metropolitan transportation plan · a metropolitan transportation plan (mtp) is a requirement under...

2045MetropolitanTransportationPlan

Anderson, Indiana Metropolitan Planning AreaFINAL

2017-2045

Adoption Resolution

2 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan

32045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan

Prepared by:

AcknowledgementsPolicy Board

Scott Bailey, INDOT Greenfield DistrictTom Broderick, Anderson MayorDan Dykes, Citizen (non-voting)David Eicks, Anderson Board of Public WorksGreg Graham, Anderson City CouncilTodd Jones, Elwood MayorChuck Kane, Elwood City CouncilBrad Newman, Madison County Planning CommissionMichael Phipps, Madison County CommissionerRon Richardson, Alexandria MayorTom Shepherd, Madison County SurveyorJessica Smith, Pendleton Town CouncilTim Stires, Anderson Planning DepartmentSteve Sumner, Madison County CouncilBill Walters, Daleville Town Council

Technical Advisory Committee

Scott Bailey, INDOT Greenfield DistrictKim Bowdell, INDOT LPA ProgramJerry Bridges, MCCOGLindsay Brown, MC Urban LeagueJason Casteel, INDOT Transit PlannerRobert Dirks, FHWAMerle Jones, City of Anderson Transit SystemChuck Leser, Anderson City EngineerTim McClintick, Pendleton Town ManagerEmmanuel Nsonwu, INDOT Central OfficeJoe Renner, Fortville Town ManagerKyle Schrink, ECI Solid Waste DistrictTom Shepherd, Madison County SurveyorTim Stires, Anderson Planning DepartmentRob Sparks, Anderson Corporation for Economic DevelopmentGreg Winkler, Anderson Economic Development

Steering Committee Members

Chuck Baden, Spoke & Wheel ClubTom Bannon, Community Hospital AndersonTammy Bennett, Anderson Road RunnersShane Bivens, Vesuvius CoworkingJohn Bostic, Anderson TownshipTammy Bowman, South Madison Community FoundationWarren Brown, Alexandria Economic DevelopmentMichael Cates, Lapel Town CouncilJennifer Culp, Anderson City CouncilKaren Finnigan, Madison County Health DepartmentKristen Fitzgerald, Purdue ExtensionPete Fritz, ISDH Division of Nutrition and Physical ActivityJack Harter, Anderson Corporation of Economic DevelopmentCherilyn Horning, Dove Harbor / Community Services CouncilFrederick Malone, Madison County Community Health CenterMike Montgomery, krM+ ArchitectureStephanie Moran, Anderson UniversityBen Orcutt, Buckskin BikesLevi Rinker, A Town CenterMike Schroyer, St. Vincent Anderson Regional HospitalRob Spaulding, Christian CenterBeth Tharp, Community Hospital AndersonSteve Thompson, MIBOR Madison County DivisionNancy Vaughan, United WayEli Whitesel, Community Hospital Anderson

MCCOG Staff

Jerrold Bridges, AICP - Executive DirectorRobert Wertman, AICP, PTP - Principal Transportation PlannerRyan Phelps, AICP, PTP - Senior Transportation PlannerDavid Benefiel, AICP - Principal Transportation PlannerBrandon Kendera - Senior Transportation Planner


Acronyms

ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act

BMP – Best Management Practices

CAMPO – Columbus Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

CATS – City of Anderson Transportation System

CMAQ – Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality

DMMPC – Delaware-Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission

FAST Act – Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act

FHWA – Federal Highway Administration

FTA – Federal Transit Administration

HSIP – Highway Safety Improvement Program

ICG – Interagency Consultation Group

IMPO – Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization

INDOT – Indiana Department of Transportation

ITS – Intelligent Transportation Systems

MAP-21 – Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

MCCOG – Madison County Council of Governments

MPA – Metropolitan Planning Area

MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization

MTP – Metropolitan Transportation Plan

NAAQS – National Ambient Air Quality Standards

SIP – State Implementation Plan

SLRTP – State Long Range Transportation Plan

TAZ – Traffic Analysis Zones

TAC – Technical Advisory Committee

TIP – Transportation Improvement Program

USDOT – United States Department of Transportation

VMT – Vehicle Miles Traveled


Chapter 1 - Introduction ........................................................ 10What is an MTP? ........................................................................................................... 12Related Plans & Programs .......................................................................................... 12About MCCOG............................................................................................................... 13Federal Requirements ................................................................................................. 15MTP Update Procedure ............................................................................................... 16

Chapter 2 - 2045 MTP Update ..............................................18Study Area ......................................................................................................................20The Planning Process ..................................................................................................20Studies & Support Documentation ..........................................................................22

Chapter 3 - Transportation Policy ......................................32Primary Goal ..................................................................................................................34Secondary Goals ..........................................................................................................34

Chapter 4 - Public Participation .........................................40Engagement Effectiveness .........................................................................................42Surveys ...........................................................................................................................42Public Input & Community Participation ................................................................42Mechanisms for Input ..................................................................................................44Planning Issues .............................................................................................................49

Chapter 5 - Regional Trends & Future Demand ............52Regional Travel Demand ............................................................................................ 60Population Growth .......................................................................................................64Employment Growth ....................................................................................................67Land Use .........................................................................................................................70Travel Patterns ..............................................................................................................72Transportation System Performance ....................................................................... 74

Chapter 6 - Financial Analysis & Projects .......................86Financial Analysis.........................................................................................................88Fiscally-Constrained Projects ................................................................................... 91Illustrative Projects ....................................................................................................104

Appendix ..................................................................................109A: 2045 MTP Public Meeting - Summary ...............................................................110B: US 36 Added Travel Lanes Public Meeting - Summary ..................................115C: Document Updates from INDOT Guidance ...................................................... 126


FiguresFigure 1.1 Organization Flow Chart ........................................................................... 14Figure 4.1 HIM Transportation Issue Priorities .......................................................42Figure 5.1 Percent of Total Population by Segment ...............................................65Figure 5.2 Population Growth Rates by Segment & Forecast Year ...................66Figure 5.3 Employment Growth by Industry - 2001 to 2015 .................................69Figure 5.4 Employment Growth Rates by Segment & Forecast Year ................69Figure 5.5 Regional Household Type Comparison ................................................ 71Figure 5.6 Annual VMT per Capita Comparison .................................................... 71Figure 5.7 Segment Population & VMT ....................................................................72Figure 5.8 Fatality Rate per 100 million VMT Comparison ..................................76Figure 6.1 Project Selection Criteria .........................................................................92

TablesTable 5.1 Household Trip Rates by Household Size ...............................................64Table 5.2 Person Trip Rates by Employment Status..............................................64Table 5.3 Safety Target Performance Measures ....................................................75Table 5.4 Rolling Average Crash Fatalities ..............................................................75Table 5.5 Rolling Average Serious Injury Crashes .................................................76Table 5.6 Rolling Average Non-Motorized Crashes ...............................................78Table 5.7 Pavement Condition Target Performance Measures ...........................78Table 5.8 NHS Travel Time Reliability Target Performance Measures ..............78Table 5.9 Interstate Freight Reliability Target Performance Measures ............78Table 5.10 On-Road Mobile Source Emission Target Performance Measures .79Table 5.11 Bridge Condition Target Performance Measures ............................... 80Table 6.1 Estimated Local Highway Revenues - 2017 ............................................89Table 6.2 Forecast Local Highway Revenues .........................................................89Table 6.3 Forecast Local Transit Revenues ............................................................89Table 6.4 Estimated Federal Funds - Non-Transit .................................................90Table 6.5 Estimated Federal Funds - Transit ..........................................................90Table 6.6 2045 MTP - Fiscal Constraint ................................................................... 91Table 6.7 Fiscally-Constrained Project List ............................................................98Table 6.8 Estimated Costs, Phasing, & Open Years ............................................100Table 6.9 Illustrative Project List .............................................................................104

MapsMap 2.1 Central Indiana MPOs ...................................................................................20Map 2.2 Anderson Urbanized Area & MPA ............................................................. 21 Map 5.1 Roadway Functional Classification ............................................................54Map 5.2 Walk & Bike Facilities ...................................................................................55Map 5.3 Rail & Air Facilities .......................................................................................56Map 5.4 Transit Systems .............................................................................................57Map 5.5 ITS Infrastructure Locations .......................................................................58


Map 5.6 Prometheus Coverage ................................................................................ 60Map 5.7 Prometheus Walkability ............................................................................... 61Map 5.8 Prometheus Area Type ................................................................................63Map 5.9 MPA Subregions by TAD ..............................................................................65Map 5.10 Population Change 2015 to 2045 ..............................................................66Map 5.11 Employment Change 2015 to 2045 ...........................................................70Map 5.12 Commuters to Madison County - CTPP 2006-2010 ..............................72Map 5.13 Commuters from Madison County - CTPP 2006-2010 .........................73Map 5.14 Crash Density ............................................................................................... 77Map 5.15 Bridges by Sufficiency Rating .................................................................. 80Map 5.16 Base Year .......................................................................................................82Map 5.17 Base Year - MPA ...........................................................................................83Map 5.18 No-Build Scenario .......................................................................................84Map 5.19 No-Build Scenario - MPA ...........................................................................85Map 6.1 Historic Resources ........................................................................................94Map 6.2 Poverty & Project List Overlay ...................................................................95Map 6.3 Minority & Project List Overlay ..................................................................96Map 6.4 Fiscally Constrained Projects ...................................................................101Map 6.5 No-Build Scenario - MPA ........................................................................... 102Map 6.6 Build Scenario - MPA ................................................................................. 103Map 6.7 Illustrative Projects .....................................................................................106



Chapter 1

Introduction

The Urbanized Area for the Madison County Council of Governments (MCCOG), which was updated using the 2010 Census and formalized in 2012, includes the Cities of Anderson and Alexandria; the Towns of Chesterfield, Edgewood, Pendleton, Ingalls, Daleville, and Fortville; and sections of Vernon Township in Hancock County and Salem Township in Delaware County. The MPA encompasses the urbanized area and all remaining portions of Madison County including the City of Elwood and Towns of Frankton, Lapel, Markleville, and Summitville. The Anderson MPA combines a rich history with rapid growth from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area.

There are three (3) distinct subregions within the Anderson MPA:

1. North – This subregion is primarily a rural, agrarian culture with Alexandria in the east and Elwood to the west. Across Indiana, rural areas are seeing a loss in population as residents migrate to more urban areas.

2. Central-East – This subregion includes Anderson, Edgewood, Markleville, and the Chesterfield-Daleville Area to the east. The subregion is a revitalizing community after massive automobile industry investment left.

3. Southwest – This subregion includes Fortville, Ingalls, Lapel, and Pendleton. It has seen rapid growth as the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area continues to sprawl outwards.

There are approximately 139,509 residents living in the Anderson MPA. Residents rely on transportation to access education, health care, and jobs, while city services and employment industries rely on a functioning and efficient system to keep the regional economy moving. There are new challenges and opportunities, including critical expansion and transportation network updates to keep pace with changing regional demands.


471 mi2Total Metropolitan Area

138 mi2Total Urban Area

139,509Total Population

Pendleton, Indiana


What is an MTP?

Formerly known as the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Metropolitan Transportation Plan establishes a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive framework for making transportation investment decision in metropolitan areas. The result of this process requires a planning document to be developed with at least a 20-year planning horizon from the date of adoption by the MPO Policy Board. A Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is a requirement under federal transportation law (Title 23 U.S. Code) and must be a comprehensive, performance based, multi-modal, and coordinated regional plan.

The MTP covers all major modes of transportation from a regional perspective, including roadways, public transportation, airports, walking and biking, and freight. Key transportation related activities are addressed, such as system management, safety, security and environmental impact.

The MTP is prepared and updated by MCCOG staff and presented for adoption to the MPO Policy Board for approval. The MTP is developed through a cooperative effort among government, business, and interest groups, and includes a coordinated community outreach and public involvement program.

Related Plans & Programs

State Long Range Transportation Plan

The State Long Range Transportation Plan (SLRTP) is a broad-based policy document developed by INDOT that is used to guide the development of Indiana’s transportation system. The plan identifies existing and emerging transportation challenges; defines what is needed over the 20-year planning horizon; establishes funding priorities for needed improvements; and maps a course for meeting Indiana’s transportation vision. It is important to note that the SLRTP is not project specific,

but instead it identifies investment priorities based on current and projected funding and transportation needs over a period of 20-years.

State Transportation Improvement Program

The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) identifies the funding and scheduling of transportation projects and programs over the course of four (4) state fiscal years (July 1 through June 30). The STIP is prepared in cooperation with all 14 MPOs in Indiana, as it includes each MPO TIP Project List in its entirety. The STIP also includes projects awarded directly through INDOT Calls for Projects for eligible, functionally-classified local roads to local government entities (i.e. Local Public Agencies or LPAs) throughout Indiana that are not located within MPO Urbanized Areas.

MPO Transportation Improvement Program

The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a document that defines a four-year, multi-stage program of transportation improvements including transit, multimodal, bicycle & pedestrian, air quality, and roadway projects. The TIP includes all capital and non-capital surface transportation projects within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) proposed for funding.

The document is a coordinated effort of MCCOG, and the communities located within the MPA to program transportation related improvements in a comprehensive and systematic framework that meets all federal and state guidelines. The TIP must be updated at least every four (4) years and must be approved by each MPO Policy Board, FHWA, FTA, INDOT, and the Governor. The TIP expires when the FHWA and FTA approval of the STIP expires.


LPA Plans

Local Public Agencies (LPAs) have their own plans to guide future growth. LPAs maintain their own planning programs and procedures and produce plans that meet each communities’ defined goals and objectives. These plans may include Comprehensive Plans, Park & Recreation Master Plans, Strategic Economic Development Plans, Downtown Revitalization Plans, Capital Improvement Plans, and Thoroughfare Plans. 2045 MTP aligns the efforts of the LPAs within the MPA to ensure regional mobility, local accessibility, and the promotion of local community objectives.

Anderson/Madison County 2035 Transportation Plan

The previous MTP, the Anderson/Madison County 2035 Transportation Plan, was undertaken to establish a new framework to guide transportation-based decision-making for the MPO. The policies contained in this document are intended to promote public safety, mobility, and accessibility, as well as the efficiency of the transportation system during all stages of growth and development. Ultimately, the Plan outlines the needs of the community, sets policies that address planning issues, and recommends appropriate actions to achieve the desired result.

About MCCOG

MCCOG is a cooperative entity founded in May 1969 that functions as both a Council of Governments (COG) and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Anderson, Indiana urbanized area, as recognized by US Department of Transportation (USDOT). The purpose of MCCOG is to foster cooperation, increase coordination, and sustain continuous communication among residents and private, public, and non-profit organizations across and around the region.

The US Department of Transportation (USDOT),

including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), receives funding through the Federal Highway Trust Fund and distributes it to State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and MPOs. As a recipient of these federal funds, it is mandatory for MPOs to produce an annual Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), four-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and 20-year Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) with consideration of all modes of transport in order to facilitate ease of movement of goods and people. MCCOG strives to develop a comprehensive and integrated transportation system through a balance of plans, programs, and policies.

Mission

The mission of MCCOG as a metropolitan planning organization is to support a multi-modal, regional transportation system that ensures safety, preserves the natural environment, and enhances the movement of people and goods to create livable communities.

Organization

MCCOG functions as a planning agency serving the communities represented within the metropolitan planning area (MPA) while also funding transportation projects that impact the region within the urbanized area. MCCOG works closely with the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) for all communities within the MPA even though they may not be located within the urbanized area and/or receive MPO funding awards directly. Due to this structure, it is vital that MCCOG and INDOT maintain a strong partnership to move the region forward.

MCCOG operates under the direction of the Policy Committee and guidance of two (2) advisory committees, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). Generally, each committee


maintains some representation on various steering committees for both regional and localized planning as part of their participation responsibilities.

Policy Committee

MCCOG is governed by the Policy Committee and composed of the principal elected officials and chairpersons of each governmental jurisdiction who maintains official membership with the organization. Voting members pay annual membership dues, but community and organizational membership is encouraged through several non-voting members. One example of a non-voting member is FHWA, which maintains a non-voting seat on the committee to provide opportunities to share updated information from the Federal Government and create a direct link for committee members and MPO staff to address funding issues. Additionally, the local urban transit provider, the City of Anderson Transit Service (CATS), maintains one voting membership seat as required by Federal Law.

Technical Advisory Committee

The primary purpose of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is to provide valuable

assessments of MPO plans and programs and to provide useful insight and expertise for the MPO’s decision-making process. The TAC is comprised of engineers and planners, as well as local and regional technical organizations, which represent the member governmental units. The TAC provides recommendations to the Policy Board based upon information and data collected, technical sufficiency, research, and the completeness of various studies and planning endeavors. INDOT, as the State partner, also maintains a seat on the TAC to encourage communication and provide technical expertise.

Citizen Advisory Committee

A Citizen Advisory Committee or CAC is utilized as the foundation of the public involvement process for many MPO activities. It is a volunteer group that mainly consists of representatives from community organizations, as well as public and private agencies. The committee assists in gathering public input for public involvement processes and informs the planning process by keeping MPO staff appraised of current issues, future community plans and projects, and additional partnership opportunities throughout the MPA.

MPO Council

In addition to MCCOG, there are 13 other MPOs within the State of Indiana. The Executive Directors and/or their designees of all 14 MPOs meet regularly to form the Indiana MPO Council. This council addresses Federal and State legislative, policy, and procedural matters, as well as other issues and concerns common among their organizations. While each organization is formed differently with a variety of roles and responsibilities, the council attempts to operate together uniformly by sharing advice, guidance, and information regarding policies, programs, and procedures to improve the 14 MPOs collectively. The MPO Council also focuses a significant amount of effort to improve coordination between INDOT

Figure 1.1 Organization Flow Chart


and the MPOs to generate solutions for both community and transportation planning issues.

Federal Requirements FAST Act

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) serves as the current U.S. transportation policy and authorizes the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), formerly the Surface Transportation Program (STP), for highways, highway safety, transit, and rail programs for a period of five (5) federal fiscal years (FFY 2016 through FFY 2020). The FAST Act represents the first long-term, comprehensive surface transportation legislation since the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Act (SAFETEA-LU) was adopted in 2005. This Federal Legislation continues and provides further clarification of the content included in the last Federal Transportation Act adopted on July 6, 2012: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).

Clean Air Act

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes health-based standards, referred to as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for six (6) criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOx), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The Clean Air Act, adopted in 1963 and amended several times, including significant amendments in 1990, requires MPOs to demonstrate, through a process referred to as “Transportation Conformity”. This process

ensures that transportation projects included in the MTP and TIP do not degrade the region’s air quality or impede its progress toward meeting the NAAQS.

Nonattainment & Maintenance Area Requirements

The Federal Code of Regulations [23 CFR 450.324(c)] mandates that the MTP must be updated at least every four (4) years when the MPO is in a Nonattainment or Maintenance Area to confirm the MTP’s validity. Any update or amendment to the MTP must therefore be accompanied by an Air Quality Conformity Determination Report. This report demonstrates that the total emissions projected for the MTP are within the “On-Road” Mobile Source Emission Limits or “budgets” as established by the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to protect public health. For project-level conformity, the determination shows that the project is consistent with the regional conformity determination and that potential localized emissions impacts on health-based pollutant standards are addressed.

Recent Developments

On February 16, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision on the case, South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, which involved a challenge to EPA’s final rule for implementing the NAAQS issued in 2008 for Ozone. The 1997 standard that was revoked through amendment in 2008, required nonattainment and maintenance areas to track air quality impacts over a 20-year period; meaning that areas required to track impacts for 20-years, but re-designated as attainment areas in 2008 no longer needed to complete the 20-year tracking. The court case challenged the legality of revoking this tracking period and the resulting decision defined areas that were re-designated in 2008 as “orphan areas,” requiring them to continue tracking to meet the original 1997 requirements.


The Anderson MPA is included in the Indianapolis and Delaware County airshed and works in conjunction with the Indianapolis MPO and Delaware-Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission to address air quality conformity. The Indianapolis and Delaware County airshed is an orphan area under the 2018 South Coast decision and therefore must continue certain requirements under the Clean Air Act despite having reached attainment under the 2008 Ozone standard.

MTP Update Procedure

MCCOG reviews and updates the MTP at least every four (4) years to meet air quality conformity requirements. This allows the MPO to conform with the transportation plan’s validity and consistency with current transportation and land use conditions and trends, as well as the forecast period for a 20-year planning horizon. The MPO may revise the MTP at any time using amendments to update to document because of new or expanded projects and/or funding allocation changes. Whenever an MTP amendment is necessary, public outreach and demonstration of fiscal constraint is required. For all updates and amendments, the MPO Policy Board reviews, approves, and adopts changes and submits the revised document to INDOT, FHWA, and FTA for review and comment.


THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


Chapter 2

2045 MTP Update

The 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan is an incremental update replacing the MPO’s existing 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to incorporate the latest analytical tools and planning assumptions MCCOG has developed, and public feedback received through other planning efforts. Moving forward, the 2045 MTP will undergo scenario planning in conjunction with a robust and concerted public engagement campaign to update the guiding principles and reassess the direction of regional projects in 2019 and 2020.

This plan was developed in response to the series of issues, constraints, and opportunities identified through an extensive series of public input meetings, surveys, and data collection, as well as a review of past studies and plans, as part of the original 2035 Plan. The most prominent issue identified during the planning process was that growth should be more orderly and focused. Residents expressed that growth should occur near urban centers that have existing public utilities, infrastructure, and other amenities.

Many participants also noted that the preservation of agriculture and sensitive, natural lands were a priority in order to maintain the current way of life. Associated with these issues, was the concern that without addressing these items, suburban sprawl would cause negative impacts including increased traffic, noise, loss of land, and loss of rural character.

This plan integrates policies and issues addressed throughout the planning process that were previously addressed in past studies and the 2035 Plan. Key to the concerns expressed was the development of a more diverse set of transportation alternatives. To effectively direct future transportation system development, the transportation plan and the land use plan must work together due to their relationship and the impact each has upon the other. These directives will be met by using strategies that provide a broader range of transportation alternatives that are centered on land development, which focuses (1) in-fill redevelopment in urban areas, (2) the complete build-out of existing suburban sprawl areas, and (3) reasonable urban growth within the capacity of existing municipal infrastructure.

192045 Metropolitan Transportation PlanElwood, Indiana


Study Area

The Anderson MPA is part of the Central Indiana region that includes six (6) MPOs, incorporating thirteen (13) counties. The Anderson urbanized area is also directly adjacent to the Indianapolis urbanized area. The MTP study area includes the MPA in its entirety, with technical analysis including Hamilton County, portions of northeast Marion County, and the portion of Hancock County north of I-70. Journey-to-work travel patterns and residential out-migration from the MPA supported the decision to include these additional areas. The new boundaries of the study area were included in the Plan for a better understanding of regional influences and updated land use changes.

Planning Process

Phase 1: Preparation

The first phase of the planning process began by gathering existing resources and building community and organizational support. Subsequently, the planning team and area officials identified administrative tasks to establish a framework for the project. The preparation phase included the following steps:

• Assemble the planning team • Conduct educational workshops • Create base maps to record data • Research relevant publications • Gather materials and equipment for

Map 2.1 Central Indiana MPOs


Map 2.2 Anderson Urbanized Area & MPA


field inventories • Contact local media for project publicity • Coordinate focus group participants • Establish meeting schedules

Phase 2: Data Gathering & Analysis

This phase implemented a variety of data gathering techniques. The existing conditions of facilities, operations, services, and land development were inventoried and analyzed with projections based on current land use patterns. Most of this data was assembled as background information to support the modeling process and public input forums.

Phase 3: Public Participation

While the residents and community leaders of Madison County were consulted throughout all phases of the planning process, the primary source came from a series of twenty-five (25) focus group meetings, thirty (30) public workshops, and numerous follow-up sessions. Throughout the various stages of the planning process, citizens and community leaders were afforded many opportunities to discuss issues important to them and their community through brainstorming sessions on critical issues, assisting in the development of the transportation projects list, and providing feedback on the evolution of policy statements.

Phase 4: Plan Conceptualization

This phase included the creation and multiple revisions of the projects list, additional data gathering, modeling activities, and the organization of information to create a draft plan document. Comments gathered at public workshops provided the essential information in conjunction with data analysis. The MCCOG Policy Board, elected and appointed officials, and residents throughout the MPA were offered opportunities to review the draft plan document and offer any comments.

Phase 5: Plan Finalization & Adoption

In the final planning phase, the plan document was revised and edited, based on comments and feedback from community members. Additional information, maps, and graphics were added to the document and a proposed final listing of projects was generated. Both the MCCOG Technical Advisory and Policy Committees approved the Plan.

Supporting Documentation

Various planning studies and other supporting documentation prepared by the MPO staff were included as past work elements of the annual Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The planning work elements included activities that provided current examinations of traffic behavior and changes to the Travel Demand Model. The work elements included annual data collection activities, corridor and sub-area studies, site impact studies, accident analyses, and critical intersection capacity analyses. The following supporting documents provide a basis for the recommended transportation projects that were included in this plan, as well as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):

Healthy Places for Healthy People (2018)

In 2017, the MPO was selected to participate in the Healthy Places for Healthy People Program (HP2), a technical assistance outreach program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Through completion of the program, the MPO developed an action plan to create a more walkable, healthy, and economically vibrant community through the engagement of community health partners. The action plan was developed by compiling existing plans, collecting public input, raising public awareness, and identifying partnerships to accelerate action items. Projects and activities of the program included inventorying and mapping existing active living opportunities


(i.e., health assets) such as trails, recreation, and fitness locations. The plan included the following recommendations:

• Develop an “Active Anderson” branding campaign • Propose potential village health districts

throughout the community • Develop a village health district pilot

program • Concentrate sidewalk and trail

installation within defined village health districts

Connect Fortville Thoroughfare Plan (2017)

This plan was developed as an amendment to the Fortville Comprehensive Plan (Envision Fortville) that was completed in 2014. The plan included the development of a local functional classification system with recommended design standards, a list of transportation system improvements and connections, and right-of-way needs to enable corridor preservation. In conjunction with the Thoroughfare Plan, the MPO developed an Access Control Ordinance and Right-of-Way Dedication Ordinance that were presented to the Fortville Town Council for adoption to enable the goals of the plan to be met in the future.

Regional Pedestrian Plan (2016)

This plan replaced the bicycle portion of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan completed in 2005. The focus of this plan was to establish priority areas to fund sidewalk gap installation projects and highlighting regionally-significant pedestrian trail opportunities. As part of the plan, a full sidewalk inventory of the MPA was undertaken, three (3) public input meetings were held, a walkability stakeholder luncheon with a live-polling survey was held, and a thirteen (13) member steering committee led the process.

Bicycle Facilities Plan (2016)

This plan replaced the bicycle portion of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan completed in 2005. The revised plan reviewed existing local bicycle facilities and identified opportunities to implement projects that would further support a regional bicycle system initially outlined in the 2005 plan. The plan focused on the use of road diets to develop local bicycle facilities that could further be connected by trails, shared lanes, and paved shoulders to add nearly 200 miles of bicycle facilities to the MPA. The plan also highlighted five (5) local policies that could be enacted to support non-motorized transportation. Three (3) committees informed the Plan: the bicycle, regional, and technical advisory committees. The BAC guided the vision and advised on project prioritization; the TAC led the development of technical guidelines for the Road Diet Tool (RDT) that highlighted potential road diets; and the RAC, consisting of representatives from the Indianapolis MPO, Delaware-Muncie Metropolitan Planning Commission, City of Fishers, City of Noblesville, and City of Carmel, advised on regional connections and future build-out opportunities.

Heartland Bikeways Plan (2005)

This plan was developed for the entire Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA), including connections to adjoining counties. The plan provided the foundation for future work on the Interurban Trail between Indianapolis and Anderson and proposed improvements to all communities within the MPA. As part of the project, an Level-of-Service (LOS) methodology was created to evaluate links in the bicycle and pedestrian network. A steering committee consisting of areas residents and representatives from government, businesses, and local organizations provided input. During the planning process, the project team met with each governmental jurisdiction within the MPA for input to further develop a regional system


of bike and pedestrian facilities. The study included the following recommendations:

• Develop a major on-road network for bikes in the regional based on community input that provides options for all types of riders • Identify links that are pedestrian only for

urban locations • Evaluate the changes needed to

accommodate the move of the Police Department and Municipal Courts relocation to new facilities

Pendleton State Street Corridor Plan (2015)

This plan identified transportation issues along the State Street Corridor (Old SR 38) through the Town of Pendleton. The project area spanned an area between 2.5-miles west of I-69 and 1-mile east of the US 36/SR 67/SR 9 Intersection. Significant issues with congestion and safety along this corridor were highlighted through the planning process through various public and stakeholder meetings. The plan included the following recommendations:

• Realign roadway to increase sight distance, reduce head on collisions, and improve traffic flow • Acquire additional right-of-way to

ensure future corridor preservation • Construct multi-use side paths along

corridor • Install roundabouts to improve roadway

operations and reduce left-turn collisions

Broadway Street Redevelopment Concept Plan (2015)

The Town of Fortville highlighted the redevelopment of Broadway Street (US 36/SR 67) as a vital goal for continued growth of the community. There were significant issues that had been identified regarding congestion, safety, and non-motorized connectivity along

the Broadway Corridor. The redevelopment concept project illustrates a community-supported re-design of Broadway Street. The plan included the following recommendations:

• Reduce number and width of lanes • Install high-visibility crosswalk markings • Construct multi-use sidepaths along the

corridor • Eliminate access to corridor through

frontage road and shared driveway policies

Heartland in Motion Transportation Study (2014)

This study was undertaken to update travel demand model (TDM) assumptions for model trip rates, destination and mode-choice estimates, and the calibration of land-use and policy scenario testing. Subsequently, it was combined with the Central Indiana Travel Survey, conducted for the Indianapolis MPO, to gain additional insight into regional travel behavior. Over 1,900 households and 4,300 people within the MPA responded to this survey regarding daily travel patterns and transportation preferences. Results provide an updated understanding of regional priorities regarding transportation, with the top three (3) priorities being:

• Transportation safety • Efficient transportation systems

operation • Transportation system preservation

Anderson Road Diet Pilot Program (2014)

This project established re-striping plans on four (4) major roadways within the City of Anderson as an effort to implement road diets throughout the City. The purpose was to provide a low-cost option for roadway re-design that would have major impacts on roadway safety, while enhancing bicycle and pedestrian travel. In addition, this plan looked at new roadway and pedestrian-scale wayfinding throughout


Anderson.

School Community Wellness Initiative (2014)

In 2014, the Anderson Community School Corporation was awarded a grant through the Indiana State Department of Health - Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity to establish a pilot program promoting activities that encourage active lifestyles at schools. This project focused on the development of non-infrastructure planning projects to support safe routes to school programs. Under this grant initiative, the MPO developed a plan for continuing the programs and identifying infrastructure issues near the pilot schools. The plan included the following recommendations:

• Conduct spot speed studies • Review school zone compliance and

enforcement • Install sidewalk and multi-use paths • Implement traffic calming and

intersection improvement projects

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plans (2014, 2015, 2018)

A series of fourteen (14) ADA Transition Plans were completed between 2014 and 2015 for communities within the MPA. Each plan included an asset inventory, self-evaluation, and transition timeline for reaching ADA compliance. The inventory was developed using GIS in an effort to link ADA compliance issues with our project selection process. These plans also provide a baseline for illustrating how ADA compliance throughout the MPA is being achieved. Additionally, two (2) of those plans for the communities of Alexandria and Anderson, were updated in 2018 to maintain municipal compliance with ADA and eligibility to receive and utilize FHWA funding awards.

Envision Fortville Main Street (2013)

This plan established steps to revitalize the primary roadway through the downtown commercial center of the Town of Fortville. The plan analyzed issues such as parking access, traffic patterns, congestion issues, railroad impacts, sidewalk connectivity, and existing land uses. Final recommendations included a full roadway reconstruction with specific design solutions to address issues identified by analyzing data and through public comment.

Coordinated Transit Plan (2013)

The purpose of this plan is to provide a framework for improved coordination between transportation service providers and human service providers. Additionally, this plan assists in developing strategies to satisfy any unmet needs, eliminate redundant services, and establish new and innovative programs, while also making better use of local, state, and federal transportation funds. The plan was developed through a process that included representatives of public, private, and non-profit human services and transportation providers, as well as members of the general public. Additionally, other transportation providers, advocacy groups, human service agencies, and passengers were encouraged to participate throughout coordination and planning efforts. The plan identified the transportation needs of individuals in these targeted populations, provided strategies for meeting those local needs, and prioritized potential solutions for funding and implementation. The plan included the following recommendations:

• Extend transit operating hours • Provide transportation education

opportunities • Coordinate among transportation

agencies • Accommodate persons with disabilities

Safe Routes to School Plans (2012)

Safe Routes to School Plans were developed for the communities of Alexandria, Elwood,


Frankton, and Pendleton. These plans were completed in coordination with infrastructure funds received for projects that included the installation of sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, bike racks, and trail segments. The plans also focused on additional infrastructure needs and provided an overview of successful programs to that would encourage use by students of schools in these communities.

Anderson Low-Speed & Electric Alternatives Plan (2011)

Project LEAP is a guiding document that provides the framework for identifying, organizing, and developing infrastructure improvements to accommodate alternative transportation options. Alternative options within this plan include, but are not limited to, neighborhood electric vehicles, low-speed vehicles, modified golf carts, electric motor scooters, and bicycles. The plan proposed the following project types: alternative transportation lanes, targeted air quality impact campaigns, and the installation of electric charging stations.

Gateway Improvement Plan (2010 & 2013)

This plan review the elements encompassing the gateways for the City of Anderson. The intent of the plan was to highlight locations that define entry points into the City of Anderson and establish methods for improving traffic flow and communication at those locations. One of the areas reviewed were the roadway access points to the City. Upon their review, the plan included several roadway realignment proposals.

Transportation Management Systems Data Collection (2000-2010)

Data was collected annually regarding congestion, travel delay, accidents, pavement, and transit use. This information is utilized to determine recommended short-term

improvements to the transportation system that usually are completed by local units of governments utilizing local funds. Types of data collection tasks included:

• Conduct a Pavement Surface Analysis for annual local paving projects in Anderson • Coordinate with law enforcement to

ensure traffic enforcement based on accident data • Identify intersection improvements

based on accident analysis, turning movements, and road geometry

Frankton Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2008)

This plan reviewed the existing pedestrian network in the Town of Frankton, highlighted opportunities to enhance the existing network, and provided a list of funding sources for system buildout. In addition to inventorying the network, it developed guidelines for designs that meet both MUTCD and ADA standards.

Interchange Data Collection Project: Exits 14, 19, 22, 26, & 34 (2008)

This project entailed the updating of information at each interchange in the study area. Information collected included volume counts, road improvements, land use, infrastructure, demographics, and proposed new development.

Interstate 69 - Exit 22 Interchange Sub-Area Study (2005, 2008 Update)

This 4.5 square mile study area ranges from Ridge Road to CR 400 West and from 53rd Street to CR 600 South. The area which includes I-69 - Exit 22 at Pendleton Avenue (MLK Blvd.) has exhibited significant growth in office, light manufacturing, and distribution centers increased truck traffic. Due to the recent changes in land use and traffic generation, the study included the following recommendations:


• Reconstruct CR 450 South (W. 73rd Street), CR 400 South (W. 67th Street) west of Pendleton Avenue (MLK Blvd.), CR 350 West, and CR 400 West • Realign the intersection of CR 400

South and CR 350 West • Reconstruct CR 450 South east of

Pendleton Avenue (MLK Blvd.) • Construct a loop road extension from

Enterprise Drive (73rd Street) east of Pendleton Avenue (MLK Blvd.) to CR 400 South • Provide a better connection from CR

300 West to the road network south of CR 400 South and the Flagship Business Park • Develop a west link from CR 350 West

to Old State Road 132 and eventually to SR 38 Interstate

Anderson Central Business District Sub-Area Study (2005)

This study evaluated the Anderson Central Business District (CBD) for changes in travel patterns during peak and off-peak travel periods. Several proposed developments near the White River necessitated the need to examine various scenarios using the travel demand model. A fifty (50) city block area was also studied for existing parking, pedestrian access, and traffic congestion issues. The study included the following recommendations:

• Maintain one-way paired streets and the interconnected signalization of intersections • Develop Cincinnati Avenue/Indian Trails

Parkway as a gateway into the CBD • Maintain areas to encourage pedestrian

activity throughout the CBD

Anderson Central Business District Parking Study (2004)

This study, which is updated annually, evaluates the parking in the 50-city block area of the

Anderson Central Business District (CBD). The study included inventories of all parking spaces within the CBD, whether private or public and forecasted different scenarios based upon changes in both travel and employment patterns. The study included the following recommendations:

• Create a permanent Downtown Parking Committee with membership from government and private and non-profit groups in the district • Evaluate the changes needed to

accommodate the city Police and Municipal Courts relocation to new facilities • Develop alternatives for improving

parking facilities for short, medium, and long-term needs • Investigate financing alternatives for

new parking facilities • Recommend operational improvements

for management of the parking network

Cincinnati Avenue Corridor Study (2003)

This north/south collector extends from SR 32 to the south and West 10th Street to the north. Several road and intersection improvements were scheduled for the seven (7) years following the completion of the plan, therefore the likely changes in travel patterns were evaluated during the study. The study included the following recommendations:

• Reconstruct the intersection of Cincinnati Avenue and 18th Street (five points) • Widen the southern terminus

intersection • Update the traffic signal at SR32 and

Columbus Avenue intersection • Extend and widen the west bound

approach to the SR 32 and Columbus Avenue intersection • Redesign the southern terminus with


landscaping for better visibility • Reconstruct the roadway with new

curb, gutter, and sidewalk • Add a raised median to the corridor

from its southern terminus at SR 32 to Wheeler Avenue • Construct a multi-modal path on the

west side of the corridor in the old rail right-of-way

Intermodal Study (2000)

This study investigated the availability of intermodal transportation in and around Madison County. The study provided valuable information regarding passenger and freight transportation including inventories for rail, highway, air, transit, and port connections and services. Although this study specifically targets Madison County, the scope also encompasses larger regional connections to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area and the Great Lakes Region. The study was also used to promote awareness of area transportation resources, recommend actions for future needs and improvements, and provide a valuable reference tool to potential and existing businesses in Madison County. The study included the following recommendations:

• Relocate the CSX Indianapolis-Cleveland line that currently travels through Downtown Anderson • Initiate a rail study for commuter and

high-speed rail connections • Initiate an airport study for the

development of a possible new regional facility • Join as a member of the Central Indiana

Regional Transit Association (CIRTA) • Construct grade separations at SR 9,

Pendleton Avenue (MLK Blvd.), and Old SR 9 in Pendleton • Monitor area commercial and industrial

sites for transportation problems

SR 9/67 Corridor Study (1999)

This 4.2-mile north/south arterial portion of the state route extending from Interstate 69 - Exit 22 at Pendleton Avenue (MLK Blvd.) to the south junction of SR 9 in Pendleton was selected for analysis due to the influx of residential, commercial, and industrial activity in the Pendleton Area. The corridor was divided into (3) segments for evaluation and analysis: Interstate 69 segment from Exit 22 at Pendleton Avenue (MLK Blvd.) to Huntsville Road; Huntsville/Fall Creek segment from Huntsville Road to SR 38; and the South Junction segment from SR 38 to the south junction of SR at US 36/SR 67. Each segment exhibited specific travel behaviors including local and through traffic related to I-69, Falls Park Retail Plaza, Pendleton Heights High School, and the Pendleton Correctional Facilities Complex. The study included the following recommendations:

• Reconstruct road, curb, gutter, and sidewalks • Reconstruct approaches for SR 9/67

and Madison Avenue intersection • Reconstruct approaches for SR 9/67

and Broadway intersection • Reconstruct approaches for SR 9/67

and South Junction SR 9 intersection • Monitor traffic to identify if a flashing

signal is warranted at SR 9/67 and N. Pendleton Avenue (MLK Blvd.)

Interstate 69 Exit #34 Interchange Sub-Area Study (1996)

This 2.5 square mile area includes SR 32, SR 67, I-69, and the roads along the Madison/Delaware County line. The study area encompasses the Burlington Trucking terminal, (3) semi-truck service plazas, the Daleville Outlet Mall, Trader’s Village Marketplace, and several retail/service businesses. These traffic generators have necessitated additional traffic monitoring for future travel demands. The study included the following recommendations:


• Control access points along SR 32 and SR 67 • Enforce truck restrictions on Walnut

Street in Daleville • Modernize signals at the SR 32 and

Walnut Street intersection in Daleville • Monitor interstate ramps for excessive

truck volumes

Rangeline Road/Old SR 67 Corridor Study (1996)

This 4-mile north/south minor arterial extends from E. 67th St./CR 400 South to Cross St./CR 200 North. An additional 3.5-mile segment of Old SR 67/Union Township Pike from CR 150 South to CR 500 East was also included in the corridor capacity analysis. Several road and intersection improvements were scheduled for a five (5) year period , therefore the likely changes in the travel patterns were evaluated during the study. The study included the following recommendations:

• Reconstruct SR 236 and Rangeline Road intersection • Re-align Rangeline Road and E. 67th

Street intersection • Modernize traffic signal at SR32 and

Rangeline Road intersection • Monitor traffic at the Old SR 67 and

CR 150 South intersection to identify is a flashing signal is warranted

Interstate 69 - Exit 26 Interchange Sub-Area Study (1995)

This 4.5 square mile study area ranged from E. 53rd Street to E. 67th Street and from Columbus Avenue to Rangeline Road. The area, which includes I-69 - Exit 26 at Scatterfield Road, has exhibited significant growth in housing, retail, restaurant, and hotel accommodations. Due to the recent changes in land use and traffic generation, the study included the following recommendations:

• Reconstruct Rangeline Road between SR 236/E. 53rd Street and E. 67th Street • Realign the Rangeline Road and E. 67th

Street intersection • Reconstruct E. 67th Street between

SR109/Scatterfield Road and Rangeline Road • Implement Access Control Ordinance

for minimizing driveway access points

23rd Street Corridor Study (1994)

This study examined the 3.2-mile east/west minor arterial extending from SR 32/Mounds Road to Raible Avenue. In 2000, the Long-Range Transportation Plan recommended the 23rd Street corridor for a major thoroughfare expansion project. However, due to major employee reductions at the Delco-Remy and Guide Corporation manufacturing plants, travel demand for this corridor has now diminished. The study included the following recommendations:

• Realign the 23rd/22nd Street and Pitt Street intersection • Monitor traffic along 23rd Street

between SR32/Mounds Road and Brown Street

Cross Street Corridor Study (1993)

This study examined a 4-mile segment of the east/west minor arterial of Cross Street from Raible Avenue to Rangeline Road. Cross Street is located along Anderson’s northern corporate boundary and serves local traffic, as well as through traffic into and across Madison County. Proposed developments near several intersections necessitated capacity to be evaluated and determine future levels of service. The study included the following recommendations:

• Re-align Cross Street and Madison Avenue intersection and widen approaches • Widen eastbound approach of Cross


Street and Scatterfield Road intersection • Reconstruct and add sidewalks from

Raible Avenue to Madison Avenue • Reconstruct and add sidewalks from

Scatterfield Road to Rangeline Road

Anderson Urbanized Area Boundary Study (1991)

This study examined the thoroughfares forming the border between the Anderson Corporate Limits and Madison County. These “boundary” roads were assessed for vehicle volume count, accident analysis, travel time/speed studies, and other roadway characteristics. The shared concerns by local leaders of both municipalities were addressed. The study included the following recommendations:

• Realign Cross Street and Rangeline Road Intersection • Realign Cross Street and Raible Avenue

Intersection • Realign CR 400 South and CR 200 East

Intersection • Realign CR 400 South and CR 400

West Intersection

SR 9/Scatterfield Road Corridor Study (1990)

This study examined a 7.7-mile north/south arterial portion of a state route extending from Interstate 69 - Exit 26 to the north junction of SR 9 and Broadway Street in Anderson. The corridor was divided into (3) segments for evaluation and analysis: Interstate 69 segment from Exit 26 to SR 232/Mounds Road; Mounds Mall segment from SR 232/Mounds Road to SR 32/University Blvd; and Scatterfield Road segment from SR 32/University Boulevard to north junction of SR 9 and Broadway. Each corridor segment exhibited unique, “site specific” travel characteristics dependent on its adjacent land uses. The study included the following recommendations:

• Maintain existing divided medians and

minimize “cross-overs” near congested areas • Widen intersection approaches and

modernize signalization • Maintain adequate driveway access

spacing and avoid off-setting driveway cuts • Construct sidewalks between University

Boulevard and SR 232/Mounds Road • Minimize driveway cuts and maintain

arterial design free-flow speeds

Raible Avenue Corridor Study (1989)

A 5-mile north/south arterial segment from 38th Street to Hartman Road was examined for changes in travel demand and capacity analysis. In 2000, the Long-Range Transportation Plan recommended Raible Avenue for a major roadway expansion with intersection upgrades as a result of the newly constructed Raible Avenue Bridge. The Raible Avenue corridor serves as one of the primary direct linkages to Interstate 69 - Exit 22 at Pendleton Avenue (MLK Blvd.). The study included the following recommendations:

• Add travel lanes as travel demand exceeds roadway capacity • Modernize signalization and widen

intersection approaches • Construct sidewalks for pedestrian/

bicycle usage • Minimize driveway cuts and encourage

logical driveway spacing to reduce congestion

SR 32/Nichol Avenue Corridor Study (1988)

This 1.2-mile east/west arterial segment from Raible Avenue to Park Road was studied for excessive weaving and travel delays due to various lane width reductions throughout the corridor. These negative factors were concentrated near retail shopping areas and near the three (3) primary intersections


along Nichol Avenue. The study included the following recommendations:

• Modernize signalization at the Raible and Nichol Avenue intersection • Reduce driveway access points near

existing congested areas • Establish consistent lane width cross-

section throughout corridor

53rd Street Corridor Study (1987)

A 4.5-mile east/west arterial segment from Pendleton Avenue (MLK Blvd.) to CR 200 East was examined for its intersection capacity and congestion delays due to extensive retail and commercial developments throughout the corridor. The SR 109 relinquishment between Columbus Avenue and Scatterfield Road created the necessity to locally maintain arterial roadway characteristics to support increasing travel demand. The study included the following recommendations:

• Reduce future driveway access points near existing congested areas • Widen intersection approaches and

modernize existing signalization • Add travel lanes as travel demand

exceeds roadway capacity

Local Comprehensive Plans (Multiple Years)

This involved information collected from local comprehensive plans as to present and future land use in the following communities: Alexandria, Anderson, Elwood, Ingalls, Markleville, Orestes, Pendleton, and the unincorporated areas of Madison County. This information was used as part of the forecasting of population for the transportation model.


Chapter 3

Transportation Policy

Policies form the basis of the 2045 MTP. This section of the document presents goals, objectives and related strategies that were derived from the public input process. The intertwined relationship between transportation and land use has impacted the development of the transportation system within the MPA. As transportation planning increasingly moves toward a more regional focus, the transportation system must be considered beyond simple jurisdictional boundaries, such as counties, states, and even MPAs. Populations continue to grow, and suburban sprawl continues to drive development along transportation corridors, jurisdictional boundaries become much less meaningless as to the impacts upon the transportation system. The goals, objectives, and strategies of this plan promote the ability of people (regardless of age and status) to reach their desired destinations by way of a variety of transportation options.

332045 Metropolitan Transportation PlanDaleville, Indiana


Primary Goal

Maintain, enhance, and create a more viable, versatile multi-modal transportation network in the MPA with improved linkages to and within the Indianapolis Metropolitan Region, which offer efficient, effective, and safe movement of people and goods in a sustainable and environmentally-sensitive way.

Secondary Goals

Goal S-1: New highways and new road connections should establish shorter routes to cross natural boundaries, relieve traffic congestion, and create a logical progression in increasing the connectivity of the existing road network. The road network should provide for the efficient circulation and response time of safety and emergency vehicles at the local and regional level. The expansion of the road network should be achieved in ways that respect neighborhood cohesiveness, conserve open space (including woodlands and wetlands), encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel, encourage transit connections, and discourage the expansion of sprawl. Consideration should be given to lessen the impact of secondary growth due to new highways, which, in turn, can lead to the re-emergence of traffic congestion.

Goal S-2: Promote Transportation Demand Management practices and the development of a Transportation Management Committee to relieve traffic congestion and increase circulation and efficiency in the existing highway network.

Goal S-3: Encourage the use of Access Management techniques in commercial highway corridors to preserve capacity, increase safety, and improve the aesthetic environment. Support and encourage the redesign of areas and highway corridors that have experienced strip mall development so that they can better accommodate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit use.

Goal S-4: Encourage transportation improvements in urban centers and town centers away from the urban fringe to reduce the expansion of sprawl. Improve convenience and service, and therefore the ridership, of the transit system through the targeting of segments of the market that are not currently part of CATS patronage. Promote the expansion of sidewalk and pedestrian facilities in town centers.

Goal S-5: Encourage multi-modal use and the integration of alternative modes, coordinated with land use and zoning practices, which reduce dependency on the automobile and encourage pedestrian oriented and transit-oriented development.

Goal S-6: Encourage local planning that supports an efficient and cost-effective transportation system including the development of site review regulations that encourage access management techniques and the interconnection between sites and the accommodation of cars, bicycles, and pedestrians.

Goal S-7: Establish intra-city transit connections, including passenger rail service as a possibility.

Goal S-8: Promote access to transportation for the under-served and include plans and projects that ensure that the needs of transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians are met. Promote plans and projects that link the jobless with jobs on a regional level.

Goal S-9: Encourage public-private sector partnerships and private sector participation in the financing of transportation projects and services. Establish a transportation system that provides for orderly economic growth while preserving the environmental and cultural resources of the region.

Goal S-10: Promote a future transportation network that encourages and meets the environmental standards for clean air and


water. Establish a transportation program that provides for preservation and expansion of green infrastructure in all existing and future developments wherever possible through improved design standards.

Goal S-11: Develop a comprehensive transportation system in concert with a framework for sustainable land use decisions, multi-modal transportation, complete streets design, LEED development standards, energy conservation, alternative energy development, environmental and reforestation standards and plans, green infrastructure, and low-impact development standards.

Objective 1: Ensure a higher standard of transportation service and infrastructure for present and future development that improves the viability and safety of transportation systems and contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of the overall network.

Strategies:

1.1 Engineering design, judgment, and sound transportation planning should be key to decisions involving transportation.

1.2 Implement setback, build-to lines, and right-of-way standards that should encourage dedications for current and future planned developments for corridor preservation at time of approval.

1.3 Research and develop standards for an access control ordinance, including at a minimum dual access to all residential developments.

1.4 Assure that access cuts in new developments should not be closer than 300’ from the street edge, as defined by ITE and INDOT in their access standards manual.

1.5 Develop standards for clearance zones for all intersections; standards may vary depending upon roadway facility type and adjoining land use.

1.6 Assure that access decisions are not made in a void to only one land use development; the entire corridor and future plans should be considered.

1.7 Develop a standards manual for traffic calming techniques for local and other streets.

1.8 Ensure that development intensity adheres to the appropriate current or planned functional road classification standards.

1.8 Design roadway networks in grid patterns to encourage alternative travel routes and modes.

1.9 Ensure all signalization is spaced for maximum progression of traffic flow on primary and minor arterials and collectors. Signalization on state routes should be discouraged.

1.10 Research and develop standards for developer paid fees or amenities for the total transportation network.

Objective 2: Ensure the improvement and enhancement of the interconnectivity of road systems and alternative travel modes, especially near urban centers, that should also include connections to the regional metropolitan area.

Strategies:

2.1 Develop corridor overlay zones to protect mobility and accessibility standards along all arterials.

2.2 Develop corridor preservation ordinance for long-term viability and capacity protection of all roads.

2.3 Ensure that all transportation


linkages support the larger regional transportation system through integrated design and connectivity.

2.4 Participate in regional planning meetings with local municipalities, Indianapolis, adjacent counties, INDOT, transit entities, FHWA, and FTA to ensure cooperative, coordinated, and comprehensive future planning.

2.5 Develop transit-oriented land use standards to increase transit opportunities and connections for both local and regional connections.

2.6 Encourage alternative modal design standards to promote pedestrian and bicycle access and transit availability.

2.7 Encourage future connectivity in all subdivisions by stubbing streets for connections to future developments.

2.8 Minimize cul-de-sacs, except in conservation design subdivisions. Where cul-de-sacs are allowed outside of conservation subdivisions, easements should be granted for alternative travel connections and primarily pedestrian and bike connections.

Objective 3: Promote the use of alternative modes of transportation such as ridesharing, bicycling, walking, and transit; and create development patterns that are conducive to these alternative travel networks.

Strategies:

3.1 Design priority should be given to developing a transportation network that supports livability through the following concepts:

3.11 Design should promote alternatives of travel choice and not concentrate strictly on vehicular travel.

3.12 Design should support the regional transportation system through integration of major routes that connect major regional destinations while fully integrating and balancing alternatives for automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and freight needs.

3.13 Design should support the economic vitality of the region as it relates to the movement of goods and services throughout the region.

3.14 Design should create pedestrian and bicycle accessibility by redirecting development efforts to support a more balanced multi-modal transportation system.

3.15 Design should provide orientation and identity to the region by assisting in the development of the character of the region and reinforcing urban form that enhances economic value of particular locations.

3.16 Design should provide a safe environment to reduce accidents and provide a sense of comfort and freedom for all modes of travel, particularly pedestrian.

3.17 Design should provide for physical comfort that is essential for livability.

3.18 Design should create street environments that encourage pedestrian activity and thus promote social contact.

3.19 Design should provide spatial definition by orienting buildings to the street.

3.20 Design should ensure and promote human scale, function, and sensory experience.

3.21 Design should maintain the quality of the environment.


3.2 Concentrate development near urban centers that emphasize compact land use patterns that promote accessibility by multi-modal alternatives.

3.3 Provide densities that promote land use within walking distance (normally ¼-1/2 mile) of transit stops to encourage alternative travel.

3.4 Promote mixed-use development to encourage and support walking and bicycle trips amongst uses and to transit.

3.5 Provide necessary building densities and land uses within walking distance of transit stops to promote a viable alternative to the automobile.

3.6 Design streets as the public spaces of the region that create comfortable and interesting environments for pedestrians to live, to work, and to play. Design should encourage pedestrian usage.

Objective 4: Promote compact development patterns with grid street configurations to reduce energy consumption, congestion, air and water pollution, and wasting of land resources.

Strategies:

4.1 Concentrate development near urban centers that emphasize compact land-use patterns to promote accessibility.

4.2 Promote mixed-use development to encourage and support walking and bicycle trips amongst uses and to transit.

4.3 Provide necessary building densities and land uses within walking distance of transit stops to promote a viable alternative to the automobile.

4.4 Support the element of shared space through good architectural and landscape design with an emphasis on pedestrian scale.

4.5 Design streets and buildings to accommodate safe and secure environments, but not at the expense of accessibility and openness.

4.6 Encourage design to promote connectivity of buildings, streets, and people.

4.7 Design streets as the public spaces of the region that create comfortable and interesting environments for pedestrians to live, work, and play. Design should encourage pedestrian usage.

4.8 Promote development and design patterns that encourage the reduction of vehicle trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

4.9 Support development patterns that promote shorter trips, thereby reducing the negative impact vehicular travel has on air and water quality.

4.10 Develop a sustainability plan that supports the goals, strategies, and objectives of the 2045 Plan Update.

Objective 5: Explore and implement new standards that improve transportation systems and roadway configurations that include traffic calming measures, complete streets, narrower residential streets, reasonable maximum road widths, and better signaling.

Strategies:

5.1 Develop traffic calming measures to be included in development standards.

5.2 Develop a broader functional classification system that provides flexibility, access, and mobility while


promoting design in the roadway network and land use that supports the design requirements noted under Objective 3.

5.3 Develop a Complete Streets Policy that will be a requirement for receiving any future funding for new roads, major reconstruction, or substantial changes in land use.

5.4 Reduce street widths in order to reduce speed, except for those that provide regional connectivity such as the interstate and highways outside of urban areas.

5.5 Ensure all signalization is spaced for maximum progression of traffic flow on primary and minor arterials and collectors. Signalization on state routes should be discouraged.

Objective 6: Involve transportation agencies and other stakeholders at all levels in the development review process when considering system provision and design, corridor preservation, and land-use impacts.

Strategies:

6.1 Improve coordination of land use and transportation planning between the local, state, and federal levels.

6.2 Support the increased early planning coordination efforts of local and state agencies involved in transportation and land use planning.

6.3 Promote the concurrency of transportation and land use planning, specifically when major development is anticipated.

6.4 Evaluate access and transportation impacts in terms of plans and use and environmental plans, and not based on isolated, individual developments.


Chapter 4

Public Participation

Throughout the various stages of the planning process, citizens and community leaders were afforded an opportunity to discuss issues important to them and their community through brainstorming sessions on critical issues, assisting in the development of the transportation projects list, and providing feedback on the evolution of policy statements. While the residents and community leaders of the MPA were consulted throughout all phases of the planning process, the primary source came from a series of twenty-five (25) focus group meetings, thirty (30) public workshops, numerous follow-up sessions, and the Heartland in Motion Transportation Study. This chapter presents and describes the public participation tools used as part of the planning process. The information gathering process directly contributed to the development of plan goals, objectives, strategies, and project selection.

412045 Metropolitan Transportation PlanPendleton, Indiana


Engagement Effectiveness

Throughout various planning processes related to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan development, MCCOG has evaluated engagement effectiveness throughout the process. Traditional in-person meetings, while crucially important to planning process, have increasingly become ineffective in reaching all sections of the population. Other planning processes, such as the Heartland in Motion (HIM) Transportation Study had outstanding success in not only reaching more members of the public, but specifically being able to engage with hard to reach populations, and especially disadvantaged populations. Regarding attitudinal differences in transportation policy issues, engagement strategies like HIM outline distinct differences in public opinion when comparing to traditional public outreach efforts versus virtual platforms that only require a telephone, internet connection, or cell phone to use. Because of this, MCCOG will be deploying additional engagement strategies for the 2045 In Motion Metropolitan Transportation Plan through Summer of 2020. Those engagement strategies will include:

• Additional marketing strategies to better advertise in-person engagement • Development of curated public

summits, with national and local leadership present to draw attention • Deployment of virtual engagement to

allow individuals to continue to participate both in person, as well as the convenience of utilizing internet platforms • Deployment of tactical engagement

strategies • These could be mobile workshops • Meeting in a box that can leverage

volunteers to host their own meetings in small and large groups around the region • Other forms of engagement that are

self-paced and available at any time

Surveys

Household Travel Survey

The 2014 Heartland in Motion Transportation Study (HIM) was an extensive survey of households located within the Anderson MPA regarding their daily travel patterns and transportation preferences. The information gathered from this study is crucial to gain a better understanding of how growth and changing communities impact the transportation system. Over 1,900 households and 4,300 individuals participated in the survey, providing input not only on travel patterns, but also on transportation priorities and stated preferences regarding issues such as mass transit.

Figure 4.1 HIM Transportation Issue Priorities


Secondary Surveys

In addition to the HIM Study, several secondary surveys and personal interviews were conducted to assess needs and existing conditions. These included the following:

• Technical & Policy Committees Survey • Community Leadership Survey • Visual Preference Survey (600

participants throughout MPA) • Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Survey • SR 32 Plan Survey (800 households in

Madison and Delaware Counties) • Intermodal Transportation Plan

Interviews • Focus Group Surveys • Focus Group Participant Interviews • I-69 Corridor Charette • Community Input Survey (15,000

households through MPA)

Public Meetings

The 2045 MTP held a three-hour public meeting at the Anderson Public Library on February 11, 2019, at the end of the 15-day public comment period which began January 30, 2019 in compliance with the MCCOG Public Participation Plan (PPP). The public meeting was advertised through legal notice on www.mccog.net and in the Herald Bulletin, Greenfield Daily Reporter, and Muncie Star Press. The meeting was set up in the gallery style where participants signed-in, received brief instructions directing them to view posters highlighting elements of the plan, and solicit feedback to questions placed throughout. There was overwhelming support from all participants that the primary goal in the 2045 MTP is relevant today. The other three questions received differentiating support about equity, future transportation issues, and future transportation concerns.

In addition to the 2045 MTP public meeting, a

public meeting was held specifically to discuss the US 36 / SR 67 / SR 9 / SR 38 Added Travel Lanes project at the Pendleton Public Library on December 10, 2018 following a 15-day public comment period that was advertised through legal notice on www.mccog.net and in the Herald Bulletin. The meeting was set up with three (3) stations for individuals to participate in. Each station asked for specific feedback about the project. Major themes from the meeting included:

• Bike/ped safety elements are necessary for students to cross the U.S. 36/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38/ S.R. 67 corridor to get to the Pendleton Heights High School and Middle School campuses. • Congestion is greater along the corridor

at the start and end of the school day at Pendleton Heights High School and Middle School campuses. • Eliminate access along the U.S. 36/ S.R.

9/ S.R. 38/ S.R. 67 corridor. • Install more access control elements

such as right in-right out entrances. • Landscaped medians are desired to

separate the north and southbound travel lanes.

Thirty (30) other public workshops were held throughout the MPA over a two-year period in 2005 and 2006 to inform the 2045 MTP goals. A major aspect of the next 2045 MTP will be overhauling public participation and updating the vision, goals, and objectives. The workshops were held six (6) times each in the locations of Alexandria, Anderson, Elwood, Lapel, and Pendleton. Eight (8) additional public meetings were also held in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Public Hearings

Six (6) public hearings were held during the planning process to receive formal comment and provide feedback opportunities on both the draft and final draft plans. They served as formal means of gathering input and feedback on those documents.


Technical & Policy Committee Meetings

These MPO committee meetings also served as additional forums for public input. The committees were updated regularly at their bi-monthly meetings throughout the planning process.

Transportation Plan Steering Committee

Committee meetings were held quarterly throughout the planning process. This committee served as primary source of local information, ideas, valuable input, and direction.

Citizens Advisory Committee

This committee met twelve (12) times throughout the planning process focusing on issues primarily concerned with congestion, alternative modes of travel, community design, and proposed projects for inclusion in the plan.

Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Steering Committees

Both the Regional Pedestrian Plan and Bicycle Facilities Plan Steering Committees provided input throughout the planning process focused on issues primarily concerned with bicycle and pedestrian usage and proposed projects for inclusion in the plan.

Comprehensive Plan Steering Committees

These committees met in the communities of Alexandria, Elwood, Ingalls, Orestes, Markleville, and Pendleton, as well as one for Madison County, during the planning process regarding their Comprehensive Plans. These meetings discussed issues primarily concerned with land use, regional transportation, alternative travel, community design, and proposed projects for inclusion in the plan.

Environmental Justice Review

Throughout the planning process, MPO staff provided updates to specified groups, including the Urban League of Madison County, regarding the planning document and proposed projects for inclusion in the plan. Additionally, active projects from the previous five (5) years were also reviewed to consider their compliance or impacts with regards to providing environmental justice to the federal, state, and local dollars invested.

Mechanisms for Input

Introductory Workshops

In December 2003, the Purdue Extension Office with support from the Madison County Plan Commission, Madison County Farm Bureau, and the Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District, conducted three educational workshops. These sessions were designed to enable citizens to:

• Gain an understanding of the planning process • Learn the difference between planning,

zoning, and implementation • Gain an understanding of citizen and

property rights in planning • Learn the roles of these organizations

and their members in planning the future


Community Needs Survey

At the beginning of the planning process, the MPO assessed community needs, quality of life, and the perceptions of existing services and facilities through a Community Needs Survey. This survey hand-delivered to 15,200 households in the MPA with a response rate of 6%.

The first half of the survey (first 15 questions) asked respondents to rate their levels of satisfaction with community services and infrastructure from one (1) or “highly satisfied” to five (5) or “highly dissatisfied”. General agreements or disagreements were then grouped according to whether they became “Clear Strengths”, “Strengths”, “Clear Weaknesses”, “Weaknesses”, or a more “Moderate/Balanced” response.

The remainder of the survey (last 20 questions) gathered general attitudes and opinions on topics such as (1) how and where future development should occur, (2) types of transportation system improvements needed, (3) the need for alternative travel modes, (4) the environment, (5) types of housing most needed, and (6) the best use of available land. The data collected for these survey topics was used during the first series of public workshops and focus group meetings to validate the data and generate discussion.

Visual Preference Survey™

The Visual Preference Survey™ is a public participation technique developed by Anton Nelessen Associates Inc. and provides an innovative alternative for gathering public opinions and perceptions with an emphasis on design issues. Based on responses to the general question, “Would you like to see this in your community?”, participants ranked images of various development scenarios according to a numeric scale. VPS meetings lasted no longer than ninety (90) minutes and began with a brief explanation of the survey followed by a slide presentation of the pictures for evaluation. The

meetings concluded with an informal group discussion regarding community needs and desires. A total of twenty (20) sessions were held between 2002 to 2004 with approximately 604 participants represented from throughout the MPA.

Survey results indicated a high level of community approval for sidewalks, trees, green spaces, houses with porches, and open space with agricultural landscapes. VPS slides of urban areas with scenes of people engaged in social activities also scored particularly well. Large arterials with heavy traffic and no green space scored on the low end, as did large concrete parking lots and areas of great visual clutter. Medium-density, clustered residential developments were favored over low-density sprawling roadside developments. Well-designed commercial nodes were preferred to typical roadside strip development.

The planning team used the results to determine acceptable development and design scenarios for landscape character, streetscapes, commercial, and residential development. Because respondents rated the process as very good it was used at later date with each MPO Committee and at also the 4-H Fair.

Community Leaders Survey

A Community Leaders Survey was mailed to 178 individuals in both the private and public sectors. Questions pertained specifically to transportation issues, goals, and objectives. Three (3) attempts were made to follow-up with participants to ensure a good response rate and of the 178 mailed surveys, 147 responses were received. Responses most often dealt with system efficiency, connectivity issues, pedestrian connections, congestion, safety, better transit, and the environment. One of the most notable responses was the overwhelming interest in pursuing commuter rail and/or bus rapid transit service to Indianapolis and Hamilton County.


Technical & Policy Committee Surveys

Four (4) surveys were conducted with members of the MPO committees for the 2005 Plan. Two (2) surveys were conducted again 2008 for the Plan Update. Surveys included goals and objectives, transportation issues and needs, Visual Preference Survey (VPS), and projects identified for consideration into the plan. Committee members rated efficiency and connectivity highest pertaining to transportation overall. Most members were very concerned with the impact that the transportation system had on economic development, particularly the long-term capacity of linkages from the MPA to adjoining counties. Most considered regional transit or rail a priority issue for future mobility and economic growth. Other issues centered on improving roadway standards and design, travel time, and safety. Design issues dealing with alternative travel and aesthetics were two (2) of the predominant topics noted after the VPS. Because of this increased interest in more compatible design, better alternative travel interfaces have been seen in local projects. Multiple presentations were also given to the MPO committees between 2007-2009 on complete streets, bicycle and pedestrian planning, regional mass transit, regional rural on-demand transit, rail relocation, green infrastructure, smart growth, local transit, connectivity planning, gateways and reforestation, air quality, and climate change.

Citizens Advisory Committee

The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was comprised of twenty-five (25) citizens and served as an excellent source of input during the planning process. This committee met twelve (12) times during the planning process and dealt primarily with issues of congestion, safety, alternative travel, community design, and selected projects. They offered suggestions for additional contacts to include in the leadership survey, questions and issues to address through the surveys, and valid critiques to improve issue resolution, goals and objectives, and the

overall planning process. They also served as the starting point for the development of the Visual Preference Survey (VPS).

Madison County 4-H Fair Outreach

The Madison County 4-H Fair is held mid-July annually at Beulah Park in Alexandria and served as another means of informing citizens on the progress and benefits of the planning process. The planning team designed a booth containing presentation panels that displayed background information on transportation, air quality, land use, and socio-economic and demographic data. In addition, the Community Needs Survey and Visual Preference Survey (VPS) were provided for visitors to the booth for completion. The 4-H Fair provided an opportunity to encourage the community to participate in the planning process as booth visitors were invited to upcoming workshops, enabled community input through surveys, and most importantly, listened to the community members’ growing concerns over traffic problems, growth, and their goals for the future of Madison County and their communities.

Focus Group Meetings

Focus Groups consisted of community leaders and elected and community leaders from both the State and area communities. They included individuals with expertise in transportation, land use, environment, housing, economic development, community services, agriculture, natural resources, and public safety. Special sessions were also organized to present information regarding the plan and the planning process with concerned public interest groups and area organizations such as the Madison County Development Task Force, the Lions Club, and local realtors. These meetings were used to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of existing services and facilities and discuss strategies for more effective and efficient transportation and land use development.


Public Workshops

Thirty (30) public workshops were held in five (5) different locations throughout the MPA for the 2005 Plan, five (5) follow-up workshops in 2008 for the plan update; and then ten (10) additional workshops in 2009-2010 for another plan update. Additionally, similar workshops were held between 2006-2010 for comprehensive plans in Alexandria, Elwood, Ingalls, Lapel, Markleville, Orestes, and Pendleton. These workshops were held at the Alexandria Community Center, Anderson Public Library, Elwood Huntington Bank, Lapel Public Library, and Pendleton Public Library. Typical workshops ran for two (2) hours, but in many cases, the dialogue between the Planning Team and interested members of the public continued well after the meetings had officially ended. Citizens were notified of the meeting times and locations through a variety of media. The Planning Team distributed flyers during the 4-H Fair outreach and at the public workshops to inform the public of the upcoming meetings. Prior to each meeting, local papers and radio stations publicized meeting schedules and locations, the content of previous meetings, and previous community feedback.

Workshop 1: Identifying Community Issues

The planning team held brainstorming sessions with participants to elaborate on the ideas and issues expressed by respondents in the Community Needs Survey. These sessions gave the planning team an opportunity to present the planning process, the community

profile, and overall expectations for public participation and the implementation of plan recommendations.

Workshop 2: Defining Goals and Objectives

This workshop featured interactive sessions consisting of brief presentations of the information collected by the planning team. Discussion focused developing goals and policy statements based upon issues identified by the public, as well as a listing of strategies and actions that would be required to reach each goal.

Workshop 3: Land Use and Transportation Issues

This workshop featured interactive sessions that encouraged participants to assist the planning team in creating a series of maps illustrating where future development should be located across the MPA with consideration to primary issues such as transportation and the environment. Participants identified areas where future development should and should not occur, as well as areas that should be protected or reserved from development. The intent of the exercise was to design a Conceptual Land Use Map that complemented the issues and policies discussed. This series of workshops enabled a considerable amount of discussion between those that attended. These workshops were an exercise for the participants in compromise, urging participants to consider the common good whenever making decisions. Consensus was reached


for most development strategies discussed. Maps from the five (5) different locations were later consolidated into a single map. With consideration to all comments received, this map was developed into a Proposed Land Use Map for the plan.

Workshop 4: Refining Goals & Objectives and Presentation of Proposed Land Use Map and the Transportation Issues Map

This workshop was held in two segments. First, the refined goals and objectives were presented along with the associated planning tools to accomplish the task. Those participating were able to reach a consensus on most of the strategies and tools presented. It was decided at these meetings that additional information was necessary; therefore, another series of workshops was scheduled along with a proposed educational seminar. Finally, the Proposed Land Use Map and Transportation Issues Map was presented and discussed. With very little opposition and only minor changes required, the maps became the final versions for the plan.

Workshop 5: Draft Plan Review & Presentation of Proposed Projects List

These presentation sessions were held in two parts. First, an overview of the draft plans for Transportation and Land Use were presented, along with pictures and graphics illustrating the key points of each plan. Additionally, the selected transportation projects proposed was distributed for review and input. Those participating noted that what was presented was a fair and accurate representation of input from the planning process and should be forwarded for approval with only a few clarification questions. There were no comments opposing the proposed plans.

Educational Seminars

Four additional seminars were held in the summer and early fall of 2003, three (3) relating

to natural resource issues and one (1) regarding growth management issues. Speakers for the natural resource issues were from Purdue University. Dr. Eric Kelley, of Ball State University and a noted “Smart Growth Expert”, spoke on growth management issues. Approximately 20 to 45 persons attended each seminar. It is intended that a series of similar seminars will continue beyond the adoption of this plan as a means of carrying out the education and communications recommendations embodied in the planning process.

Follow-Up Sessions

Municipal follow-up sessions occurred during March and November 2004 for the 2005 Plan. They occurred from August through January from 2008 to 2009 for the Plan Update, and from July through October in 2010 for the 2035 Plan. The planning team met with representatives from each incorporated area, including elected officials and staff. A meeting was also held with the engineers from both Anderson and Madison County to determine local development policies and capabilities that support additional urban growth. As a result, urban service boundaries for municipalities were drawn and integrated into the Land Use and Growth Management Plan. Additional sessions were planned to discuss and revise strategies for implementation of the Transportation Plan and the Land Use and Growth Management Plan.

Participating Public Entities

The 2045 MTP represents a coordinated effort of public agencies and citizens. Local agencies in conjunction with state and federal agencies were involved throughout the process in focus groups, MPO Committees, surveys, and interviews. These agencies participated in the development of goals and objectives for the plan as well as needs. Local agencies included the Madison County Council of Governments (MCCOG), the cities of Alexandria, Anderson, and Elwood, Madison County, the towns of


Chesterfield, Daleville, Edgewood, Fortville, Frankton, Ingalls, Lapel, Markleville, Orestes, Pendleton, and Summitville, the Anderson Area Airport Authority, the Anderson Air Pollution Control Department, the City of Anderson Transportation System (CATS), and Transportation for Rural Areas of Madison County (TRAM). State and federal agencies involved in the planning process were the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), the Indiana Economic Development Commission (IEDC), the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

Planning Issues

Planning issues surrounding transportation were identified and discussed during the community participation components of the planning process. Throughout the public workshops and focus group sessions, participants were encouraged to list the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the transportation system in the MPA. The following is a summary of those discussions.

Access & Corridor Preservation

Accessibility is the key to moving people and goods. Modern development patterns require even greater accessibility because of their scattered and fragmented nature. All state highways in the MPA, particularly those connecting to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area, are being threatened by ever-increasing demands for direct corridor access from single-family homes and businesses. In many instances, additional direct access points would increase congestion and air emissions, which are both contrary to the interest of

health and public safety. Community meeting participants discussed some of the alternatives that could be investigated that would provide indirect access solutions.

Other issues discussed included:

• Access onto county roads should be considered based on impact on the surrounding area considering the accepted plan of land use and transportation and not just on a case-by-case basis. Access and corridor preservation must be considered together when making land use and transportation decisions impacting a travel corridor. • State highways and certain high-

use local roads must be protected from excessive driveway cuts, alternating lane configurations, poorly designed and spaced signals, and fragmented and disjointed land use planning. • Primary emphasis should be given

to traffic flow over access on higher functionally-classified roads, such as highways and arterials. Traffic flow should have priority over access at signalized intersections whenever possible. • Subdivisions should be encouraged

to use a grid street network (rather than cul-de-sacs and dead ends), with multiple ingress and egress points to increase access. They should also be encouraged to develop site plans that include alternative transportation features such as sidewalks, bikeways, and trails.

Interstates & Interchanges

Interstate 69 and the connection created from SR 109 South to I-70 are vital for the prosperity of the MPA. Community meeting participants agreed that development at all interstate interchanges in the MPA had happened in a piecemeal fashion with no overall consideration to area land use planning, mix of land uses, circulation patterns, alternative modes of transportation, or mechanisms to control


development. I-69 Exits 34, 26, 22, and 19 have been compromised by access cuts and congestion. I-69 Exits 34 and 26 have been extensively developed. Only development at Exit 19 (State Road 38) has used a comprehensive approach with policies in place to control access and land development adjacent to the interstate corridor. Some of the issues discussed included:

• Patterns of growth around the interstate interchanges must be controlled, and the potential impact it will have on the flow of traffic, both on and off the interstate, should be considered. • Interchange areas should have stricter

guidelines for growth and should make space available for future use of alternative travel modes (i.e., rail, bus, or ridesharing). • Other designated growth areas should

be developed before interchange areas, unless the only choice is an interchange location. • There is a need for greater coordination

of development issues for those communities along the I- 69 Corridor.

Alternative Travel Modes

One item consistently noted and identified throughout the planning process was the need to consider alternative transportation modes. During the public input sessions, comments were made that communities should become less dependent upon the automobile, as many daily needs could be met through walking or bicycling. Most participants agreed that the MPA should investigate the merits of the issues noted below:

• Development patterns should afford the opportunity for alternative modes of travel, including walking, bicycling, transit, and carpooling. • Roadway design should incorporate

features that are pedestrian-friendly by implementing traffic calming measures, narrower streets, and greater accessibility

through creative land use design. • Boulevard designs are preferred for

corridors that carry high traffic volumes. • Commercial development should be

designed with multi-modal access. • Subdivisions should be required to have

sidewalks. • Regional connections for bike and

pedestrian travel should be undertaken, and consideration should be given to carpooling, express bus service, and the development of a commuter rail to Indianapolis.

Environment

Many negative impacts that stem from the increased use of the automobile were identified in community meetings. Two (2) of the primary environmental concerns from increased automobile use and associated scattered development patterns are the degradation of air and water resources. Specific concern to the MPA is the Clean Air Act because of recent determinations by the EPA regarding air quality non-attainment status for the 8-hour Ozone rule to all nine (9) counties in the Indianapolis CSMA, including Madison County and the Delaware County area. In effect, this decision has the potential to not only limit growth, but also to restrict the amount of federal dollars available to assist with any new road construction to add lane miles. Issues addressed by the public included:

• Transportation corridors should be tree-lined with an emphasis on aesthetics and alternative mode use. • Subdivisions should require sidewalks

that have street trees in the public right-of-way or a dedicated community association right-of-way. • Greenbelts should be maintained

around and between urban nodes or cores to allow space for alternative travel paths, as well as environmental benefits for both air and water quality.


• Linear greenways should be developed for alternative travel and to also connect land uses and developments within and between communities. • View sheds (i.e., the view from a

location) with important natural features and significant sites within the built environment should be protected from obstructions and development.


Chapter 5

Regional Trends & Future Demand

The transportation system is heavily influenced by population and employment characteristics. Current trends in population and employment growth in conjunction with an understanding of changing land use development patterns, provides a baseline from which to estimate future system demand. Where businesses, households, and commercial industries locate, and development densities play a significant role in how the transportation network is used. This chapter includes an overview of relevant current conditions, changing socioeconomic characteristics, projections for future travel demand, and the forecasting assumptions made to support those projections.

532045 Metropolitan Transportation PlanAnderson, Indiana


Roadway Network

The Anderson MPA consists of over 1,800 miles of roadway, split by functional class as noted in the map above. The main connections to the surrounding region include: Interstate 69, US 36, SR 67, SR 9, SR 28, SR 32, SR 13, SR 37, and SR 109.

Highway facilities are grouped into classification categories commonly referred to as functional classification. Functional classification identifies the particular role a roadway may serve in the overall network in moving people and goods, but also carries with it expectations about specific roadway design: including speed, overall roadway capacity, and access to existing and future land use. In general, the

Map 5.1 Roadway Functional Classification

functional classification includes a hierarchy of roadways from Principal Arterials to Local roads, with higher order roadways (arterials) serving mobility purposes and lower order facilities serving land-access purposes (local roads). For example, interstate facilities serve the primary purpose of moving people and goods over long distances at high speed and are more mobility centric as a result. Conversely, neighborhood roads provide maximum land access to every parcel or household but are not intended to be used as high-speed corridors for moving people and goods. Between arterial and local roadways, there are collectors which connect people and goods to arterial and local roads, and these facilities provide moderate amounts of access and mobility.


Walk & Bike Facilities

There are approximately 238.24 miles of sidewalk and 14.73 miles of multi-use paths throughout the MPA that support non-motorized trips. In addition to sidewalks and trails, there are approximately 4-miles of bicycle lanes on two (2) roadways in Anderson. Regionally, there are five (5) major trail systems that offer an opportunity for connections to Indianapolis, as well as Hamilton and Delaware County communities and beyond: Cardinal Greenway, Monon Trail, Midland Trace, White River Greenway, and Pennsy Trail.

Map 5.2 Walk & Bike Facilities


Rail Networks

The rail system is approximately 93.88 miles throughout the MPA. Three (3) rail companies service the MPA: CSX, Norfolk-Southern, and Central Indiana & Western (CEIW). CSX owns the former Conrail primary north-south link, known as the Indianapolis-Cleveland line. Norfolk-Southern owns and operates the main east-west line through northern Madison County that services Alexandria, Orestes, and Elwood. Both companies provide service connections to the City of Anderson. CEIW is a short-line switching and terminal line that services the grain elevators in the Town of Lapel.

Air Service

There are three small airports that service local traffic. Alexandria and Elwood have small airfields which service local recreational pilots. Anderson has a commercially rated airport that handles a considerable amount of traffic each year. The Anderson facility provides local and national freight service. Most of the commercial passenger service to state, national, and international airports is provided by the Indianapolis International Airport located west of Interstates 70 and 465, approximately 1-hour from downtown Anderson. Finally, the Indianapolis Regional Airport, known as Mount Comfort Airport, is located just 15-minutes south of downtown Fortville.

Map 5.3 Rail & Air Facilities


Transit Systems

There are two transit providers within the MPA: City of Anderson Transit System (CATS) and Transportation for Rural Areas of Madison County (TRAM). CATS services only the City of Anderson and has both fixed-route and demand response service. The TRAM system is a demand response service operated by Madison County that covers the entire County outside of Anderson.

Map 5.4 Transit Systems


ITS Infrastructure

The installation of ITS or Intelligent Transportation Systems is limited across the MPA but is available along two important corridors: I-69 and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Boulevard in Anderson. ITS is intended to increase system efficiency, enhance mobility, improve safety, reduce environmental costs, and increase economic productivity through the utilization of technology. Three overhead dynamic message signs (DMS) on I-69 provide approximate travel times; delay warnings for weather, construction, crashes, etc.; and additional messaging for various statewide emergencies, such as amber alerts. ITS along Dr. MLK Jr., Blvd. includes a combination of

static signage and dynamic lighting when the corridor is blocked at the railroad crossing between 25th and 38th Streets. The intention of the signage is to alert motorists to divert in order to avoid the delay and idling.

ITS offers many benefits but is quickly being replaced by other technologies, such as cell phones and GPS-devices. In addition, as vehicles continue to add enhancements for interconnectivity and automation, the importance of separate infrastructure for dynamic messaging is declining. ITS will remain part of the conversation as a tool for improving the transportation system but will not be a focus for cost allocation.

Map 5.5 ITS Infastructure Locations


Regional Travel Demand

There are many moving parts that can affect regional travel: the number of trips taken, where they start and end, how they are made, and the specific route taken at the time. To better understand the interactions between such a complex system, MCCOG maintains and utilizes a travel demand model (TDM), Prometheus – a computer program that uses existing trends and policy scenarios to estimate future transportation demand. Using data from national and regional surveys and big data sources, Prometheus establishes a baseline for existing system demand that can be forecast into future years to gain insight on potential project and policy impacts.

Due to the MPA’s unique position on the outer edge of the Indianapolis region and adjacent to the Muncie region, Prometheus was developed to further examine the influence of regional ties to the MPA. Typically, TDMs are restricted to the regional boundary, but the number of interactions between the Anderson MPA, Indianapolis, Greenfield, and Hamilton County prompted an expansion beyond the MPA. In addition, Prometheus includes what is called a ‘halo zone’ geography, to further capture interactions with surrounding counties.

Data is allocated into travel analysis zones (TAZ); the transportation network, typically roadway centerlines; and transportation nodes, points located at intersections and where network attributes change.

Travel Analysis Zones

TAZs are designed to follow logical boundaries that are likely to limit how people travel within the zone, usually roadways or natural features such as rivers. TDM forecasts rely on changes in population and employment. TAZs use Census data to establish the baseline population and employment. Typically, TAZs represent smaller areas than most Census geographies, but nest within block groups, Census TAZs, and/or tracts to simplify data aggregation and disaggregation.

Baseline demographic data is from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) and 2006-2010 Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP). Baseline employment data is from combining the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) and 2014 Dun & Bradstreet National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) database to the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis county employment totals by industry. TAZ-level projections were developed in conjunction with the Indianapolis MPO through ensemble forecasting, which incorporated multiple land use forecast models and land development experts. TAZ-level forecasting has been periodically updated for the Anderson MPA to reflect updated knowledge.

Transportation Network

Within Prometheus, the transportation network is a set of line features that represent roadways. While sidewalk, bicycle, and transit networks are not necessarily included in the main transportation network file, certain calculations and values from these

Map 5.6 Prometheus Coverage


A 4D (density, diversity, design, destinations) index was developed to incorporate walkability into Prometheus estimates. Walkability is a measure of how friendly an area is for walking that incorporates multiple factors from land use and urban design. The 4D method was developed through the US EPA Smart Growth INDEX program and has been widely applied across the US. Each ‘D’ is calculated for individual TAZs, then combined into a final index score.

Density – the greater the population and employment density, the more likely people are to walk

Diversity – the more balanced between jobs and housing, the more likely people are to walk

Design – the more intersections there are per square mile, the more likely people are to walk

Destinations – the more people and households that can be reached, the more likely people are to walk

Walkability Index - 4D


Map 5.7 Prometheus Walkability


networks are represented in other ways, such as the walkability composite index, 4D. The transportation network was created and attributes such as number of lanes, posted speed limit, and presence of a median filled in using 2014/15 aerial photography, street-level photography, and direct observation.

In addition to tangible attributes such as the number of lanes, it is vital to understand the baseline travel times for vehicles on each roadway link in order to assess the impact of congestion. Baseline travel times are calculated by determining free-flow speeds. Prometheus includes estimates for free-flow speed calculated from the development of a linear regression model using the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) in conjunction with the Indiana Statewide Travel Demand Model (ISTDM) formula for freeway speeds. Data for the NPMRDS includes millions of connected vehicles, trucks, and mobile devices that anonymously supply location and movement. The importance of this change in free-flow speed estimation comes from the massive sample size of the data set. In the past, free-flow speeds were generally determined through methods that included very small samples of vehicles. The 2014 NPMRDS utilized for the Prometheus free-flow speed model included over 7.5 million vehicle observations.

Transportation Nodes

Transportation nodes contain data on traffic control devices, such as stop signs, roundabouts, and traffic signals. Nodes can indicate where there is a change in the network, such as reduced posted speed limits, as well as maintaining intersection data. This is important to allow Prometheus to appropriately assign delay caused by traffic signals and stop signs. Often, these are the locations where congestion and safety issues are the worst. Nodes are also used as the connection point from TAZs to the network; these special nodes are called TAZ centroids. Centroids are the points where trips

Data Aggregation & Disaggregation

Data maintained for specific geographies, such as Census block groups, does not always fit perfectly within a TAZ, and vice versa. In these situations, it is necessary to perform data aggregation or disaggregation to obtain a value for the TAZ. Data aggregation is a straightforward sum to total.

Disaggregation uses the TAZ percentage of the total for a reliable attribute, such as total households and applies that percentage to the attribute that is needed. In the example, the smaller TAZs have a household value that can be summed to match the total households for the data geography. That percentage is applied to the total number of senior households to determine the approximate number of senior households within each TAZ. If no attribute is known for weighting, the percentage of the total area can be used. Since Prometheus estimates largely at the household-level, households were typically used for data disaggregation.

1010

1010 10

10 10

10

10 10

100

10 blocks with 10 people

1 TAZ with 100 people

block group with20 senior households

20% 10%

25%20%

5%

20%

4 2

54

1

4

TAZ % of totalhouseholds

TAZ senior households

x



There are many differences between travel behavior and socioeconomic growth depending on whether the area is more rural or urban. In order to account for these differences, an area type classification for each TAZ, and the subsequent network links within, was calculated by taking the natural log of a weighted floating population and employment density. The floating population and employment density are simply the sum of employment and population within a half-mile

of the TAZ centroid. A floating density is used to account for areas where there are many small TAZs, such as central business districts. The natural log is used to normalize the economic intensity values to improve stratification breaks. The resulting economic intensity values were stratified using the Jenks optimization method, or natural break classification. The final area types include: rural, suburban, mixed urban, and central business district determined by the level of economic activity.


Calculating Area Type

Map 5.8 Prometheus Area Type


reviewed and applied by households, persons, or less aggregated levels, such as 1-person

household. Generally, as the number of persons within a household increase, the total daily trip rate increases. Additionally, children under 18 take fewer trips than adults, with employed adults having the highest person-level trip rate.

Population Growth

Although the Anderson MPA saw population growth of 3.02% between 1990 and 2000, it has since declined for an overall growth rate of only 1.47% between 1990 and 2015, or an estimated 0.06% annualized growth. This value illustrates exceptionally low growth, especially when compared to the nine-county central Indiana region, which saw overall annualized growth rates between 1.00 and 2.00% for the same span.

Growth at small geographies such as TAZs, can vary significantly. Aggregating to larger geographies provides a more consistent overview of growth patterns. TAZs in Prometheus can be aggregated into Travel Analysis Districts (TADs), which can be grouped into three distinct population segments that exemplify the region’s tie to Indianapolis and central Indiana. Since 1990, the Southwest segment is the only area gaining population, while the North and Central-East segments are losing population. The MPA essentially loses more population as it moves further from Indianapolis. The result is that the Southwest

generated by the population are loaded onto the network.

Heartland in Motion Transportation Study

MCCOG conducted the Heartland in Motion Transportation Study (HIM) in 2014 to gather updated data for calibrating Prometheus’ trip rates, estimating destination and mode choice models, and calibrating and estimating the updated land-use model. HIM is the first household travel survey MCCOG has conducted since the 1970s and provided extensive household-, person-, and trip-level data. Household- and person-level information is collected and compared with the Census to ensure final trip rates are properly weighted. For example, if 25% of the survey respondents are 5+ person households, which are likely to produce more trips, but the Census indicates only 10% of the households have 5+ persons, then the overall trip rates can be reduced to correct for the survey difference.

Although HIM only collected data from households within the Anderson MPA, as mentioned, Prometheus encompasses the MPA plus Hamilton County and portions of northeast Marion and north Hancock Counties. To ensure data from outside of the MPA was available for use as part of the Prometheus development process, data from the Central

Indiana Travel Study (CITS) was combined with the HIM dataset. The combined dataset includes 2,352 households, 5,590 persons, and 20,863 trips. Trip rates from the datasets can be

Table 5.1 Household Trip Rates by Household Size

HH Size HIM CITS Total1-person 4.46 4.61 4.482-person 7.96 7.58 7.903-person 9.67 11.10 9.954-person 13.04 15.65 13.925+ person 16.64 22.00 18.53Overall 8.21 11.42 8.79

Table 5.2 Person Trip Rates by Employment Status

Person Type HIM CITS TotalAdults 4.02 4.15 4.05

Employed* 4.28 4.26 4.28Non-employed** 3.39 3.94 3.50Retired 3.91 3.62 3.89

Child under 18 2.86 3.35 3.04Overall 3.84 3.92 3.87

*Includes full-time, part-time, and self-employed adults**Includes homemakers and unemployed adults


segment now makes up an additional 4.50% of the MPA population than it did in 2000. In terms of absolute growth, while the MPA lost 2,133 people, the southwest segment gained 5,875.

Population and employment forecasts are applied, aggregated, and disaggregated where appropriate from estimates developed in conjunction with the Indianapolis MPO (IMPO). IMPO utilized ensemble forecasting to combine results from the development of multiple land use forecasting models and studies. Where results were not available, Woods & Poole data was used and disaggregated by existing household concentrations.

Figure 5.1 Percent of Total Population by Segment

Map 5.9 MPA Subregions by TAD


Figure 5.2 Population Growth Rates by Segment & Forecast Year

Map 5.10 Population Change 2015 to 2045


As discussed earlier, MCCOG has a close working relationship with IMPO and our two agencies continue to revise and update model forecasts. While forecasting at the county-level is relatively accurate, the distribution of growth down to the TAZ-level is much more difficult given the number of variables that go into the decision-making process for locating residential and business developments.

Population Forecasts

Following examination of the current population growth trends, population forecasts are shown for each of the three segments: North, Central-East, and Southwest. Between 2015 and 2045, the MPA population is expected to increase by over 17,000, a growth rate of 12.42%. Approximately 74.24% of the growth is in the southwest segment.

Employment Growth

Overall employment has decreased since 2000, mostly due to the loss of major manufacturing facilities. Reviewing employment by industry shows the loss of over half of the jobs in the manufacturing industry. Employment is instead shifting to the services and wholesale trade industries. Despite the overall loss of employment since 2000, one encouraging trend is the increase in employment since the recession in the late 2000s. Employment growth comparing the 2006-2010 CTPP estimates to 2015, show an overall growth rate of 16.80%.

Although the overall employment is typically the focus of forecasts, individual industries impact the transportation system differently. Location quotient and shift share analysis are used to gain a better understanding of the changing employment within each industry, especially as compared to a larger reference economy such as the 9-County Central Indiana region.

The shift share analysis reviewing employment

Shift Share Analysis

Shift share is a standard regional analysis method that attempts to explain what factors are causing local employment growth: regional effect, industry mix, and local competitiveness.

The regional effect assumes an equal growth rate across all industries; if the overall region grew by 10%, then each industry should grow by 10%.

Industry mix is the difference between the regional industry growth and the overall regional growth; if the overall region grew by 10% and the specific industry grew by 15%, the industry mix effect is 5%. The expected change is that the local industry growth would mirror regional industry growth, therefore it is the sum of the regional effect and industry mix.

Finally, the local competitive effect represents the difference between the expected change and the actual change; if the expected change is 15%, but actual growth was 25%, then the local competitive effect is 10%. This example would indicate a significant local advantage over the region in this industry.



Location quotient (LQ) is an analytical tool used to quantify the local concentration of some quality to the larger reference region. Although it has many applications, it is most often used for industry comparisons to highlight which local industries make the economy unique. LQs compare the industry’s share of local employment with its share of regional employment. For example, assume that while the wholesale trade industry accounts for 2% of the local economy, it only accounts for 1% of the regional economy. The LQ for wholesale trade in this example would be 2.00. Any industry with an LQ greater than 1.00, is noted as a basic industry responsible for supporting the local economy.

LQs can also be used to track growth over a period of time by comparing local growth to regional growth. The LQ chart plots each industry by existing size, current LQ, and change in LQ to help categorize each. While most industries will hover around the 1.00 LQ and 0.00 change in LQ, other industries will diverge. Through this process, industries that are distinguished locally from the larger region can be highlighted for updated attraction and retention policies.

Location Quotient



between 2001 and 2015, indicates that the Anderson MPA struggles to be competitive with the rest of the region in nearly all industries except wholesale trade. This means that compared to the rest of the region, employment decreased more and increased less across each industry, except for wholesale trade. However, the ‘other services’ and ‘financial activities’ industries are the least competitive, decreasing the most despite an overall expectation of growth throughout the region.

The location quotient also provides an insight into the industries that offer the most opportunity for growth looking forward, as well as identifying industries that are considered a necessity for continued economic success. The natural resources and mining, construction, and leisure and hospitality industries are basic and saw strong growth over the analysis period. Other important industries include:

• Other Services• Public Administration

Figure 5.3 Employment Growth by Industry - 2001 to 2015

Figure 5.4 Employment Growth Rates by Segment & Forecast Year


• Professional and Business ServicesThe wholesale trade and information industries are considered emerging strengths that are showing good growth, positive growth potential, and an opportunity to compete regionally. Industries such as manufacturing, retail trade, and transportation appear to be limited moving forward by declining competitiveness and poor growth.

Employment Forecasts

Forecasted employment growth is projected to outpace population growth between 2015 and 2045. The MPA is expected to increase by nearly 13,000 jobs, a growth rate of 23.47%.

Approximately 80.90% of employment growth is anticipated to be concentrated in the Southwest segment.

Land Use

Following the population and employment growth trends, the largest change in land use for the Anderson MPA has been and is forecast to continue being in the Southwest segment. As this area continues to grow, it is expected to shift from the existing rural land uses to a more suburban and urban character. The anticipation is that growth will be concentrated along major corridors, such as I-69, SR 13, and US 36/SR 67 in the Southwest segment.

Map 5.11 Employment Change 2015 to 2045


Corridor Growth along the I-69 Corridor and the resulting traffic congestion has become a great concern, specifically near and adjacent to the interchanges. This increase in traffic is expected to continue as the Indianapolis

Figure 5.5 Regional Household Type Comparison

Figure 5.6 Annual VMT per Capita Comparison

metropolitan area and Anderson MPA become more economically interdependent. Requests concerning development potential and land availability have increased substantially for commercial and industrial uses at the interchanges, and large tracts of land are proposed for development as this plan is being developed. Considering the potential and expected inter-county travel patterns, planning efforts will focus toward a more comprehensive approach towards transportation and land use, paying attention to potential impacts on the key travel corridors of the MPA.

Household type

As the main level for estimation within Prometheus, understanding changing household characteristics is important to grasp the land use and transportation impacts. Following national and state trends since 2000, the MPA is seeing an increase in the renter-occupied and vacant share of housing units. Although the overall split between owner- and renter-occupied housing is nearly identical to the split across the State, the increase in the percentage of vacancies and the percentage increase in renter-occupied housing is nearly double the national, state, and central Indiana rates.


Travel Patterns

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is an estimate

of the total miles traveled on roadways within a defined area, in this case the MPA. VMT is generally assessed at two levels, daily and annual per capita vehicle miles traveled. Following national trends, the MPA has seen increasing daily and per capita VMT. Although there was a national reduction in VMT during the recession years in the mid-2000s, rolling averages help smooth the trend line and better illustrate the upward trend.

The Anderson MPA is almost identically mirroring the increasing VMT trend at the state-level since 2008. The VMT per capita though has been and remains approximately 500 miles per year less than the state average; within the Anderson MPA the VMT per person is over 11,700 miles per year compared to the statewide VMT per person of 12,300 miles per year.

Again, these statistics can vary more when

Figure 5.7 Segment Population & VMT

Map 5.12 Commuters to Madison County - CTPP 2006-2010


viewed at smaller geographies. Although the Central-East segment of the MPA makes up over 55% of the population, it is estimated as only 44% of the total daily VMT. To the contrary, the North segment is only 22% of the population, but is estimated as creating over 31% of the MPA VMT. This distribution is likely due to the increased density and amenities available within the Central-East segment as opposed to the separation of amenities and daily activity centers in the North segment. The Southwest segment is also estimated as generating a slightly higher percentage of the MPA VMT than its population percentage of the MPA; this may be due to its proximity to Indianapolis and the availability of jobs and amenities.

Commuting Behaviors

Trips to and from work are the most consistent trips logged throughout the week. Reviewing

the county to county flow data from the 2006-2010 CTPP provides insight for where employees are coming from and going surrounding the MPA. The Anderson MPA, or in this case, Madison County specifically, receives and sends a significant number of employees from and to surrounding counties. The top six (6) counties exchanging employees with Madison County are:

• Delaware • Grant • Hamilton • Hancock • Henry • Marion

Reviewing County to County flow maps further highlights the reliance Madison County has on the surrounding region. While over 15% of Madison County employees are from these six

Map 5.13 Commuters from Madison County - CTPP 2006-2010


surrounding counties, it also sends over 30% of its labor force—23% of the labor force works in Marion and Hamilton Counties.

The most common mode of transportation to work is by driving alone, followed by carpooling, and walking; it is also important to note that it’s estimated over 3% of workers work from home.

Movement of Goods

Primary goods movement within the MPA is depending on Interstate 69. Interstate 69 is a critical freight corridor within the United States, nicknamed the NAFTA Corridor because it links the United States with Canada and Mexico. The important of maintaining connectivity to this corridor will be important to the region moving forward.

Currently, truck travel time reliability (TTTR) on Interstate 69 is less than 1.5. However, non-interstate highways within the region have travel time reliabilities significantly worse than Interstate 69. Primary connecting corridors on SR9/109 and U.S. 36/ State Road 67 have Truck Travel Time Reliabilities of 1.5 to 3, with a few key bottlenecks reporting TTTR in excess of 3 (2018 INDOT Freight Plan).

The primary high-volume freight corridors are:

• Interstate 69 • U.S. 36. / S.R. 9 / S.R. 38 / S.R. 67

The current truck volumes on both primary corridors are between 3,000 and 7,000 trucks per day. It is forecasted that by 2035, truck volumes will growth on both corridors to between 7,000 and 13,000 trucks per day.

Primary rail served multimodal facilities support grain operations within the region. Those locations are located near Emporia, Frankton, and Lapel.

Considering connectivity issues on the current network and expanding industrial activity along Interstate 69 from Exit 222 to Exit 219. The

Anderson-Pendleton Economic Connector project (i.e. 67th Street project) would form a vital freight connector between the two interchanges with the goal of increasing freight mobility with reliable connectivity to Interstate 69 as area develops.

Transportation System Performance

Performance Measures

The FAST Act, along with its predecessor, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), established new requirements for performance management to ensure the most efficient investment of federal transportation funds. States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations will invest resources in projects to achieve individual targets that collectively will make progress toward the national goals.

National performance goals for Federal Highway programs:

Safety: To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

Infrastructure condition: To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair.

Congestion reduction: To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System (NHS).

System reliability: To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system.

Freight movement and economic vitality: To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development.

Environmental sustainability: To enhance the


performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

Reduced project delivery delays: To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies’ work practices.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued new transportation planning rules on the statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes to reflect the use of a performance-based approach to decision-making in support of the national goals.

These processes must document in writing how the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), and providers of public transportation shall jointly agree to cooperatively develop and share information related to transportation performance data, the selection of performance targets, and the reporting of performance to be used in tracking progress toward attainment of critical outcomes for the region. The Federal Transit Administration has performance measures for Transit Asset Management, and final regulations are published and in effect. The Federal Highway Administration has performance measures and final regulations published for Safety, Bridge and Pavement Conditions, Congestion Reduction and System Reliability.

Safety Performance

The implementation of the safety performance measures and initial target setting is complete for the State of Indiana. MCCOG in conjunction with the Indiana DOT, and other planning partners, has collaborated with the development of performance measure

Table 5.4 Rolling Average Crash Fatalities

Years Num. Rate State2008-2012 64 0.83 1.002009-2013 63 0.81 0.982010-2014 64 0.81 0.982011-2015 61 0.76 0.982012-2016 59 0.73 0.982013-2017 48 0.59 1.00

Table 5.3 Safety Target Performance MeasuresPM Year Target# of Fatalities 2019 889.60Fatalities per 100 MVMT 2019 1.09# of Serious Injuries 2019 3,501.90Serious Injuries per 100 MVMT 2019 4.23# of Non-Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries

2019 393.60

data and target setting. The specific safety performance measures and targets are listed below. MCCOG has elected to support the State of Indiana’s Safety Performance Targets for 2019, the targets listed are represented as statewide values.

MPA Safety

Safety is evaluated by number of fatalities, rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, number of serious injuries (KABCO A level), rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, and number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries (KABCO A level). Rolling five-year crash statistics were calculated to compare the Anderson MPA with Indiana. The rolling five-year average is used due to the potential of significant variation from year to year.

Between 2008 and 2017, the Anderson MPA consistently decreased the number and rate of fatalities. When compared to Indiana the Anderson MPA has shown improvement over the course of the rolling five-year crash statistics from 2008-2012 to 2013-2017, while the statewide rate of fatalities has remained around 1.00 and the number of fatalities has increased.


At first glance the number and rate of serious injuries increases rapidly from 2008-2012 to 2013-2017. This increase is likely due to a KABCO definition change in 2015, though there is no way to re-analyze the crash records as the definition change modified the reporting directly, not how data is later classified. The definition change was reversed in 2017, so an updated comparison for serious injury crashes will not be directly equivalent until the 2015 and 2016 data is no longer used in 2021. In the future, once the 2015 and 2016 years are no longer used in the rolling five-year crash statistics the number and rate of serious injuries should return to average levels during the 2008 to 2014 rolling periods.

Between 2008 and 2012 the Anderson MPA had a total of 20 non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. Between 2009 and 2013 the Anderson MPA had a total of 19 non-motorized

Figure 5.8 Fatality Rate per 100 million VMT Comparison

Table 5.5 Rolling Average Serious Injury Crashes

Years Num. Rate2008-2012 274 3.552009-2013 285 3.642010-2014 279 3.552011-2015* 542 6.792012-2016* 875 10.802013-2017* 915 11.27

Crash Severity Ratings - KABCO

The KABCO injury scale categorizes crashes by severity for use in crash intensity and cost analyses. KABCO ratings can be used to weight crash densities by severity to identify locations where there are not only high numbers of crashes, but concentrations of more severe crashes.

K – Fatal Injury: any injury that results in death within a 30-day period after the crash occurred.

A – Incapacitating Injury: a non-fatal injury that prevents the injured person from walking, driving, or normally continuing they were capable of before the injury. Hospitalization is usually required.

B – Non-incapacitating Injury: an injury, other than fatal or incapacitating, which is evident to the officer at the scene. Hospitalization is not usually required.

C – Possible Injury: any injury reported or claimed which is not visible.

O – No Injury: no injury reported or claimed. Property damage only.


Note: This map does not normalize crashes by traffic volumes or severity, it only uses the pure number of crashes. Normalizing would better illustrate locations with abnormally high crash rates for focused attention and potential funding allocation.

Map 5.14 Crash Density


Table 5.7 Pavement Condition Target Performance MeasuresPM Year TargetPercent of Intersate pavements in good condition

2019 84.24%

Percent of Interstate pavements in poor condition

2019 0.80%

Percent of non-interstate NHS pavements in good condition

2019 78.71%

Percent of non-interstate NHS pavements in poor condition

2019 3.10%

Percent of Intersate pavements in good condition

2021 84.24%

Percent of Interstate pavements in poor condition

2021 0.80%

Percent of non-interstate NHS pavements in good condition

2021 78.71%

Percent of non-interstate NHS pavements in poor condition

2021 3.10%

Table 5.8 NHS Travel Time Reliability Target Performance MeasuresPM Year TargetPercent of person miles reliable on interstate

2019 90.50%

Percent of person miles reliable on interstate

2021 92.80%

Percent of person miles reliable on non-interstate NHS

2021 89.80%

Table 5.9 Interstate Freight Reliability Target Performance MeasuresPM Year TargetTruck travel time reliability index on interstate

2019 1.27

Truck travel time reliability index on interstate

2021 1.24

fatalities and serious injuries. Between 2010 and 2014 the Anderson MPA had a total of 20 non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. Between 2011 and 2015 the Anderson MPA had a total of 22 non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. Between 2012-2016 the Anderson MPA had a total of 24 non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. Between 2013 and 2017 the Anderson MPA had a total of 24 non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries.

Infrastructure Performance

The pavement and bridge condition performance measures are applicable to the Interstate and non-Interstate Highways that comprise the National Highway System (NHS). The NHS includes the Interstate Highway System as well as other roads important to

Table 5.6 Rolling Average Non-Motorized Crashes

Years Num.2008-2012 202009-2013 192010-2014 202011-2015 222012-2016 242013-2017 24

the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility. The measures are focused on the condition of pavement and bridges, including ramps utilized to access the system. MCCOG has elected to support the State of Indiana’s pavement and bridge condition targets, the targets listed are represented as statewide values.

System Performance

The system performance measures are also applicable to the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS. These performance measures assess system reliability and freight movement and establish several measures for on-road mobile source emissions consistent with the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program. MCCOG has elected to support the State of Indiana’s NHS travel time reliability, interstate freight reliability, and on-road mobile emission source targets, the targets listed are represented as statewide values.


Table 5.10 On-Road Mobile Source Emission Target Performance MeasuresPM Year TargetCMAQ project reduction of volatile organic compoounds (VOC)

2019 1,600.00

CMAQ project reduction of carbon monoxide (CO)

2019 200.00

CMAQ project reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx)

2019 1,600.00

CMAQ project reduction of particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10)

2019 0.30

CMAQ project reduction of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5)

2019 20.00

CMAQ project reduction of volatile organic compoounds (VOC)

2021 2,600.00

CMAQ project reduction of carbon monoxide (CO)

2021 400.00

CMAQ project reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx)

2021 2,200.00

CMAQ project reduction of particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10)

2021 0.50

CMAQ project reduction of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5)

2021 30.00


Table 5.11 Bridge Condition Target Performance MeasuresPM Year TargetPercent of NHS bridges by deck area classified as in good condition

2019 48.32%

Percent of NHS bridges by deck area classified as in poor condition

2019 2.63%

Percent of NHS bridges by deck area classified as in good condition

2021 48.32%

Percent of NHS bridges by deck area classified as in poor condition

2021 2.63%

Bridges

There are 299 bridges within the Anderson MPA included in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). A bridge sufficiency rating is calculated by combining structural integrity, design obsolescence, and importance to the public with ratings ranging from 0 to 100. Sufficiency ratings must be below 80 for federal repair funding and below 50 to receive federal replacement funding. 14 bridges within the MPA fall below 50 and another 48 are below 80, but above 50.

Map 5.15 Bridges by Sufficiency Rating


Congestion in the Anderson Metropolitan Area

Prometheus illustrates the transportation system with vehicle flows to gain an understanding of facility use and the location for potential congestion issues. The overall model area highlights the I-465 and I-69 interchange as the most congested location. Within the MPA, congestion on I-69, US 36 / SR 67 and State Street in Pendleton, SR 9 / Scatterfield Road in Anderson, and sections of US 36 / Broadway and SR 13 in Fortville are highlighted.

Map 5.16 Base Year


Map 5.17 Base Year - MPA


Prometheus generates additional trips from the projected population and employment growth. Assuming no system modifications are made, but the number of people, employees, and therefore trips increases, Prometheus illustrates the potential increase in congestion seen across the transportation system. Segments throughout the MPA including I-69, US 36, SR 32, SR 109, SR 37, and SR 13 are expected to see significant increases in congestion. Within Anderson, Prometheus also highlights the shift of traffic from SR 9 / Scatterfield onto Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Boulevard, likely due to increased commuter flow from the southwest. This comparison indicates a strong need for system improvements in the southwest subregion of the MPA or a further

Map 5.18 No-Build Scenario

analysis of alternatives for connections into the Indianapolis region.


Map 5.19 No-Build Scenario - MPA


Chapter 6

Financial Analysis & Projects

The projects and programs identified in this chapter represent the selected “fiscally-constrained” system needed to address the impacts of future growth on our regional transportation system based on the goals and objectives identified through public participation. The regional trends & future demand chapter illustrated the impacts of forecast population and employment growth on the transportation system assuming no changes were made to address potential issues. This “no build system” denotes the locations for potential issues and helps inform what projects should be built to support growth. While an ideal system can be considered, limiting factors such as financing, the environment, and state and federal regulations must be accounted for.

While the primary mission of the 2045 Plan is to implement projects to accommodate the growth needs of the region, the plan must also address other state and federal transportation planning requirements that may not directly assist in implementing all the noted needs from the planning process. The final project list was developed after constraining to the MPO and LPA’s available financial resources. The following chapter discusses the financial condition of the region, determines which projects are the most feasible and cost-effective, and provides an illustrative list of projects that would benefit the overall transportation system if other funding sources were to become available in the future. Projects are identified by several attributes, including the air quality exemption status.


Financial Analysis

Under federal law, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan must include a financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented. An analysis of the estimated funds that are reasonably expected to be available for transportation uses, including mass transit, and the cost of constructing, maintaining, and operating the total existing and planned transportation system over a specified planning horizon.

As part of the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan update, a conservative estimate of funding estimates and cost was conducted to reasonably determine if the planned transportation system meets federal requirements for fiscal constraint.

Local Sources of Funding

There are 5 main funding categories that are frequently used for operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, and capital improvements. An analysis was conducted by reviewing 5 years disbursements and receipts from the Indiana Department of Local Government (DLGF) and reviewing disbursements with local departments to determine accuracy.

Roadway

Average operation and maintenance costs are found in table 6.1. The estimated system maintenance costs are derived from a review of all LPA departments, and are then used to determine an average O&M costs per lane-mile of roadway facility. Costs included in O&M are for the preservation of the transportation system, such as: snow & ice removal, patching pot holes, repairing shoulders, maintenance of signs and traffic control signals, highway department labor costs, administrative costs, utilities and rent, and other similar costs. Capital improvement costs such as contract paving (i.e. HMA overlays) or expansion projects are not included in the estimate of O&M costs.

Transit

Operating and maintenance costs for transit include the operator’s salaries, materials, supplies, and activities associated with maintaining and operating the current fleet of buses and operations of the transit system as a whole. There are two transit systems within the MPA: City of Anderson Transit System (CATS), which operates a fixed route bus service and paratransit demand-response service, and the Transit for Rural Areas of Madison County (TRAM), which operates a paratransit demand-response service.

Local Revenue Estimates

There are 5 primary revenue fund sources available to LPA’s, which are shown in Table 6.4. Additionally, there is 6th fund which includes atypical revenues which may be unique to specific municipalities. The capacity to issue General Obligation (GO) bonds, or us Tax Increment Financing (TIF) financing and bonding is not considered in the estimate of local revenues, even though it has frequently been used as a match for local shares of federal aid projects recently.

The primary funds that are reasonably expected to be made available for local projects are:

• Motor Vehicle Highway Fund (MVH) • Local Road and Streets Fund (LRS) • Capital Cumulative Improvement Fund

(CCI) • Capital Cumulative Development Fund

(CCD) • Capital Cumulative Bridge Fund (CBF)

Additionally, other local sources of funding such County Economic Development Income Tax (CEDIT) and Food and Beverage Tax (FAB) are expected to be reasonably available for capital improvement projects.

Sources of revenues for each fund come from a variety of local sources, those include:


• General Property Tax • Financial Institution Tax • Vehicle/Aircraft Excise Tax • Motor Vehicle Highway Tax • Wheel Tax • Commercial Vehicle Excise Tax • County Economic Development Income

Tax • Food and Beverage Tax

Sources of revenue may also come from federal entitlement grants, such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.

Total O&M costs for local highways was derived from MVH and LRS funds, and after consultation with LPA, an estimate per lane mile of O&M was calculated at $4,560 for the local road network within the MPA.

A 2% annual inflation increase was applied to MVH, LRS, CBG, and Other funds over the planning horizon, and a 1% annual inflation increase was applied to CCI and CCD funds.

It was estimated that O&M costs would increase with inflation at 2%, and that a minimum of 75% of the funds would be used for contract paving (i.e. HMA), and other system preservation costs. Table 6.2 includes a summary of estimated revenues, operations

and maintenance costs, and estimate revenue available for non-system preservation costs (i.e. expansion, reconstruction, new terrain, etc.)

Local transit revenues come from multiple sources, including general fund transfers, as well as fare and advertising fees. Local transit revenues were forecasted to grow conservatively at an annual rate of inflation of 2%, despite the historic 5-year average rate being higher.

Federal Aid for Local Projects

The federal funding for which the MPO is responsible for prioritizing and allocating come from 4 main programmatic funding categories: Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Group II, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ), and Transportation Alternatives (TA).

The MPO receives additional funding from funding categories. For the purpose of forecasting, only the allocation from the 4 primary sources are considered for the year 2019 forward. The federal funds forecast consisted of a conservative estimate by flat-lining 2019 allocations through 2045. Federal funds that are not from the 4 funding categories are included in previous years for the years 2017-2019. The estimated total 2017-2045 federal program is $113,017,323.00 for non-transit surface transportation projects.

Assuming that CATS and TRAM continue to receive federal and state funds, the 2017 base year disbursement of 5307, 5311, and Indiana Public Mass Transit Funds (PMTF) used known years for 2017 and 2018, with future

Table 6.1 Estimated Local Highway Revenues - 2017Local Revenue $18,360,910O&M Cost per mile $4,560Total O&M Cost $14,309,480Remaining $4,051,430

Table 6.2 Forecast Local Highway RevenuesAnalysis Period 2017-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045Local Revenue $178,916,890 $239,473,650 $291,283,240O&M Cost $139,583,700 $187,252,910 $228,260,250Remaining $39,333,190 $52,220,730 $63,022,990Cap. Improve. $9,833,300 $13,055,180 $15,755,750Total Available $49,166,490 $65,275,910 $78,778,740

Table 6.3 Forecast Local Transit RevenuesAnalysis Period CATS TRAM Total Available2017-2025 $11,638,050 $1,826,923 $13,464,9732026-2035 $13,920,184 $2,411,564 $16,331,7482036-2045 $16,968,627 $2,939,684 $19,908,310Total $42,526,861 $7,178,171 $49,705,032


Table 6.4 Estimated Federal Funds - Non-TransitAnalysis Period 2017-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045 TotalSTBG Group II $14,452,721 $15,948,140 $15,948,140 $46,349,001HSIP $3,287,776 $3,640,360 $3,640,360 $10,568,496CMAQ $7,085,114 $7,855,890 $7,855,890 $22,796,894TA $1,267,696 $1,399,380 $1,399,380 $4,066,456PYB $7,906,801 $- $- $7,906,801Section 164 $276,305 $- $- $276,305Bonus $137,638 $- $- $137,638DEMO $3,146,234 $- $- $3,146,234TIGER $12,500,000 $- $- $12,500,000Group 3/4 $5,269,498 $- $- $5,269,498Total $55,329,783 $28,843,770 $28,843,770 $113,017,323

Table 6.5 Estimated Federal Funds - TransitAnalysis Period 2017-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045 Total5307 $10,553,367 $11,746,600 $11,746,600 $34,046,5675311 $1,985,367 $2,233,740 $2,233,740 $6,452,847PMTF (CATS) $3,204,783 $3,560,870 $3,560,870 $10,326,523PMTF (TRAM) $571,958 $636,270 $636,270 $1,844,498Total $16,315,475 $18,177,480 $18,177,480 $52,670,435

years using a flat-line projection was used from the last year of know federal and state disbursement. The estimated total 2017-2045 federal/state program is $52,670,345.00 for transit projects.

For both the Non-transit surface transportation program and transit surface transportation program, the 2017-2025 analysis year includes the actual amount of funds used in a specific analysis year, and then flatlined growth based on anticipated allocations for STBG Group II, HSIP, CMAQ, TA, 5307, 5311, and PMTF funds for future years.

Financial Feasibility

Table 6.6 contains the financial analysis for the fiscally constrained plan. A financial analysis was conducted for 3 program areas: State Non-Exempt Non-Transit Surface Transportation, Local Non-Transit Surface Transportation, and Local Transit Surface Transportation. For projects that are currently funded in the TIP, only funds that were used or remaining are used for the purposes of the financial analysis

(i.e. If Project A has a total cost of $100, and $90 were expended prior to the year 2017, only $10 of remaining cost were brought into the financial plan).

The total state program anticipated to spent for non-exempt highway surface transportation is $74,025,788.00 in the 2017-2025 analysis period. An additional $70,000,000 will be expended in the 2026-2035 analysis year. These funds are primarily spent on expansion projects, with the bulk of these funds being used to expand Interstate 69 from 2 lanes to 3 lanes in each direction. The financial plan assumes that the State

of Indiana can meet its obligations and is considered fiscally constrained.

The local non-transit surface transportation program is anticipated to generate a total of $709,673,777.16 in total local revenues from 2017-2045. Total Operations & Maintenance (O&M) costs are anticipated to be $555,096,867.26, leaving $154,576,909.90 available to fund capital improvement costs such as reconstruction, expansion, and contract paving projects. The total federal program is anticipated to be $125,685,798.01, requiring a total federal match of $31,421.449.50. For the most part, projects are assumed to be a typical 80% federal funding with 20% local match. However, this assumption does not necessarily hold true for the 2017-2025 analysis period based on actual funds disbursed. The federal allocation in the year 2017-2025 exceeds the federal allocation expected to be made available to the MPO. This is because of the regions success in securing INDOT Group 3/4 funds in the non-urbanized areas of the region, the award of discretionary ear mark funds prior to the federal legislative


ban, and the award of Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) funds. Additionally, for the year 2026-2035 analysis period, it is anticipated that once engineering and environmental documentation for the Anderson-Pendleton Economic Connector project parallel to Interstate 69 is complete, the region will be able to secure a minimum of $15 million in Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) funds based on the regions previous success in securing other discretionary funds. It is still anticipated that even with BUILD funds for the Anderson-Pendleton Economic Connector project, the MPO will still need to contribute anticipated allocation of funds to this project. A detailed breakdown of each analysis period is in Table 6.6. Based on this analysis it is anticipated that the region will have funds reasonably available to fund the plan, while still maintaining a surplus of additional funds to complete projects that may not necessarily be part of this plan.

The local transit surface transportation program is anticipated to generate local revenue of $49,705,031.52 from 2017-2045. It is anticipated that the total federal and state funds dedicated

Table 6.6 2045 MTP - Fiscal ConstraintAnalysis Period 2017-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045 TotalState Revenues $74,025,788.00 $70,000,000.00 $- $144,025,788.00 State Spent $74,025,788.00 $70,000,000.00 $- $144,025,788.00 Fiscally Constrained YES YES YES YESTotal Local Revenues $178,916,890.74 $239,473,645.04 $291,283,241.37 $709,673,777.16 Local O&M $139,583,701.51 $187,252,911.50 $228,260,254.25 $555,096,867.26 Local Available $39,333,189.23 $52,220,733.54 $63,022,987.12 $154,576,909.90 MPO Available $34,414,051.00 $28,843,770.00 $28,843,770.00 $92,101,591.00 Special Available $20,915,732.00 $15,000,000.00 $- $35,915,732.00 Total Federal Available $55,329,783.00 $43,843,770.00 $28,843,770.00 $128,017,323.00 2045 MTP Plan Cost $68,760,424.73 $53,995,477.07 $34,351,345.72 $157,107,247.51 Total Federal Spent $55,008,339.78 $43,196,381.66 $27,481,076.57 $125,685,798.01 Local Spent (Fed Aid) $13,752,084.95 $10,799,095.41 $6,870,269.14 $31,421,449.50 Fiscally Constrained YES YES YES YESTransit Revenues $1,838,561.07 $16,331,748.27 $19,908,310.01 $38,078,619.36 Transit Federal/State $16,315,475.00 $18,177,480.00 $18,177,480.00 $52,670,435.00 CATS/TRAM Spent $18,154,036.07 $34,509,228.27 $38,085,790.01 $90,749,054.36 Fiscally Constrained YES YES YES YES

to local transit will be $102,375,466.52 from 2017-2045. Local transit will spend an estimated $103,375,466.53 from 2017-2045. The share of local match for transit funds varies depending on the use of those funds (i.e. operating costs vs capital improvements) but is anticipated the local transit revenues will be fiscally constrained. A detailed breakdown of local transit spending by analysis period is provided in Table 6.6.

Fiscally-Constrained Projects

The committee reviewed the projects in this plan that were proposed for future construction or further study with specific consideration of the selection criteria established. Criteria for project selection are identified in the graphic on the following page. Although each of the criterion is considered, two are highlighted and discussed for the MPA: cultural resources and environmental justice.


Figure 6.1 Project Selection Criteria


Cultural Resources and Environmental Justice (Title VI Analysis)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) place restrictions on the adverse impacts of projects utilizing federal funds, including consideration of many elements of the human environment. An understanding of the elements of the human environment such as historic buildings and districts, archeological sites, and Native American sacred sites is vital for ensuring projects are successful and minimize negative impacts.

Cultural and historic resources are particularly important to consider within the MPA due to the presence of at least one identified and protected sacred site. This one site is enough to warrant additional scrutiny of the impact on cultural resources in the MPA due to the high potential for other artifacts to be discovered. Map 6.1 illustrates the location of other historic resources within the MPA, including districts and sites that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Not all historic resources are included on the National Register (NR) however. Some locations such as downtown Alexandria are not officially protected on the NR but are highlighted and discussed in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory (IHSSI) and are important to consider as well.

Environmental justice is defined by the US EPA as,

“The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”

The Anderson MPA aims to minimize potential negative impacts on the character of low-income and minority neighborhoods, improve the equitable distribution of federal funds throughout the community, and target engagement for generally underrepresented

populations. The following maps overlay the fiscally-constrained projects with 2017 ACS Block Group data showing percentage below poverty and percent minority. The US Census minority population definition, which combines race and ethnicity to include non-white and Hispanic/Latino categories is used.

Locations with a high percentage of the population below poverty are generally spread across the MPA but more apparent in the north and central-east subregions, with the highest concentration being in downtown Anderson area. Minority populations are less distributed, being highly weighted by the west downtown neighborhoods of Anderson. It is important to note that projects with the greatest impact on these neighborhoods, such as Raible Avenue added travel lanes, were completed prior to this plan.

Although this plan includes only a cursory overview of project impacts, MCCOG continues to improve the public engagement and project selection process to better address environmental justice concerns. It can be particularly challenging to gain input from underrepresented populations through traditional public meetings. MCCOG works with many community groups directly to gather insight on needs and developing a composite socio-economic index that combines multiple environmental justice categories, including minority and impoverished communities, to further refine identified areas of need and target public engagement to address community concerns.


Map 6.1 Historic Resources


Map 6.2 Poverty & Project List Overlay


Map 6.3 Minority & Project List Overlay


Table 6.7 Fiscally-Constrained Project List# Location Termini Owner Analysis

PeriodN/W S/E1 22nd Street SR 28 S P Street EL 2017-2025

2 38th Street SR 9 Rangeline Road AN 2017-2025

3 53rd Street Dr. MLK, Jr. Boulevard Columbus Avenue AN 2026-2035

4 AN-PD Economic Connector SR 38 Layton Road AN/PD 2026-2035

5 Bridge 502 (8th Street) Central Avenue Milton Avenue MC 2017-20256 CATS - Transportation Center CATS 2017-20257 College Drive / 5th Street University Boulevard 5th Street AN 2017-2025

8 Columbus Avenue 60th Street 67th Street AN 2036-20459 Enterprise Drive Dr. MLK, Jr. Boulevard Columbus Avenue AN 2036-2045

10 Interstate 69 Mile marker 218 Exit 226 INDOT 2017-2025

11 Interstate 69 Exit 226 Exit 234 INDOT 2026-2035

12 Madison Avenue Cross Street Van Buskirk Road AN 2026-2035

13 Madison Avenue 29th Street Corp. Limits AN 2017-202514 Madison Street / SR 13 US 36 Fortville Pike FO 2017-2025

15 Main Street 38th Street 46th Street AN 2036-204516 Main Street Church Street US 36 / Broadway Street FO 2017-202517 Michigan Street Merrill Street Madison Street / SR 13 FO 2017-202518 Mt. Vernon Trail Garden Street SR 234 FO 2017-2025

19 Raible Avenue 29th Street 38th Street AN 2036-204520 Raible Avenue Cross Street Northshore Boulevard AN 2036-204521 Rangeline Road SR 236 CR 500 AN 2036-204522 Sign Replacement Various 2017-202523 State Street Intersection Heritage Way PD 2017-202524 State Street Pedestrian Bridge Exit 219 PD 2017-2025

25 US 36 / SR 67 Garden Street Madison Street / SR 13 INDOT 2017-2025

26 US 36 / SR 67 / SR 9 Falls Park Drive Madison Avenue INDOT 2017-202527 Washington Street CR 100 W SR 9 AL 2017-2025

Project List

The following tables provide information on the projects included within the fiscally-constrained list. Each project notes the estimated costs, open years, current status, and primary funds

planned. Some projects are split into multiple phases to allow for additional flexibility in managing the overall project timelines, or to indicate differing construction years. As the project map illustrates, the bulk of projects


Project Description

Road reconstruction to improve corridor safety, support economic development, & update intersection turning radii due to increased truck traffic.Added travel lanes are recommended to compensate for projected traffic growth due to increasing commercial activity along SR 9 / Scatterfield Rd.Added travel lanes are recommended due to increasing traffic between I-69, Scatterfield Rd, & surrounding neighborhoods.New road construction of a two-lane roadway with multi-use sidepaths to serve as a frontage road between & beyond I-69 Exits 219 & 222.Bridge reconstruction along a major east/west corridor connecting SR 9 through downtown Anderson.Construction of a new transportation center to support increased ridership & regional bus connections.Corridor enhancement project as part of resurfacing, including travel lane width reductions & replacement of sidewalks/curb ramps to meet ADA.A lane-widening improvement project to support continued commercial/retail/residential growth southeast of I-69.New road construction of a two-lane roadway with multi-use sidepaths to serve as a frontage road along I-69 between Exits 222 & Columbus Ave.Added travel lanes as part of the expansion from I-69 Exit 205 due to increasing traffic volumes & commercial/heavy truck volume percentages.Added travel lanes to complete the expansion from I-69 Exit 205 due to increasing commuter & heavy truck volumes.A lane-widening improvement project with sidewalks to connect Deer Creek, Sagamore, van Buskirk Heights, & the Community Hospital developments.Added travel lanes to support connections between &erson & residential growth in the southwest MPA subregion.New road construction of a two-lane, boulevard roadway including sidewalks/sidepaths to mitigate passenger and truck congestion along SR 13 & US 36.Added travel lanes to support commercial & residential activity on the southeast sections of Anderson.Road reconstruction to replace aging infrastructure & increase pedestrian space through lane width reductions.Corridor enhancement project to improve pedestrian safety.Trail construction to expand the sidewalk system from US 36 to connect with the Mt. Vernon school campus, including safe crossing improvements.Added travel lanes to support residential & commercial growth linking I-69 Exit 222 & Pendleton Ave.Added travel lanes to complete the expansion already completed between Northshore Boulevard & 16th St.Added travel lanes to support increased north/south traffic volumes.Warning & regulatory sign replacement to meet MUTCD standards.Intersection improvement project including the installation of a roundabout to improve traffic flow & corridor safety.Construction of a pedestrian bridge over I-69 at Exit 219 to improve bicycle & pedestrian connectivity along the State St / SR 38 corridor.Lane reduction project to improve corridor safety, reduce traveling speeds, & increase right-of-way for bike/ped amenities to be installed.Added travel lanes to reduce delay & crashes within the US 36 / SR 38 intersection influence zone.Road reconstruction to improve corridor safety, support economic development, & update roadway design.

planned between 2017 and 2045 are located within the southwest subregion and the City of Anderson. Projects located in Fortville and Pendleton, as well as the I-69 added travel lanes project are particularly in place to support the growing demand. The Forecast “No Build”

System and Forecast “Build” System maps on the following pages illustrate the difference in congestion levels with and without the constrained projects. These maps indicate that forecasted congestion levels are reduced along the I-69, US 36, and SR 13 corridors.


Table 6.8 Estimated Costs, Phasing, & Open Years# DES # Project Owner Primary

FunderEstimated Cost

Year Open

Status

State Non-Exempt10 1592426 I-69 Added Travel Lanes - 218 to SR 9 INDOT INDOT $70,000,000 2019 TIP 11 1592426 I-69 Added Travel Lanes - SR 9 to SR 32 INDOT INDOT $70,000,000 2026 TIP 25 1700803 US 36 / SR 67 Road Diet INDOT INDOT $325,788 2020 TIP 26 1702936 US 36 Added Travel Lanes INDOT INDOT $3,700,000 2023 TIP Local Non-Exempt3 NA 53rd St - Columbus to MLK AN MPO $8,767,530 2030 Planned4 1592299 AN-PD Economic Connector (PE) AN/PD DEMO $2,779,976 2020 TIP4 1592299 AN-PD Economic Connector (RW+CN) AN BUILD/MPO $37,096,770 2026 Planned9 NA Enterprise Dr - MLK to Ridgeview (RW) AN MPO $1,365,952 2045 Planned9 NA Enterprise Dr - Ridgeview to Columbus AN MPO $5,463,810 2045 Planned12 NA Madison Ave - Van Buskirk to Cross St AN MPO $8,131,176 2035 Planned13 NA Madison St - 29th to 53rd AN MPO $7,562,948 2025 Planned13 NA Madison St - 53rd to Corp Limits AN MPO $3,025,179 2025 Planned19 NA Raible Ave - 29th to 38th AN MPO $4,187,555 2036 Planned20 NA Raible Ave - Northshore to Cross AN MPO $6,281,333 2036 PlannedLocal Exempt1 1383417 22nd St Reconstruction EL GROUP 3 $7,265,435 2019 TIP2 NA 38th St - SR 9 to Rangeline AN MPO $1,890,737 2025 Planned5 1297202 Bridge 502 (8th St) MC TIGER $16,990,414 2019 TIP6 1172548 CATS - Transportation Center CATS MPO $8,273,531 2019 TIP7 1592300 College Dr Ped Improvements - P2 AN DEMO $1,039,973 2019 TIP8 NA Columbus Ave- 60th to 67th AN MPO $2,731,905 2045 Planned14 NA Madison Street Extension FO MPO $6,800,000 2025 Planned15 NA Main St - 38th to 46th AN MPO $4,187,555 2036 Planned16 1592444 Main St Pedestrian Improvements FO MPO $2,542,265 2019 TIP17 1592443 Michigan St Pedestrian Improvements FO MPO $567,850 2018 TIP18 1592447 Mt Vernon Trail - P1 FO MPO $1,610,000 2020 TIP18 1592448 Mt Vernon Trail - P2 FO MPO $3,204,587 2020 TIP18 1592449 Mt Vernon Trail - P3 FO MPO $1,186,845 2020 TIP21 NA Rangeline Rd - CR 400 to CR 500 AN MPO $5,891,413 2040 Planned21 NA Rangeline Rd - SR 236 to CR 400 AN MPO $4,241,817 2040 Planned22 1400931 Sign Replacement Various MPO $1,608,244 2017 TIP23 1401152 State Street Intersection Improvement PD MPO $2,273,550 2019 TIP24 1401151 State Street Pedestrian Bridge over I-69 PD MPO $1,583,866 2019 TIP27 1383054 Washington St - P2 AL MPO $1,374,140 2017 TIP27 1800242 Washington St - P3 AL MPO $1,312,770 2022 TIP27 1800243 Washington St - P4 AL MPO $2,378,470 2022 TIP27 1800244 Washington St - P5 AL MPO $1,179,760 2022 TIP


Map 6.4 Fiscally Constrained Projects


Map 6.5 No-Build Scenario - MPA


Map 6.6 Build Scenario - MPA


Table 6.9 Illustrative Project ListLocation Termini Owner

N/W S/E38th Street Raible Ave 38th Street ANAN-PD Economic Connector CR 650 W SR 38 AN/PD

Columbus Ave 32nd Street Columbus Ave ANDr. MLK Jr, Blvd AN

Norfolk-Southern ANSR 13 SR 38 Madison/Hancock County Line INDOTSR 28 Madison/Tipton County Line SR 37 INDOTSR 37 SR 28 CR 400 N INDOTSR 37 1900 N SR 28 INDOTSR 38 Madison/Hamilton County Line I-69 INDOTSR 9 SR 28 SR 128 INDOTSR 9 INDOTSR 9 SR 234 US 36/SR 67 INDOTUS 36 Madison St SR 9 Junction in Pendleton INDOT

US 36 SR 9 Junction in Pendleton Fortville Town Line INDOT

W. Enterprise Drive Dr. MLK Jr, Blvd Ridgeview Drive AN

W. Enterprise Drive Ridgeview Drive Madison Ave AN

W. Enterprise Drive Madison Ave Columbus Ave AN

Illustrative Projects

Illustrative projects represent potential projects that go beyond the fiscally-constrained project list. These projects were highlighted through the public participation and analysis phases of the MTP development but were not able to fit into the fiscally-constrained list due to

funding. Should additional funding become available, these projects may be moved onto the fiscally-constrained list. Alternatively, some of these projects may end up being funded directly at the local level and are important to be referenced within the MTP.


Project Description

Rail/Roadway grade seperation provides a realigment for a more direct entry point to this north-south arterial. New road construction of a two-lane roadway with sidewalks &/or multi-use sidepaths to serve as a frontage road between I-69 Exit 219 & CR 650 W.Rail/Roadway grade seperation is on an arterial street surrounded by residential areas at 32nd StreetRail/Roadway grade seperation on Dr. MLK Jr, Blvd. This arterial is the most direct travel route from downtown to the interstate. Rail/Roadway alignment connection linking Norfolk-Southern to existing CSX mainline track near MLK Blvd.Added travel lanes & sidewalks are recommended due to several proposed developments on SR 13 & SR 38. Road reconstruction, median construction, curb, gutter, & sidewalks would be part of the project. Added travel lanes to support increased north/south traffic volumes.Added travel lanes to support increased north/south traffic volumes.Road reconstruction is recommended due to commercia truck volumes & several proposed developments.Modernization of the railroad crossing light & gates at north Norfolk Southern at-grade intersections. Rail/Roadway grade separation to eliminate traffic delays & congestion on SR 9 / Scatterfield Rd.Added travel lanes are recommended to compensate for projected traffic growth & commercial truck volumes.Added travel lanes & sidewalks are recommended due to several proposed developments & projected traffic growth. Added travel lanes & sidewalks are recommended due to several proposed developments & projected traffic growth. New road construction of a two-lane roadway with sidewalks &/or multi-use sidepaths to serve as a frontage road between & beyond I-69 Exits 222 & 226.New road construction of a two-lane roadway with sidewalks &/or multi-use sidepaths to serve as a frontage road between & beyond I-69 Exits 222 & 226.New road construction of a two-lane roadway with sidewalks &/or multi-use sidepaths to serve as a frontage road between & beyond I-69 Exits 222 & 226.


Map 6.7 Illustrative Projects


AppendixAppendix A: 2045 MTP Public Meeting - Summary .................................. 110Appendix B: US 36 Added Travel Lanes Public Meeting - Summary ..... 115Appendix C: Document Updates from INDOT Guidance ........................ 126


Appendix A: 2045 MTP Public Meeting - Summary

Anderson Public Library - Feb. 11, 2019

The meeting was held from 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM in the Delaware Room in the Anderson Public Library. The public comment period was open for 15 days (January 30,2019) prior to the meeting in compliance with MCCOG’s Public Participation Plan (PPP). Also, the public meeting was advertised on the MCCOG website and in the Greenfield Reporter, The Herald Bulletin, and the Muncie Star Press newspapers as a public notice. The meeting was set up as “gallery style” where participants signed-in, received four stickers and were asked to view posters explaining the 2045 Interim MTP. The stickers were to be placed on feedback posters about certain elements of the plan. There was overwhelming support from all participants that the primary goal in the 2045 Interim MTP is still relevant today. The other three questions received differentiating support about equity, future transportation issues, and future transportation concerns. 15 people came to participate in the public meeting.

Requested Feedback

Question 1: The primary goal in the 2045 Interim MTP is still relevant today.

Participants were asked to place one sticker under a agree or disagree category. All 15 participants placed their sticker under the agree category.

Question 2: What concerns do you have about your transportation future?

Participants were asked to place one sticker under the following categories: No Concern, Long Commutes, Lack of non-motorized infrastructure, alternative transportation options, and safety. The table below shows the results from the feedback board.

Question 3: The proposed plan will address future transportation issues within the financial constraints of the region.

Participants were asked to place one sticker under a agree or disagree category. Two stickers were placed in the agree category, two stickers were placed in between the agree and disagree category, and nine stickers were placed in the disagree category.

Question 4: The proposed plan is equitable.

Participants were asked to place one sticker under the following categories: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. The table below shows the results from the feedback board.

Written Public Comments

“128 West out of Frankton Downtown to 128 & 600 N Corner not finished.”

“Link Frankton to 69.”

MCCOG Response: MCCOG will help implement the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan for the Town that should address connectivity issues around Frankton.

Concern Votes

No Concern 0

Long Commutes 2

Lack of non-motorized infrastructure

7

Few alternative transportation options

6

Safety 0

Category Votes

Strongly Agree 0

Agree 0

Neutral 11

Disagree 3

Strongly Disagree 0


Question 1 Poster Question 3 Poster

Question 2 Poster Question 4 Poster


Sign-in Sheet


Page : 1 of 2 01/28/2019 10:39:48

Order Number : 60011209PO Number : Ryan PhelpsCustomer : G11193235 Madison Co. Council of Governments/LContact : Neil StevensonAddress1 : 16 E. 9th St., Room 100Address2 :City St Zip : Anderson IN 46016Phone : (765) 641-9482Fax :Credit Card :

Ad Number : 50013125Ad Key :Salesperson : 34 - Christina RileyPublication : Daily ReporterSection : 60 NoticesSub Section : 60 NoticesCategory : 6015 LegalsDates Run : 01/30/2019-01/30/2019Days : 1Size : 1 x 13.19, 136 linesWords : 440Ad Rate : OpenAd Price : 45.63Amount Paid : 0.00Amount Due : 45.63

Printed By : Christina RileyEntered By : Christina Riley

Keywords : NOPH 2-11 & 2-14-19 - Policy BoardNotes : Emailed Confirmation. CRZones :

Public NoticeMadison County Council

of Governments(MCCOG) Policy Board

Notice of Public Hearing:Printed January 30,2019 in Greenfield

Reporter.Date/Time: Public meeting: Monday, February 11, 2019 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM

Public hearing: Thursday,February 14, 2019,

10:00 AM to 11:00 AMLocation:Public Meeting: Anderson

Public Library, DelawareRoom, 111 12 th Street,Anderson, IN 46016

Public Hearing: MadisonCounty COG, BoardRoom, 739 Main Street,Anderson, IN 46016 Pur-pose: Receive publiccomment on the pro-posed 2045 MetropolitanTransportation Plan(MTP) update for theMadison County Councilof Governments, thedesignated MetropolitanPlanning Organization(MPO) for the Andersonurbanized area.

Project Description: Perthe Code of FederalRegulations, Title 23,Chapter I, Subchapter E,Part 450, Subpart C,Section 450.324: “Themetropolitan transporta-tion planning processshall include the devel-opment of a transporta-tion plan addressing noless than a 20-year plan-ning horizon as of the ef-fective date.” The 2045Metropolitan Transporta-tion Plan is an incremen-tal update replacing theMPO’s existing 2035Long-Range Transporta-tion Plan (LRTP) to in-corporate the latest ana-lytical tools and planningassumptions MCCOGhas developed and pub-lic feedback receivedthrough other planningefforts.

Additional Public Com-ments: Additional com-ments regarding the2045 MTP may be sub-mitted to RobertWertman by email [email protected]

Page :2 of 2 01/28/2019 10:39:48

Order Number : 60011209PO Number : Ryan PhelpsCustomer : G11193235 Madison Co. Council of Governments/LContact : Neil StevensonAddress1 : 16 E. 9th St., Room 100Address2 :City St Zip : Anderson IN 46016Phone : (765) 641-9482Fax :Credit Card :

Ad Number : 50013125Ad Key :Salesperson : 34 - Christina RileyPublication : Daily ReporterSection : 60 NoticesSub Section : 60 NoticesCategory : 6015 LegalsDates Run : 01/30/2019-01/30/2019Days : 1Size : 1 x 13.19, 136 linesWords : 440Ad Rate : OpenAd Price : 45.63Amount Paid : 0.00Amount Due : 45.63

Printed By : Christina RileyEntered By : Christina Riley

Keywords : NOPH 2-11 & 2-14-19 - Policy BoardNotes : Emailed Confirmation. CRZones :

g, by phone at 765.641.9482, or by reg ular mailaddressed to:

Robert Wertman, AICP, PTP

Principal TransportationPlanner

Madison County Councilof Governments

739 Main StreetAnderson, IN 46016

Plan Adoption:A public meeting will be

hosted on February 11th2019 from 4:30 PM to7:30 PM in the Dela wareRoom of the An dersonPublic Library lo cated at111 12 th Street, Ander-son, IN 46016.

Formal adoption of the2045 MTP will be pres-ented at the MCCOGPolicy & Technical Advi-sory Committee (PTAC)meeting on February 14,2019 at 10:00 AM in theboard room of the Madi-son County Council ofGovernments office lo-cated at 739 Main St,Anderson, IN 46016.

Copies of the 2045 MTPand all plans and exhib-its pertaining thereto areon file and available forexamination at 739 MainStreet, Anderson, IN46016 between 8:00 AMand 4:00 PM Mondaythrough Friday or on theMCCOG website: www.mccog.net. Written ob-jection to a proposal maybe filed to the Ad minis-trative Assistant ofMCCOG prior to 10:00AM, February 14, 2019or by e-mail to [email protected].

Special Accommodations:Persons with disabilitiesor non-English speakingpersons who wish to at-tend the public hearingduring the Policy & TACmeeting and need assis-tance or special ac com-modations should con-tact Robert Wertman be-tween the hours of 8:00AM and 4:00 PM, Mon-day through Friday viathe contact informa tionprovided above.

DR: 1/30 60011209hspaxlp

Text of Ad: 01/28/2019

Public Notices - Herald Bulletin, Muncie Star Presss, & Greenfield Reporter


Public Notice - Facebook


Appendix B: US 36 Added Travel Lanes Public Meeting – Summary

Pendleton Community Public Library – Dec. 10, 2018

The meeting was held from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM at the Pendleton Community Public Library. The public comment period was open for 15 days (November 26, 2018) prior to the meeting in compliance with MCCOG’s Public Participation Plan (PPP). Also, the public meeting was advertised on the MCCOG website and in The Herald Bulletin newspaper as a public notice. The meeting was set up with three stations for individuals to participate in. Each station asked for specific feedback about the U.S. 36/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38/ S.R. 67 added travel lanes project. The following summarizes the major themes from the stations:

• Bike/ped safety elements are necessary for students to cross the U.S. 36/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38/ S.R. 67 corridor to get to the Pendleton Heights High School and Middle School campuses. • Congestion is greater along the corridor

at the start and end of the school day at Pendleton Heights High School and Middle School campuses. • Eliminate access along the U.S. 36/ S.R.

9/ S.R. 38/ S.R. 67 corridor. • Install more access control elements

such as right in-right out entrances. • Landscaped medians are desired to

separate the north and southbound travel lanes.

The following pages are from the meeting summary document prepared for INDOT and the Town of Pendleton.

Page 1 of 11

1. Dot Map Issue Station Categories What was asked: Identify transportation issues on the U.S. 36/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38/ S.R. 67 corridor. On aerial maps the public placed color-coded stickers that would symbolize an issue. Categories are in the table below.

Categories Number of Issues Identified % of Issues Identified Congestion – Red 60 35.7% Safety – Yellow 59 35.1% Bike/Ped – Green 29 17.3% Drainage - Blue 20 11.9% Total 168 100%

Summary Out of the total 168 issues, 119 or 70.8% were identified as congestion and safety issues. Intersections of U.S. 36/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38/ S.R. 67 with Falls Park Drive, Water Street, U.S. 36, E State Street/ S.R. 38, and E Madison Ave/ Lick Creek Pike were identified to have the most congestion/safety issues.

Intersections of U.S. 36/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38/ S.R. 67 with E State Street/ S.R. 38 and E Madison Ave/Lick Creek Pike were identified to have the most bike/ped issues.


Page 2 of 11

Above is the northern portion of the Dot Map Issue Station.


Page 3 of 11

Above is the southern portion of the Dot Map Issue Station.


Page 4 of 11

Congestion

Location Number % of Congestion Intersection of S.R. 38/E State Street & U.S. 36/ S.R. 67/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38

14 23.3%

Intersection of U.S. 36/ S.R. 67/ S.R. 9 & E Madison Ave/Lick Creek Pike

13 21.7%

Intersection of S.R. 67/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38 & U.S. 36 7 11.7% *Intersections with number of issues greater than 5 are shown. The intersection of U.S. 36/ S.R. 67/ S.R. 9 & E Madison Ave/Lick Creek Pike becomes congested during the start and end of the school day at Pendleton Heights High School and Middle School campuses.

Safety

Location Number % of Safety Intersection of S.R. 38/E State Street & U.S. 36/ S.R. 67/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38

11 18.6%

Intersection of S.R. 38/E State Street & Pendleton Heights HS/Unnamed Rd

8 13.6%


8 13.6%

Intersection of S.R. 67/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38 & Falls Park Drive 7 11.9% *Intersections with number of issues greater than 5 are shown. The intersection of S.R. 38/ E State Street & U.S. 36/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38/ S.R. 67 had the most identified issues representing almost 20% of safety issues.

Bike/Ped

Location Number % of Bike/Ped Intersection of S.R. 38/E State Street & U.S. 36/ S.R. 67/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38

9 31.0%


6 20.1%

*Intersections with number of issues greater than 5 are shown. The intersection of S.R. 38/E State Street & U.S. 36/ S.R. 67/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38 had the most identified issues representing 31.0% of bike/ped issues.

Drainage

Location Number % of Drainage Intersection of S.R. 67/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38 & U.S. 36 13 65%

*Intersections with number of issues greater than 5 are shown. The intersection of S.R. 67/ S.R. 9/ S.R. 38 & U.S. 36 had the most identified issues representing 65% of drainage issues.


Page 5 of 11

2. Public Comment Worksheet

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 (Low) 2 3 4 5 (High)

How would you rate the level of congestion within the corridor currently?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1 (Safe) 2 3 4 5 (Dangerous)

How would you rate the level of safety within the corridor currently?


Page 6 of 11

When the public was asked to rank the order of priority improvements (safety, congestion, bike/ped, and aesthetic appeal) the most common was safety, the 2nd most common was congestion, and the 3rd most common was bike/ped.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 (Friendly) 2 3 4 5 (Hostile)

How would you rate the bike/ped friendliness along the corridor currently?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Safety Congestion Bike/Ped Aesthetic Appeal Other

Circle the #1 most important issue in the corridor currently (circle one).


Page 7 of 11

Written Public Comments

• “Add right in right out @ CVS on State Street.” o MCCOG Response: Future Access Control will be addressed through the upcoming

Pendleton Thoroughfare Plan where the Town will adopt an access control ordinance. • “Safety concerns in this area extend outside of the defined corridor to the intersection of S.R. 9

and U.S. 36, particularly near the Huntzinger Farms neighborhood. Pedestrian safety is a huge concern in the area due to student traffic. Also, this project will not be successful if the aesthetics do not align with the Town’s standards and characteristics. Grass medians and lights that match the Towns are essential.”

• “1) grass median between north bound and southbound. 2) Town standard street lighting. 3) Sidewalk & bike paths.”

o MCCOG Response: The MPO will do what it can to make sure Pendleton’s standards and characteristics are followed with this project and streetlights and medians match the existing Town infrastructure.

• “Good project – need stop & go at Madison and Water Street. Could be roundabouts? Need bike paths – school area. Make area bike/walk friendly. Bike paths both sides of highway.”

o MCCOG Response: Analysis can be done at Madison and Water Street roundabouts to see if there is a Level of Service (LOS) increase with roundabouts. Bike paths should already be in the Town’s bicycle master plan and the Town continues to work with MCCOG to get trails funded.

• “Installing a landscaped median would make the corridor more safe & beautiful – lessens chances of vehicle collisions and allows islands for pedestrians. Limit access of businesses directly onto road. Promote shared access/access roads. So many intersections are not (0 degrees – consider realigning?”

o MCCOG Response: Realignment within the given right-of-way might be too costly but MCCOG can look into which intersections are feasible for realignment.

• “Plans need to include discussion/money, input for a walk bridge @ S.R. 38 & S.R.67 (the school). Signage should with input from the Town of Pendleton (Example = no semis on State Street).”

• “My immediate urgent concern is at the entrance to Huntzinger Farm! Too many accidents due to drivers rear-ending cars waiting to turn left into the subdivision. *Simple Solution: Paint a turn lane! That would help. *Lower the speed limit.”

o MCCOG Response: Your suggestions were heard, and they will be passed on to the appropriate parties at the INDOT Greenfield District.

• “Wish it wasn’t 2023. Lots of accidents and even deaths until then. Wish it was 2019.” • “Pedestrian safety is extremely important for this corridor because of the high school/middle

school campus.” • “Walk bridge across, over, under 67 at State Street.”


Page 8 of 11

3. Small Group Discussion/ Comment Cards What was asked: Small group discussions were held to answer any additional questions and comment cards were placed throughout the public meeting and if someone wanted to anonymously leave a comment they could.

• “Safe crossing for bike/pedestrians.” o MCCOG Response: Crosswalks should be added to this project to provide safer

crossings. • “Wider turn lane westbound S.R. 38 to northbound S.R. 67.”

o MCCOG Response: Analysis can be done on a wider turn lane at westbound S.R. 38 to see if there is an increase in LOS.

• “Bike/ped crossings installed at intersections (Madison Ave & S.R. 38).” o MCCOG Response: Crosswalks should be added to this project to provide safer

crossings. • “Madison southbound left into school. Safety & congestion issue.” • “Added paint at Huntzinger Farm Rd for left hand southbound turn.”

o MCCOG Response: Your suggestions were heard, and they will be passed on to the appropriate parties at the INDOT Greenfield District.

• “Add sidewalks to the project. Crossing location to expect where ped will be.” • “Bike/ped amenities? Unsafe crossing for students (S.R. 38/ U.S. 36). Refuge island for

intersection.” o MCCOG response: Crosswalks and sidewalks/multi-use paths should be added to this

project to provide a safe place for non-motorized individuals a place to cross or walk alongside the roadway.

• “Medians instead of yellow paint.” • “Center medians would be great.”

o MCCOG response: Medians are a serious consideration for this project if the Town can come onboard and offer to maintain the medians.

• “Erosion @ North side of U.S. 36 and S.R. 67.” o MCCOG Response: Erosion will be looked at in conjunction with the Public Works

Department of Pendleton. • “Dedicated right-turn lane into CVS.” • “Left turn restriction from westbound State Street into CVS.” • “Access to CVS cleaned up?” • “A lot of drives need to be eliminated. Even Water, Angle, etc. Grass Median.” • “Access into Pizza King.”

o MCCOG Response: Future Access Control will be addressed through the upcoming Pendleton Thoroughfare Plan where the Town will adopt an access control ordinance.

• “Has a roundabout at the intersection of S.R. 36 and S.R. 9 been discussed?” • “Eastbound right turn lane extension @ S.R. 38/ State Street.” • “Left turn lane @ Angle Rd (Southbound left onto Angle).” • “Raise road to meet CSX grade crossing @ Madison and S.R. 67.” • “Extend no right turn lane @ Lick Creek/Angle Road.” • “Signal/safety concerns at Lick Creek. Spacing/speed issue.”


Page 9 of 11

o MCCOG Response: Analysis can be done for the roadway geometric suggestions to see if there is a LOS increase.

• “Property acquisition.” o MCCOG Response: Right-of-way acquisition does not seem to be a major component of

this project. • “Concerned about Huntsville Rd. Running stop light (enforcement).”

o MCCOG Response: Your comment will be passed on the law enforcement in the Town of Pendleton.


Page 10 of 11

Sign-in Sheet


Page 11 of 11

Public Notice - Herald Bulletin & Facebook


Appendix C: Document Updates from INDOT Guidance

INDOT provided document feedback during the 15-day public comment period. Several sections were updated based on the recommendations from INDOT that are noted here.

Additional Maps

There were three (3) maps added:

1. Map 5.5 – ITS Infrastructure Locations, page 562. Map 6.1 – Historic Resources, page 923. Map 6.3 – Minority & Project List Overlay, page 94

Additional/Modified Text

• Engagement Effectiveness, page 40 • Public Meetings, page 41 • Roadway Networks, page 52 • ITS Infrastructure, page 56 • Movement of Goods, page 72 • Cultural Resources and Environmental

Justice, page 91 • Appendix A, page 108 • Appendix B, page 112 • Appendix C, page 123

Fortville, Indiana

metropolitan transportation plan · a metropolitan transportation plan (mtp) is a requirement under...

Documents