INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER Multimodal System Plan by storrow|kinsella: strategies places connections

MERIDIAN

CAPITOL AVE

" 172

104

§ ¨ ¦

103

RIVERSIDE DR E

" 7

202

ING JR

138

184

100

203

108

101 168

22ND ST

160

102

K DR M L

190

COLLEGE AVE

163

SKA & CARMAN

CENTRAL AVE

Creating a Multi-Modal Region

94 109

107 167

162

193

141

126

35 19

68 37

124

200

151

9 86

§ ¨ ¦

;

142

192

135

" 132

115

131

179

175

HARDING

KE NT UC

157

156

Multi-Modal System Plan for the Indianapolis Center Lexington-Fayette Urban Regional County Government

Complete Streets Planning and Design Standards

MERIDIAN ST

AV E

139

SHELBY ST 81

120

158

134

122

133

12 5

130

119

188

129

140

113

183

181

150

" 195

146

143

112

137

145

166

164

12 199

165

149

127

144

ST 84

198

148

182

128

170

171

196

114

147

106 111

176

105

177

117

169

186

136

180

189

174

153

121

161

20 1

185

17 3

16TH ST 97

123

194

187

11 0

191

116

155

COLLEGE AVE

" "

1 N N

" "

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER

CENTRAL AVE

CAPITOL AVE

65 § ¨ ¦

RIVERSIDE DR E

MERIDIAN

Creating a Multi-Modal Region

DR M L KING JR

22ND ST

N N

ST P

N N

16TH ST N N

70 § ¨ ¦

4 " " N N

" "

N N

13 " "

N N

" "

; ;

N B N B

" "

19 P

N N

" 21 "

" "

N N

B B

18 N N

MARCH 31, 2009

" "

" 16"

N N

" "

HARDING

MERIDIAN ST

AV E

WASHING

" "

70 § ¨ ¦

" " " "

MICHIG " "

" "

KE NT UC

N N

B B

" "

15 " "

N N

" " P" 9"

THE INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

N N

" "

SHELBY ST

" "

10T

N N

PREPARED FOR:

65 § ¨ ¦

PREPARED BY: STORROW KINSELLA ASSOCIATES INC. IN ASSOCIATION WITH: PB AMERICAS, INC.

Multi-Modal System Plan for the Indianapolis Regional Center

Prepared by: Storrow Kinsella Associates Inc

In association with: Planning a Multi-Modal Region MARCH PB Americas, Inc. 2009

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Studies show that continued growth in single-occupancy vehicle travel may exceed the capacity of the existing road system and potentially impact the quality of life and economic growth in the City of Indianapolis. The Metropolitan Planning Organization proposes the development of a multi-modal transportation system to promote mode shift, and identify key subdistrict nodes and parking hubs to reinforce economic development. Multi-modal Corridors define streetscape characteristics to improve transportation performance and the economic performance of adjacent land use. Functionally the transportation system then results in reinforcing Indianapolis places as destinations. A subdistrict node-based transit circulator that interfaces with the regional transit system is recommended. Served by bus, taxi, parking and other supporting services, it supports organizing downtown transportation services into walkable zones that will allow workers, visitors, and residents to move from node to node without a car. Less-frequent transit stops will improve headway and provide efficient service that will effect the mode shift necessary to manage traffic in 2030. The resulting balanced transportation system will provide 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.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Abstract Page

iii

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................... Multi-Modality at a Glance................................................................ Plan Process........................................................................................... Plan Vision, Goals, Implementation................................................... How the Plan is Organized................................................................ CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES.................

PAGES 1.1 - 1.7 1.7 - 1.9 1.10 - 1.13 1.13 - 1.15 PAGES

Study Area Description...................................................................... Subdistricts Nodes and Placemaking............................................... Districts, Subdistricts and Nodes..................................................... Implications............................................................................................

2.1 - 2.2 2.2 - 2.5 2.6 - 2.16 2.17 - 2.18

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS........ The System Plan Introduced............................................................. Corridor Classification....................................................................... Corridor Typologies............................................................................ Connectivity.......................................................................................... Mode Components.............................................................................. Green Infrastructure........................................................................... Transit Recommendations................................................................. System Layers Summary.....................................................................

PAGES 3.1 3.2 - 3.3 3.4 - 3.5 3.6 - 3.7 3.8 - 3.9 3.10 - 3.11 3.12 - 3.13 3.14

CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION...............................................................

PAGES

Plan Synthesis........................................................................................ Parallel Strategies................................................................................. Regional Place-Based Transporation Planning................................. Plan Updates.......................................................................................... APPENDICES: A. PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY........................

4.1 4.2 4.3 - 4.4 4.4 - 4.5 PAGES

System Plan Methods........................................................................... System Plan Assessment..................................................................... Corridor Evaluation............................................................................. Implications............................................................................................

A.1 - A.11 A.12 - A.16 A.16 - A.33 A.34 - A.36

B. ADDITIONAL APPENDICES...........................................

PAGES

Glossary................................................................................................. Bibliography........................................................................................... Communications.................................................................................. Best Practices........................................................................................ Sharrow................................................................................................... Cross Sections, Intersections............................................................ Acknowledgements..............................................................................

B.1 - B.6 B.7 - B.22 B.23 - B.53 B.54 - B.66 B.67 - B.68 B.69 - B.89 B.90

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Contents Page

CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS A number of documents and terms referenced in the text, due to the frequency of use, have abbreviations to replace their long formal names in the Multi-Modal System Plan for the Regional Center. They are as follows: Documents MMSP MMDG RCDG RC2020 PedPlan COA

Multi-Modal System Plan Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines Regional Center Design Guidelines Regional Center Plan for 2020 Regional Pedestrian Plan for the Indianapolis Region Comprehensive Operational Analysis for IndyGo Operations - a part of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area Rapid Transit Study by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization, Final Report June 2005

Terms and Miscellaneous [#] IndyGo MPA MPO RC

Bibliography Reference (Appendix B) Informal name for the Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization Indianapolis Regional Center

Contents vi

Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................... Figure 1.1 Metropolitan Planning Area Map................................... Figure 1.2 Segway on Washington..................................................... Figure 1.3 Pedestrian Traffic.............................................................. Figure 1.4 Madison Bike Lanes.......................................................... Figure 1.5 Transit.................................................................................. Figure 1.6 Autos and People.............................................................. Figure 1.7 Overview of Multi-Modal Planning Impact................. Figure 1.8 Indianapolis Case Study................................................... Figure 1.9 Comparison Study Summary Table.............................. Figure 1.10 Portland Case Study....................................................... Figure 1.11 Minneapolis Case Study................................................. Figure 1.12 Chicago Case Study....................................................... Figure 1.13 Boulder Case Study....................................................... Figure 1.14 Austin Case Study.......................................................... Figure 1.15 Madison Case Study...................................................... Figure 1.16 Monon Development.................................................... Figure 1.17 IndyGO Stop................................................................... Figure 1.18 Multi-Use Path................................................................ Figure 1.19 Monument Circle........................................................... Figure 1.20 Farmers Market.............................................................. CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS : PLACES.............. Figure 2.1 MPA and Regional Center.............................................. Figure 2.2 Market Street.................................................................... Figure 2.3 Node Map.......................................................................... Figure 2.4 Regional Heart.................................................................. Figure 2.5 Node 1............................................................................... Figure 2.6 Node 2................................................................................ Figure 2.7 Node 3......................................... ....................................... Figure 2.8 Node 4................................................................................ Figure 2.9 Node 5................................................................................ Figure 2.10 Node 6...................................... ...................................... Figure 2.11 Node 7.............................................................................. Figure 2.12 Node 8.............................................................................. Figure 2.13 Node 9.............................................................................. Figure 2.14 Node 10.................................... ...................................... Figure 2.15 Node 11.................................... ...................................... Figure 2.16 Node 12.................................... ....................................... Figure 2.17 Node 13.................................... ....................................... Figure 2.18 Node 14........................................................................... Figure 2.19 Node 15........................................................................... Figure 2.20 Node 16...........................................................................

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

PAGE 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 PAGE 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.10 2.10 2.11 2.11 2.12 2.12 2.13 2.13

Contents Page

vii

CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES (CONT.) CHAPTER 2: RC RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES (CONT.)........................... Figure 2.21 Node 17........................................................................... Figure 2.22 Node 18........................................................................... Figure 2.23 Node 19.................................... ...................................... Figure 2.24 Node 20........................................................................... Figure 2.25 Node 21.................................... ...................................... Figure 2.26 Node 22.................................... ....................................... Figure 2.27 Proposed Node 4........................................................... CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS...... Figure 3.1 Classification Table........................................................... Figure 3.2 Corridor Classification Map........................................... Figure 3.3 Typology Table................................................................... Figure 3.4 Typologies Unable to Fit into ROW............................. Figure 3.5 CorridorTypology Map................................................... Figure 3.6 Connectivity Table.......................................................... Figure 3.7 Segment Lengths Table.................................................... Figure 3.8 Connectivity Level Map........... ....................................... Figure 3.9 Mode Facilities Table........................................................ Figure 3.10 Modal Component Map................................................ Figure 3.11 Green Infrastructure Table........................................... Figure 3.12 Green Infrastructure Map............................................. Figure 3.13 Time to Destination Table............................................ Figure 3.14 Express Transit Table...................................................... Figure 3.15 Place-Based Routing..................................................... Figure 3.16 Transit Considerations Map......................................... CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION............................................................. Figure 4.1 IndyGO Bus Shelter......................................................... Figure 4.2 Connectivity Level 2030................................................. Figure 4.3 Parallel Development Strategies................................... Figure 4.4 Place-Based Transportation Transit Stop Analysis...... Figure 4.5 Regional Vision Concept................................................. Figure 4.6 Streetscape Example....................................................... Figure 4.7 Corridor Design..............................................................

Contents viii

Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

PAGE 2.14 2.14 2.15 2.15 2.16 2.16 2.17 PAGE 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.13 PAGE 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION MULTI-MODALITY AT A GLANCE

WHAT IS MULTI-MODALITY? A multi-modal system is a transportation network that creates opportunities for multiple means of transportation between specific locations or places within the area that the network serves. 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.

MPA Boundary

Urbanized Area

Regional Center

Figure 1.1 Metropolitan Planning Area Map

The Multi-Modal System Plan creates a network of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit lanes within the Regional Center and will establish key routes to connect the region represented by the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) to the Regional Center.

Methods of travel serviced by a multi-modal system are conceptually infinite. Picture non-motorized travel. Typical modes are walking and bicycling, but additional travel may include running, rollerblading, carriages or horse riding. In motorized travel, the typical modes are cars and buses; this includes motorcycles and scooters, but also rapid transit and rail. New innovations like the Segway and other types of personal transport vehicles are breaking the mold of traditional motorized transportation and may emerge as important multi-modal options in the future. Air travel is an additional consideration; planes and helicopters being the primary methods of transport. Waterways are also important transportation corridors, not only for water transport through methods like canoeing, rowing, sailing, and motor-boating, but also for the potential to create off-street non-motorized corridors along the waterway edge. In northern climates, seasonal conditions may limit cycling to spring, summer, and fall. Winter, however, does open the door to other possibilities like skiing. It is fun to imagine alternatives or innovations that may change the way people move from place to place. In practice, a multi-modal system focuses on four categories or modes of transportation:

Figure 1.2 Segway on Washington Street An example of transportation modes interacting: pedestrians intermingle with a Segway user on Washington Street.

Modal Transportation Categories: 1. Pedestrians – the beginning and end of all trips. • Typical trip range – 0-2 miles • Optimum trip= < ¼ miles • Typical speed – 2-4 mph

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

2. Bicycles – a non-motorized vehicle for personal transportation. • Typical Trip Range – 0-5 miles • Optimum Trip= < 2 miles • Typical Speed – 5-15 mph 3. Buses and transit – a fixed route vehicle servicing many people and many destinations. • Typical trip Range – 2-10 miles • Optimum trip = 0-1 transfer • Typical speed – 15-40 mph 4. Automobiles – a motorized vehicle for personal and group transportation. • Typical trip range – 0-20 miles • Typical speed – 20-45 mph 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 on a busy street that has no sidewalk, driving to work and getting delayed behind a bus. A multi-modal system aims to resolve many of these fundamental conflicts by designating travel ways for each mode and creating a priority system or mode hierarchy for each corridor. Strategies also exist in which two or more travel modes utilize the same travel way

Figure 1.3 Pedestrian traffic Multi-modality in practice: Rising Sun, IN

Figure 1.4 Madison Bike Lanes

Multi-modality in practice: Madison, WI

Mode hierarchy relates to development and landuse patterns. For example, 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. A multi-modal system interacts with development patterns and influences travel behaviors. A multimodal system becomes successful when a sufficient number of connections are established between areas that encourage a variety of mode choices and

Chapter

Page

Figure 1.5 Transit Multi-modality in practice: pedestrians and light rail

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

a synergy between modes; research indicates that providing a minimal network will bring about a shift of up to 10% to non-automobile modes [209].

SCOPE OF THE MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA

Figure 1.6 Autos and People

This system plan focuses on the Regional Center and its connection to the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA, see Fig. 1.1) which represents the boundary of transportation planning within the central Indiana region. Later phases are projected to extend multi-modal planning throughout the MPA.

Multi-modality in practice: Boston, MA

Why Multi-Modality? Goal of a multi-modal system: move the greatest amount of people to their destinations efficiently. Problem with maintaining the status quo: studies show that continued growth in single-occupancy vehicle travel may exceed the capacity of the existing road system and potentially impact Indianapolis’ quality of life. Solution: a Multi-Modal System Plan for transportation management can accommodate projected population growth and support an improved quality of life in the Indianapolis Regional Center and by extension the Metropolitan Planning Area. Figure 1.7 Overview of Multi-Modal Planning Impact

WHY IS MULTI-MODALITY IMPORTANT AND HOW CAN IT BENEFIT THE INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA? The Indianapolis region continues to experience growth. The Regional Center Plan (RC2020), for instance, projects a target population for the area of 40,000 in the year 2020. This target is more than double the population of the area in the 2000 census. Preliminary transportation forecasts show that there is likelihood that many of the region’s corridors may experience increases in vehicle trips beyond capacity constraints of the existing roadway. This will impact the City’s quality of life and economic growth apart from long traffic delays. The City has experienced difficulty in reaching attainment for air quality standards and water quality standards: these environmental impacts can be mitigated by providing viable alternatives to automobiles and redesigning streets to accommodate green infrastructure. Additionally there are equity issues: non-choice riders may not be able to access some destinations. Available activities and amenities are limited in many Indianapolis neighborhoods. Residents will be best served by a diverse network of transportation options. A multi-modal system provides a potential solution to a web of interconnected issues as well as providing many benefits for the Indianapolis region.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Multi-Modal System Benefits: • Travel benefits: reduced travel time, reduced vehicle miles traveled, reduced localized traffic congestion, improved level of service (LOS), better transit efficiency, increased bicycle safety, and improved pedestrian accessibility.

•

Economic benefits: increased housing choice near multi-modal routes and stops, accessible development opportunities, increased taxable values and property values, TIF and bond options to leverage private funds for infrastructure development as with transit-oriented development, spurred entrepreneurial interest, reduced disincentives to property investments, efficient use of scarce resources, and increased appeal of Indianapolis to a national audience. Improved “place” benefits: More aesthetic urban spaces, revitalized City Beautiful and other architectural resources, unique places, improved quality of life, reduced land for parking and inefficient development patterns.

INDIANAPOLIS is ranked relatively low for non-automobile transportation among the 50 US cities with the most workers over age 16, according to the American Community Survey (2005). Alternative transportation mode split: Transit: 1.8%, Bicycle, 0.1%, Pedestrian: 1.9% Mode Split

City Austin, Tx Boulder, Co Chicago, IL Columbus, OH Davis, CA Indianapolis, IN Madison, WI Minneapolis, MN Portland, OR St. Louis, MO

88.80% 49.6%5 77.00% 90.10% 46.4%4 82.80% 74.10% 86.60% 85.70% 91.60%

Pedes trian

•

Figure 1.8 Indianapolis Case Study

Trans it

Environmental benefits: improved air quality, improvements in storm water runoff, improved water quality, green infrastructure, decreased reliance on oil, and reduction in energy consumption.

Bicycle

•

obile

Social benefits: transportation alternatives for low-income, elderly, and youth populations, safe routes to schools, healthier lifestyles, 24 hour – 7 day activity, revitalized and accessible public space, and increased social interactions.

Autom

•

1.30% 21.2%5 0.70% 0.60% 6.2%4 0.10% 7.1%6 2.40% 3.50% 0.10%

5.00% 9.8%5 25.30% 2.90% 0.9%4 1.80% 4.20% 12.50% 13.30% 4.10%

1.80% 10.3%5 5.50% 1.60% 6.2%4 1.90% 11%6 5.80% 4.30% 2.10%

Figure 1.9 Comparison Study Summary

Percentages shown are based on the most recent available data from either the 2005 American Community Survey or the 2000 Census [164, 165], unless otherwise noted.

It is possible to identify potential measures and target outcomes, both qualitative and quantitative, that can be used to understand the impacts of a multi-modal system. In some cases data can be collected and monitored to establish a baseline and to measure the effects of multi-modal implementation.

Chapter

Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CASE STUDIES OF OTHER MULTI-MODAL SYSTEMS:

Figure 1.10 Portland Case Study

PORTLAND, Oregon has achieved national recognition as a vital, bicycle- pedestrian- transit-friendly community through smart growth policies and development of integrated multi-modal systems. Alternative transportation mode split: Transit: 13.3%, Bicycle: 3.5%, Pedestrian: 4.3%.

Figure 1.11 Minneapolis Case Study MINNEAPOLIS, in spite of its northern climate, has developed a sophisticated bicycle commute network that includes outlying park ‘n bike lots. Its developing rapid transit system is capturing significant ridership. Alternative transportation mode split: Transit 12.5%, Bicycle 2.4%, Pedestrian 5.8% .

As a point of comparison, six cities were examined with respect to their mode splits and the effectiveness of their multi-modal planning: Portland, OR, Minneapolis, MN, Chicago, IL, Boulder, CO, Austin, TX, and Madison, WI (see figures 1.8-1.15). These cities were studied because they have invested in moving people in multiple modes rather than just automobiles. Case studies of these cities demonstrate how balanced transportation systems can reduce vehicle miles traveled and the need for more highway lanes while still accommodating economic growth. [164-174]

WHAT ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF MULTI-MODAL SYSTEMS: A multi-modal system will address many goals related to the future development of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area; however, to effectively achieve the potential benefits, the scope of the system must be focused. The following guiding principles were used to direct the development of Multi-Modal System Plan. Multi-Modal System Guiding Principles: • Place-based transportation: traditional transportation planning has largely focused on vehicle mobility rather than moving people to their destinations. Place-based transportation focuses on utilization of the spatial resource of the public right-of-way, enhancing the quality and accessibility of place. •

Transportation and fiscal efficiency: not all corridors will accommodate multiple modes of transportation. In a multi-modal system there are special corridors dedicated to serving multiple modes. Residents will get better service when investment is focused on a system rather than dispersed on segments or area improvements.

•

Network connectivity: a traveler must be able to enter and exit from the system

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

using their mode of choice. Inter-modal links are essential. Connectivity enables multiple modes to serve as viable options and minimizes inducing unnecessary automotive traffic. â&#x20AC;˘

All-mode improvement: automobiles are better served when alternative transportation methods are also provided. With multimodality the long-term viability of auto transportation is actually improved because it relieves some of the pressure that singleoccupancy vehicles place on a system; resulting in a better experience for drivers.

â&#x20AC;˘

Balanced transportation: the pedestrian is the building block of all transportation service. Bicycles are healthy, fast, energy efficient and have a low carbon footprint. Bus transit and rapid transit can create energy savings, time savings, cost savings, and space savings by sharing vehicle trips. Traditional transportation planning has favored the auto at the expense of other modes. A multi-modal system balances this conflict by reworking and reestablishing the right of way service priorities based on the requirements of the network.

â&#x20AC;˘

Quality of life enhancement: providing mode choice is in itself a quality of life issue. People will walk, bike, drive, and take transit. To choose travel using alternate modes will depend on the time-to-destination, quality of the experience and dependability.

WHAT IS A MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN? The Multi-Modal System Plan is the product of a long-range planning process coordinated by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization and is part of an ongoing effort to create sustainable quality of life in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area for residents of Central Indiana. This planning document identifies key places throughout the region and multi-modal routes to connect these areas.

Chapter

Page

Figure 1.12 Chicago Case Study CHICAGO is historically well served by rail-based transit. Its high walk-to-work numbers are expected to be matched by a rapidly expanding bike lane network. Alternative transportation mode split: Transit: 25.3%, Bicycle: 0.7%, Pedestrian: 5.5%.

Figure 1.13 Boulder Case Study BOULDER, Colorado, while a smaller city, ranks highly in all alternative modes and, like Portland, is often cited for its quality of life and healthy lifestyles. It is thus a model for achievable goals. Alternative transportation mode split: Transit: 9.8%, Bicycle: 21.2%, Pedestrian: 10.3%.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Roles of the Multi-Modal System Plan: • The plan recommends a multi-modal transportation network for the Indianapolis Region that provides a more sustainable balance between automobile, bus transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel.

Figure 1.14 Austin Case Study AUSTIN, Texas, has workforce demographics similar to Indianapolis, ranks higher in transit and bicycle- to-work numbers, but is nearly identical in walk-to-work numbers. It has similar aspirations for quality of life-driven economic development. Alternative transpotation mode split: Transit: 5%, Bicycle: 1.3%

•

The plan provides guidance for updating transportation planning in the future.

•

The plan needs and provides for continued public input throughout regional planning development, adoption, implementation, and updating processes.

•

The Multi-Modal System Plan is a living document created for the people who live, work, and travel in the region.

It is important to understand that a plan is not a construction document and that recommendations can be revised if attitudes or circumstances change in the future. The role of the multi-modal system plan is to chart a viable process in the development of a multi-modal transportation network. This plan is one essential piece; working in concert with many other pieces (plans, people, organizations, and neighborhoods) to achieve a collective vision for the future of the Indianapolis region. PLAN PROCESS The development of an Indianapolis regional MultiModal System Plan builds on the previously approved Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines and the Indianapolis Regional Pedestrian Plan.

Figure 1.15 Madison Case Study MADISON, Wisconsin, though another northern capitol city, has achieved remarkable non-automobile mode split, particularly for bicycle and walk to work. Alternative transportation mode split: Transit: 4.2% (2000 census), Bicycle: 7.1%, Pedestrian: 11%.

The MPO supports the development of multi-modal transportation in the Indianapolis region. This planning effort began with an in-depth study of the regional center and will expand to the eight county area. Several key studies and planning efforts serve as the building blocks for this plan including: Multi-Modal System Plan - Related Efforts: • Indianapolis Regional Pedestrian Plan – This plan reviews regional pedestrian facilities and outlines recommendations for improved pedestrian services.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

•

Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines – Guidelines for the design of Multi-Modal Corridors; it contains important tools for implementing the Multi-Modal System Plan.

•

Indianapolis Regional Center Design Guidelines – Guidelines for the design of buildings and private spaces in the Regional Center.

•

Special Neighborhood Study – A plan designed for the implementation of a Multi-Modal transportation network for a one square mile area centered on the Glendale Mall near Broad Ripple.

•

The Regional Center Plan 2020 – A comprehensive plan for the Regional Center that guides future development for the Regional Center through 2020.

•

The Regional Transportation Plan 2030 Major Review – This plan is the master plan for surface transportation in the Indianapolis region. The plan aims to support the mobility needs of the community and accommodates anticipated population growth.

•

DiRecTionS – A comprehensive study looking at rapid transit possibilities for the Indianapolis Region.

•

The Thoroughfare Plan – This plan provides thoroughfare classifications and prioritizes road segment improvements with cost estimates.

•

Other plans included the Cultural Trail, Bio Crossroads Master Plan, IUPUI Master Plan and other subarea plans.

Figure 1.16 Monon Development

Economic Development Benefits: The Monon Row Condos built adjacent to the Monon Trail in Broad Ripple.

Furthermore, the area currently accommodates some multi-modal transportation and has more developments planned for completion. In the Regional Center the three following plans form the primary basis for organizing the interaction between the modes. Existing Mode Plans: • Bike Plan – The Department of Public Works has a bike plan in place for the region. In the Regional Center this plan revolves around a

Chapter

Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

few major corridors: West St., Illinois St., Capitol Ave., New York St., Michigan St. and South St.

Figure 1.17 IndyGO Stop

The Multi-Modal System Plan will look to improve the accessibility of current IndyGO facilities by increasing the accessibility of the network to bicycalists, pedestrian, and auto commuters.

•

Transit Plan – IndyGO has a transit plan in place for the region called the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA), supplemented by a transit center plan, downtown transit analysis and IndyGo’s existing special routes (circulators).

•

Pedestrian Plan – The MPO has a regional pedestrian plan in place that outlines the primary pedestrian corridors and provides guidelines for pedestrian facilities.

All these plans need to work together to help realize the mode shift necessary to accommodate future transportation demand. The system plan seeks to weave these separate mode plans together as one multi-modal system. identifying gaps and key connections, the areas of plan convergence and all the potential streets that could accommodate multiple modes including automobiles. Perhaps most importantly the system plan will identify the intermodal connection of places, or nodes.

Stakeholder Input A working group subcommittee and a regional steering committee examined preliminary plans for routes and offered recommendations and resources based on their experience and knowledge of existing and proposed projects. There were also a series of focus groups that gathered more detailed feedback and resolved problems with the preliminary plan recommendations. These recommendations were incorporated into the system provided they met connectivity, spacing and walkability requirements. Furthermore, a public meeting was conducted in December of 2007 to provide an opportunity for interested members of the public to provide input on plan development and the planning process. The meeting engaged residents in a discussion about the impacts and benefits of multi-modal transportation and provided insight into residents’ transportation needs and preferences for service investment.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

PLAN VISION, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE The regional steering committee determined that the multi-modal system plan would implement the vision statement that was developed as part of the Regional Pedestrian Plan process. Its vision statement serves as a unifier for residents, policy makers, planners, and implementers, dedicated to the long-term transformation of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area into a multi-modal system.

Figure 1.18 Multi-Use Path

The Multi-Modal System Plan works together with other planning efforts, like the pedestrain plan, to achieve a regional vision.

Pedestrian Plan Vision Statement: The Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area will be a regional network of diverse, walkable, bikeable, and transit-friendly communities linked by a comprehensive multi-modal system that provides access to home, work, education, commerce, transit, and recreation. This vision recognizes the importance of balance among all transportation modes, connects transportation and land use, and understands that economic and community development is sustained by the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s quality of life and environmental health. The Multi-Modal System Plan is a component among others that will help realize this long-term vision in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area. There are four distinct goals the multi-modal system plan planning effort aims to achieve that are central to the success of this vision: Multi-Modal System Plan Objectives: 1. Performance - The Multi-Modal System Plan will establish an effective and efficient multimodal transportation network that is readily accessible, fully connected, and improves the multi-modal mobility of neighborhoods, employment areas, and cultural/recreational destinations. 2. Opportunity - The Multi-Modal System Plan will ensure that the multi-modal network reinforces neighborhood and district nodes, creates opportunities for placemaking, capitalizes on economic development 1 10

Chapter Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

opportunities, focuses planning initiatives, builds neighborhood character, and captures local heritage. 3. Sustainability - The Multi-Modal System Plan will promote an improved quality of life in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Region by identifying transportation alternatives that respect and enhance the built environment, ecological systems, energy usage, resource conservation, and social equity.

Figure 1.19 Monument Circle Monument Circle: A multi-modal network must identify the most important places to serve. Some of the places may be iconic locations like Monument Circle in the Regional Center. Some may offer opportunities for future development.

4. Balance - The Multi-Modal System Plan will provide implementable multi-modal recommendations for bicycle, pedestrian, and bus transit that support related planning initiatives, are feasible and financially viable investments, reflect the values and input of residents, and ensure the public safety, health, and welfare of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Region. The Multi-Modal System Plan network can be implemented over time with continued focus on improving transportation performance. A highly functional multi-modal system can be achieved by creating increasing levels of connectivity. These levels break down as follows: Multi-Modal System Connectivity: • Level I – Key Segments: In Level I the priority is to reinforce and supplement the recommendations of the current pedestrian, bicycle, and transit planning initiatives and bring commuters into the multi-modal network. The focus will be to create multimodal segments serving North-South, East-West, and diagonal connectivity. A secondary focus will be to begin to develop key placemaking areas, park and ride areas, and associated economic development nodes. •

Level 2 – System Connectivity: In Level 2 the priority is to accentuate the segments developed in Level I by creating interconnectivity to allow greater multimodal movement around the Regional Center. This level entails multi-modal

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

circulation that links the North-South, East-West, and diagonal segments. Loop connectivity should extend from the district center at radial intervals ranging from ¼ to ½ mile. A secondary focus will be to recognize opportunities for additional segment development with a priority given to placemaking areas and associated nodes. •

Level 3 – System Completion: In Level 3 the remaining elements of the system become the priority with the emphasis being placed on synchronizing with related planning efforts and continued node development.

It is not intended that the implementation will be completed at one time or that there will be a clear start and end to each level; there will likely be overlap. A connectivity level approach will help to guide the implementation of a multi-modal system by defining milestones for enabling alternative mode choice, or mode shift. For each level of connection, there are varying degrees of investment necessary to complete the transformation of the corridor to support multi-modal travel:

Figure 1.20 Farmers Market The Multi-Modal System Plan reinforces sense of place, accessibility, and economic development.

Multi-Modal Investment: • Basic: striping – entails initial corridor design. Investment to stripe bike lanes, pedestrian crossings, bike boxes, parking lanes, and related lane reconfiguration. •

Enhanced: corridor design amenities – additional corridor design. Investment in pavement textures, curbing, green infrastructure.

•

Integrated: corridor and land use development – design of nodes and district amenities including multi-modal transitions and other placemaking characteristics. Design and construction of transit stations, signage, gateways, and intersections. Corresponding land use decision making and planning, as well as special subdistrict studies.

•

Measured: corridor evaluation and modification – periodic monitoring of multimodal trips; user surveying and system adjustment and improvements. 1 12

Chapter Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Multi-modal corridors can be implemented at varying degrees of investment depending on the conditions, opportunities, and funding availability. A basic degree of investment is necessary for each corridor outlined in each connectivity level to begin to realize mode shift. HOW THE PLAN IS ORGANIZED The plan consists of three chapters, including this Introduction, as well as an appendix containing additional resource material. It is a segment of the Multi-Modal System Plan for the Metropolitan Planning Area. The plan interprets and applies the Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines to the Indianapolis Regional Center. Chapter 1 - Introduction This chapter provides information on the background, the process and the objectives of the Multi-Modal System Plan. This chapter will be a useful introduction for readers with limited background knowledge about multi-modal systems and those who are unfamiliar with related planning efforts conducted by the MPO. Chapter 2 - Regional Center Recommendations: Places This chapter focuses on defining the places (nodes) that the multi-modal system should connect and the neighborhoods (districts) that make up the study area utilizing a method denoted as â&#x20AC;&#x153;Place-Based Transportation Planningâ&#x20AC;?. It also provides guidance and targets for the characteristics, performance and opportunities presented by the districts and nodes. This chapter will be a useful tool for readers involved with plan implementation: elected officials, planners, engineers, architects, policy administrators, developers, etc.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Chapter 3 - Regional Center Recommendations: Connections The multi-modal system links the nodes and districts located in the Regional Center. This chapter is essentially a map book and is intended to be the key multi-modal planning resource for users. It focuses on the connections of the districts, subdistricts and nodes and in particular the corridors where these connections take place. Each of the 203 corridors selected in the system is assigned a unique ID and recommended characteristics are described in the presentation of six maps: Corridor Classifications, Corridor Typologies, Corridor Connectivity, Modal Components, Green Infrastructure, and Transit Considerations. The Corridor Typology map is the key interface document for the application of the Multi-Modal and Public Space Design Guidelines. The chapter concludes with the implications from applying Place-Based Transportation Planning to connections and corridors in the Regional Center. This chapter will be a useful tool for readers involved with plan implementation: elected officials, planners, engineers, architects, policy administrators, and land developers. Chapter 4 - Implementation This chapter provides conclusions from the plan process and implementation strategies for advancing the Multi-Modal System Plan. This chapter provides a synthesis of the main themes outlined in the plan as well as guidance on forging regional multimodal connections, plan updates and revisions, and potential future studies to support multi-modality and regional mode shift. This chapter will be useful for readers who want a better understanding of the policy context and next steps to achieving balanced transportation.

1 14

Chapter Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Appendices Appendix A Resources

Plan

Methodology

and

This chapter describes the Place-Based Transportation methodology used to develop the system plan. It also describes the methods for assessing the quality and performance of the network, including directness of travel, connectivity, walkability and coverage. The chapter also describes evaluation of critical corridors and describes a performance modeling exercise. This was conducted on three recommended multimodal corridors: Ohio Street, Massachusetts Avenue, and Meridian Street. The evaluation tested a design solution for the recommended typologies on each of these corridors. The evaluation looked at the potential results of mode shift using 2030 traffic forecasts in current and redesigned roadways. Measures evaluated included: vehicle miles travelled, delay time, miles of congestion, speed, fuel consumption, cost of congestion, and LOS. This appendix will be useful for readers who want to utilize the Multi-Modal System Plan to support neighborhood planning initiatives, economic development initiatives, and development proposals, because the subject matter links land development patterns and right-of-way function. This appendix will also be useful for readers who wanta better understanding of the potential benefits/impacts of a multi-modal system. Decision-makers and planners can utilize this chapter to understand how to accommodate context-sensitive solutions consistent with the system plan. Additional Appendices Additional supportive information is included in the plan appendices. This includes a glossary, a bibliography with the references cited in the text, a record of project communications, a summary of best practice research surveys, cross sections intersection designs created for the critical corridor evaluations and acknowledgements.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Page Intentionally Left Blank

1 16

Chapter Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES

STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

MPA Boundary

Urbanized Area

Regional Center

Figure 2.1 MPA and Regional Center

The Regional Center is located in the Center of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area. The Multi-Modal System Plan will aim to accommodate multi-modal transportation choice within the Regional Center study area and to connect the area to the region.

The Regional Center is the heart of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area and a vibrant hub of Central Indiana. The district extends from a center point near Monument Circle and covers roughly 7.5 square miles. The Regional Center has a “pan and handle” shape. The “pan” portion is bordered by Interstate I-65 and I-70 to the East, I-70 to the South, the Belt Railroad to the West and 16th Street to the North. The “handle” extends up from 16th Street to 30th Street along the Meridian Street corridor falling between Pennsylvania and Illinois (see figure 2.3). The study area is a regional nexus of commerce, culture, employment, recreation and education. It is also a residential center. According to the Regional Center Plan for 2020 the area has more than 120,000 jobs and more than 1800 single and multi-family housing units, resulting in a population of approximately 20,000 people. The plan sets targets to increase the area’s residential population to 40,000 by the year 2020. The Regional Center continues to experience growth, making it one of the most vibrant city centers in the Midwest. Multi-modality is a priority in the Regional Center, and has been recommended for further development in multiple planning efforts, notably the Indianapolis Regional Pedestrian Plan and the Regional Center 2020 Plan. The area currently accommodates some multi-modal transportation and has more developments planned for completion. Currently, the separate mode plans are not designed to work together as one multi-modal system. The gaps and key connections were not identified. The areas of co-located modes were not outlined; and all the potential streets that could accommodate multiple modes in addition to automobile were not identified. Perhaps most importantly the intermodal connection places or nodes were not identified. All of these elements work together to help realize mode shift. Economies of scale will only be achieved by creating a complete and connected multi-modal system. The current thoroughfare plan is also a factor in defining a multi-modal system. Corridor alignments

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES

and connectivity are evaluated by their relationship to the current thoroughfare plan. The multi-modal system will accommodate automobiles on all Regional Center corridors that currently accommodate them. For this reason an automobile crosscheck is one of the final pieces to defining the multi-modal system in the Regional Center. The first step is to decide what places the system must principally serve. SUBDISTRICT NODES AND PLACEMAKING The Regional Center multi-modal district is too large to be treated as one walkable district and thus must be divided into subdistricts. Twenty-two subdistrict nodes have been identified as walkable centers of Regional Center subdistricts. The nodes represent a place for constructing transit stations, or transit hubs with above average amenities. They should certainly be thought of as the most important network accessibility places. This concept is twofold, both as a place where people can access the network and as a place where the network provides access to essential goods and services. For this reason, in the Regional Center, the Nodes are generally located at places that have already been identified in other planning documents as serving some regional importance; or in areas that present unique development opportunities. They are spaced between ¼ mile and ½ miles (a 5 and 10 minute walk, respectively) apart depending on the intensity of the area. Subdistrict nodes are all associated with at least one corresponding Placemaking Corridor and other elements like multi-modal transitions. This plan locates the Subdistrict Nodes and associated features based on the context of the Subdistrict and its local role in the transportation network. The location of the Subdistrict Nodes and associated features can be adapted during plan implementation provided that alternate locations still continue to serve the associated Placemaking Corridors and the Subdistrict. The Regional Center has seven different kinds of subdistricts that have been adapted from the Regional Center 2020 plan. They are Campus, Entertainment,

Chapter

Page

Figure 2.2 Market Street

Market Street: a placemaking corridor that leads to Monument Circle. This unique corridor has pedestrian intensity and historic significance with City Beautiful elements

The map to the right shows the Regional Center neighborhoods or districts derived from the Regional Center 2020 Plan, and the transitstop nodes or “hearts” of each neighborhood. The neighborhoods are shown with 5 minute and 10 minute walk radii to illustrate the walkable zones of each neighborhood. The nodes are candidates for higher intensity neighborhood revitalization and economic development strategies.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CENTRAL AVE

CAPITOL AVE

MERIDIAN

" "

1 N N

" "

ST KING JR DR M L

22ND ST

N N

" "

COLLEGE AVE

RIVERSIDE DR E

65 § ¨ ¦

" "

16TH ST N N

70 § ¨ ¦

" "

4 N N

10TH

N N

" "

N N

MICHIGAN ST N N

13 " "

N N

" "

; ;

N B N B

" 21 "

" "

70 § ¨ ¦

N N

MERIDIAN ST

KE NT UC

HARDING

" "

" P B

Figure 2.3 Node Map

Placemaking Placemaking, City Beautiful Overlay

65 § ¨ ¦

0.25

Miles 0.5

This map was developed from information and data provided by but not limited to: IGIC (formerly INGISI), IMAGIS, SAVI, IUPUI (LUCI), MPO, IDNR, Hoosier Rails to Trails, and local jurisdictions/ municipalities. Created by: Storrow Kinsella Associates

March 2009

Multi-Modal Corridor

N N

" "

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE INDIANAPOLIS REGION

Node MM Transition Parking Hubs/Transfer Bike Ports

" "

Subdistricts and Placemaking Corridors

" 16"

" "

ORRIS ST

; Monument Circle

" "

WASHING

" "

" " " "

Legend

N N

19 N N

" " P

70 § ¨ ¦

" "

OLIVER AVE

MICHIG " "

SHELBY ST

N N

AV E

Printing Date: February 18, 2009 File: X:\0633e-Multimodal Planning-Indy (Clean)\Multimodal System Plan\GIS\090204_Final_Layouts\090218_Subdistricts Placemaking.mxd

ON ST ASHINGT

N N

B B

" "

15 "

N N

9" " " P "

Regional Center Subdistricts Campus Entertainment Industrial

Special

Neighborhood Residential

5 Minute Walk

Urban Core

10 Minute Walk

Urban Mixed Use Village

Derived from Regional Center Plan for 2020

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES

Industrial, Neighborhood Residential, Urban Core, Urban Mixed Use, and Village. These designations describe the different kinds of land uses that are present in the regional center. The differences that exist in these districts contribute to providing an added level of description to the Subdistrict Nodes. The characteristics of Subdistict Nodes, and their associated features, vary naturally based on their context, both from a land use perspective and from there placement within the proposed Multi-Modal System. For each node of the Regional Center study area these characteristics are indicated in accordance with the list below: District Description: 1 (Sub)district – identifed typology from the Regional Center Design Guidelines with equivalent from the MMDG. 2

Placemaking Corridors – identified the Placemaking Corridors for the (sub)district (see MMDG).

Transitions - Indicate location and transition type: Corridor transition – A place between corridors that indicate a functional change: often with signage, textures, behaviors and/ or other visual cues. District transition– A place along Corridors that indicates where districts change: often with gateways, textures, character changes and other visual cues.

Figure 2.4 Regional Heart Regional Heart: Moniument Circle, a place of special consideration in the Multi-Modal System, because of its role as a regional heart, and as an icon for Indianapolis.

District Characteristics: 4 Intensity – The degree to which an area accommodates residential, office and retail traffic and facilities. Higher intensity is usually associated with larger, more densely packed buildings. 5 •

•

Node Description: Subdistrict/Neighborhood Heart – An area of intensity that is the center of a localized neighborhood. Transit Oriented – An area of intensity that has been or should be studied for development of a transportation center

Chapter

Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES

that is the focus of the (sub)district; or may present special transit opportunities. •

Redevelopment Opportunity (Special Study) – A place that may be underdeveloped or in the process of developing that presents unique opportunities and can be essential to achieving the goals of the Multi-Modal System Plan.

•

Regional/District Heart – The Monument Circle, a place that posesses a worldwide iconic value.

Mode Characteristics 6 Transit Considerations – Whether a station or hub scale transit facility; connection level - a node connects with the System having a hierarchical importance in the transit network, e.g. transfer station between express routes; location on a transit route. 7

Bike/Ped Facilities – Description of facilities and their relative importance to the mode network; access to centralized amenities like bike share, taxi stands, active recreation.

Green Infrastructure – Description of access to parks, need for green streets, and so forth.

Other Considerations – Any other relevant information.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES (Sub)District and Node Descriptions and Characteristics NODE 1: MERIDIAN AT FALL CREEK 1.1 Subdistrict: Campus (see MMDG - Campus). 1.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Meridian; Fall Creek 1.3 Transitions - Portals: Meridian at 30th, District Transition; Fall Creek at Delaware, Corridor Transition; Fall Creek at Illinois, Corridor Transition, 1.4 Intensity: Medium - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, needs more mixed-use and residential. 1.5 Node Characteristics: Subdistrict Heart 1.6 Transit Characteristics: N-S Axis route, Station scale stop. 1.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Center should be more walkable, Fall Creek is an important bike corridor. 1.8 Green Infrastructure: direct connection to Fall Creek both park and parkway.

Node 2: Meridian at 22nd 2.1 Subdistrict: Village Mixed Use (see MMDG VMPD). 2.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Meridian; 22nd. 2.3 Transitions - Portals: Meridian at Fall Creek, District Transition; Meridian at 21st, District Transition; 22nd at Delaware, Corridor Transition; 22nd at Illinois, Corridor Transition 2.4 Intensity: Medium to High - defines the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, needs more mixed-use and residential. 2.5 Node Characteristics: Transfer Station. 2.6 Transit Characteristics: N-S Axis route, RC Circulator, Station scale stop. 2.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Transfer station should allow quality bike/ped intermodal transfers. 2.8 Green Infrastructure: Urban Pedestrian street connection west to Fall Creek, City Beautiful connections N-S.

Chapter

Page

Figure 2.5 Node 1: Meridian at Fall Creek

Figure 2.6 Node 2: Meridian at 22nd

Aerial Diagram Key: = Central area of node location. To be studied for development of supporting facilities

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES

Figure 2.7 Node 3: 16th at Indiana

Figure 2.8 Node 4: West at 11th

Aerial Diagram Key: = Central area of node location. To be studied for development of supporting facilities

Node 3: 16th at Indiana 3.1 Subdistrict: Urban Mixed Use around Village Mixed Use core (see MMDG - TOPD,VMUPD) 3.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Indiana/Stadium. 3.3 Transitions - Portals: White Creek Pkwy at 16th, Corridor/District Transition; White Creek Pkwy at 14th, Corridor/District Transition; 10th at Indiana, District/Corridor Transition. 3.4 Intensity: High Village Mixed Use intensity on central placemaking street to serve surrounding light industrial/Office Park and residential area to the north - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, needs special study to integrate elements. 3.5 Node Characteristics: Transit Station centered development. 3.6 Transit Characteristics: N-S Axis route, Station scale stop. 3.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Bike boulevard to node, Parkways are major bike corridors. 3.8 Green Infrastructure: Bike boulevard connection to White Creek and urban pedestrian to Fall Creek. Node 4: West at 11th 4.1 Subdistrict: Neighborhood residential around Village Mixed Use core (see MMDG - VRPD, VMUPD). 4.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Canal. 4.3 Transitions - Portals: West and 9th to Canal, District/Corridor Transition. 4.4 Intensity: Medium to Medium-High - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, needs more mixed-use and more intense residential. 4.5 Node Characteristics: Redevelopment opportunity (special study). 4.6 Transit Characteristics: RC Circulator, Station scale stop/People mover stop. 4.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Off street placemaking corridor requiring major multimodal capacity since cars cannot access the Canal. Cars must be accommodated to bring drivers to convenient use of node. 4.8 Green Infrastructure: Canal is off street corridor, but should connect northward to Fall Creek eventually.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES

Node 5: Campus Medical Center 5.1 Subdistrict: Campus (see MMDG - Campus). 5.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: West Dr. 5.3 Transitions - Portals: White Creek Pkwy at 16th, Corridor/District Transition; White Creek Pkwy at 10th, District Transition; 10th at Indiana, District/Corridor Transition. 5.4 Intensity: Medium - draws beyond the neighborhood, needs more mixed-use. 5.5 Node Characteristics: Subdistrict Heart. 5.6 Transit Characteristics: RC Circulator, Station scale stop, potential people mover circulator. 5.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Parking Hub and right on bicycle commute paths, direct connections to IUPUI Campus, multi-modal network as a park and ride, and green infrastructure during non-work hours. 5.8 Green Infrastructure: Direct connection to Fall Creek both park and parkway and White River park and parkway, 5.9 Other: subdistrict has a second node (#15) and nodes at district edges (#14, #20). Node 6: Methodist Hospital; 16th at Senate 6.1 Subdistrict: Urban Mixed Use (see MMDG TOD, Village Mixed Use, Campus). 6.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: 16th; Meridian. 6.3 Transitions - Portals: 16th at MLK, District/ Corridor Transition; 16th at Illinois, District Transition. 6.4 Intensity: High Village Mixed Use intensity on central placemaking street to serve surrounding Hospital campus - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, and needs more mixed use. 6.5 Node Characteristics: Redevelopment Opportunity (Special Study). 6.6 Transit Characteristics: RC Circulator, Station scale stop, potential people mover circulator. 6.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Parking Hub and right on bicycle commute paths, direct connections to IUPUI Campus, multi-modal network as a park and ride, and green infrastructure during non-work hours. 6.8 Green Infrastructure: Short connection to Fall Creek park and Canal Off-Street Corridor. 2

Chapter

Page

Figure 2.9 Node 5: Campus Medical Center

Figure 2.10 Node 6: 16th at Senate

Aerial Diagram Key: = Central area of node location. To be studied for development of supporting facilities

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES

Figure 2.11 Node 7: 16th at Central

Figure 2.12 Node 8: Meridian at St. Clair

Aerial Diagram Key: = Central area of node location. To be studied for development of supporting facilities

Node 7: 16th at Central 7.1 Subdistrict: Neighborhood Residential (see MMDG - Village Residential). 7.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: 16th; Meridian; 7.3 Transitions - Portals: 16th at Delaware, District Transition. 7.4 Intensity: Medium - defines the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, needs more mixed-use especially at node for neighborhood scale retail and support. 7.5 Node Characteristics: Subdistrict heart, Redevelopment opportunity (Special Study). 7.6 Transit Characteristics: RC Circulator, Station scale stop. 7.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Somewhat cut off from RC by I-65, needs enhanced bike/ped connections to prevent isolation - see 8 below. 7.8 Green Infrastructure: Short connection to the Monon Off Street Corridor and recommended off-street corridor along highway.

Node 8: Meridian at St. Clair 8.1 Subdistrict: Urban Core (see MMDG - CBPD). 8.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Meridian, St Clair. 8.3 Transitions - Portals: Fort Wayne and North, District Transition. 8.4 Intensity: Medium-High to High - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, needs to increase mixed-use of district to the east that serves neighborhood retail. 8.5 Node Characteristics: Subdistrict heart (Special study). 8.6 Transit Characteristics: N-S Axis route, Station scale stop. 8.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Library and facing park are big draws for bike/ped traffic, take advantage of social street in front of Library for events to help identification as a subdistrict, needs to connect to mixed-use district to the east to access neighborhood retail. 8.8 Green Infrastructure: Direct connection to library park and City Beautiful Corridor (Meridian).

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES Node 9: Mass Ave North 9.1 Subdistrict: Village Mixed Use (see MMDG Village Mixed Use). 9.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Mass Ave. 9.3 Transitions - Portals: 10th and Central, 10th and Bellefontaine, District Transitions. 9.4 Intensity: Medium to Medium-High - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, needs more mixed-use and more residential. 9.5 Node Characteristics: Transit Oriented Redevelopment Opportunity (Special study) 9.6 Transit Characteristics: NE Axis route, RC Circulator, Hub scale station. 9.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Park and ride, parking hub, potential short connection to the Monon and short connection to the Cultural Trail. 9.8 Green Infrastructure: Potential short connection to Monon and highway off-street corridor. 9.9 Multi Modal Roundabout-Special Study-at College and 10th. Node 10: Vermont at Capitol 10.1 Subdistrict: Urban Core (see MMDG - CBPD). 10.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Vermont, Indiana. 10.3 Transitions - Portals: near many District Transitions. 10.4 Intensity: Medium-High to High - draws beyond the neighborhood, large potential to increase existing intensity, needs more office, residential and mixed use. 10.5 Node Characteristics: Transit-Oriented Redevelopment Opportunity (Special Study) 10.6 Transit Characteristics: NW and N-S Axis route, hub scale station. 10.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Parking hub and park and ride. One of the closest-to-city-center stops on transit, giving access to the entire city. 10.8 Green Infrastructure: Direct connection to Canal and Monument Circle area City Beautiful corridors.

Figure 2.13 Node 9: Mass Ave North

Figure 2.14 Node 10: Vermont at Capitol

Aerial Diagram Key: = Central area of node location. To be studied for development of supporting facilities

2 10

Chapter Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES

Figure 2.15 Node 11: Mass Ave Center

Figure 2.16 Node 12: Washington at Alabama

Aerial Diagram Key: = Central area of node location. To be studied for development of supporting facilities

Node 11: Mass Ave Center 11.1 Subdistrict: Village Mixed-Use (see MMDG Village Mixed-Use). 11.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Mass Ave. 11.3 Transitions - Portals: New York and Delaware, Michigan and Davidson, District Transitions. 11.4 Intensity: Medium to Medium-High - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased but care should be exercised to preserve neighborhood character, needs more mixed-use and more residential nearby. 11.5 Node Characteristics: Subdistrict Heart 11.6 Transit Characteristics: NE Axis route, RC Circulator, Station scale stop. 11.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Potential short connection to the Monon and short connection to the Cultural Trail, bike commuting should stick to Cultural Trail, but bike parking and placemaking accommodating bicycle are critical. 11.8 Green Infrastructure: Potential short connection to Monon and highway off-street corridor as well as the Cultural Trail. Node 12: Washington at Alabama 12.1 Subdistrict: Urban Core (see MMDG - CBPD) 12.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Washington, Alabama, Market, Maryland. 12.3 Transitions - Portals: Washington at I-65, District/Corridor Transitions. 12.4 Intensity: Medium-High to High - draws beyond the neighborhood, large potential to increase existing intensity, needs more office, residential and mixed use. 12.5 Node Characteristics: Transit-Oriented Redevelopment Opportunity (Special Study). 12.6 Transit Characteristics: E-W Axis route, RC Circulator, hub scale station. 12.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Parking hub and park and ride and bike port. One of the closest-tocity-center stops on transit, giving access to the entire city. 12.8 Green Infrastructure: Direct connection to Monument Circle area, Market and City Beautiful corridors.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES Node 13: Washington at Miley 13.1 Subdistrict: Urban Mixed Use (see MMDG TOD, Village Mixed Use, Village Residential). 13.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Washington. 13.3 Transitions - Portals: Washington at Harding, Corridor Transition, New York at White River, District Transition. 13.4 Intensity: Medium to Medium-High - draws beyond the neighborhood because of zoo, existing intensity can be increased, needs more mixed-use and improved residential amenities. 13.5 Node Characteristics: Subdistrict heart, Transit-Oriented Redevelopment Opportunity (Special Study). 13.6 Transit Characteristics: E-W Axis route, RC Circulator, hub scale station. 13.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Important bike/ ped connections across White River at Zoo complex, should ensure connection even when Zoo is closed. Could leverage zoo parking and facilities. 13.8 Green Infrastructure: Direct connection to White River both park and parkway and Zoo complex. Node 14: Government Center 14.1 Subdistrict: Campus (see MMDG - Campus). 14.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Government Place, Washington. 14.3 Transitions - Portals: Washington at Maryland, District Transition, node at edge of district. 14.4 Intensity: Medium - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity cannot be increased, but needs more mixed-use and interaction in surrounding areas. 14.5 Node Characteristics: Subdistrict heart. 14.6 Transit Characteristics: E-W Axis route, Station scale stop. 14.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Bike port and Museum area access. 14.8 Green Infrastructure: direct connection to Canal and City Beautiful corridor. 14.9 Other: Subdistrict has other nodes (#5, #15) and another node at district edge (#20).

Figure 2.17 Node 13: Washington at Miley

Figure 2.18 Node 14: Government Center

Aerial Diagram Key: = Central area of node location. To be studied for development of supporting facilities

2 12

Chapter Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES

Figure 2.19 Node 15: Vermont at Barnhill

Figure 2.20 Node 16: Virginia at East

Aerial Diagram Key: = Central area of node location. To be studied for development of supporting facilities

Node 15: Campus Center: Vermont at Barnhill 15.1 Subdistrict: Campus (see MMDG - Campus). 15.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: University,Vermont. 15.3 Transitions - Portals: Washington at Maryland, District Transition. 15.4 Intensity: Medium - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, but needs more mixed-use and interaction in surrounding areas, provide amenities for University. 15.5 Node Characteristics: Subdistrict heart. 15.6 Transit Characteristics: E-W Axis route, RC Circulator, hub scale station. 15.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: College campus priority should be to bike/ped traffic. Has bike port and museum area access. 15.8 Green Infrastructure: Direct connection to IUPUI parks, short connection to Canal and City Beautiful corridor, short connection to active recreation facilities and White River park. 15.9 Other: Subdistrict has a second node (#5) and nodes at district edges (#14, #20). Node 16: Fletcher Place: Virginia at East 16.1 Subdistrict: Village Mixed Use surrounded by Neighborhood residential and Campus (see MMDG - Village Mixed-Use, TOD, Campus, Village Residential). 16.2 Placemaking Corridor/s:Virginia, South. 16.3 Transitions - Portals: Virginia at East, Virginia at I-70, District Transitions. 16.4 Intensity: Medium to Medium-High - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, needs more mixed-use. 16.5 Node Characteristics: Transit Oriented Redevelopment opportunity (Special study). 16.6 Transit Characteristics: SE Axis route, RC Circulator, hub scale station. 16.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Access to Cultural Trail. Better bike/ped facilities connections to and through Lilly campus. 16.8 Green Infrastructure: Need better green connections, either City Beautiful corridor along South St., and/or Off-street Corridor along I-70.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES Node 17: Fountain Square Center: Virginia at Shelby 17.1 District: Village Mixed Use (see MMDG Village Mixed-Use). 17.2 Placemaking Corridor/s:Virginia. 17.3 Transitions - Portals: Virginia at I-70, District Transition, Corridor Transition, Corridor Transition. 17.4 Intensity: Medium - currently draws just the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, needs more mixed-use. 17.5 Node Characteristics: District heart. 17.6 Transit Characteristics: SE Axis route, Station scale stop. 17.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Bike connections to CBD including a bike boulevard with exclusive bike/ped crossing of I-70. 17.8 Green Infrastructure: direct connection to I-65 off-street corridor.

Node 18: South at Capitol 18.1 Subdistrict: Urban Core (see MMDG - CBPD). 18.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: South. 18.3 Transitions - Portals: South at Kentucky, district Transition; South at Meridian, Corridor/District Transition. 18.4 Intensity: Medium-High to High - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, needs more mixed-use and entertainment district amenities. 18.5 Node Characteristics: Transit Oriented District Redevelopment opportunity (Special study). 18.6 Transit Characteristics: N-S Axis route, RC Circulator, Transit Center - Regional rail connection potential. 18.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Parking Hub can be shared with other uses, need to connect stadium and convention center to rest of City entertainment and mixed-use amenities cannot be an island. 18.8 Green Infrastructure: Need better green connections, either City Beautiful corridor along South St., and/or Off-street Corridor along I-70, short connection to White River Park. 2 14

Chapter Page

Figure 2.21 Node 17: Virginia at Shelby

Figure 2.22 Node 18: South at Capitol

Aerial Diagram Key: = Central area of node location. To be studied for development of supporting facilities

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES

Figure 2.23 Node 19: Oliver at Harding

Figure 2.24 Node 20: Indiana at Blackford

Aerial Diagram Key:

Node 19: Oliver at Harding 19.1 Subdistrict: Neighborhood Residential and Industrial around Village Mixed-Use core (see MMDG - Village Residential and Mixed-Use). 19.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Oliver. 19.3 Transitions - Portals: Oliver at White River, Harding at I-70, White River at Kentucky, District Transitions. 19.4 Intensity: Medium - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, needs more mixed-use and residential amenities. 19.5 Node Characteristics: Redevelopment opportunity (Special study), freight management. 19.6 Transit Characteristics: RC Circulator, station scale stop. 19.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Parking hub to access multi-modal network and adjacent industrial subdistrict. 19.8 Green Infrastructure: Short connection to White River park and parkway. 19.9 Special Study Multi Modal Roundabout at Oliver and Division. Node 20: Indiana at Blackford 20.1 Subdistrict: Campus (see MMDG - Campus, Village Residential and Mixed-Use). 20.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Blackford, Indiana 20.3 Transitions - Portals: Indiana at West, District Transition. 20.4 Intensity: Medium to Medium-High - draws beyond the neighborhood, existing intensity can be increased, needs more mixed-use and residential amenities. 20.5 Node Characteristics: Subdistrict heart for neighborhood to north. Redevelopment opportunity (Special study). 20.6 Transit Characteristics: NW Axis route, Station scale stop. 20.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: Bike boulevard to campus, campus bike/ped amenities. 20.8 Green Infrastructure: direct access to IUPUI campus green and West Street City Beautiful.

= Central area of node location. To be studied for development of supporting facilities

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES Node 21: McCarty at Kentucky 21.1 Subdistrict: Village and Urban Mixed Use (see MMDG - Village Mixed Use and TOD). 21.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: McCarty. 21.3 Transitions - Portals: Morris at West; Madison at I-70, District Transitions. 21.4 Intensity: Medium - draws mostly the neighborhood unless well-connected to Stadium/Convention Center, existing intensity can be increased, needs more mixed-use, improve residential. 21.5 Node Characteristics: Transit Oriented Redevelopment opportunity (Special study) 21.6 Transit Characteristics: SW Axis route, RC Circulator, Hub scale station. 21.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: crossing of Kentucky and connections to Stadium/Convention Center is key. 21.8 Green Infrastructure: Direct connection to White River both park and parkway. 21.9 Other: Special Study Multi Modal Roundabout at Meridian and McCarty, Special Study Multi Modal Roundabout at Meridian and Morris. Node 22: Monument Circle 22.1 Subdistrict: Urban Core (see MMDG - CBPD). 22.2 Placemaking Corridor/s: Meridian, Market. 22.3 Transitions - Portals: Social street focus needs Corridor Transitions to make clear pedestrian priority. 22.4 Intensity: High - draws beyond the neighborhood, needs primarily to convey importance of place through wayfinding and signage. 22.5 Node Characteristics: Regional heart 22.6 Transit Characteristics: Currently not served easily by transit without harming character and amenities, perhaps a shuttle. 22.7 Bike/Ped Considerations: More bike/ped amenities including bike parking near Circle, more events closing to automotive through traffic. 22.8 Green Infrastructure: at City Beautiful center of Regional Center.

2 16

Chapter Page

Figure 2.25 Node 21: McCarty at Kentucky

Figure 2.26 Node 22: Monument Circle

Aerial Diagram Key: = Central area of node location. To be studied for development of supporting facilities

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES

DISTRICT AND NODE IMPLICATIONS In the subdistrict and node analysis, certain benefits and implications of Place-Based Transportation are apparent. Three of them are of particular interest: Node 3: Bio-Crossroads

Figure 2.27 Proposed Node 4 serving the West and 11th Street subdistrict on the canal. Establishing nodes at the center of each identified multi-modal district or subdistrict is the first step to defining the multi-modal network because it establishes what the network must link to.

The proposed Node 3 Bio-Crossroads (Bush Stadium area) opportunity highlights the potential to coordinate plans for transportation, infrastructure and amenities to enhance this redevelopment area’s appeal. If the node was reinforced to include improved access to transit, it could better develop supporting retail services for the business community targeted by the area’s redevelopment. Additional retail services will increase connections to amenities thereby improving the area’s quality of life, both for business and the residential community. Having a higher quality of life, in addition to planning and tax incentives, is a critical element to entice investment and attract the kinds of businesses and development sought. Node 4: 11th Street and the Canal Walkway The proposed Node 4 on 11th Street raises implications as to the performance of the proposed subdistrict. The Placemaking corridor originally selected was West Street, but West Street has instead been selected as a special corridor, to assure its important role as a vehicular N-S connector. Thus, the node’s Placemaking corridor was moved to the Canal Walkway. Many Off-Street corridors have the potential to meet the criteria necessary to be “Placemaking”, though they are rare and require a high intensity of activities. In addition, to be truly Placemaking, the Off-Street corridor and Node must be accessible to all transportation mode travelers, even if motorized transport is precluded from the Off-Street Corridor itself. This would include multimodal parking facilities, bus stops and easy walking connections from surrounding areas. The node’s location at the northern end of the Canal will need reinforcement to overcome the challenges of being located on an Off-Street corridor. While the local residential population understands how to access the Canal, visitor wayfinding, automobile

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: PLACES parking, and bicycle facilities are not clearly identified. Additionally the connection to transit is unclear. Bus transit is peripheral, and the Clarian peoplemover access is not clearly indicated at this location. Local businesses are struggling to attract a sufficient all-day volume of patrons. The Crispus Attucks neighborhood just northwest of this node is cut-off from the proposed Node by the Interstate, and high volumes of hospital traffic on 10th and 11th Streets. Consequently, the Crispus Attucks neighborhood land values are low. These concerns also apply to the adjacent campus population at IUPUI. For this subdistrict to function properly the neighborhood and campus population will require access to the 11th Street and Canal Walkway node to connect to recommended nodal amenities. A special study is recommended to find solutions for enhanced wayfinding, safe crossings of West Street, improved connection to transit and other nodal amenities to overcome the drawbacks of the nodes’ location on the Canal Walkway. Enhancing the offerings of the node will be required to make the node function, and improving its connections to the surrounding area is critical to the subdistrict’s success. Node 18: Convention Center/Stadium The recommended Node 18 at the Convention Center/Stadium is critical to leveraging the investment already committed to the 2012 Super Bowl, and for general tourism, convention/entertainment events, and visitors to the Regional Center. Implementing recommended Node amenities should facilitate convenient access to the complex and visitors’ wayfinding to events. Diminishing the negative impacts of vehicular traffic and infrastructure burdens is key to the Node’s success. The Convention Center/ Stadium complex is a regional venue and enhancing the wayfinding, safe crossings, and balanced transportation access will attract even more users and distribute the benefits of the investment widely throughout the Regional Center. Conclusion Any of the subdistrict nodes denoted as special studies offer opportunities for redevelopment and integration of multi-modal infrastructure and/or transit orientation enhancing value, functionality and quality of life to currently underserved subdistricts. 2 18

Chapter Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

170

139

175

144

138

119

11 0

168

17 3

198

169

177

158

176

123

202

192

149

148

101

150

179

133

199

200

121

CAP

171

167

184

134

124

104

;

105

35 19

145

100

107

102

132

111

180

157

146

106

129

131

135

141

165

COLLEGE AVE

164

116

170

139

175

144

138

11 0

168

119

17 3

198

169

177

158

203

176

123

192

149

148

133

101

179

171

184

167

150

65 § ¨ ¦

199

200

121

MORRIS ST

70 § ¨ ¦

OLIVER AVE 152

ON ST WASHINGT 84

MICHIGAN ST

202

170

139

175

11 0

119

198

169

174

RIVERSIDE DR E

144

168

17 3

189

128

158

177

176

136

137

203

138

20 1

112

126

113

123

148

134

103

105

N25

104

;

124

145

100

107

103

102

132

111

180

157

146

106

129

131

135

141

165

200

133

199

121

150

101

179

107

100

134

124

145

171

167

184

105

;

102

111

132

180

157

146

106

129

131

135

141

165

130

HARDING

156

115

70 § ¨ ¦

188

151

166

164

70 § ¨ ¦

65 § ¨ ¦

156

8 17

188

151

166

PROSPECT ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

70 § ¨ ¦

PROSPECT ST

WASHINGTON

155

16TH ST

22ND ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

70 § ¨ ¦

ST WASHINGTON

155

16TH ST

22ND ST

202

164

70 § ¨ ¦

188

65 § ¨ ¦

156

151

166

PROSPECT ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

70 § ¨ ¦

WASHINGTON

155

16TH ST

22ND ST

§ ¨ ¦

136

175

137

170

202

144

127

201

139

110

119

174

120

203

126

112

176

158

177

128 198 30

169

189

138

173

168

159

181

149

114

199

154

200

121

182

192

148

123

183

147

187

133

65 § ¨ ¦

186

167

185

150

162

179

197

161

104

193

130

140

142

157

146

153

106

131

135

141

165

143

132

111

108

102

172

180 109

100

105

103

;

124

145

107

134

171

184

163

101

190

104

129

§ ¨ ¦ 70

195

§ ¨ ¦

156

125

115

122

118

188

117

N 164

116

194

151

196

PROSPECT ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

§ ¨ ¦

WASHINGTON

155

191

166

16TH ST

22ND ST

OLIVER AVE 152

TON ST WASHING 84

170

144

119

17 3

198

169

177

158

176

192

149

148

200

121

133

199

101

150

65 § ¨ ¦

179

171

167

184

124

134

105

;

145

100

107

102

132

111

180

157

146

106

129

131

135

141

165

164

70 § ¨ ¦

65 § ¨ ¦

156

188

151

166

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

70 § ¨ ¦

PROSPECT ST

ST WASHINGTON

155

16TH ST

22ND ST

HARDING

INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

MORRIS ST

70 § ¨ ¦

OLIVER AVE

ON ST WASHINGT

MICHIGAN ST

;

70 § ¨ ¦

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

70 § ¨ ¦

PROSPECT ST

ST WASHINGTON

16TH ST

22ND ST

6 TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS MAP

139

175

190

103

MODE COMPONENT MAP

MICHIGAN ST

113

OLIVER AVE 152

ON ST WASHINGT 84

MORRIS ST

70 § ¨ ¦

160

§ ¨ ¦

TYPOLOGY MAP

MICHIGAN ST

MORRIS ST

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN

192

149

183

160

120

147

181

182

85 154

163

AV E

UC KY

KE NT

190

161

162

197

114

5 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MAP

MORRIS ST

70 § ¨ ¦

OLIVER AVE 152

ON ST WASHINGT 84

MICHIGAN ST

160

174

163

190

113

136

137

112

126

20 1

114

183

189

128

120

182

85 154

162

18 70

193

161

197 22

AV E

UC KY

KE NT

147

181

15 9

§ ¨ ¦ 3 CONNECTIVITY LEVEL MAP

MORRIS ST

70 § ¨ ¦

OLIVER AVE

ON ST WASHINGT 84

MICHIGAN ST

RIVERSIDE DR E

203

163

190

183

136

137

114

161

162

65 § ¨ ¦

CLASSIFICATION MAP

103

172

108

109

160

RIVERSIDE DR E

112

126

20 1

147

181

113

182

194

CLASSIFICATION MAP

CONNECTIVITY LEVEL MAP

MODE COMPONENT MAP

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MAP

TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS MAP

A subdistrict node-based transit circulator that interfaces with the regional transit system is recommended. Served by bus, taxi, parking, bike parking and other supporting services, it supports organizing downtown transportation services into walkable zones that will allow workers, visitors, and residents to move from node to node without a car. Less-frequent transit stops will improve headway and provide efficient service that will affect the mode shift necessary to manage traffic in 2030.

The corridor typologies 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, storm water reduction, and cost savings. As implementation occurs, additional design elements can be considered such as permeable pavements and rain gardens that will increase the Green Intensity benefit. This is supplemental to other measurable sustainability benefits such as vehicle mile travel reductions. This map section shows the network of green corridors and spaces, and provides values for some of those benefits.

Every corridor in the multi-modal system supports pedestrian facilities, auto on all but off-street corridors, and at least one other mode such as bicycle or transit. Existing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian plans are incorporated and new connections are identified to establish a complete multi-modal system.

The development of the Multi-Modal System Plan is divided conceptually into three levels of connectivity. Level 1, Key Segments, illustrates which corridors produce the most mode shift by connecting current travel patterns into the multi-modal system and to the nodes of the subdistricts. Level 2, System Connectivity, achieves a largely complete connected network and identifies remaining node and parking hub needs. Level 3, System Completion, presents the balance of the Multi-Modal System connecting the rest of the Regional Center to the multi-modal network. The lengths of the road segments involved in each connectivity level and for each typology are also shown.

2 TYPOLOGY MAP Multi-Modal Corridor travel movements and streetscape characteristics are defined by corridor typologies. The typologies recognize that trips include movement, transition, distribution, collection, access and termination for vehicles. Streetscape characteristics are defined to improve all transportation mode performance and the economic performance of adjacent land use. ROW’s that do not currently accommodate the typologies without special design considerations are also highlighted.

The multi-modal corridor classification map illustrates the functional performance of the selected multi-modal routes based on corridor geographical constraints and the proposed land use characteristics identified in the RC2020 Plan. Not all streets or corridors are identified as multi-modal. Spacing criteria is applied to ensure that the multi-modal network meets connectivity requirements while connecting all district nodes. Overlays indicate those corridors that have context-sensitive requirements. Subdistrict nodes facilitate transfer to other transportation modes such as transit.

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

189

128

120

KE N

195

174

AV E

TU C

193

MERIDI

191

CAPITOL AVE

CAPIT

193

202

MERIDIAN ST

160

172

108

109

168

143

142

140

172

108

109

11 0

140

143

142

203

142

CENTRAL A

143

CEN

127

186

140

123

153

174

163

COLLEGE AVE

108

117

118

116

RIVERSIDE DR E

57 58

122

136

137

189

128

120

195

122

12 5

114

183

116

COLLEGE AVE

191

147

181

116

12 5

113

SHELBY ST 81

194

RIVERSIDE DR E

112

126

15 9

182

154

194

SHELBY ST 81

117

195

185

122

187

11 5

12 5

KING JR

HARDING

DR M L

196

KE NT UC

130

AV E

161

162

197 22

AV E

153

138

HARDING

KING JR

191

143

142

193

20 1

DR M L

CAPITOL

CAPITO MERIDIAN ST

130

MERIDIAN ST

KE NT UC KY

117

109

52 5

195

127

140

CENT

186

118

185

187

196

122

127

186 12 5

HARDING

185 COLLEGE AVE

KING JR

187

SHELBY ST 81

CAPIT

CENTR

CEN

52 5

172

AV E

KE NT UC KY

MERIDIAN ST

COLLEGE AVE 59

COLLEGE AVE

127

DR M L

194

186

185

130

ST 191

187

HARDING

KING JR

196

DR M L 33 31

SHELBY ST 81

KING JR

ST 32

196 SHELBY ST

DR M L

KING JR SHELBY ST 81

DR M L

27 33 31

Page

Chapter

The maps are shown on the righthand page. There is a main map on the left side of that page of the spread with a triptych of maps in the middle of the page describing components or elements of the main map. There is a legend at the extreme right of the page. The main map captures the essence or overview of the layer of the system plan. The corridors are usually identified by their id numbers. The triptychs usually help the reader see a simplified subset of the layer characteristics displayed in the main map. The legend identifies the layer, the key to understanding the graphics on the map and provides a caption summarizing the map layer.

To the right of the description is a table that provides the relevant characteristics of the 203 corridors for that section. A key is provided in the description. Each table is divided into sections pertaining to the class for each corridor based on Appendix A and the MMDG: Placemaking, Thru, Connector, Local and Off-Street. The corridors are listed alphabetically in each class by the corridor name. This order establishes the number id for each corridor that is used in the maps.

How to Use the Map Sections Each map section is organized as a two-page spread including a description, a table and a set of maps. At the far left is a description of details necessary to understand the maps, what is in the maps and in the map tables, and finally what are the implications of the particular layer.

Overview The system plan recommends 203 corridors in the Indianapolis Regional Center for multi-modal development. These form the basis for the multimodal transportation network to serve the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area. This chapter has six map sections that explain layers of the multi-modal system to help understand the complexity of this network. A brief overview of each section is listed on the left. A summary of each layer is provided on the last page of this chapter, page 14.

CONNECTIONS AND CORRIDORS

Some Corridor names have been shortened

CB = City Beautiful Overlay

N. = Neighborhood

Multi-Modal Corridors Corridor Start Cross Street Corridor End Cross Street Corridor Classifications

Subdistricts

These #'s correspond to the corridors on the map Column contains the Corridor names Starting at the Western or Southern cross street Ending at the Eastern or Northern cross street The corridors are #’ed alphabetically by class Multi-Modal Subdistricts adapted from the Regional Center 2020 Plan

Data Description

Chapter

Page

Southside Placemaking corridors have been recommended where appropriate based on current conditions and planning efforts. Two developing areas have been outlined for future study: Oliver and McCarty. Both of these areas encompass historically industrial land uses with residential strengths in adjacent

Overlays A City Beautiful overlay (see MMDG) is recommended for Fall Creek, Meridian, White River Parkway, Washington and Market. Originally part of a system of City Beautiful corridors developed by George E. Kessler, City Beautiful elements include historic landscapes, districts, and monuments, sweeping views, historic bridges and water amenities. These elements should be preserved and accentuated along these corridors. An urban greenway overlay was applied to roads that are a part of the Cultural Trail.

Subdistricts The associated subdistrict is identified for each multimodal corridor. The classifications of corridors serve different roles within the subdistrict; placemaking are the subdistrict destinations; thru are the subdistrict bypasses; connectors link the two together; locals provide access within the subdistrict; and off-streets provide additional active transportation links (i.e. bike and pedestrian) to local and regional amenities.

Some additonal corridor classification elements are discussed below:

Table Key for Figure 3.1

E-N Cross

W-S Cross

#'s Range 1-203

Abbreviations

Column Contents

The multi-modal corridor classifications are based on principles discussed in Appendix A and the MMDG; Figures 3.1 and 3.2 present the recommended corridors for inclusion in the multi-modal system.

CORRIDOR CLASSIFICATIONS

Connector CorridorsW-S Cross 10th-Fort Wayne Central 10th St. Dr. MLK Jr. 10th St. West Dr. 11th 10th 16th St. Montcalm 16th St. Stadium 16th St. White River Alabama Vermont Belmont Ave. Washington Belmont Ave. Oliver Capitol Ave. Vermont Capitol Ave. McCarty Central Ave. Fall Creek Central Ave./East St. Morris College South Delaware I70 Dr. MLK North 10th Fletcher/South East Harding St. Morris Harding St. Oliver Illinois McCarty Kentucky Morris Madison Ave. Orange Maryland Washington Massachusetts Ave. 10th Meridian St. 10th Michigan Rd. Belmont Missouri Morris Morris White River Morris St. West New York St. White River Ohio St. West Oliver Ave. Belmont Oliver St. River Oriental St. Washington Pennsylvania Morris Shelby Cottage Shelby St. Bates Shelby St. Morris Washington Maryland Washington Belleview Washington St. Pine West St. Palmer West St. Morris Local Corridors 10th 10th 11th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 18th 20th

ID 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 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 ID 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

W-S Cross Belmont Meridian Illinois Belmont Senate Alabama Missouri Central College Capitol Senate

W-S Cross White River Delware Dr. MLK Jr. Harding Washington Oliver Morris

Thru Corridors 10th St. Fall Creek Pkwy Fall Creek Pkwy Washington St. White River Pkwy White River Pkwy White River Pkwy

ID 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

W-S Cross Delaware Delaware Senate Capitol Maryland New York Illinois West Alabama Capitol Washington Alabama Davidson Delaware Kentucky Orange 12th Vermont South Harding Government Pl Washington West Capitol Meridian Pennsylvania Capitol New York Senate West Dr. Shelby McCarty East Reichwein West Campus South

Placemaking St. Clair 16th 16th 22nd Alabama Blackford Fall Creek Government Place Market Market Maryland Mass Ave-Belle. Mass Ave-Belle. Mass Ave Gateway McCarty Meridian Meridian Meridian Meridian Oliver Senate Senate South St. Clair St. Clair St. Clair Stadium/Indiana University BLVD Vermont Vermont Virginia Virginia Virginia Washington Washington West Drive West St

ID 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

E-N Cross White River Pkwy Ft Wayne Delaware 10Th Pennsylvania Central Meridian 16Th Lewis Monon Capitol

E-N Cross Oriental Meridian Dr. MLK Jr. Capitol Senate Montcalm Sugar Grove Fort Wayne White River Washington 30th Vermont 30th Fall Creek 16th Fall Creek Fall Creek Shelby Oliver Washington 30th West Morris West Newman 12th Oriental St. West West Chelsea Oriental St. College Harding Kentucky 10th Fall Creek Morris Washington Bates West Reichwein Randolph Morris South

E-N Cross Elmwood Central Illinois West 16th Washington Oliver

Classification Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local

Classification Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector, CB Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector, CB Connector, CB Connector, CB Connector Connector

Classification Thru Thru, CB Thru, CB Thru, CB Thru, CB Thru, CB Thru, CB

E-N Cross Classification Alabama Placemaking Bellefontaine St Placemaking Delaware Placemaking Central Placemaking Vermont Placemaking Indiana Placemaking Delaware Placemaking, CB Senate Placemaking I65 Placemaking, CB Alabama Placemaking, CB New Jersey Placemaking 10th Placemaking 10th Placemaking Alabama Placemaking Delaware Placemaking South Placemaking, CB 30th Placemaking, CB 10th Placemaking, CB Vermont Placemaking, CB White River Placemaking Ohio Placemaking Government Place Placemaking East Placemaking Illinois Placemaking Pennsylvania Placemaking Delaware Placemaking 16th Placemaking 10th Placemaking Alabama Placemaking University Placemaking McCarty Placemaking East Placemaking Pennsylvania Placemaking Harding Placemaking, CB Davidson Placemaking, CB 10th Placemaking 11th Special

Figure 3.1 Classification Table

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

To accommodate thru traffic on the west side, White River Parkway emerged as an opportunity to create a Thru Corridor along the west edge of the Regional Center. This recommendation will capitalize on the river ROW. White River Parkway could be extended along the river to I-65, forming a Regional Center thru connection between I-65 and I-70. With proper landscaping and prominent at grade crossings at the river bridge sites and associated off-street corridors, this could provide a substantial improvement to the traffic flow in the Regional Center. Automobiles could move at 45 mph with few crossings. The corridor will do a better job of connection, reduce hospital and Bio-crossroads traffic burden, and add amenities to economic and residential development near the downtown. Traffic burden on West Street could thus be alleviated, facilitating quality crossings, handling high capacity traffic, and reconnecting East and West sides of Indianapolis, and in particular, the currently isolated Crispus Attucks neighborhood and the IUPUI Campus.

West Street is a good example of a corridor that can provide benefit through enhanced multi-modal capacity. Because it possesses the ability to bridge the urban core subdistrict with the campus subdistrict it emerged as a special corridor. Along with Meridian and Alabama, West helps to make important NorthSouth green connections in the Regional Center. These streets will feed the East-West and diagonal placemaking corridors to create essential loops of intensity emanating outward from Monument Circle. West is proposed to have at least 3 major MultiModal Transitions that might be similar to the canal underpass to encourage and facilitate crossing.

Westside Indiana Avenue, extending along the border of the campus area, is also recommended as a placemaking corridor. West Street is recommended as a special corridor, having connector characteristics, but also needing more placemaking aspects. These corridors currently act as substantial barriers that prevent the integration of the campus into the fabric of the Regional Center. The bordering subdistricts can be built upon along these corridors to strengthen the West side of town.

neighborhoods. Being relatively close to currently developing areas on the South side of Indianapolis, they also present redevelopment opportunities.

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS ID 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 ID 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 Subdistrict N. Residential 192 Urban Core 193 Urban Core 194 N. Residential 195 Urban Core 196 N. Residential 197 Urban Mixed Use 198 N. Residential 199 N. Residential 200 N. Residential 201 NA 202 203

Subdistrict N. Residential Urban Mixed Use Campus Urban Mixed Use N. Residential Urban Mixed Use Urban Mixed Use Urban Mixed Use Urban Mixed Use NA Urban Mixed Use Urban Core NA Urban Mixed Use N. Residential Urban Core N. Residential N. Residential N. Residential Urban Mixed Use Urban Core Urban Mixed Use NA Urban Core NA Urban Core Urban Core Urban Core NA NA Urban Core Urban Core N. Residential Village NA Urban Core NA NA NA Urban Core Urban Mixed Use NA Urban Mixed Use Urban Core

Subdistrict Campus NA NA Campus N. Residential Industrial N. Residential

Subdistrict N. Residential N. Residential Urban Core Village Urban Core Campus Campus Campus Urban Mixed Use Urban Core Urban Core Village Village Village Urban Mixed Use Village Urban Mixed Use Urban Core Entertainment N. Residential Campus Campus Entertainment Urban Mixed Use Urban Core N. Residential Village Campus Urban Core Campus N. Residential Village Urban Mixed Use Urban Mixed Use Urban Core Campus Campus

Oﬀ-Steet 12Th Bike Port Blackford Blake Boulevard Canal Canal Canal Davidson Elmwood Fall Creek Trail Highland Lawn Military Park Monon Pine Pogues Run Senate Vermont Vermont Victory Field White River White River Trail White River Trail

W-S Cross North Canal University New York Vermont Senate Boulevard 11Th Blackford Fall Creek Trail Louisiana Fall Creek Riverside New York Washington North 10Th Market New York Maryland White River Trail University Maryland West Bank Burdsall Burdsall

Local Corridors W-S Cross Senate Boulevard 21st-20th 21st Dr M L King Jr 25th Meridian 29th Capitol 30th Capitol 9th Meridian 9th East 9th Capitol Alabama 16Th Alabama St Clair Alongrail White River Trail Arch Alabama Barnhill New York Belmont Morris Blake Vermont Calvary Virginia College 16Th Davidson New York Davidson Washington Division Oliver Division Morris Drake 10Th English Louisiana Fall Creek Fall Creek Trail Georgia Capitol Grove Virginia Hanson White River Trail Harding-Koehne Washington Limestone New York Louisiana East Madison South Mccarty East Mccarty Delaware Circle Merrill Kentucky Merrill Capitol Merrill East Miley Vermont Miley Washington Montcalm Burdsall Morris Belmont New Jersey South New Jersey North New Jersey Washington New Jersey Ohio New York Miley North Senate North Massachusetts North University North University Ohio White River Trail Ohio West Ohio Dickson Oliver Addison Park Market Pearl Canal Prospect Shelby Prospect Morris Prospect Morris Ray Division River White River Pkwy Riverside White River Trail Senate 10Th Senate Ohio Senate 16Th St Clair College St Clair Alabama St Clair Davidson St Clair Indiana Sugar Grove 16Th Union Michigan Vermont Belmont Walnut St Clair Washington Blvd Fall Creek Pkwy Waterway White River Trail West Dr 10Th Wilkins Belmont Wilson 10Th Wishard West Dr Woodlawn Virginia Wyoming West E-N Cross Monon White River Trail Washington Ohio Capitol Dr M L King Jr 11Th 14Th Washington Creek 30Th Biddle Pearl St Clair 30Th 10Th 10Th Ohio West Dr Indiana West East Bank Indiana Morris

E-N Cross Central Senate Central Central Central Pennsylvania Massachusetts Meridian 22nd 16Th 16Th East Michigan Oliver Indiana Fletcher 18Th Massachusetts Market Harding Oliver West Calvary 16Th Pennsylvania Fletcher New York Vermont Michigan Pine Mccarty Virginia East Missouri Pennsylvania Virginia 10Th Vermont Indiana Kentucky Washington Massachusetts Ohio Michigan White River Pkwy New Jersey New York Michigan Indiana Blackford Capitol Oriental Belmont Massachusetts Maryland State Virginia Morris White River Trail Oliver 25Th 16Th 10Th Boulevard Davidson College Oriental Capitol 22Nd West Dr White River Pkwy Meridian 30Th Indiana Waterway Ray University University Shelby Mccarty Classification Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street Off-Street

Classification Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local

Subdistrict N. Residential Campus Campus Campus NA N. Residential U. Mixed Use N. Residential U. Mixed Use Campus Campus NA Campus Urban Core N. Residential NA NA Urban Core Campus Campus Urban Core Campus U. Mixed Use Campus

Subdistrict Village NA Village Campus Campus Urban Core Village Urban Core N. Residential N. Residential U. Mixed Use U. Mixed Use Campus NA Campus N. Residential N. Residential Village U. Mixed Use Industrial N. Residential N. Residential N. Residential N. Residential Entertainment NA Campus N. Residential Campus U. Mixed Use Village Village Campus Village Village Village N. Residential N. Residential Village NA U. Mixed Use Village U. Mixed Use Village N. Residential Urban Core Village Campus Campus Campus Campus NA NA N. Residential Campus NA NA NA N. Residential Village U. Mixed Use U. Mixed Use U. Mixed Use NA Village Village N. Residential U. Mixed Use NA Campus N. Residential U. Mixed Use NA U. Mixed Use U. Mixed Use N. Residential Campus Campus NA U. Mixed Use

MORRIS ST

§ ¨ ¦

170

RIVERSIDE DR E

139

175

144

138

17 3

168

119

11 0

HARDING

202

198

169

177

158

176

123

192

149

148

§ ¨ ¦

133

199

200

121

INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN

OLIVER AVE

TON ST WASHING 84

MICHIGAN ST

160

203

101

150

179

171

184

167

163

190

114

183

136

137

112

126

20 1

147

181

113

182

189

128

120

161

162

134

124

; 11

105

35 19

145

103

100

107

104

102

180

111

132

109

CAPITOL AVE 56

108

172 52

157

146

106

129

131

135

141

165

MERIDIAN 70

193 80

174

AV E

KE NT UC

65 MERIDIAN ST

153

COLLEGE AVE

164

116

" 13

156

115

§ ¨ ¦

117

CENTRAL AVE 143

142

140

127

195

122

188

151

166

PROSPECT ST

N ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

§ ¨ ¦

WASHINGTO

155

16TH ST

22ND ST

194

187 191

ST 12 5

186 SHELBY ST 81

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

OLIVER AVE

Local & Off-Street

§ ¨ ¦

Thru & Connector

OLIVER AVE

Placemaking

§ ¨ ¦

CAPITOL AVE N

;

CAPITOL AVE

ING JR N

CENTRAL AVE N

CENTRAL AVE

K DR M L

185 196

130

§ ¨ ¦

16TH ST

§ ¨ ¦

16TH ST

0.625

Miles 1.25

Figure 3.2

Page

Chapter

The map shows Thru corridors connecting to the edges of the Regional Center, Connectors linking the district edge to the Placemaking corridors at the centers of the subdistricts where the nodes are located. Local corridors and Off-Street corridors provide routes throughout the rest of the Regional Center. Transitions are shown between these connections.

This map was developed from information and data provided by but not limited to: IGIC (formerly INGISI), IMAGIS, SAVI, IUPUI (LUCI), MPO, IDNR, Hoosier Rails to Trails, and local jurisdictions/municipalities. Created by: Storrow Kinsella Associates

North

Campus Entertainment Industrial Neighborhood Residential Urban Core Urban Mixed Use Village

(Based on RC2020 Plan)

Multi-Modal (MM) Corridor Classifications MM Placemaking MM Placemaking with Overlay MM Connector MM Connector with Overlay MM Thru MM Thru with Overlay MM Local MM Local with Overlay MM Off-Street MM Off-Street with Overlay MM Special Corridor 8 Corridor ID Code (see Table) ; Monument Circle N Node " MM Transition MM Subdistricts

Legend

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN: REGIONAL CENTER MARCH 2009

Corridor Classifications

MAP 1

The numbers that identify the associated typology and CB for Range is T1-T10 City Beautiful Overlay

Typology Code

In Vehicles at Peak Hour

In Feet

Auto Traﬃc Count Maximum In Vehicles at Peak Hour

Chapter

Page

One-Way Pairs The major one-way pairs have been included in the system and recommended as the multi-modal commuter typology. One-way pair commuters will vary from a two way in that they will be developed in association with each other, working together as a multi-modal boulevard. This will work particularly well in the Regional Center because, as mentioned

Boulevards and Parkways Boulevards and parkways offer important amenities for the multi-modal system. Due to ROW constraints, there are limited opportunities for developing these corridors in the Regional Center. Fall Creek Parkway and White River Parkway are recommended for development as multi-modal parkways. Washington and West are recommended to be developed as multi-modal boulevards.

Additional typology elements:

Table Key for Figure 3.3

Count>

< Count

Width >

< Width

ROW >

< ROW

In Feet

Column Contains MultiModal Corridor Typology

None

Corridor Typologies

Right of Way Minimum Distance Right of Way Maximum Distance Curb to Curb Width Minimum Distance Curb to Curb Width Maximum Distance Auto Traﬃc Count Minimum

Column contains Corridor names

Multi-Modal Some Corridor names have Corridors been shortened

Data Description

These #'s correspond to the corridors on the map

Abbreviations

#'s Range 1-203

Column Contents

The multi-modal corridor typologies are derived from the multi-modal corridor classifications and further develop the design characteristics. The typologies are described in the MMDG which details the right-of-way (ROW) components and associated amenities that need to be included in the implementation of the Multi-Modal System Plan. The typologies are based on a more refined level of ROW characteristics; specifically the total ROW width (“ROW” in table), and the curb to curb pavement width (“Width” in table).

CORRIDOR TYPOLOGIES

Quiet Street

Bike Blvd

Oﬀ-Street

T10

Varies

50(40*)-100ft

60-110ft

70-120ft

100-140ft

Varies

90(80*)-120ft

100-140ft

ROW Guideline

IDs of Narrow ROW for Typology

None

90,136,137,164,166

45,46,48,57,58,64,74,79

53,58,60,61,65,69,75,80, 87,88

38,42,43,44

None

2,4,6,13-15,30,36

None

Thru Corridors Typology 10th St. Modern Parkway Fall Creek Pkwy Modern Parkway Fall Creek Pkwy Modern Parkway Washington St. Modern Parkway White River Modern Parkway White River Modern Parkway White River Modern Parkway Connector 10th-F. Wayne 10th St. 10th St. 11th 16th St. 16th St. 16th St. Alabama Belmont Ave. Belmont Ave. Capitol Ave. Capitol Ave. Central Ave. Central Ave. College Delaware Dr. MLK North Fletcher/South Harding St. Harding St. Illinois Kentucky Madison Ave. Maryland Mass Ave. Meridian St. MiThigan Rd. Missouri Morris Morris St. New York St. Ohio St. Oliver Ave. Oliver St. Oriental St. Pennsylvania Shelby Shelby St. Shelby St. Washington Washington Washington St. West St. West St. Local Torridors 10th 10th 11th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 18th 20th

ID 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ID 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 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 ID 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Typology Urban Link Urban Link Quiet Street Quiet Street Quiet Street Quiet Street Quiet Street Quiet Street Urban Link Quiet Street Quiet Street

Typology Connector Connector Connector Connector Commuter Commuter Commuter Connector Commuter Connector Commuter Commuter Connector Connector Connector Commuter Commuter Connector Commuter Connector Commuter Commuter Commuter Connector Commuter Commuter Commuter Commuter Connector Connector Commuter Connector Commuter Connector Connector Commuter Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Commuter Commuter

Placemaking Typology St. Clair Social Street 16th Urban Pedestrian 16th Urban Pedestrian 22nd Urban Pedestrian Alabama Urban Pedestrian Blackford Urban Pedestrian Fall Creek Modern Boulevard Government Pl. Social Street Market Urban Pedestrian Market Social Street Maryland Urban Pedestrian Mass Ave-Belle.Urban Pedestrian Mass Ave-Belle.Urban Pedestrian Mass Ave Urban Pedestrian McCarty Urban Pedestrian Meridian Urban Pedestrian Meridian Urban Pedestrian Meridian Urban Pedestrian Meridian Urban Pedestrian Oliver Urban Pedestrian Senate Social Street Senate Social Street South Urban Pedestrian St. Clair Social Street St. Clair Social Street St. Clair Social Street Indiana Urban Pedestrian University Urban Pedestrian Vermont Urban Pedestrian Vermont Urban Pedestrian Virginia Urban Pedestrian Virginia Urban Pedestrian Virginia Urban Pedestrian Washington Urban Pedestrian Washington Modern Boulevard West Drive Urban Pedestrian West St Modern Boulevard

ID 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Figure 3.3 Typology Table

Code T7 T7 T8 T8 T8 T8 T8 T8 T7 T8 T8

Code T6 T6 T6 T6 T5 T5 T5 T6 T5 T6 T5 T5 T6 T6 T6 T5 T5 T6 T5 T6 T5 T5 T5 T6 T5 T5, TB T5 T5 T6 T6 T5 T6 T5 T6 T6 T5 T6 T6 T6 T6, TB T6, TB T6, TB T5 T5

Code T4 T4, CB T4, CB T4, CB T4, CB T4, CB T4, CB

Code T3 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T1, CB T3 T2, CB T3, CB T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2, CB T2, CB T2, CB T2, CB T2 T3 T3 T2 T3 T3 T3 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2, CB T1, CB T2 T1, SP

ROW > < Width 40 24 61 40 84 54 60 45 90 50 60 40 100 60 100 30 90 24 90 50 90 36 90 60 60 40 60 24 60 40 90 44 90 55 90 55 90 50 80 49 100 30 100 30 90 50 60 24 60 40 40 24 60 42 100 48 90 40 55 27 80 57 80 57 100 50 80 50 120 77 60 40 120 50

Width > < CountCount > ID 24 0 0 100 40 17 21 101 54 17 21 102 45 4 6 103 60 5 10 104 60 0 0 105 60 18 30 106 40 0 0 107 36 6 10 108 50 6 8 109 60 7 13 110 80 0 0 111 112 60 0 0 24 4 9 113 40 4 9 114 60 3 10 115 55 23 28 116 55 8 22 117 60 6 10 118 49 10 10 119 40 0 0 120 40 0 0 121 60 13 16 122 40 0 0 123 40 0 0 124 24 0 0 125 42 7 12 126 48 13 16 127 60 2 6 128 27 0 0 129 57 9 12 130 57 9 9 131 70 0 0 132 50 19 19 133 80 9 18 134 40 0 0 135 72 25 48 136 137 < ROW ROW > < Width Width > < CountCount > 138 139 80 100 60 90 20 20 140 100 100 66 66 26 26 100 100 40 40 7 10 141 142 120 120 72 72 10 22 70 86 44 50 11 14 143 50 50 24 24 2 3 144 50 50 24 24 2 4 145 146 < ROW ROW > < Width Width > < CountCount > 147 33 100 18 48 6 13 148 33 33 24 24 5 6 149 150 60 60 34 60 18 24 50 70 33 44 2 16 151 152 84 90 54 64 21 25 90 90 54 54 25 25 153 154 90 90 46 54 25 30 90 90 50 60 5 10 155 156 60 70 30 30 2 6 50 70 24 40 7 7 157 158 70 90 40 60 10 16 90 90 50 60 11 16 159 160 50 60 36 36 9 9 50 90 36 60 4 13 161 60 120 33 55 2 15 162 60 90 40 60 9 18 163 60 100 45 60 12 25 164 90 100 50 50 7 9 165 166 120 120 72 72 13 13 45 60 20 36 5 5 167 168 60 90 40 60 10 21 80 90 48 60 8 11 169 80 80 36 72 24 23 170 70 70 36 36 11 11 171 50 59 25 25 2 3 172 70 70 55 55 22 23 173 75 90 36 60 10 16 174 75 90 24 50 10 13 175 60 60 48 48 9 9 176 40 96 24 50 4 13 177 50 90 26 50 7 16 178 60 90 20 60 7 16 179 80 80 49 49 10 10 80 80 49 49 2 2 ID 45 45 30 30 0 0 180 50 90 30 60 3 18 181 60 60 40 40 11 11 182 60 60 36 36 2 3 183 184 60 60 36 36 3 6 120 120 36 36 10 10 185 80 80 52 62 18 19 186 80 80 52 52 20 20 187 188 60 80 24 48 10 14 60 60 24 40 10 12 189 190 < ROW ROW > < Width Width > < CountCount > 191 50 50 36 36 0 0 192 33 85 18 48 4 6 193 50 60 36 36 0 0 194 24 30 24 30 0 0 195 70 70 36 36 0 0 196 50 50 20 20 0 0 197 40 50 26 26 0 0 198 40 40 24 24 0 0 199 60 60 40 40 13 13 200 40 42 24 30 0 0 201 40 60 32 45 0 0 202 203

< ROW 40 55 84 60 90 30 100 70 75 90 90 80 40 60 60 80 70 70 90 80 70 70 90 40 60 40 60 80 90 55 80 80 80 80 120 60 100

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

Figure 3.4 Typologies Unable to Fit into ROW

*indicates application of a “sharrow” lane

Connector

Commuter

Urban Link

Thru

Social Street

Modern Blvd

Urban Ped

Typology

Code

Variations Most corridors will not need to vary from the typology recommendations; however, variations do occur between the actual ROW and the suggested ROW width for the Typology designs. 35 corridors (<16% of total length) have segments smaller than recommended design guidelines and may, apart from “sharrow” lanes for bicycles on slow corridors [see Appendix], require a more detailed design phase that could relocate some component zones to parallel corridors or require ROW purchase. These corridors are listed below:

Social Streets This kind of corridor is unique in the way that pedestrians relate to and take priority over (without excluding) other modes. The Regional Center has two locations that exhibit many of the qualities of a social street that are recommended for further development: Government Place and Market Street (including Monument Circle). Additionally, a segment of St. Clair is recommended for development as a social street, largely because of its relation to the library and the park on Meridian. St. Clair creates a special link across town and should be preserved by special planning efforts and designations.

above, the ROW dimensions are too small for many of the major corridors to be developed as traditional boulevards. The one-way commuter pairs recommended are: New York and Michigan; Capitol and Illinois; and/or Pennsylvania and Delaware. Outside of these three one-way pairs, converting all other one-way corridors in the multi-modal system to two-way traffic should be considered.

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

< ROW 0 10 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 10 10 24 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Off-Steet Typology 12th Off Street Bike Port Off Street Blackford Off Street Blake Off Street Boulevard Off Street Canal Off Street Canal Off Street Canal Off Street Davidson Off Street Elmwood Off Street Fall Creek Off Street Highland Off Street Lawn Off Street Military Off Street Monon Off Street Pine Off Street Pogues Run Off Street Senate Off Street Vermont Off Street Vermont Off Street Victory FieldOff Street White River Off Street White River Off Street White River Off Street

Code T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10

< ROW 40 75 50 50 50 50 90 36 90 60 10 40 44 55 36 50 80 55 50 45 60 25 18 70 90 34 20 36 60 30 75 60 60 40 40 40 32 30 60 60 90 90 90 90 40 90 60 38 60 35 90 40 60 40 10 80 60 60 30 60 75 70 70 60 38 40 32 40 38 32 40 32 50 25 60 40 45 45 55 35 Local Typology Tode 21st-20th Quiet Street T8 21st Urban Link T7 25th Quiet Street T8 29th Quiet Street T8 30th Quiet Street T8 9th Quiet Street T8 9th Quiet Street T8 9th Quiet Street T8 Alabama Urban Link T7 Alabama Urban Link T7 Alongrail Bike BoulevardT9 Arch Quiet Street T8 Barnhill Quiet Street T8 Belmont Urban Link T7 Blake Bike BoulevardT9 Calvary Urban Link T7 College Urban Link T7 Davidson Urban Link T7 Davidson Urban Link T7 Division Quiet Street T8 Division Urban Link T7 Drake Quiet Street T8 English Bike BoulevardT9 Fall Creek Quiet Street T8 Georgia Quiet Street T8 Grove Quiet Street T8 Hanson Quiet Street T8 Harding Quiet Street T8 Limestone Quiet Street T8 Louisiana Bike BoulevardT9 Madison Urban Link T7 Mccarty Urban Link T7 Mccarty Urban Link T7 Merrill Urban Link T7 Merrill Urban Link T7 Merrill Quiet Street T8 Miley Urban Link T7 Miley Urban Link T7 Montcalm Urban Link T7 Morris Urban Link T7 New Jersey Urban Link T7 New Jersey Quiet Street T8 New Jersey Urban Link T7 New Jersey Urban Link T7 New York Urban Link T7 North Urban Link T7 North Urban Link T7 North Quiet Street T8 North Urban Link T7 Ohio Quiet Street T8 Ohio Quiet Street T8 Ohio Quiet Street T8 Oliver Quiet Street T8 Park Quiet Street T8 Pearl Quiet Street T8 Prospect Urban Link T7 Prospect Quiet Street T8 Prospect Quiet Street T8 Ray Quiet Street T8 River Quiet Street T8 Riverside Urban Link T7 Senate Urban Link T7 Senate Urban Link T7 Senate Urban Link T7 St Clair Urban Link T7 St Clair Urban Link T7 St Clair Urban Link T7 St Clair Urban Link T7 Sugar Grove Quiet Street T8 Union Quiet Street T8 Vermont Quiet Street T8 Walnut Quiet Street T8 Washington Quiet Street T8 Waterway Quiet Street T8 West Dr Urban Link T7 Wilkins Quiet Street T8 Wilson Quiet Street T8 Wishard Quiet Street T8 Woodlawn Quiet Street T8 Wyoming Quiet Street T8 ROW > < Width Width > 0 0 0 10 0 0 40 0 28 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 0 0 42 24 24 10 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 48 0 48 0 0 0 10 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0

ROW > < Width Width > 75 26 45 75 45 45 50 24 24 65 30 36 50 34 38 50 36 36 90 24 60 36 24 24 90 50 60 70 40 50 10 0 0 40 26 26 84 30 60 70 30 30 70 36 40 90 38 80 80 48 48 55 28 28 50 30 30 58 30 30 65 40 40 48 20 28 54 18 40 70 40 40 90 50 60 34 24 24 20 20 20 42 20 24 60 26 32 30 22 22 90 36 60 60 40 40 60 40 40 40 24 24 40 24 24 40 24 24 36 20 24 40 20 26 60 18 18 60 40 40 90 40 40 90 40 40 90 40 40 90 40 40 45 24 24 90 40 4 60 26 26 70 24 40 60 25 25 60 30 35 90 48 60 40 26 26 60 42 42 40 28 28 24 0 24 80 50 50 60 30 30 60 30 30 60 0 38 60 30 30 75 30 30 90 45 60 90 45 60 80 46 48 38 22 22 55 22 38 32 24 24 55 22 38 38 26 26 48 24 32 45 26 26 60 20 46 50 32 32 25 25 25 60 40 40 65 26 40 60 28 44 90 28 60 55 42 42 35 24 24

Count > 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 7 5 0 8 2 0 3 0 8 0 4 0 0 7 3 3 0 0 6 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < Count Count > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<Count 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 7 5 0 2 2 0 3 0 7 0 4 0 0 7 3 3 0 0 6 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MORRIS ST

70 § ¨ ¦

N ST 84

136

175

137

170

202

144

127

201

139

110

HARDING

119

120

203

126

112

176

158

177

174

128 198 30

169

189

173

138

159

181

149

183

199

154

200

121

187

182

192

148

123

114

147

133

150

162

179

161

197

193

130

140

132

142

157

146

153

106

131

135

141

165

CENTRAL AVE

143

111

108

102

172

180 109

100

105

; 124

145

107

103

104

134

171

CAPITOL AVE

184

163

101

190

186

167

185

INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN

113

OLIVER AVE 152

TO WASHING

MICHIGAN ST

RIVERSIDE DR E

168

160

65 § ¨ ¦

57 58

MERIDIAN 17 70

129

70 § ¨ ¦

195

65 § ¨ ¦

156

125

115

122

118

188

117

N 164

116

COLLEGE AVE 59

52 5

18 19

194

151

191

166

196

PROSPECT ST

N ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

70 § ¨ ¦

WASHINGTO

155

16TH ST

22ND ST

OLIVER AVE

Urban Link, Quiet St, Bike Blvd & Off-Street

§ ¨ ¦

OLIVER AVE 70

Commuter, 65 § ¨ ¦ Connector & Modern Parkway

OLIVER AVE

Modern Boulevard, Urban Pedestrian & Social Street

CAPITOL AVE CAPITOL AVE

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

KE N

AV E

TU CK Y

65 MERIDIAN ST

83 SHELBY ST 81

CAPITOL AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ING JR

CENTRAL AVE

K DR M L

27 33 31

CENTRAL AVE

16TH ST

70 § ¨ ¦

70 § ¨ ¦ 16TH ST

16TH ST

0.625

Miles 1.25

Page

Chapter

The multi-modal corridor typologies are derived from the multi-modal corridor classifications and further develop the design characteristics. The typologies are described in the MMDG which details the ROW, the ROW components and associated amenities that need to be included in the implementation of the Multi-Modal System Plan. Less than 16 percent of the proposed network requires new on-street right-of-way.

Figure 3.5

This map was developed from information and data provided by but not limited to: IGIC (formerly INGISI), IMAGIS, SAVI, IUPUI (LUCI), MPO, IDNR, Hoosier Rails to Trails, and local jurisdictions/municipalities. Created by: Storrow Kinsella Associates

North

Multi-Modal (MM) Placemaking Typologies T.1 MM Modern Boulevard T.2 MM Urban Pedestrian T.3 MM Social Street MM Connector and Thru Typologies T.4 MM Modern Parkway T.5 MM Commuter T.6 MM Connector MM Local and Off-Street Typologies T.7 MM Urban Link T.8 MM Quiet Street T.9 MM Bike Boulevard T.10 MM Off Street Special MM Corridor 8 Corridor ID Code (see Table) ; Monument Circle N Node " Transition

Legend

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN: REGIONAL CENTER MARCH 2009

Corridor Typologies

MAP 2

Level I

1.66 10.86 0 3.9 19 2 0 0 0 0 37.42

1.43 6.68 1.45 1.5 11.75 14.17 0 0 0 0 36.98

Level 2

Level 3

Chapter

Page

Shows # of miles by typology for each Connectivity Level.

Figure 3.7 Segment Lengths

Modern Boulevard Urban Pedestrian Social Street Modern Parkway Commuter Connector Urban Link Quiet Street Bicycle Boulevard Oﬀ Street Total

Typology

0 0 0 0 0 2.5 17.84 18.12 1.3 24.05 63.81

At this level, only one principal route N-S is necessary – though Meridian has been chosen as a placemaking corridor and Capitol/Illinois as a principal commuter route in this representation, other arrangements could be made. Pennsylvania/

Level 1 - Key Segments This first level consists of completing/enhancing current patterns that attempt to bring commuters from the periphery into the multi-modal network. Most of these corridors follow North-South/East West axes, secondary commutes come from diagonal directions.

Table Key for Figure 3.6

None In Feet None Connectivity Level NS = North South, EW = Describes the connection role of Connection East West, Active = active the corridor transportation

Length Horizon

Contains the Typology identified for each Multi-Modal Corridor

None

Starting at the Western or Southern cross street

Corridor Typologies

These #'s correspond to the corridors on the map Column contains the Corridor names

Data Description

Ending at the Eastern or Northern cross street

#'s Range 1-203

Abbreviations

Multi-Modal Some Corridor names Corridors have been shortened Corridor Start Cross W-S Cross Street Corridor End E-N Cross Cross Street

Column Contents

The development of the Multi-Modal System Plan can be divided conceptually into three levels of connectivity as shown in the map. The lengths of the road segments involved in each level and for each typology are shown in the Figure 3.7. Transit implications of these connectivity levels are discussed in map section 6, pg. 12.

CONNECTIVITY LEVELS Placemaking St. Clair 16th 16th 22nd Alabama Blackford Fall Creek Government Pl. Market Market Maryland Mass Ave-Belle. Mass Ave-Belle. Mass Ave McCarty Meridian Meridian Meridian Meridian Oliver Senate Senate South St. Clair St. Clair St. Clair Indiana University BLVD Vermont Vermont Virginia Virginia Virginia Washington Washington West Drive West St

Thru Corridors 10th St. Fall Creek Pkwy Fall Creek Pkwy Washington St. White River White River White River Connector 10th-F. Wayne 10th St. 10th St. 11th 16th St. 16th St. 16th St. Alabama Belmont Ave. Belmont Ave. Capitol Ave. Capitol Ave. Central Ave. Central Ave. College Delaware Dr. MLK North Fletcher/South Harding St. Harding St. Illinois Kentucky Madison Ave. Maryland Mass Ave. Meridian St. Michigan Rd. Missouri Morris Morris St. New York St. Ohio St. Oliver Ave. Oliver St. Oriental St. Pennsylvania Shelby Shelby St. Shelby St. Washington Washington Washington St. West St. West St. Local Corridors 10th 10th 11th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 18th 20th

ID 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

ID 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ID 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 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 ID 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

W-S Cross Belmont Meridian Illinois Belmont Senate Alabama Missouri Central College Capitol Senate

W-S Cross Pennsylvania Dr. MLK Jr. West Dr. 10th Montcalm Stadium White River Vermont Washington Oliver Vermont McCarty Fall Creek Morris South I70 10th East Morris Oliver McCarty Morris Orange Washington 10th 10th Belmont Morris White River West White River West Belmont River Washington Morris Cottage Bates Morris Maryland Belleview Pine Palmer Morris

W-S Cross White River Delware Dr. MLK Jr. Harding Washington Oliver Morris

W-S Cross Delaware Delaware Senate Capitol Maryland New York Illinois West Alabama Capitol Washington Alabama Davidson Delaware Kentucky Orange 12th Vermont South Harding Government Washington West Capitol Meridian Pennsylvania Capitol New York Senate West Dr. Shelby McCarty East Reichwein West Campus South

E-N Cross White River Ft Wayne Delaware 10Th Penn Central Meridian 16Th Lewis Monon Capitol

E-N Cross Oriental Meridian Dr. MLK Jr. Capitol Senate Montcalm Sugar Grove F. Wayne White River Wash. 30th Vermont 30th Fall Creek 16th Fall Creek Fall Creek Shelby Oliver Washington 30th West Morris West Newman 12th Oriental St. West West Chelsea Oriental St. College Harding Kentucky 10th Fall Creek Morris Washington Bates West Reichwein Randolph Morris South

E-N Cross Elmwood Central Illinois West 16th Wash Oliver

E-NCross Alabama Belle. Delaware Central Vermont Indiana Delaware Senate I65 Alabama New Jersey 10th 10th Alabama Delaware South 30th 10th Vermont White River Ohio Govt Pl East Illinois Penn Delaware 16th 10th Alabama University McCarty East Penn Harding Davidson 10th 11th

Figure 3.6 Connectivity Table

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

Multi-Modal Synergies The connectivity levels were used in the analysis in Appendix A. A percentage of mode shift was assigned for each level of connectivity based on data from other cities (Chapter 1). The maps show the corridor improvements that must be made to approximate the connectivity and mode shift described in Appendix A. However, additional multi-modal synergies may be needed to reach the assumed mode shift. More projects that would support mode shift are discussed in Chapter 4.

Multi-Modal Connections An associated connection has been assigned to each corridor. This descriptor details the associated role that each segment plays in creating a fully connected multi-modal network. North-South (NS) and East-West (EW) describe the primary traffic flow connections. Diagonals describe the traffic flow that comes in from the Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, and Southeast. Circulator desribes the interior traffic flow within the Regional Center. Local corridors and active (bike/ped only, i.e. offstreet) connections have been described based on the subdistrict or the connection direction that they primarily serve.

The third level entails completion of the network by adding local linkages and enabling active transportation (non-auto, e.g. off-street trails) in the network directed toward the subdistrict centers, placemaking corridors and nodes. This has the added advantage of integrating with local and neighborhood revitalization projects. With more multi-modal options and greater system usage, travelers will continue to increasingly depend on transit, bicycles and walking, adding more possibilities for multimodal corridor development.

Level 3 - System Completion

Level 2 - System Connectivity The second level constitutes the prime connectivity phase and brings about the most significant impact on mode shift for the Indianapolis region, forming the spine of the regional network.

Delaware could become the commuter route in the early phasing, for instance, OR even Illinois/ Pennsylvania forming a couplet in close proximity to Meridian to support/feed the placemaking corridor, as well as the downtown.

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

Typology Urban Link Urban Link Quiet Street Quiet Street Quiet Street Quiet Street Quiet Street Quiet Street Urban Link Quiet Street Quiet Street

Typology Connector Connector Connector Connector Commuter Commuter Commuter Connector Commuter Connector Commuter Commuter Connector Connector Connector Commuter Commuter Connector Connector Commuter Commuter Commuter Commuter Connector Commuter Commuter Commuter Commuter Connector Connector Commuter Connector Commuter Connector Connector Commuter Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Commuter Commuter

Typology Modern Pkwy Modern Pkwy Modern Pkwy Modern Pkwy Modern Pkwy Modern Pkwy Modern Pkwy

Typology Social Street U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian M. Boulevard Social Street U. Pedestrian Social Street U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian Social Street Social Street U. Pedestrian Social Street Social Street Social Street U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian U. Pedestrian M. Boulevard U. Pedestrian M. Boulevard

Length 1683 2253 1534 1700 2082 772 3257 2596 1359 6309 665

Length 6654 3043 4141 3861 4789 1246 4893 2062 7329 2831 13573 5925 4656 17603 9948 19205 11104 3025 2864 3179 19513 5080 604 1075 1821 902 17394 4853 2427 7886 14685 5923 2676 1064 5178 19649 1412 1563 4113 1586 2929 3616 2049 3684

Length 2287 881 4242 5070 10375 2928 2610

Length 549 2575 2592 3362 2636 2223 2097 1030 2569 2782 4811 3881 593 852 5623 4127 9667 3881 5626 3458 718 530 5121 1083 452 514 9063 3601 3044 1633 2342 2031 2812 1344 6674 2444 7572

Level 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Level 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

Level 2 1 1 1 1 2 2

Level 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

Connection Circulator Circulator Local near 8 Local near 5 Local near 8 Local near 7 Local near 6 Local to 7 Link to 7 Local to 7 Local near 2

Connection Circulator Circulator, NS Circ., Diag. Circulator Circ., Diag. Diagonals Diagonals Circ., Diag. Circulator Circulator, EW Circ., Diag. NS, EW, Diag. Circulator, NS Circulator, NS Circulator All Circulator Circ., Diag. Local to 19, PR Circulator, EW NS Circ., Diag. NS EW NE axis NS Circulator, NS Circ., Diag. Diagonals NS, Diagonals Circulator, NS Circu., NS, EW Circulator Circulator Diagonals Circ., NS, EW Diagonals EW Diagonals EW Circulator, EW EW NS Circulator, NS

Connection Circulator NS NS Circulator, EW Circulator, EW Circulator, EW Circ., Diag.

Connection NS Circulator, NS Circulator Circulator, NS Circulator, EW NW axis NS Circulator, EW Circulator, EW Circulator, EW Circulator, EW Circ., Diag. Circulator Circ., Diag. Circ., NS, Diag. NS NS NS NS Circulator EW NS, EW Circulator, NS NS NS NS Diagonals Circulator EW, Diagonals Circulator SE axis Circ., Diag. Circ., Diag. EW EW Circulator Circulator, EW

Local W-S Cross E-N Cross Typology 21st-20th Senate Blvd Central Quiet St. 21st Dr MLK Jr Senate Urban Link 25th Meridian Central Quiet St. 29th Capitol Central Quiet St. 30th Capitol Central Quiet St. 9th Meridian Penn. Quiet St. 9th East Mass. Quiet St. 9th Capitol Meridian Quiet St. Alabama 16Th 22Nd Urban Link Alabama St Clair 16Th Urban Link Alongrail White River 16Th Bike Blvd Arch Alabama East Quiet St. Barnhill New York Michigan Quiet St. Belmont Morris Oliver Urban Link Blake Vermont Indiana Bike Blvd Calvary Virginia Fletcher Urban Link College 16Th 18Th Urban Link Davidson New York Mass. Urban Link Davidson Washington Market Urban Link Division Oliver Harding Quiet St. Division Morris Oliver Urban Link Drake 10Th West Quiet St. English Louisiana Calvary Bike Blvd Fall Creek Fall Creek 16Th Quiet St. Georgia Capitol Penn Quiet St. Grove Virginia Fletcher Quiet St. Hanson White River New York Quiet St. Harding Washington Vermont Quiet St. Limestone New York Michigan Quiet St. Louisiana East Pine Bike Blvd Madison South Mccarty Urban Link Mccarty East Virginia Urban Link Mccarty Delaware East Urban Link Merrill Kentucky Missouri Urban Link Merrill Capitol Penn Urban Link Merrill East Virginia Quiet St. Miley Vermont 10Th Urban Link Miley Washington Vermont Urban Link Montcalm Burdsall Indiana Urban Link Morris Belmont Kentucky Urban Link New Jersey South WashingtonUrban Link New Jersey North Mass Quiet St. New Jersey Washington Ohio Urban Link New Jersey Ohio Michigan Urban Link New York Miley White River Urban Link North Senate New Jersey Urban Link North Mass. New York Urban Link North University Michigan Quiet St. North University Indiana Urban Link Ohio White River Blackford Quiet St. Ohio West Capitol Quiet St. Ohio Dickson Oriental Quiet St. Oliver Addison Belmont Quiet St. Park Market Mass Quiet St. Pearl Canal Maryland Quiet St. Prospect Shelby State Urban Link Prospect Morris Virginia Quiet St. Prospect Morris Morris Quiet St. Ray Division White River Quiet St. River White River Oliver Quiet St. Riverside White River 25Th Urban Link Senate 10Th 16Th Urban Link Senate Ohio 10Th Urban Link Senate 16Th Boulevard Urban Link St Clair College Davidson Urban Link St Clair Alabama College Urban Link St Clair Davidson Oriental Urban Link St Clair Indiana Capitol Urban Link Sugar Grove 16Th 22Nd Quiet St. Union Michigan West Dr Quiet St. Vermont Belmont White River Quiet St. Walnut St Clair Meridian Quiet St. Washington Fall Creek 30Th Quiet St. Waterway White River Indiana Quiet St. West Dr 10Th Waterway Urban Link Wilkins Belmont Ray Quiet St. Wilson 10Th University Quiet St. Wishard West Dr University Quiet St. Woodlawn Virginia Shelby Quiet St. Wyoming West Mccarty Quiet St. Off-Steet W-S Cross E-N Cross Typology 12Th North Canal Monon Off Street Bike Port University White River Off Street Blackford New York WashingtonOff Street Blake Vermont Ohio Off Street Boulevard Senate Capitol Off Street Canal 11Th Dr MLK Jr Off Street Canal Blackford 11Th Off Street Canal Fall Creek 14Th Off Street Davidson Louisiana WashingtonOff Street Elmwood Fall Creek Creek Off Street Fall Creek Riverside 30Th Off Street Highland New York Biddle Off Street Lawn Washington Pearl Off Street Military North St Clair Off Street Monon 10Th 30Th Off Street Pine Market 10Th Off Street Pogues Run New York 10Th Off Street Senate Maryland Ohio Off Street Vermont White River West Dr Off Street Vermont University Indiana Off Street Victory FieldMaryland West Off Street White River West Bank East Bank Off Street White River Burdsall Indiana Off Street White River Burdsall Morris Off Street

ID 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 ID 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203

Length 8623 223 1841 2144 506 1001 6399 6486 3591 391 18979 1627 865 910 3352 6145 5621 505 1240 4075 1532 9411 12618 26903

Length 4266 1475 1918 3337 3309 461 1818 1092 3299 3826 1291 950 1047 3113 2025 1577 704 3268 404 2045 2652 2755 1172 2539 1552 1272 376 2594 1102 2378 1907 1432 1326 1408 1553 690 2878 2248 8755 5785 483 1433 949 2053 1493 3557 2094 451 2312 2576 1505 1711 1515 2955 776 2240 1200 1798 1736 500 5592 2698 4116 3693 797 2081 1983 2722 4018 1873 2314 2066 1637 1810 1218 4297 2089 1683 354 1894 Level 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Level 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Connection Active EW Active to 15 Active Campus Active to 15 Active to 14 Active to 4 Active 15 to 4 Active NW on N Active to 9 Active to 5 Active NE on N Active NS on E Active to 14 Active to 8 Active NS Active NE on E Active NE on E Active to 14 Active to 5 Active to 20 Active to 18 Active NS on W Active NW on W Active NS on W

Connection Local near 2 Link near 2 Local to 1 Local near 1 Local near 1 Local near 8 Local near 8 Local to 9 Link 2 to 7 Link 7 to 8 Local to 3 Local near 11 Local near 15 Link near 19 Local to 15 Local near 16 Link to 7 Link to 9 Local to 12 Local to 19 Link to 19 Local near 4 Local near 16 Local near 6 Local near 18 Local near 17 Local near 15 Local to 13 Local near 15 Local to 16 Link to 18 Link near 16 Link thru Campus Link to 21 Link to 18 Local to 16 Link near 13 Link to 13 Link 3 to 5 Link near 19 Link 16 to 12 Local to 11 Link 12 to 11 Link 12 to 11 Link near 13 Link to 11 Link to 11 Local near 15 Link 15 to 20 Local near 15 Local near 14 Local near 12 Local near 19 Local to 11 Local near 14 Link to17 Local to 17 Local near 17 Local near 19 Local near 21 Link near 3 Circulator Link to 10 Link to 6 Link to 9 Link 8 to 9 Link to 9 Link 8 to 20 Local to 3 Local to 5 Local near 13 Local to 8 Local near 1 Local near 3 Link to 5 Local near 19 Local to 5 Local to 5 Local to 17 Local near 21

MORRIS ST

70 § ¨ ¦

ST 84

170

139

175

11 0

168

119

17 3

189

RIVERSIDE DR E

144

138

HARDING

202

198

169

177

158

176

148

192

149

123

65 § ¨ ¦

133

199

200

121

INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN

OLIVER AVE 152

TON WASHING

MICHIGAN ST

174

160

147

190

182

101

150

179

171

184

CAPITOL AVE

167

163

134

105

N25

; 124

145

100

107

103

102

172 2

132

111

180

157

146

106

129

131

135

141

165

104

164

116

70 § ¨ ¦

65 § ¨ ¦

156

8 17

188

151

166

PROSPECT ST

N ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

70 § ¨ ¦

WASHINGTO

155

16TH ST

22ND ST

P N N P

N P N P

OLIVER AVE

3 - System Completion

OLIVER AVE

2 - System Connectivity

OLIVER AVE

N N

1 - Key Segments

CAPITOL AVE P

CAPITOL AVE

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

113

114

183

136

137

112

126

20 1

85 154

AV E

161

162

197 22

;

N N

CENTRAL AVE N

CENTRAL AVE

MERIDIAN 17

18 70

193 80

203

181

15 9

128

120

KE N

TU CK Y

65 MERIDIAN ST

108 109

52 5

194

CENTRAL AVE 143

142

140

153

117 118

COLLEGE AVE 59

195

122

127

11 5

27 12 5

186 33 31

SHELBY ST 81

185 191

187

CAPITOL AVE

CENTRAL AVE

KING JR DR M L 196

130

16TH ST

0.625

Miles 1.25

Page

Chapter

The development of the Multi-Modal System Plan is conceptually divided into three levels of connectivity. Level 1, Key Segments, illustrates which corridors will produce the greatest amount of mode shift by connecting current travel patterns into the multi-modal system and identifies key subdistrict nodes and proposed parking hubs. Level 2, System Connectivity, achieves a largely connected network and identifies remaining node and parking hub needs. Level 3, System Completion, presents the balance of the Multi-Modal System connecting the rest of the Regional Center to the multi-modal network.

Figure 3.8

This map was developed from information and data provided by but not limited to: IGIC (formerly INGISI), IMAGIS, SAVI, IUPUI (LUCI), MPO, IDNR, Hoosier Rails to Trails, and local jurisdictions/municipalities. Created by: Storrow Kinsella Associates

North

Multi-Modal Connectivity Level 1 - Key Segments 2 - System Connectivity 3 - System Completion 8 Corridor ID Code (see Table) ; Monument Circle N Node " Transition P Parking Hubs/Transfer

Legend

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN: REGIONAL CENTER MARCH 2009

Connectivity Level

MAP 3

If a multi-modal corridor did not meet the criteria of having two modes present in addition to auto, the bicycle mode was added.

Transit recommendations were generally chosen to align with current and future planned transit routes. Specific transit issues and opportunities are discussed in the Transit Considerations section.

While this plan is not a typical transit route plan, it will modify infrastructure to support a wide variety of transit route choices, including fixed, dedicated, protected, and separated ROW.

This plan should be utilized in transit planning for the Regional Center and future transit efforts should be consistent with the recommendations from the Multi-Modal System Plan.

•

Chapter

Page

Mode components for multi-modal corridors should be implemented loosely following the Connectivity Level section, allowing opportunities to take advantage of development and maintenance schedules. Thoroughfare improvements on a multimodal corridor should make every effort to include the recommendations of this plan.

Placemaking corridors were recommended to accommodate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit.

•

Plan Convergence This plan focused first on implementing the recommendations of existing bike, pedestrian and transit plans for mode components of the multimodal corridors. Reinforcing existing efforts of the MPO, DPW and IndyGo. The mode components map and table present the modes that will be present on each corridor. Mode component recommendations that are new in this plan have been labeled MMSP. Reasoning for mode recommendations included:

Every corridor in the multi-modal system must support three modes of transportation including auto, pedestrian facilities being present on all multi-modal corridors. Consequently, there are three mode component variations on multi-modal corridors in the Regional Center: bicycle and pedestrian (BP); bicycle, transit, and pedestrian (BTP); and transit and pedestrian (TP).

MODAL FACILITIES

#'s Range 1-203

Abbreviations

Column contains the Corridor names Defines the Modes that will be accommodated on each Corridor

These #'s correspond to the corridors on the map

Data Description

MMSP = Multi-Modal System Describes the Source for Plan, DPW= Department recommending the bicycle of Public Works (Bike Plan), component CT=Cultural Trail Describes the Source MPO = Metropolitan Planning for recommending the Organization (Pedestrian Plan) pedestrian component URS = URS Transit Center Describes the Source for Study, COA= IndyGO recommending the transit Comprehensive Operational component Analysis Describes the Primary IUPUI = Campus Plan, Special reasoning for including Routes = IndyGo Special the Corridor in the MultiRoutes, Modal System

Enhanced: An “Enhanced” degree of investment involves full typology design and build out of pavement textures, curbing, green infrastructure.

Integrated: An “Integrated” degree of investment focuses on surrounding land uses and the design-build of the transitions.

Measured: A “Measured” degree of investment includes money for monitoring the corridors and updating the plan as implementation progresses.

•

Connector Corridors 10th-Fort Wayne 10th St. 10th St. 11th 16th St. 16th St. 16th St. Alabama Belmont Ave. Belmont Ave. Capitol Ave. Capitol Ave. Central Ave. Central Ave./East St. College Delaware Dr. MLK North Fletcher/South Harding St. Harding St. Illinois Kentucky Madison Ave. Maryland Massachusetts Ave. Meridian St. Michigan Rd. Missouri Morris Morris St. New York St. Ohio St. Oliver Ave. Oliver St. Oriental St. Pennsylvania Shelby Shelby St. Shelby St. Washington Washington Washington St. West St. West St. Local Corridors 10th 10th 11th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 18th 20th

ID 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Thru Corridors 10th St. Fall Creek Pkwy Fall Creek Pkwy Washington St. White River Pkwy White River Pkwy White River Pkwy

ID 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ID 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 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Modes TP BP BP BP TP BP BP BP BTP BP BP

Modes BTP TP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BP BP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP TP BTP BTP BP BP BTP BTP BTP TP TP BTP BTP BP BP BP BTP TP BP BTP BP TP BTP BP BP TP BTP BTP BP TP

Modes BTP BTP BP BTP BTP BP BP

Modes BP BTP BTP BTP BTP BP BTP BP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BP BP BTP BP BP BP BTP BTP BTP BP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP

MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP

Bike

MMSP MMSP MMSP

DPW, MPO,-CT DPW DPW

MMSP MMSP MMSP

MMSP DPW MMSP MMSP MMSP DPW

DPW DPW MMSP MMSP DPW DPW MMSP

MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MPO, CT MMSP MMSP DPW DPW MMSP MMSP MMSP

Bike MMSP

Bike MPO-CT DPW DPW MMSP DPW, MPO,CT MMSP MMSP

Bike MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MPO, CT MPO, CT DPW MPO, CT MMSP MPO, CT MMSP MPO, CT MPO, CT MMSP MMSP DPW MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MPO, CT MPO, CT DPW MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP, MPO MPO, CT MMSP MPO, CT MPO, CT MPO, CT MPO, CT MMSP MMSP MMSP DPW

Figure 3.9 Mode Facilities Table ID 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

Basic: A “Basic” degree of investment can be initiated to facilitate mode shift. Restriping of corridors to include bike lanes and bike boxes should be made a priority during the implementation of the Multi-Modal System Plan. Each connectivity level may begin with a restriping of corridors if a full out design and build is not possible for a portion of the corridors.

•

Investment Options Chapter 1 describes different degrees of investment that can be made to support mode shift. This idea acknowledges the need to look for financially feasible options to facilitate plan implementation in the near to short term, as well as the need to leverage public funding with private investment and partnerships. This concept is described in Chapter 1 on page 12 but some of the details are described below:

Table Key Figure 3.9

Source

Transit

Ped

Bike

Modes

B= Bike, T=Transit P = Pedestrian

Multi-Modal Some Corridor names have Corridors been shortened

Column Contents

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

Ped MPO MPO MPO MMSP MPO MMSP MMSP MMSP MPO MMSP MMSP

Ped MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MMSP MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MMSP MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO

Ped MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO

COA

Transit COA

COA

COA COA COA

URS, COA COA

COA

URS, COA URS, COA

URS, COA URS, COA COA URS, COA COA COA URS, COA

URS, COA URS, COA COA COA URS, COA URS, COA COA COA

Transit URS, COA COA COA COA COA COA COA URS, COA

COA COA

Transit COA COA

Ped Transit MPO MPO COA MPO COA MPO COA MPO URS, COA MMSP MPO COA MMSP, MPO MPO URS, COA MPO URS MPO URS, COA MPO URS, COA MPO URS, COA MPO COA MPO MMSP, MPO COA MPO URS, COA MPO URS, COA MPO URS MPO COA MMSP, MPO MMSP, MPO MPO URS, COA MPO MPO MPO MPO URS, COA MPO URS, COA MPO URS MMSP MPO URS, COA MPO URS, COA MPO URS, COA MPO COA MPO URS, COA MMSP COA MPO COA

ID 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 Source 138 MPO-CT 139 140 DPW DPW 141 142 COA DPW 143 MPO 144 MPO 145 146 Source 147 MPO 148 MPO 149 150 MPO COA 151 152 COA COA 153 154 COA MPO-CT 155 156 MPO MPO 157 158 COA MPO 159 160 COA COA 161 MPO 162 DPW 163 DPW 164 COA 165 MMSP 166 MPO 167 COA 168 DPW 169 MPO 170 MPO 171 COA 172 MPO 173 DPW 174 MPO 175 MPO 176 MPO 177 DPW 178 COA 179 MPO COA ID MMSP 180 DPW 181 DPW 182 MPO 183 184 MPO MPO 185 COA 186 COA 187 188 MPO MPO 189 190 Source 191 COA 192 MPO 193 MPO 194 MMSP 195 MPO 196 MMSP 197 MMSP 198 MMSP 199 COA 200 MMSP 201 MMSP 202 203

Source MPO COA COA COA MPO, CT MPO, CT COA MPO, CT MPO MPO COA MPO MPO, CT MPO MPO DPW COA COA MPO MPO MPO, CT MPO, CT COA MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO, CT COA COA MPO, CT COA COA COA COA

Modes BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP

Local Corridors Modes 21st-20th BP 21st BP 25th BP 29th TP 30th BTP 9th BP 9Th-Carrollton BP 9th TP Alabama TP Alabama TP Alongrail BP Arch BP Barnhill BTP Belmont-Morris BP Blake BP Calvary BP College TP Davidson BP Davidson BP Division-Henry BP Division BTP Brooks-Drake BP Pine-English BP Fall Creek North BP Georgia BP Grove BP Hanson BP Harding-Koehne BP Limestone TP Louisiana BP Union-Madison TP Mccarty BP Mccarty BP Merrill BP Merrill BP Merrill BP Miley BP Miley BP Harding-18Th-MontcalmBTP Morris BTP New Jersey BP New Jersey-Walnut BP New Jersey BP New Jersey TP New York BP North BP North BP North Blake TP North-Davidson BP Blake-Ohio BP Ohio TP Ohio BP Oliver BP Park BP Pearl TP Prospect TP Prospect BP Prospect BP Ray BP River BP Riverside BP Senate BTP Senate BTP Senate Boulevard BP St Clair BP St Clair BP St Clair BP St Clair BP Sugar Grove-22Nd BP North-Union BP Vermont TP Walnut BP Washington Blvd BP Waterway BP West Dr BTP Wilkins BP Wilson-Walnut BTP Wishard BTP Woodlawn BP Wyoming-Church BP Bike MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP Cultural Trail MPO MMSP MPO MPO MPO MMSP Cultural Trail MPO MMSP MPO MMSP IUPUI IUPUI MMSP MPO MPO MPO

Cultural Trail MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP DPW MMSP

MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP Cultural Trail MMSP MMSP

MMSP MMSP MMSP

MMSP MMSP

MMSP Cultural Trail MMSP

MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP DPW MMSP Cultural Trail MMSP

MMSP

MMSP MMSP

MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP

MMSP MMSP MMSP

Bike MMSP MMSP MMSP

Ped MMSP MMSP MPO MPO MPO MMSP MPO MPO MMSP MPO MPO MPO MMSP MPO MPO MPO MPO Cultural Trail MPO MPO MMSP MPO MPO MPO

Transit

Source MMSP MMSP IUPUI MPO MPO Indy Gateways Cultural Trail MPO MMSP MPO MPO MPO MMSP Cultural Trail MPO MPO MPO Cultural Trail IUPUI IUPUI MMSP MPO MPO MPO

MPO MMSP COA Indy Gateways MMSP MMSP MPO MPO MMSP MMSP URS URS MPO COA COA MPO MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP COA COA COA DPW MMSP Cultural Trail MPO COA COA MMSP Cultural Trail MPO Special Routes Special Routes MMSP MMSP Special Routes Special Routes MPO MPO MMSP Special Routes Special Routes COA COA MPO MPO MMSP MPO MPO URS URS URS URS MPO MMSP MPO MMSP Cultural Trail MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP Cultural Trail MPO Bio-X-Roads MMSP WEST DR MMSP COA COA COA COA DPW MMSP COA

COA

COA MMSP COA URS

COA COA

COA

Source MMSP MMSP MPO COA COA MMSP COA MMSP COA URS Bio-X-Roads MPO COA MPO MMSP MPO COA

MPO MMSP MPO MMSP MMSP MMSP MPO MPO MMSP MMSP MMSP MPO MPO MPO MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MMSP MPO MPO MMSP MPO MPO MPO MMSP MPO MPO MMSP MMSP MMSP MPO MPO MPO MMSP MMSP MPO MPO MPO MMSP MPO MPO MPO MPO MPO MMSP MPO MMSP Cultural Trail MMSP MMSP MMSP MPO MPO Bio-X-Roads WEST DR MMSP MPO MPO MPO MMSP

Transit

Ped MMSP MMSP MPO MPO MPO MMSP MMSP MMSP MPO MPO Bio-X-Roads MPO MMSP MPO MMSP MPO MPO

170

139

175

11 0

168

119

17 3

198

169

177

158

176

HARDING

202

192

200

INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

123

149

148

121

133

199

101

150

179

171

167

CAPITOL AVE

184

11 124

134

105

;

145

100

107

RIVERSIDE DR E

144

160

190

174

102

132

111

180

157

146

106

129

131

135

141

165

116 P

164

§ ¨ ¦

156

188

151

166

PROSPECT ST

N ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

§ ¨ ¦

WASHINGTO

155

16TH ST

22ND ST

â â â â â â â â â â â â â â ââ â

âââ

Bicycle

ââââââââ

OLIVER AVE

âââââââ

âââ âââââ

ââ

â ââ â

ââ

â â âââ

ââââââ

âââââ

â ââ â â â âââ

â â â â âN

ââ

â â â â â â â â â âN â â â ââ 16TH â â â ST âââ ââ â â â â ââ ââ ââ â â â â â â â â â â â â N â â â â â â ââ â â â â Nâ â â â â âN â â ââ â â â â â â â â â â â â â âââââââ

Nâ

ââ

âââ N â ââ ââ â â â

âââ

ââââââââââ

ââââ

N â ââ â â â â â â â â â âââââââ ââââ

ââââ

;

â â â ââ

ââ â â â â â ââ â â â â â â â â â â

âââ

ââââââ

âââââââââââââââ

OLIVER AVE

âââââââ

Transit

â â âââ

âN ââââââââ â

;

ââââ

ââ âââââ â ââââââââ â â ââ â â â âNB â â â â â â â â â â âNâ â â â â â ââ â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â âB ââââ â â âââââ âââ âââââââ N â N N âââ â â â â â â â â â â â â â ââ â âââââââ OLIVER AVE N â â ââââââââââ âââââââ âââ â âââ â â âââ â â â â âââââââ â N â â â â â â â â â â â â âââââââââ â â ââ ââ ââ â â â

ââ

â â â â â Nâ

â â â â âN

â â â â â â â â â â ââ â â â N

â â â â â ââ â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN

113

163

MERIDIAN 103

MORRIS ST

§ ¨ ¦

OLIVER AVE 152

TON ST WASHING 84

MICHIGAN ST

189

128

120

112

126

136

137

147

181

138

20 1

114

183

203

182

154

15 9

161

108 109

57 58

172 52

153

162

197 22

117

COLLEGE AVE 59

18 19

193 80

195

Pedestrian

§ ¨ ¦

ââââââââ

104

âââ ââââââ

AV E

ââ

194

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

65 MERIDIAN ST

â â â â â â â â â ââ â â â ââ â â

ââââââââââ

16TH ST

ââ

CENTRAL AVE 143

142

140

127

âââââ

CAPITOL AVE

ââââ

ââ

ââââ

ââ

âââââââ

âââ â â â ââ ââââââââ

K E NT UC KY

ââ â â â â â â â â ââ âââ â

ââââ

ââ ââââ â ââ âââ ââââ â

196

118

â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â ââ â â â â â â â

CENTRAL AVE

â ââââââââ â âââ

18 6 ââââ

122

ââ

âââââ

ââ

11 5

â ââ â â â ââ ââ â âââ â â

12 5

âââââ

ââââââ

ââ

âââââââ âââ

âââ â

ââ

SHELBY ST 81

ââââââââââ

â ââ â â â â â â â â â â ââ â â

ââ

â ââââ

âââ â â â â â â â â â â â â â â ââ â

CENTRAL AVE

ââââ ââââââââ âââ

ââ

ââ â

191

ââââââââââ ââ â ââââââââââ â ââ ââ ââ â â â â

âââââââ

â ââ â

â ââââââââââ

â â â â â ââ â â â â â â â â â

ââ

ââââââââââââââââ

â â

CAPITOL AVE â â ââââ ââ ââ â â â ââ ââ â â â â â â ââ â â â â â â â ââââ ââ âââ

ââ â ââ â â ââ ââ ââ ââ âââ â ââ ââ â ââ â â â ââ â ââ âââ â â â ââââ âââââââââ â â ââââ

ââ

ââââââ

â â â âââ â â â

âââââââââââ âââ

185

ââââ

187 ââ

âââââ ââââââ

ââ

âââ

G JR ST ââââââ

ââââ

âââ â

ââââââââââââ âââââ

ââ

KIN DR M L ââââ

ââ ââ â â ââ â

â ââ âââââ

ââ

ââââââ â â â â ââ

âââââââââ

ââ â ââ ââ ââ â â â â â â ââ ââ âââââ â â ââââââââââââââââââ âââââââââââ âââââââââ â â â â â â â â â â â â â ââââââââââââââââââââ â â â â â â â â â â â â â ââ â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â ââ â ââ â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â ââ â â â â â â â ââ â â â â â â â â â â â ââââââ

âââââââ ââââ

ââââ

â â â âââ â â â

ââââââ

ââ

ââââââ

ââ

âââ

â â â â â â â â â â â ââ â â â â â

ââââ âââ ââ â â âââââââ

ââââââââââââââ

â ââ

130

0.625

Miles 1.25

Page

Chapter

Every corridor in the multi-modal system must support two modes of transportation in addition to auto, pedestrian facilities being present on all multi-modal corridors. Consequently, this map displays networks of the three mode components that are on multi-modal corridors in the Regional Center: bicycle, transit, and pedestrian. Routes that should be added to provide the desired modal network connectivity are displayed as proposed routes in the triptych maps.

Figure 3.10

This map was developed from information and data provided by but not limited to: IGIC (formerly INGISI), IMAGIS, SAVI, IUPUI (LUCI), MPO, IDNR, Hoosier Rails to Trails, and local jurisdictions/municipalities. Created by: Storrow Kinsella Associates

North

Currently Planned Routes Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Proposed New Routes â â â â â Transit â â â â â Bicycle â â â â â Pedestrian

Corridor Modal Components

Node B Bike Ports P Parking Hubs/Transfer 8 Corridor ID Code (see Table)

; Monument Circle

Legend

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN: REGIONAL CENTER MARCH 2009

Modal Components

MAP 4

#'s Range 1-203

Abbreviations

These #'s correspond to the corridors on the map Column contains the Corridor names

Data Description

Intensity

Page

Chapter

Greenspace Greenspace in the RC is relatively high for a large metropolitan area center (17%), which leads to a very high 200+ acres/capita with the relatively small population living in the RC. Yet, most of this open space is located along the western side of the RC around White River; substantial networks could be created with a chain of parks along the east side of the RC. Other types of greenspace are included along the off-street corridors, including a connection between Fall Creek and the Monon and down the eastern border of the RC, largely following the interstates. A trail along the highway is an important connection as highways do not accommodate pedestrian or bike traffic. Furthermore, the multi-modal corridors provide green infrastructure as well as modal infrastructure. Street trees and landscaping help make traveling by alternative modes more desirable by providing safe, sheltered, buffered spaces.

Table Key for Figure 3.11

Intensity = Net Benefit over Proportional index to cost of the green performance canopy-dollar benefit of a Corridor

Percent rainfall capture

SW= Storm Water Reduction

kWhr = The estimated amount Kilowatt Hours/year of energy savings per year Estimated dollar benefit of green infrastructure based on Dollars EPA study

CO2 = The estimated amount Pounds of carbon dioxide reduction

Benefit

kWhr

CO2

Multi-Modal Some Corridor names have Corridors been shortened Lg = # of Large Trees required Lg # of Trees, 60ft spacing by Typology Guidelines Med = # of Medium Trees Med required by Typology # of Trees, 40ft spacing Guidelines

Column Contents

Green Infrastructure brings green spaces into proximity of those using the Regional Center (RC). It enhances the beauty and quality of riparian areas as well as streets, increasing their safety, usage and cleanliness. These benefits are not merely aesthetic; property values increase on tree-lined streets and in proximity to parks [99]. Apart from these, a number of other substantial benefits arise from a quality green infrastructure: cooling of streets and buildings, energy savings, stormwater management, and greenhouse gas reduction [100,102].

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Placemaking St. Clair 16th 16th 22nd Alabama Blackford Fall Creek Government Pl. Market Market Maryland Mass Ave-Belle. Mass Ave-Belle. Mass Ave Gateway McCarty Meridian Meridian Meridian Meridian Oliver Senate Senate South St. Clair St. Clair St. Clair Stadium/Indiana University BLVD Vermont Vermont Virginia Virginia Virginia Washington Washington West Drive West St Thru Corridors 10th St. Fall Creek Pkwy Fall Creek Pkwy Washington St. White River Pkwy White River Pkwy White River Pkwy Connector Corridors 10th-Fort Wayne 10th St. 10th St. 11th 16th St. 16th St. 16th St. Alabama Belmont Ave. Belmont Ave. Capitol Ave. Capitol Ave. Central Ave. Central Ave./East St. College Delaware Dr. MLK North Fletcher/South Harding St. Harding St. Illinois Kentucky Madison Ave. Maryland Massachusetts Ave. Meridian St. Michigan Rd. Missouri Morris Morris St. New York St. Ohio St. Oliver Ave. Oliver St. Oriental St. Pennsylvania Shelby Shelby St. Shelby St. Washington Washington Washington St. West St. West St. Local Corridors 10th 10th 11th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 18th 20th

ID 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ID 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 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 ID 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Lg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 78 96 0 0

Lg 30 35 170 203 415 117 104

Lg 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 103 74 0 0 0 0 0 165 387 155 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 445 0 101

Med 67 90 61 68 83 31 130 104 54 252 27

Med 266 122 166 154 192 50 196 82 293 113 543 237 186 704 398 768 444 121 115 60 781 203 24 43 73 0 696 194 97 315 587 237 107 43 207 786 56 63 165 0 0 0 82 147

Med 91 0 0 0 0 0 0

Med 22 154 156 202 158 133 0 41 0 0 289 233 36 51 337 0 0 0 0 208 29 21 307 43 18 21 544 216 183 98 141 122 169 0 0 147 606

CO2 9290 12437 8465 9383 11491 4261 17979 14330 7502 34823 3672

CO2 36727 16796 22856 21313 26438 6877 27008 11381 40458 15630 74921 32705 25702 97166 54911 106010 61293 16697 15809 8262 107712 28043 3334 5933 10054 13276 96014 26789 13398 43532 81060 32697 14773 5874 28584 108463 7794 8630 22706 23346 43116 53233 11309 20337

CO2 29450 19460 93667 111937 229085 64655 57622

CO2 3030 21321 21464 27840 21826 18409 77154 5688 56713 40955 39831 32134 4909 7054 46555 91122 213450 85683 124229 28636 3965 2926 42404 5976 2495 2838 75040 29818 25202 13518 19391 16818 23280 29682 245619 20240 139333

kWhr 943 1262 859 952 1166 432 1824 1454 761 3533 373

kWhr 3726 1704 2319 2162 2682 698 2740 1155 4104 1586 7601 3318 2607 9857 5571 10755 6218 1694 1604 838 10927 2845 338 602 1020 1347 9741 2718 1359 4416 8224 3317 1499 596 2900 11003 791 876 2303 2368 4374 5400 1147 2063

kWhr 2988 1974 9502 11356 23241 6559 5846

kWhr 307 2163 2178 2824 2214 1868 7827 577 5754 4155 4041 3260 498 716 4723 9244 21654 8693 12603 2905 402 297 4302 606 253 288 7613 3025 2557 1371 1967 1706 2362 3011 24918 2053 14135

Figure 3.11 Green Infrastructure Table ID 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

Benefits The number of street trees is calculated in the adjacent table for the length of the corridor, based on typology recommendations. The cooling effect of the “green” multi-modal streets diminishes the heat island effect translating into a system-wide energy savings 721,000 kWhr/yr), and also provide cooling channels which are more difficult to quantify. In addition to automotive trip reduction, street trees on multi-modal corridors reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The estimated pounds/yr of CO2 eliminated is provided for each corridor. The systemwide CO2 reduction totals 3554 tons/yr. Green infrastructure also reduces stormwater runoff and improves the water quality by diminishing runoff load and velocity and increasing filtration . All of these effects [101] yield a substantial net benefit over cost [105] whose savings per year (benefit) is shown in the table for each corridor. Converting this benefit to a measure per lineal foot of corridor provides a “green intensity” value (intensity in table). The value roughly corresponds to the cross-sectional area of tree canopy for each foot of corridor. Larger trees, more mature trees can improve these benefits by up to 70 times that of small trees, demonstrating the added value of City Beautiful corridors. The estimated system-wide benefit over the cost of the green infrastructure approaches $1 million dollars/ yr.

The hierarchy of green infrastructure (green intensity) in the multi-modal system ranges from parks and parkways on the high end to off street corridors, then placemaking streets with significant tree canopy, and finally the streets with a higher percentage of impervious surface and smaller trees (like urban links). A City Beautiful overlay adds “green capacity” to any of the typologies by increasing the size of the tree canopy. The overlay intentionally enhances the beauty of the street, as well as its performance in terms of community cooling and stormwater management (see tables). The Green Infrastructure network as shown on the adjacent map, reveals an absence of “green connectivity” in the SE portion of the RC. Consequently, an important green connection should be studied such as adding an off-street corridor or a City Beautiful overlay to South or McCarty.

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

Benefit 1350 1800 1230 1360 1670 617 2605 2080 1090 5050 530

Benefit 5320 2430 3310 3090 3830 1000 3910 1650 5860 2270 10900 4740 3720 14100 7960 15400 8880 2420 2291 1200 15600 4060 483 860 1460 1440 13900 3880 1940 6310 11700 4740 2140 850 4140 15719 1130 1250 3290 2540 4690 5790 1640 2950

Benefit 3660 2120 10200 12200 24900 7030 6260

Benefit 440 3100 3110 4030 3160 2670 8390 820 6160 4450 5770 4660 710 1020 6750 9900 23200 9310 13500 4150 570 420 6150 870 360 410 10900 4320 3650 1960 2810 2440 3370 3230 26700 2930 18200

SW 4.80% 4.80% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 4.80% 8.16% 8.16%

SW 12% 12% 12% 12% 8% 8% 8% 12% 8% 12% 8% 8% 12% 12% 12% 8% 8% 12% 12% 8% 8% 8% 8% 12% 8% 11% 8% 8% 12% 12% 8% 12% 8% 12% 12% 8% 12% 12% 12% 14% 14% 14% 8% 8%

SW 13% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16%

SW 16% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 12% 16% 16% 20% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 16% 16% 16% 16% 13% 16% 16% 13% 16% 16% 16% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 16% 12% 13% 10%

Intensity 160 272 384 192 448 320 320 256 192 268.8 384

Intensity 640 211.2 384 448 432 432 432 576 336 448 432 432 384 576 768 432 480 640 384 576 432 432 384 448 283.2 1344 432 432 384 614.4 432 576 384 51.2 288 432 384 384 384 2880 1920 1920 384 288

Intensity 1200 3360 3360 4032 2890 1680 1680

Intensity 320 488 672 480 720 480 3360 800 2592 2592 720 720 480 480 480 2592 2592 2592 2592 640 800 800 720 480 480 320 480 800 720 440 640 640 800 2304 4032 480 1481

Local Corridors 21st-20th 21st 25th 29th 30th 9th 9th 9th Alabama Alabama Alongrail Arch Barnhill Belmont Blake Calvary College Davidson Davidson Division Division Drake English Fall Creek Georgia Grove Hanson Harding-Koehne Limestone Louisiana Madison Mccarty Mccarty Merrill Merrill Merrill Miley Miley Montcalm Morris New Jersey New Jersey New Jersey New Jersey New York North North North North Ohio Ohio Ohio Oliver Park Pearl Prospect Prospect Prospect Ray River Riverside Senate Senate Senate St Clair St Clair St Clair St Clair Sugar Grove Union Vermont Walnut Washington Blvd Waterway West Dr Wilkins Wilson Wishard Woodlawn Wyoming Oﬀ-Steet 12Th Bike Port Blackford Blake Boulevard Canal Canal Canal Davidson Elmwood Fall Creek Trail Highland Lawn Military Park Monon Pine Pogues Run Senate Vermont Vermont Victory Field White River White River Trail White River Trail

Lg 273 7 58 68 16 32 213 205 114 12 601 52 27 29 106 195 178 17 39 129 51 298 400 852

Lg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Med CO2 0 150735 0 3898 0 32189 0 37482 0 8853 0 17494 0 118168 0 113371 0 62778 0 6826 0 331751 0 28449 0 15116 0 15913 0 58595 0 107414 0 98256 0 9326 0 21673 0 71225 0 28291 0 164506 0 220569 0 470270

Med CO2 171 23550 59 8144 77 10587 133 18421 132 18264 18 2546 73 10038 44 6026 132 18211 153 21120 52 7127 38 5242 42 5778 125 17186 81 11176 63 8705 28 3885 131 18041 16 2231 82 11289 106 14638 110 15207 47 6470 102 14016 62 8565 51 7024 15 2076 104 14321 44 6084 95 13124 76 10527 57 7903 53 7320 56 7772 62 8573 28 3806 115 15889 90 12407 350 48328 231 31934 82 11316 57 7912 38 5241 82 11333 60 8241 142 19635 84 11557 18 2491 92 12763 103 14222 60 8305 68 9445 61 8364 118 16312 31 4286 90 12362 48 6623 72 9927 69 9580 20 2758 224 30866 108 14894 165 22722 148 20386 32 4398 83 11484 79 10944 109 15027 161 22182 75 10336 93 12773 83 11404 65 9035 72 9993 49 6721 172 23717 84 11533 67 9292 14 1953 76 10456 kWhr 15292 395 3266 3803 898 1775 11945 11501 6369 693 33656 2886 1533 1614 5944 10897 9968 943 2199 7226 2860 16689 22377 47709

kWhr 2389 826 1074 1869 1853 258 1018 611 1847 2143 723 532 586 1744 1134 883 394 1830 226 1145 1485 1543 656 1422 869 713 211 1453 617 1331 1068 802 743 788 870 386 1612 1259 4903 3240 1148 803 532 1150 836 1992 1172 253 1295 1443 843 958 849 1655 435 1254 672 1007 972 280 3131 1511 2305 2068 446 1165 1110 1525 2250 1049 1296 1157 917 1014 682 2406 1170 943 198 1061 Benefit 16400 420 3500 4070 960 1900 12798 12300 6820 740 36100 3090 1640 1730 6370 11700 10700 1010 2360 7740 3064 17900 24000 51100

Benefit 3410 1180 1530 2670 2650 370 1450 870 2640 3060 1030 760 840 2490 1620 1260 560 2610 320 1640 2120 2200 940 2030 1240 1020 300 2080 882 1900 1530 1150 1060 1126 1240 550 2300 1800 7000 4630 1640 1150 760 1640 1190 2850 1670 360 1850 2060 1200 1370 1210 2360 620 1790 960 1440 1390 400 4470 2160 3290 2950 640 1660 1590 2180 3210 1500 1850 1650 1310 1450 970 3440 1670 1350 280 1520 SW 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

SW 8.16% 4.80% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 4.80% 4.80% 8.64% 8.16% 8.16% 4.80% 8.64% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 8.16% 4.80% 8.16% 8.64% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.64% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 8.16% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 8.16% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 8.16% 4.80% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 4.80% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 4.80% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16% 8.16%

Intensity 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078 3078

Intensity 480 240 320 416 320 320 230.4 576 224 288 64 256 537.6 224 448 288 256 176 160 371.2 208 307.2 345.6 448 576 217.6 128 268.8 384 192 288 192 192 128 128 256 115.2 128 192 192 288 576 288 288 144 288 192 448 192 384 576 256 384 256 153.6 256 384 384 384 384 240 288 288 256 121.6 176 102.4 176 243.2 307.2 288 384 320 160 192 416 384 576 352 224

MORRIS ST

§ ¨ ¦

OLIVER AVE 152

TON ST WASHING 84

MICHIGAN ST

170

138

11 0

HARDING

202

119

198

169

177

158

176

192

149

148

200

133

199

121

INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN

139

175

144

168

17 3

123

150

101

179

107

100

134

124

145

171

167

CAPITOL AVE

184

105

;

103

102

132

111

180

172 108

104

CENTRAL AVE

157

146

106

129

131

135

141

165

MERIDIAN 17

RIVERSIDE DR E

160

189

128

174

190

113

203

114

183

136

137

112

126

20 1

147

181

182

163

85 154

164

116

§ ¨ ¦

188

§ ¨ ¦

156

151

166

PROSPECT ST

N ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

§ ¨ ¦

WASHINGTO

155

16TH ST

22ND ST

§ ¨ ¦

161

162

197

OLIVER AVE

Green Elements Intensity = 0-500

OLIVER AVE

Green Connectors Intensity = 500-1000

OLIVER AVE

Green Placemaking Corridors Intensity = 1000-5000 CENTRAL AVE

CENTRAL AVE

CAPITOL AVE

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

120

153

COLLEGE AVE 59

18 19

193 80

AV E

KE N TU CK Y

117

109

52 5

143

142

140

195 122 11 5

65 MERIDIAN ST

194

127

12 5

186 33 31

SHELBY ST 81

187 191

CAPITOL AVE

ING JR

CENTRAL AVE

K DR M L

185 196

130

16TH ST

Node Transition 8 Corridor ID Code (see Table) Green Intensity* Green Elements (50-500) Green Connector (500-1000) Green Corridor (1000-2000) Green Restoration (>2000) Greenspace

0.625

Miles 1.25

Page

Chapter

The corridor typologies 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, storm water reduction, and cost savings based on EPA calculations of tree canopy benefits. As implementation occurs, additional design elements can be considered such as permeable pavements and rain gardens that will increase the Green Intensity benefit. This map section shows the network of green corridors and spaces.

Figure 3.12

This map was developed from information and data provided by but not limited to: IGIC (formerly INGISI), IMAGIS, SAVI, IUPUI (LUCI), MPO, IDNR, Hoosier Rails to Trails, and local jurisdictions/municipalities. Created by: Storrow Kinsella Associates

North

*Green Intensity provides an index value for the benefits of tree canopy per lineal foot for a given corridor. The index ranges from moderate benefits (below 500) on local streets to significant environmental cleansing capacity on streets with large tree canopy (over 2000). Corridors with values over 1000 are placemaking corridors for a "green experience".

; Monument Circle

Legend

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN: REGIONAL CENTER MARCH 2009

Green Infrastructure

MAP 5

Page

Chapter

Benefits include reducing travel time by over 50% and reducing the investment through fewer, improved bus stops and fewer buses needed to obtain the appropriate headways for mode shift (Fig. 3.14).

Emphasis should be placed on further developing express routes between nodes, and supporting subdistrict walkability. Additional express routes along key alignments (for instance the NS/EW routes) should come online as more linkages are created and more travelers use multi-modal transportation. The City should consider a protected way for transit, like a BRT down the one-way pairs. This would provide a road diet to underused (LOS A), multiplelaned corridors that currently allow inappropriate speeds. This road diet would slow and smooth traffic, enhancing safety, supporting revitalization, and improving quality of life along the corridors.

Transit Routing As seen in the Connectivity Level map, certain routes stand out for transit possibilities. Completing NS/EW patterns as well as the diagonal axis patterns in Level 1 constitutes the first priority helping commuters transition into the system and complementing/enhancing existing service. Express transit service should be implemented along these routes. Subsequently, adding a (2-way) circulator in Level 2 connects the remaining nodes in an efficient manner enabling a complete system. The addition of a circulator route and other key cross-town linkages are critical to getting a mode split between 10-20% non-auto. This circulator dovetails with the existing special routes or with new planned routes [210] for IndyGo (as shown). However, express routes need 15-minute headways and the more complete network offered by Levels 1 and 2 to achieve the desired mode splits. The Level I and 2 network takes advantage of the walkability of subdistricts around the nodes to get most people quickly to their destination without requiring frequent stops (Fig. 3.15). Frequent stops slow an express route and are typically preferable for less traveled routes or for targeting non-choice riders. Frequently stopping shuttles, with shorter spacing, can supplement the express route.

TRANSIT C0NSIDERATIONS

10 min

Express/ PBT

640

Stops

<45 min

>100 min

Max time across RC

16-32

160-320

Buses with 15 min. headway

Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry

Fall Creek Fall Creek Fall Creek Fall Creek Fall Creek Fall Creek

Auto

Walk

Bike

Transit 3

Transit 2

Transit 1

Fastest Mode

Industry Industry Industry

Fall Creek Fall Creek Fall Creek

Auto

Walk

Bike

Transit 3

Transit 2

Transit 1

Fastest Mode

SeparatedW

ProtectedW

VTW

Transit Way

SeparatedW

ProtectedW

VTW

Transit Way

Convention Center

Via

Convention Center

Via

25065

24788

27852

24300

25030

Distance

25065

24788

27852

24300

25030

Distance

#Stops

#Changes Time to Speed Stops Change Destination 4 1 63 17.5 1 12

#Changes Time to Speed Stops Change Destination 4 1 42 17.5 1 12

Showing walkable district based catchments, pedestrian access routes and transit routes as connected network.

Figure 3.15 Place-Based Routing

Uses the following units of scale: Time = Minutes; Distance = Feet; Speed = Miles per Hour.

Figure 3.13 Time to Destination Table

Industry Industry

Fall Creek

Industry

Fall Creek Fall Creek

From

Time-to-Destination - 2030 Peak

From

Time-to-Destination - Current Non-Peak

Contrasts traditional bus routing and Place-Based (PBT) express routing for complete coverage of the RC by buses with 15 minute headways. PBT has mildly longer maximum walks, but with fewer stops and better coverage, route times and buses needed are dramatically reduced.

Figure 3.14 Express Transit Table

4 min

Max Walk Distance

Traditional

Transit Routes

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

Finally, transit riders must walk to a node to access the system and from the node to the destination. They must stop 4 times along the way for each node (1 minute each) and must change once from N-S line to the circulator (15 minute headway). Small changes occur depending on whether it is: delayed similar to an auto (i.e. bus transit); somewhat protected, but still confined to the streetgrid (e.g. Bus Rapid Transit); or, separated way avoiding jogs present in the streetgrid diminishing slightly the distance (e.g. AGT). Currently, even with the System Plan network, transit would take twice as long as the car, but with increased traffic in the future, at peak times, transit can be even faster than by car due to delays encountered at intersections. Biking and walking would not change in these conditions, since they are largely independent of auto traffic.

Time To Destination As mentioned in Appendix A, special routes can be used to model estimates of times-to-destination from different points within the Regional Center. In this example, remote areas in the Regional Center were chosen to illustrate both the method and the relative differences in conditions, routes, and results. Based on modeling (Fig.3.13) for current traffic conditions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; off-peak and 2030 conditions at peak â&#x20AC;&#x201C; estimated trip times can be made for walking, biking, auto, or transit in 3 conditions (bus in normal VTW, protected way as with a BRT or separated way as with a raised fixed guiderail {e.g. AGT}). For a walker, the trip would entail walking at an average of 3 mph direct from door to door taking the canal walk and other nicer/less interrupted routes when convenient along the way. For a bicyclist, a route is chosen with a brief delay on each end to get on the bike and park the bike near the entrance to the destination. Cyclists also seek routes where they can get up to full commute speeds as long as it is not too far out of the way. An auto, with a slightly longer delay on each end (starting the vehicle and parking more remotely) must respect one-way streets, but the trip is more direct than transit because the system favors the automobile.

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

MORRIS ST

§ ¨ ¦

HARDING

RIVERSIDE DR E

INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN

OLIVER AVE

TON ST WASHING

MICHIGAN ST

AV E

§ ¨ ¦

CAPITOL AVE P

MERIDIAN

;

CENTRAL AVE

§ ¨ ¦ 70

PROSPECT ST

N ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

§ ¨ ¦

WASHINGTO

16TH ST

22ND ST

§ ¨ ¦ 70

16TH/INDIANA

Planned Transit Route 65 § Interface with ¨ ¦ System Plan Routes

16TH/INDIANA

System Plan Walkable Network

Time to Destination Logical routes from the most remote subdistricts were used to compare timeto-destination for current and 2030 travel.

KE NT UC

AV E KY

MERIDIAN ST

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

SHELBY ST

EN TU

C AV E KY

ING JR NT UC

K DR M L

COLLEGE AVE

10TH

§ ¨ ¦

10TH

PROSPECT ST

§ ¨ ¦

PROSPECT ST

Pedestrian

0.625

Miles 1.25

Page

Chapter

Express routes with 15 minute or less headways that connect most of the subdistrict nodes provide better and more efficient access to the Regional Center (RC), resulting in a mode shift necessary to manage traffic in 2030. Level 1 connectivity is provided by axial routes that bring commuters to the RC and a Level 2 Circulator (2-way) connects the remaining nodes in an efficient manner enabling a complete system. The nodes provide walkable access to the rest of the RC subdistricts. This circulator dovetails with the existing special routes for IndyGo and planned routes.

Figure 3.16

This map was developed from information and data provided by but not limited to: IGIC (formerly INGISI), IMAGIS, SAVI, IUPUI (LUCI), MPO, IDNR, Hoosier Rails to Trails, and local jurisdictions/municipalities. Created by: Storrow Kinsella Associates

North

Table showing calculations for time-to-destination between the most remote subdistricts in the Regional Center with current traffic load and projected load in 2030.

Protected Way (e.g. BRT) Separated Way (e.g. AGT)

Shared Way (e.g. bus)

Transit

23 Bike

18 min.

Auto

2030 39 min

Current

Mode

;

Level 1 Connections Level 2 Circulator IndyGo Special Routes Monument Circle Node Parking Hubs/Transfer 10 Minute Walk

Legend

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN: REGIONAL CENTER MARCH 2009

Transit Considerations

MAP 6

170

RIVERSIDE DR E

138

11 0

198

169

177

158

176

150

179

167

171

107

134

124

;

105

35 19

145

132

111

180

157

146

106

129

131

135

141

165

COLLEGE AVE

164

116

156

115

§ ¨ ¦

188

151

166

PROSPECT S

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

§ ¨ ¦

WASHINGTON

155

16TH ST

113

LIVER AVE 152

NGTON ST84

GAN ST

136

175

137

170

202

RIVERSIDE DR E

144

160

127

201

139

110

119

174

120

203

126

112

176

158

177

128 198 30

169

189

138

173

168

159

149

181

114

200

182

199

121

187

154

192

148

123

183

147

133

162

150

179

161

197

193

130

140

142

157

146

153

106

131

135

141

165

143

132

111

108

180 109

100

105

;

124

145

107

134

171

184

163

190

101

186

167

185

129

§ ¨ ¦

195

§ ¨ ¦

156

125

115

122

118

188

117

164

116

194

151

196

PROSPECT ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

§ ¨ ¦

WASHINGTON

155

191

166

16TH ST

22ND ST

170

RIVERSIDE DR E 139

175

144

119

17 3

198

169

N 177

158

203

176

123 78

192

149

148

133

199

200

121

101

150

179

171

167

184

134

N25

105

; 124

145

100

107

102

132

111

180

157

146

106

129

131

135

141

165

164

116

§ ¨ ¦

156

8 17

188

151

166

PROSPECT ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

§ ¨ ¦ 70

WASHINGTON

155

16TH ST

22ND ST

130

HARDING

130

HARDING

202

Page

Chapter

» West Side: West Street and White River Parkway are critical to the systems success. West is recommended as a special corridor and White River as a thru corridor.

» South Side: Oliver and McCarty are placemaking corridors that may require special study and investment to strengthen the South Side.

» Variations: Only 35 or 16% of the recommended corridors have right of way constraints, for some portion of the segment that will require an extra level of design to apply the typology; options for these corridors include temporary rerouting of a component zone to a parallel corridor (see Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines).

» Social Streets: Market Street, Government Place, and St. Clair are recommended as social streets

202

119

198

169

177

158

203

176

123 73

192

149

148

200

121

133

199

101

150

179

171

167

184

11 124

134

105

;

145

100

107

102

132

111

180

157

146

106

129

131

135

141

165

164

§ ¨ ¦

156

202

155

PROSPECT ST

WASHINGTON

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

§ ¨ ¦

» Investment Options A basic degree of investment that includes component zone, or lane, restriping is recommended as a minimum to begin implementing each level of connectivity. Other degrees of investment that can be considered are enhanced, integrated, and measured.

» Plan Convergence Recommendations for which modes will be accommodated on which corridors focused on implementing the recommendations of previous planning efforts and establishing areas that were already planned to have a multi-modal component. Additional mode components have been recommended to complete the multi-modal network, labeled MMSP in the map’s data table. Generally, bike lanes are the first recommendation for filling in the gaps of previous planning efforts.

151

166

16TH ST

22ND ST

188

Mode Component Recommendation Summary

139

175

17 3

103

116

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

» Multi-Modal Synergies Following these levels in implementing the Multi-Modal System Plan will allow for creating measurable mutual benefits in land usage, economic development and other projects that are essential to achieving a regional vision for multimodality.

» Multi-Modal Connections The connections are made not only between the corridors, but also between the districts that the corridors service.

RIVERSIDE DR E 77

144

HARDING

» City Beautiful: A City Beautiful overlay will enhance Meridian,Washington, Market, White River, and Fall Creek.

S ST

170

» Level 3 - System Completion Focus shifts to completing and integrating the remaining corridors and establishing regional connectivity and multimodal synergies.

§ ¨ ¦

OLIVER AVE 152

ST SHINGTON 84

CHIGAN ST

160 51

190

§ ¨ ¦

130

Corridor Connectivity Recommendation Summary

LIVER AVE 152

NGTON ST84

GAN ST

160 51

» Level 2 - System Connectivity Focus is extended to creating intra-network connectivity; primary corridors for circulation connections will be developed.

133

199

200

22ND ST

168

170

139

175

144

190

119

17 3

198

169

158

177

176

123 78

192

149

148

200

133

199

121

§ ¨ ¦

150

101

179

107

100

134

124

145

171

167

184

105

;

103

102

132

111

180

157

146

106

129

131

135

141

165

COLLEGE AVE

164

116

§ ¨ ¦

188

202

§ ¨ ¦

156

N PROSPECT ST

MICHIGAN ST

10TH ST

WASHINGTON

155

§ ¨ ¦

» Investment Options The benefits associated with implementing this component of the typologies strongly support implementing an enhanced degree of design if it is financially feasible. The green intensity calculation can help to guide where this degree of investment could be most beneficial.

» Benefits There are many measureable and estimatable benefits to green infrastrucure; CO2 reduction, stormwater processing, cooling effects, property value increases; as well as qualitative benefits, like walkability, public health, sense of place, and aesthetic appeal.

» Greenspace Implementing the typology guidelines will require adding a sufficient amount of green infrastructure in the Regional Center. This feature will tie into the existing greenspace in the regional center. The # of new trees required on each corridor has been estimated based on the length of the segment and the typology design guidelines.

151

166

16TH ST

22ND ST

Green Infrastructure Recommendation Summary

LIVER AVE 152

NGTON ST84

IGAN ST

HARDING

» One-Way Pairs: Key one-way pairs are recommended as multi-modal commuter corridors: Michigan and New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and Illinois and Capitol.

192

149

148

190

» Level I - Key Segments Focus on making segment improvements in areas of primary traffic flow, mainly North-South and East-West, but also on diagonal axis.

123

100

102

§ ¨ ¦

130

» Boulevards and Parkways: Fall Creek and White River are recommended as multi-modal parkways,West and Washington are recommended as Boulevards.

102

11 0

» Subdistricts Subdistricts help to define classification recommendations. Placemaking corridors house the principal subdistrict destinations including its node or center; thru corridors are the subdistrict bypasses; connectors connect the two; locals provide access within the subdistrict; and off-street provide active transportation linkages to local and regional amenities.

119

121

184

7 57 58

1 108

§ ¨ ¦

RIS ST

70 § ¨ ¦

N P

65 § ¨ ¦

CA P

;

COLLEGE AVE

MERIDIAN ST

RIVERSIDE DR E

70 § ¨ ¦

MICHIGA

10TH S

70 § ¨ ¦

» Time To Destination The system has been evaluated for functionality based on time to destination estimates for each mode from one border of the region to the opposite border of the region. Assumptions vary by mode; however, analysis shows that with a separated ROW, transit could become a more efficient means of transportation in the regional center using 2030 vehicle flow projections.

» Transit Routing The multi-modal system recommendation can be utilized to improve transit function within and to the Regional Center. Primary North-South EastWest, and diagonal connections can be utilized to create separated and protected transit ROW that can be explored as part of the typology implementation. A 2-way circulator route should also be explored, especially as a protected or separated right of way.

PROSPE

WASHINGTON

16TH ST

22ND ST

Transit Considerations Recommendation Summary

OLIVER AVE

N WASHINGTO

MICHIGAN ST

HARDING

Corridor Typologies Recommendation Summary

139

175

144

168

IMPLICATIONS

168

103

Corridor Classifications Recommendation Summary

LIVER AVE

NGTON ST84

IGAN ST

101

163

11 0

1 108

172

57 58

103

RIVERSIDE DR E 160

108

109

203

174

163

160

112

126

194

147

181

136

137

114

183

161

162

20 1

182

153

117

168

193

143

142

140

113

191

195

122

174

190

§ ¨ ¦

11 0

103

189

128

120

174

AV E

KE NT UC

MERIDIAN ST

136 137

112 126

COLLEGE AVE

54 53 113

114 183

138 20 1

6 182

85 154

161

162 8 197 22

17 70

18 70

193 80

189 128

120

12 5

SHELBY ST 81

147

181 44 15 9

191

109

52 5

153

136 137

174

163

KE N

SHELBY ST 81

143

142

140

112 126

189 128 120

117 118

114 183

COLLEGE AVE 59

195 122 5 11

82 12 5

54 53 113

147

181

57 58

17 108 109

163

153

194

83 SHELBY ST 81

6 182 154

191

161

162 197 22

18 19

28 44

15 9

37 88 87

194

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS: CONNECTIONS

37 88 87

65 MERIDIAN ST

193 80

189 128

COLLEGE AVE 59

203

109

52 5

143

142

140

117 118

36 AV E KE NT UC KY

195

122

5 11 12 5

136 137

194

83 SHELBY ST 81

53 113

114 183

138 20 1

112 126

AV E

TU CK Y

MERIDIAN ST

120

36 AV E

147

181 44

6 182

85 154

161

162 8

36 AV E KE NT UC KY

65 MERIDIAN ST

KE NT UC KY

37 88

31 87

127

197

186

196

127 65

17 70

193 80

185

27 33

31 MERIDIAN ST

27 5

186 140

187

196 60

127 31

153

ST 13

KING JR 143

187 142

92 117

185 195

KING JR

ST 59

122

186

187 33

185 196

12 5

KING JR 79

DR M L

191

92 127

186 SHELBY ST 81

DR M L 185 AV E

DR M L 187 KY

KING JR

ST 33

31 UC

DR M L

KING JR 196 KE NT

DR M L KING JR

SHELBY ST

DR M L

CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION

PLAN SYNTHESIS The Multi-Modal System Plan is a regionally significant project that builds upon components of the Indianapolis Regional Pedestrian Plan and local jurisdiction planning to apply the Multi-Modal and Public Space Design Guidelines. This chapter briefly describes the next steps of the process and related possible studies that could help integrate the multimodal system.

Figure 4.1 IndyGO Bus Shelter Example of an IndyGO Bus Shelter.

Traffic Volume Trends: Current Facilities 2030

Congenstion

Roadway Capacity

Volume Exceeds Capacity Without Multi-Modal System

Connectivity Level I: Key Segments

Traffic Volume

High Volumes

Connectivity Level II: System Connectivity

Medium Volumes Connectivity Level III: System Completion

Low Volumes

Today

2030

Figure 4.2 Connectivity Level 2030 In order to achieve a regional vision for multi-modality the MultiModal System Plan must be supported by other efforts.

In the Regional Center, multi-modality is already embraced. Sidewalks are connected, buffered, and wide enough for even the heaviest volume of pedestrians. Large, comfortable bus shelters are located within the central business district and they meet accessibility requirements for all types of users; signal preemption allows transit vehicles to gain priority at busy intersections. A new urban greenway, the Cultural Trail, is currently under construction in downtown Indianapolis, that will provide bicycle and pedestrian connections to the off-street greenways of the region. In addition, the implementation of bike lanes is underway. This progress in the Regional Center makes it an ideal location to advance the concept of multi-modal corridors. The Regional Center is challenged in that existing heavy peak hour traffic volumes and finite right-of-way resources otherwise limit options to accommodate future projected economic growth. The shift away from single-occupancy vehicles to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes will be facilitated through a number of different efforts. The multi-modal system plan provides the framework for allowing this shift to take place. In order to achieve the broad success of the System Completion Connectivity Level, however, policies and funding must be tailored to support multi-modality. Funding for light rail and commuter rail, expanded IndyGo service, and other initiatives, together with smart growth, parking, and land use policies will be necessary in order to achieve mode shifts at the System Completion level.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

Establish a City-Wide Green Infrastructure Policy. In a move towards sustainability, a broad city policy could be developed that encourages all city departments to include Green Infrastructure considerations into their projects and activities.

In addition, a number of special studies were identified during the system plan process itself, as outlined in Chapters 2 and 3. These include node areas 3, 4, 18 and possibly other sites that might involve the transit center. West Street, White River Parkway/ Harding and the Canal corridors are also impacted by the results/recommendations of the System Plan. The results of these special studies should be incorporated back into the Regional Center System Plan as well as into the overarching regional System Plan. 4

Chapter

Page

COLLEGE AVE

RIVERSIDE DR E

N N

22ND ST

N N

" "

16TH ST N N

§ ¨ ¦ 70

" "

4 " "

" "

N N

13 N N

" "

N N

" "

; ;

" "

18 N N

19 P

N N

" 21 "

" "

§ ¨ ¦

N N

P B

MERIDIAN ST

KY KE NT UC

Multi-Modal Corridor Placemaking Placemaking, City Beautiful Overlay

N N

" "

§ ¨ ¦ 65

0.25

Miles 0.5

March 2009

" "

17 " "

" "

Subdistricts and Placemaking Corridors

Node MM Transition Parking Hubs/Transfer Bike Ports

" 16"

N N

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE INDIANAPOLIS REGION

" "

ORRIS ST

WASHING

" "

" " " "

; Monument Circle

N N

" "

Legend

§ ¨ ¦

B B

OLIVER AVE

MICHIG " "

22 N B N B

AV E

(Clean)\Multimodal System Plan\GIS\090204_Final_Layouts\090218_Subdistricts Placemaking.mxd

ON ST ASHINGT

N N

B B

" "

15 "

N N

20 MICHIGAN ST

" " P" 9"

SHELBY ST

N N

10TH

N N

" "

Printing Date: February 18, 2009 File: X:\0633e-Multimodal Planning-Indy

Promote a Complete Streets Philosophy. Incorporate recommendations from the Multi-Modal System Plan into infrastructure renewal and/or capital improvement projects on an on-going basis. This can be promoted as a Complete Streets Philosophy adapted for Indianapolis. This study targets an achievable scale of multi-modality and understands that many corridors in the Regional Center do not need to be designated as multi-modal corridors.

" "

1 " "

HARDING

Reinforce Indy’s Downtown Neighborhoods. Promote the recommended bus circulator, parking hub, bike ports, taxi stands, and bus transit development at the subdistrict nodes, and reinforcement of multi-use infill development that supports walkability. This will allow economic development in the Regional Center to flourish while combating congestion.

" "

ST KING JR

DR M L

§ ¨ ¦

CENTRAL AVE

Implementation of the Multi-Modal System Plan could follow several parallel strategies:

CAPITOL AVE

PARALLEL STRATEGIES

MERIDIAN

CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION

Regional Center Subdistricts Campus Entertainment Industrial

Special

Neighborhood Residential

5 Minute Walk

Urban Core

10 Minute Walk

Urban Mixed Use Village

Derived from Regional Center Plan for 2020

Figure 4.3 Parallel development strategies. The Regional Center is located in the Center of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area. The map above shows the Regional Center neighborhoods or districts derived from the Regional Center 2020 Plan, and the transit-stop nodes or “hearts” of each neighborhood. The neighborhoods are shown with 5 minute and 10 minute walk radii to illustrate the walkable zones of each neighborhood. The nodes are candidates for higher intensity neighborhood revitalization and economic development strategies. These transitstop nodes, if linked by transit circulators, also facilitate interface between bus, parking, biking, and walking within them. A node-based transit circulator will allow less-frequent transit stops, improving headway and providing efficient service to facilitate the mode shift necessary to manage traffic in 2030.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION

REGIONAL PLACE-BASED TRANSPORTATION PLANNING The Multi-Modal System Plan will be extended to serve the entire Metropolitan Planning Area. A number of advantages were in place for the Regional Center effort that may present obstacles for extending to the region. Nearly 6400 road, trail, etc. segments were considered for the Regional Center alone. Such a detailed analysis at the regional level could be cost-prohibitive. Determination of (Sub) Districts were greatly facilitated by City planning efforts and the Regional Center had policies and planning efforts in place (e.g. Regional Center Design Guidelines) that reinforced the system planning process. These are less available regionally. Thus, as multi-modal system planning is extended to the region, a number of changes to the approach are advisable. These include: 1)

The regional planning effort should be guided by a regional vision to coalesce and take advantage of the interaction of land use, economic development, revitalization projects in tandem with transportation planning. The Multi-Modal System Plan for the Regional Center provides an example of that kind of integrated planning. It provided, apart from more efficient and cost-effective transportation, the foundation for an improved economy and tax-base, reductions in EPA non-compliance, and an enhanced quality of life. These benchmarks should aid project prioritization and identify partners and stakeholders in the region.

The multi-modal system plan extension should focus on identifying key areas that can develop local multi-modal system plans that can tie into an overarching system plan for the region.

As areas (e.g. subareas, cities, neighborhoods, etc.) proceed with local multi-modal planning, their efforts should be coordinated with land use planning, economic development targets and revitalization projects throughout the Metropolitan Planning Area.

Figure 4.4 Place-Based Transportation analysis applied to the Northeast Rapid Transit corriidor, demonstrating the hierarchy of places that would most benefit from multi-modal service to serve first with multi-modal service. These can create either the first stations and/or the express stations for the route.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION

The overarching regional system plan should identify: •

Principal multi-modal districts and principal multi-modal nodes,

•

Principal multi-modal placemaking streets,

•

Guidelines for co-location of transportation (all modes including transit) and infrastructure amenities,

•

Principal multi-modal arterials (spines) and crossover points with local jurisdiction multimodal system plans.

PLAN UPDATES This Multi-Modal System Plan is designed as the overarching plan for implementing a multimodal system. However, this evolves over time, and many details of implementation cannot be foreseen. Updates will certainly be required and implementation of the plan will involve a host of details and understanding to make the plan a reality. This section introduces those studies. The Multi-Modal System Plan is not static in time. The plan is necessarily rooted in current transportation conditions and some of the more salient needs for a future transportation system. Thus, new needs, situations, and details will arise that should be integrated into the plan if the system is to remain relevant. The Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Design Guidelines should be consulted when the Multi-Modal System Plan is updated. Any updates should meet the criteria established in the design guidelines. Future updates to Regional Center land use plans should consider further integration of corridor design, node development and funding synergies. Corridor design, including cross-sections and intersections, is a significant undertaking that could be included as a future update of this document or as a separate study. Over 3000 road segments and

Chapter

Page

Figure 4.5 A concept sketch for a Regional Vision and extension of the System Plan to the region, showing multi-modal arterials and land use performance zones to reinforce desired development and targeted infrastructure investment.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION

intersections could be impacted in some way by the Multi-Modal System Plan. Many of the impacts deal with surrounding buildings, landscaping, land use patterns, and neighborhood dynamics. Each neighborhood should play a role in taking ownership of its â&#x20AC;&#x153;streetscapeâ&#x20AC;?, in order to transcend the somewhat idealized typologies of this study and transform their local streetscapes into unique places of local heritage and character.

Figure 4.6 Streetscape Example Unique places of local heritage and character.

Other studies could include many of the (sub)district nodes. Economic redevelopment planning and market analysis could be of extreme value to supporting the multi-modal system. Many of the nodes proposed were distributed based on future needs. Certain nodes are either underdeveloped or are currently being developed and, as such, can be positioned for new transportation facilities and related amenities. Tax increment financing (TIF) has been widely used to create transit oriented developments, as well as other funding mechanisms. The development of a multi-modal transportation system will promote mode shift and reinforce economic development. The resulting balanced transportation system will provide travel choice for transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes, and creates the foundation for a green infrastructure benefit that ultimately supports an improved and more sustainable environment.

Figure 4.7 Corridor Design Multi-modal sketch: designing a regional vision.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Chapter

Page

CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Chapter

Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS: APPENDICES APPENDICES: A. PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY........................

PAGES

System Plan Methods........................................................................... Introduction............................................................................ Place-Based Transportation Principles.............................. Place (District) Characteristics.......................................... District and Subdistrict Criteria........................................ Node Characteristics and Amenities................................ Place Extensions.................................................................... Multi-Modal Connections Principles................................. Connection and Corridor Extensions.............................. System Plan Assessment..................................................................... Convergence, Directness and Traffic Management........ Regional Center Network Connectivity.......................... Walkability and Coverage................................................... Corridor Evaluation............................................................................. Critical Corridor Selection................................................. Critical Corridor Design..................................................... Critical Corridor Performance.......................................... Implications............................................................................................

A.1 - A.11 A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.8 A.10 A.12 - A.16 A.12 A.14 A.16 A.16 - A.33 A.17 A.19 A.27 A.34 - A.36

B. ADDITIONAL APPENDICES...........................................

PAGES

Glossary................................................................................................. Bibliography........................................................................................... Communications.................................................................................. Best Practices........................................................................................ Sharrow Guideline............................................................................... Cross Sections, Intersections............................................................ Acknowledgements..............................................................................

B.1 - B.6 B.7 - B.22 B.23 - B.53 B.54 - B.66 B.67 - B.68 B.69 - B.89 B.90

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendices Contents

CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES: APPENDIX A Figure A.1 Coordination of Multiple Modes.................................. Figure A.2 Pedestrian Districts and RC.......................................... Figure A.3 Walkable Subdistricts....................................................... Figure A.4 Land Use - District Form Overlays.............................. Figure A.5 District-Corridor Relationships................................... Figure A.6 Proposed Node................................................................ Figure A.7 Regional Multi-Modal Districts..................................... Figure A.8 District into Subdistrict Schematic.............................. Figure A.9 Connectivity Table........................................................... Figure A.10 Integrated Multi-Modal Design in Amsterdam......... Figure A.11 Off-Street Corridor Example..................................... Figure A.12 Corridor Rerouting Schematic................................... Figure A.13 Thoroughfare Plan Map................................................. Figure A.14 Corridor Flow-Speed Curve...................................... Figure A.15 MMSP Corridor Class Map.......................................... Figure A.16 Connectivity Loops Image............................................ Figure A.17 Connectivity Index Table............................................... Figure A.18 Walkability in School Zone.......................................... Figure A.19 Walkable Subdistricts in RC........................................ Figure A.20 Selection Criteria Table................................................. Figure A.21 Selected Corridor Aerials............................................ Figure A.22 Synchro7 Examples........................................................ Figure A.23 Ohio Cross-Sections...................................................... Figure A.24 Ohio Cross-Sections (cont.)....................................... Figure A.25 Proposed Ohio Intersection........................................ Figure A.26 Mass Ave Cross Sections............................................. Figure A.27 Proposed Mass Ave Intersection................................ Figure A.28 Meridian Cross Sections.............................................. Figure A.29 Meridian Cross Sections (cont.)................................. Figure A.30 Proposed Meridian Intersection.................................. Figure A.31 Evaluation Scenario Table.............................................. Figure A.32 Mode Choice Percentages............................................ Figure A.33 Ohio St. LOS Table......................................................... Figure A.34 Ohio St. Multi-Modal LOS Table................................. Figure A.35 Ohio St. Graphs.............................................................. Figure A.36 Mass Ave LOS Table....................................................... Figure A.37 Mass Ave Multi-Modal LOS Table................................ Figure A.38 Mass Ave Graphs............................................................ Figure A.39 Meridian Street LOS Table............................................ Figure A.40 Meridian Street Multi-Modal LOS Table.................... Figure A.41 Meridian Street Graphs................................................ Figure A.42 Corridor Relative Cost................................................. Figure A.43 Study Corridors............................................................. Figure A.44 Transit Connections....................................................... Figure A.45 Time to Destination Routes........................................ Figure A.46 Time to Destination Timing......................................... Appendices Contents

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

PAGES A.1 A.2 A.3 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8 A.9 A.10 A.11 A.12 A.13 A.13 A.14 A.15 A.16 A.16 A.17 A.18 A.19 A.20 A.21 A.21 A.22 A.23 A.24 A.25 A.26 A.27 A.27 A.28 A.28 A.29 A.30 A.30 A.31 A.32 A.32 A.33 A.34 A.34 A.35 A.36 A.36

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION This chapter provides the resources and methodology for creating, evaluating and modifying a viable multimodal system. The chapter targets those who must not only apply the recommendations of the MultiModal System Plan, but also resolve difficulties in its application, manage context-sensitive issues or extend the application of the System Plan to new areas. Figure A.1 Coordination of multiple modes on a corridor in Madison, WI.

This appendix is divided into four sections: 1. Multi-Modal System Plan Methods: Introduces Place-Based Transportation planning whose concepts form the basis of the methodology used in the System Plan. The section describes how to establish an efficient and effective multi-modal network and describes the characteristics of multimodal districts, subdistricts, corridors and connections. This section also describes the manner in which changes to the multimodal system should proceed, both within the Regional Center and as the System Plan extends outside the Regional Center. 2. Multi-Modal System Plan Assessment: Describes how Place-Based Transportation methodology selects and prioritizes routes and the places that the multi-modal routes are to serve. This is achieved by assessing the quality of the network through the directness of travel by the different modes, connectivity and walkability. 3. Multi-Modal Corridor Evaluation: Provides tools for evaluating routes and places with respect to multi-modal travel. This section discusses the performance tests of the System Plan through computer modeling. 4. Place-Based Transportation Implications: Describes the benefits, impacts and ramifications of the application of Place-Based Transportation methodology to the Regional Center.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN METHODOLOGIES PLACE-BASED TRANSPORTATION 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 add value to those places. Place-based transportation operates on multiple levels: Places (Regional Performance Areas, Districts, and Nodes) and Green 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.

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 muti-modal districts served by place-based transportation planning in the Indianapolis Region

CORE PRINCIPLES FOR THE GREEN CONNECTION NETWORK Place-Based Transportation utilizes an integrated multi-modal transportation network with targeted performance criteria for efficiency of people movement, balance between road system and transit, and land conservation. The Green 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.

Appendix

Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

PLACE (DISTRICT) CHARACTERISTICS 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 and MMDG]. •

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 twenty-four 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 subdistricts concept diagram that illustrates an intensity gradient from the Regional Center to its edge and from it out toward the edge connecting to nearby districts.

Vertical Structure Overlay

•

Green Infrastructure Overlay - Natural resources, water, air, topography - some intervention is possible with tools such as landscaping and grading - however this is the base level upon which all else is built and ignoring it increases costs dramatically.

•

Road Infrastructure Overlay Co-location of principal utilities with roads, the transportation mode network, and the emergency response network must serve all residences; this level provides these functions to all extents of the district

•

Economy/Land-Use Structure Overlay Economic infrastructure, freight, the serviceprovision network (transit stop, bike share), information and education infrastructure, and Combined Heat-Power (CHP)/district power - must be accessible to all for the least cost; this level allows all in the district to access these services, but does not provide them directly to all.

•

Vertical Structure Overlay - Built space, architectural guidelines, the intensity of place for goods, services and people, and less space for activities drives costs and buildings up. Wireless/cell/radio stations, wind/ solarpower can take advantage of this intensity, allowing the district to evolve over time.

Economy/ Land-Use Overlay Road nfrastructure Overlay Green nfrastructure Overlay

Figure A.4 Shown above is a concept diagram that illustrates the reinforcing levels of planning and resource coordination within a walkable district.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

MULTI-MODAL PLACES

intensity away from the center.

DISTRICTS AND SUBDISTRICT CRITERIA

•

Multi-modal districts may vary in characteristics and function but they should meet as many of the following criteria as possible:

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 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 place-based transportation treats them in a similar manner.

•

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 [see MMDG], 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

•

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 multi-modal 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 “Multi-Modal 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

Figure A.5 Place-based transportation - the relationship between walkable districts and corridor context.

Appendix

Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

relationship to the transportation system, anchored on a Placemaking Corridor Typology [see MMDG and below]. 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: Figure A.6 Proposed Node serving the West and 11th Street subdistrict on the canal. Establishing nodes at the center of each identified multi-modal district or subdistrict is the first step to defining the multi-modal network because it establishes what the network must link to.

•

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 (see MMDG).

•

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.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

PLACE EXTENSIONS MODIFICATIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF THE PLAN FOR THE REGIONAL CENTER 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 Multi-Modal 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. 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 should be located at or very near the center. The node should also be located along a placemaking corridor. 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, described earlier in this chapter.

Appendix

Page

Figure A.7 Current selection of multi-modal districts in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area, derived from the pedestrian districts determined in the Regional Pedestrian Plan.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

RELOCATING A NODE OR DISTRICT Regional Districts with Node at Center

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.

Walkable Subdistrict with Node at Center

Figure A.8 Each multimodal district must be connected. If a district is too big to be walkable, it must be subdivided into walkable neighborhoods.

The catchment area of those who will use the node should be sufficient to support the node uses (see MMDG - 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 that the total intensity is sufficient to support both nodes. The nodes should not be spaced at intervals less than a half mile or transportation efficiency will 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, especially determining the amenities of the station at the node. (Sub)districts: establishing a (sub)district should follow place-based transportation principles expressed earlier in the chapter. 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.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

MULTI-MODAL CONNECTIONS CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT CRITERIA Multi-modal 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 complete the connection identified by the alignment. Multimodal corridors are dedicated street segments, or rights-of-way, that connect multi-modal districts via a prescribed route. For each connection area a series of candidate corridors that can meet these criteria were determined. The easiest and most direct alignments between the subdistricts and between the Regional Center and the Multi-Modal Districts outside the Regional Center were determined. The preliminary selection of the primary alignments were determined based on examining the possible district and node linkages with respect to the Primary Alignment Factors listed on the page 9. 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 page 9. NETWORK CONNECTIVITY AND SPACING After alignments are identified, the number of crossings and connections must be determined. Figure A.9 offers design standards for assessing this connectivity [177,198].

Key Loop Mode Descrip- Major Minor Crossing DensCategory tion Spacing Spacing (Hub) ity Interurban Key destNodes As viable station or inations Rail where and > 4 NA major MM or at least needed mi crossing 1/city Light Rail

<10 sq mi

Change lines

Key dest- As viable At inations and > 1 least or ~ 4 mi mi 1/city

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

1/2 mi for fixed 1/4 mi 50/ transit for bus sqmi stop

Figure A.9 Connectivity Table excerpted from the MMDG. Connectivity is a measure of modal spacing and looping [178,199].

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. The corridor recommendations for the Regional Center Multi-Modal System Plan are found in Chapters 2 and 3. The assessment of the resulting network is addressed in the following section.

Appendix

Page

50/ sqmi

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

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. Multi-modality 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.

Figure A.10 Example of an integrated multi-modal design in Amsterdam for corridor; basic and enhanced elments are integrated into land use and the built environment.

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.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

CONNECTIONS AND CORRIDOR PLAN EXTENSIONS MODIFICATIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF THE MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE REGIONAL CENTER 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 methods established at the beginning of the chapter. If, however, the alignment or connection results from a decision to add connectivity, e.g. a new ring 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-to-destination patterns that were available prior to this addition remain at least as favorable or efficient if not enhanced. Target timesto-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.

Figure A.11 Example of an off-street corridor near Broadripple, Indianapolis, width and characteristics may vary depending on component zones.

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:

A 10

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

B A

Figure A.12 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 [Fig. A.12]. Alignments: alignments should accommodate every mode and principles are provided in the PlaceBased 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 segment’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 “door to door”, 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.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

MULTI-MODAL ASSESSMENT Once the criteria for setting up a multi-modal system have been established and a pool of candidate districts and corridors have been selected, the quality of the proposed network must be assessed in three critical areas: 1) Convergence and traffic management, 2) Connectivity, and 3) Walkability. Convergence and Traffic Management For the network to be efficient, the routes that connect the (sub)districts should be direct. The routes for the multiple modes must converge on the subdistrict nodes in an efficient manner, both from the perspective of routes proceeding directly to the nodes minimizing the time to destination, but also from the perspective of managing traffic such that traffic volumes and behaviors correspond to the proper location. For instance, a high speed corridor should not run through a quiet, residential neighborhood. To use resources efficiently multi-modal corridors should co-locate as many modes as possible. GIS studies identified mode routes that co-aligned. Of particular interest were corridors that demonstrated the co-location, in addition to auto, of all three modes: transit, bike and pedestrian. When these were connected to districts and subdistricts, they formed the basis for Connector Corridors. When combined with the (sub)district nodes, these corridors often formed the basis for the corresponding Placemaking Corridors. These corridors already accommodated or were already part of plans (see Chapter 1) accepted by the City. The network, however, left many areas still unserved. Before making any new recommendations to fill these gaps, the existing thoroughfare plan was reviewed.

collectors and locals as a combined class would fill up the space between the arterial framework (Fig. A.13). The arterials are typically classified as roads meant to handle large volumes of traffic at high speeds. The level of service of an arterial is often measured as a function of average travel speed, the higher the better. Consequently, the goal of arterials is to move traffic through an area. In reviewing the Thoroughfare Plan, the existing network has a high concentration of arterials running through the heart of the Central Business District.

1 2

Existing Thoroughfare Plan The existing thoroughfare plan for the Regional Center, excluding highways, presents a network composed of arterial, collector and local streets (Figure A.13). The arterials form the framework of the street network, basically a north/south and east/ west street grid at somewhat regular spacing. The

A 12

Appendix Page

Figure A.13 Thoroughfare Plan Map

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY CORRIDOR VOLUME RELATIONSHIP TO VEHICLE SPEED 60

traffic flo w

Multi-Modal Network

Figure A.15 MMSP Corridor Class Map

The network converges upon these corridors and progressively slows down automotive traffic to allow the Placemaking Corridors to manage more people, emphasizing moving people to the key places in the Regional Center rather than mainly through them. Similarly, all modes other than automobile: transit, bicycle and pedestrian, also converge on these placemaking corridors (Fig. A.15). The slower speeds allow for better cross traffic for all modes as well â&#x20AC;&#x201C; high speed prevents access by cross traffic and conversely, the more cross traffic there is, the slower the corridor. Thus the Multi-Modal Network more accurately reflects this functionality with Thru Corridors only occurring along District or Subdistrict edges, Connectors bringing traffic directly from Thru Corridors (and highways) to the Placemaking Corridors and finally all modes converging on the Placemaking Corridors (Fig. A.15). Furthermore, by slowing the speeds and directing traffic to the places they are most inclined to go, higher volumes of traffic are managed, and more efficiently than at higher speed. More cars can be handled at 25-30mph than at higher speed. Since most connections are more direct and with more travel choice, travel distances are reduced, resulting in reduced times-to-destination.

Speed (MPH)

Figure A.14 This Corridor flow-speed curve, excerpted from the MMDG and adapted from ASTO, shows the relationship between speed and volume (in vehicles/hr/lane), and the corridor typology flow-speed targets. Street vehicular volume diminishes at speeds greater than 30 mph.

The Multi-Modal System Plan identifies most of the same roads in its network as the existing thoroughfare plan. However, though the ROW and auto capacities are similar to the Thoroughfare Plan (TP), the recommended speeds and directionality of the multi-modal network are different. The TP arterials converge upon streets that contain the highest number of trip destinations as evidenced by the intensity of the area. These areas are usually located along a key section of a road corridor that is centrally located to a district or subdistrict (MMDG). These destination corridors become places that serve and even define the surrounding area and are defined in the Multi-Modal System Plan as Placemaking Corridors.

Highway

Parkway

Commuter Connector Boulevard/Pedestrian Link Bike, Ped, Transit determine vehicle speed merging

20 10

max. volume at 25-30 miles/hour

traffic

0 0

500

1000

1500

2000

Vehicles per Hour per Lane

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

MULTI-MODAL ASSESSMENT REGIONAL CENTER NETWORK CONNECTIVITY As mentioned in Chapter 1, networks can be assessed by examining the route directness via its connectivity and spacing. The multi-modal system in the Regional Center was designed by making direct connections to the Placemaking corridors; principal obstacles are a lack of connectivity and improper spacing. A lack of connectivity means that a traveler has fewer choices to get to a destination and is more likely to have to backtrack, increasing travel time on the roads. Improper spacing can also lead to more delay and or back-tracking. If spacing is too close, then too many crosses or stops diminish the efficiency of flow. If spacing is too far, then too few options are available. This limits a travelerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to cross traffic and find a direct route, which leads to congestion. The guidelines were provided in figure A.9. The primary measure of connectiviy utilized for the Regional Center is the loop density for each mode (see figure A.15). The Regional Center can be described as a Central Business District (CBD), whose guidelines can be found in the MMDG. In a CBD more loops per a given area are necessary for slower modes like pedestrians and fewer are needed for higher speed modes like cars and transit. The Regional Center also has obstacles such as rivers, topography, etc. that affect the spacing.

Figure A.16 Connectivity Loops - Glendale Example excerpted from the MMDG: Levels of loop connectivity. Connection loops are examined at differents scales accross the system

In the case of the modes, pedestrian connectivity was already studied by the Regional Pedestrian Plan. Bicycle loops were between 40 and 50 per square mile, which though a little low are in the desired range. Through vehicle connectivity is nearly equivalent for the Thoroughfare Plan and the MMSP at around 23 loops per square mile. Transit is about the same. While the number of loops could be higher, this tally does not include the local street loops that are part of the multi-modal system plan, nor does it consider certain topographical elements that present barriers, like the rivers and railroads, which are too costly to bridge at frequent intervals. This loop analysis must also be compared with the spacing guidelines (Figure A.9). Spacing guidelines A 14

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Factors

Bike

Transit

Arterials

Thorofare

Loops 269.00

151.00

144.00

147.00

Loop 4A.28 Density Target 50.00

23.74

2A.63

23.11

40.00

Ave 831.63 Spacing (feet)

1160.45

1185.14

1203.86

Spread -267.51 (feet)

-968.89

-84A.30

-1355.33

Target 8-1800 Range

1320-2640 1600-5280 1600-5280

Figure A.17 Connectivity Index - Example of assessment of Loop and Spacing Criteria.

usually form the low end of target connectivity. As for through-vehicle loops, both the Thoroughfare Plan and the Multi-Modal System Plan are a little low, but these efficiencies are usually best between a half mile and a mile spacing, narrower spacing for higher density areas like the Regional Center. The average spacing for both the Thoroughfare Plan and the MMSP are just about a quarter mile, thus increasing loops goes in the wrong direction when balancing considerations. The recommended spacing of bike routes is roughly between an eighth and a quarter mile. The average in the MMSP is just less than a quarter mile with a spread of less than 270 feet. Thus, if we were to increase the number of loops, the spacing would decrease even more, becoming less efficient or more expensive. Bicycles are allowed on other streets, really increasing the possible loop density. Similarly for transit, loop density is a little low (Figure A.17), but transit efficiencies are best at spacing between a quarter and a half mile. The average spacing for transit is just under a quarter mile, thus again balancing out the mildly low transit loops. Interestingly, though the number of loops in the MMSP are slightly less than those for the Thoroughfare Plan (22 vs. 23, respectively), the Thoroughfare Plan loops tend to cluster more in the Monument Circle area and the average spacing in more remote areas increases more dramatically. In fact the spacing spread is nearly double for the Thoroughfare Plan, suggesting that the network is less balanced with respect to arterial spacing than the MMSP. This can be readily seen in areas 1-3 on the Figure A.13 on page 12, where crossings added in the MMSP improve the connectivity of the network.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

MULTI-MODAL ASSESSMENT Walkability and Coverage A final examination for district accessibility is also conducted to confirm that the district or subdistrict nodes are sufficiently walkable at ¼ mile (5 minute walk) and ½ mile (10 minute walk) radii from their edges. Analyze Walkable Districts

" "

ST KING JR P

N N

10TH

N N

" "

14 N N

" "

N N

" "

; ;

" "

18 N N

19 P

N N

" 21 "

" "

§ ¨ ¦

N N

17 MERIDIAN ST

KE NT UC

HARDING

" "

P B

Multi-Modal Corridor Placemaking Placemaking, City Beautiful Overlay

N N

" "

§ ¨ ¦ 65

0.25

Miles 0.5

March 2009

" "

Subdistricts and Placemaking Corridors

Node MM Transition Parking Hubs/Transfer Bike Ports

" 16"

N N

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE INDIANAPOLIS REGION

" "

ORRIS ST

WASHING

" "

; Monument Circle

N N

" "

Legend

§ ¨ ¦

B B

OLIVER AVE

MICHIG " "

22 N B N B

AV E

Printing Date: February 18, 2009 File: X:\0633e-Multimodal Planning-Indy (Clean)\Multimodal System Plan\GIS\090204_Final_Layouts\090218_Subdistricts Placemaking.mxd

ON ST ASHINGT

N N

B B

" "

" " P" 9" N N

N N N N

Page

SHELBY ST

N N

§ ¨ ¦

4 " "

" "

Appendix

16TH ST N N

" "

22ND ST

N N

After a System Plan was determined and met the quality standards established, detailed elements of the plan were modeled and tested to determine the impacts on corridor design and corridor performance, depending on certain scenarios, should the Multi-Modal Network be implemented as planned. Furthermore, certain implications and extrapolations can be drawn from the modeling results. These are described in the following section.

N N

" "

MICHIGAN ST

MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR EVALUATION

" "

1 " "

Other factors include the ease and safety of the route, the aesthetic appeal of the route and so forth. This level of detail is explored in the MMDG.

COLLEGE AVE

RIVERSIDE DR E

CENTRAL A

§ ¨ ¦

MERID

CAPITOL AV

Figure A.18 Sidewalk in School Zone - The Multi-Modal System Plan supports creating a healthy and safe environment for travel by multiple modes.

DR M L

The multi-modal system was analyzed for walkability. The system directs the traveler to the subdistrict nodes and placemaking corridors. From these locations travelers can walk nearly anywhere within the Regional Center. Over 50% of the Regional Center (also the most intense areas) is within 5 minute walk (1/4 mi) from a subdistrict node and over 97% is within a 10 minute walk (1/2 mi). The principal areas missed are portions of the White River or Fall Creek, the Zoo or railroad yards, which are not areas freely accessible to the public anyway. Thus, the network supports and is strongly supported by walkability.

Regional Center Subdistricts Campus Entertainment Industrial

Special

Neighborhood Residential

5 Minute Walk

Urban Core

10 Minute Walk

Urban Mixed Use Village

Derived from Regional Center Plan for 2020

Figure A.19 Walkable Subdistricts in the Regional Center Central Business Districts - Circles represent a half mile or 10 minute walk from the node.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

4. Adherence to Existing Plans

5. Support of Smart Growth Policies

Meridian Street



A. Connection to Multiple Districts

Massachusetts Avenue

1. Support for Multiple Modes Ohio Street

3. Undesirable Volume-toCapacity Ratio

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY



Figure A.20 Selection Criteria

Each of the selected corridors meets the above criteria.

Critical Corridor Selection Criteria 1. Can support three or more modes within existing right-of-way. 2. Connected to two or more multi-modal districts. 3. Expected to exceed desirable vehicular volumeto-capacity ratios in the year 2030.

Critical Corridor Selection Three corridors were chosen for detailed study in order to evaluate the application of the design guidelines to corridors recommended by the System Plan. The corridors were selected based on their adherence to the overall corridor selection criteria and narrowed down to those demonstrating the Critical Corridor Selection Criteria at left, as shown in Figure A.20. The corridors that were chosen for detailed evaluation are: Ohio Street, Massachusetts Avenue (Mass Ave), and Meridian Street. Ohio Street from West Street to College Avenue. Ohio Street currently supports vehicular, pedestrian and transit modes on a two-way, four-lane urban arterial. It is identified as a connector corridor in the Multi-Modal System Plan. PM peak hour intersection levels of service (LOS) vary along the corridor from B to F, with lower levels of service at locations with especially high cross-street volumes. The existing average daily traffic (ADT) volume on Ohio Street is approximately 14,500 vehicles. Nearly all of the existing IndyGo bus routes travel westbound along Ohio Street as part of the downtown loop, resulting in a high percentage of buses on the segment between Delaware Street and Capitol Street. On-street parking is allowed along much of the corridor.

4. Identified as having some form of proposed multi-modality in existing plans.

Massachusetts Avenue from New York Street to College Avenue

5. Could support and/or encourage smart growth policies through multi-modality.

Massachusetts Avenue currently accommodates vehicular, pedestrian, and transit modes on this two-way, two-lane urban collector. The existing ADT is approximately 10,500 vehicles. On-street, perpendicular parking is allowed at metered spaces on both sides of Massachusetts Avenue. Massachusetts Avenue passes through two subdistrict nodes and provides connections to four placemaking or connector corridors. It is identified as a placemaking corridor in the Multi-Modal System Plan.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY Meridian Street from 10th Street to 22nd Street Meridian Street currently accommodates vehicular, pedestrian and transit modes on a two-way, fourlane urban arterial. It is identified as a placemaking corridor in the Multi-Modal System Plan, with a short segment of connector corridor at the 1-65 Interstate ramps. PM peak hour intersection LOSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; are currently acceptable (LOS B or C) between 10th Street and 12th Street. Existing turn movement volumes were not available to assess LOS at 16th or 22nd Streets. The existing ADT on the corridor averages 26,700 vehicles. Meridian Street connects the nodes of at least three subdistricts and crosses seven other placemaking or connector corridors. The critical corridor evaluation of the three corridors was conducted using the Synchro7 and LOSPLAN software tools. Synchro7 is a software program designed to analyze vehicular traffic operation. Its measures of output are based upon the industry standard Highway Capacity Manual, which provides methods for calculating vehicular delay, congestion, and LOS. The Synchro software was designed to optimize signal cycle lengths, splits, offsets, and phase orders, and thus is useful in analyzing future conditions, where optimal signal timing may not match existing. It further provides measures of vehicular emissions and fuel consumption and summarizes results along the entire length of the corridor. LOSPLAN applications were developed and distributed by the Florida Department of Transportation to analyze quality and LOS on multimodal corridors. Within the LOSPLAN suite of products, ARTPLAN is used to analyze arterial LOS and was thus used in these evaluations. ARTPLAN is unique in that it brings together practices from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and other leading methodologies to determine the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS. The resulting mode-specific LOSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; are calculated to take into account the interaction between different modes on a single corridor. Both software packages require similar inputs including traffic volumes, signal timing information, bus volumes, and general corridor configuration information such as presence of sidewalks, lane widths, number of lanes, and location of turn lanes. A 18

Appendix Page

Aerial A

Aerial B

Aerial C

Figure A.21 Corridor Aerials

A) Aerial view of Ohio Steet corridor. B) Aerial view of Mass Avenue corridor. C) Aerial view of Meridian Steet corridor.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

The required input data was obtained from a variety of sources. The PM peak hour was analyzed as the highest volume hour of the average weekday. Existing PM peak hour turning movement volumes were acquired for the subject intersections from an Indianapolis Department of Public Works traffic counting effort in 2006 that was conducted by Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey. Year 2030 ADT volumes were obtained from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Travel Demand Model and existing timing plans were provided by the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consultant at all signalized locations. Corridor specific information including lane configuration, parking restrictions, and lane width were collected through GIS research and field survey.

Image A.

CRITICAL CORRIDOR DESIGN

Image B.

Figure A.22 Synchro 7 Examples

A) Synchro 7 view of Ohio Steet corridor utilizing current facilities and 2030 projections. B) Synchro 7 view of Ohio Steet corridor utilizing the horizon I scenario and 2030 projections

In order to develop a recommended design application for each corridor, a thorough understanding of the constraints of the corridors was necessary. To accommodate the desired multi-modality for a given corridor, the closest corresponding design typology was applied. However, the number of lanes, available ROW and other details of the street typology cross-section had to be specified for the Synchro model. Intersection management, bus management and other constraints to the flow and circulation of automotive traffic simulated was also addressed in order to provide pertinent and meaningful results. Furthermore, as typologies were applied to a given road segment, there were often variations in each road segment, including narrow ROWs, which required changes to the base typologies from segment to segment and sometimes within a given segment. Thus, over 30 road segments and intersections were examined and designed to some degree of detail. Only a few designs that were critical to the modeling effort will be presented here. The balance will be shown in the appendix. A brief synopsis of the design application for each corridor is listed follows:

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Figure A.23 Ohio Cross-Sections Ohio – Connector Class, Urban Commuter Typology • The Ohio Street Corridor is currently an important axis for bus commuting. Northsouth cross traffic is also substantial. The urban commuter typology fits both the function and the existing conditions of the corridor. •

In order to reroute some traffic from the busiest cross streets and facilitate auto access to the placemaking corridor at Market (and the potential park and ride facility at the

A 20

Appendix Page

node just past), a left turn lane was added Westbound at East Street (Figs. A.23-A.25). Though buses were easily accommodated, the high volume of buses on this corridor meant that bike commuters could be better served on the adjacent parallel corridors that are already planned for bike lanes.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Figure A.24 Ohio Cross-Sections (Continued)

Figure A.25 Proposed Ohio Intersection

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Figure A.26 Mass Avenue Cross-Sections Massachusetts – Placemaking Class, Urban Pedestrian Typology • Massachusetts Avenue is one of Indianapolis’ diagonal streets that converge on the center of the central business district (CBD). It forms the heart of an urban village popular for nightlife, shopping, and dining. Because of the function and intensity of the street, the urban pedestrian typology was the best fit. •

As street parking is considered a prime feature on this corridor and with the existing complications of 6-way intersections and narrow ROW (Fig. A27), compromises were critical to the success of this corridor. Parking was enhanced by adding back-in angled parking. On some street segments, A 22

Appendix Page

buses will stop in the vehicle travel way (VTW) to load and unload passengers from the pedestrian way (PW) and on some segments the buses will load and unload in a bus bay. Bike routes will access Mass Ave for most of its length by running along the neighboring N-S and E-W streets, rather than running along Mass Ave. with the exception of the Cultural Trail segment (Figs. A.26 & A.27).

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Bike Lanes

Michigan St.

Massachusetts Ave.

New Jersey St.

Figure A.27 Proposed Mass Ave Intersection

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Figure A.28 Meridian Cross-Sections Meridian – Placemaking Class, Urban Pedestrian typology with City Beautiful overlay • Meridian is a historic north-south corridor that bisects Indianapolis into east and west halves. The urban pedestrian typology fits this part of Meridian, but as part of the historic Kessler system the design needs to embrace the City Beautiful heritage. This results in a design that includes extra placemaking characteristics, prominent buildings and more grand streetscapes. •

Meridian has a 70-90 foot ROW and traffic is substantial. Furthermore, speeds are too fast to be ideal for pedestrian activities and cross traffic. As a prominent placemaking corridor, the design of Meridian had to address these issues without undermining the historic qualities of the street or raising A 24

Appendix Page

costs dramatically. Adding multiple modes complicated the existing traffic issues. •

Street parking was eliminated at some segments remote from key intersections (Figs. A.28 & A.29), but preserved or added at prominent cross streets (e.g. the placemaking corridor at Fall Creek, 22nd and 16th). Other end-of-trip amenities like bike parking and pedestrian activity zones are recommended.

To slow traffic, lanes were narrowed near the intersection, which also provided more available ROW for pedestrian activities. A road diet to three lanes for a segment north of 22nd was studied to further reduce speed, but there was not enough traffic data available to completely model the impact of this change.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Figure A.29 Meridian Cross-Sections (Continued)

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Figure A.30 Meridian Intersection

A 26

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Current Facilities

Level I: Multi-Modal Key Segments

Level II: Multi-Modal System Connectivity

Level III: Multi-Modal System Completion

The current facilities were evaluated as they are configured today with the expected growth in traffic volumes to the year 2030. This scenario assumes no changes to the existing mode share among autos, bikes, pedestrians, and transit. Using year 2030 volumes, this scenario assumes improvements to key segments of the Multi-Modal System Plan, resulting in a shift of 15% of automobile drivers to alternate modes, particularly commuter traffic. There is no distinction made in this scenario as to which modes are being used at what level, simply that the total shift equates to a 15% reduction in vehicular volumes. This scenario assumes that a multimodal system has attained substantial connectivity around the region and that reaching this goal will result in a mode shift from automobiles to bicycles, walking, or transit totaling 20%. This scenario assumes that the balance of multi-modal facilities have been implemented, including some land use and policy decisions with construction of multi-modal infrastructure. This scenario further assumes that the vision for mass transit is achieved in the form of light rail. Upon reaching the regional vision, a 35% shift away from automobiles is possible and is reflected in this scenario.

Figure A.31 Evaluation Scenario Table based on Level of Connectivity.

CRITICAL CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE The three corridors were evaluated with 2030 traffic volumes under current roadway conditions and under three Multi-Modal Levels of Connectivity: Key Segments, System Connectivity, and System Completion (see figure A.31); resulting in four total scenarios. Figure A.32 illustrates the mode shifts assumed for each of the four scenarios. All four scenarios were evaluated using both Synchro and LOSPLAN software packages. Results of the analysis provided measures of effectiveness, illustrating the impact that a facilitated modal shift can have on corridor operations. The following measures of effectiveness were calculated for each corridor and each of the year 2030 scenarios: Critical Corridor Measures of Effectiveness • Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) •

Vehicle Travel Time Lost in Congestion (Total Delay)

•

Congested Route Miles (Miles of roadway operating at LOS E or F)

•

Average Vehicle Speed

•

Tailpipe Emissions for CO, NOx, and VOC

•

Vehicle Hours of Travel spent in Congested Conditions

•

Fuel Consumption

•

Dollar Value of Congested Travel (including time and fuel costs)

•

Annual Value of Congested Travel

•

Intersection LOS

•

Corridor LOS

Percent of Total Trips (%)

The results for each corridor follow. 20

Ohio Street Corridor from West Street to College Avenue.

0 Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity

System Completion

Figure A.32 Mode Choice Percentages Alternative mode choice was looked at as a percent of total trips in each scenario.

The Ohio Street Corridor was evaluated between West Street and College Avenue for the year 2030 conditions under each of the four scenarios. In addition to calculating peak hour intersection LOS along the corridor, Synchro software was utilized

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Figure A.35 presents graphs that summarize seven different measures of effectiveness for the 2030 Synchro analyses of each alternative. These graphs show the relative benefit that can be gained on Ohio Street from improved system connectivity and broad support for multimodality. Levels of congestion, pollutant emissions, fuel consumption, and travel time costs that result from each of the scenarios in the year 2030 are provided. A 28

Appendix Page

System Connectivity

System Completion

Key Segments

Current Facilities

Ohio Street Intersection

West Capitol Illinois

C F F

B F F

B F C

Meridian

Pennsylvania

Delaware

Alabama College

C D

C C

Figure A.33 Ohio Street LOS Table

LOS for Ohio corridor critical intersection evaluation (PM peak hour); Source: Synchro7 using HCM methodology.

Alternative

System Connectivity 2030

System Completion 2030

Car Bike

F D

D D

F D

D D

F D

D C

Ped

Mode

Key Segments 2030

Figure A.34 shows the results of the Corridor analysis using LOSPLAN software. Along the Ohio Street corridor, minor differences were identified among the different alternatives. Vehicle LOS remained at F under all scenarios in the eastbound direction, but, westbound, was found to improve to LOS D with improvements to multimodality. Bicycle, pedestrian, and bus LOS were all found to operate at acceptable LOS along this corridor in the PM peak hour of 2030. This analysis provides LOS for the entire corridor as opposed to the individual intersection and takes into account the effect that each mode is having on the adjacent mode. For example, pedestrians walking along a roadway with average speeds of 50 MPH will experience a lower LOS than pedestrians walking along a roadway with average speeds of 25 MPH. Likewise, at locations where vehicles are parked onstreet, that buffer will result in better LOS than on a similar street without on-street parking.

Year 2030 Alternative

Current Facilities 2030

to calculate the measures of effectiveness that were identified above. With no changes to the existing configurations, the subject intersections between Capital and Delaware Streets are expected to operate at LOS E or F in the PM peak hour. The intersections of Ohio Street with West, Alabama, and College are expected to operate at acceptable LOS (C or D). Figure A.33 summarizes the results for all scenarios of the intersection analysis. Figure A.33 further shows that with segment improvements, including the formalization of transit lanes and preservation of sidewalks, the LOS is expected to improve to acceptable LOS at two intersections (Meridian and Pennsylvania). Further improvements to LOS were identified in the System Connectivity and Regional Vision scenarios. With the implementation of the Regional Vision, and a resulting 35% shift away from automobiles, only one of the subject intersections is expected to remain at LOS F.

A A A A A Figure A.34 Ohio Street Multi-Modal LOS Table Bus

LOS for Ohio critical corridor multi-modal evaluation (PM peak hour); Source: LOSPLAN.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

2500

1.2

Peak Hour Vehicle Miles Traveled

Peak Hour Congested Route Miles

1.4

1 0.8 0.6 0.4

2000

1500

1000

500

0.2 0

0 Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

8000 Annual Fuel Consumption (gallons)

VOC Emissions in Peak Hour

System Connectivity System Completion

NOx Emissions in Peak Hour

CO Emissions in Peak Hour

Key Segments

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000

0 Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Annual Value of Congested Vehicle Travel (Millions of Dollars)

0 Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Figure A.35 Ohio Street Graphs

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Massachusetts Street Corridor from New York Street to College Avenue.

Key Segments

System Connectivity

System Completion

Vermont/Alabama

Michigan/New Jersey

East North/North East

Saint Clair / College

Current Facilities

Figure A.36 Mass Ave LOS Table

LOS for Mass Ave corridor critical intersection evaluation (PM Peak Hour); Source: Synchro7 using HCM methodology.

Alternative

2030

System Connectivity

2030

System Completion

2030

Figure A.38 presents graphs that summarize seven different measures of effectiveness for the 2030 Synchro analyses of each alternative. These graphs show the relative benefit that can be gained on Massachusetts Avenue from improved system connectivity and broad support for multimodality. Levels of congestion, pollutant emissions, fuel consumption, and travel time costs that result from each of the scenarios in the year 2030 are provided.

Key Segments

Figure A.37 shows the results of the Corridor analysis using LOSPLAN software. Along the Massachusetts Avenue corridor, minor differences were identified among the different alternatives. Vehicle LOS remained at F under all scenarios in the eastbound direction, but was found to improve to LOS D with improvements to multimodality. Bicycle, pedestrian, and bus LOS were all found to operate at acceptable LOS along this corridor in the PM peak hour of 2030.

New York/Delaware

Massachusetts Avenue Intersection

Current Facilities 2030

The Massachusetts Avenue Corridor was evaluated between New York Street and College Avenue for the year 2030 conditions under each of the four scenarios. With no changes to the existing configurations, the subject intersections are expected to all operate at LOS F, with the exception of Massachusetts at Vermont Street / Alabama Street, which will operate at LOS D. Figure A.36 summarizes the results for all scenarios of the intersection analysis. Figure A.36 further shows that with segment improvements, including the addition of bike lanes, reconfiguration of on-street parking, and preservation of sidewalks, the LOS is expected to improve to LOS E at two intersections (New York / Delaware and Saint Clair/College). Further improvements to LOS were identified in the system connectivity and completion scenarios. With system completion, and a resulting 35% shift away from automobiles, only the Massachusetts / North / East intersection is expected to remain at LOS F.

Year 2030 Alternative

Car

Bike

Pedestrian

Buses

Mode

Figure A.37 Mass Ave Multi-Modal LOS Table

LOS for Mass Ave critical corridor multi-modal evaluation (PM peak hour); Source: LOSPLAN.

A 30

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

400 Peak Hour Vehicle Miles Traveled

Peak Hour Congested Route Miles

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4

300

200

100

0.2

0 Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

3.5

NOx Emissions in Peak Hour

CO Emissions in Peak Hour

3 15

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5

0 Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

2000

3.5

1800

Annual Fuel Consumption (gallons)

VOC Emissions in Peak Hour

Current Facilities

3 2.5 2 1.5 1

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400

0.5 200 0

0 Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Annual Value of Congested Vehicle Travel (Millions of Dollars)

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Figure A.38 Mass Ave Graphs

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Figure A.41 presents graphs that summarize the results of this analysis for seven different measures of effectiveness. These graphs show the relative benefit that can be gained from improved system connectivity and broad support for multi-modality.

A 32

Appendix Page

System Connectivity

Key Segments

11th Street

12th Street

16th Street

22 Street

Figure A.39 Meridian Street LOS Table

LOS for Meridian corridor critical intersection evaluation (PM peak hour); Source: Synchro7 using HCM methodology.

Mode

System Completion

Alternative

System Connectivity

Along the Meridian Street corridor, very little change was identified between the different alternatives. Vehicle LOS remained at F under all scenarios. Bicycle LOS and pedestrian LOS were mostly at D, and Bus LOS was mostly at A.

10th Street

Key Segments

Figure A.39 further shows that with segment improvements, including the addition of parallel bike lanes, transit lanes, and preservation of sidewalks, the LOS is expected to improve to acceptable LOS at 16th Street. Further improvements to LOS were identified in the system connectivity and system completion scenarios. With the implementation of the Regional Vision, and a 35% shift away from automobiles, only one of the subject intersections is expected to remain at LOS F. Figure A.40 shows the results of the Corridor analysis using LOSPLAN software.

Meridian Street Intersection

Current Facilities

The Meridian Street corridor was evaluated between 10th Street and 22nd Street for the year 2030 conditions under each of the four scenarios. With no changes to the existing intersection configurations, the subject intersections north of 10 th Street are expected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour of 2030. The intersection of Meridian Street and 10th Street is expected to operate at LOS C. Figure A.39 summarizes the results for all scenarios of the intersection analysis.

Current Facilities

Meridian Street Corridor from 10th Street to 22nd Street

System Completion

2030 Alternative

Car

Bike

Ped Buses

D A

D B

D A

C A

A A A A Figure A.40 Meridian Street Multi-Modal LOS Table

LOS for Meridian critical corridor multi-modal evaluation (PM Peak Hour); Source: LOSPLAN.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Peak Hour Vehicle Miles Traveled

4500

Peak Hour Congested Route Miles

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

0.2

0 Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity

Current Facilities

System Completion

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

16 80

NOx Emissions in Peak Hour

CO Emissions in Peak Hour

70 60 50 40 30 20

10 8 6 4 2

10 0

0 Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity

System Completion

Current Facilities

8000

7000

Annual Fuel Consumption (gallons)

VOC Emissions in Peak Hour

14 12 10 8 6 4

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000

2 0

0 Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Annual Value of Congested Vehicle Travel (Millions of Dollars)

0 Current Facilities

Key Segments

System Connectivity System Completion

Figure A.41 Meridian Graphs

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

PLACE-BASED TRANSPORTATION IMPLICATIONS

Figure A.42 Corridor Relative Cost The relative cost per relative per person capacity is more efficient on multi-modal corridors when compared to a typical 2-lane road.

L FA

R LC

K EE

W PK

I-65

YE FA LA E TT RD

In the critical corridor evaluation the impact of the network on specific corridors was studied and results were extrapolated back to the network as a whole. The three corridors that were selected for detailed evaluation already accommodate transit and pedestrian modes. Ohio Street is a main circulator route for IndyGo buses and routes run along both Meridian Street and Massachusetts Avenue. All three corridors presently have connected sidewalks and, of course, accommodate vehicular traffic. At the same time, all three corridors are nearly constructed to the limits of their rights-of-way. Heavy peak hour volumes mean that reducing lane capacity would have serious implications. Thus, the recommendations that have been made for modifications to these three corridors are modest and include changes that do not substantially impact the volume of vehicular traffic that each can accommodate. At the same time however, these small and low-cost changes to the corridors do improve LOS and provide enhancements to the safety, comfort, and overall quality of the multimodal experience.

MERIDIAN ST

" N

ER RIV

W PK

YW DR

Page

Appendix

HIT

;

" N

I-70

MERIDIAN ST

" N

I-65

I-70 " "

Figure A.43 Study Corridors

Ohio, Mass Ave, and Meridian

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

MERIDIAN ST

HARDING ST

It should be mentioned that current modeling techniques have limited capability to model the effect of mode choice, especially since most are based on auto oriented travel demand models and paradigms, and that regional connections, land use decisions and unavailable data also affect the results. Nonetheless, sensitivity analysis shows dramatic improvements in system performance thus supporting modal system development as a viable and efficient alternative to the current facilities scenario. The results from the evaluation show that significant improvements in transportation quality measures can be made by embracing multimodality and accommodating it in a way that will facilitate a shift to alternate modes, especially over time (see chapter 4, see figure 4.2). Pollutant emissions, for example, can be cut by more than half by creation of a true and complete multimodal network. Fuel consumption can be cut by two-thirds. Furthermore, the amount of travelers transported can be increased dramatically and at much less cost per traveler (Fig. A.42).

I-6 5

CAPITOL

11TH

Y PK

WEST

R VE RI T ES W

WEST

DR ANDREW J BROWN

EAST

SOUTH

MERRILL

MCCARTY

SOU THE AST ERN

FL ET CH ER

ENGLISH

RAM P

§ ¦ ¨

PROSPECT I-65 MORRIS

N PROSPECT

§ ¦ ¨ I-65

Transit Interface and Subdistrict Nodes

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER Fall 2008

Subdistrict Legend Character Districts from Regional Center 2020 Plan Campus

Urban Core

Entertainment

Urban Mixed Use

Industrial

Village

Neighborhood Residential

MERIDIAN

WEST

KE NT UC KY

BELMONT

HARDING

Miles 0.5

I-70

Place-Based Transportation Legend Regional Center Circulator Regional Transit Connections 10 min. walk/3 min. bike, catchment area for transit hubs N

The analysis enables some additional modeling of time-to-destination and transit route impacts based on delay time. Place-Based Transportation methods were used to develop the most efficient transit routing between nodes of the subdistricts. Excellent coverage in the Regional Center is possible (Figure A.44). Routing is composed of axial routes reinforcing the commuting patterns of travel and the sectors from transit studies (see Ch. 1). A supplemental circulator route that allows for better cross town connections completes the transit recommendations. This circulator also dovetails well with current routes offered and studied by IndyGo.

0.25

§ ¦ ¨

I IN RG VI

MORRIS

MISSOURI

I UR SO MIS

ET US CH NORTH A SN MICHIGAN AS M

MARKET

MARYLAND

10TH

S TN

OHIO

PENNSYLVANIA

NEWNYORK

T EL EV

HIGHLAND

HI W

NORTH

OS RO

DORMAN

10TH 10TH 0TH ST 1

DELAWARE

MADISON

M IU AD ST

10TH

SHELBY

I-65

There are other considerations that arose as a result of the evaluation. Thru corridors will be not modeled until a later phase, particularly because they are avoided within a district like the Regional Center.

22ND

22ND DELAWARE ALABAMA

§ ¦ ¨

CAPITOL

MERIDIAN

DR MARTIN LUTHER KING

16TH

Text

COLLEGE

RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE

JR ING ER K UTH

21ST

WHIT E RIV ER P KY W EST

File: X:\0633-Multi-Modal System Plan\G Draw\GIS\080130_MAP_Deliverables\080130_Mode Components

30TH CENTRAL

I-65

IN L ART

29TH

§ ¦ ¨

EAST

DR M

30TH

ILLINOIS

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Nodes (Hearts) of Regional Center Subdistricts

Figure A.44 Transit Connections

Transit-connected walkable subdistricts in the Regional Center District - Circles represent a half mile or 10 minute walk from the node.

Implications of the routing are manifold. First, the number of required stops are greatly reduced from the current pattern of stops every two to four blocks. Now, stations are possible at the nodes which reinforce district patterns and system viability. More passengers will load and unload at fewer, better, more predictable stops. This pattern will facilitate express routes. Fewer stops allow faster connections and faster time-to-destination. This approach may increase walk time to the transit stop (ten-minute walk maximum, rather than four-minute), but the pedestrian connections will have a more focused return on infrastructure investment, and the places will be more worth the trip.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX A: PLAN RESOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

Travel time calculations were based on the analysis of the intersections averaged over the typologies applied to the Regional Center, both for current and 2030 data. Trip times are calculated from door to door, not just time spent in the vehicle. An example of the maximum time-to-destination was estimated for travel between the most remote subdistricts in the Regional Center. The modeling is provided in figure A.45 and in the corresponding table (fig. A.46), based on the data for current and projected 2030 traffic. The modeling shows that transit becomes competitive with automotive travel in 2030, when the bus service uses a dedicated lane for the express route, as it would with a BRT setup. Pedestrian and bicycle trips are considered to be largely separated from auto traffic congestion. It is possible, however, that an automotive traffic jam could slow bicycle travel or possibly that bicycle travel could become congested by 2030. Likewise, pedestrians could be slowed or impeded by automobile congestion. Nonetheless, the model seems to confirm reports on bicycles being the most efficient mode on the scale of the Regional Center, if multi-modal facilities are provided [16,19].

Figure A.45 Logical routes for travel from the most remote subdistricts in the Regional Center based on Multi-Modal System Plan recommendations - used to calculate time-to-destination below.

Mode

Current

2030

Auto (yellow)

18 min.

39 min.

Bike (red)

Pedestrian (green)

Shared Way (e.g. bus)

Protected Way (e.g. BRT)

Separated Way (e.g. AGT)

Transit (purple)

Figure A.46 Table showing calculations for time-to-destination between the most remote subdistricts in the Regional Center with current traffic load and projected load in 2030.

A 36

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL GLOSSARY OF TERMS Accessibility: 1) physical access to goods, services and destinations. 2) accommodation of people with disabilities and other special needs. Alignment: An overarching route or swath of corridors that generally follow a path between destinations without determining which particular corridor or series of corridors constitute the best path to get between the destinations. Alternative Transportation: Types of travel other than private automobile, such as walking , biking, or public transit. Also see Sustainable transportation. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Federal civil rights law, enacted in 1990, mandating the provision of access to public facilities and within public right of way for persons with disabilities. Title 2 of the law applies to transportation facilities and transit vehicles. BikePort: BikePort is a public-private partnership unique to Indiana that creates bicycle facility solutions to encourage bicycling and is part of a state-wide initiative to support and create bicycle friendly communities. www.inbikeport.org Bio-Retention Area: Alternative stormwater treatment techniques, including rain gardens. Bus Bay: A specially designed or designated location at a transit stop, station, terminal, or transit center at which a bus stops to allow passengers to board and deboard. Bus Transit: Public transit using buses usually as a part of a larger transit system for areas with larger populations. Circulator: one or two cabin bus that runs a regular route within the normal

vehicle travel way. Shuttle: smaller capacity bus or van that may run special routes (e.g. to airport, senior day trips) and/or at irregular schedules within the normal travel way. Rapid Transit (BRT): potentially multicabin bus that acts like a light rail or subway with an exclusive lane out of normal traffic and with at grade boarding and deboarding stops. Choice Rider: Riders of transit who have other means of transportation available to them (i.e. cars). Non-Choice Riders are those whose only mode of distance transportation available is public transportation. Component Zones: The categorization of public and semi-public spaces within a multi-modal corridor. Bicycle Way (BW): area where bicycles travel. Bus Transit Way (BTW): area where bus transit vehicles travel or stop to load and unload. Crossing Zone (CZ): area where pedestrians or other non-motorized modes interface with and traverse through motorized transportation zones. Clear Height Zone (CHZ): vertical distance between a transportation facility surface and the lowest overhead obstruction. Frontage Zone (FZ): area of interaction between the pedestrian way and gradelevel uses.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

Multi-Use Way (MUW): area for shared use between multiple alternative transportation users, usually pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian Activity Zone (PAZ): area for public gathering in both the public and private spheres. Pedestrian Way (PW): area where pedestrians travel. Rapid Transit Way (RTW): area where rapid transit vehicles travel or stop to load and unload. Street Parking Zone (SPZ): area within the roadway where vehicles are permitted to stop, stand, or park, with various levels of permission and/or restriction. Separation Zone (SZ): area of protection between the roadway and the pedestrian way that contains various utilities, signs, and streetscaping elements. Vehicle Travel Way (VTW): area where motorized vehicles (automobiles, trucks, buses) travel.

pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes on a given corridor or alignment. Corridor: A way that leads to or through a destination. Curb Extensions: A concrete barrier between the sidewalk and the roadway that protrudes into the roadway at intersections to reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians and force drivers to make turns more slowly and carefully. Density: The number of dwelling units or population within a unit of land area, expressed as residential units or households per acre, or population per square mile. Destinations: Places people want to go. In these guidelines they have been equated to the pedestrian districts defined in the Regional Pedestrian Plan. Directness: A measure of the shortest route between two destinations. FAR: Floor-to-area ratio or the square footage of floorspace on a given lot divided by the lot area often a measure of building height or intensity. Fixed-Route Service: Bus service over a set route on a regular schedule.

Comprehensive Plan: A city, county, or regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plan for the integration of all issues affecting its physical development including land use, housing, transportation, public facilities, and open space. It establishes the basis for policy decisions thus requiring periodic updates.

Functional Classification (see Thoroughfare Classification): Classes of corridors by functional types or the functions they serve in the street hierarchy.

Connectivity: The amount of possible connections or choice of connections to get to a destination or the density of connections in path or road networks.

Placemaking: corridors that generally have the highest number of destinations in a given district, usually located at the center of a district.

Convergence: The nature of ways, modes or routes coming together or closing in on a particular place. Triple Convergence is the convergence of

Thru: higher speed corridors that usually run along the edge of a district that conduct

Appendix

Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

travelers between districts. Connector: corridors that bring travelers from the edge of the district to the center. Locals: corridors that serve quarters of districts or subdistricts. Off Street: ways that do no allow automobiles. Service: corridors that serve other corridors.

Mass/Rapid Transit: Bus, rail, or other types of transportation service moving large numbers of passengers. Master Plan: A comprehensive long-range plan intended to guide the growth and development of a community and its infrastructure. Sometimes synonymous with Comprehensive Plan, more often an illustrative, form-based document that communicates the communities desires. Mixed Use or Mixed Land Use: Multiple compatible land uses arranged vertically within a single structure or in close walkable proximity, such as residences and/or offices above shops, and services.

Generator: See Trip Generation. Intensity: The amount space dedicated to commercial, retail and residential land uses in a given area, usually measured by floor-to-area ratio or building height. Intermodal Transfer: The ability to move from one type of transportation to another during travel (e.g. from car to transit). Intramodal Transfer: The ability to move within a given mode of transportation (e.g. changing transit lines). Land Use: Buildings or activities that occupy a given piece of land, typically residential, commercial, industrial, public, agricultural, or open space. Level of Service (LOS): LOS is a qualitative term based on quantitative analysis of vehicular facilities, describing the density of traffic, and relating travel speeds, delays, and other measures to performance or congestion. Looping: See Connectivity.

Mode: A type of transportation such as rail, bus, vanpool, automobile, bicycle, pedestrian. Most transportation modes have additional subsets such as Single or High Occupancy Vehicle, Bus or Bus Rapid Transit, etc. Modal Hierarchy: Certain transportation modes are given priority over other modes based on the function of the corridor. Automobiles are not specifically shown in the graphic below, but are assumed in all corridors except Off Street. In instances where accommodation of all modes is not possible, a mode hierarchy is identified to guide the user in giving priority to certain modes over others to develop a multi-modal corridor within the existing right-of-way framework. Multi-Modal: Transportation facilities designed for joint use by different modes, with interconnectivity to achieve flexibility in scale and travel distance. Multi-Modal Corridor: A public right-of-way or thoroughfare that accommodates two or more alternative transportation modes. Multi-Modal District: An area that provides a population with needed amenities within walking

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

distance, also known as a pedestrian district or a neighborhood. Node: The center of a district or area within walking distance of a district that has the highest intensity and is usually the best choice for a transit stop or hub.

Right-of-Way: A corridor of land acquired by reservation, dedication, prescription, or condemnation, and intended to be utilized as a road, rail line, sidewalk, multi-use path, bike lane, utility service, buffer, in various combinations. Service Area: A geographic area where transit service is provided.

Non-Choice Rider: See choice rider. Peak Periods: The hours when traffic is greatest. Generally, during the work week, there is a morning peak from 6:30am to 9:00am and an afternoon peak from 3:30pm to 6:30pm. Facility capacity is often defined by performance during peak periods. Pedestrian District: Areas characterized by a density of mixed uses and clustered pedestrian destination within a five-minute walk, supporting central or multiple transit noted. These areas are intended to have high pedestrian activity and priority is given to make walking the transportation mode of choice within the area. Pedestrian Friendly: Designed to accommodate pedestrians. Priorities are safety, minimized walking distance, comfort, and pedestrian-oriented destinations. Pedestrian Scaled: Land uses characterized by narrow streets, small blocks, and an absence of large parking lots, and arranged so that walking distances are short. Public Transportation: A general system of passenger transportation services of various modes. Rapid Transit: see Mass/Rapid Transit Ridership: The number of people using a public transportation system or mode in a given period of time.

Appendix

Page

Signal Platooning: Coordinated traffic signal controls that group vehicles together to increase road capacity without building additional traffic lanes. The timing of lights to allow groups of vehicles to travel through multiple intersections at a given legal speed. Spacing: The distance between important spots, stops, corridors or ways. Too much spacing and access is limited and too little spacing and objectionable congestion can result. Station Area: An area surrounding a transit center containing transit-related activities and designed to accommodate large numbers of people. Station areas are generally defined as the area within a Âź mile radius of the station, a reasonable walking distance. Streetscape: The character, design, and physical elements within and bordering the public rightof-way. Streetscape elements include street and sidewalk paving, curbs, trees, lighting, benches, signage and wayfinding, as well as defining facades of bordering buildings or their setback spaces. Strip Mall: Any auto-oriented shopping center located along a major arterial road. Strip malls usually have large amounts of parking between the building and the street. Subdestinations: Buildings or places that people visit within a destination area (see Destination) Sustainable Transportation: A comprehensive approach to transportation planning intended to

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

achieve a combination of economic, environmental and social objectives. It manages demand and improves accessibility rather than responding to demand through increasing supply of facilities and mobility in a way that is not sustainable. Sustainable transportation is a response to transportation planning practices that expand highway facilities to meet projections of future demand. Thoroughfare Classification Systems (See Functional Classification: Principal Arterial: Street carrying high volumes of traffic (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle) across multiple districts. Minor Arterial: Street carrying lesser volumes of traffic at more frequent intervals, or that direct traffic to the principal arterials. Collector: Street usually confined within a district or neighborhood boundary and connecting specific land uses, and local streets to the arterial network. Local Street: Minor street providing access to abutting properties and protection from through direct traffic. Alley: Minor street used primarily for vehicular service access to the back side of properties. In residential blocks, an alley provides access to garages allowing narrower lots with sidewalks uninterrupted by driveways, higher density, and a more walkable scale along the street. Transit Center: A facility providing transfer connections between bus routes, and/or between different transportation modes, such as bus and rail, regional bus (bus rapid transit) and local bus (shuttle bus), etc.

Transit-Compatible Land Use: Land use of sufficient density, proximity and mix of uses, and with design characteristics that support pedestrian travel to make provision of convenient public transit service viable. Also see Transit-Oriented Development. Transit Corridor: A right-of-way with contiguous transit- compatible land uses and/or connectivity between transit- oriented development centers such that efficient high volume transit is viable. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): A residential, commercial, or more usually mixed-use development designed to maximize access to public transport, incorporating features to encourage transit ridership, and providing less private automobile parking than typically required by other single-use zones. Traffic Calming: A range of street design measures to reduce speed and volume of vehicular traffic to levels appropriate to safe interaction between automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists. This may include narrower travel lanes, curb extensions, reduced radius corners, medians as crosswalk refuges, raised intersections and crosswalks. These measures are specific to street and district type and designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Travel Time: The overall time spent traveling from an origin to a destination. Trip: A one-way journey to or from a destination. Trip Ends: The total number of trips entering and leaving a land use over a designated period of time. Trip Generation: The total number of trip ends produced by a specific land use. Distributed generators refers to land uses that generate trips that are not clustered in the main area, i.e. away from the principal destination (placemaking) street. Trip Linking: The ability to visit several destinations

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

during one journey. Urban Centers: Downtown, town center, and higher density mixed use districts designed for walkability and high levels of public transportation service. Visual Friction: A traffic calming technique that uses elements such as shrubs, trees, and general landscaping to make the street seem narrower than it really is, thus encouraging drivers to slow down. Walkability: A broad range of community design features that support walking: mix of land uses, attractions and services of higher density and proximity, road design that does not create barriers or disincentives to walking, sidewalks and crosswalks that form a continuous network linking multiple destinations, and environmental design for interest and comfort. Walkable Community: A place where people of all ages and abilities feel that it is safe, comfortable, convenient, efficient, and welcoming to walk, not only for recreation but also for utility and transportation. Characterized by proximity between land uses and destinations, access to public transportation, and neighborhood activity. Zoning Ordinance: A municipal ordinance dividing a municipality into districts that prescribe land use type, land use relationships, densities, height and setback, bulk distribution, required parking, loading and servicing requirements, and performance standards within a defined boundary.

Appendix

Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY The following references are organized by section and followed with a brief description of each reference.

Alta Planning & Design and Parisi Associates. San Francisco. Department of Parking and Traffic Staff. City of San Francisco Bicycle Plan Update: Supplemental Design Guidelines. San Francisco, CA. Department of Parking and Traffic Staff. 2003. These guidelines are a supplement to the 2003 San Francisco Bike Plan and are meant to clarify not replace material from the HDM, AASHTO, and MUTCD guidelines.

LLEYS/SERVICE 1.

Austin. Texas Design Commission. Downtown Austin Design Guidelines. Austin, TX. City of Austin. May 2000. pp 30, 32, 42, 58, and 69. These various articles discuss limiting closing down streets, alleys or walkways between buildings. Increases pedestrian traffic and limits the ‘alley’ as an unpleasant place to travel, park or view.

Reviewed material on the use of ‘back in’ diagonal parking to help limit conflicts with cyclist utilizing bicycle lanes. 7.

This is the APA’s guide to designing bicycle facilities. It focuses on six elements to help plan for bicyclists: planning and regulation, hazard removal, traffic calming, additional roadway width, designated bicycle facilities, and bicycle parking.

Boulder. Downtown Alliance. Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Boulder, CO. City of Boulder. 2002. pp. 32, 42, 43, 58, 69 & 70. These various pages describe ways to improve alley ways from simply places to put refuge to alternative walking areas, to main street access points to areas that can be visually pleasing and not areas to avoid whenever possible.

Abbott, Carl “Urban Growth and Environmental Concerns.” Planning and Urban Design Standards. Comp. American Planning Association. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons. 2006. pp. 84-85.

Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (apbp). Bicycle Parking Guidelines. Washington, DC. 2002.

This article discusses the problem of ‘sprawl’, suburbanization and its’ effects on the environment and how to design with nature.

Discusses best practices for bicycle parking which will in turn decrease barriers to bicycle usage.

Advanced Stop Lines. Cambridge. Cambridge Cycling Campaign. Cambridge, UK. July 1998.

10. “Bicycle Box” 8 July 2003. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 13 June 2006. www.bayareatrafficsignals.org/ toolbox/Tools/BikeBox.html.

This document describes why ‘advanced stop lines’ (ASL)/’bike boxes’.are so valuble to cyclists, and discusses a number of design issues which should be taken into consideration when they are planned 5.

Arizona. Bicycle Parking Facility Design Requirements. City of Tucson, Pima County. This is a ‘draft’ copy of the bicycle parking design guidelines that layout the amount of bicycle parking, type of racks and the parking area layout. These guidelines are very thorough and also gives examples of unacceptable bike rack examples. Also refer to the apbp ‘Bicycle Parking Guidelines’.

BICYCLE 3.

Anderson-Pinsof, Suzan, and Terri Musser. Bicycle Facility Planning. Chicago, IL. American Planning Association, October 1995.

Allen, John S. “Why and how the Vassar Street project needs to be modified”. Truewheelers.org. 12 June 2002. 11 April 2006. www.truewheelers.org/cases/vassarst/record/handout.htm.

11. “On-Street Facilities. Pedestrian and Bicycling Information Center”. Bicyclinginfo.org. 11 April 2006. www.bicyclinginfo.org This page of the website has design and reference information for ‘on-street bicycle facilities’. It references other websites, the AASHTO guide, various studies, etc and has Q&A for many of the topics. 12. “Bicycle Parking”. Mass Bikes. Mass Bikes. 22 March 2006.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

www.massbike.org/bikelaw/parking.htm This document gives the zoning ordinances for bicycle parking requirements in various places around the country. 13. Bishop, Diane. “City of Eugene, Oregon”. New ‘Bike Box’ Gives Cyclists a Safe Zone at Seventh Ave and High Street’. Press Release City of Eugene’s Bicycle Program Coordinator. 3 December 2001. www.ci.eugene.or.us/pw/bike/bikesite/ bikeboxrelease.htm Press release for the implementation of new bike box at Seventh and High St. 14. “Cambridge Massachusetts Bicycle Parking Requirements”. Mass Bikes. Mass Bikes. 22 March 2006. www.massbike.org/ bikelaw/pcamb.htm This document gives the zoning ordinances for bicycle parking requirements in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 15. Canada. Bike Boxes & Advanced Stop Lines. Vancouver, BC, Canada. City of Vancouver. A pamphlet that informs and educates both motorists and cyclists regarding the use of bike boxes and ASL’s.

transportation in the area by improving bike parking an d pedestrian right of way. 19. Hallett, Ian, David Luskin and Randy Machemehl. Evaluation of On-Street Bicycle Facilities Added to Existing Roadways. Austin, Tx. Center for Transportation Research. Texas Department of Transportation. Aug 2006 Evaluation of retrofitted bicycle facilities on current roadways without changing curb to curb width. 20. Hunter, William. United States. Office of Safety and Traffic Operations Research & Development. Evaluation of an Innovative Application of the Bike Box. McLean, VA. Federal Highway Administration. August 2000. pp. 1, 11, 12 & 17. (entire document) The results of this study found that the ‘bike box’ is beneficial to cyclists in that it helps them avoid conflicts in certain types of intersection movements but there were issues with automobile encroachment. More bike boxes need to be installed and evaluated to further determine their effectiveness. 21. Indiana. Department of Natural Resources. Hoosiers on the Move: The Indiana State Trails, Greenways and Bikeways Plan. July 2006. Indianapolis, Indiana. Comprehensive trail plan for the state of Indiana.

16. Chicago. Chicago Department of Transportation. Chicago’s Bike Lane Design Manual. Chicago, IL. City of Chicago. Oct 2002.

22. Indianapolis. Department of Public Works. Cultural Trail Scoping Report. N.p. DLZ & Storrow Kinsella Associates Inc. July 2004.

A “best practices” manual on how to integrate bicycles into an urban environment. Contains bicycle facility designs and engineering standards. Very comprehensive.

Detailed preliminary description of Cultural Trail route, infrastructure and streetscapes.

17. Denver. Bicycle Programs. Rules and Regulations for Bicycle Parking Areas in Denver. City of Denver, Co. December, 1998.

23. Indianapolis. Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization. Indianapolis Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian System Plan, Part 2, Facility Design Guidelines. Indianapolis, IN. n.d.

Document lays out objectives and standards for bicycle parking in the City of Denver, including preferred types of racks. 18. Greenway Collaborative, Inc. State Street Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. City of Ann Arbor, MI & City of Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. December 2003. This work deals with bike/ped/auto traffic conflicts in the central business district. It covers common conflicts and how to avoid through design, enforcement, education and infrastructure improvements. It also covers ways to grow non-motorized

Appendix

Page

The system plan contains information on all aspects of bicycle infrastructure from design of on and off street facilities to signage and from bike parking to traffic calming methods. 24. Kinsella, John. Letter to File. Blue Bike Box and Blue Bike Lanes. 22 May 2006. This letter discusses the use of ‘blue bike boxes’ and ‘blue bike lanes’ in certain areas and includes an abstract on writings on each topic.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

25. McCann, Barbara. 2004. Complete Streets Report, Analysis of a survey of Complete Streets Laws, Policies, and Plans in the United States. Thunderhead Alliance. N.p. Dec 2004. pp 9, 27. This report is a comprehensive look at national complete streets policies. We primarily reviewed the information regarding funding mechanisms across the country and how the report addresses ‘Pedestrian Policies’. 26. Moeur, Richard, C. Bicycle-Specific Traffic Control-Is it “BicycleFriendly”?. Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting. Phoenix, AZ. 1999. pp. 5-6. In this article, the author, Mr. Moeur questions whether the ‘bike box’ is truly a ‘bicycle friendly’ design. He questions whether driver’s habitual behavior and certain traffic laws may cause problems with this particular design feature. 27. “MUTCD Frequently Asked Questions”. MUTCD. Federal Highway Administration. 30 November 2001. http://mutcd. fhwa.dot.gov/kno-amend.htm This webpage explains the MUTCD process on amending their standards. 28. Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates. Back-in/Head-out Angle Parking. San Francisco, CA. January 2005. 29. Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates. On-Street Bike Lanes preferred Alternative. San Francisco, CA. February 2005. 30. Oakland, CA. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Office of Planning. Bicycles & Pedestrians, Safety Toolbox: Engineering, Bicycle Box. 14 June 2006 <www.mtc.ca.gov/ planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools/bicycleBox/index.htm> Design guidelines in addition to advantages and disadvantages to the ‘bicycle box’ in Oakland, CA. 31. “European Bikeway Examples”. City of Portland, Office of Transportation. 29 November 2001. www.trans.ci.portland. or.us/Traffic_Management/Bicycle_Pro…/european.htm.

BICYCLE FACILITIES 32. Austin. City of Austin Transportation, Planning and Sustainability Department. Downtown Great Streets Master Plan. 15 Nov 2001. 30 Aug 2005 <http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/greatstreets/

default.htm>. This report was the precursor to the Downtown Austin Design Guidelines and it was Austin’s first attempt to ‘improve the quality of downtown streets and sidewalks, aiming ultimately to transform the public right-of-ways into great public spaces’. 33. Brazel, Anthony, Jay Golden & James Schwab “Air Quality.” Planning and Urban Design Standards. Comp. American Planning Association. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons. 2006. pp. 101-102. This article explains how we define, how we measure and where air pollution originates. 34. Brazel, Anthony, Jay Golden “Air Sheds.” Planning and Urban Design Standards. Comp. American Planning Association. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons. 2006. pp. 103-104. This article defines and explains air sheds. 35. Indianapolis. Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization. Indianapolis Regional Pedestrian Plan. Indianapolis, IN: March 2006. p.5 Definitions of ‘component zones’ 36. Kinsella, John. “RC Guidelines Review and Comment~TOD. E-mail response to definition of TOD. 21 Feb. 2006. This email discusses the definition of TOD, discussed using definition supplied by TOD Association from the State of California. 37. Mendes, Diana C. “Impact Assessment.” Planning and Urban Design Standards. Comp. American Planning Association. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons. 2006. pp. 514-517. This article outlines how to do a thorough ‘environmental impact assessment’. According to the article it is important to identify, evaluate, discuss and document the potential benefits and consequences of the project. 38. Steiner, Frederick R. “Environmental Planning Considerations.” Planning and Urban Design Standards. Comp. American Planning Association. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons. 2006. pp. 99-100.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

This article looks at the ‘environmental planning’ process holistically. He points out that the term ‘environmental’ means not only ecology but also landscape. So, we need to look at the physical, biological and built environments when completing an environmental plan. 39. U.S. 40 Boulevard By Way (West Terre Haute to Terre Haute). Cross-sectional drawing. Indianapolis, In: n.d.

BIKE LANE EXAMPLES AND IMAGES. 40. Ohio. Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. Breaking Barriers to Bicycling: Bicycle Lanes Best Practices and Pilot Treatments. Columbus, OH. Mid Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. October, 2005. 31 41. “On-Street Facilities. Pedestrian and Bicycling Information Center”. Bicyclinginfo.org. 11 April 2006. www.bicyclinginfo.org This page of the website has design and reference information for ‘on-street bicycle facilities’. It references other websites, the AASHTO guide, various studies, etc and has Q&A for many of the topics. 42. Oguntoyinbo, Kristin. “HSRC Research Paving the Way for Bicyclists”. Directions. Volume VI, Number 2. Winter 2001. p. 5 Summarized the ‘blue bike lanes’ study done with City of Portland, Or. The study found that motorists were much more likely to yield to cyclists with the colored bike lanes. 43. Oregon. Department of Transportation. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Salem, OR. 1995. 113-120. Referenced chapter 11.6, which discusses where multi-use paths should be installed, important considerations (i.e. road crossings, access security, maintenance), design and standards. 44. Pein, Wayne. AASHTO and Door Zone Bike Lanes. Bicycling Matters. May, 2004. This paper discusses the dangers of AASHTO designed bike lanes when placed next to on street parking. 45. Portland. Office of Transportation. Portland’s Blue Bike Lanes, Improved Safety through Enhanced Visibility. City of Portland, OR. 30 November 2001.

B 10

Appendix Page

This is the entire study done in conjunction with the University of North Carolina’s, Highway Safety Research Center in regards to the use of colored lanes in high bicycle/motorist conflict areas. 46. Portland. Office of Transportation. Portland’s Blue Bike Lanes, Improved Safety through Enhanced Visibility. City of Portland, OR. 30 November 2001. p.3. This reference was for funding of project, which was a 2 year ODOT grant (80% state and 20% local match). 47. Portland Department of Transportation. Blue Bike Lanes,for Greater Safety. City of Portland, OR. July 1999. 48. “Portland’s Blue Bike Lane Project: A Study in Improving Cyclist Safety”. Presentation. City of Portland Bicycle Program.& University of North Carolina’s, Highway Safety Research Center. Portland, OR. Power Point presentation of the City of Portland & University of North Carolina’s, Highway Safety Research Center. 49. South Bend. MACOG. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Element of the MACOG 2015 Transportation Plan: Chapter II, Bicycle Facilities.. South Bend, Indiana. December, 1995. 50. Pucher, John, Lewis Dykstra. “What Germany and Holland Can Teach NYC About Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety”. 2003. Transportation Alternatives Magazine 14 June 2006. <www. transalt.org/press/maganzine/034Fall/18europe.html> Article discusses what actions could or should be taken in NYC to make the city as pedestrian safe as European cities. The actions range from passing laws to allow speed and red light cameras to design of the roadway and public space. 51. Surface Transportation Policy Partnership (STPP). 2006. From the Margins to the Mainstream, A Guide to Transportation Opportunities in Your Community. Washington, DC. pp 83-107 Descriptions of different federal transportation funding programs(i.e. CMAQ, JARC, etc) and how to access funds. It gives details on funds(i.e. are matching funds needed, what are the permissible use of funds, etc). 52. Traffic Advisory Unit (TAU). “Advanced Stop Lines for Cyclists”. Department of Transportation, London, England

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

Summarizes ‘bike box’ study findings, which provides basic design and placement details and possible further developments. 53. United States. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 1999. Washington, DC. U.S. DOT. 22,-32. This section of the guide describes the physical attributes of a AASHTO approved bicycle lane. 54. United States. Federal Highway Administration. Lesson 9, Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections to Transit. December, 2000. Washington, DC. U.S. DOT. This section covers barriers and improvements to increase ridership for pedestrians and cyclists on transit. The improvements range from adding bicycle parking facilities at stations/stops, streetscape improvements around stations to improve pedestrian accessibility to including ways to carry bicycles on busses and trains. 55. United States. Federal Highway Administration. Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. Chapter 9 – IntersectionWide Treatments. Washington, DC. U.S. DOT. 1, 22, 23.

The definitive source on Boulevards. 59. “The Urban Network: A New Framework for Growth”, Peter Calthorpe, for potential transit median spacing and transit boulevard details.

BUS TRANSIT BTZ 60. Abdy, Zeeshan Raza. “Transit Signal Priority: Giving the Buses a Leg Up”. Imprint, The University of Waterloo Student Newspaper. 2003. This article debates the superiority of ‘queue jumping’ lanes as opposed to ‘transit signal priority’ turn lanes. The first is a lane on the right side of traffic, at intersections, that is dedicated to transit only and than gives a early green to the bus. TSP would keep the light green in order to let a bus through. This may have the result of backing up traffic on intersecting roads. 61. Austin. Texas Design Commission. Downtown Austin Design Guidelines, Enhance Key Transit Stops. Austin, TX. City of Austin. May 2000. p 51. Issues and recommendations for improving transit stops in Austin.

56. United States. Federal Highway Administration. Part 9, Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities, MUTCD 2000. December, 2000. Washington, DC. U.S. DOT.

62. Canada. BC Transit. Transit Stop Installation Checklist. Victoria, British Columbia.

This manual gives detailed descriptions of federal requirements when it comes to bicycle infrastructure. Including markings, signage, bicycle lanes and path information.

Design guidelines for building transit facilities, transit related infrastructure and streetscape projects that can effect transit usage.

57. Wilbur Smith Associates, 2M Associates and HPV Transportation Consulting. Bicycle Boulevard: Design Tools and Guidelines. Berkley, CA. City of Berkeley. Planning and Development Department Advance Planning Division, City of Berkley. April 2000.

63. Edwards & Kelcy, Engineers, Architects, Planners and Constructors. “IndyGo Shelter Site Design” IndyGo. 21 April 2004. PowerPoint Presentation

Report discusses implementation of various bicycle boulevards located in Berkley, CA. and some of the traffic calming and other measures utilized to maintain low traffic speeds and volumes.

BOULEVARDS 58. Jacobs, MacDonald, Rofe, Boulevard Book: History, Evolution, Design of Multiway Boulevards, MIT Press. 2002, particularly pp. 207-234..

Presentation presents ‘best practices’ on IndyGo bus shelter design, placement and access for potential riders. 64. United States. Federal Highway Administration. Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. Chapter 9 – IntersectionWide Treatments. Washington, DC. U.S. DOT. 40 65. United States. Federal Highway Administration. Lesson 9, Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections to Transit. December, 2000. Washington, DC. U.S. DOT. This section covers barriers and improvements to increase ridership for pedestrians and cyclists on transit. The

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

improvements range from adding bicycle parking facilities at stations/stops, streetscape improvements around stations to improve pedestrian accessibility to including ways to carry bicycles on busses and trains. 66. United States. Transportation Research Board. Transit-Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic Management Strategies to Support Livable Communities. Washington, DC. National Academy Press. 1998. Report 33. p. 14 Case Study 3-1 discusses the use of bulb-outs/curb extensions. These extensions were added to deal with waiting transit riders conflicting with traveling pedestrians. The end result was that the bulb outs were a positive fix to this problem with out too much added problems to street users.

CORRIDOR CRITERIA 67. Charlotte. Charlotte Department of Transportation 2005 Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG). Charlotte, NC. n.d. pp. 1-11 The USDG allows CDOT to design and implant better street design within Charlotte. The guidelines incorporate different transportation mode types, i.e. bicycling, pedestrian and transit. Part of the way it does this is by classifying streets by different types of mode orientation. 68. “Forum on Sustainable Infrastructure with Emphasis on Sustainable Streets and Streetscapes.” Key Tower, Seattle WA. 13 May 2004. This is the summary of aforementioned forum held to discuss sustainable streets. These notes discuss important information regarding projects from design to public involvement and some of the pitfalls from funding of projects to on going maintenance 69. Hinshaw, Mark. “Physical Structure of Downtowns.” Planning and Urban Design Standards. Comp. American Planning Association. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons. 2006. pp. 416 & 417. This article defines and describes various public spaces, street typologies and special elements (i.e. civic structures and public art). 70. Indianapolis. Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization. Regional Transportation Plan Update, Indianapolis, IN. Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization pp 66-75.

B 12

Appendix Page

This chapter discusses improving on some the current deficiencies we have in the central Indiana regional transportation system. They discuss several strategies from Intelligent Transportation Systems to improving infrastructure for alternatives to driving (i.e. biking and walking). 71. King, Michael. Bicycle Facility Selection: A Comparison of Approaches. Chapel Hill, NC. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina. August 2002. pp. 9-14. Tables/Matrices that include traffic speeds & car counts to determine the type of bicycle facility which should be used. The information to tabulated from various cities around the world. 72. Swift, Peter “Pedestrian-Friendly Streets.” Planning and Urban Design Standards. Comp. American Planning Association. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons. 2006. pp. 242 - 244. This article covers how to design pedestrian friendly streets and what makes a street pedestrian friendly.

CROSSING ZONE CZ 73. Boulder. Downtown Alliance. Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Boulder, CO. City of Boulder. 2002. pp. 55-57. These sections discuss the guidelines that should dictate all pedestrian sidewalks and street crossings in the downtown areas in Boulder, Co. 74. Portland. Office of Transportation. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide. City of Portland, OR. June 1998. pp. C1-C5, C14-C19 & B1-B9 These sections cover the best practices for crosswalks as well as design guides for certain types of pedestrian/crossing infrastructure (i.e. bulb-outs, islands, etc), part B deals with the guideline for corners and how they should be designed to be pedestrian friendly.

DISTRICTS 75. Annapolis. Governor’s Office of Smart Growth. Driving Urban Environments: Smart Growth Parking Best Practices. Annapolis, MD. Maryland State Government. p 4

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

This publication covers what are seen at the ‘best practices’ for dealing with parking issues in urbanized areas. These strategies vary from ‘shared parking’ to parking maximums, land use changes (i.e. TODS, smart growth) and increasing transit options. 76. Atlas, Randall. “Residential Site Security Strategies.” Planning and Urban Design Standards. Comp. American Planning Association. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons. 2006. 475. This section discusses site/building designs that can help reduce the chances of criminal activity. These can include lighting, window installations and types of plantings, just to name a few. 77. Austin. Texas Design Commission. Downtown Austin Design Guidelines. Austin, TX. City of Austin. May 2000. p 29, 31, 75 & 77. Describes what is essential to supporting a 24 hour/mixed used downtown. What is needed is a good mix of services to support the inhabitants of the area. Encourage the inclusion of local character by having special places, building types and details that are unique to the geographic area. Last but not least, the street level should be oriented towards pedestrians, not automobiles. Store/shop fronts can be smaller and more detailed than auto oriented store fronts. Peds. move at much slower pace 78. Barnett, Jonathan, Redesigning Cities. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. 2003. 79. Bob Vint & Associates, Architects. Mixed-Use Development Prototype. N.p. n.d. This is a prototype for a mixed use development, maybe in Tucson, AZ. It outlines all the guidelines in which to make this development mixed use and part of a walkable community, it also addresses some of the issues that the developer will face when it comes zoning. 80. Bong, Hendra, Sharon Priest. “Infill Development.” Planning and Urban Design Standards. Comp. American Planning Association. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons. 2006. 457. This section discusses infill development, especially as it relates to appropriate massing and articulation. They also cover density, transit and scale under this topic and planning for infill by including the public, phasing the project and utilizing design guidelines.

81. Boulder. Downtown Alliance. Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Boulder, CO. City of Boulder. 2002. p. 28. This section of the Boulder design guidelines discusses building frontage and how it meets the street. It illustrates how building frontage is important to continuity on the street and it also talks about how important it is that storefronts open onto the street. 82. Burden, Dan, et al. Healthy Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, The Streets of San Joaquin. N.p.: Walkable Communities, Inc. n.d. Publication defines street typologies with design guidelines on the street layout and the buildings and land use for each type. 83. Calthorpe ,Peter and William Fulton. The Regional City. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001, and Calthorpe, Peter, “The Urban Network: A New Framework for Growth”. 84. Dixon, David, FAIA, Goody Clancy, David Spillane. “Scale & Density.” Planning and Urban Design Standards. Comp. American Planning Association. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons. 2006. 470. Mr. Dixon discusses attributes that make an area pedestrian friendly. He discusses the context of a building and how it should take cues from the buildings in the area also how certain buildings like courthouses or municipal buildings may warrant a more palatial feel that would not be appropriate for other buildings. 85. Florida. Systems Planning Office. Multi-modal Transportation Districts and Area Wide Quality of Service Handbook. N.p. Florida Dept. of Transportation. November, 2003. pp. 22-26. We referenced the sections on ‘Land Uses that Promote Walking and Transit Use’ and ‘Appropriate Density and Intensity of Land Uses’ which helped to determine how to classify each particular district. People will walk if they have someplace to walk to and the distance isn’t too great. 86. Fort Wayne. Fort Wayne, Downtown Design Guidelines. Fort Wayne, IN. N.p. 5 Jan 2004. pp. 5-8, 20. This section of the guidelines refer primarily to architectural issues such as building designs (i.e. height, form and scale) while explaining the importance of façade treatments and building material. Also, there are two sections referring to public spaces and public art, especially as a transition to larger facilities.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

87. Hannum, Wagle & Cline Engineering and Storrow Kinsella Associates Inc. French Lick Design Guidelines. French Lick, IN. French Lick Redevelopment Commission. June, 2006. Design guidelines for the city of French Lick, IN. In the earlier part of the 1900’s , French Lick was a resort town and would like to become a resort town again by opening a casino and keeping with the character of a small ‘resort’ town feel. These guidelines are meant to help them keep/regain that ‘feel’. 88. Indianapolis. CAP:IC. Indianapolis Regional Center Design Guidelines. Indianapolis, IN. Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization. March 2007. pp. 1-17 These sections are meant to cover the district typologies described in this writing. 89. Jarvis, Frederick. Site Planning and Community Design for Great Neighborhoods. Washington DC: Home Builder Press, 1993. pp 48-72.

to help promote a walkable transit oriented development or area. 93. Planning and Urban Design Standards – American Planning Association, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 259-86 94. Scheer, Brenda and David Scheer 1998. Typology and Urban Design Guidelines: Preserving the City Without Dictating Design. Rethinking XIXth Century City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture. pp. 151-164 Discusses the issues with design guidelines as they relate to aesthetic controls instead of addressing the systemic problem of bad building design. 95. Urban Initiatives LLC. Town of West Baden Springs Indiana Design Guidelines. West Baden Springs, IN. April, 2006. Appendix C Discusses feasibility of adaptive reuse of historical buildings.

This section contains information on site planning and other infrastructure improvements to enhance new developments walkability and liveability. This particular writing seems to be more directed at suburban development instead of denser infill or urban living.

96. Virginia. Rappahannock Scenic River Preservation Policies, IV. Goals, Objectives and Policies. N.p. n.d. <http://www. spotsylvania.va.us/emplibrary/Courtland_SectorPlan.pdf>

90. Katz, Peter. The New Urbanism, Toward an Architecture of Community. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1994

Growth and development guidelines for Rappahannock area. These guidelines include expected growth and expected developments that will come with that growth. Very detailed plans.

91. Kulash, Walter P.E., Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc., Susan Handy, PhD. “Street Networks and Street Connectivity.” Planning and Urban Design Standards. Comp. American Planning Association. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons. 2006. 231. The writings discuss street connectivity standards and the techniques cities use to determine that standard. In the past cities discouraged connectivity but more and more municipalities have found that they need to improve connectivity to improve traffic problems. These cities use either ‘block length standards’ or ‘connectivity index’ to improve traffic mobility. Block length standards allow cities to control spacing between streets and can take the form of maximum block lengths. Connectivity index is the ratio of streets to intersections.

FRONTAGE ZONE FZ 97. Portland. Office of Transportation. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide. Portland, OR. City of Portland, OR. June 1998. pp. A9-A10 This section covers how Portland handles the design and use of the ‘frontage zone’ or the area between the front of the store and the pedestrian area.

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PERFORMANCE

92. Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates. Seattle Department of Transportation. Seattle Transit Network Development Plan. Seattle, WA. City of Seattle. September, 2004. pp. 4/5-4/7

98. Ewing, Bartholomew, Winkelman, Walters, Chen: “Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change.

These pages discuss the appropriate densities and infrastructure

99. International Society of Arboriculture: Benefits of Trees. www.

B 14

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

treesaregood.org/treecare/tree_benefits.aspx benefits including property values of 5-20%. Some useful websites for trees and related:

109. Tennessee, University of, Agricultural Extension Service; Fare, Clatterbuck, “Evergreen Trees for Screens and Hedges in the Landscape”, SP517. Trees and landscaping as noise buffers

100. http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/energysavings.html kWh savings were derived from this source 101. http://www.epa.gov/hiri/strategies/level3_vegairquality.html 102. http://www.appanet.org/treeben/default.asp CO2 and kWh savings were derived from this source. 103. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/program/cufr 104. Sherford Town Code, Prince’s Foundation, B. Bolger, pp 37-49.

INTRODUCTION 110. IUPUI. Indiana Center for Urban Policy and the Environment impacts of the Monon Trail. 2003 (www.urbancenter.iupui. iupui.edu 111. IUPUI. Indiana Center for Urban Policy and the Environment impacts of the Pennsy Trail. 2006 (www.urbancenter.iupui. iupui.edu iJacobs, 112. Jacobs, Jane.. Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage Books. Div. of Random House.1961 113. NYC Streets Renaissance copenhagen.php)

(http://www.nycsr.org/lessons/

105. USDA: Midwest Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planning, PSW-GTR-199, November 2006 Discussion of the relative costs and benefits of trees in greenscape and green infrastructure.

LANDSCAPE 114. Boulder. Downtown Alliance. Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Boulder, CO. City of Boulder. 2002. pp. 39, 59-65, 67 & 68.

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE BUFFERS AND NOISE REDUCTION 106. Agroforestry: overstory60.html

http://www.agroforestry.net/overstory/

Trees and landscaping as noise buffers 107. Cowen, James: This Quiet House: Noise Control for the Home - Reducing the Intrusion of Outdoor Sources, NPC Special Report, Summer 2005 108. FHWA; http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/keepdown.htm, “Keeping the Noise Down: Highway Traffic Noise Barriers Highwy barriers as noise buffers

These sections of the design guidelines from Boulder, Co., cover streetscape topics. They cover furniture, railings, trash receptacles and bike racks found in the ‘pedestrian way’, ‘pedestrian activity zone’ and ‘separation zone’, from placement to design. There is a guide for recommended tree plantings and recommendations for ground level plants. 115. Austin. Texas Design Commission.. Downtown Austin Design Guidelines. Austin, TX. City of Austin. May 2000. pp. 34, 53-55, 62-65,70-72 These sections cover the ‘pedestrian way’, ‘pedestrian activity zone’ and ‘separation zone’ and discuss topics such as safety with lighting to plantings to furniture, railings, trash receptacles and bike racks. There is also a section that covers future care and maintenance of these areas and points out that this is often overlooked in municipalities.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

116. Portland. Office of Transportation. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide. City of Portland, OR. June 1998. pp. A14-A21.

122. Boulder. Downtown Alliance. Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Boulder, CO. City of Boulder. 2002. p 71.

These pages contain all the pertinent information when it comes to placing elements in the pedestrian right-of-way. Who is responsible for installing and maintaining, what can be placed in the area, where it should be placed, etc.

This section discusses the use of public art and what to consider when considering pieces.

117. Shaflik, Carl. Environmental Effects of Roadway Lighting. Vancouver, BC. International Dark Sky Association. August 1997. This paper discusses the different types of light pollution and points out that a large percentage of light pollution comes from road way lighting. This puts the problem on the backs of roadway engineers. Mr. Shaflik does offer some solutions through new light designs. 118. Toronto. Clean City Beautiful City Program. Street Furniture Elements. City of Toronto, ON. n.d. This document contains the accepted or preferred ‘street furniture’ list for the city. 119. Vaskovic, Joseph, & Matthew Zoll. “Real Intersection Design (RID), Leaving Theory behind for Design. Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professional. Tucson, AZ. November 2001. Mr. Vaskovic and Mr. Zoll lead a group of people through the exercise of redesigning an intersection in Tucson at the APBP conference. The group broke into smaller groups and redesigned the corridor with different groups in mind (i.e. transit riders, disabled & pedestrians). 120. http://www.arborday.org/trees/rightTreeAndPlace

PEDESTRIAN WAY PW 123. Austin. Texas Design Commission.. Downtown Austin Design Guidelines. Austin, TX. City of Austin. May 2000. pp. 46,47,50,52, 58, 59, 74, 76 & 77. The sections referenced, discuss ways in which to make the street a pleasant place to be. From building to the street to making areas for pedestrians to gather, these pages include the essentials to an active street life. 124. Boulder. Downtown Alliance. Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Boulder, CO. City of Boulder. 2002. pp 48, 67, & 70. These three sections focus on detailed information that is no less important than some of the large infrastructure issues. Designing for public safety, including handicap accessibility and preserve historic features. 125. Fitzpatrick, Kay, Shawn Turner, Marcus Brewer, Paul Carlson, Brooke Ullman, Nada Trout, Eun Sug Park, Jeff Whitacre, Nazir Lalani, and Dominique Lord. 2006. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562. Washington, DC. Guidelines for improving pedestrian safety at unsignalized and midblock crossings. 126. Fort Wayne. Fort Wayne, Downtown Design Guidelines. Fort Wayne, IN. N.p. 5 Jan 2004. pp. 13, 28 & 29.

Right tree, right place approach.

PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ZONE PAZ 121. Austin. Texas Design Commission.. Downtown Austin Design Guidelines. Austin, TX. City of Austin. May 2000. pp. 32,33,66,67&69. These pages discuss the various topics from the visual and spatial layout of public spaces to the type of art that should be recommended for the space. It also states how public spaces can have a negative effect on the pedestrian environment.

These sections cover public right of way improvements from fencing, signage and awnings in the ‘pedestrian way’ to streetscape issues like street furniture and the placement of street amenities. 127. Garrick, Norman W. “Shared Streets: Dutch Experiment with Streets with Social rather than Regulatory Controls” Roads & Bridges. Volume: 42, Number 9. (August 2005) This article discusses the use of ‘Shared Streets’, ‘Social Streets’

B 16

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

or ‘Legible Streets’ as they are sometimes called. These streets eliminate regulatory controls (i.e. signs, lights, etc) and let the users negotiate right of way. By slowing down automobiles to safe speeds (<20mph) pedestrians and cyclists are on equal footing and social negotiation with eye contact. 128. Indianapolis. Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization. Indianapolis Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian System Plan, Part 2, Facility Design Guidelines. Indianapolis, IN. n.d.

133. Sucher, David 2003. City Comforts How to Build an Urban Village. Seattle, WA. City Comforts Inc. p. 93. Referenced information regarding ‘user’ controlled traffic signals. 134. http://www.indyculturaltrail.info/ for information on Greenways and the Cultural Trail Overlay.

PROTOTYPES FROM OTHER CITIES

The system plan contains information on all aspects of bicycle infrastructure from design of on and off street facilities to signage and from bike parking to traffic calming methods.

135. Atlanta. Atlanta Regional Commission Quality Growth Toolkit: Mixed-Use Development. Atlanta, GA, n.d.

129. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2006 Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC.

The publication attempts to define ‘mixed use’ and outline the benefits and pitfalls involved with this type of development. Offers very good generic guidelines and types of commercial development that one would want to attract.

This report outlines the use of context sensitive solutions in the planning and design of arterial and collector thoroughfares in urban areas to improve transportation for all users (pedestrian & bicycling).

136. Austin, Traditional Neighborhood District, Criteria Manual. Austin, TX, Aug 1997.

130. McCann, Barbara. 2004. Complete Streets Report, Analysis of a survey of Complete Streets Laws, Policies, and Plans in the United States. Thunderhead Alliance. N.p. Dec 2004. pp 9, 27. This report is a comprehensive look at national complete streets policies. We primarily reviewed the information regarding funding mechanisms across the country and how the report addresses ‘Pedestrian Policies’. 131. Nozzi, Dom. “The Ingredients of a Walkable Street.” Walkable Streets. Ed. Dom Nozzi. 27 Feb. 2006 www.walkablestreets. com/walkingred.htm. This article outlines factors that make streets walkable, friendly and memorable. It looks at densities, human scaled dimensions, active & diverse retail, traffic calming, sidewalk widths and block lengths. 132. Portland. Office of Transportation. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide. City of Portland, OR. June 1998. pp. A1-A11. This section of the Portland Pedestrian Design Guide discusses in great detail how the pedestrian area should be designed and when and where the various designs should be implemented.

This manual was designed to give guidance to private sector planners, architects and builders wishing to develop within the cities Traditional Neighborhood Districts (TND). It offers basic design outlines of the public and private space, in order to enhance and maintain the character of certain neighborhoods in the City of Austin. 137. Boulder. Downtown Alliance. Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Boulder, CO. City of Boulder. 2002. 138. Columbus. Columbus Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. Transportation Plan 2005-2030. Columbus, IN. n.d. Discusses current and future transportation issues, which will effect the Columbus, IN region. Plan also covers automobile traffic mitigation procedures through various TDM programs and mode shifts. 139. Czar, James, Barry Gee, Stacey Recht, Nicolas Spencer. The Creative City. Ed. Stacey Recht. N.p. Cincinnati: 2003 This publication was created to guide Cincinnati, OH in looking at ways to reverse the decline of their population, especially their young educated citizens. This work describes was to nurture the young creative class and to foster the growth of a modern work force. 140. Indianapolis. Department of Metropolitan Development.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

Indianapolis Insight, The Comprehensive Plan for Marion County Indiana. Indianapolis, IN. Department of Metropolitan Development. Feb 2002. pp. vi, 10 & 60.

street trees on some city/urban roadways by designing to the 85th/90th percentile for speed. 146.

This guide is used by the City of Indianapolis to develop values and goals for future growth. These guidelines are evaluated every 7 to 10 years during the update of the Comprehensive Plan. 141. Seattle. Mayor’s Office. The Blue Ring, Connecting Places 100 Year Vision. Seattle WA, June 2002. A 100 year vision for public spaces in Center City Seattle. This publication was designed to coordinate and shape future public & private developments to ensure a quality public realm. 142. United States. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities. Washington, DC, ITE, March 1998. Comprehensive look at pedestrian information from accident rates and causes to design considerations of roadway and pedestrian facilities.

RAPID TRANSIT ZONE RTZ 143. Austin. Texas Design Commission.. Downtown Austin Design Guidelines. Austin, TX. City of Austin. May 2000. pp 48 & 49. These sections discuss the development ingress and egress and to ensure that they are designed to operate for future street patterns (i.e. the conversion of one way street to two way) and minimizing curb cuts. 144. Burden, Dan, et al. Healthy Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, The Streets of San Joaquin. N.p.: Walkable Communities, Inc. n.d. Publication defines, with detail, street types and neighborhood layouts. 145. Dumbaugh, Eric. “Safe Streets, Livable Streets.” Journal of the American Planning Association. 71.3 (Summer 2005): pp. 283-300. This article discusses the conundrum between safe streets for drivers and livable streets for residents/pedestrians. He takes on the issue that traffic engineers without good data to prove otherwise, depend on the highway theory of fixed object hazards and therefore attempt to dissuade the use of

B 18

Appendix Page

Oregon. Public Policy Dispute Resolution Program & Transportation & Growth Management Program. Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, An Oregon Guide for Reducing Street Widths. Salem, Oregon. State of Oregon. June 2001. It recommends a process for the development of safe street standards and discusses some of the issues that raise concerns with emergency service providers in regards to narrow streets.

147. Swope, Christopher. “L.A. Banks on Buses.” Planning. 81, 5, May 2006. pp 32-36. This article describes the benefits to using Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) over different mass transit modes in particular geographic areas. The article gives examples in LA, Hartford and gives numbers from various other cities. 148. United States. Transportation Research Board. Transit-Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic Management Strategies to Support Livable Communities. Washington, DC. National Academy Press. 1998. Report 33. pp. 5-10. These writings cover ‘Transit-Friendly Streets’ and how to accomplish them successfully. Traffic calming is discussed in detail also transit malls and transit-preferential streets with details on implementing all of these techniques correctly. It sites several examples from various cities and what they did correctly and why some projects failed. 149. Washington. Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. Modal Code Provisions, Urban Streets & Subdivisions. Olympia, Washington, State of Washington, Oct, 1998. This document provides communities with the tools to help recreate their neighborhoods by redesigning their streets. There is information on right-of- way widths, street types, traffic calming, etc…

PARATION ZONE SZ 150. ANSI, American National Standards Institute A300 Pruning Standards 151. Austin. Texas Design Commission.. Downtown Austin Design Guidelines. Austin, TX. City of Austin. May 2000. pp 34, 53-55, 62-65, 68, 70-72.

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

These pages discuss the varied but important aspects of the ‘separation zone’. The topics range from plantings to lighting and everything in between.

158. American Association of Nurserymen, “American Standard for Nursery Stock”. Root balls and sizing.

152. Boulder. Downtown Alliance. Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Boulder, CO. City of Boulder. 2002. pp 39, 59-68. These sections go into great detail regarding the ‘separation zone’. There is quite a bit of information regarding plantings with a recommended tree plantings section and how to promote good growth and continued health of the plantings. There is also a section regarding ‘furnishings’ (seating, railings,& trash receptacles). 153. Portland. Office of Transportation. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide. City of Portland, OR. June 1998. pp. A6-A8 & A14-A21. These sections cover curb usage, furnishing zone, grates and hatch covers. A14 through A21 contain tables for ‘Elements in the Right-of-Way’ 154. Toronto. Clean City Beautiful City Program. Street Furniture Elements. City of Toronto, ON. n.d. p 5. This document contains the accepted or preferred ‘street furniture’ list for the city. 155. Shaflik, Carl. Environmental Effects of Roadway Lighting. Vancouver, BC. International Dark Sky Association. August 1997. This paper discusses the different types of light pollution and points out that a large percentage of light pollution comes from road way lighting. This puts the problem on the backs of road way engineers. Mr. Shaflik does offer some solutions through new light designs. 156. Indianapolis. Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization. Metropolitan Planning Area Design Guidelines. Indianapolis, IN. n.d. pp SZ1-SZ4. The ‘separation zone’ section provides ‘best practices’ guidelines to create a safe, comfortable and successful pedestrian environment. 157. http://www.arborday.org/trees/rightTreeAndPlace Right tree, right place approach.

159. MUTCD, Indiana Manual for Traffic Control Devices Lateral offsets of objects in the separation zone are defined by MUTCD guidelines and not these design guidelines.

STREET PARKING ZONE SPZ 160. Annapolis. Governor’s Office of Smart Growth. Driving Urban Environments: Smart Growth Parking Best Practices. Annapolis, MD. Maryland State Government. This publication covers what are seen at the ‘best practices’ for dealing with parking issues in urbanized areas. These strategies vary from ‘shared parking’ to parking maximums, land use changes (i.e. TODS, smart growth) and increasing transit options. 161. Austin. Texas Design Commission.. Downtown Austin Design Guidelines. Austin, TX. City of Austin. May 2000. pp 56, 78-79. This section discusses the use of parking and the transition to a pedestrian oriented downtown. Parking must be taken into consideration, especially during the beginning of this design shift. It is important to remember that parking is both expensive to build and takes away from usable land for other purposes. This section also discusses the need for pedestrian to feel protected from automobile traffic and how that can be accomplished by curb parking, planters or bollards between the walk and the road. 162. Boulder. Downtown Alliance. Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Boulder, CO. City of Boulder. 2002. pp. 45-47. This section discusses ways in which to limit the detrimental effect of parking on an area through the use of facades, lot placement and landscaping. 163. Nelson/Nygaard Memo, February 1, 2005

SYSTEM PLAN CITY SURVEY 164. ACS: American Community Survey

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

Raw data for mode splits for 2005 165. US Census 1990, 2000

177. Planning and Urban Design Standards – American Planning Association, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 259-86. AND Bikeable Planet, “Cycling Solution”, pp. 255-256. Used heavily mode capacities and design considerations

Raw data for mode splits 166. Austin, TX: Austin Texas Design Commission.. Downtown Austin Design Guidelines. Austin, TX. City of Austin. May 2000. pp 48 & 49. 167. Boulder, CO: Modal Shift in the Boulder Valley - 1990-2003 Publication defines, with detail, street types and neighborhood layouts. 168. Chicago, IL: US Census 1990, 2000, ACS 2005 169. Columbus, OH: US Census 1990, 2000, ACS 2005 170. Davis, CA: US Census 1990, 2000, ACS 2005, 2006 SACOG, Metropolitan Transportation Plan. 171. Madison, WI: Regional Transportation Plan, US Census 1990, 2000, ACS 2005. 172. Minneapolis, MN: US Census 1990, 2000, ACS 2005.

178. Barnett, Jonathon: Redesigning Cities, Principles, Practice, Implementation, Planners Press, 2003, particularly Chs. 1-3 179. Boulder. Downtown Alliance. Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Boulder, CO. City of Boulder. 2002. pp. 32, 42, 43, 58, 69 & 70. These various pages describe ways to improve alley ways from simply places to put refuge to alternative walking areas, to main street access points to areas that can be visually pleasing and not areas to avoid whenever possible. 180. Calthorpe, Fulton: The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl, Island Press, 2001. Provides information about the distribution of districts and node and their patterns, walkable access. 181. “The Urban Network: A New Framework for Growth”, Peter Calthorpe, for spacing and transit boulevard 182. h t t p: // w w w.t r a n s a c t .o r g/ P D F s/20 07- 0 9 -2 5 - R u e . p d f Charlottesville VA

173. Portland, OR: US Census 1990, 2000, ACS 2005. Policy Document, Models Discussion 174. St. Louis, MO: US Census 1990, 2000. 183. Complete Streets, www.completestreets.org

SYSTEM PLAN CONCEPTS 175. 29Sep07MORPCPedPlanPres03v.pdf These various articles discuss limiting closing down streets, alleys or walkways between buildings. Increases pedestrian traffic and limits the ‘alley’ as an unpleasant place to travel, park or view. 176. Anderson, Larz: Planning and the Built Environment, Planners Press, 2000. particularly Ch8-10,12. Transport Engineering Data, adapted graphics.

B 20

Appendix Page

184. “Portland’s Green Dividend”, White Paper from CEO’s for Cities, Cortright, Joe, jcortright@impresaconsulting.com, July 2007 185. “LUCI Model Aids Planning for Transportation and Other Infrastructure”, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment 186. Farr, Douglas: Sustainable Urbanism, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008. Concepts of defining center and edge of districts, sustainable neighborhoods and corridors and high performance infrastructure

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

187. Florida ArtPlan www. dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/ Multi-modal level of service metrics.

196. Liveable Neighbourhoods: Street Layout, Design and Traffic Management Guidelines (Ed. 3), Western Australian Planning Commission, June 2006, in particular elements 1, 2, and 7

188. Hamilton-Baillie, Jones: Proceedings of ICE 158 May 2005 pp. 39-47, Improving traffic behaviour and safety through urban design.

Elegant and efficient transportation guidelines managed by street hierarchy, design and streetscape. Particularly effective in using street layout to delineate distinctive behaviors in different land use districts.

Particularly the simplification of streets to enforce traffic behavior rather than relying on signage (which is shown to be ineffective).

197. Manual For Streets, London: Thomas Telford (2007); www.dft. gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/

189. Highway Guidance for Estate Roads, Dorset County Council, Winter 2002 190. Trip Generation Handbook, RP-028, Kevin Hooper, editor, July 1998, ITE, Appendix B, pp. 117-120. 191. Hudnut, William: Halfway to Everywhere: A Portrait of America’s First Tier Suburbs Issues pertaining to salvageable suburbs 192. Idaho DOT materials; www.dot.state.id.us flow-speed curve and related discussion of proper modeling of traffic behavior. 193. ITE: Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban thoroughfares for Walkable Communities, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2006, 225 pp. www.ite.org/css Used extensively cover to cover. 194. 2002 Official Thoroughfare Plan for Marion County, IN, Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development. Thoroughfare data for the Regional Center 195. Jones, Boujenko, Marshall; Link and Place: A Guide to Street Planning and Design, Landor Publishing, 245pp http://www. transact.org/PDFs/2007-09-25-Marshall.pdf AND Marshall: Streets and Patterns, London and New York; Spon. Press (2005) Ch. 3 and 8. Models and PowerPoint presentation on links and place which correspond to districts in corridors in current document

England’s equivalent of the Liveable Neighbourhoods and ITE works. Focused on residential streetscapes. 198. McShane, Roess, Prassas, Traffic Engineering, 2nd Ed., Prentic Hall, Inc., 1990, 714 pp. Principal technical document for traffic engineering calculations and definitions. 199. Minneapolis 20-30 Plan BikePed. 200. PLANYC, A Greener, Greater New York, Transportation Plan 2007, www.nyc.gov/html/plan/transportation.shtml AND Design Trust for Public Space’s High Performance Infrastructure Guidelines (NYC focused): www.designtrust.org/publications/ publication_03hpig.html 201. Portland Transportation System Plan, Chapter 5. Modal Plans and Management Plans. 202. Potts, Harwood and Richard, “Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban and Suburban Arterials”, TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM, 203. Schlossberg, “How Far, By Which Route, and Why? A Spatial Analysis of Pedestrian Preference”, Mineta Transportation Institute, June 2007, http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/ research/publications.html 204. Sherford Town Code, Prince’s Foundation, B. Bolger,submitted to South Hams District Council and Plymouth City Council, October 2007, 174 pp. Important work on street hierarchies and the relationship of land use and intensity to the network. Code also prescribes architecture guidelines and green infrastructure.

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

205. Shoup, Donald: High Cost of Free Parking, Planners Press, 2005 particularly Ch. 6 Parking as an instrumental part of planning a multi-modal and dense network and the costs associated with not doing so. 206. TRB, Transportation Research Board: Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual, 1985. Flow Speed Diagram. 207. The Urban Place Supplement, http://www.the-edi.co.uk/ downloads/UPS/UPS_2007_final.pdf

VEHICLE TRAVEL ZONE VTZ 208. Burden, Dan, et al. Healthy Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, The Streets of San Joaquin. N.p.: Walkable Communities, Inc. n.d. Publication defines, with detail, street types and neighborhood layouts. 209. Cervero,, Robert et al. Economic impact analysis of transit investments: guidebook for practitioners, Published by Transportation Research Board, 1998, 9-2. 210. Transit Center Study Routes by URS and Special Circulator Routes provided by IndyGo, June 2007.

B 22

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES COMMUNICATIONS

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 24

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 26

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 28

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 30

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 32

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 34

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 36

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 38

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 40

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 42

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 44

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 46

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 48

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 50

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 52

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES BEST PRACTICES

B 54

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 56

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 58

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 60

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 62

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 64

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 66

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

Sharrow

Above: Sharrow Corridor Illustration

In some cases where there is insufficient roadway cross-sectional area for bicycle lanes, or where travel or parking lane reduction to gain that space is impractical, a “sharrow” can be utilized (the term sharrow is derived from a special pavement marking of a bicycle and a double chevron arrow, or “share-arrow”). Design criteria developed in several experimental applications (Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City) have promoted the inclusion of the sharrow typology in national bicycle facility standards. Marked and signed lanes inform the motorist of the presence of lane-sharing bicycles, and encourage cyclists to ride in the center of the lane rather than in the insufficient space between curb or parked cars and motor vehicles. Vehicle speeds should not exceed 25 mph in a shared lane, a constraint that can be reinforced by traffic calming interventions. Sharrows are generally implemented concurrent with development of bicycle lane networks. As with bicycle lanes, this component requires bicyclist skill and judgment levels commensurate with those of motorists. Shared Lanes or Wide-Curb Lanes

Above: Sharrow Design

The conventional “shared lane” or “wide curb lane” is typically implemented as a normal vehicle lane that has added signage like a “share the road” sign; where bicyclists are forced to ride along-side vehicles. This typology is not recommended as a substitute for properly designed bicycle lanes or sharrows, since they offer no guidance to motorists, and often encourage higher vehicle speeds. A potential appropriate use for this typology is as a temporary or transitional tool to link bicycle users between established bike routes. It is recommended that the city transition all current “share lanes” to properly designed bike lanes or sharrows.

13’ min. Above: Shared Lane (Wide-Curb Lane) Design MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

Page Intentionally Left Blank

B 68

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES CROSS SECTIONS

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 70

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 72

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 74

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES INTERSECTIONS

B 76

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 78

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 80

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 82

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 84

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 86

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

B 88

Appendix Page

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM PLAN INDIANAPOLIS REGIONAL CENTER COMPONENT

Appendix

Page

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL APPENDICES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS Department of Metropolitan Development Maury Plambeck, Director Michael Peoni, Administrator, Division of Planning Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization Michael Dearing, Master Planner Philip Roth, Assistant Manager Steve Cunningham, Principal Planner Anna Tyszkiewicz, Senior Planner Catherine Griffith, Planner Tom Beck, Principal Planner MMSP REGIONAL CENTER SUBCOMMITTEE Warner Anderson - City of Indianapolis, DPW Margaret Banning - City of Indianapolis, DMD Don Colvin - Indy Parks David DiMarzio - City of Indianapolis, DMD Keith Holdsworth - City of Indianapolis, DMD Larry Jones - City of Indianapolis, DPW Fred Laughlin - Indianapolis Downtown Inc Andy Lutz - City of Indianapolis, DPW Lori Miser - City of Indianapolis, DPW Michelle Purvis - Indianapolis Historic Preservation Committee Carlton Ray - City of Indianapolis, DPW Harold Rominger - City of Indianapolis, DMD Nathan Sheets - City of Indianapolis, DPW Karina Staub - Indy Parks Greenways Mike Terry - IndyGo Tammara Tracy - City of Indianapolis, DMD Bob Wilch - City of Indianapolis, DMD CONSULTANT Storrow Kinsella Associates Inc Indianapolis, Indiana PB Americas, Inc. Indianapolis, Indiana All graphics, photographs, and illustrations are by Storrow Kinsella Associates Inc unless otherwise noted.

B 90

Appendix Page

MMSP REGIONAL CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE Kim Anderson - Shelby County Highway John Ayers - Hendricks County Engineering Greg Beilfuss - IDNR Amy Butcher - Shelby County Plan Commission Brent Callahan - Mooresville Parks & Recreation Ron Carter - Exec. Dir, Greenways Foundation Don Colvin - City of Indianapolis, Parks and Recreation Joe Copeland - Hancock County Highway Mike Dale - Hancock County Plan Commission Marsh Davis - Historic Landmarks of Indiana John Davis - IDNR David DiMarzio - City of Indianapolis, DMD Chuck Fearnow - Indiana Bicycle Coalition Ken Hale - Morgan County Planning Keith Holdsworth - City of Indianapolis, DMD Mike Hollibaugh - Carmel Dept. of Community Services Michael Holowaty - INDOT Ray Irvin - INDOT Director of Greenways & Bikeways Adrienne Keeling - Carmel Dept of Community Services Tom Kouns - Boone County Highway Fred Laughlin - Indianapolis Downtown Inc Andy Lutz - City of Indianapolis, DPW Mike McBride - Carmel Engineering Lori Miser - City of Indianapolis, DPW Steve Morris - IDNR Joyce Newland - FHWA Bill Peeples - Johnson County Planning Mike Pelham - Johnson County Highway Dept Carlton Ray - City of Indianapolis, DPW Don Reitz - Hendricks County Planning Harold Rominger - City of Indianapolis, DMD Shawn Seals - IDEM Nathan Sheets - City of Indianapolis, DPW Larry Smith - Morgan County Highway Karina Staub - City of Indianapolis, Parks and Recreation Mike Terry - IndyGo Randy Walter - INDOT Rachel Whittington - Boone County Plan Commission Bob Wilch - City of Indianapolis, DMD

Planning a Multi-Modal Region

www.indympo.org

Contents of this Document were prepared for the Indianapolis MPO by and are the intellectual property of Storrow Kinsella Associates Inc, in association with PB Americas, Inc. and may be reproduced only with permission.