image


image

US30 Safety Study| DRAFT PLAN


image

June 1, 2017


image


image


image

TABLE OF CONTENTS


  1. Introduction. 5

  2. Existing Conditions. 13

  3. Policy Recommendations 29

  4. Implementation 61

  5. Technical Appendix 69


01 Introduction

01.Introduction



image


I NIRPC U.S.30/1-65 Safety Phmning

  1. Introduction



image

US30

Safety Study


Introduction

Over the last 30 years, the intersection of Interstate 65 and U.S. 30 has developed into a shopping destination like many others in the United States. This regional shopping and employment center connects the Town of Merrillville and the City of Hobart. It is home to a regional mall, high-rise offi towers, hotels, and a performing arts venue. The corridor is separated into single use districts, oriented to the personal automobile rather than to the pedestrian scale. The corridor

is characterized a high volume, automobile oriented district that is diffi to navigate for many residents and visitors. NIRPC, in coordination with the City of Hobart and Town of Merrillville have commissioned this safety study in the interest in creating a safer, more accessible and multi-modal environment.


Project Area

U.S. 30 is a major regional arterial road that intersects with Interstate 65 and forms a direct link between Lake, Porter, and La Porte Counties, and extends to the State of Illinois to the west. The proposed project area is bounded on the north by 73rd Street in Hobart and south by 93rd and Harms Streets in Merrillville. Clay Street in Hobart forms the eastern boundary and Merrillville Road in Merrillville forms the western boundary. The project area population is about 5,000 people, which is considered low in comparison to the number of employees, which is about 19,392.


The corridor has signifi economic importance to the region, and more

specifi to the City of Hobart and the Town of Merrillville due to the regional shopping mall and major commercial uses occurring within it. The road has a street profi of 4-5 lanes in each direction with middle turning lanes. The daily traffi count on average is about 55,000.


Area Cultural History

The Good Roads Movement was a late 1800’s movement that advocated for better connectivity for rural America through a network of roadways that conformed

to a new set of standards. Bicyclists were the early advocates of the movement since the bicycle was a more common mode of transportation and would benefi the most from higher quality roads. Horatio Earle is known as the “Father of Good Roads.” Quoting from Earle’s 1929 autobiography: “I often hear now-a-days,

the automobile instigated good roads; that the automobile is the parent of good roads. Well, the truth is, the bicycle is the father of the good roads movement in this country...The League fought for the privilege of building bicycle paths along the side of public highways...All these battles were won and the bicyclist was accorded equal rights with other users of highways and streets.”


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 7

01. Introduction



image

The Lincoln Highway was one of the earliest outcomes from the Good Roads Movement. It was the fi transcontinental highway for automobiles across the United States. Conceived in 1912 by Indiana entrepreneur Carl G. Fisher, and formally dedicated October 31, 1913, the Lincoln Highway ran coast-to-coast from Times Square in New York City west to Lincoln Park in San Francisco, originally through 13 states: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and California. While maps identify U.S. 30 as the Lincoln Highway, the northern edge of the Study Area was the original route of the Lincoln Highway in this area.


image

Champions for the roadway had a two-pronged approach to gain public support. First, they would name the highway after the Abraham Lincoln and place statues and images of his likeness along the highway to brand it. Their second strategy for gaining public support to fund the highway was to create “seedling miles”, which were one-mile long stretches of the highway built in strategic locations. The public would then be so impressed, they would push for extensions of the sections until they would eventually connect to each other. When designing these seedling miles, experts from many fi were gathered to design the section

of the roadway. They were forward thinking and designed it to handle traffi 20 years into the future with four lanes of traffi Interestingly, there were no grade crossings. Advertising signs were banned and a footpath for pedestrians was included. Cyclists were also accommodated.


In 1922 an “Ideal Section” of the Lincoln Highway was built between Shererville and Dyer, just a few miles west of the Study Area. This section was recently rededicated and commemorated with a decorative plaque. The Ideal Section and Good Roads Movement had a lasting impact on roadway design and urban expansion. These movements had many great ideals that had been lost, but are resurfacing as best practices today. The close proximity to the Shererville Ideal

sections suggest we promote the cultural signifi of the Lincoln Highway and consider ways that it might infl the design and character of the corridor.


image

Previous Reports and Planning Context

There have been several plans and studies in the U.S. 30 corridor. Over the past 10 years, NIRPC and others have been engaged in a variety of planning processes. These plans are used to inform the policy and design recommendations in the U.S. 30 Safety Study as well as provide insight into the challenges and opportunities in the corridor. Applicable planning documents to this study include:

– NIRPC 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan


8 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

  1. Introduction



image

US 30 / I-65 Safety Planning Project


PUBLIC WORKSHOP | NOVEMBER 5TH, 2016 | 9:00 AM -12:00 PM

Southlake Mall Center Court

2109 Southlake Mall,

Merrillville, IN 46410


image

Please follow this planning process on the US 30 Safety Study website: http://www.ratiodesign.com/US30SafetyStudy Contact Lesley Roth, Project Manager at (312) 888-3339, or lroth@ratiodesign.com



Business Leaders Workshop

The Consultant team will hold a workshop with local business leaders on May 31, 2017.


Assumptions

The goals of the recommendations for the study area include:

– Creating a sense of scale that is enhanced by additional plantings, streetscape design elements, lighting, and gateway elements

– Branding the area and adding wayfi identity, and directional

signage to help visitors navigate the corridor

– Connecting to regional destinations such as the Erie Lackawanna Trail


Priorities for the study area align with the plan goals to create a multi-modal environment that has a strong local and regional identity.

  1. Introduction



    image



    How to Use this Document

    This plan will serve as a policy document for NIRPC and partner communities to guide land use and development in the US30 corridor. It should be used to inform decision making in and around the study area. This plan should be made available to local planning bodies, elected offi boards, commissions and members of the Hobart and Merrillville communities.


    The planning environment is dynamic and changing. It is essential for the U.S.30 Safety Study to serve a s living document and be regularly updated to refl the Plan’s incremental implementation. NIRPC could undertake an annual review to update the Plan, in addition to perform more reviews and updates to the Plan every three years.


    Some recommendations in this Plan would require capital investment. As such, NIRPC with the partner municipalities could coordinate and align the Plan’s recommendations with local Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs). Under this process, all projects are reviewed, priorities are assigned, cost estimates are produced

    and potential funding sources are identifi Yearly updates on the

    Plan could overlap with the preparation of the CIP. This allows the

    recommendations or changes related to capital investment or other programs can be considered as commitments in the following fi l year.


    NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 11


    02 Existing Conditions

  2. Existing Conditions


 

Study Area Initial Observations


2

 

   1

image



 

3   



Landscape Elements

1

The landscape and streetscape design can be more consistent throughout the corridor to enhance strategic screening, frame important views, and enhance pedestrian amenity.


image



 

Pedestrian Path

Landscaped buffers provide pedestrians with a greater sense of safety. A pedestrian path could enhance the corridor and encourage connectivity between uses. Changes in elevation between the roadway and businesses can be an asset in creating a walkable pedestrian network.



Corner and Mid-Block Crosswalks

Crosswalks allow for safe pedestrian crossings of side streets and entry drives. There is an opportunity for improved, well marked and connected sidewalks in the corridor.


14 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

02. Existing Conditions


image

Scale of the Built Environment

The U.S. 30 corridor can be more navigable for pedestrians through integration of appropriately scaled elements. The lights and signage are currently scaled for fast moving traffic. There is an opportunity to include pedestrian amenities and buffers to increase pedestrian sense of comfort and safety.


Frontage Road Barrier

The frontage road acts as a buffer between commercial/retail businesses and the U.S. 30 corridor. The frontage road on the north side of the corridor can be designed to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles.


2



image

Corner and Mid-Block Crosswalks Pedestrian navigation of the I-65 interchange can be improved for bikes and pedestrians by creating designated paths moving east/west through the intersection.


Physical Barriers

3

I-65 is important gateway to the communities of Merrillville and Hobart. This characteristic can be leveraged to be a positive asset to both communities.



Landscape Elements

A low maintenance streetscape design that incorporates safety elements could enhance the visual identity of the corridor.


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 15

02. Existing Conditions





image

 

Study Area Initial Observations



 

  





 

  

5 6

4



Pedestrian Path

A pedestrian path could connect the north and south

4 sides of the corridor. The south side of the street is wider and flatter than the north side.

image



 

Overhead Utilities

Removal or relocation of overhead power lines could create opportunities for pedestrian pathways.


Pedestrian Path

Consideration for widening and grading of road right of ways should be considered to accommodate a pedestrian path.


16 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

02. Existing Conditions



image

North-South Connection

Connectivity between the north and south sides of U.S. 30 is important to creating sense of place and a pedestrian oriented design strategy. Consideration should be given to a safe route to cross north-south without having to make the very long crossing distance within a single traffic light changing.


Landscape Elements

The landscape identity could be enhanced to create a uniform look and feel in the corridor.


Mid-Block and Corner Crosswalks 5

Additional crosswalks could enhance the pedestrian experience. The width of the

crosswalk should be considered to allow safe crossing. Timing and order of traffic lights will need to be explored to allow pedestrians enough time to cross.


Overhead Utilities

Removal or relocation of overhead powerlines can improve the overall identity and character of the corridor. Poles are obstacles for pedestrians along the north edge of the corridor.


image

Physical Barriers

6

Broad setbacks for retail buildings provide an opportunity for increased landscape in parking lots as well as pedestrian paths to stores to create an environment that is easier for pedestrians to navigate.



North South Connection

Connectivity between the north and south sides of U.S. 30 is important to creating sense of place and a pedestrian oriented design strategy. The wide right of way is a challenge for some pedestrian use groups. Consideration should be given to a safe route to cross north-south that accommodates a variety of age and ability levels.


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 17

02. Existing Conditions





image

 

Study Area Initial Observations



 

  




 

  

7 8 9



Landscape Elements

A landscape strategy could unify the corridor and provide appropriate screening for

7 accessory uses.

image



 

Pedestrian Path

Landscaped buffers provide pedestrians with a greater sense of safety. A pedestrian path could enhance the corridor and encourage connectivity between uses. Changes in elevation between the roadway and businesses is an asset in creating a walkable pedestrian network.


18 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

02. Existing Conditions


image

Landscape Elements

The landscape identity could be enhanced to create a uniform look and feel in the corridor and support storm water management strategy.

Pedestrian Path

A wide landscape area along the south side of the corridor could accommodate a new pedestrian and bike path and amenities.


8


image

Overhead Utilities Relocation or removal of overhead power lines should be considered to enhance the overall identity and character of the corridor.


Pedestrian Path

9

A pedestrian path could connect

U.S. 30 with Colorado St.


Corner and Mid-Block Crosswalks

The pedestrian network could be enhanced with the addition of elements that connect destinations in the study area.


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 19

image

image

02. Existing Conditions




 

Study Area Initial Observations



  



 

 

10



 

  



Pedestrian Path

A path would connect both sides of I-65 to

10 the north end of the U.S. 30 corridor.


Pedestrian Path

A safe route for pedestrians through the I-65 intersection area would include a separate path that avoided contact with vehicles. Utilization of the existing grade and landscaped buffers could accommodate this path.


20 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

image

02. Existing Conditions


Pedestrian Path

A safe route for pedestrians through the I-65 intersection area would include a separate path that avoided contact with vehicles. Utilization of the existing grade and landscaped buffers could facilitate this path.


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 21


02. Existing Conditions


Bike & Pedestrian Analysis

The team documented the existing roadway geometry and traffi

data within the study area. A spreadsheet of the data and drawings of the mid-block cross sections were created as part of the inventory process. These were then analyzed to see where opportunities might be available to gain space for bicycle facilities along roadways. The team looked at the existing lane widths to see if it would be appropriate to narrow them and how much space might be gained from that treatment. Opportunities and constraints were

also noted for each mid-block section based upon apparent available right-of-way, existing utilities, drainage structures, curb type, and distance from street to building.


Measurements of the mid-block geometry of each route along with the average daily traffi speed limit, and percent of commercial traffi were inserted into a Bicycle Level of Service Calculator (BLOS). The BLOS is a nationally-used measure of on-road bicycle level of comfort based upon a roadway’s geometry and traffi conditions.

A map was created that summarizes the existing BLOS conditions by color coding those sections that are more suitable for casual riders and those that are currently more appropriate for expert riders.


The following map illustrates the existing BLOS for the routes studied. A grade of “A” through “B” indicates that the route is suitable for a casual rider. A grade that equals high “C” indicates that the route is borderline suitable for casual riders. A grade of “C” through “F” means that only expert riders would feel comfortable riding the route in its present conditions and that an improvement is needed.


Many of the streets in the study area have high traffi volumes and speed limits that are 40 M.P.H. or over. There are currently not many on-road opportunities within the study area for bike users to access destinations.


Interstate 65 and State Road 30 provide distinct barriers to connectivity. Interstate 65 cuts the area almost in half and separates the east side from the west side. State Road 30 further divides the area and cuts off the north half from the south side.


Existing Bicycle Level of Service Data


image

73rd Ave.

Study Area


image

image

Existing BLOS: A Existing BLOS: B


W 80th Pl.


E 80th Pl.

Rhode Island St.

E 79th Ave.

image

image

Madison St.

Broadway

Mississippi St.

Colorado St.

73rd Ave.

Existing BLOS: C



US 30


US 30


US 30

image

Clay St.

Existing BLOS: D



W 84th Dr.


Virginia St.

Georgia St.

E 83rd Ave.

image

image

E 84th Pl.

Ohio St.

E 84th Ave.

E 84th St.

Harms Rd.

Existing BLOS: E Existing BLOS: F


Broadway

E 86th Ave.

E 85th Ave.



Merrillville Rd.

W 87th Ave.

W 89th Ave.


Mississippi St.

N Hospital Dr.


Harms Rd.

S Hospital Dr.


E 93rd Ave.


image


22 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


02. Existing Conditions


The team analyzed the same corridors for pedestrian level of service that were analyzed for bikeability conditions to see if the corridor would support both biking and walking. Corridors that currently

had sidewalks on both side of the streets were deemed as highly walkable, corridors or sections of corridors with a sidewalk located only on one side were deemed borderline walkable, and sections that had sidewalks on neither side of the road were considered not walkable.


A map was then created that summarizes the existing Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) conditions by color coding those sections that are more suitable for walking and those that need improvement. Based upon the PLOS map it was determined that most of the residential areas fall into the A and B level and are considered on the high side of walkability. Sections that fell into the C level are considered borderline walkable, and D-F levels are considered less walkable or not walkable.


A map showing data locations and associated existing conditions sections can be found in the technical appendix.



image


image

Existing conditions lack safe routes for bike and pedestrian



image

image

73rd Ave.

image Study Area Existing PLOS: A Existing PLOS: B

Existing Pedestrian Level of Service Data

image

Madison St.

Broadway

Mississippi St.

Colorado St.

73rd Ave.

Existing PLOS: C


E 80th Pl.

W 80th Pl.


image

E 79th Ave.


image

Existing PLOS: D


US 30


Rhode Island St.

US 30


Clay St.

US 30


image

image

E 84th Pl.

Existing PLOS: E Existing PLOS: F


Georgia St.

W 84th Dr.


Virginia St.

Harms Rd.

E 83rd Ave.


Broadway

E 86th Ave.

Ohio St.

E 84th Ave.

E 84th St.

E 85th Ave.



Merrillville Rd.

W 87th Ave.

W 89th Ave.


Mississippi St.

N Hospital Dr.


Harms Rd.

S Hospital Dr.


E 93rd Ave.


image


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 23

  1. Existing Conditions


    Currently there are not many sidewalks or pedestrian facilities within the study area to connect to destinations especially along major streets and corridors. Most of the existing pedestrian facilities are only located in residential areas. The exception to this is Mississippi Street which recently had sidewalk added to portions of the east side of the street and south of 30.


    As mentioned previously in the Bikeability Conditions Section, Interstate 65 and State Road 30 provide distinct barriers to connectivity. Interstate 65 cuts the area almost in half and separates the east side from the west side. State Road 30 further divides the area and cuts off the north half from the south side.


    Grade separated crossings are needed to cross interstate 65 and State Road 30 safely.


    There is an opportunity to close the gap between the existing sidewalks along Mississippi Street and the C&O trail. This would make some great connections between residential and commercial in the area.


    image

    Existing Bus Shelter


    Sidewalk Dead-Ends


    No Sidewalks or crosswalks


    Typical Existing Conditions - Broadway & 80th


    image

    image

    image

    Existing Sidewalks and Paths


    image


    image

    24 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


    Study Area Existing Sidewalk


    Existing Shared-Use Path

    02. Existing Conditions


    Crash Data

    Crash data from all of Lake County was provided from ARIES for a four-year period beginning in July of 2012 and ending in June of 2016. This data was then sorted down to eighteen specifi study intersections primarily based on road names, mile markers, GPS coordinates, and offi narratives. It was then further broken down into specifi crash data. This included data on the total number of crashes, severity of crash, manner of collision, primary factor for collision, roadway conditions, weather conditions, whether the crash was a result of an emergency vehicle being present, or if a pedestrian or bicycle was involved in the crash. This specifi data gives a detailed picture of what types of crashes happened at the study intersections, and gives insight into why crashes happen.


    The intersection with the highest number of crashes was U.S. 30 and Broadway Avenue with 378 crashes. Of the 378 crashes, the manner of collision of 232 of them (61.4%) was rear end crashes and the severity of 310 of these crashes (82.0%) were property damage only (PDO) crashes. This indicates that there are a high number of “fender-bender” type crashes at times of high congestion.


    This trend of the most crashes at an intersection being rear-end and PDO severity occurs at the top six intersections for total crashes.


    This trend, combined with the fact that these are adjoining major intersections, could be improved by upgrades such as reworked signal timings and interconnected signals along this corridor (if they

    are not already.)


    Another notable intersection is Mississippi Street and 83rd Avenue/ Ohio Street. This intersection had 65 crashes and a high percentage of same direction sideswipes (47.7%). These were mostly associated with turning movements, and the intersection had an unusual lane confi However, a reconstruction project underway appears

    to be adding turn lanes, which would improve upon the crash history.


    The data was also sorted to review pedestrian- and bicycle- involved crashes. In the four-year period of data there were 2036 total crashes at study intersections, with 14 (0.69%) involving a pedestrian or bicycle. The highest number of pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes at an intersection was 3, which occurred at the each of the following intersections: U.S. 30 and Mississippi Street,

    U.S. 30 and Mall Entrance B, and U.S. 30 and Colorado Street.


    Finally, the data was reviewed to see if a crash occurred when an emergency vehicle was present within the intersection. These types of crashes can be reduced, particularly in high volume intersections, with the addition of an emergency vehicle preemption (EVP) system. Within the four-year period there were 26 crashes (1.3%) that occurred when an emergency vehicle was present. The highest number of these crashes occurred at U.S. 30 and Broadway Avenue (13 crashes), and at U.S. 30 and Merrillville Road (6 crashes). It

    is worth noting that the Merrillville Police Department as well as Merrillville Fire Station 71 are located north of U.S. 30 on Broadway Avenue. The full report can be found in the Technical Appendix.



    image

    1: US30 & Merrillville

    2: US30 & K‐Mart

    3: US30 & Broadway

    4:Broadway & Century Plaza

    5: US30 & I65 SB Off Ramp

    6: US30 & I65 NB Off Ramp

    7: US30 Mississippi

    8: Mississippi & Mall Entrance B

    9: US30 & Mall Entrance C

    10: US30 & Mall Entrance D

    11: US30 & Mall Entrance 5

    12: US30 & Colorado

    13: US30 & Clay

    14: Mississippi & 73rd

    15: Mississippi & 79th

    16: Mississippi & 83rd

    17: US30 & Georgia/Rhode Island

    18: S.R. 53 and 80th PL


    Intersection


    Total

    Backing Crash

    4

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    2

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    2

    0

    2

    1

    9

    4

    28

    Collision With Deer

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Collision With Object In Road

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Head On

    4

    0

    2

    1

    1

    0

    3

    1

    2

    3

    1

    0

    0

    3

    0

    0

    4

    0

    25

    Head On Between Two Motor Vehicles

    5

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    4

    1

    3

    0

    0

    0

    1

    17

    Left Turn

    14

    3

    16

    0

    1

    3

    9

    4

    1

    3

    1

    1

    2

    5

    3

    5

    6

    4

    81

    Left/Right Turn

    2

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    4

    0

    0

    2

    1

    2

    0

    0

    3

    5

    2

    0

    23

    Non‐Collision

    0

    1

    2

    0

    3

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    10

    Opposite Direction Sideswipe

    5

    0

    3

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    2

    0

    13

    Other ‐ Explain In Narrative

    1

    1

    1

    0

    2

    1

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    2

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    13

    Ran Off Road

    2

    2

    2

    0

    3

    4

    2

    1

    0

    0

    2

    1

    1

    2

    1

    0

    3

    1

    27

    Rear End

    147

    41

    232

    12

    232

    207

    157

    29

    18

    15

    11

    35

    18

    9

    13

    18

    74

    14

    1282

    Rear To Rear

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    5

    Right Angle

    29

    5

    28

    0

    6

    4

    17

    3

    1

    1

    4

    9

    1

    6

    6

    3

    16

    6

    145

    Right Turn

    4

    0

    6

    1

    2

    0

    2

    1

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    2

    1

    2

    0

    24

    Same Direction Sideswipe

    36

    7

    81

    1

    41

    18

    36

    4

    1

    1

    0

    8

    4

    5

    4

    31

    52

    6

    336

    Unknown

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    3

    Manner of Collision Breakdown by Intersection


    NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 25


    1. Existing Conditions


      Crash Rates (per M.E.V.) - December 2012 - June 2016


      image

      Madison Street

      SR 53

      Colorado Street

      I-65

      73rd Avenue

      !



      80th Place

      79th

      (! !(

      Clay Street

      Legend

      ! 0.00-1.00; 0.41

      US 30

      ! !(

      US 30

      e

      nu

      A

      e

      v

      Georgi

      SR 53

      ! ! ! ! ! !( !( ! !( ! US 30

      a

      83rd Avenue

      !(

      US 30

      ! ! 1.01-2.00

      ! 2.01-3.00

      Clay Street

      ! 3.01+

      I-65

      I-65

      S

      treet

      Mississippi Street

      Colorado Street

      Merrillville Road

      !(


      Crashes per Intersection - December 2012 - June 2016


      image

      image

      image

      image

      image

      ( Unknown Study Road Interstate Local Roads Private Road Study Area



      image

      SR 53

      Colorado Street

      I-65

      73rd Avenue

      !



      Madison Street

      Clay Street

      Legend

      80th Place

      e

      nu

      A

      e

      v

      79th

      !

      • ! 0-50 Crashes

        • 51-100 Crashes

US 30

US 30 ! !

Georgi

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! US 30


US 30

! ! 101-200 Crashes

a

SR 53

83rd Avenue

! ! 201-300 Crashes

S

treet

Clay Street

! !

I-65

I-65

Mississippi Street

Colorado Street

Merrillville Road

300+ Crashes


26 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

image

image

image

image

image

Study Road Interstate Local Roads Private Road Study Area


  1. Existing Conditions


    Severity of Crash - December 2012 - June 2016


    image

    SR 53

    Colorado Street

    I-65

    73rd Avenue

    !!


    Madison Street

    Clay Street

    Legend


    image

    image

    image

    image

    image

    Merrillville Road

    Study Road Interstate Local Roads Private Road Study Area


    US 30


    80th Place

    !!

    US 30

    SR 53

    !! !! !! !!


    I-65

    I-65

    !!


    Georgi

    a

    !! !!


    e

    nu

    A

    e

    v

    79th

    !!


    !! !! !! !!


    S

    treet

    Mississippi Street

    Colorado Street

    83rd Avenue

    !!


    !! !!


    US 30


    Clay Street

    US 30 !!


    Madison Street

    SR 53

    Colorado Street

    I-65

    Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes - December 2012 - June 2016



    Legend

    image

    image

    image

    image

    image

    I-65

    G Crash Location Study Road Interstate Local Roads Private Road Study Area


    G US 30


    G

    US 30

    Georgi

    R

    G G G


    a

    SR 53

    G

    r

    83

    S

    t

    I-65

    r

    eet

    Mississippi Street

    Avenue

    d

    83rd Avenue

    image

    US 30

    79th Avenue

    80th Place

    t

    e

    re

    t

    S

    G

    GG G


    US 30

    Colorado Street

    Island

    e

    d

    ho

    G G


    NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 27


    03 Policy Recommendations

  2. Policies


Policy 1

Street Network & Transit


image

Key Recommendations:

– Alleviate roadway congestion by providing bypass routes for autos and bikes north and south of US30.

– Create safe crossings for pedestrian and bike traffi

– Create separate bike and pedestrian routes on roads with greater than 25,000 ADT.


image

Grade-Separated Pedestrian / Bicycle Crossings

There are several factors to consider when implementing a grade- separated crossing. These factors include:


– Vehicle average daily traffi (ADT) volumes

– Hourly pedestrian / bicycle crossing volumes


The higher (or larger) each of these factors are, the greater the

benefi that the grade-separated crossings can provide with

respect to traffi safety and capacity. The following resources were consulted to estimate rule-of-thumb threshold values for each of the contributing factors:

– Indiana Design Manual, Figure 51-7O

four (4) hours


It is anticipated that each of these thresholds would be met for each of the grade-separated crossings proposed along I-65 and US 30.


Street Network

The street network within the study area consists of several key roadways used for vehicle travel including U.S. 30, Broadway (S.R. 53), Mississippi Street, and Colorado Street. The following table provides a brief summary of these key roadways including roadway classifi general cross-section, and approximate existing vehicle average daily traffi (ADT).


Key Study Area Roadways


Roadway

Study Extents

Classification

Cross-Section

Vehicle ADT

US 30

Merrillville Rd to Clay St

Principle Arterial

6-lane divided to 8-lane divided

40,000 to 60,000

Broadway

93rd Ave to 73rd Ave

Minor Arterial to Principle Arterial

4-lane divided

18,000 to 25,000

Mississippi St

93rd Ave to 73rd Ave

Minor Arterial

4-lane undivided to 4-lane divided

16,000

Colorado St

73rd Ave to 84th St

Major Collector

2-lane undivided

5,000


Planned U.S. 30 Roadway Projects Proposed Roadway Extensions


Location


Improvements


Roadway


Extension


image image

Mississippi St from U.S. 30

Widened Mississippi to a 4-lane divided roadway. Increased storage lengths for turn

Iowa St / 78th Place

Extend Iowa St north and connect to the Silverstone roadway.

Extend 78th Place west and connect to the Iowa / Silverstone connection.

through 93rd Ave

lanes along northbound approach of the U.S.

image

30 and Mississippi intersection.

image

80th Place

Extend 80th Place (west of I-65) to 79th Ave (east of I-65).


U.S. 30 and Rhode Island


Will add a right-turn lane along the southbound intersection approach and will increase the


83rd Ave


Extend 83rd Ave (west of I-65) to 83rd Ave (east of I-65)

intersection

storage for southbound approach turn lanes.


Will improve the turning radius for the


89th Ave


Extend 89th Ave (west of I-65) to 89th Ave

northbound intersection approach and will increase the storage for northbound approach


U.S. 30 and Mississippi St

image

turn lanes.


Adds a 2nd through lane along the southbound intersection approach and increases the storage for southbound approach turn lanes.

93rd Ave

Extend 93rd Ave from Mississippi St to Colorado St


Adds a 2nd left-turn lane along the westbound intersection approach.


30 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

03. Policies


Past and current studies, as well as peak hour traffi observations, have shown that several intersections along U.S. 30 have experienced poor intersection vehicle capacity level-of-service, resulting in signifi vehicle delay. Several roadway projects

are currently planned to improve vehicle capacity along U.S. 30. The table on the previous page provides a brief summary of these planned and ongoing roadway projects including general location, project owner, general project improvements, and other project identifying information.


Discussions were made at stakeholder meetings concerning any possible roadway extensions to alleviate some of the vehicle traffi congestion at the U.S. 30 intersections. Several of these roadway extensions would provide a roadway connection across I-65. Each of these roadway extensions would also extend and connect the pedestrian and bicycle trail network. The table on the previous page provides a brief summary of these possible roadway extensions including a general description of the extension and resulting

benefi for alleviating traffi congestion.

Proposed Roadway Improvements

Possible 73rd Avenue Interchange

An assessment is currently underway for a potential I-65 interchange located at 73rd Avenue. The purpose of the potential interchange would be to alleviate traffi congestion at local intersections that

are adjacent to the I-65 interchanges at U.S. 30 and at 61st Avenue. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) have several policies in place to ensure that requests for future interchanges are consistent with the regional needs of the interstate system. The assessment for the potential 73rd Avenue interchange is being performed in phases in order to coincide with other planning efforts for the area. The current phase of the interchange assessment is to develop, analyze, and document feasible alternatives for improving the congested adjacent local intersections without the need for the additional interchange.

If a feasible alternative to improving the local intersections cannot be found without the additional interchange, then the proceeding phase of the assessment would be to analyze alternatives with the potential 73rd Avenue interchange.



image

73rd Avenue



100,000


Silverstone Mixed-Use Development



Grade-Separated


20,000


55,000


80th Pl Extension


Costco


Star Plaza Re-Use


Grade-Separated


15,000


Lowe's


Grade-Separated

Merrillville

Plaza The Crossings of Hobart

50,000


Kohl's


78th Pl Extension (Silverstone)


7,500


Grade-Separated At-Grade


40,000 35,000


US 30 (45 MPH)

60,000

K-Mart

Staples

55,000


25,000

65,000

Grade-Separated


15,000


Southlake Mall


Mall Entrance D

Colorado Street

Clay Street

7,500


83rd Ave Extension


Broadway (SR 53)

I-65 (55 MPH)

Mississippi Street

LEGEND



Grade-Separated


75,000


Harms Road


Text


= General Study Area Boundary


= Possible Roadway / Trail Extensions

= Existing Vehicle / Pedestrian Traffic Generator


89th Ave Extension


= Future Vehicle / Pedestrian Traffic Generator


Grade-Separated = Proposed Grade-Separated

Pedestrian Crossing


At-Grade = Proposed Major At-Grade

Pedestrian Crossing


9,999 = Approx. Average Daily Traffic (ADT Vehicle Volumes, Existing Traffic



93rd Ave Extension to Colorado St


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 31

03. Policies


Policy 2

Alternative Mobility


image

Key Recommendations:


image

Existing Bus Routes

There are two bus routes that currently operate in the study area. Both bus routes are operated by Gary Public Transportation

Corporation (GPTC). Bus US 30 Route 20 operates weekdays from 7.13am to 10.31pm and on weekends from 8.41am to 10.28pm. There are four stops along the route including: Meijer, Century Plaza, Westfi Southlake Mall and Walmart. The second bus route is the Broadway Express Route 17. It operates weekdays and weekends

from 5.09am to 10.50pm from the Lake County Government Center to Downtown Gary.


Enhanced Transportation Options

Participants in workshops and focus groups identifi a desire for the adoption of a ‘park once’ strategy that allowed visitors to the area to leave their car in on location for the duration of their visit.

Many of the participants were seniors who did not feel comfortable

walking or driving between businesses. Behavioral modifi

for this group included reduced time in the area, fewer shopping destinations and fewer trips to the area. In discussions with area stakeholders, the idea of a trolley was discussed.


Trolley / Hop-On Hop-Off

A trolley would allow visitors to the area an option to park their cars and ride to specifi destinations along a predetermined trolley route. The trolley would be operated by a private company and paid for by area businesses that elected to participate in the program. A trolley would remove the barriers for segments of the population that do not feel comfortable navigating US30 and would encourage participants to stay longer in the area. Longer stays could impact the overall economic environment by encouraging visitors to shop at a wider variety of stores in the area.


Bike Share

A long-term goal for the study area could be the implementation of a bike share system. This initiative could be considered when safety improvements are made and the perception of bikeability and walkability positively changes. A bike share system would

increase mobility and decrease dependence on cars by providing an alternative for short trips. Bike share users would have access to new trails and bridges to safely ride to their destination. The bikes could also be used by those connecting to the C&O trail or other regional trail systems.


image

image

Existing Bus Routes


image


image

32 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


Gary Public Transportation Corporation Route 20


Gary Public Transportation Corporation Route 17

03. Policies


Enhanced Bus Station or Park & Ride Station


Trolley


Bike Share



image



image



image

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 33

03. Policies


Policy 3

Bikes & Pedestrian Mobility


image

Key Recommendations:


image

The main objective for the bike and pedestrian plan is to create safe routes from home or work to destinations in and around the US30 corridor while connecting to a larger regional network. Bike lanes are not recommended for streets with high traffi volumes and speeds. Bicycle facilities that separate users from the traffi

are recommended. However, low volume low speed access streets to several commercial areas and residential areas may be able to accommodate roadway markings and signage for bikes. Trails are proposed along the south side of US30 along the entirety of the corridor and will include a tunnel under I-65. There is an opportunity to work with mall management to develop a trail on the south side

of US 30 at the rear of liner stores and the mall parking lot. A trail is proposed along the north side of US30 between Mississippi and Colorado. To further enhance east-west connectivity, a trail will

be added along Merrillville Cross behind the big box stores from Mississippi to Colorado. A new trail connection from the Forest Hill Park trail head connects to shared roadways around the Star Plaza Theater and over to Broadway. A trail (dashed blue line on map below) uses a utility easement to connect from Mississippi to

Colorado, south of the mall and would have a new green space trail head. A proposed extension of the regional C&O trail would continue to the southwest. North-South trails are proposed along Colorado, Mississippi and Broadway.


Pedestrian and bicycle level of service was analyzed with consideration for incorporation of the proposed improvements. The conditions of the corridor would support both biking and walking. The maps to the right summarize the proposed Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) and Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) conditions. A score of A and B level are considered on the high side of walkability and bikeability. Sections that fell into the C level are considered borderline walkable and bikeable. Levels D-F are considered less walkable or not walkable.


Proposed Routes Plan


image

image

Study Area



Forest Hill Park & Existing Trail Head


Existing Trail Tunnel

image

image

Existing Sidewalk Existing Trail


Grade Separated

Structure


Grade Separated

Structure


Grade Separated Structure


Grade Separated Structure


At Grade Crossing


Grade Separated Structure


At Grade Crossing


Grade Separated Structure


At Grade Crossing


At Grade Crossing

image

Proposed Trail - Crown Point


image

Existing Tunnel

image


image Proposed Trailhead


image Proposed Green Space


image

Proposed Trail

image

image

image

Proposed Trail - Option 1 Proposed Shared

Roadway with Sidewalk


image


34 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


03. Policies



image

image

73rd Ave.

73rd Ave.

image Study Area Proposed PLOS: A Proposed PLOS: B

Proposed Pedestrian Level of Service Plan

image

Madison St.

Proposed PLOS: C


E 80th Pl.

W 80th Pl.

image

Broadway

Mississippi St.

Colorado St.

E 79th Ave.


image

Proposed PLOS: D


US 30


Rhode Island St.

US 30


Clay St.

US 30


image

Proposed PLOS: E


image

Proposed PLOS: F


Georgia St.

W 84th Dr.


Virginia St.

Harms Rd.

E 83rd Ave.


Broadway

E 86th Ave.


E 84th Pl.

Ohio St.

E 84th Ave.

E 84th St.

E 85th Ave.



Merrillville Rd.

W 87th Ave.

W 89th Ave.


Mississippi St.

N Hospital Dr.


Harms Rd.

S Hospital Dr.


E 93rd Ave.


image



image

73rd Ave.

Study Area

Proposed Bicycle Level of Service Plan


image

image

image

E 80th Pl.

Madison St.

Broadway

Mississippi St.

Colorado St.

Rhode Island St.

73rd Ave.

Proposed BLOS: A Proposed BLOS: B

image

Proposed BLOS: C


W 80th Pl.


E 79th Ave.


image

Proposed BLOS: D


US 30


US 30


Clay St.

US 30


image

image

E 84th Pl.

Proposed BLOS: E Proposed BLOS: F


Georgia St.

W 84th Dr.


Ohio St.

Virginia St.

Harms Rd.

E 83rd Ave.


Broadway

E 86th Ave.

E 84th Ave.

E 84th St.

E 85th Ave.



Merrillville Rd.

W 87th Ave.

W 89th Ave.


Mississippi St.

N Hospital Dr.


Harms Rd.

S Hospital Dr.


E 93rd Ave.


image


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 35

03. Policies


Typical Trail


A number of multi-use paths throughout the study area are proposed to support the study’s objectives of increasing multi- modal mobilty and enhancing safety in the US30 corridor. The new trails will be 10’ wide and asphalt paved. The path will be shared by cyclists and pedestrians and clearly marked for direction and use. A 5’ minimum landscape buffer between the trail and roadway will create a safer experience for both drivers and pedestrians. Greater buffers should be considered where speed limits are higher. The landscape will also be a unifying element along the corridor and will help reinforce

its character and identity. Amenities such as benches, trash receptacles and bike parking should be considered at strategic locations. Wayfi signs and maps should also be used to facilitate ease of use and communicate major destinations and connections. The overall design of all of these elements will be unifi throughout the corridor and

should coordinate with Hobart and Merrillville standards and guidelines.



image

Typical Pavement Markings


image

Typical Wayfi Signage


image

Typical Path Section


Varies

5.00 min

Grass

Planted Buffer


36 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


03. Policies



image



 

  





 

Streetscape Design: Broadway




 

  


 

  


 

 




image

New Trail New Street Trees

New pockets of planting act as buffer



Proposed Street Section


image

Existing Street View


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 37


03. Policies



image

 

  




Streetscape Design: Mississippi Street


 

 






 

 

  




 

  



New Trail New Street Trees

New pockets of planting act as buffer


Proposed Street Section


Existing Street View


image


38 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


03. Policies



image

image

 

  




Streetscape Design: Colorado Street


 

 






 

 

  




 

  



New Trail New Street Trees

New pockets of planting act as buffer


Proposed Street Section


image

Existing Street View


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 39


03. Policies



image

 

  




Streetscape Design:

US 30 Broadway to Rhode Island


 

  




 

  


 

 







 

New Trail and Retaining Wall New Crosswalk Marking at Curb Cuts New pockets of planting act as buffer

New groupings of trees screen enhance path while not blocking views of businesses for drivers


New native plantings

New parking lot planting enhancements act as buffer



Proposed Street Section


Existing Street View


image


40 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


03. Policies



image

image

 

  




Streetscape Design:

US 30 Mississippi to Kohls


  




 

  


 

 






 

 

New Trail

New Crosswalk Marking at Curb Cuts New pockets of planting act as buffer



New Median Rain Garden Planting


New groupings of columnar trees screen enhance path user experience while not blocking views of businesses for drivers


New native plantings


Proposed Street Section



image

Existing Street View


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 41


03. Policies


Policy 4

Intersections & Crossings


image

Key Recommendations:


image

There are multiple factors to consider when planning for pedestrian and bicycle crossings to ensure that they operate safely and

effi with respect to both pedestrian and vehicle traffi This results in multiple options that are available when implementing a pedestrian crossing. However, all of these options can be

categorized into the following three (3) basic categories for purposes of the US30 Safety Study:


Category 1: Uncontrolled crossing (at grade) Category 2:Controlled crossing (at grade) Category 3:Grade separated crossing


An uncontrolled crossing is a location where pedestrians must yield

the right-of-way to vehicle traffi and should only cross when there

are adequate gaps in the traffi stream. A controlled crossing is a location where the right-of-way alternates between pedestrians and vehicle traffi The most common form of a controlled crossing is a traffi signal, either at an existing intersection or at a midblock location. A grade separate crossing is by defi a location where the travel paths of pedestrians and vehicles are completely separated by way of a separation in grade.


The safest crossing option for both pedestrians and vehicles is a grade separated crossing. This crossing also provides the most

effi capacity operations for vehicle traffi and, depending on the situation, can also provide the most effi capacity operations for pedestrian crossing traffi Several factors contribute to the decision for when to implement a grade separated crossing including:


– Vehicle average daily traffi (ADT) volumes

– Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffi Control Devices



image

 

  



 



 

 




image

 



Signalized Intersections



  


  




  

 

 




image

 


42 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

03. Policies


(Indiana MUTCD)

four (4) hours


It is anticipated that each of these thresholds would be met for each of the grade separated crossings proposed along I-65 and along U.S.

30. If needed, additional factors may be considered at a later time when more detailed design information is available.


Several at grade, controlled pedestrian crossings by way of traffi signal at an existing intersection are proposed for the study area. A review of these conditions indicates that crossings at the intersections along Broadway, Mississippi Street, or Colorado Street will not signifi delay vehicles at the intersections. Some additional consideration was made to assess any potential controlled crossings at intersections along U.S. 30. The fi

consideration for the most heavily congested U.S. 30 intersections at Broadway, at Mississippi, and at Iowa Street (Mall Entrance D), is to provide a nearby grade separated crossing instead of an at grade, controlled crossing. It is anticipated that proposed at grade,

controlled crossings for less congested intersections such as U.S. 30 and Colorado Street will not signifi degrade vehicle operations based on the following:


The pedestrian crossing times along the minor road approaches (i.e. the time it takes to cross Colorado Street) will be minimized as the crossing distance will be minimized. The crossing distance will be minimized through vehicle right-turn pedestrian refuge islands. Also, the existing traffi signal green times to serve the vehicle phases

for U.S. 30 will provide for enough time for pedestrians to cross Colorado Street.


Pedestrian median refuge islands can be provided within the existing center median along U.S. 30. These center median refuge islands would also include additional pedestrian push buttons for the

traffi signal. This would minimize the impact to vehicle operations

by having pedestrians cross U.S. 30 halfway per cycle of the

traffi signal during peak vehicle times (i.e. the “rush hours”). The crosswalk pavement markings would typically be offset on each half of the roadway which helps to indicate to pedestrians that they will need to pause at the center refuge island and press the push button in order to cross the other half of the roadway. Pedestrians could most likely cross U.S. 30 within one traffi signal cycle during non- peak vehicle times (i.e. during the middle of the day) as the impact to vehicle operations would be minimal. The countdown pedestrian signal heads would provide indication for pedestrians as to when there is enough time to cross all of U.S. 30 within one cycle or just halfway.


Proposed Intersection and Crosswalk Improvements


image

Above: Design Precedent


Stop Line shifts to accommodate new crosswalk

Crosswalks Refuge Island

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 43


03. Policies


image

Pedestrian Bridge Design



  




 

 

  

Pedestrian bridges are proposed over US30 east and west of the I-65 interchange. A bridge would provide a safe and

image

accessible grade separated route for pedestrians and cyclists to cross US30. Comments received at public workshops supported introduction of pedestrian bridges to increase pedestrian safety and encourage greater pedestrian mobility in the study area. The bridges are proposed near Mississippi St. and Broadway St. These locations were selected because of the high volume of traffi that would be diffi for pedestrians to navigate and opportunities for connectivity to major destinations north and south of I-65. The pedestrian bridge design will provide an opportunity to enhance the

character and experience of the US30 corridor through lighting, building materials and architectural form. The bridge can also accommodate gateway signage to communicate information to those visiting the area. All signage and design elements should be coordinated with existing standards and ordinances in both Hobart and Merrillville. The precedent images shown illustrate innovate bridge design and the ability of the



design element to support the creation of sense of place.


image

Pedestrian Bridge Plan - Broadway


390’ ramp at 5% down


44 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


ramp at 5% down


Landing


ramp at 5% down

image

03. Policies



image



image

image

Pedestrian Bridge Plan - Mississippi


ramp at 5% down


Landing


ramp at 5% down


390’ ramp at 5% down

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 45

03. Policies


image

Pedestrian Tunnel Design


Pedestrian tunnels are recommended at two locations in the study area. Both tunnels are under I-65 at the interchange with US30 and provide convenient access to destinations east and west of the interchange. At both proposed locations, I-65 is elevated from adjacent grade. The overhead clearance for the tunnel would be 12’ high and it would be 14’ wide. The width of the tunnel to the south would accommodate both pedestrian and bike traffi while the tunnel to the north would be wide enough to accommodate automobile traffi as well. An existing pedestrian tunnel under I-65 north of US30 connects the C&O trail. The tunnel will afford pedestrians a clear and direct sight line into and through the tunnel, reducing safety concerns.

The tunnel will be wider than standard tunnels to enhance the openness of the space. The integration of signage, lighting and art will improve the experience of the tunnel. Small plazas with landscaping and amenities at either end of the tunnel could further create safe and enjoyable destination. The following images display the characteristics desired for this element.


  


image



 

 

  




Pedestrian Tunnel Plan - North


image


46 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

image

03. Policies



image


image

Pedestrian Tunnel Plan - South


image


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 47


03. Policies


Policy 5

Land Use


image

Key Recommendations:


image

The existing land use in and around the US30 Study Area is made up of primarily retail and commercial land uses. Our team utilized the Comprehensive Plans for Hobart and Merrillville to create a comprehensive land use plan for the study area. The future land use map illustrates additional mid-density residential and open space around the C&O trail. Retail/commercial develop is focused along US30 and north-south streets in the vicinity. The light industrial land use towards the east end of US30 would remain in the future land use map.

Increasing the density of the area would drive sales to the US30 corridor and with roadway improvements, would create a more legible pedestrian environment. Additional greenspace is

recommended for the study area. This open space could be focused on being located in primarily residential areas.


Medium density residential areas could be used as a transition between low density residential and retail/commercial and industrial uses. This transition could support increased residential areas near the US30 commercial corridor and would help support vibrancy in the study area. Consideration should be given to preserving open space in and around residential areas. Natural resources, green corridors, agrarian landscape and water features should be preserved whenever possible. These features play a large part in defi

the character of this area and provide ecological and aesthetic benefi Open space is a valuable amenity for nearby residents and businesses. Consideration should be given to changing the land use in the area around Silverstone Parkway between Mississippi Street and Colorado Street to medium density residential. This area is currently a proposed mixed-use area that would benefi from increased density.


Existing Land Use Map



image

Existing C&O Trail

73rd Ave

Old Lincoln Hwy


Taft Pl

Broadway

Mississippi St

Colorado St

Clay St

I-65

Hobart


US Hwy 30

US Hwy 30


I-65

State Road 55

Merrillville Rd

Harms Rd

Merrillville



Crown Point


48 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


03. Policies



image

<all other values> Agriculture

CBD

Commercial Institutional Light Industrial Low Density Res

Medium Density Res Office

Park/Open Space/Recreation


Future Land Use Map



image

Existing C&O Trail

73rd Ave

Old Lincoln Hwy


Taft Pl

Broadway

Mississippi St

Colorado St

Clay St

I-65

Hobart


US Hwy 30

US Hwy 30


I-65

State Road 55

Merrillville Rd

Harms Rd

Merrillville



Crown Point


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 49

03. Policies


Policy 6

Public Realm


image

Key Recommendations:


image

Public Realm

Public realm improvements will take into consideration the entire study area. The focus on integrating the brand and identity of Merrillville and Hobart into a cohesive character for the region incorporates right of way improvements, sidewalks, landscape, streetscape, signage, gateways and wayfi


The existing roadway framework, parcelization and development strategies have prioritized maximization of land use and ease of access for automobiles. The existing road right-of-way utilizes frontage roads in lieu of sidewalks, jeopardizing pedestrian safety and compromising multi-modal circulation opportunities.

Opportunities for utilization of open space, including parking lot design can supplement peripheral parks and trails in the area. The

U.S. 30 corridor is heavily traveled and is a destination for residents in the adjacent communities and visitors alike. Design of the public realm can enhance the visitor experience and support a wider

variety of activities than current programming. In conversations with stakeholders during the planning process, visitors to the area desired greater access to park space. Many of those who worked in the area engaged their cars for lack of a safe pedestrian environment to travel short distances. Employees discussed the desire for additional public space for repose as well as gathering. Area stakeholders desired to have spaces where they could interact with each other in a pleasant environment.


There are a number of areas where improvements can be made to provide desirable locations to meet and create a cohesive and legible public realm along the corridor. All public realm

improvements could incorporate a similar streetscape improvement strategy to reinforce the identity design character of the corridor. All improvements should also meet all regulatory and design standards of Merrillville and Hobart.


Right-Of-Way

New trails and pedestrian paths will allow pedestrians and cyclists to move safely through the area. Connecting destinations will allow users to move from one shop or restaurant to another without having to engage their cars. This will encourage users to stay in the area longer and frequent more businesses.


Green Spaces and Plazas

There are opportunities to create nodes along the new trails that can where visitors and residents can gather. The proposed trail head for the extension of the C&O trail to the southeast is an example. In this location, there is currently a detention pond and green space that could be enhanced to include safe routes for pedestrians access.


image


50 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

03. Policies


image

Additional areas can be added throughout the corridor to provide additional spaces for gathering or other outdoor activity. Enhancing existing fragmented green corridors and connecting them to a larger network would enhance the corridor both socially and ecologically.


Parking Lots

image

image

Parking lots present an opportunity to have a positive environmental impact on the U.S. 30 corridor. There are a number of strategies to improve these areas, in collaboration with business owners. The least intensive use of parking lots that could activate the space would be a pop-up farmers market. People that work locally or are in the area shopping could stop by to pick up local produce. Food trucks could also create nodes within parking lots and attract many locals. The pop-up idea may include semi-permanent installations including a shipping container shop or restaurant. Parklets or raised planters could also be used seasonally to create an area of use that could be removed during winter when there is peak parking use around the holidays. This would require coordination with business owners and an agreement of ownership, maintenance, assembly, disassembly and storage of the elements through the winter. The most permanent option to transform parking lots would include green infrastructure such a solar panels, that could be added to support green energy and enhance the brand of being a district focused on sustainability.


image


image

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 51


03. Policies



 

Landscape Strategies


image

 

  




The landscape within the study area is primarily large agrarian fi north and south of U.S. 30 and smaller areas between buildings and parking lots closer to

U.S. 30. A larger cohesive planting design strategy is needed to unify the corridor and create a distinct

identity. This strategy will be ecologically benefi as well as visually impactful. A number of studies have shown that increased streetscape planting and the addition of street trees creates a better environment for all users including both drivers and pedestrians, and increases economic activity. We have created three landscape typologies that describe the characteristics of spaces along the corridor that will have landscape improvements. These strategies should be coordinated with Hobart and Merrillville’s design standards and maintenance programs.




 

  


Landscape Improvements Diagram




 

  


 




 

Type 1


Type 2


Type 3


Type 1 - US30 and Interchange

The U.S. 30 corridor and I-65 interchange provides the greatest area to have an impact along the corridor. In coordination with INDOT standards and the Hoosier Roadside Heritage Program, a strategy to promote and incorporate selected native plants and wildfl

is proposed. This strategy will enhance the overall look of the area and will reduce maintenance with reduced mowing and herbicide applications. It is also ecologically benefi because it reduces

stormwater runoff, connects habitats, reduces erosion,

and improves soil quality. Additionally, wildfl provide a food source and habitat for bees, butterfl

and other pollinators, which benefi the local agrarian

ecology and economy.


Landscape improvements along the corridor will create cohesiveness east and west of the I-65 interchange.

In addition, it will create a more visually appealing streetscape. Plant palettes can be created that have distinct colors and textures and can be arranged in bands along the highway to enhance the design, viewsheds and sense of movement within the corridor. It is commended that trees be placed in groups along US30. This will help to create scale and improve driver and pedestrian comfort while decreasing driving speeds and allowing for business signage to continue to be highly visible. The addition of street trees is shown to improve economic activity. The grouping of taller, smaller caliper trees will have a positive impact


52 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


image

image

Figure ground diagram of “green” space in the study area

03. Policies


on safety and will minimizing the negative impacts to businesses of loosing visual access to their entries.


The addition of rain garden medians along U.S. 30 will enhance the visual impact along the corridor. The addition of native plantings and wildfl will help to soften the edges of the roadway while

helping to manage stormwater. These medians are discussed further in a later section.


Type 2 - Streetscape and Trail

The second typology is the landscape adjacent to the new trails and pathways. A 5’ minimum landscape buffer to the street along new trails is recommended. This zone will incorporate lower growing native plants from the plant mixes used in Type 1 to maintain consistency throughout the area. Lower growing species, approximately 6-18” tall, are used to maintain clear sight lines between drivers and pedestrians to avoid confl at curb cuts and intersections. Smaller groupings of low shrubs and grasses along pathways can add interest along the length of the trail and provide ecological diversity. The groupings of these shrubs will also help create a buffer from the roadway. Street trees will also be added along these routes. As these zones are much narrower than the depth along U.S. 30, spacing of 30’-40’ on center will be used. The slower speed of traffi on streets adjacent to U.S. 30 will allow drivers to see businesses and signs clearly. A columnar species of tree will be used along secondary routes, similar to U.S. 30.


Type 3 - Parking Lots

Parking lots are abundant in the study area and present an opportunity for green infrastructure, stormwater management, shade, reduction of the urban heat island, and improvement of the area’s landscape design. Strategies that improve user experience but do minimize reduction of parking spaces are preferred. An example of this strategy is called “depaving”. The pavement is sawcut and removed and replaced with ‘grasspave’ to create a combination hardscape/softscape. Sawcut areas could also be replaced with plantings or swales to better manage stormwater. Tree islands are recommended to be added throughout parking lots in the study

area. Best practice design guidelines and standards for parking lot design include recommended widths for landscape buffers around lots, number of perimeter trees and number interior trees per total parking spaces provided. The implementation of these best practices is recommended.



image



image



image


image

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 53

03. Policies


Streetscape Strategies


Streetscape improvements will active the public way, maximize the potential for other public spaces and spur interest in movement throughout the study area – ultimately leading to, increased exposure of businesses within the corridor. Streetscape design will seek opportunities to create a cohesive public realm through pedestrian oriented improvements, integration of public art, seasonal expression and

planting that will appropriately respond to changes in the intensity of intersections, crosswalk and streets character. There is an opportunity to use paving to help defi spaces and direct users through changes in material and pattern. Crosswalks will be added to

provide safe crossing locations. Thermoplastics can be used to create unique patterns and colors to enhance the larger identity of the area while drawing more attention to the pedestrian zone. Locations can be created for rest to improve the pedestrian and cyclist experience. Enhanced plantings like natives, green infrastructure and strategically placed street trees will defi the edges, give pedestrians a better sense of scale, comfort and safety while creating a more visually pleasing experience for drivers. It is recommended

that a family of street furniture is selected to be used throughout the entire corridor to further enhance the identity and brand, while being fully coordinated with Merrillville and Hobart’s standards.



image

Example of designated pedestrian pathway


image

Example of planted median


image

54 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

Example of median raingarden

03. Policies


Gateways and Wayfi


Gateways and wayfi will further defi the unique identity of the corridor. Monumental gateways communicate to visitors and residents that they have arrived at a destination. Through

conversations with stakeholders in public workshops and with the Steering Committee, it was determined that the preferred type

of gateway was referenced to the cultural history of the area and could be integrated into a pedestrian bridge or located vertically in medians or within the U.S. 30 right of way. Participants in a visual preference exercise overwhelmingly preferred gateways that were large enough to be seen by fast moving traffi and gave a sense

of arrival to visitors to the area. The design of the gateway should consider existing signage systems in both Hobart and Merrillville. Critical to the design of the gateway element along US30 is creating a unique identity for the area that enhances its regional position.



image


image



image image

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 55

03. Policies


Policy 7

Utilities & Infrastructure


image

Key Recommendations:


image

Utility Infrastructure

The US 30 corridor and Right-of-Way is not only used for public roadways, but also as a corridor for both public and private utilities to install facilities to serve their customers. Underground and overhead utilities can create signifi challenges and potential increased costs and coordination issues to transportation projects. To address these challenges and mitigate project related costs to both tax payers and utility customers, utility coordination needs to occur early and continuously in projects.


When a utility is located within State Right-of-Way and is impacted by a project, Indiana Administrative Code 105 IAC 13 requires

the utility to relocate its facilities accordingly. When a confl is encountered between a proposed transportation project and a utility located within the Right-of-Way, the utility company is required to relocate their facility at their cost if the confl cannot be resolved through the design process. Depending on the policies of the utility company, some choose to secure a reimbursable interest (utility easement, etc.) from property owners to locate their facilities within. In many instances, utility companies secure easements for their facilities that are major capital investments, allow a preferred routing or are critical to their system operations. Power transmission lines, petroleum product pipelines and backbone fi optic cables are commonly located within a private easement secured by the

utility company. When a confl cannot be resolved between a proposed transportation project and existing utilities located within an easement in which that utility has reimbursable interests, the utility is entitled to reimbursement for relocation of their facilities.


NIPSCO - Electric

NIPSCO electric power transmission (69kV) and distribution (12.5kV) overhead lines are present at several locations along and crossing the US 30 corridor. On many of the power poles, telecommunication utilities are also located under the power lines. The poles and overhead cables for these utilities present potential confl for both proposed improvements and future users of US 30. These confl

can require relocation of the utilities or compromises in the design of roadway, trails or stormwater system, as well as future reduction in safety for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists using the roadways and trails when accidents happen. Another byproduct of utility poles and overhead facilities is the visual clutter they create which detracts from the aesthetics of the corridor.


When utilities are requested to relocate their facilities for

aesthetic reasons (beautifi which can be the case when

an overhead line is requested to be buried, the utility is entitled to reimbursement. In an effort to reduce the visual clutter and reduce potential confl with power poles and overhead lines, we had a discussion with NIPSCO to explore the potential costs of relocating selected sections of overhead power lines either underground within the US 30 corridor, or to relocate to an overhead line in a location outside of the US 30 corridor. The estimated costs to relocate the overhead facilities represent a preliminary planning level effort to determine the estimated costs by NIPSCO. The level of detail of the estimate is low and actual costs could vary. If the planning level relocation costs are deemed feasible for additional consideration, we can follow up with NIPSCO to request a more detailed estimate be prepared that would take about a week’s effort for any of the four options presented.

When considering the preliminary estimated relocation costs,


image

image

Current Alignment of Overhead Cables Proposed Alignment of Overhead Cables


image

Madison St

E 80th Pl


US Hwy 30 I-65


56 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

03. Policies


image

burying utilities within the US 30 will create additional potential confl and design accommodations for the transportation projects. Accordingly, relocation to an overhead location outside of the US 30 will reduce the number of potential utility confl


NIPSCO – Gas

NIPSCO gas has responded to the requests for information and has medium pressure distribution facilities located throughout the project area. There are no gas transmission or high pressure facilities within the project limits.


image

Telecommunications -Comcast, Frontier and AT&T All of these utilities have responded to requests for information and stated that they have a combination of aerial and underground facilities within the study limits. AT&T stated that some of their facilities are located within utility easements.



image

Relocation Extents


Approx.

Length Relocation Location


Preliminary Est. Cost

Merrillville Conservancy District – Sanitary Sewer

The Merrillville Conservancy District (MCD) operates a sanitary sewer system in which territory covers both Merrillville and Hobart within the study limits. MCD

facilities are located predominantly on the south side of the US 30 corridor, with a number of north-south sewers crossing US 30, from Broadway Avenue, through the I-65

image

US 30 - East of I-65 to Colorado St


image

US 30 - East of I-65 to Colorado St


image

US 30 west of US 30 to Broadway Ave


US 30 west of US 30 to Broadway Ave

1.2 miles


1.2 miles


0.25 mile


0.25 mile

Underground: along US 30


Overhead: behind businesses north of US 30


Underground – along US 30


Overhead – along 80th Place

$2 million


$1.2 million

to $1.4 million


$600,000


$600,000

interchange, and continuing east beyond Colorado Street.


A number of private sanitary sewers exist outside of the Right-of-Way along the corridor. Southlake Mall, Huntington Cove, Hobart Crossing, Star Plaza and Radisson operate private sewer systems according to

MDC. Information on the private sewers was not readily available, but are believed to be outside of the Right-of- Way with connections to the MCD system.


image

Merrillville Cross


E 79th


I-65


Mississippi St

S Colorado St

US Hwy 30


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 57

image

image

image


  1. Policies


    Utility Poles

    Currently, utility poles and other streetside elements are mismatched metals or paint colors. It is our recommendation that all street light, traffic signal, advertisement and all other utility poles be painted black. This will create a sense of cohesion along the corridor while drawing less attention to these elements. The images below demonstrate how this low cost option creates a more aesthetically pleasing palette of elements.


    Stormwater Drainage

    Existing stormwater drainage within the project limits is accomplished primarily through roadside ditches and some center median ditches and storm inlets. Several culverts exist along

    the project limits that convey runoff under US 30, and a storm sewer system with curb inlets is present at the US 30 and I-65 interchange. An offsite detention basin located on the south side of US 30 west of the Target entrance, that serves the Southlake Mall is adjacent to the roadside ditches.


    With proposed improvements to the roadway network and trail system for the study area, there will be opportunities and challenges presented by the stormwater drainage system. To

    construct the proposed trails and roadways within the existing US 30 Right-of-Way, the roadside ditches could be enclosed with a storm sewer system to collect, detain and convey the stormwater for the projects. Opportunities to beautify the US 30 corridor, while also collecting, treating and detaining runoff can be accomplished through the use of bioretention areas (i.e. rain gardens) possibly within the center medians and outside of the roadways. The long term maintenance of rain gardens should be considered when rain gardens are implemented on a roadway. It should be determined what entity or department of a locality will be responsible for ongoing maintenance and operation of the rain gardens, to ensure proper function. Maintenance of the rain gardens will ensure proper drainage which contributes to good pavement condition, removes undesirable vegetation and debris.


    Center Median Rain Gardens

    The implementation of rain gardens within the open areas of the center median could be considered to beautify the corridor, provide traffi calming and serve storm water runoff functions.

    A divided roadway section that has an inverted crown (both roadways draining toward the median) consolidates rain gardens to one location, larger underground detention cells can be created, typically encounters fewer utility confl in the center of the

    road, and can utilize existing storm sewer or culverts that may be existing within the median. With the addition of curb and gutter at the existing inside edge of the travel lane, there are several areas along the US 30 corridor that are currently grass medians, that could potentially accommodate a center median rain garden.


    58 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


    Black Street Poles


    Current Median Confi


    DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE


    Proposed Median Confi


    DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE

    image

    image

    image

    1. Policies


      Median Locations


      DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE



      DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE


      These images to the left portray the center median rain gardens. Features such as rip-rap at the location where water enters (image above) will help to collect

      any garbage and sediments to help reduce maintenance and increase plant survivability. A 12-18” maintenance zone of gravel could also be added around the perimeter to allow workers a safe area to stand out

      of the roadway while performing maintenance.


      NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 59


      04. Implementation


    2. Implementation


      Implementation Phasing

      Phasing for implementation of planned pedestrian and safety improvements within the U.S. 30 corridor is likely to occur through a combination of projects dedicated to pedestrian safety

      improvements, as well as pedestrian safety improvements that can be implemented with other planned infrastructure improvement project such as drainage and pavement reconstruction projects.

      Private development projects can also infl and potentially construct some of the safety improvements throughout the US 30 corridor as they occur. Early and ongoing coordination between Merrillville, Hobart, INDOT and NIRPC of planned projects is essential for connectivity of the roadway and trail systems.


      Two projects that could have potentially the greatest impact for all users are the grade separated crossings north and south of the I-65 and U.S. 30 interchange. These to connections would provide some congestion relief to U.S. 30 by providing vehicles an alternate route to local roads and destinations along with adding accommodations for bikes and peds on the local roads, the grade separated crossings would also create a safer choice for non-vehicular users to avoid confl with vehicles at the I-65 and U.S. 30 interchange.


      The grade separated crossing north of the interchange would connect 80th Avenue on the west, to 79th Avenue on the east side of I-65. Due to the higher elevation of I-65, this crossing may be best suited to have I-65 carried over the proposed road of 80th/ 79th


      Avenue. An existing fueling station within the Costco parking lot located on the east side of I-65 and roadside drainage ditches would need to be addressed in the design of the grade separated crossing.


      The grade separated structure south of the interchange would carry 83rd Avenue over I-65 since there is less elevation difference at this location. Design considerations to be addressed with future investigation are the impacts to access to adjacent properties on

      the east side of I-65 from the construction of approach ramps for the overpass. On the west side of I-65, the location of the approach ramp will need to be determined to avoid either the existing hotel or the existing retention pond to the south.


      Phasing Priority Recommendations:

      Phase 1: Continuing future phases of construction of the C&O Trail system from its current location at Mississippi Street

      Phase 2: At grade crossing improvements at the major signalized intersections of U.S. 30:

      • Broadway Avenue – Mississippi Street

      • Colorado Street – Mall Entrance

      Phase 3: Proposed trail segments along the U.S. 30 Corridor

      Phase 4: Proposed trail segments along Broadway Avenue

      Phase 5: New roadway alignment extensions of 78th Avenue and 93rd Avenue



      image

       

        



      

      4 5



      

        2


      

       

       

      3


       

       

      

      1 3


      2 2 2

        


      


      Phasing Diagram


       

      1. Continuing future phases of construction of the C&O Trail system

      2. At grade crossing improvements

      3. Proposed trail segments along US30

      4. Proposed trail segments along Broadway Ave.

      5. New roadway alignment extensions


5


62 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

04. Implementation


Funding Sources

There are various sources of funding available for the design, development and construction of bicycle facilities and pedestrian projects. The following is a summary of some of the most often utilized sources.


There will need to be additional research done to understand funding cycles, grant requirements and any additional funding sources.


Funding Source

Project Partners

Qualified Projects

Dollar Amount

Timeline

Transportation

Federal Highway

Preliminary engineering work (survey, design, and

Varies (Federal

2016-2020

Alternatives

Administration (FHWA);

construction documents), right-of-way (engineering,

contributes

Program (TAP)

INDOT; Northwestern

management, and acquisition), construction, and

80% while local

Indiana Regional Planning

construction supervision.

agencies provide

Committee (NIRPC); Local

20%)

Government


Transportation


FHWA; INDOT; NIRPC;


On- and off-road facilities for pedestrian and bicyclists;


Varies


2016-2020

Alternatives (TA)

Local Government

safe routes for non-drivers; convert abandoned

railroad corridors to trails; historic preservation;

rehabilitate historic transportation facilities.


Congestion


USDOT; EPA; NIRPC;


Transportation projects or programs that are likely to


Varies


2016-2020 (FHWA

Mitigation &

State of Indiana; Local

contribute to the attainment or maintenance of the

appropriate a lump

Air Quality

Government

EPA’s minimum standard for air quality. The projects

sum to the State,

Improvement

have to be included in NIRPC’s current transportation

and the State

Program (CMAQ)

plan and Transportation Improvement plan (TIP).

divide the sum

among apportioned

programs)


Surface


State of Indiana; NIRPC;


Highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public


Varies


2016-2020

Transportation

Local Government

road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and

Program (STP)

transit capital projects. Any pedestrian and bicycle

projects that were previously funded by federal aid

can use this funding to preserve and improve their

performance.


Highway Safety


State of Indiana; NIRPC;


Pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve overall


Varies


2016-2020

Improvement

Local Government

safety but will require traffic and accident data to

Program (HSIP)

support the need for such projects.


Tax Increment


Local Government


Redevelopment, infrastructure, or other community


Varies


20-30 years

Financing (TIF)

improvement projects.


Private Foundations


Private foundation and


Planning and development of trails and greenways.


Varies


Varies

trust funds

Corporate

Private corporations

Financially support the construction and/or

Varies

Varies

Sponsorship

maintenance of trails and trailheads.


Local Businesses &


Local Businesses &


Financially contribute to smaller trail projects or


Varies


Varies

Organizations

Organizations

provide match money for larger trail projects.


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 63

image

  1. Implementation


    Construction Cost Opinion

    The construction cost opinions developed for the U.S. 30 Safety Study should be considered planning level estimates, based on past project cost averages. Detailed engineering design has not been performed to develop the construction cost opinions. The cost opinions assume typical construction methods and site conditions. A 25% contingency has been added to the costs to account for unknowns that may be encountered during actual construction. The

    construction cost opinions do not factor in associated potential costs for the projects could include preliminary engineering, reimbursable utility relocations, Right-of-Way acquisition, environmental mitigation or unforeseen site conditions.


    Cost opinions and descriptions of signifi items for the proposed safety and pedestrian improvements at the following locations include:

    1. U.S. 30 Intersections at Grade Crossings with Broadway, Mississippi, Mall Entrance and Colorado Streets – existing signalized intersections with 4 approaches

      • Curb ramps

      • Center median refuge islands with curb ramps

        • Accessible pedestrian traffi pushbuttons and countdown

          signal heads on signal pedestal poles

        • Signal conduit and cable for pedestrian modifi

        • Roadway lighting at the intersection

        • Pavement markings and signage


    2. U.S. 30 Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossings east of Broadway Avenue and east of Mississippi Street

      • Single span prefabricated pedestrian bridge

      • End bents

      • Approach ramps


    3. Mississippi Street and Silverstone South Drive at Grade Crossing – existing intersection with 3 approaches and traffi signal strain poles in place with no signal heads installed:

      • Curb ramps

        • Accessible pedestrian traffi pushbuttons and countdown signal

          heads on signal pedestal poles

        • Traffi signal heads

        • Signal conduit and cable

        • Vehicle detection

        • Roadway lighting at the intersection

        • Pavement markings and signage


        64 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

        image


    4. Colorado Street and future C&O Trail Crossing (south of U.S. 30) – no existing trail or crossing:

      – Curb ramps

      – Accessible pedestrian traffi pushbuttons and countdown signal

      heads on signal pedestal poles

      • HAWK (High-Intensity Activated crossWalk) beacon, also known as a pedestrian hybrid beacon

      • Roadway lighting at the intersection

      • Pavement markings and signage


    5. Multi-Use Trails

      • 10’ wide asphalt trail (no shoulders) on compacted aggregate Base and compacted subgrade

      • Common excavation to accommodate pavement section


    6. Median Rain Gardens

      • Perennial plants, ornamental grasses and shrubs

      • Hardwood mulch

      • Temporary native seed mixture and straw mat erosion control blankets

      • Irrigation

      • Bio-engineered soil

      • Perforated pipe, geotextiles and coarse aggregate for under- ground detention cells

      • Common excavation

      • Concrete curb and gutters between inside travel lanes and median rain gardens

    7. Trailhead and greenspace located south of Target:

      A wide range is given for the potential cost of the trailhead and greenspace, due to the existing site conditions and the broad variability of features, amenities and quantities that may be selected, such as:

      • Parking lot and size

      • Lighting

      • Shelter structure and picnic tables

      • Restroom facilities and structure

      • Landscaping

      • Signage

      • Benches, trash receptacles, exercise and bicycle racks


    8. New roadway alignment extensions of 78th Avenue and 93rd Avenue

image



$250,000


Forest Hill Park & Existing Trail Head


$60


$80,000

$175,000


Grade Separated

Structure


$400,000

$330,000


$360,000

$2,500,000

04. Implementation



Existing Trail Tunnel


$255,000


$3,300,000

Roadway

$1,000,000

Rounadabout

image

$145,000


,000


$2,500,000


$85,000


$80,000


$114,000


At Grade Crossing


Grade Separated


$180,000


$75,000

Grade Separated Structure

$400,000


$330,000

Structure


$120,000


$180,000


$330,000

At Grade Crossing At Grade Crossing


$85,000

$85,000

$50,000

At Grade Crossing


$330,000


$95,000


Grade Separated Structure


$60,000


$160,000


$155,000



$95,000

$150,000 - $600,000

$85,000


$115,000


$325,000



$250,000


$4,500,000

Legend

$X,XXX

$X,XXX

$X,XXX

$X,XXX

$X,XXX


Trail Segments

At-Grade Intersection

Grade-Separated Intersection Greenspace / Trailhead Roadway Segments


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 67


05. Technical Appendix

FUNCTIONAL CLASS MAP NORTHWEST INDIANA UAB

LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES, INDIANA


image

image

image

LEGEND


image

INTERSTATE

OTHER Frwy or Exprswy Other Principal Arterial

MINOR ARTERIAL MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR COLLECTOR Rural INTERSTATE

Rural OTHER Frwy or Exprswy Rural Other Principal Arterial

Rural MINOR ARTERIAL Rural MAJOR COLLECTOR Rural MINOR COLLECTOR

Urban Area Boundary

County Boundary

Lake County Porter County Schools Railroads


70 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

image

TRAFFIC VOLUME - FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA MAP


image

image

image

image

image GENERAL STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

image

image

image

# STUDY AREA INTERSECTION POTENTIAL INTERCHANGE

image

image (SEPARATE STUDY)

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 71

image

TRAFFIC VOLUME - FIGURE 2 COLLECTED AADT’S


NOTE:

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) vehicle volumes obtained from INDOT Traffic Count Database System (TCDS).


image image


image image


image

#


72 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


image


GENERAL STUDY AREA BOUNDARY


STUDY AREA INTERSECTION

TRAFFIC VOLUME - FIGURE 3A

COLLECTED INTERSECTION TMC’S AND INTERCHANGE VOLUMES FOR PEAK HOURS


image


ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNT SUMMARY LEGEND:

  1. Data Source

  2. Day/Date of Data Collection

  3. A.M. Peak Hour

  1. P.M. Peak Hour


    999 = A.M. Peak Hourly Vehicle Traffic Volume

    For Typical Weekday


    (999) = P.M. Peak Hourly Vehicle Traffic Volume

    For Typical Weekday


    TMC = Turning Movement Count (Vehicles)


    image


    image

    image

    image image GENERAL STUDY AREA BOUNDARY


    image

    # STUDY AREA INTERSECTION


    NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 73

    TRAFFIC VOLUME - FIGURE 3B

    COLLECTED INTERSECTION TMC’S AND INTERCHANGE VOLUMES FOR PEAK HOURS


    image


    ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNT SUMMARY LEGEND:

    1. Data Source

    2. Day/Date of Data Collection

    3. A.M. Peak Hour

4. P.M. Peak Hour


999 = A.M. Peak Hourly Vehicle Traffic Volume

For Typical Weekday


(999) = P.M. Peak Hourly Vehicle Traffic Volume

For Typical Weekday


TMC = Turning Movement Count (Vehicles)


image


image

image

image image GENERAL STUDY AREA BOUNDARY


image

# STUDY AREA INTERSECTION


74 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

TRAFFIC VOLUME - FIGURE 3C

COLLECTED INTERSECTION TMC’S AND INTERCHANGE VOLUMES FOR PEAK HOURS


image

image

ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNT SUMMARY LEGEND:

  1. Data Source

  2. Day/Date of Data Collection

  3. A.M. Peak Hour

4. P.M. Peak Hour


999 = A.M. Peak Hourly Vehicle Traffic Volume

For Typical Weekday


(999) = P.M. Peak Hourly Vehicle Traffic Volume

For Typical Weekday


TMC = Turning Movement Count (Vehicles)

image

image

image

image

GENERAL STUDY AREA BOUNDARY


image

# STUDY AREA INTERSECTION


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 75


BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN LOS


image

NIRPC

US 30 SAFETY STUDY



111


Madison St.

12


112


113 114


27


26


73rd Ave.


115


116


117


118


119


120


121


73rd Ave.

122


46


0 375 750


1500 feet

N


LEGEND


11 36 45

10 25

Broadway

Mississippi St.

9

8


Study Area


2 3 Data Locations


Colorado St.

7

24 44


6

23

W 80th Pl. 49


E 80th Pl.

35


Rhode Island St.

63

E 79th Ave.


103

47 48

5 22 68

67

4 21


34

89

US 30

43


93 95 42


Clay St.

US 30

US 30

71 72 73 74 75 76 77


58


3

Virginia St.

20


57

79 80 81 82 83


78 84

33


E 83rd Ave.

61 62

85 86 87


88

90 91 92


94 96

41


40


39

97 98 99


100


102


101

2


W 84th Dr.

50

19


18


E 84th Ave.

17

52


51


16

Broadway

E 86th Ave. 55


Harms Rd.

53


105

106


54


104


56


Georgia St.

32


Ohio St.

E 84th St.

60


69

31


E 85th Ave. 30

59 29


38


E 84th Pl.

70


37

131



W 87th Ave.

65

15

64


Merrillville Rd.

66

W 89th Ave.


N Hospital Dr.

107


S Hospital Dr.

108


109


Mississippi St.

110


28 Harms Rd.



14


1



E 93rd Ave.

13


E 93rd Ave.

123 124 125 126


127


128 129


130


BLOS/PLOS DATA COLLECTION

LOCATIONS

December 09, 2016


76 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 77

image


0.00

ur


ILLV

SCALE: 1

ou


ILLV

SCALE: 1

eije


Tra


ILLV

SCALE: 1

ranc


LLV

1

ranc

EXISTING CRO


Street Light


Buffer C&G

3.00 5.00 2.00 1.50 11.00 1

Open Field & Grass

Grass

Sidewalk

Travel Lane Center T


1). MERR


From 93rd Avenue to S


Street Light


27.00

5.00 9.00 8.00

Meijer Parking Lot

Grass Sidewalk

Grass

Grass



2). MERR


From Southern Entrance of M



Street Light


34.00

15.00

Meijer Parking Lot

Grass Grass


3). MERR


From Central Ent



Utility Pole


C&G


5.00

6.00 1.50 10.50 10.50

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


78 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

4). MERRI

SCALE:

From US 30 to Ent

image


S


n La


ILL

" =

her


ILL

" =

r to


1.0

vel


IL

" =

of


ILL

" =

of

S SECTIONS



C&G

Utility Pole

11.00 1.50 5.00 - 10.00

ne Travel Lane

Grass

Open Field & Grass


E ROAD

10'

t n Entrance of Meijer


Utility Pole


11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 8.00

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Grass

Trees


E ROAD

10'

Central Entrance of Meijer



Utility Pole


0

11.00

11.00

11.00

8.00

Lane

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Grass


Trees


LE ROAD

10'

Meijer to US 30



C&G


Street Light

10.50 10.50 1.50 7.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass 12.00

Grass & Trees


Parking Lot


E ROAD

10'

Ross Commons

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 79

image


T


ILLV

SCALE: 1

Co


ISO

SCALE: 1

ace


15.

Tu


ISO

SCALE: 1

enue


SO

1

to

EXISTING CRO



15.00 + Grass

Utility Pole


15.00 1.50

Grass


C&G


10.50

Travel Lane


5). MERR


From Entrance of Ross


Utility Pole


C&G


8.00 2.00 11.50 11.00

Grass

Right-Turn Lane

Travel Lane


6). MAD


From W 80th Pl


Utility Pole


C&G


2.50 5.00 2.00 11.00

Grass

Sidewalk

Travel Lane

Center


7). MAD


From W 78th Av


Utility Pole


C&G


2.00 5.00 2.00 10.50 10.50

Grass

Sidewalk

Right-Turn Lane

Travel Lane


80 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

8). MADI

SCALE:

From W 77th Avenue

image

image

image


S


10

rav


ILL

" =

mm


STREET

" =

to


00

rn


" =

to


STREET

" =

Sou

S SECTIONS



C&G

Street Light

.50 10.50 10.50 1.50 5.00 12.00

el Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass Grass

Parking Lot



E ROAD

10'

ons to W 80th Place



C&G


12.00 2.00 5.00

Travel Lane

Sidewalk

Grass


10'

W 78th Avenue



C&G

Street Light


11.00 2.00 5.00 2.00

Lane Travel Lane

Sidewalk

Grass


STREET

10'

W 77th Avenue


C&G


15.00 10.50 2.00 5.00

Center Turn Lane

Travel Lane

Sidewalk Grass



10'

th of 76th Avenue

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 81

image


ISO

SCALE: 1

ve


DISO

SCALE: 1

to


14.00

La


DISO

SCALE: 1

Av


2.00

Turn


ISO

1

nue

EXISTING CRO


Utility Pole


C&G


10.00 5.00 2.00 10.50

Grass

Grass

Sidewalk

Travel Lane



9). MAD


From South of 76th A


C&G


2.00 5.00 2.00 10.00 11.00

Grass

Sidewalk

Right-Turn Lane

Travel Lane



10.). MA


From W 76th Avenue



Utility Pole


C&G


6.00


2.50 5.00 2.00 11.00

Grass Grass

Sidewalk

Travel Lane

Left-Turn


11). MA


From North of 76th


C&G


Grass


5.00

Sidewalk


2.00


11.50

Travel Lane


1

Left-


82 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

12). MAD

SCALE:

From 75th Ave

image


S


" =

nue


N

" =

Nor


ne


N

" =

enu


Lan


" =

to

S SECTIONS


C&G


14.50 11.50 2.00 5.00

Left-Turn Lane

Travel Lane

Sidewalk

Grass



STREET

10'

to W 76th Avenue



Street Light C&G


14.50 11.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Left-Turn Lane

Travel Lane


Sidewalk

Grass


STREET

10'

th of 76th Avenue



C&G


Street Light

11.00 2.00 5.00 1.50 6.00

Travel Lane

Sidewalk

Grass


STREET

10'

e to 75th Avenue



C&G


Street Light


12.00

e Travel Lane


2.00


5.00

Sidewalk


2.00


Grass


STREET

10'

73rd Avenue

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 83

image


RO

SCALE: 1

tran


RO

SCALE: 1

Cambridge


RO

SCALE: 1

ven


7.0

M


ROA

1

rive

EXISTING CRO


Utility Pole


C&G


9.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 18.00

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Center Median


13). B


From 93rd Avenue to En


Utility Pole


C&G

12.00 1.50 12.00 12.00 17.00

Grass Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Center Median



14). B


From Entrance of


Utility Pole

C&G

23.00 13.00 1.50 12.00 12.00

Business Access Drive Grass Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


15). B


From W 89th A



Business Access Drive


6.00


13.00


C&G


1.50 12.00 12.00 1

Travel Lane Travel Lane Center

Grass Grass

Utility Pole


84 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

16). B

SCALE:

From North D

image


S


AD

" =

ce


AD

" =

om


AD

" =

ue


edia


D

" =

to

S SECTIONS



C&G

Street Light


12.00 12.00 2.00 5.00 18.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass Grass

Business Access Drive


WAY

10'

of Cambridge Commons


Street Light C&G

12.00 12.00 1.50 2.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane


12.00

Grass Business Access Drive



WAY

10'

mons to W 89th Avenue


Street Light C&G

17.00 12.00 12.00 1.50 3.00

Center Median

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass


18.00

Grass

Business Access Drive



WAY

10'

to North Drive


Street Light


C&G

12.00 12.00 1.50 3.00

n Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass


16.00

Grass

Business Access Drive



WAY

10'

E 84th Place

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 85

image


Tur


RO

SCALE: 1

ntra


RO

SCALE: 1

pp


Tur


RO

SCALE: 1

lver


RO

1

Cu

EXISTING CRO


C&G


9.00

12.00 1

.50 12.00

12.00

Business Access Drive

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Center


17). B


From E 84th Place to E


C&G


24.00 1.50 12.00 12.00

Business Access Drive Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


18). B


From Entrance North of A



Utility Pole


C&G


15.00 1.50 12.00 12.00

Slope Down To Retention Pond

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Center



19. B


From South of Cu



Utility Pole


C&G


15.00 1.50 12.00 12.00 5.00 11.00

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane Raised Median

Left-Turn Lane


86 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

20). B

SCALE:

From North of

image


S


18

n &


AD

" =

nce


AD

" =

ebe


18

n &


AD

" =

to


AD

" =

lver

S SECTIONS


Street Light


C&G


.00 12.00 12.00 1.50 3.00 4.00 5.00 11.50

Raised Median

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Grass

Sidewalk

Grass

Parking Lot


WAY

10'

North of Applebee's


Street Light C&G

18.00 12.00 11.98 1.50 3.00 10.00 - 23.00

Center Turn & Raised Median

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Grass

Parking Lot



WAY

10'

l e's to South of Culvert


Street Light


C&G

.00 12.00 12.00 1.50 3.00


31.00 4.00

Raised Median

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass Grass

Parking Lot



WAY

10'

North of Culvert


Street Light


C&G

11.00 11.00 11.00 11.50 1.50 3.00 6.00 4.00

Left-Turn Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Right-Turn Lane

Grass

Grass

Parking Lot



WAY

10'

t to US 30

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 87

image


RO

SCALE: 1

ance


RO

SCALE: 1

Pepe's


RO

SCALE: 1

lace


17.

Tu


RO

1

En

EXISTING CRO



11.00

Utility Pole

C&G


2.00 1.50 11.00 11.00 12.00 12.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Right-Turn Lane

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Left-Turn Lane


21). B


From US 30 to Entr


Utility Pole

Utility Pole


C&G

9.00 8.00 4.00 1.50 12.00 12.00 17.00

Parking Lot

Grass Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Center Turn Lane


22). B


From Entrance of


Utility Pole


C&G

10.00 1.50 12.00 12.00 18.00

Residential

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Center Turn Lane


23. B


From 80th P


Utility Pole


C&G



4.00

5.00 -

10.00 - 15.00 1.50

12.00

12.00

Parking Lot

35.00

Grass

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Center


88 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


24). B

SCALE:

From 79th Place to

image


S


AD

" =

of


AD

" =

est


AD

" =

to


00

rn


AD

" =

tran

S SECTIONS



C&G

Utility Pole

11.00 5.00 12.00 12.00 1.50 9.00 10.00

Left-Turn Lane Raised Median

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass Grass Parking Lot


WAY

10'

Pepe's Restaurant



C&G

Utility Pole


12.00

12.00

1.50 6.00

4.00

5.00

21.00

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Grass

Grass

Sidewalk

Grass

Parking

Lot


WAY

10'

aurant to 80th Place



C&G

Utility Pole

12.00 12.00 1.50 13.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Residential


WAY

10'

79th Place



C&G

Utility Pole

12.00 12.00 1.50 6.00

Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass Residential



WAY

10'

ce of BMO Bank

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 89

image


La


RO

SCALE: 1

Bank to


Ce


RO

SCALE: 1

75


RO

SCALE: 1

rail


SSI

1

nue t

EXISTING CRO



Utility Pole


C&G

10.00 1.50 12.00 12.00 17.00

Residential

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Center Turn


25). B


From Entrance of BMO



Utility Pole


C&G

14.00 1.50 12.00 12.00

Residential

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


26). B


From 150' North of W


C&G

5.00 - 10.00

6.00

2.00

12.00

12.00

4.00

12.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Sidewalk

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Raised

Median

Left-Turn Lane


27). B


From Indian T


Utility Pole


C&G

18.00 2.00 12.00 12.00

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


90 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

28). MISSI

SCALE:

From 93rd Ave

image


S


ne


AD

" = 15


nte


AD

" =

th


AD

" =

to


PPI

" =

o E

S SECTIONS



C&G

Light

12.00 12.00 1.50 5.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass Residential


WAY

10'

0' North of W 75th Place



C&G

Light

17.00 12.00 12.00 1.50 4.00

r Turn Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Grass Residential


WAY

10'

Place to Indian Trail



12.00


12.00


12.00


C&G

Light 2.00


6.00


10.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane Right-Turn Lane

Sidewalk Grass Parking

Lot

3.00 2.00


WAY

10'

73rd Avenue


Utility Pole


C&G

12.00 12.00 2.00 2.50


1.50


8.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Trail

Residential



STREET

10'

85th Avenue

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 91

image


SSI

SCALE: 1

to


ane


SSI

SCALE: 1

ation


ISSI

SCALE: 1

atio


SSI

1

stat

EXISTING CRO


Utility Pole


C&G

10.00 2.00 12.00 12.00

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


29). MISSI


From E 85th Avenue


Utility Pole


C&G

10.00 2.00 12.00 12.00

Grass

Travel Lane Travel L


30). MISSI


From South of Lift St


Utility Pole


C&G

10.00 2.00 12.00 12.00

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane



31). MISS


From North of Lift St



Utility Pole


C&G

5.00 2.00 12.00 12.00

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


32). MISSI

92 |


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


From Electric Sub i

NIRPC

SCALE:

image

image

image

image


S


Tr


PPI

" =

So


PPI

" =

to


PPI

" =

n to


PPI

" =

on

S SECTIONS



C&G

12.00 12.00 2.00 6.00 8.00

avel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Trail

Residential



STREET

10'

uth of Lift Station


C&G

12.00 12.00 2.00 xx

Travel Lane Travel Lane


STREET

10'

North of Lift Station


C&G

12.00 12.00 2.00 6.50

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Sidewalk

Grass



STREET

10'

Electric Substation


C&G

12.00 12.00 2.00 8.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Trail

Grass


STREET

10'

to 83rd Avenue

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 93

image


Tra


SSI

SCALE: 1

Ave


1

R


SSI

SCALE: 1

to E


ISSI

SCALE: 1

to N


12.

avel


SSI

1

of

EXISTING CRO


C&G

8.00 2.00 12.00 12.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


33). MISSI


From 83rd


Parking Lot Lighting


C&G

2.00

9.00 1.50 12.00 12.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Planted


34). MISSI


From US 30


C&G

35.00 1.50 11.50 11.50

Parking Lot

Grass

Travel Lane

Travel Lane


35). MISS


From E 79th Avenue



Utility Pole


C&G

25.00 4.00 1.50 12.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Tr


94 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

36). MISSI

SCALE:

From North Entrance

image


S


12.0

vel


PPI

" =

nue


5.0

aise


PPI

" = 79


PPI

" =

ort


00

Lan


PPI

" =

Low

S SECTIONS


C&G

0 12.00 2.00 21.00

Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Parking Lot


STREET

10'

to US 30


C&G

0 12.00 12.00 1.50 7.00

d Median

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Parking Lot


STREET

10'

th Avenue



C&G

Utility Pole

16.00 11.50 11.50 1.50 6.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Grass


STREET

10'

h Entrance of Lowes



C&G

Utility Pole

12.00 12.00 1.50 4.00

e Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Grass

Grass



STREET

10'

es to 73rd Avenue

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 95

image


112


avel


U

SCALE: 1

Roa


U

SCALE: 1

Texas C


Lan


U

SCALE: 1

to


U

1

ppi

EXISTING CRO


Utility Pole


10.00


~

34.00 6.00

Parking Lot

Grass Grass Paved Tr Shoulder


71).


From Merrillville



Utility Pole


1.00

34.00 6.00 ~109.00

Parking Lot

Grass Paved

Shoulder

Travel Lanes


72).


From


Utility Pole


38.00 4.00 x


Parking Lot


11.00

Landscaping

Grass Paved

Shoulder

Travel


73).


From Aldi


C&G

28.00 1.50 x

Parking Lot

Grass

Travel Lanes


96 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

82).

SCALE:

From Mississi

image


S


.00


Lan


S 30

" =

d


S 30

" =

orra


es


S

" =

Bro


S 30

" =

Stre

S SECTIONS


6.00 44.00

es Paved

Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot


10'

to Texas Corral


6.00 54.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot


10'

l to Aldi


5.00 35.00 10.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Landscaping

Parking Lot


30

10'

adway


11.00 35.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass Parking

Lot



10'

et to Pier 1

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 97

image


9.00


Lan


U

SCALE: 1

tion


U

SCALE: 1

ance


U

SCALE: 1

McDonald's t


U

1

ranc

EXISTING CRO



36.00 10.00 - 12.00 ~11

Parking Lot

Grass

Paved Shoulder

Travel


83).


From Pier 1 Loca


Utility Pole


9.00 20.00


4.00


~118.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass Paved

Shoulder

Travel Lanes


84).


From Mall Entr



Utility Pole


15.00 20.00

13.00 - 15.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass Paved

Shoulder


85).


From


Utility Pole


Parking Lot


6.00

Grass


28.00 6.00

Grass Paved

Shoulder


~122.00


Travel Lanes


98 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

86).

SCALE:

From Mall Ent

image


S


es


S 30

" =

to


S 30

" = B


S

" =

o Mall


S 30

" = C

S SECTIONS


10.00 35.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot



10'

Mall Entrance B



4.00 37.00

Light


7.00

Grass


Parking Lot

Paved Shoulder

Grass


10'

to McDonald's


~120.00


6.00 27.00

Travel Lanes

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot


30

10'

Entrance C


10.00 37.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot



10'

to 5/3 Bank

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 99

image


U

SCALE: 1

to


U

SCALE: 1

ance


U

SCALE: 1

obi


U

1

to

EXISTING CRO


Utility Pole


7.00

28.00 15.00

Parking Lot

Grass Grass Paved Shoulder



87).


From 5/3 Bank



Utility Pole



Parking Lot

6.00

Grass

26.00

Grass

8.00

Paved Shoulder


88).


From Mall Entr



Utility Pole



4.00

35.00 5.00 - 11.00

Parking Lot

Grass Grass Paved Shoulder



89).


From Red R



Utility Pole



6.00


26.00 6.00

~136.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Paved Shoulder

Travel Lanes


100 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


90).

SCALE:

From Party City

image


S


S 30

" =

Mal


S 30

" = D


S

" =

to


S 30

" =

Tar

S SECTIONS



~123.00


7.00 32.00

Travel Lanes

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot



10'

l Entrance D


~123.00


8.00


27.00

Travel Lanes Paved

Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot


10'

to Red Robin


~126.00


Travel Lanes


4.00

Paved Shoulder


Grass



30

10'

Party City


3.00 58.00

Grass

Grass Parking

Lot



10'

get Signage

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 101

image


8.00


ane


U

SCALE: 1

nage


U

SCALE: 1

W


~1 rave


U

SCALE: 1

to


U

1

East

EXISTING CRO



Utility Pole


4.00


25.00 11.00


~12

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Paved Shoulder

Travel L



91).


From Target Sig


Utility Pole



9.00


20.00 7.00 - 10.00

~136.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Paved Shoulder

Travel Lanes


92).


From Mall Entrance 5 to



Utility Pole


7.00

32.00 11.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Paved T

Shoulder



93).


From West of Chuck E. Cheese's


Utility Pole


8.00


23.00 7.00


~124.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Paved Shoulder

Travel Lanes


102 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

94).

SCALE:

From Crossings of Hobart

image


S


s


S 30

" =

to


S 30

" =

est


20.


La


S

" =

Cro


S 30

" =

ntra

S SECTIONS


3.00 58.00

Grass

Grass

Parking Lot


10'

Mall Entrance 5


Paved Shoulder

2.00 45.00

Grass


Parking Lot


10'

of Chuck E. Cheese's



00


nes

Paved Shoulder

2.00 45.00

Grass


Parking Lot



30

10'

ssings of Hobart East Entrance


9.00 40.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Drive



10'

nce to West of Auto Zone

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 103

image


~1


U

SCALE: 1

Zon

EXISTING CRO


Utility Pole


8.00

37.00 7.00

Parking Lot / Drive

Grass Grass Paved Shoulder


95).


From West of Auto


104 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

image


S


03.


S 30

" =

e

S SECTIONS


00

8.00 45.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot


10'

to Colorado Street


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 105

image


O


0.00

ur


ILLV

SCALE: 1

ou


ILLV

SCALE: 1

eije


Tra


ILLV

SCALE: 1

ranc


LLV

1

ranc

PROPOSED CR


Street Light


Buffer C&G

3.00 5.00 2.00 1.50 11.00 1

Open Field & Grass

Grass

Sidewalk

Travel Lane Center T


1). MERR


From 93rd Avenue to S


Street Light


27.00

5.00 9.00 8.00

Meijer Parking Lot

Grass Sidewalk

Grass

Grass



2). MERR


From Southern Entrance of M



Street Light


34.00

15.00

Meijer Parking Lot

Grass Grass


3). MERR


From Central Ent



Utility Pole


C&G


5.00

6.00 1.50 10.50 10.50

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


106 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

4). MERRI

SCALE:

From US 30 to Ent

image


S


n La


ILL

" =

her


ILL

" =

r to


1.0

vel


IL

" =

of


ILL

" =

of

S SECTIONS



C&G

Utility Pole

11.00 1.50 5.00 - 10.00

ne Travel Lane

Grass

Open Field & Grass


E ROAD

10'

t n Entrance of Meijer


Utility Pole


11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 8.00

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Grass

Trees


E ROAD

10'

Central Entrance of Meijer



Utility Pole


0

11.00

11.00

11.00

8.00

Lane

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Grass


Trees


LE ROAD

10'

Meijer to US 30



C&G


Street Light

10.50 10.50 1.50 7.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass 12.00

Grass & Trees


Parking Lot


E ROAD

10'

Ross Commons

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 107

image


O


T


ILLV

SCALE: 1

Co


ISO

SCALE: 1

ace


15.

Tu


ISO

SCALE: 1

enue


ISO

1

to

PROPOSED CR



15.00 + Grass

Utility Pole


15.00 1.50

Grass


C&G


10.50

Travel Lane


5). MERR


From Entrance of Ross


Utility Pole


C&G


8.00 2.00 11.50 11.00

Grass

Right-Turn Lane

Travel Lane


6). MAD


From W 80th Pl


Utility Pole


C&G


2.50 5.00 2.00 11.00

Grass

Sidewalk

Travel Lane

Center


7). MAD


From W 78th Av


Utility Pole


C&G


2.00 5.00 2.00 10.50 10.50

Grass

Sidewalk

Right-Turn Lane

Travel Lane


108 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

8). MAD

SCALE:

From W 77th Avenue

image

image

image


S


10

rav


IL

" =

mm


" =

to


00

rn


" =

to


STREET

" =

Sou

S SECTIONS



C&G

Street Light

.50 10.50 10.50 1.50 5.00 12.00

el Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass Grass

Parking Lot



LE ROAD

10'

ons to W 80th Place



C&G


12.00 2.00 5.00

Travel Lane

Sidewalk

Grass


STREET

10'

W 78th Avenue



C&G

Street Light


11.00 2.00 5.00 2.00

Lane Travel Lane

Sidewalk

Grass


STREET

10'

W 77th Avenue


C&G


15.00 10.50 2.00 5.00

Center Turn Lane

Travel Lane

Sidewalk Grass



10'

th of 76th Avenue

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 109

image


O


ISO

SCALE: 1

ve


DISO

SCALE: 1

to


14.00

La


DISO

SCALE: 1

Av


2.00

Turn


ISO

1

nue

PROPOSED CR


Utility Pole


C&G


10.00 5.00 2.00 10.50

Grass

Grass

Sidewalk

Travel Lane



9). MAD


From South of 76th A


C&G


2.00 5.00 2.00 10.00 11.00

Grass

Sidewalk

Right-Turn Lane

Travel Lane



10.). MA


From W 76th Avenue



Utility Pole


C&G


6.00


2.50 5.00 2.00 11.00

Grass Grass

Sidewalk

Travel Lane

Left-Turn


11). MA


From North of 76th


C&G


Grass


5.00

Sidewalk


2.00


11.50

Travel Lane


1

Left-


110 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

12). MAD

SCALE:

From 75th Ave

image


S


" =

nue


N

" =

Nor


ne


N

" =

enu


Lan


" =

to

S SECTIONS


C&G


14.50 11.50 2.00 5.00

Left-Turn Lane

Travel Lane

Sidewalk

Grass



STREET

10'

to W 76th Avenue



Street Light C&G


14.50 11.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Left-Turn Lane

Travel Lane


Sidewalk

Grass


STREET

10'

th of 76th Avenue



C&G


Street Light

11.00 2.00 5.00 1.50 6.00

Travel Lane

Sidewalk

Grass


STREET

10'

e to 75th Avenue



C&G


Street Light


12.00

e Travel Lane


2.00


5.00

Sidewalk


2.00


Grass


STREET

10'

73rd Avenue

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 111

image


O


RO

SCALE: 1

tran


ane


RO

SCALE: 1

dge


RO

SCALE: 1

ven


7.0

M


RO

1

rive

PROPOSED CR


Utility Pole


C&G


9.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 18.00

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Center Median


13). B


From 93rd Avenue to En


Utility Pole


C&G


12.00 1

.50 12.00

12.00

17.00

12.00

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Center Median

Travel L


14). B


From Entrance of Cambri


Utility Pole

C&G

23.00 13.00 1.50 12.00 12.00

Business Access Drive Grass Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


15). B


From W 89th A



Business Access Drive


6.00


13.00


C&G


1.50 12.00 12.00 1

Travel Lane Travel Lane Center

Grass Grass

Utility Pole


112 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

16). B

SCALE:

From North D

image


S


AD

" =

ce


AD

" =

om


AD

" =

ue


edia


AD

" =

to

S SECTIONS



C&G

Street Light


12.00 12.00 2.00 5.00


3.00 10.00 5.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Grass Proposed Trail

Grass

Business Access Drive


Speed Limit 45 MPH

*Propose Reduced Speed Limit


WAY

10'

of Cambridge Commons


Street Light C&G


Buffer Buffer Proposed C&G


C&G

12.00 1.50 2.00


2.00 10.00 2.00 2.00 24.00 2.00

Travel Lane

Proposed Trail

Narrow Access Drive From 28' to 24'


Speed Limit 45 MPH

*Propose Reduced Speed Limit


Proposed Drainage Inlet


WAY

10'

mons to W 89th Avenue


Street Light C&G



17.00


12.00

12.00 1.50 3.00 3.00

10.00

5.00

Center Median

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Grass Grass

Proposed Trail

Grass

Business Access Drive


Speed Limit 45 MPH

*Propose Reduced Speed Limit


WAY

10'

to North Drive


Street Light


C&G


Buffer


12.00

12.00 1.5

0 3.00 2.00

10.00

4.00

n

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Grass

Proposed Trail

Grass

Business Access Drive


Speed Limit 35 MPH



WAY

10'

E 84th Place

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 113

image


O


Tur


RO

SCALE: 1

ntra


RO

SCALE: 1

plebe


Tur


RO

SCALE: 1

ntra


RO

1

Cu

PROPOSED CR


C&G


9.00

12.00 1

.50 12.00

12.00

Business Access Drive

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Center


17). B


From E 84th Place to E


C&G


24.00

1.50 12.00

12.00

18.00

12.00

Business Access Drive

Grass

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Center Turn & Raised Median

Travel Lane



18). B


From Entrance North of Ap



Utility Pole


C&G


15.00 1.50 12.00 12.00

Slope Down To Retention Pond

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Center



19. B


From Century Plaza E



Utility Pole


C&G


15.00 1.50 12.00 12.00 5.00 11.00

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane Raised Median

Left-Turn Lane


114 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

20). B

SCALE:

From North of

image


S


18

n &


AD

" =

nce


AD

" =

e's


18

n &


AD

" =

nce


AD

" =

lver

S SECTIONS


Street Light


C&G


.00 12.00 12.00 1.50 3.00 4.00 10.00 6.50

Raised Median

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Grass

Proposed Trail

Grass

Parking Lot

Speed Limit 35 MPH



WAY

10'

North of Applebee's


Street Light C&G

11.98 1.50 3.00

Travel Lane Grass


Buffer


2.00 10.00 4.00

Proposed Trail Grass


Proposed C&G


2.00 18.00 24.00

Parking Stall Narrow Access Drive

From 30' to 24'


Speed Limit 35 MPH


WAY

10'

to Century Plaza Entrance


Street Light


C&G

Buffer

Buffer

.00 12.00 12.00 1.50 3.00


2.00 10.00 2.00

4.00 4.00 8.00


4.00

Raised Median

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Proposed Trail


Move Existing Flag Pole & Fence

Speed Limit 35 MPH

Parking Lot


WAY

10'

to North of Culvert


Street Light


C&G

11.00 11.00 11.00 11.50 1.50 3.00 6.00 4.00

Left-Turn Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Right-Turn Lane

Grass

Grass

Parking Lot


Speed Limit 35 MPH


WAY

10'

t to US 30

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 115

image


O


RO

SCALE: 1

ance


RO

SCALE: 1

Pepe's


RO

SCALE: 1

lace


17.

Tu


RO

1

En

PROPOSED CR



11.00

Utility Pole

C&G


2.00 1.50 11.00 11.00 12.00 12.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Right-Turn Lane

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Left-Turn Lane


21). B


From US 30 to Entr


Utility Pole

Utility Pole


C&G

9.00 8.00 4.00 1.50 12.00 12.00 17.00

Parking Lot

Grass Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Center Turn Lane


22). B


From Entrance of


Utility Pole


C&G

10.00 1.50 12.00 12.00 18.00

Residential

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Center Turn Lane


23. B


From 80th P


Utility Pole


C&G



4.00

5.00 -

10.00 - 15.00 1.50

12.00

12.00

Parking Lot

35.00

Grass

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Center


116 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


24). B

SCALE:

From 79th Place to

image


S


AD

" =

of


AD

" =

est


AD

" =

to


00

rn


AD

" =

tran

S SECTIONS



C&G

Relocated Utility Pole


Proposed C&G

11.00 5.00 12.00 12.00 1.50


5.00 10.00 5.00


2.00

Left-Turn Lane Raised Median

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Proposed Trail

Grass

Parking Lot


Speed Limit 35 MPH



Proposed Drainage Inlet


WAY

10'

Pepe's Restaurant



C&G

Utility Pole

12.00 12.00 1.50 6.00 4.00


10.00 16.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass Grass

Proposed Trail

Grass

Parking Lot


Speed Limit 35 MPH



WAY

10'

aurant to 80th Place



C&G

Utility Pole

12.00 12.00 1.50 13.00

3.00 10.00 51.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Grass

Proposed Trail

Grass


Speed Limit 35 MPH


WAY

10'

79th Place



C&G

Utility Pole


Buffer

12.00 12.00 1.50 6.00


2.00 10.00 3.00

Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Proposed Trail Grass

Parking Lot


Speed Limit 35 MPH


WAY

10'

ce of BMO Bank

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 117

image


O


La


RO

SCALE: 1

Bank t


Ce


RO

SCALE: 1

75


RO

SCALE: 1

rail


SSI

1

nue t

PROPOSED CR



Utility Pole


C&G

10.00 1.50 12.00 12.00 17.00

Residential

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Center Turn


25). B


From Entrance of BMO



Utility Pole


C&G

14.00 1.50 12.00 12.00

Residential

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


26). B


From 150' North of W


C&G

5.00 - 10.00

6.00

2.00

12.00

12.00

4.00

12.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Sidewalk

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Raised

Median

Left-Turn Lane


27). B


From Indian T


Utility Pole


C&G

18.00 2.00 12.00 12.00

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


118 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

28). MISSI

SCALE:

From 93rd Ave

image


S


ne


AD

" =

o 15


nte


AD

" =

th


AD

" =

to


PPI

" =

o E

S SECTIONS



C&G

Light


Buffer Buffer


12.00

12.00

1.50 5.00

2.00

10.00

2.00

Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Grass

Proposed Trail

Residential


Speed Limit 35 MPH


WAY

10'

0' North of W 75th Place



C&G

Light


Buffer Buffer

17.00 12.00 12.00 1.50 4.00

r Turn Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Grass


2.00 10.00

Proposed Trail


2.00


Residential

Speed Limit 35 MPH



WAY

10'

Place to Indian Trail



12.00


12.00


12.00


Relocate Light Pole C&G

2.00


5.00 8.00 3.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane Right-Turn Lane

Grass

Proposed Trail

Grass

Parking Lot


Speed Limit 35 MPH


WAY

10'

73rd Avenue


Utility Pole


C&G

12.00 12.00 2.00 2.50


1.50


8.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Trail

Residential



STREET

10'

85th Avenue

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 119

image


O


ISSI

SCALE: 1

to


ane


SSI

SCALE: 1

ation


ISSI

SCALE: 1

atio


SSI

1

stat

PROPOSED CR


Utility Pole


C&G

10.00 2.00 12.00 12.00

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


29). MISS


From E 85th Avenue


Utility Pole


C&G

10.00 2.00 12.00 12.00

Grass

Travel Lane Travel L


30). MISSI


From South of Lift St


Utility Pole


C&G

10.00 2.00 12.00 12.00

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane



31). MISS


From North of Lift St



Utility Pole


C&G

5.00 2.00 12.00 12.00

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


32). MISSI

120 |


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


From Electric Sub i

NIRPC

SCALE:

image

image

image

image


S


Tr


PPI

" =

So


PPI

" =

to


PP

" =

n to


PPI

" =

on

S SECTIONS



C&G

12.00 12.00 2.00 6.00 8.00

avel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Trail

Residential



STREET

10'

uth of Lift Station


C&G

12.00 12.00 2.00 xx

Travel Lane Travel Lane


STREET

10'

North of Lift Station


C&G

12.00 12.00 2.00 6.50

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Sidewalk

Grass



I STREET

10'

Electric Substation


C&G

12.00 12.00 2.00 8.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Trail

Grass


STREET

10'

to 83rd Avenue

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 121

image


O


Tra


ISSI

SCALE: 1

Ave


1

R


SSI

SCALE: 1

to E


ISSI

SCALE: 1

to N


12.

avel


SSI

1

of

PROPOSED CR


C&G

8.00 2.00 12.00 12.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane


33). MISS


From 83rd


Parking Lot Lighting


C&G

2.00

9.00 1.50 12.00 12.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Planted


34). MISSI


From US 30


C&G

35.00 1.50 11.50 11.50

Parking Lot

Grass

Travel Lane

Travel Lane


35). MISS


From E 79th Avenue



Utility Pole


C&G

25.00 4.00 1.50 12.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Travel Lane Tr


122 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

36). MISSI

SCALE:

From North Entrance

image


S


12.0

vel


PPI

" =

nue


5.0

aise


PPI

" = 79


PP

" =

ort


00

Lan


PPI

" =

Low

S SECTIONS


C&G

0 12.00 2.00


5.00 10.00 6.00

Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Proposed Trail Grass

Parking Lot


STREET

10'

to US 30


C&G

0 12.00 12.00 1.50 7.00

d Median

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Parking Lot


STREET

10'

th Avenue



C&G

Utility Pole

16.00 11.50 11.50 1.50 6.00

Travel Lane Travel Lane

Grass

Grass


I STREET

10'

h Entrance of Lowes



C&G

Utility Pole

12.00 12.00 1.50 4.00

e Travel Lane

Travel Lane

Grass

Grass



STREET

10'

es to 73rd Avenue

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 123

image


O


112


avel


U

SCALE: 1

Roa


U

SCALE: 1

Texas C


0.00


Lan


U

SCALE: 1

to


U

1

ppi

PROPOSED CR


Utility Pole


10.00


~

34.00 6.00

Parking Lot

Grass Grass Paved Tr Shoulder


71).


From Merrillville



Utility Pole


1.00

34.00 6.00 ~109.00

Parking Lot

Grass Paved

Shoulder

Travel Lanes


72).


From


Utility Pole


38.00 4.00 ~11


Parking Lot


11.00

Landscaping

Grass Paved

Shoulder

Travel


73).


From Aldi


C&G

28.00 1.50 ~136.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Travel Lanes


124 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

82).

SCALE:

From Mississi

image


S


.00


Lan


S 30

" =

d


S 30

" =

orra


es


S

" =

Bro


S 30

" =

Stre

S SECTIONS


Retaining Wall

Grass Shoulder Paved Shoulder



6.00


25.00


2.00

10.00 1.00 4.00

2.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass with Ditch

Proposed Trail

Grass

Parking Lot

es


10'

to Texas Corral



Planting Strip

Buffer Buffer


0.83

6.00

40.00

2.00

10.00

2.00

Parking

Paved Shoulder

Grass with Ditch

Proposed Trail

Lot


10'

l to Aldi


Buffer


5.00

Paved Shoulder


18.00

Grass


2.00


10.00

Proposed Trail


5.00

Grass


10.00

Landscaping


Parking Lot


30

10'

adway


11.00 35.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass Parking

Lot



10'

et to Pier 1

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 125

image


O


9.00


Lan


U

SCALE: 1

tion


U

SCALE: 1

ance


U

SCALE: 1

McDonald's t


U

1

ranc

PROPOSED CR



36.00 10.00 - 12.00 ~11

Parking Lot

Grass

Paved Shoulder

Travel


83).


From Pier 1 Loca


Utility Pole


9.00 20.00


4.00 ~118.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass Paved

Shoulder

Travel Lanes


84).


From Mall Entr



Utility Pole


15.00 20.00

13.00 - 15.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass Paved

Shoulder


85).


From


Utility Pole


Parking Lot


6.00

Grass


28.00 6.00

Grass Paved

Shoulder


~122.00


Travel Lanes


126 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

86).

SCALE:

From Mall Ent

image


S


es


S 30

" =

to


S 30

" = B


S

" =

o Mall


S 30

" = C

S SECTIONS


10.00 35.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot



10'

Mall Entrance B



4.00 37.00

Light


7.00

Grass


Parking Lot

Paved Shoulder

Grass


10'

to McDonald's


~120.00


6.00 27.00

Travel Lanes

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot


30

10'

Entrance C


10.00 37.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot



10'

to 5/3 Bank

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 127

image


O


U

SCALE: 1

to


U

SCALE: 1

ance


U

SCALE: 1

obi


U

1

to

PROPOSED CR


Utility Pole


7.00

28.00 15.00

Parking Lot

Grass Grass Paved Shoulder



87).


From 5/3 Bank



Utility Pole



Parking Lot

6.00

Grass

26.00

Grass

8.00

Paved Shoulder


88).


From Mall Entr



Utility Pole



4.00

35.00 5.00 - 11.00

Parking Lot

Grass Grass Paved Shoulder



89).


From Red R



Utility Pole



6.00


26.00 6.00

~136.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Paved Shoulder

Travel Lanes


128 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning


90).

SCALE:

From Party City

image


S


S 30

" =

Mal


S 30

" = D


S

" =

to


S 30

" =

Tar

S SECTIONS



~123.00


7.00 32.00

Travel Lanes

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot



10'

l Entrance D


~123.00


8.00


27.00

Travel Lanes Paved

Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot


10'

to Red Robin


~126.00


Travel Lanes


4.00

Paved Shoulder


Grass



30

10'

Party City


3.00 58.00

Grass

Grass Parking

Lot



10'

get Signage

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 129

image


O


8.00


ane


U

SCALE: 1

nage


U

SCALE: 1

W


~1 rave


U

SCALE: 1

to


U

1

East

PROPOSED CR



Utility Pole


4.00


25.00 11.00


~12

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Paved Shoulder

Travel L


91).


From Target Sig


Utility Pole



9.00


20.00 7.00 - 10.00

~136.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Paved Shoulder

Travel Lanes


92).


From Mall Entrance 5 to



Utility Pole


7.00

32.00 11.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Paved T

Shoulder



93).


From West of Chuck E. Cheese's


Utility Pole


8.00


23.00 7.00


~124.00

Parking Lot

Grass

Grass

Paved Shoulder

Travel Lanes


130 |


NIRPC


U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

94).

SCALE:

From Crossings of Hobart

image


S


s


S 30

" =

to


S 30

" =

est


20.


La


S

" =

Cro


S 30

" =

ntra

S SECTIONS


3.00 58.00

Grass

Grass

Parking Lot


10'

Mall Entrance 5


Paved Shoulder

2.00 45.00

Grass


Parking Lot


10'

of Chuck E. Cheese's



00


nes

Paved Shoulder

2.00 45.00

Grass


Parking Lot



30

10'

ssings of Hobart East Entrance


9.00 40.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Drive



10'

nce to West of Auto Zone

NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 131

image


O


~1


U

SCALE: 1

Zon

PROPOSED CR


Utility Pole


8.00

37.00 7.00

Parking Lot / Drive

Grass Grass Paved Shoulder


95).


From West of Auto


132 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

image


S


03.


S 30

" =

e

S SECTIONS


00

8.00 45.00

Paved Shoulder

Grass

Parking Lot


10'

to Colorado Street


NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning | 133

Proposed Cross Sections


image

image

SQA.e 1 .. 10'

l'tcnr.ritr«' UdK.f'CtoScr'll'ICeltl'ril!llOS!imtCMt


image


image


image

-

- - .$...I).).

"'

!CAt,f!l" U1

flO'llSOUlh&crdl'Ot.dlTTl:Of.Clll&cr.uclMtecdY. Qir-



1··

lli· ISSISSIPPf STRf£T S(At.t: ur ff'Qllt&)taAwtWtoUS:JO


image


image


134 I NIRPC U.S.3l/ 1·65 Safety Planning


image image


§lUJS_;i(>

!iCA!.t:NotToScale ff\ll'J'l 9f<*ll>'*l



image


7'-ISJ. USJO

$CNl: l 10'


NIRPC U.S.3l/1·65 Safety Planning I 135


NIRPC I‐65 and U.S. 31 Safety Study


Crash Analysis Dates

Year One

July 1, 2012

to

June 30, 2013

Year Two

July 1, 2013

to

June 30, 2014

Year Three

July 1, 2014

to

June 30, 2015

Year Four

July 1, 2015

to

June 30, 2016


All Study Intersections


Crash Breakdown by Year

Year

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Total

Total Crashes

508

511

519

498

2036

PDO Only

403

430

427

403

1663

Minor/Non‐Incapacitating Injury

95

78

61

50

284

Major/Incapacitating Injury

7

2

30

45

84

Fatal Crashes

1

0

0

0

1


Pedestrian/Bicycle Involved Crashes by Year

Year

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Total

Total Crashes

3

4

2

5

14

% of Total

0.59%

0.78%

0.39%

1.00%

0.69%



image

136 | NIRPC U.S. 30 / I-65 Safety Planning

Intersection 1: U.S. 30 and Merrillville Road


Crash Breakdown by Year

Year

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Total

Total Crashes

73

58

67

56

254

PDO Only

64

49

47

42

202

Minor/Non‐Incapacitating Injury

8

8

12

5

33

Major/Incapacitating Injury

1

1

8

9

19

Fatal Crashes

0

0

0

0

0


Intersection 2: U.S. 30 and K‐Mart Entrance


Crash Breakdown by Year

Year

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Total

Total Crashes

18

19

11

12

60

PDO Only

15

16

7

7

45

Minor/Non‐Incapacitating Injury

2

3

3

4

12

Major/Incapacitating Injury

1

0

1

1

3

Fatal Crashes

0

0

0

0

0


Intersection 3: U.S. 30 and Broadway Avenue


Crash Breakdown by Year

Year

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Total

Total Crashes

86

97

93

102

378

PDO Only

68

78

81

83

310

Minor/Non‐Incapacitating Injury

17

19

10

10

56

Major/Incapacitating Injury

1

0

2

9

12

Fatal Crashes

0

0

0

0

0


Intersection 4: Broadway Avenue and Century Plaza


Crash Breakdown by Year

Year