle Lane

Tree Lawn or Bus Transit Way

Multi-Use Path

The Connector concept applies to 116th in Carmelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s downtown core. Connector corridors bring travelers from the edge of the district to the center or node. Slightly higher speeds are allowed on these corridors because they are focused on conveying multimodal traffic to the Placemaking corridors, but they must safely accommodate all modes. As these corridors connect different districts and neighborhoods, streetscape elements must communicate with travelers to let them know when to slow down and when they have arrived in a new district.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

Clearance Height

(2)

Multi-Use Path

Parking or Tree Lawn Bus Transit Way

Vehicle Lane

Turning Lane

Pedestrian Refuge

Vehicle Lane

Parking or Tree Bus Transit Way Lawn

(2)

Multi-Use Path

The Thru corridor concept applies to 146th Street. Thru corridors conduct travelers between districts. They are higher speed thoroughfares for the higher speed modes and usually run along the edge of a district. With fewer crossings, streetscape elements are thus more continuous, accommodating the greater separation of the disparate speed modes and allowing recreation and some wildlife movement along these district edges.

Clearance Height

(3)

(3) 10-12

Minimum Multi-Use Path Tree Lawn

5 Minimum Tree Lawn

The Off-Street concept applied to the Cool Creek Trail. Local and off-street corridors serve residential areas and district edges focusing on pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Off-street corridors do not allow motorized vehicles other than for emergencies or maintenance. Streetscape elements are focused on making pedestrian traffic more appealing.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Level 5: District Typology: Describes intensity and characteristics of the place. This level allows the district to evolve over time. Level 4: Corridor and Public Space Typology: Co-location of principal utilities with roads, transportation mode network serving all residences. This level provides modes and functions to all extents of the district. Level 3: Economic/Land-Use Structure Level: This â&#x20AC;&#x153;economic infrastructureâ&#x20AC;? level allows all in the district to access the modes and functions, but does not provide them directly to all. Level 2: Multimodal Network Level: Includes interdistrict and regional transit, CAB circulators as well as the active living network.

Level 1: Green Infrastructure Level: Natural resources, water, air, topography - some imposed variation with landscaping and planting - this is the base level upon which all else is built. Ignoring environmental considerations can increase the cost of service dramatically.

Overlays of mode/planning levels co-align showing the composite of the map recommendations as shown in the Carmel Multimodal System Plan

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations 2

PAZ

Pedestrian Activity Zone

Frontage Zone

Pedestrian Way

Separation Zone

BTW

Bus Transit Way

SPZ

Street Parking Zone

Bicycle Way

VTW

Vehicle Travel Way

CHZ

Clear Height Zone

Map 5 Table a. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes Abbreviation Key ID:

Identifying number from 1-274 of the alphabetical name listing of the corridor segment

Name:

Alphabetical listing of the corridor segment

Typ_Key:

Refers to the recommended corridor typology i.d. number (based on [1])

Typology

Refers to the recommended corridor typology (based on [1])

TypBW

Indicates Bicycle Way typology recommendation: Bike Lane, MUW, or Sharrow

Typ_BTWRB

Indicates Bus Transit Way-Regional Bus typology minimum lane width (in feet) recommendation

Typ_BTWSC

Indicates Bus Transit Way-Shuttle/Circulator typology minimum lane width (in feet) recommendation

Map 5 Table a. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Name 103rd 103rd 103rd 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 111th 111th 111th 111th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th

Typ_Key T6b T7b T5c T6b T6b T6b T2a T6b T6b T6b T6b T2a T6b T6b T6b T6b T5c T5c T5c T5c T1 T1 T5c T5c T5c

Typology MM Connector/Suburban MM Suburban Link MM Commuter/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Modern Boulevard MM Modern Boulevard MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban

TypBW MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom.

TypBTWRB 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0"

TypBTWSC 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0"

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 5 Table a. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Typ_Key T5c T5c T5c T5c T7a T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T8 T6b T6b T6b T2b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T4 T4 T4 T4 T4 T4 T4 T4 T6a T7b T7b T5c T5c T1 T5c T10a T5c T5c T6a T6b

Typology MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Urban Link MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Quiet Street MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Modern Parkway MM Modern Parkway MM Modern Parkway MM Modern Parkway MM Modern Parkway MM Modern Parkway MM Modern Parkway MM Modern Parkway MM Connector/Urban MM Suburban Link MM Suburban Link MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Modern Boulevard MM Commuter/Suburban MM Off-Street MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Connector/Urban MM Connector/Suburban

TypBW MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. shared roadway MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom.

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

TypBTWRB 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0"

TypBTWSC 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 11'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0"

Recommendations 2

Map 5 Table a. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Typ_Key T7b T8 T2a T8 T8 T6a T2a T2b T5c T6b T5c T2a T6b T6b T2a T7b T8 T8 T5c T5c T5c T1 T5c T6b T6b T6b T6b T2b T5a T2a T5a T5a T5a T5a T2a T5a T6a T2a T6a T8 T6b T6b T6b T8 T8 T8 T7b T2a T7b T6a

Typology MM Suburban Link MM Quiet Street MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Connector/Urban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Pedestrian/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Suburban Link MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Modern Boulevard MM Commuter/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Suburban MM Commuter/Urban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Commuter/Urban MM Commuter/Urban MM Commuter/Urban MM Commuter/Urban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Commuter/Urban MM Connector/Urban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Connector/Urban MM Quiet Street MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Suburban Link MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Suburban Link MM Connector/Urban

TypBW MUW recom. shared roadway 5'-0" shared roadway shared roadway 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. shared roadway shared roadway MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" shared roadway MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. 5'-0"

TypBTWRB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11'-0" N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11'-0"

TypBTWSC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8'-0" N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 11'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8'-0"

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 5 Table a. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

Name Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Guilford Gwynmere/Claridge Hancock Hansel/Lakeview Haverstick Haverwood/Arroweaf/Plantree/ Tall Timber Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hazel Dell Hazel Dell Hazel Dell Hazel Dell Hazel Dell High Hoover Hoover Illinois Illinois Ivy Hill Keystone Keystone Keystone Kingswood Lakeshore East Lakeshore East Lakeshore East Lakeshore East Lakeshore West Lakeshore West Limberlost/Harrison Little Eagle Creek Long Branch/Spring Mill/Auburn Creek Lowes Way Main Main Main Main Main Main Main

Typ_Key T2b T5c T2b T5c T6b T5c T6b T6b T6a T8 T7a T8 T6b

Typology MM Pedestrian/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Urban MM Quiet Street MM Urban Link MM Quiet Street MM Connector/Suburban

TypBW 5'-0" MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" shared roadway 5'-0" shared roadway MUW recom.

TypBTWSC N/A 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 10'-0" N/A 8'-0"

MM Quiet Street

shared roadway

N/A

T8 T8 T8 T8 T5c T5c T5c T5c T5c T7b T6b T6b T2b T5c T8 T4 T4 T4 T8 T7b T3 T8 T8 T8 T8 T8 T8

MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Suburban Link MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Quiet Street MM Modern Parkway MM Modern Parkway MM Modern Parkway MM Quiet Street MM Suburban Link MM Social Street MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street

shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. shared roadway MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. shared roadway MUW recom. shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway

N/A N/A N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" N/A 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

MM Quiet Street

shared roadway

N/A

T6b T5c T5c T5c T5c T5c T1 T5c

MM Connector/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Modern Boulevard MM Commuter/Suburban

MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom.

11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0"

8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 11'-0" 8'-0"

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

TypBTWRB N/A 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A 11'-0"

Recommendations 2

Map 5 Table a. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200

Typ_Key T2a T5c T5c T3 T6a T5c T2b T2a T5c T5c T5c T5c T5c T5c T2a T10a T8 T5c T5c T2b T2b T10a T10a T10a T6b

201

New 121st

T6b

202

New 126th

T6b

203

New Ditch

T6b

204

New Gramercy

T6a

205

New Illinois

T5c

206

New Legacy

T2b

207

New Legacy 2

T7a

208

New Montcalme

T6b

209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

North West Park Trail Oak Ridge Oak Ridge Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Oldfield/Woodcreek Pebble Brook/Northwood Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania

T10a T6b T2b T6a T2a T2a T6a T2a T2a T8 T8 T5c T5c T5c T1 T6b T1

Typology MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Social Street MM Connector/Urban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Off-Street MM Quiet Street MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Suburban MM Off-Street MM Off-Street MM Off-Street MM Connector/Suburban Proposed MM Connector/ Suburban Proposed MM Connector/ Suburban Proposed MM Connector/ Suburban Proposed MM Connector/ Urban Proposed MM Commuter/ Suburban Proposed MM Pedestrian/ Suburban Proposed MM Urban Link Proposed MM Connector/ Suburban MM Off-Street MM Connector/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Suburban MM Connector/Urban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Connector/Urban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Modern Boulevard MM Connector/Suburban MM Modern Boulevard

TypBW 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. shared roadway 5'-0" MUW recom. 5'-0" 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. shared roadway MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom.

TypBTWRB N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11'-0"

TypBTWSC N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8'-0"

MUW recom.

11'-0"

8'-0"

MUW recom.

11'-0"

8'-0"

MUW recom.

11'-0"

8'-0"

5'-0"

11'-0"

8'-0"

MUW recom.

11'-0"

8'-0"

5'-0"

N/A

5'-0"

N/A

10'-0"

MUW recom.

11'-0"

8'-0"

MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" shared roadway shared roadway MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. 5'-0"

N/A 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" N/A N/A 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0"

N/A 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" N/A N/A 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 11'-0" 8'-0" 11'-0"

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 5 Table a. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274

Typ_Key T1 T6b T7b T6a T2a T2a T6a T2a T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T10a T6b T6b T6b T6b T2b T2b T6b T8 T6b T6b T8 T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T6b T8 T8 T8 T8 T5c T5c T5c T6b T4 T6b T10a T10a T5a T10a T10a T8

Typology MM Modern Boulevard MM Connector/Suburban MM Suburban Link MM Connector/Urban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Connector/Urban MM Pedestrian/Urban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Off-Street MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Suburban MM Pedestrian/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Quiet Street MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Quiet Street MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Quiet Street MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Commuter/Suburban MM Connector/Suburban MM Modern Parkway MM Connector/Suburban MM Off-Street MM Off-Street MM Commuter/Urban MM Off-Street MM Off-Street MM Quiet Street

TypBW 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" 5'-0" MUW recom. shared roadway MUW recom. MUW recom. shared roadway MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. MUW recom. 5'-0" MUW recom. MUW recom. shared roadway

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

TypBTWRB 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" N/A N/A 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A

TypBTWSC 11'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" N/A N/A 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A

Recommendations 2

PAZ

Pedestrian Activity Zone

Frontage Zone

Pedestrian Way

Separation Zone

BTW

Bus Transit Way

SPZ

Street Parking Zone

Bicycle Way

VTW

Vehicle Travel Way

CHZ

Clear Height Zone

Map 5 Table b. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes Abbreviation Key ID:

Identifying number from 1-274 of the alphabetical name listing of the corridor segment

Name:

Alphabetical listing of the corridor segment

Typ_CHZVTW

Indicates recommended minimum Clear Height Zone (in feet) over a Vehicle Travel Way

Typ_CHZMod

Indicates recommended minimum Clear Height Zone (in feet) over a Bicycle, Pedestrian or Multi-Use Way

Typ_FZ_Ped

Indicates Frontage Zone recommended minimum width(in feet) if adjacent to a Pedestrian Way

Typ_FZ_MUW

Indicates Frontage Zone recommended minimum width (in feet) if adjacent to a Multi-Use Way

Typ_MUW

Indicates Multi-Use Way recommended minimum width (in feet) in the streetscape context for the typology

Map 5 Table b. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Name 103rd 103rd 103rd 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 111th 111th 111th 111th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th

Typ_CHZVTW 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

Typ_CHZMod 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

Typ_FZ_Ped 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 1'-0" 1'-0" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

Typ_FZ_MUW 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0"

Typ_MUW 10'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" N/A 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" N/A 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A N/A 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0"

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 5 Table b. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Name 116th 116th 116th 116th 117th 121st 121st 126th 126th 126th 126th 126th 126th 126th

Typ_CHZVTW 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

Typ_CHZMod 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

Typ_FZ_Ped 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

Typ_FZ_MUW 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0"

126th

9'-0"

N/A

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

126th 126th 136th 136th 136th 136th 136th 136th 136th 136th 141st 141st 141st 141st 141st 146th 146th 146th 146th 146th 146th 146th 146th 3rd/4th 4th/2nd/Stadium 6 Points 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th Aaa Adams

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 1'-0" 0'-6" N/A 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0"

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Typ_MUW 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" shared roadway 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" N/A 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A 10'-0"

Recommendations 2

Map 5 Table b. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 76

Name Arrowood

Typ_CHZVTW 9'-0"

Typ_CHZMod 9'-0"

Typ_FZ_Ped 0'-6"

Typ_FZ_MUW 2'-0"

Brighton/Dorset

9'-0"

N/A

Broad

9'-0"

12'-0"

0'-6"

N/A

Broad/Fairmount/Spotswood

9'-0"

N/A

Brookshire

9'-0"

N/A

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

Carey Carey Carmel Carmel Carmel Carmel Carmel Drive Carmel Drive Carmel Drive Carmel Drive Cherry Creek/Cherry Tree

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

9'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

N/A N/A N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0"

Cherry Tree

9'-0"

N/A

Cherry Tree

9'-0"

N/A

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114

City Center City Center City Center City Center City Center City Center Clay Center Clay Center Clay Center Clay Terrace College College College College College College College College Congressional Congressional Congressional

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 1'-0" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

115

DeerRidge/Dove/Avian

9'-0"

N/A

116 117 118

Ditch Ditch Ditch

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0"

119

Double Eagle

9'-0"

N/A

120

Driftwood

9'-0"

N/A

121

Eden Estates

9'-0"

N/A

122 123 124 125

Gaskin/Glebe Glebe Grace Grand

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

2'-0" N/A 2'-0" 2'-0"

Typ_MUW 12'-0" shared roadway N/A shared roadway shared roadway N/A N/A N/A 12'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" N/A 10'-0" 10'-0" N/A 12'-0" shared roadway shared roadway 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A 12'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A shared roadway 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway 12'-0" N/A 12'-0" 10'-0"

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 5 Table b. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134

Name Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Guilford

135

Gwynmere/Claridge

9'-0"

N/A

136

Hancock

9'-0"

0'-6"

N/A

137

Hansel/Lakeview

9'-0"

N/A

138

9'-0"

0'-6"

2'-0"

9'-0"

N/A

140

Haverstick Haverwood/Arroweaf/Plantree/ Tall Timber Hawthorne

9'-0"

N/A

141

Hawthorne

9'-0"

N/A

142

Hawthorne

9'-0"

N/A

143

Hawthorne

9'-0"

N/A

144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153

Hazel Dell Hazel Dell Hazel Dell Hazel Dell Hazel Dell High Hoover Hoover Illinois Illinois

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0"

154

Ivy Hill

9'-0"

N/A

155 156 157

Keystone Keystone Keystone

12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0"

N/A N/A N/A

2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0"

158

Kingswood

9'-0"

N/A

159

Lakeshore East

9'-0"

0'-6"

2'-0"

160

Lakeshore East

9'-0"

1'-0"

161

Lakeshore East

9'-0"

N/A

162

Lakeshore East

9'-0"

N/A

163

Lakeshore West

9'-0"

N/A

164

Lakeshore West

9'-0"

N/A

165

Limberlost/Harrison

9'-0"

N/A

166

Little Eagle Creek Long Branch/Spring Mill/Auburn Creek Lowes Way Main Main Main Main Main Main Main

9'-0"

N/A

139

167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

Typ_CHZVTW 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

Typ_CHZMod 12'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

Typ_FZ_Ped 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

9'-0"

N/A

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 1'-0" 0'-6"

2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0"

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Typ_FZ_MUW N/A 2'-0" N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A

Typ_MUW N/A 12'-0" N/A 12'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" N/A shared roadway N/A shared roadway 10'-0" shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" N/A 12'-0" shared roadway 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" shared roadway 12'-0" shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway 10'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A 12'-0"

Recommendations 2

Map 5 Table b. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 176 177 178

Name Main Main Main

Typ_CHZVTW 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

Typ_CHZMod 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

Typ_FZ_Ped 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

Typ_FZ_MUW N/A 2'-0" 2'-0"

179

Main

9'-0"

1'-0"

180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191

Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main/131st Main/131st Meadowlark Park Trail

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" N/A

N/A 2'-0" N/A N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0"

192

Medalist

9'-0"

N/A

193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217

Meridian Corners Meridian Crossing Meridian Crossing Meridian Crossing Monon Monon Monon Trail Montcalme/Meeting House New 121st New 126th New Ditch New Gramercy New Illinois New Legacy New Legacy 2 New Montcalme North West Park Trail Oak Ridge Oak Ridge Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian Old Meridian

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" N/A N/A N/A 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" N/A 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

2'-0" 2'-0" N/A N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

218

Oldfield/Woodcreek

9'-0"

N/A

219

Pebble Brook/Northwood

9'-0"

N/A

220 221 222 223 224 225

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 1'-0" 0'-6" 1'-0"

2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0" N/A

Typ_MUW N/A 12'-0" 12'-0" shared roadway N/A 12'-0" N/A N/A 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A 12'-0" shared roadway 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A N/A 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" N/A 10'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" N/A N/A 10'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A shared roadway shared roadway 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A 10'-0" N/A

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 5 Table b. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248

Typ_CHZVTW 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

Typ_CHZMod 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0"

Typ_FZ_Ped 1'-0" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" N/A 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

Typ_FZ_MUW N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A N/A 2'-0"

249

Smokey Ridge

9'-0"

N/A

250 251

Smokey Row Smokey Row

9'-0" 9'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6"

2'-0" 2'-0"

252

Spotswood Extention

9'-0"

N/A

253 254 255 256 257 258

Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill Spring Mill

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6"

2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0"

259

Spruce

9'-0"

N/A

260

Spruce/Wedgewood

9'-0"

N/A

261

Stonewick/Pebble Pointe/Bahill

9'-0"

N/A

262

Stratford

9'-0"

N/A

263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273

Towne Towne Towne Tuscany US31/Meridian West West Clay Trail West Park Trail Westfield Westfield Trail Westfield/Monon Connector

9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" N/A 0'-6" N/A N/A 0'-6" N/A N/A

2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" N/A 2'-0" 2'-0"

274

Westwood

9'-0"

N/A

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Typ_MUW N/A 10'-0" 12'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" N/A N/A 10'-0" shared roadway 10'-0" 10'-0" shared roadway 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A 12'-0" 12'-0" shared roadway

Recommendations 2

PAZ

Pedestrian Activity Zone

Frontage Zone

Pedestrian Way

Separation Zone

BTW

Bus Transit Way

SPZ

Street Parking Zone

Bicycle Way

VTW

Vehicle Travel Way

CHZ

Clear Height Zone

Map 5 Table c. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes Abbreviation Key

Identifying number from 1-274 of the alphabetical name listing of the corridor segment

ID:

Name:

Alphabetical listing of the corridor segment

Typ_PAZ

Indicates whether there should be a Pedestrian Activity Zone - ranging from restricted to allowed to transitional (i.e. upon developing need) to encouraged

Typ_PW

Indicates Pedestrian Way (e.g. sidewalk) recommended minimum width (in feet) for the typology

Typ_SPZsha

Indicates Street Parking Zone recommended minimum width (in feet) if it is shared with the Vehicle Travel Way for the typology

Typ_SPZnsh

Indicates Street Parking Zone recommended minimum width (in feet) if it is not shared with the Vehicle Travel Way for the typology

Typ_SZ

Indicates Separation Zone recommended minimum width (in feet) for the typology

Map 5 Table c. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID (1-274) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Name 103rd 103rd 103rd 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 111th 111th 111th 111th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th

Typ_PAZ transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional encouraged transitional transitional transitional transitional encouraged transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional encouraged encouraged transitional transitional transitional

Typ_PW 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0"

TypSPZsha N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10'-6" N/A N/A N/A N/A 10'-6" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TypSPZnsh 8'-0" 7'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A 7'-0" 7'-0" N/A N/A N/A

Typ_SZ 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'/10' 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'/10' 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 5'/7'/20' 5'/7'/20' 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0"

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 5 Table c. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID (1-274) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Typ_PAZ transitional transitional transitional transitional encouraged transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional allowed transitional transitional transitional encouraged transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional allowed allowed allowed allowed allowed allowed allowed allowed transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional encouraged transitional encouraged transitional transitional transitional transitional

Typ_PW 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 6'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" shared roadway 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5'-6" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 5'-6" 8'-0"

TypSPZsha N/A N/A N/A N/A 9'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10'-0" N/A

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

TypSPZnsh N/A N/A N/A N/A 7'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" N/A N/A 7'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0"

Typ_SZ 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7' (14'wBTW) 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'/10' 7'/10' 7'/10' 7'/10' 7'/10' 7'/10' 7'/10' 7'/10' 1'/10' 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 5'/7'/20' 7'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 1'/10' 7'-0"

Recommendations 2

Map 5 Table c. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID (1-274) 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Typ_PAZ transitional allowed encouraged allowed allowed transitional encouraged encouraged transitional transitional transitional encouraged transitional transitional encouraged transitional allowed allowed transitional transitional transitional encouraged transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional encouraged allowed encouraged allowed allowed allowed allowed encouraged allowed transitional encouraged transitional allowed transitional transitional transitional allowed allowed allowed transitional encouraged transitional transitional

Typ_PW 8'-0" shared roadway 10'-0" shared roadway shared roadway 5'-6" 10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" shared roadway shared roadway 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 6'-0" 10'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 10'-0" 6'-0" 5'-6" 10'-0" 5'-6" shared roadway 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway 8'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0"

TypSPZsha N/A N/A 10'-6" N/A N/A 10'-0" 10'-6" N/A N/A N/A N/A 10'-6" N/A N/A 10'-6" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9'-0" 10'-6" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 10'-6" 9'-0" 10'-0" 10'-6" 10'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10'-6" N/A N/A

TypSPZnsh 7'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A 7'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0"

Typ_SZ 7'-0" 5'-0" 7'/10' 5'-0" 5'-0" 1'/10' 7'/10' 7' (14'wBTW) 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'/10' 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'/10' 7'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 5'/7'/20' 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7' (14'wBTW) 5'-0" 7'/10' 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 7'/10' 5'-0" 1'/10' 7'/10' 1'/10' 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'/10' 7'-0" 7'-0"

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 5 Table c. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID (1-274) 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

Typ_PAZ encouraged transitional encouraged transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional allowed encouraged allowed transitional

Typ_PW 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 5'-6" shared roadway 6'-0" shared roadway 8'-0"

TypSPZsha N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10'-0" N/A 9'-0" N/A N/A

allowed

shared roadway

N/A

8'-0"

5'-0"

allowed allowed allowed allowed transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional encouraged transitional allowed allowed allowed allowed allowed transitional encouraged allowed allowed allowed allowed allowed allowed allowed transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional encouraged transitional

shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" shared roadway N/A N/A N/A shared roadway 8'-0" shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0"

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7'-0" N/A

5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7' (14'wBTW) 7'-0" 5'-0" 7'/10' 7'/10' 7'/10' 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 5'/7'/20' 7'-0"

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

TypSPZnsh 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0"

Typ_SZ 7' (14'wBTW) 7'-0" 7' (14'wBTW) 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 1'/10' 5'-0" 7'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0"

Recommendations 2

Map 5 Table c. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID (1-274) 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

Typ_PAZ encouraged transitional transitional encouraged transitional transitional encouraged encouraged transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional encouraged encouraged allowed transitional transitional encouraged encouraged encouraged encouraged encouraged transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional encouraged encouraged transitional encouraged transitional encouraged transitional encouraged encouraged transitional encouraged encouraged allowed allowed transitional transitional transitional encouraged transitional encouraged

Typ_PW 10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" shared roadway 5'-6" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" N/A shared roadway 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 5'-6" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 6'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 5'-6" 10'-0" 10'-0" 5'-6" 10'-0" 10'-0" shared roadway shared roadway 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0"

TypSPZsha 10'-6" N/A N/A N/A 10'-0" N/A N/A 10'-6" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10'-6" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A 9'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A 10'-0" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-0" 10'-6" 10'-6" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TypSPZnsh 8'-0" N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A 7'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0"

Typ_SZ 7'/10' 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 1'/10' 7'-0" 7' (14'wBTW) 7'/10' 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'/10' 5'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7' (14'wBTW) 7' (14'wBTW) 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 1'/10' 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7' (14'wBTW) 7'-0" 7'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7' (14'wBTW) 1'/10' 7'/10' 7'/10' 1'/10' 7'/10' 7'/10' 5'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 5'/7'/20' 7'-0" 5'/7'/20'

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 5 Table c. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID (1-274) 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274

Typ_PAZ encouraged transitional transitional transitional encouraged encouraged transitional encouraged transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional encouraged transitional transitional transitional transitional encouraged encouraged transitional allowed transitional transitional allowed transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional allowed allowed allowed allowed transitional transitional transitional transitional allowed transitional encouraged encouraged allowed encouraged encouraged allowed

Typ_PW 7'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 5'-6" 10'-0" 10'-0" 5'-6" 10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" shared roadway 8'-0" 8'-0" shared roadway 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway shared roadway 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" N/A N/A 6'-0" N/A N/A shared roadway

TypSPZsha N/A N/A N/A 10'-0" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-0" 10'-6" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9'-0" N/A N/A N/A

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

TypSPZnsh 7'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A N/A 8'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" N/A N/A 8'-0" N/A N/A 8'-0"

Typ_SZ 5'/7'/20' 7'-0" 7'-0" 1'/10' 7'/10' 7'/10' 1'/10' 7'/10' 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7' (14'wBTW) 7' (14'wBTW) 7'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'/10' 7'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0"

Recommendations 2

PAZ

Pedestrian Activity Zone

Frontage Zone

Pedestrian Way

Separation Zone

BTW

Bus Transit Way

SPZ

Street Parking Zone

Bicycle Way

VTW

Vehicle Travel Way

CHZ

Clear Height Zone

Map 5 Table d. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes Abbreviation Key ID:

Identifying number from 1-274 of the alphabetical name listing of the corridor segment

Name:

Alphabetical listing of the corridor segment

Typ_VTWcrb

Vehicle Travel Way width in feet if there is a curb

Typ_VTWncb

Vehicle Travel Way width in feet if there is no curb

Typ_Spd

Indicates recommended speed limit for autos.

Typ_ROWmin

Minimum Right of Way in feet

Typ_LU_Int

Indicates land use intensity along the corridor segment from Low to High [1]

Map 5 Table d. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Name 103rd 103rd 103rd 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 106th 111th 111th 111th 111th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th 116th

Typ_VTWcrb 11'-0" 10'-0" 12'-6" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-6" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-6" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 10'/8' 10'/8' 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6"

Typ_VTWncb 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0"

Typ_Spd 30 20-25 35 30 30 30 25 30 30 30 30 25 30 30 30 30 35 35 35 35 25 25 35 35 35

Typ_ROWmin 90-105 50-60 130 90-105 90-105 90-105 60-90 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 60-90 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 130 130 130 130 120-140 120-140 130 130 130

Typ_LU_Int Med Low-Med Low-Med Med Med Med Med-high Med Med Med Med Med-high Med Med Med Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med High High Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 5 Table d. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Typ_VTWcrb 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 12'-6" 12'-6" 10'/8' 12'-6" N/A 12'-6" 12'-6" 10'-0" 11'-0"

Typ_VTWncb 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0"

Typ_Spd 35 35 35 35 20-25 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 15-20 30 30 30 25 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 30 20-25 20-25 35 35 25 35 Varies 35 35 30 30

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Typ_ROWmin 130 130 130 130 50-60 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 Varies 90-105 90-105 90-105 120 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 110-130 110-130 110-130 110-130 110-130 110-130 110-130 110-130 60-90 50-60 50-60 130 130 120-140 130 Varies 130 130 60-90 90-105

Typ_LU_Int Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Low-Med Med Med Med Med-high Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med High Low-Med Linear Park Low-Med Low-Med Med Med

Recommendations 2

Map 5 Table d. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Typ_VTWcrb 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-6" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-6" 12'-0" 12'-6" 11'-0" 12'-6" 10'-6" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-6" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 10'/8' 12'-6" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 11'-0" 10'-6" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-6" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-6" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-6" 10'-0" 11'-0"

Typ_VTWncb 10'-0" N/A 11'-0" N/A N/A 10'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A 10'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0"

Typ_Spd 20-25 15-20 25 15-20 15-20 30 25 25 35 30 35 25 30 30 25 20-25 15-20 15-20 35 35 35 25 35 30 30 30 30 25 35 25 35 35 35 35 25 35 30 25 30 15-20 30 30 30 15-20 15-20 15-20 20-25 25 20-25 30

Typ_ROWmin 50-60 Varies 60-90 Varies Varies 60-90 60-90 120 130 90-105 130 60-90 90-105 90-105 60-90 50-60 Varies Varies 130 130 130 120-140 130 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 120 90-100 60-90 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 60-90 90-100 60-90 60-90 60-90 Varies 90-105 90-105 90-105 Varies Varies Varies 50-60 60-90 50-60 90-105

Typ_LU_Int Low-Med Low-Med Med-high Low-Med Low-Med Med Med-high Med-high Low-Med Med Low-Med Med-high Med Med Med-high Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med High Low-Med Med Med Med Med Med-high Med Med-high Med Med Med Med Med-high Med Med Med-high Med Low-Med Med Med Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Med-high Low-Med Med-high

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Map 5 Table d. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

100

Typ_VTWcrb 12'-0" 12'-6" 12'-0" 12'-6" 11'-0" 12'-6" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 12'-6" 10'-0" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 10'/8' 12'-6"

Typ_VTWncb 12'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" N/A 10'-0" N/A 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 10'-0" 10'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0"

Typ_Spd 25 35 25 35 30 35 30 30 30 15-20 20-25 15-20 30 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 35 35 35 35 35 20-25 30 30 25 35 15-20 45 45 45 15-20 20-25 10 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 30 35 35 35 35 35 25 35

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Typ_ROWmin 120 130 120 130 90-105 130 90-105 90-105 60-90 Varies 50-60 Varies 90-105 Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 130 130 130 130 130 50-60 90-105 90-105 120 130 Varies 110-130 110-130 110-130 Varies 50-60 Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 90-105 130 130 130 130 130 120-140 130

Typ_LU_Int Med-high Low-Med Med-high Low-Med Med Low-Med Med Med Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Med Med Med-high Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med High Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med High Low-Med

Recommendations 2

Map 5 Table d. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

Typ_VTWcrb 10'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 10'-0" 10'-0" 12'-6" 12'-0" 10'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 10'-6" N/A 10'-0" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-6" 12'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-0" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-0" 10'-0" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 10'/8' 11'-0" 10'/8'

Typ_VTWncb 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" N/A N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0"

Typ_Spd 25 35 35 10 30 35 25 25 35 35 35 35 35 35 25 Varies 15-20 35 35 25 25 Varies Varies Varies 30 30 30 30 30 35 25 20-25 30 Varies 30 25 30 25 25 30 25 25 15-20 15-20 35 35 35 25 30 25

Typ_ROWmin 60-90 130 130 Varies 60-90 130 120 60-90 130 130 130 130 130 130 60-90 Varies Varies 130 130 120 120 Varies Varies Varies 90-105 90-105 60-90 90-105 90-105 130 120 50-60 90-105 Varies 90-105 120 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90 Varies Varies 130 130 130 120-140 90-105 120-140

Typ_LU_Int Med-high Low-Med Low-Med High Med Low-Med Med-high Med-high Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Med-high Linear Park Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Med-high Med-high Linear Park Linear Park Linear Park Med Med Med Med Med Low-Med Med-high Low-Med Med Linear Park Med Med-high Med Med-high Med-high Med Med-high Med-high Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med High Med High

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

101

Recommendations

Map 5 Table d. Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Attributes ID(1-274) 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274

102

Typ_VTWcrb 10'/8' 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-0" 10'-6" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 11'-0" 12'-6" 11'-0" N/A N/A 11'-0" N/A N/A 10'-0"

Typ_VTWncb 10'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A N/A 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" N/A N/A 11'-0" N/A N/A N/A

Typ_Spd 25 30 20-25 30 25 25 30 25 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Varies 30 30 30 30 25 25 30 15-20 30 30 15-20 30 30 30 30 30 30 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 35 35 35 30 45 30 Varies Varies 35 Varies Varies 15-20

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Typ_ROWmin 120-140 90-105 50-60 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 Varies 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 120 120 90-105 Varies 90-105 90-105 Varies 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 90-105 Varies Varies Varies Varies 130 130 130 90-105 110-130 90-105 Varies Varies 90-100 Varies Varies Varies

Typ_LU_Int High Med Low-Med Med Med-high Med-high Med Med-high Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Linear Park Med Med Med Med Med-high Med-high Med Low-Med Med Med Low-Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Low-Med Med Low-Med Med Linear Park Linear Park Med Linear Park Linear Park Low-Med

133

Carey

OFF THRU CONNECTOR ST

PLACEMAKING LOCAL

148

Ri v er

2 36

235

238

146

li s t

145

261

132

127

237

Gray

e rstic k 73

Modern Boulevard Social Street Pedestrian/Urban Pedestrian/Suburban Urban Link Suburban Link Quiet Street 0

218

Hav

162

138

( !

129

147

163

! (

96th

( !

Carmel City Limit

Commuter/Urban Commuter/Suburban Connector/Urban Connector/Suburban Modern Parkway Off-Street

0.25 0.5

§ ¦ ¨ I-69

Multimodal Corridor Typologies*

*Dashed lines represent proposed new roads.

128

ive

204

Westfield 271

! (

140

249

168

27 2

229

164

197

199

Monon Trail

111 109 108

! (

9 21

( !

Kingswood

( ! 71

( !

131

134

104

Aaa

106

Guilford 96

136

225 226

222

220

n ois

Ill i

242

21 7 21 4

224

223

267 205

253 3

Rangeline

211

Oak Ridge

255 257

Spring Mill 254

Pennsylvania

101 102

Clay Center 100

269 151

Towne 263

Hoover

sk i n/ Ga 270

il Tr a P ar k Wes t

Broad

ny ca Tus

230

258

116 118

209

248 245

247

Ditch

252

Shelbourne

268

West

244

153

265

246 166

117

256

206

126th

( !

173

11 9

! (

Ivy Hill 15

144

! "

174

171

177

! 19 (

139

es W

v ia n

Hazel Dell

! (

ire

! ( ( !

! ( 23

16 5

o ks h

130

B ro

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\Final Maps\100319_MMCorridor_0831.mxd

Nodes Phase 3

! (

207

Transit Center (Alternate)

Nodes Phase 2

e/ A

(Main !

Transit Center (Preferred)

Nodes Phase 1

Overview and tables specific to this map are found on the preceding pages. Corridor characteristics are listed alphabetically and by corridor segment ID. *[Table on page 40 lists node alphabetically and by ID.]*

! " ! " "!

( !

Nodes & Transitions ( Multimodal Transitions !

O " I "

! "

D el

tfo

The connectivity network is defined using the multimodal corridors shown here. The system development strategy is to encourage transitsupportive, walkable-scale density at these nodes through public space design guidance and targeted infrastructure investment.

rm Ca

ra St

The Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network map identifies Carmel’s existing and potential nodes and the connectivity network that will provide bicycle, pedestrian and transit access to and between them.

! (

! ( I-465

! "

170

155

! ! ( ( 221

! "

! (

idge 11 5 /D o v

( !

178

! "

(6 ! ( 106th !! (

r m el

! (

( 111th 15 !

( !

Hawthorne

! (

§ ¨ ¦

13 7

t u

117th

141

114

!! ( ( 16 ( !

421

( !

I "

! " ( ( ! ! (! ! (

22 (! !

D ee r R

( !

!City Center ( 16 110 ( !

189

! (

116th

O "

183

190

125

! (

! "

! ( ! (

! (

( 136th !

! (

"! !(

Main

! (

Hig

! (

! "

( !! ( ( 180!

21 (! !

( !

208

6 15

! (

rse! (t Bri ghton/Do

3 19 181

rail ld T

"! ( !

!185! ( (

Illinois

! (

13 5

t u

Spruce

120

tfi e

( 35 !

! (

136th

203

167

!e ! ( leb

! (

172

! (

273

3rd/4th

121st

Main

! (

! ( 31 ( ( ! ! ! Smokey Row ( 191 ( !

! (

169

200

! (

187

184

201

! (

202

" !

! (

1 2 4Gr ac e

188

! (

141st ( !

! " ( !

3! (

103

! (

8 19

! (

146th

Rohrer

228

6 Points

Carmel City Limit

1.5

District Typology Campus Central Business Transit Oriented Village Mixed Use Village Residential Regional Links 2 Miles

North

Multimodal Corridor and Public Space Network Carmel Multimodal System Plan DRAFT - April 16, 2010

This map is to be used for planning purposes only and should not be reprinted without the express written consent of the City of Carmel.

Implementation Strategies 3 Summary of General Implementation Recommendations:

OVERVIEW

The Carmel Multimodal System Plan is a regionally significant effort that builds upon components of the MPO’s Regional Pedestrian Plan and its Places Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Continue to create transit and nodally oriented Guidelines[1]. It also references the relevant neighborhoods. previous and on-going Carmel planning initiatives Utilize new development opportunities to effect which are in accord with the principles of current placemaking at neighborhood nodes. MPO work. This system plan informs local planning initiatives as well as regional planning such as the Long Range Transportation Plan and its public outreach component, Indy Connect [12]. Connections Connect to the regional transportation system; ensure continuation of the ICE Route in the near-term.

This system plan advances planning efforts for the City of Carmel, supporting a balanced and complete transportation network while providing Initiate a first phase transit system that serves specific recommendations for both regional and the Carmel core. local transit. The proposed system is oriented Continue expansion of bicycle and pedestrian toward livable places and it reinforces Carmel’s amenities, emphasizing connections to the vision of becoming a “City of Neighborhoods”. future transit system and neighborhood nodes. The neighborhoods, when linked by a multimodal transportation system, will become more Explore creating a branding and identity complete places. The plan proposes new program to support a sustainable multimodal facilities and amenities that promote the identity of system. neighborhoods and allow residents to more easily access goods and services, as well as to connect to other areas. A system that focuses on clustering of amenities and destinations at accessible nodes leads to improved quality of life and reduced cost of living. The proposed system is consistent with the promise of SmartGrowth, but goes further to add SmartThoroughfares. The plan re-envisions public infrastructure to better connect these smarter, more complete places to live, work and play. The plan has garnered a great deal of public support, with over 80% of the responding public supporting the principal node and corridor recommendations, as well as a regional transit connection, a core circulator, and more bicycle and pedestrian amenities, particularly in areas that connect to the transit systems. The respondents seem sensitive to cost, prioritzing rubber-tired

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 103 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies

systems. However, for local circulation, the public This Chapter seeks to describe implementation was also open to more sophisticated transit strategies for the system plan. It is organized as systems like Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or even rail follows: transit should it be cost-effective.

Chapter Organization

This document has been structured in a way that facilitates its use by many departments, not just Phasing Recommendations planning and engineering. The Carmel Multimodal Potential Funding Resources System Plan has achieved its mission to develop Action Plan a community-based transportation plan that provides policy guidance to integrate and balance traditional and multimodal transportation facilities with both existing and desired land use patterns, supporting sustainable development and improved quality of life. The recommendations presented in Chapter 2 were defined by the related goals of economic development, transit and mode shift, active living and green infrastructure. Recommendations were also presented relating to the application of the Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines [1], which use facility design to realize the mission of the system. Incremental project development will help to achieve the goals outlined in the plan. Some projects will address one goal area more specifically, others will likely advance them all. The plan can be revised and updated to adapt to the City’s transportation vision as it moves forward. The ability to adapt and connect as new and potential developments come on line is as important as the plan presented herein. The plan encourages continuation and completion of the leading edge facilities currently underway and encourages additional development. The plan supports Carmel’s drive to be a leader among its peer cities.

104

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies 3 PHASING RECOMMENDATIONS

2 "!

! "

"! "!

! "

O "

! "

I "

"! "!

! "

"! " !

! "

The realization of system plan recommendations can have many forms and time frames. Certain steps are critical to the process. Moving from the conceptual level of system planning towards implementation of an operating system (especially with respect to the transit component) will require a closely choreographed strategy of parallel actions.

Development Phases North

Proposed circulators, connection to regional transit and phase (1-3) of their implementation.

Summary of Phasing Recommendations

Suggests the best order for targeted area development, including nodal development and placemaking corridors to accommodate the nodal development

Phase I - City Center Circulator and associated Nodes and Corridors

Carmel-3rd, N. College, Old Meridian Center {proposed transit center}, Old Meridian North, Old Town, Performing Arts Center

The Plan Recommendations delineate three development phases, grounded in the assumption that a regional transit connection is secured first. Phase I The first phase recommends implementation of a City Center Circulator and continued development of the transit stop nodes and multimodal corridors. This recommendation is reinforced by feedback from the public input process.

This first phase envisions a central circulator that connects the closely spaced destinations of Phase 2 - Add Monon Center and Clay Terrace Carmelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s developing core area, including the Artâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Circulators and associated Nodes and Corridors District and City Center. Reinforcing the nodes Clarian, Clay Terrace, Central Park West-Monon Center, by focusing walkable-scale development and the Education Center, Gramercy-Merchant Square, Heart Centerclustering of amenities supports the convergence Parkwood, Homeplace. of multiple transportation modes and transit ridership. If the development infill that is currently Phase 3 - The Outer Areas of Carmel planned and in progress in the city core becomes Carey, Creekside, Haverstick-96th, Hazel Dell, Lakeshore96th, Legacy, Meridian Corners, Oak Ridge, Mohawk-Gray, occupied, there should be sufficient intensity Oak Hill, Southeast Carmel, Shelborne, Smokey Row-6 to support a first phase transit circulator with a Points, West Clay Village, Woodland-Gray sufficient ridership pool. Recommended nodes include: Carmel-3rd, North College (alternate transit center location), Old Meridian Center (preferred transit center location), Old Meridian North, Old Town, and the Performing Arts Center. The supporting placemaking corridors provide multimodal connectivity appropriate to an increased intensity of mixed use residential and retail land uses. Proposed placemaking corridors

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 105 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies

include: the Range Line/3rd Avenue pair, Main investment. Permitting and review processes Street, Old Meridian Street, Pennsylvania Street, should ensure that the development follows the and Carmel Drive. recommendations of the system plan, including sufficient infrastructure and connection capability Phase 2 to engage the multimodal system as it develops. The second phase is envisioned as reinforcing Reinforcing activities should include placemaking the employment and retail destinations outside and where possible, neighborhood revitalization the city core. The Monon Center and Clay Terrace that engages neighborhood organizations, and circulators, and their associated nodes and multimodal corridor development. Scheduled corridors expand the city core. maintenance and other capital projects are also envisioned as opportunities to implement The Monon Center circulator connects the US 31 system plan recommendations or elements of the business corridor, Clarian complex, hotels and recommendations as opportunities arise. the Monon Center to the regional transit center and downtown core. The Clay Terrace circulator connects Clay Terrace, the Education complex on Main Street, and the Gramercy/Merchant Square neighborhood. Recommended nodes include Clarian, Clay Terrace, West Monon Center, Education Center, Gramercy-Merchant Square, Parkwood-Heart Center, and Homeplace. Phase 3 The third phase envisions nodal development based on a bicycle-scale development pattern. As the neighborhoods develop, reinforcing the neighborhoods with transit nodes and supporting amenities will provide nearby destinations for short trips. This phase will benefit from the success of the previous phases. Thus, the best return for development in these areas is generally after the other phases. Recommended Nodes include Carey, Creekside, Haverstick-96th, Hazel Dell, Lakeshore-96th, Legacy, Meridian Corners, Oak Ridge, MohawkGray, Oak Hill, Southeast Carmel, Shelborne, Smokey Row-6 Points, West Clay Village, Woodland-Gray. Opportunistic Development System plan implementation can benefit from developer-driven projects and private development with supporting public infrastructure

106

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies 3 Phasing Considerations for Transit

Transit Technology Systems include: Bus Transit System (BTS): A Bus Circulator system is a smaller-scaled variant of the Bus Transit system focused on serving and linking existing and developing nodes including smaller places.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): BRT is a higher capacity system that emulates light rail or subway systems with reserved Rights of Way, atgrade entry “stations”, but uses existing streets, rubber tires and vehicle capacities tend to be lower.

Rail Options: Streetcars, rail trolleys or even Light Rail Transit (LRT) can work well along certain corridors and circulation routes. LRT lines are not usually separated from other traffic for any extent, and LRT vehicles often run alongside auto and pedestrian traffic [12].

Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) or monorail is a high capital cost but operationally efficient system that works well in high density core areas or between relatively close spaced nodes.

Transit was one of the emphasized components of this system plan. It is also one of the more complex elements to implement. Consequently, special considerations for transit are examined. The various transit technologies work best when they are integrated and accommodate each system’s strength, tailored to their service area characteristics. Costs and performance are dependent on many variables and assumptions, each typically having a situation where it is the best performing and/or most cost-effective. Bus Transit System (BTS), a traditional rubbertire system, uses smaller vehicles for operating economies and less environmental and roadway impact (if using an existing road network). It tends to suffer from high operational costs, but can also be a relatively low overall cost extension of a more comprehensive system. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has slightly less route flexibility and slightly higher capital costs than a traditional bus system, but slightly lower operational costs. It offers much more efficient boarding, and better headways. BRT has more route flexibility and lower capital costs than a rail system, but higher operational costs. BRT has the potential to be extended as a commuter system to other regional nodes and downtowns, but for that scale of operation, needs to be systemcoordinated on a regional, intergovernmental basis. Rail options have higher capital costs than BRT, but lower operational costs. An advantage of a fixed rail route is that it encourages private investment in higher density and mixed use development at targeted locations along the route. Various funding mechanisms keyed to transitoriented development can help fund both system capitalization as well as operations. Modern rail cars are clean, quiet, and have a progressive “green” image that further differentiates them from “ordinary” rubber-tire transit. Rail has the potential

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 107 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies

Technology

Vehicle Capacity

Min. Optimal Stop Spacing (ft)

Reliability/ Image

A. BTS

40-55

1000

Variable

B. BRT

60-100

2500

Good

C. Rail

70-250

2500

Excellent

D. AGT

45-100

2500

Excellent

Key Parameters for Typical System Performance General Transit Technology Types [3,12]. (Values vary depending on details of operation)

Technology

System Performance

Initial Investment Cost

Line Capacity (spaces/hr -000)

A. BTS

Low

3-6

B. BRT

Med

6-24

C. Rail

Med-High

$$$

10-24

D. AGT

Med-High

$$$$

6-16

System performance, relative order of magnitude startup capital costs and optimal line capacity in thousands of passenger spaces per hour for the same general transit technology types [3,12]

to be extended as a commuter system like BRT, but has limitations with rail interconnections. For a local circulator in Carmel, streetcar is probably the best operating scale of the rail options. Though it has the highest capital costs, newer above ground Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) and Personal Automated Transit (PAT) and subway systems have low operational costs. The principal advantage for AGT, PAT or subway is that it can pass over or underground, avoiding surface intersections and congestion-induced delay, as well as allowing development at ground-level. Nonetheless, these technologies appear beyond the scope of the Carmel context. Transit System Types While any of the transit technology types listed in the adjacent tables could be applicable to the Carmel Multimodal System Plan and its regional connections, certain types have clear operational advantages when paired to the routing concepts developed in this study. The proposed system is a series of destination-oriented loops that converge or overlap at land use intensity nodes, one of which is proposed as a regional transit center. The relatively short loops (3-6 miles) allow acceptable headway times (not greater than 15 minutes) with the fewest number of vehicles (not less than 2 per route), implying a circulator type vehicle if rubbertire, or a trolley or streetcar, if a fixed rail system. The regional transit technology being explored for the area (Indy Connect) is a combination of BRT and BTS split between express and other (including reverse) commuter functions for cost effective near-term ridership and node development. Long-term regional transit mode selection could include newer BRT technologies and/or modern streetcar/light rail. This will be closely tied to regional transit decisions regarding routes and vehicle types. Carmelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stake in those decisions is vital to its future strategy to become a strong regional center in a constellation of such centers. These centers should be deployed logically around and be transit-connected to the

108

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies 3 Carmel City Department Roles:

Planning: develop strategic action plans and policies to implement the plan.

Indianapolis regional center but with effective connections to its counterparts as well.

This report is supportive of a proposed BRT, considered as part of a scalable regional BRT system in which dedicated routes and fixed stations (similar to light rail) are developed over Utilities: place utilities underground where possible, and time. However, it is the recommendation of this out of the multimodal corridors. Carmel Redevelopment Commission: facilitate the urban plan that a streetcar/rail system be considered for the core circulator route accessing City Center re-development of intense mixed-use at proposed nodes. and the Art and Design District nodes offering opportunities for more intense transit oriented Parks: manage the pedestrian and bicycle system, and facilitate the green infrastructure components of the development. A regional extension that exploits multimodal corridors. the former interurban/streetcar corridor along Community Relations: promote regional links and local College Avenue south of the Carmel core area incentive programs. should also be prioritized. This would allow Urban Forestry: manage the green infrastructure connection to Broad Ripple and Westfield in components of the multimodal corridors in partnership addition to the Indianapolis Downtown to increase with the Parks Department. ridership, cross traffic, and access to other key GIS Services: maintain the data sets for multimodal destinations of Carmel residents and those who facilities. travel to Carmel. Connections to the Northeast Related Organization Role: Rapid Transit Corridor should also be prioritized.

Engineering: develop supporting infrastructure and plan future infrastructure not to hinder the plan. Measure existing movement systems and set up measurement systems as multimodal facilities are implemented.

Carmel Clay Schools: utilize multimodal system in lieu of school bussing as the transit system expands. Promote “walk-to-school” and “bike-to-school” programs.

As part of the transit system and the related development, placemaking streets should develop at these transit nodes. Other connections should Partners, Agencies and Initiatives be made at the nodes, including bike share Federal Transit Administration (FTA), facilities, bike parking, safe street crossings, other Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), bicycle and pedestrian amenities, and taxi stops. Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo), Improvements should also integrate development Central Indiana Regional Trransportation Authority opportunities with enhanced streetscape (CIRTA), elements, public art, and green infrastructure to Hamilton County Transit (Janus), create green networks that provide environmental Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), benefits (stormwater, air quality, etc.).

Central Indiana Commuter Services (CICS),

Health by Design (HbD),

Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),

Indy Connect Initiative,

Town of Westfield,

Town of Fishers,

Hamilton County,

Boone County,

Marion County

Broad Ripple/Historic Midtown Initiative (HARMONI).

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 109 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies

POTENTIAL FUNDING RESOURCES

individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their employment, including:

The following information is excerpted from the National Transportation Database/ Glossary and is included here to provide background information on Federal transportation funding programs that may help to fund the implementation of the Carmel Multimodal System Plan.[http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ ntdprogram/Glossary.htm] “Federal Capital Assistance Financial assistance from the Federal Transit Administration to assist in paying the capital costs of providing transit service. Reporting manual reference: RU-20 Federal Government Funds Financial assistance provided by the Federal government to assist with paying the costs of providing transit services. Reporting manual reference: F-10 Federal Operating Assistance Financial assistance from the Federal Transit Administration to assist in paying the operating costs of providing transit service. Reporting manual reference: RU-20 Other FTA Funds Any FTA funds not reported as FTA Capital Program (§5309) and FTA Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307) funds [IndyGo is currently the only organization that can receive 5307 funds in the region]. These funds include: FTA Metropolitan Planning (§5303)

FTA Clean Fuels Program (§5308)

[FTA now includes a new project area called “Small Starts” (§5309), for project costs under $250 Million]

FTA Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Formula Program (§5310)

FTA Other Than Urbanized Area Formula Program (§5311)

FTA Research, Development, Demonstration and Training Projects (§5312)

FTA New Freedom Program (§5317)

FTA Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (§5320)

Interstate Transfer Program

FTA Job Access and Reverse Commute Formula Program (JARC) (§5316)

Financial assistance from §5316 of the Federal Transit Act. This program pertains to: Access to jobs projects for the development and maintenance of transportation services designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income

110

Transportation projects to finance planning, capital, and operating costs of providing access to jobs;

Promoting public transportation by low-income workers, including the use of public transportation by workers with nontraditional work schedules;

Promoting the use of transit vouchers for welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals; and

Promoting the use of employer-provided transportation, including the transit pass benefit program under Section 132 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Reverse commute projects for public transportation designed to transport residents of urbanized areas and other than urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities, including any projects to: e. Subsidize the costs associated with adding reverse commute bus, train, carpool, van routes, or service from urbanized areas and other than urbanized areas to suburban workplaces; f.

Subsidize the purchase or lease by a nonprofit organization or public agency of a van or bus dedicated to shuttling employees from their residences to a suburban workplace; or

Otherwise facilitate the provision of public transportation services to suburban employment opportunities.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds transferred from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) to FTA for transit projects. This program is to help improve air quality and to manage traffic congestion. Transferred funds may be used for capital expansion and improvements that increase ridership, travel demand management strategies, shared ride services, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Reporting manual reference: F-10, MR Introduction State Operating Assistance Financial assistance from any state agency that supports the operation of the transit system. It includes, but is not limited to: Tax levies — A specified amount from state levies that is dedicated to supporting public transit system operating costs.

General funds — Transfers from the general fund of state governments to cover the Local Share portion of the transit system budget.

Specified contributions — Contributed from the state towards the Local Share portion of the transit system budget.”

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies 3 Potential Transit Funding Applicable to the Carmel Multimodal System Plan Transit funding will be coordinated through the CMAQ (a suballocation of STP) and Job Indy Connect partners who served as advisors Access and Reverse Commute Formula throughout the planning process. These partners Program (JARC) may be appropriate funds for included the Indianapolis MPO, CIRTA and Circulator Route demonstration projects. IndyGo. General guidelines for potential funding resources include: FTA and/or MPO planning funds may be appropriate for an Alternatives Analysis or There are a number of possible funds or pools Transit Feasibility Study (the next step in of funds that could enable implementation most federally funded transit implementation of components of the system plan. These programs). The funding is competitive and are listed under Potential Funding Resources based on evaluation by a rating process of the on the facing page. It should be noted that FTA. all federal funds must be in the regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) managed by the MPO. The success of the regional Indianapolis Carmel Express (ICE) bus route means Carmel could qualify for Federal funding to continue the ICE route or replace it with a regional connection that could include other stops between Carmel and the Indianapolis downtown, for example, in Broad Ripple. The ICE demonstration project was funded by Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, which will be depleted by the end of December 2010, and cannot be renewed for this project. Local match funding for the Federal funds would need to be identified and funding would need to be coordinated with the MPO.

Proposed projects need to be identified in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) which considers projects through 2035. The LRTP is cost-constrained, so until other funding sources are identified, projects need to be identified as locally-funded (and funding must be proven). If no extra funds are made available at a local level, other projects must be taken off the LRTP to free up funds for the local planning agency. Cost estimates are usually conservative for LRTP projects since they are programmed in the future, but the LRTP is also amended yearly, allowing for adjustment of estimates and other funding sources.

Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds can be used for transit infrastructure and construction. These projects often have a longer implementation window since projects usually are undertaken chronologically upon acceptance.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

111

Implementation Strategies

ACTION PLAN

B.2 Coordinate with the MPO on a funding strategy that is supportive of the regional Possible implementation projects and action effort, while allowing a simultaneous local items are numerous. To assist Carmel with effort. prioritizing their activities and resources, a short list of strategies has been developed to establish B.3 Engage IndyGo and the Indianapolis Midtown Coalition (HARMONI) for discussion about momentum and lead to long term success. a possible rapid transit connection between Carmel, North Marion County and the Broad These are discussed relative to recommended Ripple area in Marion County and to facilitate time frames for their implementation: reverse commuting. Immediate Priorities: within one year B.4 Coordinate with MPO to apply for funding (e.g. JARC) to support an Alternatives Near Term Priorities: one to three years Analysis (transit feasibility study), which is the Mid Term Priorities: three to five years “next step” in most federally-supported transit On-going/Continuous/As Needed Activities funding applications. Additional Implementation Projects - to be determined based on progress of Near and Near Term Priorities Mid Term Priorities. B.5 Complete Alternatives Analysis, including interfacing with IndyGo, local transit providers, A. Adopt / Integrate Pertinent Plans and adjacent communities. B.6 Apply for funding for a downtown circulator.

Immediate Priorities

B.7 Develop transit incentives for employees. A.1 Adopt the Carmel Multimodal System Plan or integrate into Carmel’s Comprehensive Plan: B.8 Initiate rubber-tire starter circulator system for downtown core. the C3. A.2 Provide the recommendations from the Carmel Multimodal System Plan to inform Mid Term Priorities the MPO’s regional transportation plans, B.9 Plan for implementation of additional including Indy Connect, the Long Range circulators. Consider prioritizing either the Transportation, Plan, Bus Plan etc. Employment or Retail circulator. A.3 Adopt or integrate the MPO Multimodal B.10 Initiate first phase of infrastructure Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines improvements to support next phase of as a guidance document for the Carmel circulators. Multimodal System Plan. B. Position Transit System for Funding

C. Transit Center Design & Development Near Term Priorities

Immediate Priorities

C.1 Initiate education and branding activities to B.1 Ensure funding is allocated to maintain the support multimodal system, mode shift and ICE Route or a replacement regional express. transit center development. The success or failure of this effort will C.2 Initiate first phase of infrastructure indicate the degree of Carmel’s commitment improvements to support the transit-readiness to transit. of downtown corridors and nodes.

112

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies 3 Mid Term Priorities C.3 Pursue Transit Center and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Nodal Design: dependent on having recruited partners based on Education/Branding/Marketing campaign D. Green and Active Infrastructure Near Term Priorities D.1 Initiate downtown bike share program, increase bike parking facilities, and implement a bicycle amenity program.

F. Additional Implementation Projects Other projects are certainly possible, but they may be of lesser priority or more distant in timeframe. Examples of some of these implementation projects are shown below: F.1 Study market and design parameters to target land use components, businesses and infrastructure at the nodes to gain partners in and improve nodal development. F.2 Implement and monitor district nodes as rideshare sites consistent with CMAQ guidelines.

F.3 Individual nodal (re)development plans and D.2 Initiate a crossing upgrade program to strategies. support bike and pedestrian access to transit F.4 Measure mode shift as implementation of stops. recommendations occurs. Mid Term Priorities

F.5 Continue to add more pedestrian and bicycle (i.e. active) infrastructure.

D.3 Prepare modeling capabilities to validate F.6 Monitor effect of improved intermodal performance parameters (i.e. mode shift) to crossings on safety and efficiency for autos, enhance competitiveness for federal or state bicycles, pedestrians and transit. funding. F.7 Study the changes in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS E. On-going/As-Needed Activities public health measure for active living) as implementation of recommendations occurs. E.1 Opportunistic Node Development F.8 Monitor and model results of implementation Incorporate multimodal amenities and corridor with respect to CMAQ goals; studying in more recommendations into current (underway) detail the impact of green benefits. development like the City Center. F.9 Continue to preserve and reserve corridors E.2 Opportunistic Corridor Development and strategically located park facilities for green infrastructure, including the colocation When there is demand for on-street parking of natural stormwater management facilities. and street reconfiguration for a corridor identified in the system plan, initiate the F.10 Model impact of green infrastructure and/or requisite traffic and urban design study for mode shift on Hamilton County and regional corridor adaptation to support multimodality air quality goals. and land use intensity. The Range Line/3rd F.11 Monitor the impact on specific implementation Ave pair have been identified as a possible projects to confirm/correct model. candidate.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

113

Implementation Strategies

Building a Successful Multimodal System: Example Projects Four projects have been included with expanded descriptions to provide an example of how to build a successful multimodal system. These examples highlight how specific projects included in the action plan can relate to the overall development of the multimodal system. The projects chosen to be highlighted as examples are: 1. Transit Feasibility Study Component 2. Education and Branding Component 3. Transit Oriented Development Around the Transit Center Component 4. Modeling and Implementation Component.

Implementation Matrix The concluding Implementation Matrix cross references potential funding sources with Action Plan recommendations. The matrix shows details regarding the implementation steps, partners, scheduling, and funding sources. The matrix also shows the example projects and demonstrates how the example projects meet several of the implementation objectives. The Matrix can be found on page 123.

114

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies 3

BUILDING A SUCCESSFUL MULTIMODAL SYSTEM: EXAMPLE PROJECTS

Transit Feasibility Study Component For Carmel to move forward regarding the introduction of public transit into its overall transportation system, a transit feasibility study or alternatives analysis is critical. Understanding of routes, phasing of implementation, staffing, appropriate transit technologies, station siting, operation and overhead costs and so forth are all critical to move from a vision and willingness to proceed to an actual on-the-ground operation. Other complicating factors include integrating with other municipalities and the region as a whole. IndyGo and CIRTA are certainly a part of the effort. Funding [mentioned in the previous pages] may also be problematic, especially since early ridership takes time to develop. Janus, as discussed elsewhere (Appendix B), has already attempted a fixed route service that did not encounter enough success to maintain. Insurance also poses a challenge for Janus undertaking a fixed route service. Part of the way to avoid struggling in the early phase of transit implementation is the place-based approach that encourages better ridership at any given stop. In addition, an effective education/marketing/ branding campaign [See project 2] will make sure potential travelers are not only aware of the system, but also all the offerings of the system and how it could become a part of their regular travel routines.

A Transit Feasibility Study should examine the following: Coordination of local and regional transit Phases: Implementing service so that ridership can be built on the right scale, offering reliable, cost-effective service and demonstrating success Convenience: predictable, short wait times (headway), clear origin/destination linkage. Integration with emerging transit-supportive land use patterns. Simple, convenient fare system such as smart cards, with free zones and graduated introduction of fares from free to full (Electronic Fare Collection System) Lures and incentives: free for a year with use of distributed smart cards. Fare introduction as ridership locks in. Accompany with perks campaign for employers and incentives program for merchants. Subsidize through Economic Improvement District (EID) support as a prerequisite to specific loop implementation. Quality Transit Center and transit stop design with complete intermodal transfer facilities (e.g. bikes on busses, bike parking, taxis, park & rides).

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

115

Implementation Strategies Transit Feasibility Study Next Steps Determine the exact status for the Carmel ICE express and who the parent provider would be (e.g. IndyGo). Then, coordinate transit funding opportunities with the MPO. Examine funding match and partnering/administrative requirements for either the program or the grant/funding itself. Next, explore scope and cost to understand the details of the potential service. Questions to answer include, but are in no way limited to: 1. feasibilty of regional route coordination with IndyGo and CIRTA. 2. feasibility of local phase 1 and 2 circulators and to determine if there is the possibility of funding as single or separate phases. 3. study operational costs 4. boarding needs and potential to enhance ridership 5. route detail and fixed costs 6. scheduling detail and shift implications

Some component elements of a transit system (clockwise from upper left): shuttles, at-grade entry for express systems, intermodal stops with economic development

116

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies 3

BUILDING A SUCCESSFUL MULTIMODAL SYSTEM: EXAMPLE PROJECTS

Education and Branding Component As Carmel approaches decisions regarding the introduction of public transit into its overall transportation system, it might consider the concept of Transit as Experience in the design, branding, launching and promotion of a system. The large initial investment to establish a new system, its ongoing operating costs, and its strategic role in support of community development goals make it imperative that a new system attract significant ridership to be sustainable. Some ridership can be built by serving populations that lack access to personal transportation; the elderly, disabled, youth, or those that cannot afford personal vehicles. New populations inhabiting Carmel’s developing walkable mixed-use districts are another target. Ridership assumptions based purely on projected escalation of energy cost, however, have proven vulnerable to market volatility and unpredictable geopolitical issues, in spite of peak oil assumptions over the long term.

wayfinding guides, and their association with the intended image of Carmel as a Place is essential to the development of the overall system as the transportation mode of choice. This is deep branding. It is all about developing market share for a totally new product and service. Qualities of a sustainable public transit system to be congruent with and supported by effective branding: Convenience: predictable, short wait times (headway), clear origin/destination linkage. Graphically, smart fare cards should integrate with system wayfinding. An “experience” (writ large: EXPERIENCE) A positive, socially-conscious image Name/concept linkages: “Take the CAT” (Carmel Access Transit) or...... State of the Art fleet and route elements (design) that support the experiential/emotive/ cool

Thus, to develop near term sustainable dedicated ridership from the broader population will require Orchestrate/choreograph an associative Launch and build expectation: celebratory, part mode shift away from autos and making public of something bigger such as the Center for the transit a transportation mode of choice, i.e. a Performing Arts opening ..... or the Gramercy desirable and preferred alternative to personal development vehicle usage. To capture that population, public transit needs to approach or surpass the Coordinate with neighboring providers (e.g. IndyGo) so that one can move from one convenience, comfort, image and perceived system to another without switching cards or economics of personal vehicle usage. A transit paying different amounts. system needs to work well in all those aspects, and it needs to speak to that audience of potential users with an image that conveys those advantages in both a logical as well as an emotive appeal. It needs the substance of a functional, convenient transportation system. It also needs image; the look and feel of the experience, its desirability, and its congruence with users’ lifestyle aspirations. The integrated design of transit system elements such as vehicles, stops and stations,

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

117

Implementation Strategies

Examples One set of variations for naming the system, developing the brand, and creating acronym expressions

CDOT as generating idea for logo

The CAT as an acronym: take the “cat”, ride Carmel Access Transitways”

ccess Transit

A series of subsets based on vehicle and route types Applications: Vehicle, Smart Card, Route and bus stop markers, Maps

Education and Branding Next Steps

As a parallel activity to a system feasibility study, a naming and branding exercise would create a finite set of alternatives, and engage in stakeholder and public preference exercises to test responses to them. It would include specific vehicle types and well crafted graphic imagery of color, route associations, and the brand/name/logo applications to vehicle, stops, shelters stations, wayfinding elements and system maps and guides. Beyond graphics and names, vehicle types (to the detail of specific models) are extremely important considerations, as are the style and form of the architectural elements of stops, stations, and transit centers. Case Studies and Exceptional Examples from other successful systems of comparable scale, as well as of advanced vehicle types would be researched and then experienced on-site by decision makers.

Develop concurrently with vehicle selection consideration for an integrated system, including Advanced Public Transport Systems (APTS)

118

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies 3

BUILDING A SUCCESSFUL MULTIMODAL SYSTEM: EXAMPLE PROJECTS

Transit-Oriented Development around the Transit Center Component As Carmel pursues the implementation of a transit system, corresponding policies for land development need to be put in place. The Multimodal System Plan recommendations are predicated on reinforcing and developing focused development nodes to generate supportive transit travel demand.

The necessary land for a substantial multimodal Transit Center appears to be available at the preferred location at the intersection of Old Meridian and Carmel Drive. The available land has excellent siting for potential access to principal corridors like US 31 and Carmel Drive.

It is recommended that the City develop TOD The recent slowing of development investment zoning and a special area plan to leverage funding due to problems in the national economy has and define targeted development. at the nodes. created an opportunity for Carmel to get ahead of the intense development pressure it experienced Considerations include: in the early years of 2000. A sustainable transit center will also need to Leveraging existing and new development policies be congruent with, and supported by, effective can target specific land use goals for the proposed placemaking, marketing and branding. multi-modal nodes. Mixed-use development and Transit oriented intensification of the existing redevelopment is already underway in much of land uses around the proposed Transit Center the city core. The multimodal nodes should be should increase the pool of likely riders and reinforced by Transit Oriented Development (TOD) enhance economic development of the district. guidelines or regulations. Additional development intensity and infrastructure improvements will be Convenience: predictable, short walk times and wait times (headway), clear origin/ needed to successfully create transit-oriented destination linkage. development. These guidelines or regulations should be developed in tandem with planning Integration with emerging transit-supportive land use patterns and connections. for the core circulator and the commitment to the regional transit connection. An “experience” living in such a district. Development patterns can be reinforced to provide the intensity necessary to support the development district, the center and the transit circulators. Development needs to provide or allow the multimodal connection patterns that favor walking and biking. There is, for instance, sufficient right-of-way to implement a multimodal boulevard along Old Meridian Street, adding green infrastructure and pedestrian activity areas in proximity to the US 31 employment corridor, thereby promoting alternative destinations that can be accessed without a personal car.

A positive image: Cool people live and work in Carmel.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

119

Implementation Strategies Transit-Oriented Development Next Steps As another parallel activity to a system feasibility study, a study determining appropriate scale, development opportunities, siting and facility needs for a transit center itself should be undertaken.

Partnering with the current Providence Development around Old Meridian and some of the current and potential employers is a genuine Examples opportunity to gain support and should help Multimodal Center, Normal, IL - Targeted LEED Silver building, strengthen nascent projects in the district. combining parking, bike facilities, bus and rail.

Seeking development and transportation funding for the center, both from the public and private side, including the partners of the project, might help defray the cost of such development. Setting up a TOD Oversight committee with the partners is a good way to rally interest and support in moving forward.

Boise, Idaho Multimodal Center combining bus, streetcar and bicycle.

120

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies 3

BUILDING A SUCCESSFUL MULTIMODAL SYSTEM: EXAMPLE PROJECTS

Modeling and Implementation Component Carmel can take advantage of their progressive landscaping initiatives to ensure implementation of the green infrastructure recommendations during road infrastructure implementation projects. However, it is important that green infrastructure initiatives be integrated into the work programs of other City departments.

Modeling and Implementation Next Steps Possible projects and steps when implementing a sustainable green infrastructure system: Coordination of green infrastructure based on the Corridor Typology system. Monitor its results. Stormwater management plan taking advantage of the corridor and park network recommended by the Carmel Multimodal System Plan

Example of a monitoring system to detect before and after use along a trail [4,5].

Set up monitoring system(s) to detect impacts before and after implementation of recommendations. Coordinate with funding opportunities for green infrastructure. Coordinate with Regional Air Quality modeling and monitoring along with other aspects of a sustainable green infrastructure system (e.g. stormwater quality, heat island reduction).

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

121

122

Implementation Strategies

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

Implementation Strategies 3

Funding Matrix Priority Project A. Adoption and integration of pertinent plans A.1 Adopt/integrate CMSP A.2 CMSP as tool for MPOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regional transportation plans A.3 Adoption/integration of Multimodal Design Guidelines

Goal Area OA OA OA OA

B. Transit System Implementation B.1 Ensure funding support for ICE/Regional Express B.2 Coordinate with MPO/Region on funding B.3 Engage IndyGo and HARMONI B.4 Apply for Funds- Alternatives Analysis (transit feasibility study) B.5 Project 1. Transit feasibility study B.6 Apply for Funds- Downtown Circulator B.7 Develop transit incentives B.8 Initiate Downtown Circulator B.9 Plan to expand circulators B.10 Initiate infrastructure for new circulators

MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

C. Transit Center - Design C.1 Project 2. Initiate educ/branding -support transit C.2 Initiate infrastructure to support transit readiness C.3 Project 3. Pursue Transit Center and TOD Design

ED, MS OA, MS, ED MS, AL, MC ED, MS, MC

D. Green and Active Infrastructure D.1 Downtown Bike share and parking D.2 Crossing upgrade program D.3 Project 4. Modeling to validate performance

GI, AL AL AL GI, AL

E. On-Going/As-Needed Activities (applies to all projects) E.1 Opportunistic Node Development E.2 Opportunistic Corridor Development

All ED ED, MS, MC

Immediate

Near

Mid

AsNeeded

Abbreviations Key Lead Agency Carmel Carmel Carmel Carmel

Potential Partner(s)

X X

MPO,Carmel Carmel Carmel, MPO CIRTA CIRTA Carmel IndyGo Carmel Carmel Carmel Carmel

IndyGo, CIRTA, Janus, INDOT, CICS IndyGo, CIRTA, Janus, INDOT, CICS IndyGo, CIRTA, Janus, INDOT, CICS IndyGo, CIRTA, Janus, INDOT, CICS IndyGo, CIRTA, Janus, INDOT, CICS IndyGo, CIRTA, Janus, INDOT, CICS IndyGo, CIRTA, Janus, INDOT, CICS IndyGo, CIRTA, Janus, INDOT, CICS IndyGo, CIRTA, Janus, INDOT, CICS IndyGo, CIRTA, Janus, INDOT, CICS IndyGo, CIRTA, Janus, INDOT, CICS

FTA, JARC, Planning FTA FTA, JARC, CMAQ, Planning FTA, CMAQ, JARC FTA, JARC, CMAQ FTA, JARC, CMAQ FTA, JARC, CMAQ FTA, JARC, CMAQ

See pg 112 See pg 112 See pg 112 See pg 112 See pg 112 See pg 115-6 See pg 112 See pg 112 See pg 112 See pg 112 See pg 112

X X

Carmel Carmel Carmel CIRTA

Redev, IndyGo, CIRTA, CICS Redev, IndyGo, CIRTA, CICS Redev, INDOT IndyGo, CIRTA, CICS

FTA, STP, TE, EID FTA, SR2S STP, TE, EID STP, TE, EID

See pg 112 See pg 117-8 See pg 112-3 See pg 119-20

UF Carmel Carmel INDOT

Parks, UF, HbD IndyGo, CICS, HbD INDOT Carmel, Parks, UF, Capstone (IUPUI)

CMAQ RWJ Foundation SR2S, HSIP CMAQ

See pg 113 See pg 113 See pg 113 See pg 121-2

MPO,Carmel Carmel Carmel

IndyGo, CIRTA, Janus, INDOT, CICS Redevelopment, Private MPO, INDOT

CMAQ, JARC, FTA FTA, JARC, CMAQ STP, TE

See pg 113 See pg 113 See pg 113

X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X

Fund

CMAQ, JARC, FTA JARC, FTA

Comments/Notes See pg 112 See pg 112 See pg 112 See pg 112

F. Additional Implementation Projects F.1 Target nodal development F.2 District nodes as Rideshare sites

ED ED

X X

Redev CICS

Carmel Carmel

EID CMAQ

See pg 113 See pg 113

F.3 Nodal (re)development strategies F.4 Measure mode shift F.5 Continue to add more active infrastructure F.6 Monitor effect of intermodal crossings on safety

ED MS AL AL

X X X X

Redev MPO Carmel Carmel

Carmel Carmel HbD MPO, INDOT

EID CMAQ TE HSIP, SR2S

See pg 113 See pg 113 See pg 113 See pg 113

F.7 Reduction of BRFSS F.8 Monitor/Model CMAQ goals F.9 Continue to preserve and reserve corridors F.10 Model impact of green infrastructure F.11 Specific projects to confirm/correct model

AL GI GI GI GI

X X X X X

HbD MPO Carmel MPO Carmel

Carmel Carmel Parks, UF Carmel Parks, UF

RWJ Foundation CMAQ USDA RurDev, CDBG

See pg 113 See pg 113 See pg 113 See pg 113 See pg 113

CMAQ CMAQ

Indicates one of the Example Projects pages 115-22

Overall Mission

Economic Development

Transit Mode Shift

Active Living

Green Infrastructure

Multimodal Corridor Network

HbD

Health by Design

EID

Economic Improvement District

HSIP

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CDBG

Community Development Block Grant

SR2S

Safe Routes to School

FTA

Federal Transit Administration

JARC

Job Access Reverse Commute

CMAQ

Congestion Mitigation - Air Quality

Planning

Planning Funds from MPO

Transportation Enhancement

STP

Surface Transportation Program

RWJ

Robert Wood Johnson

RurDev

USDA - Rural Development

Urban Forestry

Redev

Carmel Redevelopment Commission

CICS

Central Indiana Commuter Services

BRFSS

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana

123 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Recommendations

Planning a Multimodal Region

124 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts Appendix A: Definitions and Concepts Contents

What is a Multimodal System What is a Multimodal System Plan What is Place-Based Transportation What is meant by Multimodal Places What is meant by Multimodal Connections Why use Place-Based Transportation What are Green Infrastructure and Active Living How is Place-Based Transportation used

How does Place-Based Transportation relate to SmartCode How is the Multimodal System Plan Modified For the purposes of this study, a multimodal system consists of four modes of transportation: pedestrian, bicycle, transit and automobile. Pedestrians – the beginning and end of all trips. Typical trip range – 0-2 miles Optimum trip = < ¼ miles Typical speed – 2-4 mph Bicycles – a non-motorized vehicle for personal transportation. Typical Trip Range – 0-5 miles Optimum Trip = < 2 miles Typical Speed – 5-15 mph Local buses and transit – a fixed route vehicle servicing many people and select destinations. Typical trip Range – 1-10 miles Optimum trip = 0-1 transfers Average speed – 15-20 mph Regional buses and transit – a fixed route vehicle servicing fewer people and select destinations. Typical trip Range – 5-30 miles Optimum trip = 0-2 transfers Average speed – 25-40 mph Local automobile trips – a motorized vehicle for personal and small group transportation. Typical trip range – 0-5 miles Average speed – 10-25 mph Regional automobile trips – a motorized vehicle for personal and small group transportation. Typical trip range – 5-20 miles Average speed – 25-45 mph

INTRODUCTION Definitions and Concepts This Appendix is provided to introduce and explain some of the formative ideas and concepts behind the development of the Carmel Multimodal System Plan. For those already familiar with these concepts, Chapter 2 deals specifically with the Carmel Multimodal System Plan.

WHAT IS A MULTIMODAL SYSTEM? A multimodal system is a transportation network that creates opportunities for multiple means of transportation between specific locations or places within the area served. A system becomes optimal when all kinds of destinations: home, work, shopping, entertainment, etc., can be accessed by alternate methods of travel within a reasonable time. With all the possible methods of traveling from one place to another, there are natural conflicts that exist between these alternatives. Most people have experienced some of these conflicts: walking on a sidewalk and being passed by an oncoming cyclist, riding a bike and trying to negotiate streets in heavy vehicular traffic, walking along a busy street that has no sidewalk, driving to work and getting delayed behind a stopped bus. A multimodal system aims to resolve many of these fundamental conflicts by designing travel ways that support multiple modes and prioritizing modes based on the places they serve. Modes can be prioritized as a function of development and land-use patterns. One can easily observe that, in a quiet residential neighborhood, drivers will naturally slow and make way for people walking. Drivers exhibit a similar response to pedestrians in highly populated urban centers. The opposite is true along suburban thoroughfares where driving speeds are high and motorists may not be aware of people walking or waiting to cross. Travel behaviors can be modified through system design, especially when designers are conscious of these natural tendencies of drivers and the needs of other modes. A multimodal system interacts with development patterns and influences travel behaviors. A multimodal

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

system becomes successful when a sufficient number of connections are established between areas that encourage a variety of mode choices and a synergy between modes; research indicates that providing a minimal network will bring about a shift of up to 10% to non-automobile modes. In some cities with mature multimodal systems that include rail (e.g. Chicago), it has been shown to have a mode split over 30% non-automotive, reducing automobile congestion and improving the quality of life so as to increase land values and local prosperity. To achieve this multimodal and in particular transit orientation, Place-Based Transportation allows for refocusing the emphasis on the multiple returns of a balanced multimodal system. Effective public transit systems require multiple technologies scaled, adapted to and supportive of evolving destinations, neighborhoods and districts, in intensity and land use. The choices lie with where those technologies are deployed and how they are prioritized such that they are effective, successful, and economically sustainable. A listing of the principal transit system types is included at right. Other technologies to mention include subways, which most people recognize. It is probably the most expensive technology and only viable with large ridership and high land values. A newer technology akin to AGT is Personal Automated Transport (PAT), which can take advantage of smaller ridership scales to access more destinations. It is, however, relatively expensive per rider. A myriad of variations and blends of technologies are offered worldwide. The various technologies work best when they are integrated and accommodate each system’s strength, tailored to their service area characteristics.

Transit Technology Systems include:

• A classic Bus Transit system (BTS) - A Bus Circulator system is a smallerscaled variant of the Bus Transit system focused on serving and linking existing and developing nodes (destinations or higher density residential areas) including smaller places. • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a higher capacity system that emulates light rail or subway systems with reserved Rights of Way, atgrade entry “stations”, but uses existing streets, rubber tires and vehicle capacities tend to be lower.

• Streetcars, rail trolleys or even Light Rail (LRT) can work well along certain exceptional corridors and circulation routes.

• Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) or monorail is a high capital cost but operationally efficient system that works well in high density core areas or between relatively close spaced nodes.

[Sources: Multi-Modal System Plan for the Indianapolis Regional Center, Indianapolis MPO; Healthy Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, The Streets of San Joaquin, Dan Burden et al., Portland, Boulder and Fort Collins]

Planning a Multimodal Region

2 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

WHAT IS A MULTIMODAL SYSTEM PLAN? Key Concepts of a Multimodal System Plan:

A system that emphasizes balance of all modes as components of a transportation system in service of place rather than automotive mobility with some alternatives.

A framework for regional transit that serves places around nodes, as growth centers, while reducing sprawl and congestion

A basis for planned transportation/land use integration that fosters “Smart Growth”, green infrastructure, and sustainable economic development

A “Complete Streets” approach to transportation that is scalable, from neighborhood and district to a multi-centric regional network

Case studies and trend projections show that continued growth in single-occupancy vehicle travel in peak travel periods will either exceed the capacity of most regional road systems, or force unsustainable expansion of the system at the expense of the quality of life and the integrity of the places that the system traverses and serves. Figure A.1 Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines like those adopted in the Indianapolis Region in August 2008 support System Plans.

Outcomes and Performance: The resulting balanced transportation system provides travel choice for transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes and creates the foundation for a green infrastructure benefit that supports an improved and more sustainable environment. The transportation system reinforces places as destinations and provides better siting of transit stations and stops. Multimodal Corridors define streetscape characteristics to improve transportation performance and the economic performance of adjacent land use.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

WHAT IS PLACE-BASED TRANSPORTATION (PBT)? Place-based transportation forms the visionary basis for organizing an integrated multi-modal transportation network that brings goods, services, jobs and people to places, and in the process adds value to those places. Place-based transportation operates on multiple levels: Places (Regional Performance Areas, Districts, and Nodes) and Connections (Corridors, Modes and Other Connections).

Core Principles for Places Place-Based Transportation focuses on serving the principal places to which people travel [Fig A.2]. These destinations are organized in walkable districts that range from a half-mile walking radius to a two-mile bikeable radius, with a node near the center that is the focus of district activity and transit access. The nodes are located to allow easy walking and biking access throughout the district. Nodes are the sites for higher mixed-use intensity by clustering goods and services, employment and living options, and efficient “park-once” transportation hubs for transit connections, bike ports, bike shares, taxis, and supporting transportation links.

Core Principles for Connections Place-Based Transportation utilizes an integrated multimodal transportation network with targeted performance criteria for efficiency of people movement, balance between road system and transit, and land conservation (See green infrastructure section).

Figure A.2 The map above is adapted from the Indianapolis Regional Pedestrian Plan which identified six types of “Pedestrian Districts”. These districts are the foundation for the mutimodal districts served by placebased transportation planning in the Indianapolis Region.

The Connection Network directly links the nodes, allowing multiple modes (namely car, transit, bike, pedestrian) to converge upon them. The network has a high degree of connection by achieving travel efficiency through proper spacing of facilities and undergoes a thorough evaluation to ensure a high level of performance.

Planning a Multimodal Region

4 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

What is meant by places? A place is really a description of the performance of spatial area. In PBT, the amorphous concept of a place is concretized into a district with specific boundaries and a specific center. There are different types and characteristics of districts, some with higher “intensity” of activity like Central Business Districts and some with less “intensity” like Village Residential Districts [see Fig A.3]. When a district is too large to be walkable, it is divided into subdistricts that are each walkable. For example, the Indianapolis Regional Center is defined as one pedestrian district with twentyfour walkable subdistricts. Different overlays or levels in a given district or subdistrict [Fig. A.4] are critical to defining and supporting it as a “place”. Figure A.3 A walkable districts concept diagram that illustrates an intensity gradient from the Indianapolis Regional Center to its edge and from it out toward the edge connecting to nearby districts.

Green Infrastructure Overlay - Interaction between built and environmental systems, this is the base level upon which all else is constructed. Ignoring the environmental impacts ultimately increases direct and indirect costs.

Road Infrastructure Overlay Co-location of principal utilities with roads, the transportation mode network, and emergency response, this network provides services directly to all extents of the district.

Economy/Land-Use Structure Overlay Efficient clustering of district destinations, this level assures that residents have easy access to goods and services to meet their daily needs. The network includes economic infrastructure, freight, the service-provision network (transit stop, bike share), information and education infrastructure, and occasionally utility infrastructure (e.g. Combined Heat-Power {CHP}/district power).

Vertical Structure Overlay Level that deals with builtspace intensity, it enables districts to change or grow over time without undermining the other levels. As demand for goods, services and people increases, accessible space for activities becomes more valuable driving costs and builtspace upward, while the costs per person actually go down. Wireless/cell/radio stations, wind/solar power can take advantage of this intensity.

Vertical Structure Overlay Economy/ Land-Use Overlay Road Infrastructure Overlay Green Infrastructure Overlay

Figure A.4 Shown above is a concept diagram that illustrates the reinforcing levels of planning and resource coordination within a walkable district.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

Districts and Subdistrict Criteria district, it is divided into walkable subdistricts. The subdistricts are essentially neighborhoods of the district. Each of the subdistricts has many of the characteristics of a district and placebased transportation treats them in a similar manner.

Multimodal districts may vary in characteristics and function but they should meet as many of the following criteria as possible:

Areas of economic, community, and historic significance and/or regional importance. These areas may support economic development, transit oriented development, Brownfield redevelopment, or other infill and mixed use projects that could employ the principles of new urbanism and green design to support multimodal transportation choice. Higher speed “Multi-Modal Thru Corridors” are located along district edges. High capacity “Multi-Modal Placemaking Corridors” occur at the center of the district. Transitional “MultiModal Connector Corridors” connect the two. “Multi-Modal Local Corridors” serve the balance of the district [Fig. A.5].

Each has a characteristic intensity of land use, with greater intensity at the center and along principal placemaking corridors and less intensity away from the center.

Each district should be or can be made to be walkable, have a definable center, and edge.

If the district is too large for a single walkable

Each (sub)district has a walkable center, and allows freight to serve its retail - possibly confined to the principal connector corridors [Fig. A.5].

Transition Typologies provide for transition between multi-modal corridor classes, district boundaries or both. Typologies include portals, traffic calming and roundabouts, among others.

Green Infrastructure – streetscapes that connect and extend park and open space systems, with systems for cooling streets and absorbing stormwater.

Accessible nodes in the center with clear relationship to the transportation system, anchored on a Placemaking Corridor Typology [Fig A.5].

Figure A.5 Place-based transportation - the relationship between walkable districts and corridor context.

Planning a Multimodal Region

6 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

Node Characteristics and Amenities within (Sub)District Districts and nodes are associated with other elements that help to define and create a sense of place, including: placemaking corridors, transit hubs, parking hubs, bicycle ports, multi-modal transition and green infrastructure, in addition to the land use intensity: Placemaking corridor – road segments of the greatest and most diverse activity within the (sub)district, usually characterized by: higher intensity than the rest of the district; easy parking accessibility; investment in pedestrian and bike amenities; green infrastructure; public spaces and public art; accommodation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes; highest concentration of trip destinations.

Transit stations, and hubs – a transit station is a stop with greater services and amenities and should be located at the node of a (sub)district. A hub is a station with the opportunity for transfer or where express routes stop. A transit station or hub is an optimal location for creating intermodal connections because they are at the center of walkable and bikable districts.

Parking hubs and bicycle ports – i.e. a park and ride location for cars and bikes, respectively. By creating park and rides in areas that have distinct character and desirable pedestrian amenities, auto and bike commuters will have the option of walking or using transit. Note: a bicycle port has shower and service amenities for bicycles that may also increase district visitation.

Access to centralized amenities like bike share, taxi stands, active recreation, neighborhood scale retail, restaurants or a library or school.

Figure A.6 A Node - establishing nodes at the center of each identified multimodal district or subdistrict is the first step to defining the multi-modal network because it establishes what the network must link to.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

WHAT IS MEANT BY MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS? Corridor Alignment Criteria

Key Loop Mode Descrip- Major Minor Crossing DensCategory tion Spacing Spacing (Hub) ity Interurban Key destAs viable Nodes station or inations and > 4 NA where Rail major MM or at least mi needed 1/city crossing

Multimodal alignment refers to a desire line connection between districts, one that does not specify a route to achieve the connection. A route is a specified series of linked corridors that completes the connection identified by the alignment. Multimodal corridors are dedicated street segments, or rightsof-way, that connect multi-modal districts via a prescribed route. For each connection area a series of candidate corridors that can meet these criteria are determined.

Light Rail

The preliminary selection of the primary alignments are determined based on examining the possible district and node linkages with respect to the Primary Alignment Factors listed on the facing page. Secondary factors that can contribute to candidate corridor evaluation for inclusion in the multi-modal system include qualitative and quantitative measures such as the Route and Corridor Determination Factors also listed on the facing page.

Network connectivity and spacing After alignments are identified, the number of crossings and connections must be determined. Figure A.7 offers design standards for assessing this connectivity. The preliminary selection of multi-modal corridor alignments, crossings and connections form a network framework. From the framework, the details and characteristics of the system are developed.

<10 sq mi

Change lines

Key dest- As viable At inations and > 1 least 1/city mi or ~ 4 mi

BRT

Destination Crosses lacking fixed rail transit transit or <8sqmi

1-3 mi

0.5-1 mi 4/ as per sqmi demand

Bus

Crosses <2 sq mi transit or BRT

.25 mi

1-3 40/ blocks/ sqmi sqmi

Bike

Bike Port at major Connects bike to bus destination

1-2 mi

<0.5mi

Ped

1 sqmi for Placemajor making hub 1/4 crossing sqmi for minor

50/ sqmi

1/2 mi for fixed 1/4 mi 50/ transit for bus sqmi stop

Figure A.7 Connectivity Table excerpted from the MultiModal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines [1]. Connectivity is a measure of modal spacing and looping.

Planning a Multimodal Region

8 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts Primary Alignment Factors:

District and node linkages – corridors were chosen to be in the network if they created key linkages between the districts and nodes and could accommodate at least three modes including the automobile (bike, pedestrian, or transit) based on right-of-way constraints. Plans and development proposals – planning documents were studied to determine which areas are planned to accommodate at least two modes in addition to automobile (bike, pedestrian, or transit) and represent a key link between the districts and nodes. Co-location – current conditions and plans were also examined for co-location of all three modes currently planned or accommodated in addition to automobile (bike, pedestrian, or transit). Corridors with this co-location were generally included in the system regardless of subdistrict linkage. Multimodality on these corridors contributes to the overall connectivity of all modes of the system. Stakeholder input – committees and focus groups brought experiential knowledge regarding the importance of certain candidate corridors and their desirability in creating a successful multi-modal system.

Route and Corridor Determination Factors:

Accessibility – accommodation of all types of pedestrians, bicycle and transit users, including the young and old, the experienced and novice, and the mobility challenged.

Connectivity – system completion to provide connections to civic/municipal, residential areas, schools, employment, shopping, recreation and open space resources.

Balanced transportation system – balance of vehicular needs with safe and comfortable pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities, ensuring that the modes mutually support each other to enhance the functionality of the corridor.

Environment and sustainability – respect for and enhancement of existing ecological systems and incorporation of sustainable practices into the urban design of the corridor. Consideration of air quality impacts, energy impacts, and other environmental considerations where data is available. Consideration of transportation impacts on adjacent land use with regard to noise, microclimate, light trespass, clutter, and visual quality.

Sense of place and response to context – leveraging of infrastructure improvements to become urban design opportunities for gateways and transitions between districts. Identification of historic or heritage elements in corridor design.

Equitable cost/benefits – assurance that the economic costs and benefits are shared among the different transportation modes and served populations.

Public engagement – provision of opportunities for residents and stakeholders to participate in the planning process; information provided by the public is documented and community values are incorporated into plan recommendations where possible.

Figure A.8 Example of an integrated multi-modal design in Amsterdam for corridor; basic and enhanced elements are integrated into land use and the built environment.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts WHY USE PLACE-BASED TRANSPORTATION? The advent of the automobile has provided personal freedom, increased housing choice and allowed the fruits of convenient distance travel to more people than ever before. Conventional transportation planning and engineering typically view the mobility of automobiles as an indication of a transportation system’s success. This practice has led to numerous problems, however:

Diminishing mode choice and transit It has deconstructed the places where we live, splitting neighborhoods with high speed, untraversable streets, forcing all movement to require an automobile, dispersing most of our destinations to separate, remote areas. This has led to sprawl and too much time spent in moving automobiles and levels of traffic congestion never before seen (annually over 3 billions hours in the US [19]). It has led to the marginalization of modes other than automobile and in particular transit, as well as to those who cannot drive such as the disabled, the elderly, children and those cannot afford a car.

Diminishing Health Children cannot walk anywhere requiring parents to drive them to their activities leading them to epidemic proportions of obesity and diabetes. Exercise must take place in the ever-diminishing discretionary time between work, school and required daily activities and thus rarely occurs. Travel environments have become increasingly hostile for pedestrians and bicyclists. Even if a traveler drives, the environment between the parked car and the destination is capacious and even dangerous.

Lost Economic Development Potential

Figure A.9 Problems associated with conventional transportation planning and engineering (from top): congestion, sprawl and “dia-besity”.

Corner stores and “third-place” hangouts have disappeared in favor of gas/convenience stores on the go and cellphone conversations while driving. Because the stores are so far apart, one store has to contain everything, distances prohibiting traveling to multiple stores to get exactly what the shopper needs. Within the diminished time left, eating must be done on the run.

Planning a Multimodal Region

10 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

Diminishing Green Infrastructure Because cars require increasing amounts of space â&#x20AC;&#x201C; more parking, wider lanes to accommodate higher speeds, longer routes to accommodate a new store even further away, there is less space for trees, streams and wildlife. Place-Based Transportation alters the focus of transportation planning and engineering from an emphasis on mobility to an emphasis on directing people, goods and services to places, supporting those places as viable, vital parts of the transportation network. By orienting toward places rather than corridors, less corridor length is required, less area dedicated to storing cars. Consequently, destinations are closer together allowing transit to access multiple destinations with every stop, improving the viability of transit. Walking is not an inconvenience, but an integral part of any trip and should be as pleasurable and safe as possible. Bicycling and transit extend the range of pedestrians to allow for more efficient, cost-effective travel when it is possible. As a pleasurable part of daily life, as it is in many cities, transit, biking and walking increase daily activity levels improving the health of all ages and abilities. When more potential customers congregate in pleasant, easily accessible areas, they form a market for niche stores, smaller retail, restaurants and entertainment activities â&#x20AC;&#x201C; activity markets currently underserved. Since multiple activities can be accomplished in one place or at one time, space is consumed less, allowing room for trees, streams and parks, which in turn improve the environment for walking, diminish the space dedicated to processing the side-effects of too much impervious surface like stormwater treatments and heat island induced cooling.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts WHAT ARE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND ACTIVE LIVING? Green Infrastructure What is green infrastructure? What are the needs of green infrastructure? Green infrastructure means different things to different people. Just as there are networks of streets or transit, there are natural networks that must be preserved and indeed integrated into the larger network pattern in order to optimize performance of all the networks [definition] – and that does not necessarily mean the sacrifice of one for the advantage of others. In fact, it is really only when needed networks are ignored that network performance is diminished. Networks work together as a fabric of movement channels that give purpose and place to each and reinforce each other. One of the easiest ways to appreciate the importance of green infrastructure is to understand what happens without green infrastructure: localized flooding, ever-increasing needs for expanding structural capacities (e.g. ROWs, trunk lines, retaining ponds, etc.), cities becoming heat islands and so forth. All of the these side-effects make places without green infrastructure so unappealing that people fear and move out of intense development patterns creating sprawl, undermining larger scale green infrastructure like agricultural and wilderness areas…Thus, green infrastructure diminishes energy and maintenance costs, reduces pollution, increases real estate value and enhances livability. Green Infrastructure benefrits from many types of networks including 1) Street Tree and Park Networks, 2) Water Infrastructure, 3) Pollution Generation Impacts, and 4) Active Living Structures.

Figure A.10 (from top) Green infrastructure from Urban to Rural.

Street Tree and Park Infrastructure – This refers to a fabric of well-distributed park space connected by a network of trails and streets with tree canopy. This network provides cooling channels and equitable access to parks and more – a cohabitation of multiple purposes. This network can provide savings from cooling buildings and heat island reductions, sequestration and processing of air and water pollutants, limiting greenhouse gases like CO2 and energy expenditures. Furthermore, tree canopy and building orientation can be managed in such a way as to improve heating or cooling by considering

Planning a Multimodal Region

12 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts solar access, windbreaks, deciduous and evergreen plantings, fountains and cooling parks depending on placement of the faciltity and its state during the time of year. The multimodal nature of the corridors provides non-polluting facilities that allow transportation without having to drive cars individually (see below). Water Infrastructure – Water obviously flows following natural contours. Traditional planning attempts to preserve the areas immediately adjacent to waterflows to avoid flooding and preserve water quality. Trails are frequently added along these riparian corridors because they are attractive and often more conducive to travel than automobile corridors. The riparian corridors along waterflows are spread naturally, carved by even rainfall over a given area. Trails and greenways exploiting this network will enjoy the same path of least resistance and even spread of the network. Utilities like stormwater pipes that co-locate will present easy access to lines without too much obstruction in the floodplain. This can help to avoid pumping stations and stopping automotive traffic during servicing. Open areas naturally inclined toward water processing offer opportunities for enhanced water processing (e.g. bioworks sewage treatment). Parks can serve as natural stormwater treatment areas which are valued by the public replacing large and expensive engineering solutions not valued by the public. This saves significantly on the need to increase stormwater management capacity if not eliminating the need altogether. By emphasizing tree canopy as the wind managing mechanism (see above) rather than togographical alterations or mechanical means, water can be channeled without being blocked by the chosen natural windbreak. The channels have to be there to begin with, however.

without getting back in the car. This is accomplished efficiently by making places – clusters of destinations where travelers can accomplish those things easily accessible by modes other than automobile. Hence, if a traveler is near a desirable place or has easy access to that place via non-polluting modes, there is less chance the traveler will take a car. This “placemaking” may induce trips i.e. more than the normal amount of trips, but as long as they are not via polluting sources or via less polluting sources, that results in a net “green benefit”, including improving health (see below).

Pollution Generation impact – Apart from the capture of pollution discussed in the street tree infrastructure section, the reduction in generation of pollution is a resulting benefit of good green infrastructure. If people are not using networks that pollute like driving a car everywhere, then the network is not merely beneficial to our health(see below), but also replaces pollutiongeneration with non-polluting means, providing a net pollution benefit. To do so requires not only facilities Figure A.11 Diagram showing relationship between some for alternative non-polluting modes of transportation, of the beneficial impacts of green infrastructure and green but the ability for travelers to achieve the things streetscape elements. they would otherwise take the car for – e.g. to buy or do things. Or, if they take a car, they can “park once” and can frequent multiple destinations on foot

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

HEALTH AND ACTIVE LIVING Active Living structure – Active transportation, that is transportation that is “human-powered”, i.e. pedestrian and bicycle, is critical to human health and reduces both economic and environmental costs. Green infrastructure enables access to open space (e.g. a child can walk to the park to play baseball), which in turn increases the likelihood of active recreation. Access to open space is important, but not enough to effectuate the necessary amount of active aerobic movement necessary for health – particularly because otherwise it requires extra time for already time-pressed people. Thus, active transportation must be integrated into the design and planned operation of places, so that it becomes a more regular activity. They also provide Figure A.12 Incorporating active transportation into safe routes to school where school children have quotidian activities is the most reliable way to improve the pedestrian-friendly facilities to get from home to school. health of communities. This enables alternatives to driving for possible nontraditional school hour activities (e.g. for conveyance home from after school activities and means to get to non-school time activities like football games). Other health impacts of green infrastructure nclude cleaner air, easy/safe connections for emergency vehicles and access to health care for those with limitations on travel capacity (e.g. elderly who cannot drive).

Planning a Multimodal Region

14 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

HOW IS PLACE-BASED TRANSPORTATION USED? Evaluating the performance of a multimodal system plan is critical to success. Place-based transportation analysis can identify and prioritize districts and nodes with respect to performance criteria such as transit center scale and multimodal capacity. Being a composite evaluation, the methodology comprises a number of subcomponent analysis techniques including place/node determination, connectivity and route analysis, and complete trip/network analysis.

1/4 Mile Walking Radius

# *

1/2 Mile Walking Radius

$ + + $

Office Sites

, %

Retail sites

Commercial LU

Orbiter Stops

Public LU

Bus Stops

Office LU

Mfg sites

Residential

Place/Node Analysis

Figure A.13 Sample Node Analysis

Places and the nodes that act as their funcitional centers compose the building blocks of successful regional structures including transportation. This analysis studies characteristics and locational performance against criteria like walkable district typology, transit hub importance, and generative capacity.

This sample neighborhood structure analysis shows evaluation of two different nodes - the one on the left displaying more neighborhood characteristics (defined center and edge) and the one on the right being more diffuse. Apart from best district structure, place-based transportation analysis entails other assessments including traffic management and district performance with respect to connection and land use.

Connectivity and Route Analysis This activity evaluates how places and nodes are connected and how multimodal routing and interconnection perform against criteria such as connectivity, critical spacing, functional priority and up to more than forty other criteria.

Complete Trip and Network System alternatives are tested for complete â&#x20AC;&#x153;doorto-doorâ&#x20AC;? routing on multiple paths and modes. This ensures that all paths are continuous and have a priority based on time-to-destination, hierarchy, and the interaction of the complete paths and the destinations.

Planned Timing Scale

Boner yes good med

22nd Yes Good med

Distance Sense to serve relative importance region placement wrt place Distance to nearby Core Corridor

n/a 11_25 med center .85mi PM

yes/yes 9_11 lo curr. edge/po .92mi PM

comm access capacity/time to Pkg/holding capacity MM access spacing/alignment ServiceConnection role Tgt Core Pop Tgt RingCore Pop Transit Types Intersection Density

1rt

1rt 6.4 100

4.3 140

3mode 4mode n/a 15775 COA, Orbiter COA 1600 2000 5000 6000 Shuttle Bus 316 185

Figure A.14 Sample Calculations

More than 70 analysis parameters are possible with Place-Based Transportation Analysis. Comparisons are quantitative, semi-quantitative and qualitative in a spreadsheet software routine. Comparisons can be modified to suit differing performance needs.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

HOW DOES PLACE-BASED TRANSPORTATION RELATE TO SMARTCODE? SmartCode is a concept from New Urbanists to understand the relationship between the built form to land use and urban patterns from urban to rural in the same way that natural landscape analysis covers changing ecosystems [18]. SmartCode benefits from this concept to regulate land use based on build form rather than separated land uses. This allows for mixed use and better places and helps to avoid the sprawl and congestion that result from the separation.

SmartCode and PBT is useful when undertaking a Place-Based Transportation project. Without entering into great detail, there are four principal â&#x20AC;&#x153;translationâ&#x20AC;? relationships: 1) Form-based zones to PBT overlays 2) Transects and Sectors to Place-based districts 3) Thoroughfares to Place-based connections 4) SmartCode density and calculations to PBT Intensity and analysis

PBT is informed by parallel efforts conducted with the Congress for the New Urbanism and consequently was designed to interface easily and indeed to Figure A.15 The Urban to Rural Transect [18] reinforce SmartCode performance. Nonetheless, demonstrating the transition of builtspace form in different some understanding of the correlations between contexts (called transect zones) between the two extremes and an application of those zones in PBT.

T4 T5

walkable areas mile 4 1/ und potential node aro

chestnut

ble areas walka

ile 4m district node 1/ und aro

T5 T5

cherry

6 T6

ohio

T5 T5

4 40

wabash

orchard

ohio hio walnut

poplar

T4 proposed s downtown overlay

Planning a Multimodal Region

16 Final Draft 4/16/2010

1) Form-based zones to PBT overlays:

MLK - 13th

9th

7th

8th

5th

3rd

4th

1st

T4 TC

chestnut

proposed downtown overlay

T6 40

ohio

40 4

wabash

cherry

orchard

ohio

poplar

T4 MLK - 13th

oak

9th

10th

8th

7th

6th

4th

5th

14th

crawford

3rd

Figure A.16 (at right) Transect Zones are equivalent in PBT. However, in PBT, more “non-binding” performance criteria can be added.

walnut

1st

SmartCode uses form-based “zoning” to establish contextual urban forms that reinforce a mix of uses, walkability and quality public space. However, it is akin to traditional zoning in that it must regulate all areas under its jurisdiction (e.g. all places have a “transect zone”). Place-based transportation is more akin to a transportation plan in that it designates added characteristics and performance to certain corridors and places. So, where an LRTP might designate an “arterial”, PBT designates a “Placemaking corridor” and a higher intensity node along that corridor that is home to a transit station, for instance. A placemaking corridor usually runs through the center of the highest number of transect zone in the walkable area, the node being at that zone’s center. Thus, PBT is an “overlay” on top of the SmartCode “zoning”.

14th

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

Figure A.17 (above) Some performance targets are “overlaid” on the downtown area, including the “walkable radii” and placemaking corridors and node opportunities.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

2) Transects and Sectors to Place-based districts: SmartCode determines sectors and transect zones. These often trace some of the edges of some districts and hint at the boundaries of neighborhood structures. SmartCode does not establish where the desired centers or nodes are located and what are the targeted pedestrian or bike or economic sheds sought to sustain the neighborhoods. Neither does SmartCode discuss what kind of neighborhood a place wants to be, nor what its role is in the area (e.g. a village residential neighborhood that supports a village mixed use center along with two other nearby neighborhoods, or a town center that serves the East side of this area serving some area markets,â&#x20AC;Ś).

Figure A.18 (above) Some performance neighborhoods, their nodes and their relationships to each other with appropriate transitions between.

Planning a Multimodal Region

18 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

3) Thoroughfares to Placebased connections: In SmartCode, thoroughfares have a cross section and design guidelines, but they do not have designated functions nor any designation of the thoroughfare’s role in any of its networks (modal, place-basis, traffic management needs,…). PBT lays out the modal networks (ped, bike, transit, car, and freight), target performance (connectivity, spacing, modal traffic capacity,…) and lays guidelines for modal infrastructure (e.g corridor serves as regional transit connection and bike commuter MUP, so there should be less than 8 crossings/mile,…)

Figure A.19 (above) Designation of modal flows and desired connections. Figure A.20 (at right): Thoroughfare functions converging on nodes as a function of the desired connections as they overlay on the downtown.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

4) SmartCode density and calculations to PBT Intensity and analysis: SmartCode requires certain density calculations to establish what is permitted (e.g. min/max FAR, parking maximum,â&#x20AC;Ś), but does not determine what is desired(e.g. 10000sqft more retail, 20,000 sqft more office space, highest intensity at this crossroads or block,â&#x20AC;Ś). PBT may add criteria for a thoroughfare, node, etc. on top of what the SmartCode requires (e.g. Placemaking, Connector,...) or may simply designate which thoroughfare assembly from SmartCode must be applied for that particular corridor, node, etc (e.g. Main Street must be an AV-90-56, with placemaking characteristics and the Old Town district design requirements,...).

Figure A.21 (above) Some targeted areas and flows of commerce.

Planning a Multimodal Region

20 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

HOW IS THE MULTIMODAL SYSTEM PLAN MODIFIED? Place extensions Modifications and extensions of the Plan If there is the need to extend the System Plan or adjustments be made, system revisions must ensure the network still functions despite deviations from the original plan. The current plan correlates the districts identified during the Regional Pedestrian Plan Process to the Multimodal Districts considered in the System Plan. There is currently, and there will continue to be, the need throughout the MPA to establish multimodal (sub)districts. Additional districts should be established as needed.

Adding a node or district Adding a Node, District or Subdistrict to the multimodal network involves a public input process. The â&#x20AC;&#x153;Placeâ&#x20AC;? needs to be defined through analysis. Districts are based on a walkable scale of 1/4 to 1/2 mile. If the district is too large to be walkable, it should be divided into walkable subdistricts. In the case for rural districts with significant bicycle infrastructure, a bike-able scale of 1 mile is an alternative. If a district intensifies such that the available amenities are insufficient to serve the users of the district, a subdistrict may be added, even though the district is walkable in itself. The district has defined centers and edges. A node Current selection of multimodal districts in the Indianapolis should be located at or very near the center. The node Metropolitan Planning Area, derived from the pedestrian should also be located along a placemaking corridor. districts determined in the Regional Pedestrian Plan. The node should be connected via multiple modes to other districts and subdistricts in an efficient manner for resources and travel times. The node, district, and its connections should be organized and planned in accordance with the principles of Place-Based Transportation.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts Regional Districts with Node at Center

Relocating a node or district Occasionally, through demographic changes or new land developments, a node or district is no longer appropriate as designed. In these instances, system revisions should consider the following: Nodes: should be close to the center of the district or subdistrict or the (sub)district will not remain walkable.

The catchment area of those who will use the node should be sufficient to support the node uses (see [1] under district type and distance from core). The node should be spaced appropriately within the system to avoid impinging on a neighboring node and ensure Walkable that the total intensity is sufficient to support both Subdistrict nodes. The nodes should not be spaced at intervals with Node at less than a half mile or transportation efficiency will Center diminish. Finally, the connections to nearest neighbor (sub)districts should be explored keeping in mind the impact on the route and importance of the route, Each multimodal district must be connected. If a district is especially determining the amenities of the station at too big to be walkable, it must be subdivided into walkable the node. neighborhoods.

(Sub)districts: establishing a (sub)district should follow place-based transportation principles. Extra care should be exercised in defining the new boundaries, not to impact neighboring (sub) districts, as districts often have spacing established by geographic distances in addition to demographic considerations.

Planning a Multimodal Region

22 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

Modifications and extensions of the Multimodal System Plan for Carmel As with districts and nodes, if there is the need to extend the Plan connections and corridors or should implementation be adjusted, system revisions must ensure the network still functions despite required deviations from the original plan.

Adding an alignment or connection Public input should be sought when adding an alignment or connection. The â&#x20AC;&#x153;placesâ&#x20AC;? to connect in the system need to be defined. If the new alignment is the result of the addition of a new district or subdistrict, follow the Place-Based Transportation methods. If, however, the alignment or connection results from a decision to add connectivity, e.g. a new circulator connection, particular attention must be paid to the hierarchy of the connection and the impact on time-to-destination between nearby districts. It is important to ensure that the commuter time-todestination patterns that were available prior to this addition remain at least as favorable or efficient if not enhanced. Target times-to-destination between the key hubs (e.g. from the new district to the Central Business District) should not exceed 30 minutes for the express routes to ensure that the location of a new hub supports the existing network. If not, the large time-cost might encourage an edge city to form, potentially undermining the CBD for instance. Such an impact should not be underestimated.

Rerouting and alignment of a corridor. Occasionally, through demographic changes or new land developments, an alignment or corridor might no longer be appropriate as designed. Rerouting should consider the following:

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix A: Definition & Concepts

B A

Each multi-modal corridor must maintain a complete connection. If a given corridor (A) cannot be used in the system, a parallel corridor (B) may be substituted, but the entire route (i.e. including D) must be complete for all needed connections and modes.

Connections: Not every corridor needs to accommodate every mode, however, every mode needs to have a route to every node. Therefore, if a bike lane, for instance, cannot fit on a limited ROW corridor, a replacement corridor to house the bike lane needs to be determined and preferably as close as possible to the original route - a nearby parallel corridor next to the original one. Furthermore, the connection between the original route and the new one must ensure a continuous path of the mode network [See Figure at left]. Alignments: alignments should accommodate every mode and principles are provided in the Place-Based Transportation section earlier in this chapter. Rerouting, however, must take into account the importance of the alignment in the hierarchy of connections in the network. When the alignment is changed, its importance to the network should be examined at the same time, even if the segmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in the network has changed.

Adding a mode Public input should also be sought when adding a mode to a corridor. The nodes connected to each mode should be defined and a plan for amenities should be provided, e.g. bike parking, bike share or bike port facilities, etc. The mode routing must be contiguous and facilitate use of that mode from â&#x20AC;&#x153;door to doorâ&#x20AC;?, even if the accommodation is only temporary. It serves no purpose to have a facility that terminates halfway and forces the user to go back. If the new mode is to be viable it is important to consider how it is integrated into the rest of the multi-modal system. For instance, bicyclists that use transit might require a special bike parking facility and/or locker room facilities so the user can transition to the transit system.

Rerouting a mode Occasionally, through demographic changes or new land developments, a mode route might no longer be appropriate as designed. Relocation of modes should consider the same methods as rerouting a corridor, but focus on the mode being re-evaluated.

Planning a Multimodal Region

24 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b COMMITTEES AND ADVISORS

INTRODUCTION

Advisors and Stakeholders:

Public Participation Overview

Ehren Bingaman - CIRTA Samantha Cross - IndyGo Annette Darrow - IndyGo Roscoe Brown, Jr. - IndyGo Mo Merhoff - Carmel Chamber of Commerce Brenda Myers - Hamilton County CVB Laura Brown - RLS Anita Beverly - CICS Evelyn Vicens - CICS Elaine McGuire - Janus Teresa Steege - Janus Connie Sanders - Janus Sue Ritz - Boone County Seniors

This Appendix is provided to introduce and explain some of the process whereby citizens, community officials, community stakeholders and professional experts participated in the process of creating a multimodal system plan for the City of Carmel.

City of Carmel Gary Duncan - Engineering Department Mike McBride - Engineering Department Nancy Heck - Community Relations Scott Brewer - Urban Forestry Daren Mindham - Urban Forestry David McCoy - GIS Services

An overview of the process is provided in Chapter 1 of the study. However, public input was critical to the study and this appendix provides a record of this engagement.

This appendix also contains the documentation of the planning process, including worksheets, meeting minutes, base information, public workshop materials, online survey and survey results. The information is arranged chronologically based on the project schedule. Contained herein: 1) 2) 3)

Steering Committee: Karen Bohn Ron Carter Steve Dillon Judy Hagan Nick Kestner Mark Westermeier

4) 5)

Purpose, goals, principles (Aug-Oct 2009) Stakeholder Group meeting minutes and documentation (Nov 2009) Public Open House documentation (Nov 2009) Online survey and survey results (Dec 2009 - Jan 2010) Steering Committee/Stakeholder feedback (Feb 2010)

Workgroup Committee: Carmel Department of Community Services Mike Hollibaugh, Director David Littlejohn, Alternative Transportation Coordinator (Project Manager) Adrienne Keeling, Planning Administrator

Indianapolis MPO Anna Tyszkiewicz, Principal Planner - Multimodal Catherine Schoenherr, Senior Planner

Consultant Storrow Kinsella Associates Inc Indianapolis, Indiana

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 25 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation

1) PURPOSE, GOALS, PRINCIPLES (AUG-OCT 2009) PURPOSE STATEMENT DISCUSSION 8/27/09 Type of Statement

Draft Language

Option 1

To develop a multi-modal transportation system that integrates balanced transportation options with land use policies to foster sustainable economic development and improved quality of life for residents.

Option 2

To develop a multi-modal transportation network that provides measurable mode shift to non-automobile modes within twenty-years.

Option 3

Development of a Community Transportation Plan and Policy for Plan Implementation that integrates traditional and multimodal transportation facilities into a complete symbiotic system that is responsive to and interdependent with existing, transitional, and desired land use patterns and community form, while supporting sustainable, quality of life-based economic development.

Suggestions/Comments from 8/27 Meeting

GOAL STATEMENT DISCUSSION Goal Area Draft Language Suggestions Economic Development Leverage transportation infrastructure to concentrate land use intensity and economic development opportunities. should consider guidelines from PBT that support redevelopment in the core Transit and Mode Shift Provide transportation options for residents and make it easy to access public transportation for commuting and daily activities. should consider the establishment of a major transit hub in 96th location, should add/base network spacing upon bicycle spacing. Green Infrastructure Incorporate stormwater processing and urban tree canopy features into the public right-of-way to improve the environmental quality of life and reduce the environmental footprint of the transportation system. Health and Active Living by Design Create a transportation network that incorporates and integrates healthy transportation choices to encourage walkable and bikable trips.

Planning a Multimodal Region

26 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 1) PURPOSE, GOALS, PRINCIPLES (CONT.) NETWORK PRINCIPALS DISCUSSION Typical PBT Guideline Carmel Application

Suggestions or Additions

Current Plans are the Basis for the Network Definitions Bike and Pedestrian Plan Map, Bicycle Route and Loops Plan Map, Thoroughfare Plan Map, C3 Plan 2009, Civic Design, Smart Code, IndyGo COA, Regional Pedestrian Plan • add draft traffic congestion mitigation plan (partly GIS data) by DLZ, • MUP Boone/Zionsville-WRiver plan by Schneider – on webpage through Laserfish, • Special Study SubArea Plan (96th) by GroundRules, • Gramercy plan (redevelopment of golf course, Mohawk Hills – and its connection to Carmel Dr.), • Legacy Development – a mixed use development like W. Clay, • the US 31 Strategic Development Plan by DCI, • Providence/Old Meridian plan (incorporated in the SmartCode), • W. Clay development, • Janus Transit Shuttle plan (local transit public meeting mid-Sept) and its coordination work with IndyGo (they have received JARC funding), • ICE route planning (currently runs 2x/day, leaving from Meier parking lot Pennsylvania and Meridian/ Carmel Dr). Walkable Nodes Defined at Centers of ¼ to ½ Mile Radius of Pedestrian Zones/Districts Preliminary Evaluation of Nodes at a Walkable ¼ Mile Radius Spacing for Downtown Carmel n e w commuting patterns like those who work from home, potential new “micro” nodes or hamlet centers at the centers of the multifamily complexes including shuttle stop and better/more connections to the Carmel street grid, a new major transit center, and the current redevelopment of core, especially since most of the buildout plans have been realized. Bikeable Nodes Defined at Centers of 1 to 2 Mile Radius Bicycle Zones/Districts Preliminary Evaluation of Nodes at Bikeable 1 to 2 Mile Radius Spacing for Outside of Downtown Carmel Nodes along Placemaking Corridors at Centers with Thru Corridors at Edges Extra Focus on Camel’s PUD’s and Development Plans

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 27 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation

Planning a Multimodal Region

28 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 2) STAKEHOLDER GROUP MEETING MINUTES AND DOCUMENTATION (NOV 2009)

File Name

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\B Com\3 Mtg\091110\091110_MNWGMtg_0831.doc

Issue Date November 13, 2009 Meeting Date November 10, 2009 Duration 2:00 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 4:00pm Location Carmel City Hall Attendees Mike Hollibaugh/Carmel David Littlejohn/Carmel Anna Tyszkiewicz/MPO Cat Schoenherr/MPO Annette Darrow/IndyGo Samantha Cross/IndyGo Ehren Bingaman/CIRTA Brenda Myers/HamCtyCVB Meg Storrow/SKA Paul Lippens/SKA Andrew Gast-Bray/SKA Subject Workgroup Meeting Minutes A. Overview for CIRTA, IndyGo, and Convention and Visitors Bureau Representatives 1. Introductions and Update on CMSP a. AGast-Bray presented background information to provide CIRTA, IndyGo and the Hamilton County CVB representatives an introduction to the Carmel Multimodal System Plan (CMSP). b. A powerpoint presentation was given. It was a draft presentation for the November 18 Open House. c. Draft maps showing proposed nodes, districts and transit routes were shown. 2. Input from CIRTA, IndyGo a. EBingaman inquired about Janus participation and route interface. Carmel has contacted them, but has had little or no response. EBingaman reinforced that it is imperative to contact them. b. EBingaman also recommended that Boone County Transit be contacted (they connect with other area routes on Michigan Road). c. EBingaman also suggested Laura Brown at RLS be contacted, who has some origin/destination information based on her work on the Rural Transit Operations Analysis. d. IndyGo noted that we do not appear to have current routes from IndyGo: Routes 18, 26, 28, and 34 run in proximity to the area. 28 and 34 are successful routes (they run on the west side of Carmel) and 18 (Center Carmel) is busy on the North end, though less so between 86th and 38th. AGast-Bray will follow-up with ADarrow and SCross. e. BMyers recommended we look at more connections across 146th in Westfield. Conner Prairie is considering re-routing their entry to River Road. Tourism, though seasonal, could benefit from the proposed transit routes, so we should consider hotel needs, the Performing Arts Center and possibly a special route(s) with easy wayfinding and distinctive qualities like the Cultural Trail. f. BMyers would also like to see more bicycle connections and amenities between the hotel area and the Arts District. BMyers also suggested Cox Hall as a node, though perhaps as a later phase as it develops. g. ADarrow stated she should have the ICE Commuter survey results in the next few weeks. h. Clarion and St. Vincent were also suggested as nodes. It was discussed that there may be funding sources based on job access and reverse commuting. i. SCross suggested contacting Central Indiana Commuter Services (CICS) for information on commuting patterns (zipcode registers).

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 29 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation

2) STAKEHOLDER GROUP MEETING MINUTES AND DOCUMENTATION (CONT.) j. IndyGo also offered assistance in marketing the public open house. AGB is to follow up with IndyGo. k. EBingaman suggested that the CMSP fits into larger regional transportation planning efforts, and suggested adding that context to the Public Meeting powerpoint. He listed the following activities: • Update of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to be complete by end of 2010, which will include a thorough multimodal component • NE Rapid Transit Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) • Rural Transit Operations Analysis • An Update to the IndyGo Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) B. November 18 Open House Preparation 1. Public Open House Organization and Topics a. AGast-Bray presented a brief overview of what SKA envisioned for the Open House: 6pm - 6:30pm Mingling and Open Viewing of Stations 6:30pm – 7pm An Orientation Presentation on the CMSP, its process and schedule. 7pm – 8pm Browsing a series of stations with displays on different topics with comment forms for feedback and/or a survey (see below). 2. Invitations and Advertisement – Carmel has advertised and requested a Flyer from SKA which they will email and post around Town. 3. Participation and Management: a. The SKA Team will include PLippens, MStorrow, and AGast-Bray. They are prepared to lead stations/ presentations and answer questions. b. The MPO plans on attending. CSchoenherr plans on arriving at 6pm, with ATyszkiewicz probably arriving later. c. SKA will prepare nametags for the workgroup (see attendees above). Other nametags should be available for Lori Miser, Mike McBride, and Gary Duncan. We should also have a digital camera handy to photograph proceedings. 4. Display and Presentation: a. Presentation feedback: make sure all photos are of Carmel. SKA will provide a final powerpoint for final review and comment by the Work Group. b. Displays will be at three of the four stations (one being the presentation area). The other stations will be as follows: 1. Neighborhoods/nodes/destinations 2. Connections (showing possible transit routing) 3. Modes and technologies (showing possible transit options and bike/ped amenities like bikeshare). 5. Outcomes /Survey: a. Focus on destinations rather than transit routes. b. SKA will provide an updated version for final review and comment by the Work Group. SKA will change the order of the questions to correspond with the open house stations.

Planning a Multimodal Region

30 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 2) STAKEHOLDER GROUP MEETING MINUTES AND DOCUMENTATION (CONT.) STAKEHOLDER INPUT A series of Stakeholder Interviews involving IndyGo, CIRTA, Hamilton County CVB, Janus, Boone County Seniors transit. Rural Transit Operations study (RLS), CICS specialist, JARC grant specialist, Hamilton County Chamber of Commerc representative, Steering Committee members including the Carmel MMTF, in addition to diverse department representation from the City of Carmel itself (viz. engineering and the arborist). SUMMARY Principally, most of the available transit was on-demand â&#x20AC;&#x201C; especially for seniors. There was significant traffic across Carmel and between Carmel and nearby communities. The US 31 Corridor attracted significant regional ridership. Hamilton Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s on-demand service (called Janus) had attempted a fixed route without success. Central Indiana Commuter Services (CICS) and the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) representative from IndyGo also pointed out the significant number of reverse commuters to the US 31 corridor. The ICE bus conveys regular express service to downtown. It is relatively popular. Its grant funding is expected to run out before the end of 2010. There was a great deal of support for the System Plan effort and hopes that all the entities would be able to participate in the project as it moved forward. The City of Carmel has made efforts to integrate different departments in planning projects and vice versa. In general, the results have been positive. However, if there is a critique, it was that even though there was integration of recommendations from different departments into the routine operations of the individual departments. This sometimes led to cross-departmental considerations being overlooked despite good intentions. A great deal of supporting data was sent by the stakeholders relative to routes to, in and nearby Carmel, demand numbers and possible cross-support from different funding sources (viz. JARC grant funding - a 50% matching fund). Much of this material is attached.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

How to Purchase & Information Cómo comprar e información general

New Pricing Effective Jan. 1, 2009 Fare Options Full Price Opciones de boleto Boleto entero Single Ride* $1.75 Viaje sencillo Day Pass* $4.00 Pase diario 10-Trip $17.50 7-Day Pass $20.00 Pase para 7 días 31-Day Pass $60.00 Pase para 31 días Flexible Services $3.50 Green Line $7.00 Red Line $1.75 ICE $3.00 Summer Youth $30.00

Half Fare Medio boleto

Route

IndyGo Fixed Route Fares Boletos para Rutas Fijas de IndyGo

IndyGo Customer Service Center Indianapolis City Market 222 East Market Street (317) 635.3344 or TDD (317) 637.0759

$.85

Route

Appendix B: Public Participation

Nora

$2.00 Walk-in Hours ~ Horario: 8a – 6p, M-F~de lunes a viernes 9a- noon (mediodía), Saturday ~ días sábados

$8.50 $10.00

Nora

Phone Hours ~ Horario telefónico: 7a-7p, M-F ~ de lunes a viernes 9a – noon (mediodía), Saturday ~ días sábados

$30.00 na $3.50 $.85 na na

Effective Oct. 11, 2009 • A partir del 11 de octubre de 2009

Other Purchasing Options Otras opciones de compra

*If you pay on the bus, please use exact change ~ Si usted paga después de abordar el autobús, por favor use el cambio justo. Children age 5 and under ride for free with a paying passenger (limit two). ~ Los niños de 5 años y menores de 5 viajan gratis cuando están acompañados por un pasajero que paga su boleto (límite de dos).

Half Fare Eligibility Requisitos para el pago de medio boleto

Indiana School for the Blind

• www.IndyGo.net • IUPUI Campus Center ~ Servicio para tarjetas en el Campus de IUPUI • DNR Customer Service Center (State Government Center South) ~ (Centro de Servicios al Cliente de DNR)

• • • • • • •

IndyGo Flexible Services Servicios Flexibles de IndyGo For more information and fare pricing about Open Door, please call 635.3344. Single Rides are $3.50. ~ Para más información y costos de boletos de Open Door, llame al 635.3344. Los viajes sencillos cuestan $3.50.

Las personas de 65 años o más, los jóvenes de 18 años o menos y las personas discapacitadas pueden solicitar una tarjeta de identificación para el pago de Medio boleto de IndyGo en el Centro para atención del cliente de IndyGo. Los usuarios del Medio boleto deben presentar su identificación de IndyGo o la tarjeta válida de Medicare al operador del autobús de IndyGo. Los jóvenes también pueden usar una identificación para estudiantes válida.

Keystone at the Crossing North Central High School Nora Plaza Indiana School for the Blind Broad Ripple Village Children’s Museum 18/26 North Loop on Sundays

For information call Para información llame al 317.635.3344 www.indygo.net

Inbound

Outbound

Weekdays to Downtown – Al Centro De La Ciudad

Weekdays from Downtown – Al Centro De La Ciudad

Keystone at the Crossing

College & 63rd

Meridian & 38th

Meridian & 30th

Meridian & North

Capitol & Market

Meridian & North

Meridian & 30th

Meridian & 38th

College & 63rd

Ashton Brook Apts

91st & Meridian

Keystone at the Crossing

5:45 — 6:40 — 8:10 — 9:40 — 11:40 — 1:40 — 3:40 — 5:46 — — — —

— 6:13 — 7:40 — 8:40 — 10:40 — 12:40 — 2:40 — 4:40 — 6:18 7:23 8:33 10:13

5:59 6:27 6:53 7:56 8:26 8:56 9:56 10:56 11:56 12:56 1:56 2:56 3:56 4:55 6:00 6:31 7:36 8:46 10:26

6:10 6:40 7:07 8:09 8:39 9:09 10:09 11:09 12:09 1:09 2:09 3:09 4:09 5:08 6:11 6:42 7:47 8:57 10:37

6:14 6:44 7:12 8:13 8:43 9:13 10:13 11:13 12:13 1:13 2:13 3:13 4:13 5:12 6:15 6:46 7:51 9:01 10:41

6:25 6:55 7:24 8:25 8:55 9:25 10:25 11:25 12:25 1:25 2:25 3:25 4:25 5:24 6:25 6:56 8:01 9:11 10:51

6:30 7:00 7:30 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30 7:00 8:05 9:15 10:55

AM 5:40 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 PM 12:30 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:30 7:30 9:15

5:50 6:40 7:10 7:41 8:41 9:41 10:41 11:41 12:41 1:41 2:41 3:41 4:44 5:14 5:41 6:40 7:40 9:25

5:59 6:49 7:19 7:51 8:51 9:51 10:51 11:51 12:51 1:51 2:51 3:51 4:56 5:26 5:52 6:49 7:49 9:34

6:03 6:53 7:23 7:55 8:55 9:55 10:55 11:55 12:55 1:55 2:55 3:55 5:01 5:31 5:57 6:53 7:53 9:38

6:14 7:05 7:37 8:09 9:09 10:09 11:09 12:09 1:09 2:09 3:09 4:09 5:15 5:45 6:10 7:05 8:05 9:49

6:24 — 7:51 — 9:23 — 11:23 — 1:23 — 3:23 — 5:30 — 6:24 — — —

6:28 — 7:55 — 9:27 — 11:27 — 1:27 — 3:27 — 5:34 — 6:28 — 8:12 9:56

— 7:21 — 8:25 — 10:25 — 12:25 — 2:25 — 4:25 — 6:01 — 7:21 — —

Weekday

Ashton Brook Apts

AM 5:38 — 6:33 — 8:03 — 9:33 — 11:33 PM — 1:33 — 3:33 — 5:39 — — 8:19 9:59

Weekday

91st & Meridian

Nora

Planning a Multimodal Region

32 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Ruta

Route

Times are approximate and may vary due to weather and traffic conditions. Information subject to change. Las horas son aproximadas y pueden variar debido al clima y el tráfico. Información sujeta a cambio.

*Observed Holidays New Year’s Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (Saturday schedule) Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day

Nora

*Celebración de días festivos Día de Año Nuevo Día de Martin Luther King, Jr. (horario de los sábados) Día de los caídos en la guerra Día de la Independencia Día de trabajo Día de acción de gracias Día de Navidad Letters on map and schedule indicate time points. Each letter coresponds to a time point on the map. Arrival times are approximate and may vary due to road and traffic conditions. Las letras del mapa y el horario indican el horario previsto de llegada. Cada letra corresponde a un horario previsto de llegada en el mapa. Los horarios de llegada son estimados y pueden variar debido a las condiciones del camino y del tráfico.

Appendix B: Public Participation b 5:49 PM

Page 1

IndyGo Fixed Route Fares Boletos para Rutas Fijas de IndyGo

How to Purchase & Information Cómo comprar e información general

Half Fare Medio boleto

IndyGo Customer Service Center Indianapolis City Market 222 East Market Street (317) 635.3344 or TDD (317) 637.0759

$.85

Route

10/16/08

Route

28.qxd:Layout 1

St. Vincent

$2.00 Walk-in Hours ~ Horario: 8a – 6p, M-F~de lunes a viernes 9a- noon (mediodía), Saturday ~ días sábados

$8.50 $10.00

St. Vincent

Phone Hours ~ Horario telefónico: 7a-7p, M-F ~ de lunes a viernes 9a – noon (mediodía), Saturday ~ días sábados

$30.00 na $3.50 $.85 na na

Effective Nov. 9, 2008 • A partir del 9 de noviembre de 2008

Other Purchasing Options Otras opciones de compra

• www.IndyGo.net • IUPUI Campus Center ~ Servicio para tarjetas en el Campus de IUPUI • DNR Customer Service Center (State Government Center South) ~ (Centro de Servicios al Cliente de DNR)

• • • •

IndyGo Flexible Services Servicios Flexibles de IndyGo

Half Fare Eligibility Requisitos para el pago de medio boleto

For more information and fare pricing about Open Door, please call 635.3344. Single Rides are $3.50. ~ Para más información y costos de boletos de Open Door, llame al 635.3344. Los viajes sencillos cuestan $3.50.

Persons 65 and older, youth 18 and under and persons with disabilities may apply for an IndyGo Half Fare Identification card at the IndyGo Customer Service Center. All Half Fare users must present their IndyGo ID or valid Medicare Card Holder ID to their IndyGo operator. Youth may also use a valid Student ID. Las personas de 65 años o más, los jóvenes de 18 años o menos y las personas discapacitadas pueden solicitar una tarjeta de identificación para el pago de Medio boleto de IndyGo en el Centro para atención del cliente de IndyGo. Los usuarios del Medio boleto deben presentar su identificación de IndyGo o la tarjeta válida de Medicare al operador del autobús de IndyGo. Los jóvenes también pueden usar una identificación para estudiantes válida.

St. Vincent Hospital Women’s Hospital Methodist Hospital Children’s Museum

For information call Para información llame al 317.635.3344 www.indygo.net

Weekdays from Downtown – Al Centro De La Ciudad

St. Vincent Hospital

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — PM — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10:51 10:56

5:58 6:22 6:47 7:18 7:50 8:50 9:50 10:49 11:47 12:49 1:50 2:50 3:48 4:48 5:22 6:26 7:21 9:11 11:01

6:02 6:27 6:52 7:23 7:55 8:55 9:55 10:54 11:53 12:55 1:55 2:55 3:53 4:53 5:27 6:31 7:26 9:15 11:05

6:19 6:47 7:12 7:43 8:15 9:15 10:15 11:14 12:13 1:15 2:15 3:15 4:13 5:13 5:47 6:49 7:44 9:30 11:20

6:29 6:57 7:25 7:56 8:27 9:27 10:27 11:26 12:26 1:27 2:27 3:27 4:26 5:26 5:59 6:59 7:54 9:40 11:30

6:37 7:06 7:35 8:06 8:36 9:36 10:36 11:36 12:36 1:36 2:36 3:36 4:36 5:36 6:07 7:07 8:02 9:47 11:37

6:40 7:10 7:40 8:10 8:40 9:40 10:40 11:40 12:40 1:40 2:40 3:40 4:40 5:40 6:10 7:10 8:05 9:50 11:40

AM 5:10 5:40 6:10 6:40 7:10 7:40 8:10 8:40 9:40 10:40 11:40 PM 12:40 1:40 2:40 3:40 4:10 4:40 5:10 5:40 6:10 7:10 8:10 9:50

5:22 5:52 6:22 6:52 7:23 7:53 8:23 8:53 9:53 10:53 11:54 12:54 1:53 2:53 3:53 4:24 4:54 5:23 5:53 6:22 7:22 8:22 10:00

5:27 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:31 8:01 8:31 9:01 10:01 11:01 12:02 1:02 2:01 3:01 4:01 4:33 5:02 5:31 6:01 6:30 7:30 8:30 10:07

5:36 6:09 6:39 7:11 7:42 8:12 8:42 9:12 10:12 11:12 12:14 1:13 2:12 3:12 4:12 4:45 5:14 5:43 6:12 6:41 7:39 8:39 10:16

5:50 6:26 6:56 7:28 7:59 8:29 8:59 9:29 10:29 11:29 12:32 1:30 2:29 3:29 4:29 5:03 5:32 6:01 6:29 6:58 7:52 8:52 10:29

Weekday

Illinois & Kessler

Illinois & 30th

Illinois & North

Capitol & Market

Capitol & North

Capitol & 30th

Illinois & Kessler

St. Vincent Hospital

Women’s Hospital

Depauw & Purdue

St. Vincent

G Township Line & Michigan

Women’s Hospital

Outbound

Weekdays to Downtown – Al Centro De La Ciudad

Ruta

Inbound Township Line & Michigan

Route

5:55 — 6:32 — 7:02 — 7:35 — 8:06 — 8:36 — 9:06 — 9:36 — 10:36 — 11:36 — 12:40 — 1:37 — 2:36 — 3:36 — 4:37 — 5:11 — 5:40 — 6:08 — 6:36 — 7:05 — 7:59 — 8:59 — 10:36 10:49

St. Vincent *Observed Holidays New Year’s Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (Saturday schedule) Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day *Celebración de días festivos Día de Año Nuevo Día de Martin Luther King, Jr. (horario de los sábados) Día de los caídos en la guerra Día de la Independencia Día de trabajo Día de acción de gracias Día de Navidad Letters on map and schedule indicate time points. Each letter coresponds to a time point on the map. Arrival times are approximate and may vary due to road and traffic conditions. Las letras del mapa y el horario indican el horario previsto de llegada. Cada letra corresponde a un horario previsto de llegada en el mapa. Los horarios de llegada son estimados y pueden variar debido a las condiciones del camino y del tráfico.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 33 Final Draft 4/16/2010

12/4/08

5:08 PM

Page 1

IndyGo Fixed Route Fares Boletos para Rutas Fijas de IndyGo New Pricing Effective Jan. 1, 2009 Fare Options Full Price Opciones de boleto Boleto entero Single Ride* $1.75 Viaje sencillo Day Pass* $4.00 Pase diario 10-Trip $17.50 7-Day Pass $20.00 Pase para 7 días 31-Day Pass $60.00 Pase para 31 días Flexible Services $3.50 Green Line $7.00 Red Line $1.75 ICE $3.00 Summer Youth $30.00

Half Fare Medio boleto $.85

How to Purchase & Information Cómo comprar e información general IndyGo Customer Service Center Indianapolis City Market 222 East Market Street (317) 635.3344 or TDD (317) 637.0759

Michigan Road

$2.00 $8.50 $10.00 $30.00 na $3.50 $.85 na na

Half Fare Eligibility Requisitos para el pago de medio boleto Persons 65 and older, youth 18 and under and persons with disabilities may apply for an IndyGo Half Fare Identification card at the IndyGo Customer Service Center. All Half Fare users must present their IndyGo ID or valid Medicare Card Holder ID to their IndyGo operator. Youth may also use a valid Student ID.

Walk-in Hours ~ Horario: 8a – 6p, M-F~de lunes a viernes 9a- noon (mediodía), Saturday ~ días sábados

Route

4.qxd:Layout 1

Appendix B: Public Participation Route

Michigan Road

Phone Hours ~ Horario telefónico: 7a-7p, M-F ~ de lunes a viernes 9a – noon (mediodía), Saturday ~ días sábados

Effective January 1, 2009 • A partir del 1 de enero de 2009

Other Purchasing Options Otras opciones de compra • www.IndyGo.net • IUPUI Campus Center ~ Servicio para tarjetas en el Campus de IUPUI • DNR Customer Service Center (State Government Center South) ~ (Centro de Servicios al Cliente de DNR)

• • • • • •

For information call Para información llame al 317.635.3344 www.indygo.net Times are approximate and may vary due to weather and traffic conditions. Information subject to change. Las horas son aproximadas y pueden variar debido al clima y el tráfico. Información sujeta a cambio.

Planning a Multimodal Region

34 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Crown Hill Cemetery Indianapolis Museum of Art Westlane Shopping Center College Park Pyramids St. Vincent Hospital

Appendix B: Public Participation b Page 1

How to Purchase & Information Cómo comprar e información general

IndyGo Fixed Route Fares Boletos para Rutas Fijas de IndyGo New Pricing Effective Jan. 1, 2009 Half Fare Medio boleto

IndyGo Customer Service Center Indianapolis City Market 222 East Market Street (317) 635.3344 or TDD (317) 637.0759

$.85 $2.00

Walk-in Hours ~ Horario: 8a – 6p, M-F~de lunes a viernes 9a- noon (mediodía), Saturday ~ días sábados

$8.50 $10.00

na $3.50 $.85 na na

Effective January 1, 2009 • A partir del 1 de enero de 2009

Other Purchasing Options Otras opciones de compra

Children age 5 and under ride for free with a paying passenger (limit two). ~ Los niños de 5 años y menores de 5 viajan gratis cuando están acompañados por un pasajero que paga su boleto (límite de dos).

Half Fare Eligibility Requisitos para el pago de medio boleto

• www.IndyGo.net • IUPUI Campus Center ~ Servicio para tarjetas en el Campus de IUPUI • DNR Customer Service Center (State Government Center South) ~ (Centro de Servicios al Cliente de DNR)

• • • • •

Southbound

6:35 7:20 8:05 8:50 9:35 10:55 12:15 1:35 2:55 4:15 5:00 5:45 6:30 7:15 8:35 9:55

6:42 7:27 8:12 8:57 9:42 11:02 12:22 1:42 3:02 4:22 5:07 5:52 6:37 7:22 8:42 10:02

6:48 7:33 8:18 9:03 9:48 11:08 12:28 1:48 3:08 4:28 5:13 5:58 6:43 7:28 8:48 10:08

7:00 7:45 8:30 9:15 10:00 11:20 12:40 2:00 3:20 4:40 5:25 6:10 6:55 7:40 9:00 10:20

7:14 7:59 8:44 9:29 10:14 11:34 12:54 2:14 3:34 4:54 5:39 6:24 7:09 7:54 9:14 10:34

AM 6:00 6:45 7:30 8:15 9:00 10:20 11:40 PM 1:00 2:20 3:40 4:25 5:10 5:55 6:40 8:00 9:20

7:14 7:59 8:44 9:28 10:13 11:33 12:53 2:13 3:33 4:53 5:38 6:23 7:08 7:53 9:13 10:33

Keystone and Prospect

6:29 7:14 7:59 8:44 9:29 10:49 12:09 1:29 2:49 4:09 4:54 5:39 6:24 7:09 8:29 9:49

Keystone and Troy

Keystone at the Crossing

6:17 7:02 7:47 8:32 9:17 10:37 11:57 1:17 2:37 3:57 4:42 5:27 6:12 6:57 8:17 9:37

Washington and Rural

Keystone at the Crossing

6:11 6:56 7:41 8:26 9:11 10:31 11:51 1:11 2:31 3:51 4:36 5:21 6:06 6:51 8:11 9:31

Weekday

Glendale

AM 6:00 6:45 7:30 8:15 9:00 10:20 11:40 PM 1:00 2:20 3:40 4:25 5:10 5:55 6:40 8:00 9:20

10th and Rural

Kmart at Emerson and Thompson

Weekdays - dias laborables

Keystone and 38th

Keystone and 30th

10th and Rural

Washington and Rural

Keystone and Prospect

Keystone and Troy

Keystone and 30th

Weekdays - dias laborables

Keystone Crosstown

Weekday

www.indygo.net

Northbound B

Keystone at the Crossing Glendale Mall Wal-Mart, Keystone K-Mart, Thompson Rd. 18/26 North Loop on Sundays

For information call Para información llame al 317.635.3344

Kmart at Emerson and Thompson

Route

Glendale

Keystone Crosstown

Phone Hours ~ Horario telefónico: 7a-7p, M-F ~ de lunes a viernes 9a – noon (mediodía), Saturday ~ días sábados

$30.00

*If you pay on the bus, please use exact change ~ Si usted paga después de abordar el autobús, por favor use el cambio justo.

Keystone Crosstown

6:15 7:00 7:45 8:30 9:15 10:35 11:55 1:15 2:35 3:55 4:40 5:25 6:10 6:55 8:15 9:35

6:27 7:12 7:57 8:42 9:27 10:47 12:07 1:27 2:47 4:07 4:52 5:37 6:22 7:07 8:27 9:47

6:33 7:18 8:03 8:48 9:33 10:53 12:13 1:33 2:53 4:13 4:58 5:43 6:28 7:13 8:33 9:53

6:40 7:25 8:10 8:55 9:40 11:00 12:20 1:40 3:00 4:20 5:05 5:50 6:35 7:20 8:40 10:00

6:45 7:30 8:15 9:00 9:45 11:05 12:25 1:45 3:05 4:25 5:10 5:55 6:40 7:25 8:45 10:05

6:57 7:42 8:27 9:11 9:56 11:16 12:36 1:56 3:16 4:36 5:21 6:06 6:51 7:36 8:56 10:16

7:03 7:48 8:33 9:17 10:02 11:22 12:42 2:02 3:22 4:42 5:27 6:12 6:57 7:42 9:02 10:22

Ruta

Fare Options Full Price Opciones de boleto Boleto entero Single Ride* $1.75 Viaje sencillo Day Pass* $4.00 Pase diario 10-Trip $17.50 7-Day Pass $20.00 Pase para 7 días 31-Day Pass $60.00 Pase para 31 días Flexible Services $3.50 Green Line $7.00 Red Line $1.75 ICE $3.00 Summer Youth $30.00

Route

3:01 PM

Keystone and 38th

12/5/08

Route

6.qxd:Layout 1

Keystone Crosstown

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 35 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation

2) STAKEHOLDER GROUP MEETING MINUTES AND DOCUMENTATION (CONT.)

Central Indiana Commuter Services Rideshare Statistics CICS promotes the use of alternative transportation to commuters in Central Indiana. We currently have 8167 commuters in our rideshare database. Of these 8167 active commuters, 4177 use alternative transportation to work: • • • • •

1987 Carpoolers 1674 Transit Riders 370 Bikers 104 Walkers 42 Vanpoolers TOTAL 4177

There are 704 Hamilton County commuters in the CICS rideshare database using alternative transportation. There are 357 commuters living in Carmel in the CICS rideshare database. Commuting patterns (employer destinations) of Carmel commuters in database are as follow: • • • • •

Marion County: 281 Hamilton County: Howard County: Hendricks County: Other: TOTAL

37 30 5 4 357

Total number of Carmel commuters in database using alternative transportation: 228 • 105 Carpoolers • 96 Transit Rider • 24 Bikers • 3 Walkers TOTAL: 228

Planning a Multimodal Region

36 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 2) STAKEHOLDER GROUP MEETING MINUTES AND DOCUMENTATION (CONT.) Companies in Carmel, Indiana participating in CICS program: Allied City of Carmel Clarian North Conseco Experian FCCI Insurance Group Hilton Garden Inn Meijer RCI Spring Hill Suites Walmart CICS database results as of 12-08-09

Arcadia Sheridan

Cicero

Country Cl Edgewo

£ ¤ 421

Noblesville

¬ « 32

Lapel

Westfield Pen

testown Carmel Zionsville § ¦ ¨ 465

§ ¦ ¨ 69

Fishers

Ingalls

Fortville McCordsville Lawrence

§ ¦ ¨ 70

Number of Trips

Hamilton O & D

Major Roads

Designated Places

12 26

Exhibtit __: Hamilton County Trips CIRTA Rural On-Demand Transit Study

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 37 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation

2) STAKEHOLDER GROUP MEETING MINUTES AND DOCUMENTATION (CONT.)

® Lebanon § ¦ ¨ 65

Zionsville Carme § ¦ ¨ 465

St. Vincent Hospital

§ ¦ ¨ 74

Brownsburg C

Planning a Multimodal Region

38 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 2) STAKEHOLDER GROUP MEETING MINUTES AND DOCUMENTATION (CONT.)

Atlanta

Arcadia

¬ «

Sheridan

Thorntown !

Cicero

£ ¤ 421

!! !Lebanon ! !

§ ¦ ¨ 65

! Advance

¬ « Westfield ! Whitestown !! ! Zionsville ! ! ! !

Jamestown

£ ¤

§ ¦ ¨

136

North Salem

Noblesville

Pittsboro

!! !

! ! Carmel ! !! ! ! ! !!

§ ¦ ¨ 465

§ ¦ ¨ 69

Fishers !

Fo McCordsville

Lawrence

Brownsburg § ! ¦ ¨ ! Clermont ! Indianapolis Speedway! Warren Park!Cumberland !! ! Danville Avon S

£ ¤ 36

Beech Grove New Palestine Coatesville Amo !

Clayton

Boone Origins & Destinations

Plainfield

£ ¤

¬ « 67

Exhibtit __: Boone County Trips

Major Roads Designated Places

CIRTA Rural On-Demand Transit Study

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 39 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation

Planning a Multimodal Region

40 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 3)

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE DOCUMENTATION (NOV 2009)

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN OPEN HOUSE WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18TH Carmel, IN The City of Carmel will hold an Open House to address the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ongoing Multi-Modal System Plan with the public. Carmel residents are encouraged to attend and provide feedback. Where and When: The meeting will take place on November 18th, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the Monon Center (East Building, Banquet Hall B) in Central Park. Enter from Westfield Ave. What is the Multimodal System Plan: The Multi-Modal System Plan is a study addressing transportation of all forms within the city of Carmel. Earlier this year the City of Carmel was awarded a grant through the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization to conduct a study to identify and develop a transportation plan for Central Carmel. This study will provide future guidance for all modes of transportation within the city including vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit. Outcomes: The goal of this study is to create a community based transportation plan that provides policy guidance to integrate and balance traditional and multimodal transportation facilities with both existing and desired land form patterns that will support development and improve quality of life in Carmel. The Open House will provide explanatory information on the process, the benefits and the impacts of a multimodal system plan. Your input: The purpose of this Open House is to gather public input to help develop the study. You will be asked about the places and destinations you would like a multimodal system to serve. You will also be asked about your preferences of routes to get to these places and destinations. Information will be available to take home to allow you more time to consider the possibilities and add input.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 3)

Appendix B: Public Participation PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE DOCUMENTATION (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

42 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 3)

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE DOCUMENTATION (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 43 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 3)

Appendix B: Public Participation PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE DOCUMENTATION (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

44 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 3)

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE DOCUMENTATION (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 45 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 3)

Appendix B: Public Participation PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE DOCUMENTATION (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

46 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 3)

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE DOCUMENTATION (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 3)

Appendix B: Public Participation PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE DOCUMENTATION (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

48 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (DEC 2009 - JAN 2010)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 49 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

50 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

52 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 53 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

54 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 55 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

56 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 57 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

58 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 59 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

60 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 61 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

62 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 63 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

64 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 65 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

66 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 67 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

68 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 69 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

70 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

72 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 73 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 4)

Appendix B: Public Participation ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Planning a Multimodal Region

74 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 4)

ONLINE SURVEY AND SURVEY RESULTS (CONT.)

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 75 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation

Planning a Multimodal Region

76 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 5)

STEERING COMMITTEE/STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK (FEB 2010)

Steering Committee meeting for the Carmel Multimodal System Plan (CMSP) 1. PPT Presentation MWestermeier asked, “does the CMSP account for all kinds of transportation?” – yes KBohn asked, “how did we get so many responses?” – online survey Comment on the surprising 3:1 retail vs. commercial node appeal data from MWestermeier. It was not surprising to him: 1) residents actually do travel more to commercial nodes – for dinner/shopping 2) there is actually choice in the retail nodes, unlike employment nodes 3) KBohn added that people are also working at home more On Zionsville not being a key destination – it is for those west of meridian, Zionsville may not be a more important destination for those on the east side. There were decidedly more respondents from the east side. Thus, if there were more respondents from the west side, it could correlate to Zionsville as a destination – People on west side shop at Michigan Rd. There might be more traffic across town when the new express bikeway connects Fishers to Zionsville on 106th St. KBohn pointed out that experientially Allisonville/ Spring Mill are quickest ways Downtown – you’d think Keystone or College, but it is not so. MWestermeier commented that it makes sense that regional connections would be the highest importance. He hopes that it might spur downtown transit He also commented that 90% usually respond in favor of trails so the CMSP survey results are consistent with other public survey results 2.

Discussion Connectivity with the Monon Center for recreation purposes would be helpful. Road patterns do not serve the Monon Center well, and are in fact dangerous. Getting people in and out of the Monon Center better is critical, so having better bus and bike connections for the Monon Center is a priority. AGastBray commented that it could indeed become a node in the CMSP, but it currently would encourage limited consistent ridership without more investment in complementary trip generators like employment, restaurant and retail uses at the node site. MWestermeier asked whether Green infrastructure included bioswales and Prairie plantings - could be added to Green Infrastructure considerations. Indeed, it could/should, but the CMSP could not go that deep into the subject. The green network is planned in the CMSP that could/should accommodate those considerations. MWestermeier offered that busses could be supported as an interim step but rail should be the main choice, thanks to its efficiency and sustainability – as a long term goal it should be touted. Improved crossings at Meridian are key to the functioning of a system. NKestner suggested that parking problems at the Airport and IUPUI should offer an opportunity for transit to get regular riders to those destinations.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 77 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 5)

Appendix B: Public Participation STEERING COMMITTEE/STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK (CONT.)

File Name

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\B Com\3 Mtg\100204\100204_MNStkhdrMtg_0831.docx

Issue Date February 5, 2010 Meeting Date February 4, 2010 Duration 10:00 am – 12:00pm Location Carmel City Hall Attendees Nancy Heck/Carmel David Littlejohn/Carmel Mo Merhoff/Carmel Chamber of Comm. Elaine McGuire/Janus Teresa Steege/Janus Cat Schoenherr/MPO Anna Tyszkiewicz/MPO Meg Storrow/SKA Paul Lippens/SKA Andrew Gast-Bray/SKA Roscoe Brown/IndyGo Evelyn Vicens/IndyGo-CICS By Phone – Annette Darrow/IndyGo Samantha Cross/IndyGo Subject Carmel Multimodal System Plan (CMSP) Stakeholder Meeting Summary 1. Powerpoint/Survey Review A. AGast-Bray reviewed the online survey results. B. NHeck asked if we differentiated types of retail – e.g. grocery store – at this level of analysis, the response is no, but that distinction is important. C. RBrown underscored that retail also represents employment destinations; PLippens concurred and mentioned that this is an essential point; we were aware of and included it in the planning process. Consequently, we emphasized that the nodes were either retail-focused or employment-focused to allow us to make a distinction with more single use employment areas like those along US31. Travel patterns would be different. D. AGast-Bray discussed how the survey results were very favorable (70-90%), however upon deeper review, small changes might make the plan even more favorable: Question – looking at the loops, is it more important to have high headways at some times (lunch time and peak hour)? – what about shorter shifts? Yes, we have looked at it, but the details may be expounded in a feasibility study. 2. Discussion A. NHeck thought that option 1 or 2 is probably good. It would be useful to know the details as to why people go and when people go where. MMerhoff suggested it was odd that there was no talk about the hotel corridor – Pennsylvania, St.Vincent, and Clarian areas. Lunch hour loops could be useful from the Pennsylvania area as well. The Hotel area to Conseco to Clarian constitutes the 2nd largest employment base in Indiana after Downtown Indianapolis and a commuter route tie-in to IndyGo – including a noon time run would be useful. Further discussion noted that this important corridor has been covered by the Southwest Circulator loop. This discussion will be a consideration for phasing and prioritization. B. Janus suggested starting slow, covering the US31 corridor with paratransit. Janus covers Clay Terrace a lot – Doctors’ appointments and job trips request Janus’ on-demand service on the order of 30 trips a day from Noblesville to Carmel C. NHeck: How is the potential transit offering to be communicated? – do people know about it? Will it be clean? and it will need to be clean! D. RBrown advised that we adjust to respondents about Clay Terrace and Merchant Square destinations as well as the US31 corridor – there is reverse commute funding available (JARC). This could provide funding for reverse commuter routes.

Planning a Multimodal Region

78 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 5)

STEERING COMMITTEE/STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK (CONT.)

E. US31 Corridor route could connect to IndyGo system - focus on 86th St and 96th Street tie-in. F. CICS has good reports about trips from Carmel to downtown but not as much on reverse trip because there are no options once you arrive (except Janus – but one needs 24hr notice).CICS’ advice is to hook into 96th Street use (especially since the ICE bus is of limited duration) and use the existing IndyGo system. The group noted that the Southwest Circulator route was designed to co-locate with the northern extension of the Nora IndyGo Route (18). G. Whereas the 96th Street tie-in would be beneficial, AGast-Bray responded that the nodal planning used in the CMSP would be necessary for the transit stop (likewise for stops in Westfield as represented in Option 2, as well). Nodes outside Carmel require working with other communities and were outside the scope of this study, adding significant time to the process. If nodal planning is not done well, those accustomed to express routes would have to change busses and if the tie-in was inefficient or inconvenient, the route might lose the express route riders. H. ATyszkiewicz – MPO is updating the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and will be covering all modes of transportation looking at a regional transit vision and looking at HOV lanes. I. RBrown – does INDOT have to be involved in HOV lanes – i.e. for US31 corridor? – Usually, yes. J. Consensus from the meeting is that option 2 should be pursued adding coverage of Clay Terrace and Merchant Square with the short headway route and in an early phase ensure that the US31 loop is implemented as well. K. AGB is to send PPT to participants.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 79 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 5)

Appendix B: Public Participation STEERING COMMITTEE/STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK (CONT.)

1.0

P r o p o s e d Issue Changes

Comments/Notes

Workgroup Comment

1.1

Minor Border Change to M e r i d i a n Corners District

Local resident Road s u g g e s t e d corroborate. neighborhood relates better to Meridian Corners than to Oak Ridge

1.2

Add Regional Routes on College and Penn/Meridian

Demonstrates relationship with Transit Center, importance of regional connection in survey response

Potentially add a Keystone route to relate to the third transit center alternative.

MHollibaugh and DLittlejohn suggested actual routes for regional connections; the focus will remain on west side corporate corridor (but the report will note CITTF plan)

1.3

Include the Monon Center â&#x20AC;&#x201C; In the SW Circulator Route

An important r e c r e a t i o n , education and leisure destination with potential for future campus development

The Monon Center will be added to the system as a node/district. To sustain a permanent stop this recommendation will require land use and policy changes.

MHollibaugh recommended moving the node to College acknowledging the timing/ efficiency issues, destination importance and complementary land use issues.

1.4

Add retail Clay Terrace circulator route and Merchant to first phase Square received significant support as important city destinations

A preference to first phase circulator headways for key nodes of 15min will be emphasized over complete coverage which may require headways of 0.5hr-1hr in outlying areas.

MHollibaugh wondered if the regional connection could connect to Clay Terrace. AGast-Bray responded that it may; however, implementation of a regional connection would probably take longer than a Carmel initiated transit route. A regional express route might have limitations on number of stops which might discourage it to connect to Clay Terrace. Thus, any regional initiated route would likely consider CMSP recommendations and the CMSP should at a minimum demonstrate service to Clay Terrace in its routes. CMSP will show a regional extension northward past Clay Terrace in addition to the retail circulator.

patterns Agreed to

Planning a Multimodal Region

80 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 5)

STEERING COMMITTEE/STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK (CONT.)

1.0

P r o p o s e d Issue Changes

Comments/Notes

Workgroup Comment

1.5

Prioritize the SW Circulator Loop in the first phase with 15 minute headway

Business interests expressed at stakeholder meeting heavily supported loop – would require addition of only 1 bus.

MHollibaugh inquired about hotel pickup. AGast-Bray mentioned the ability of private sector to build connections to a system and “stops”. However, incentives to bring business cooperation in creating better, more general service stops (i.e. accommodating more than one business) could entail reduced parking requirements and so forth.

1.6

C r e a t e To ensure success, p e r f o r m a n c e/ routes that are phasing plan smaller and more likely to encounter success quickly should be implemented first. Funding sources, i.e. JARC, appear available at this time.

Outlying Circulators Agreed to will be implemented in later phases and may be triggered by system performance measures like ridership. An easily adaptable system focused on legibility and short headways for key nodes will be recommended for the early phase.

1.7

Add minor corrections of the 12/23 draft

SKA “catches”

Employment Centers are too significant to exclude from 1st phase and exhibit potential transit supportive intensity

Agreed to

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 5)

Appendix B: Public Participation STEERING COMMITTEE/STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK (CONT.)

2.0

Changes Proposed

Not Issue

Comments/Notes

2.1

Splitting the M o h a w k District into two districts

A survey respondent proposed a district change but this would not allow for the siting of a walkable, multimodal node

Sufficient connectivity Agreed to exists to link the neighborhood to the proposed Mohawk district node.

2.2

Changes to Gramercy/ M e r c h a n t Square district

A few respondents did not believe this could be a viable district

Will become viable if Agreed to current re-development plans are implemented; significant support was expressed via survey.

2.3

11 6 / G u i l f o r d The adjacent nodes received high better serve the support as a district boundaries destination

Instead improve multimodal connection from 116/Guilford to the node at College (~1/4 mi).

Workgroup Comment

The Workgroup understood recommendation. However, MHollibaugh pointed out that, in reality, there is currently low density development, whereas the PUD on the corner of 116th/ Guilford does have better levels of activity, currently. AKeeling pointed out that the College site is a good infill site and was identified as such in the SmartCode work. Given the nature of the district and boundaries and the best longterm viability, the recommendation was accepted.

Planning a Multimodal Region

82 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix B: Public Participation b 5)

STEERING COMMITTEE/STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK (CONT.)

3.0

Recs. for Study

Issue

Comments/Notes

3.1

Future Public engagement process to support plan adoption

Interest was expressed in redistributing the online survey to business representatives

Maps have been updated MHollibaugh agrees and thinks next subsequent to the survey steps could be appropriate. so it is recommended that this issue be addressed as part of an implementation/ adoption plan.

3.2

Possibility of additional public engagement and/or survey work in preparation for a feasibility study

Additional survey work requires incorporating the updated recommendations and a complementary e d u c a t i o n a l component to address operational issues

Interfacing with the Agreed to business community might offer opportunities for additional funding (e.g. JARC), Nancy Heck might participate as she pointed out that communication, branding and education were key to success of the system.

3.3

Future Regional ICE funding ends Connections this year and multiple strategies are needed for Carmel Transit Center and Marion County node development

Maintenance of express regional connection needs to be addressed as well as interface with IndyGo routes which may be addressed by COA update.

MHollibaugh underscored the importance of the interface with IndyGo’s local Nora route (18) and that a stop on 96th Street where the SW Carmel Loop and Nora Routes co-align would be important. Though SKA agreed, they pointed out that the nature of that connection entails many additional considerations (e.g. location of stop and supportive land use, accessibility, user demographic and so forth) such that a successful transit interface would require more study. Furthermore, MStorrow underscored that there are two separate connections to consider: a regional connection and a local connection. Consequently, there was agreement on the proposed approach to examine this in a subsequent step.

3.4

Future Node/ D i s t r i c t D eve l o p m e n t / Studies

Future design/planning efforts should be coordinated to assure future development and infill will have better transit orientation, supportive land uses, and multimodal patterns (e.g. subarea plans, corridor studies, TOD plans).

MHollibaugh asked if it is an issue of density or development pattern that determines the viability of transit. Both contribute to the “intensities” that allow transit to be successful. Huge revitalization and redevelopment opportunities exist when approached in coordination with other Carmel plans (e.g. SmartCode, US 31 Corridor Study, C3 Updates).

Carmel currently lacks sufficient intensity to support transit, but is growing

Workgroup Comment

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana 83 Final Draft 4/16/2010

b 5)

Appendix B: Public Participation STEERING COMMITTEE/STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK (CONT.)

Proposed Changes Map. Penultimate version until the final recommendations which appear in Chapter 2.

Planning a Multimodal Region

84 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix C: PBT Analysis & Context Maps Appendix C: Contents

A. CMSP Analysis and Context B. Data Sources C. Base Information Context Maps 1. Regional Context Maps 2. City-wide Context Maps 3. Western Impact Area Context 4. Eastern Impact Area Context 5. Southern Impact Area Context 6. Downtown Core Context

CMSP ANALYSIS AND CONTEXT This Appendix is provided to document the data sets and contextual information from which the preliminary recommendations were developed. Data sets were drawn from a great deal of preliminary work provided by the City of Carmel. A list is shown in the next section followed by a series of context maps. The data was compiled and reviewed both by the project work group and details were evaluated separately by the consultant. Thousands of data points were examined to provide the context of this report. Data sets were examined to formulate the preliminary recommendations that were tested in the planning process. The planning team analyzed these data sets as they relate to Place-Based Transportation (PBT)methodologies described in Appendix A

Carmel Thoroughfare Plan Street Classification

Recommendation Options for Multimodal Typologies [1]

Primary Arterial

T1(b), T5c, T5a

Secondary Arterial

T2b, T5c

Urban Arterial

T1(a), T2a

Primary Parkway

T4, T5a. T5c

Secondary Parkway

T6b, T2a, T2b

Residential Parkway

This analysis was incorporated into the base data into the preliminary CMSP recommendations. Carmel’s existing Thoroughfare Plan was the starting point for the application of the recommended multimodal corridor typologies (See the adjacent table). Many of the recommendations fit onto the existing corridor framework, such that the analysis process entailed merely identified missing multimodal connections in the existing network. The results from this example and other PBT analyses steps were compiled and reviewed with respect to the four goal areas of the study. Some other analyses completed included:

density, job density, intensity calculations, and impacts on trip generation,

T6b, T2b, T2a

baseline internal/external traffic loads

Urban Collector Street

T2a, T3, T2b

Collector Street

T7a, T7b, T3

carbon creation per auto, capture by tree, mode shift impact on carbon

Residential Street-Major

T7b, T7a, T7c

Residential Street-Minor

T7a, T7b, T7c, T8

circulator length, stops, timing, physical verification, and approximate annual operational costs

Residential Street-Lane

T7c, T8

A rough correlation of the application/fitting of the typologies into the existing thoroughfare plan can be found in the table above where the first typology listed in the pool of possible new typologies was usually the first typology tested. This first run was useful in determining the impact of traffic flow, street hierarchy, Right-of-Way, etc. in the current thoroughfare network.

The recommendations from this process were presented in front of Carmel residents in the Open House on November 19th and subsequently in the online survey. The changes recommended by the public were then integrated into the final recommendations. Appendix B contains more information about the public process.

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix C: PBT Analysis & Context Maps

CMSP DATA SOURCES

IndyGo route maps in area or other transit (stops)

A List of the data sources and source shapefiles is provided below:

Event/Parade routes, if available

Emergency response routes

Modal Split/trip generation

Important roads, crossroads, road projects

Preliminary List of GIS and Data Requests (preferably georeferenced as with an arcView shapefile) 1. DEMOGRAPHICS Population by smallest units (TAZ or smaller, if possible, census block is usually too big)

4. LOCATIONAL Edge of pavement/ curbs

Structures/ Building Footprints

Centerlines

Hydrology/ Rivers and Streams

FEMA Flood Maps Bridges

Density

Buildings

Employment/Economic Data

Dunn & Bradstreet, ESRI, or Claritas employment and market data

Railroads

Business size, retail size, office space

Parcels

FAR, Building Size

Right-of-Way

Assessed value per parcel

Aerials

Retail sales per business (geo-referenced) – Ron Carter mentioned such information for the impact of the Monon.

2. DISTRICTS Clear nodes, centers, edges, boundaries of neighborhoods

TIF Districts/activity centers/mixed use centers

Historic Districts and Features

Local

State

National

Architectural characteristics

Residential Districts

Landmarks, Destinations

Special Geographies

Brownfields

Wetlands

Other notable environmentally restricted areas

3. PLANNING/TRANSPORTATION Zoning

Transportation System

(arterials, collectors, locals, off-street, greenways, bikeways, bike lane routes)

Parks and Open Space

Proposed Land Use

Geo-referenced traffic data

Planning a Multimodal Region

86 Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix C: PBT Analysis & Context Maps List of Plans that formed the source material for the study:

Thoroughfare Plan Map 2010. efile: Carmel 2010_02_17 Final.pdf Map_Thoroughfare Plan Map 2009 efile: Thoroughfare%20Plan%20Map%202009_06_19%20 NOAX%20Amendment%20PC%20Certified.pdf

Special Study SubArea Plan (96th) by GroundRules,

Gramercy plan (redevelopment of golf course, Mohawk Hills – and its connection to Carmel Dr.),

Legacy Development – a mixed use development like W. Clay,

ArcView Data (folders):

Proposed US 31 Corridor Strategic Development Plan (Draft July 2009) by DCI,

ArchStreet

Providence/Old Meridian plan (incorporated in the SmartCode),

Boundary

Buildings

ICE route planning (currently runs 2x/day, leaving from Meier parking lot Pennsylvania and Meridian/Carmel Dr).

Censusfiles

current parcel shape

hamilton county

Landuse

Nodes

ParcelShape

pavement

Rec

schools

SpecialCensus

speedlimit

Streets

Littlejohn, David. Transit Route Concept Map. efile: 090512_conceptExtents_dlittlejohn_exhibit1.jpg

Trails

US 31

2003 Floodplain Map. efile:2003_floodplain_map.pdf

Utilities

2006 Unplatted Lots: Developable Land Left. 2006%20Developable%20Land%20Left.pdf

schools.zip

speedlimit.zip

Performing Arts area plan in Development Office

C3 Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan. efile: c3_2009.pdf (containing Thoroughfare Plan)

Civic Design Initiative 2006

DCI Westfield Strategic Plan - DRAFT Report 12.11.08.pdf

Downtown Master Plan and SmartCode Charrette Book

Base Maps from the City of Carmel:

Alternative Transportation Inventory Map 2008. efile: alt trans inventory 08142008.pdf

Alternative Transportation Map 2003. efile: alttransplan.pdf

Bicycle Route and Loops Map 2008. efile: Bicycle Route and Loop Map_2008_08_05.pdf

Bicycle Route and Loops Map 2009 efile: bike%20 routes%20and%20loops.pdf

Hamilton County Express: Riders Guide 2007. efile: Brochure_Trans_2007.pdf

Bicycle and Pedestrian Map 2009. efile: Carmel%20 Map%20Bike%20and%20Ped%202009_04_23.pdf

Land Classification Map 2009. efile: land%20 classification%20map.pdf

Proposed Regulating Plan: SmartCodeMap. efile: Proposed Zoning SmartCodeMap.pdf

New Residential Subdivisions: 2001-2007. efile: Residential%20Growth%202001-2007.pdf

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix C: PBT Analysis & Context Maps

BASE INFORMATION CONTEXT MAPS

06-CR-875 E

§ ¨ ¦

29-LS-116th Street

29-LS-96th Street

Marion Co. 86TH ST

§ ¦ ¨

48-S-013-0-01 -0 -0 36 -0 -U 30

Hancock Co.

I-69

82ND ST

McCordsville

82ND ST

§ ¦ ¨

79TH ST

McCordsville

30-S-234-0-01

COOPER RD

56TH ST

Glendale

Brownsburg I-74

IMA

§ ¦ ¨

McCordsville

Corporate Park 38TH ST

§ ¨ ¦

§ ¦ ¨

Cumberland

Regional Center

32-U-036-0-01

Legend: SKA Project Number: 0831 Scale: 1" = 5280 feet (1 mile) Print Size 22" by 34" August 27, 2009

Future Mixed Use Dev

I-70

Avon

§ ¦ ¨

§ ¦ ¨ I-65 I-65

I-70 I 70

Carmel

County Line

US Highway

Ped Corridors

Water Bodies

Major Street

Ped Districts

Parks/Recreation

Spring Lake

CMSP: Regional Context Exhibit A: Regional Connnections 0 0.5 1

Planning a Multimodal Region Final Draft 4/16/2010

30-CR-300 N 30-I-070-0-01

30TH ST

I-465

10TH ST

30-CR-600 N

Oaklandon

Lawrence City Center 56TH ST

POST RD

I-74

71ST ST

COLLEGE AVE

71ST ST

30-CR-Fortville Pi

I-69

73RD ST

Pittsboro

RACEWAY RD

Madison1 Co.

Hamilton Co.

I-65

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\091029_CarmelRegional_0831.mxd

HamiltonSoutheastern

Fishers

Corporate Park

§ ¦ ¨

48-I-069-0-01

Saxony Dev

Carmel Schools Carmel Core

Business Park

32-CR-E 1000 N

32-CR-E 100 N

29-CR-Boden Rd

Clay Terrace Area

Village of West Clay

I-465

§ ¦ ¨

0-0 1

29-S-0 38-0-0 1

30-CR-200 W

I-65

238 -

29-I-069-0-01

Zionsville

§ ¦ ¨

29S-

30-LS-CR600 W

06-S-267-0-01

01 0506

Hendricks Co.

Noblesville

HamiltonSoutheastern

Anson and School Cam

Boone Co.

29-CR-Hazel Dell P

06-CR-650 E

06-CR-400 E -I06

06-CR-600 S

Whitestown

29-LS-146th Street

-01

06-CR-300 S

-0-0 -031 29-U

Ackerson Farms Dev

1-0 -42 06-U

06-LS-CR100 E

Regional Context Map

4 Miles

North

Appendix C: PBT Analysis & Context Maps

City-wide Context Maps

RY HE R

131ST

E L DELL

126TH

HA Z

I VE

122ND

CA RM EL Central Park

GRAY

KEYSTONE

N AL O

131ST

126TH

KEYSTONE

116TH

102ND

106TH

99TH

101ST

98TH

96TH

RIVER

COLLEGE

104TH

WESTFIELD

111TH

GRAY

MERIDIAN

RANGE LINE

GUILFORD

MERIDIAN I SS RE

111TH

10 3R

96TH

CAREY

ROHRER

SPRING MILL SPRING MILL

DITCH

TOWNE

SHELBORNE

122ND

106TH

421 96TH

MAIN

ADAMS

CO N G

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\090826_CarmelWayfinding2_0831.mxd

106TH

136TH

MAIN

I LLIN

HOOVER

WEST

131ST

116TH

136TH

SPRING MILL

DITCH

131ST

126TH

121ST

SIX POINTS

131ST

TOWNE

WEST

SHELBORNE

136TH

146TH

V RI

O IS

TOWNE

141ST

CLAY CENTER

WEST

141ST

DITCH

146TH

OAK RIDGE

Carmel City Limit

96TH

Carmel City Limit

SKA Project Number: 0831 Scale: 1" = 2000 Feet Print Size 22" by 34" October 30, 2009

CMSP: City-Wide Context Carmel Pedestian Facilities

Multi-Use Paths Greenways

Water

Recreation

Exhibit A: Pedestrian System 0 0.150.3

0.6

0.9

1.2 Miles

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

North

Appendix C: PBT Analysis & Context Maps

City-wide Context Maps Continued

RY HE R E L DELL

HA Z

I VE

GRAY

122ND

COLLEGE

104TH

102ND

WESTFIELD

111TH

106TH

99TH

421

101ST

98TH

96TH

RIVER

126TH

KEYSTONE

116TH

MERIDIAN

131ST

126TH

CA RM EL Central Park

111TH

10 3R

RANGE LINE

GUILFORD O

131ST

GRAY

I SS

MAIN

KEYSTONE

E GR

N AL

122ND

106TH

96TH

CAREY

ROHRER

SPRING MILL

MERIDIAN

SPRING MILL

DITCH

TOWNE

SHELBORNE

ADAMS

CO N

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\090826_CarmelWayfinding2_0831.mxd

106TH

136TH

MAIN

I LLIN

HOOVER

WEST

131ST

116TH

136TH

SPRING MILL

DITCH

131ST

126TH

121ST

SIX POINTS

131ST

TOWNE

WEST

SHELBORNE

136TH

146TH

V RI

O IS

TOWNE

141ST

CLAY CENTER

WEST

141ST

DITCH

146TH

OAK RIDGE

Carmel City Limit

96TH

Carmel City Limit

SKA Project Number: 0831 Scale: 1" = 2000 Feet Print Size 22" by 34" October 30, 2009

CMSP: City-Wide Context Residential Uses

Mixed Use

Water

Recreation

Exhibit D: Residential Settlement 0 0.150.3

0.6

0.9

1.2 Miles

Planning a Multimodal Region

90 Final Draft 4/16/2010

North

Appendix C: PBT Analysis & Context Maps

RY HE R

CAREY

SPRING MILL

KEYSTONE

116TH

COLLEGE

104TH

1593

102ND

101ST

HA Z

I VE

GRAY

1298 3813 106TH

1593 98TH

96TH

122ND

RIVER

MERIDIAN

10 3R

1593

1454

1550 1298

WESTFIELD

111TH

126TH

1380

1550

E L DELL

126TH

1380

CA RM EL Central Park

111TH

131ST

GRAY

131ST

1550 KEYSTONE

N AL

I SS RE

RANGE LINE

GUILFORD

MERIDIAN

1380

MAIN

9115

1380

1454

SPRING MILL

DITCH

TOWNE

SHELBORNE

MAIN

106TH

421 96TH

1267

131ST

CO N G

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\090826_CarmelWayfinding2_0831.mxd

106TH

1267

116TH

9115

136TH

I LLIN

HOOVER

WEST

2497

146TH

V RI

SPRING MILL

DITCH

131ST

2497

126TH

121ST

SIX POINTS

131ST

TOWNE

WEST

SHELBORNE

136TH

1267

O IS

TOWNE

141ST

CLAY CENTER

WEST

141ST

DITCH

146TH

1267

R O H R ER

OAK RIDGE

Carmel City Limit

City-wide Context Maps Continued

96TH

Carmel City Limit

SKA Project Number: 0831 Scale: 1" = 2000 Feet Print Size 22" by 34" October 30, 2009

2000 Census Population Density 191 192 - 528

529 - 972

Recreation

973 - 1370

Water

CMSP: City-Wide Context Exhibit E: Census 2000 Population 0 0.150.3

0.6

0.9

1.2 Miles

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

North

Appendix C: PBT Analysis & Context Maps

Western Impact Area Context

OAK RIDGE

RANGE LINE

GUILFORD

OL D

G R AND

ER CENT

ILLINOIS

SPRING MILL

126TH

! RM E

HOOVER

! 122ND

COLLEG

! !

A DA MS

RANGE LINE

DI A RI

ME LD

RI D

IA CLAY CENTER

M EL

! !

MAIN

PENNSYLVANIA

TOWNE

H RER

SPRING MILL SPRING MILL

SIX POINTS

DITCH

TOWNE

WEST

136TH

Special Planning Areas

Flood Plain

Buildings

Manufacturing Use

Exhibit A: Planning Opportunities

Floodway

Public Buildings

Public Use

0 0.125 0.25

OAK RIDGE

RANGE LINE

H RER

DI A RI

ME LD O

MAIN

OL D

GUILFORD

RI D

IA G R AND

CLAY CENTER

ILLINOIS

SPRING MILL

116TH WESTFIELD

SPRING MILL

DITCH

126TH

ER CENT

122ND

COLLEG

ILLINOIS

HOOVER

TOWNE

SHELBORNE

PENNSYLVANIA

TOWNE

WEST

MAIN

136TH

Final Draft 4/16/2010

MER

SPRING MILL

SIX POINTS

DITCH

TOWNE

SPRING MILL

DITCH

WEST

SHELBORNE

OAK RIDGE

SPRING MILL

DITCH

LE C AG

WEST

111TH

8492 - 15451

Speed Limit - 20

Speed Limit - 35

Water

0 - 3302

15451 - 33850

Speed Limit - 25

Speed Limit - 40

Recreation

3302- 8492

33850 - 67420

Speed Limit - 30

Buildings

111TH

CMSP: Western Impact Area Exhibit B: Traffic Patterns 0 0.125 0.25

Planning a Multimodal Region

US 4

ADT

Carmel City Limit

I ID

N IDIA

A DA MS

116TH

M EL

North

ILLI N OI

131ST

Central Park

126TH

0.75

136TH

0.5

Miles

141ST

131ST

SKA Project Number: 0831 Scale: 1" = 1100 Feet Print Size 22" by 34" October 30, 2009

WESTFIELD

CMSP: Western Impact Area

ACE CLAY TERR

REE K

P ENNSYLVANIA

Commercial Use

136TH

121ST

Recreation

141ST

126TH

111TH

Water

Carmel City Limit

LITTLE E

Destinations

146TH

131ST

116TH

RANGE LINE

SKA Project Number: 0831 Scale: 1" = 1100 Feet Print Size 22" by 34" October 30, 2009

P ENNSYLVANIA

SPRING MILL

DITCH

SHELBORNE

Carmel City Limit

ILLINOIS

116TH

US 4

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\090826_CarmelWayfinding2_0831.mxd

IAN

DITCH

WEST

SHELBORNE

OAK RIDGE

SPRING MILL

REE K LE C AG

LITTLE E

WEST

ILLI N OI

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\090826_CarmelWayfinding2_0831.mxd

I ID

ID MER

MAIN

121ST

131ST

Central Park

126TH

131ST

! 136TH

136TH

! 136TH

136TH

141ST

ACE CLAY TERR

Carmel City Limit 146TH

0.5

0.75

1 Miles

North

Appendix C: PBT Analysis & Context Maps Eastern Impact Area Context TR

Carmel City Limit

RI V

GRAY

RANGE LINE

DI AN RI

IA N

! MAIN

131ST

RI D

Central Park

GUILFORD

G R AND

CENT

126TH

DE L

122ND

! 116TH

WESTFIELD

P ENNSYLVANIA

RI V E

COLLEG

126TH

! 122ND

! !

HA ZE L

ILLINOIS

A DAMS

KEYSTONE

! X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\090826_CarmelWayfinding2_0831.mxd

CHE

CAREY RANGE LINE

H RER

OAK RIDGE

M EL

! !

MAIN

PENNSYLVANIA

MAIN

131ST

136TH

I ID

IDIA

T YS KE

136TH

ER NM

146TH

RR Y

OAK RIDGE

ACE CLAY TERR

! 136TH

Carmel City Limit 146TH

! SKA Project Number: 0831 Scale: 1" = 1100 Feet Print Size 22" by 34" October 30, 2009

Destinations

Water

Recreation

Commercial Use

CMSP: Eastern Impact Area

Special Planning Areas

Flood Plain

Buildings

Manufacturing Use

Exhibit A: Planning Opportunites

Floodway

Public Buildings

Public Use

0 0.125 0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Miles

North

TR RR Y

Carmel City Limit

RI V GRAY

RANGE LINE

IA N

MAIN

131ST

GUILFORD TY

DE L

122ND

116TH WESTFIELD

P ENNSYLVANIA

RI V E

COLLEG

126TH

HA ZE L

122ND

126TH

ER CENT

KEYSTONE

G R AND

Central Park

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\090826_CarmelWayfinding2_0831.mxd

RI D ME

OL D

PENNSYLVANIA

CHE

RANGE LINE

H RER

DI AN RI

ME LD O

MAIN

A DAMS ILLINOIS

M EL

MAIN

131ST

I ID

T YS KE

OAK RIDGE

CAREY

OAK RIDGE

ACE CLAY TERR

IA ERID

146TH

136TH

Carmel City Limit 146TH

SKA Project Number: 0831 Scale: 1" = 1100 Feet Print Size 22" by 34" October 30, 2009

ADT

CMSP: Eastern Impact Area

8492 - 15451

Speed Limit - 20

Speed Limit - 35

Water

0 - 3302

15451 - 33850

Speed Limit - 25

Speed Limit - 40

Recreation

3302- 8492

33850 - 67420

Speed Limit - 30

Buildings

Exhibit B: Traffic Patterns 0 0.125 0.25

0.5

0.75

1 Miles

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

North

Appendix C: PBT Analysis & Context Maps !

! 122ND

! !

KEYSTONE

111TH

106TH

103RD 102ND

99TH

98TH

96TH

Recreation

Commercial Use

CMSP: Southern Impact Area

Flood Plain

Buildings

Manufacturing Use

Exhibit A: Planning Opportunities

Floodway

Public Buildings

Public Use

126TH

ER CENT

L NA

R RI V E

11TH

COLLEGE

103RD 102ND

99TH

SPRING MILL

101ST

98TH

Carmel City Limit

106TH

104TH

RIVER

OIS

Central Park

105TH

0 3RD

ILLIN

111TH

GRAY

106TH

PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA

111TH

WESTFIELD

SPRING MILL

KEYSTONE

ILLINOIS

116TH

X:\0831-Carmel ActiveTransp\Work\090826_CarmelWayfinding2_0831.mxd

North

122ND

S G CON

126TH

0.75

GRAY

0.5

Miles

RANGE LINE

OL D

MERIDIAN

ILLINOIS

Water

Special Planning Areas

0 0.125 0.25

MERIDIAN

96TH

Destinations

SPRING MILL

122ND

GUILFORD

ER ID IA N

SKA Project Number: 0831 Scale: 1" = 1100 Feet Print Size 22" by 34" October 30, 2009

Carmel City Limit

H A ZEL DELL

SPRING MILL

101ST

RIVER

104TH

RIVER

WESTFIELD

105TH

Carmel City Limit

Central Park

GRAY

PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA

OIS ILLIN

116TH

96TH

RIVER

11TH

0 3RD

106TH

122ND

RI V E

COLLEGE

SPRING MILL

106TH

116TH

126TH

111TH

106TH

126TH

CON

ILLINOIS

116TH

MERIDIAN

! !

H A ZEL DELL

OL D

MERIDIAN

ILLINOIS

CENT

SPRING MILL

GRAY

RANGE LINE

GUILFORD

ER ID IA N

Southern Impact Area Context

98TH

96TH

Carmel City Limit

SKA Project Number: 0831 Scale: 1" = 1100 Feet Print Size 22" by 34" October 30, 2009

ADT

8492 - 15451

Speed Limit - 20

Speed Limit - 35

Water

0 - 3302

15451 - 33850

Speed Limit - 25

Speed Limit - 40

Recreation

3302- 8492

33850 - 67420

Speed Limit - 30

Buildings

Final Draft 4/16/2010

Exhibit B: Traffic Patterns 0 0.125 0.25

Planning a Multimodal Region

CMSP: Southern Impact Area 0.5

0.75

1 Miles

North

Appendix C: PBT Analysis & Context Maps

Downtown Core Context

Multimodal System Plan / City of Carmel, Indiana Final Draft 4/16/2010

Appendix C: PBT Analysis & Context Maps

Planning a Multimodal Region

96 Final Draft 4/16/2010