US-42 ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY€¦ · MAD/UNI/DEL-42 ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY AUGUST 2015 ii 4.1.2 Traffic Volumes Evaluation ... Exhibit 4.1 Transportation Analysis Locations Exhibit

US-42 ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY

PREPARED BY: Burton Planning Services, LLC 252 Electric Avenue Westerville, OH 43081 (614) 392-2284 www.burtonplanning.com Subconsultant: Parsons Brinckerhoff Two Miranova Place Suite 450 Columbus, Ohio 43215

Ohio Department of Transportation District 6 Office 400 E. William Street Delaware, Ohio 43015

AUGUST 2015

MAD/UNI/DEL-42 ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY (PID: 97693)

MAD/UNI/DEL-42 ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY

AUGUST 2015 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter | Section | Sub-Section Page

1.0 | Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Goals ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Scope ....................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 | PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................... 4 2.1 Public Involvement Plan ...................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Public Meetings ................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Public Comments ............................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Overall Summary ............................................................................................................... 14

3.0 | EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 15 3.1 Study Area Description ...................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Design Conditions .............................................................................................................. 15

3.2.1 Engineering Inventory ........................................................................................................... 15 3.2.2 Mainline Speed Limits ........................................................................................................... 17 3.2.3 Utilities .................................................................................................................................. 18 3.2.4 Public Right‐Of‐Way .............................................................................................................. 18

3.3 Zoning & Land Use ............................................................................................................. 19 3.3.1 Land Use Inventory ............................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Future Land Use .................................................................................................................... 20 3.3.3 Zoning Overview ................................................................................................................... 21 3.3.4 Development Potential ......................................................................................................... 22

3.4 Communities & Socioeconomic Profiles ............................................................................. 23 3.4.1 Delaware County ................................................................................................................... 24 3.4.2 Communities within Delaware County ................................................................................. 25 3.4.3 Madison County .................................................................................................................... 26 3.4.4 Communities within Madison County ................................................................................... 27 3.4.5 Union County ........................................................................................................................ 29 3.4.6 Communities within Union County ....................................................................................... 30

3.5 Environmental Conditions ................................................................................................. 31 3.5.1 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 31 3.5.2 Section 4(f) Parks/Recreation/Monuments .......................................................................... 32 3.5.3 Ecological & Water Resources ............................................................................................... 32 3.5.4 Geological Resources ............................................................................................................ 35 3.5.5 Community Resources .......................................................................................................... 36 3.5.6 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................. 37 3.5.7 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................... 38 3.5.8 Noise & Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 39

3.6 Related Studies & Projects ................................................................................................. 39 3.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 40

4.0 | TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ............................................................... 41 4.1 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................. 41

4.1.1 Planning Level Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 41


AUGUST 2015 ii

4.1.2 Traffic Volumes Evaluation ................................................................................................... 42 4.2 Traffic Operations .............................................................................................................. 42

4.2.1 Existing (2016) Traffic Operations ......................................................................................... 43 4.2.2 Design Year (2036) Traffic Operations .................................................................................. 44

4.3 Signal Warrant Analyses .................................................................................................... 46 4.3.1 Signal Warrant Types ............................................................................................................ 46 4.3.2 Signal Warrant Analyses ........................................................................................................ 47 4.3.3 Signal Warrant Results .......................................................................................................... 49

4.4 Crash Analyses................................................................................................................... 50 4.4.1 US‐42 Corridor Safety Evaluation .......................................................................................... 50 4.4.2 Crash Analysis by Intersection .............................................................................................. 52

4.5 Multi‐Modal Facilities Evaluation ...................................................................................... 54 4.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 57

5.0 | ACCESS MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ............................................... 58 5.1 Study Area Sections ........................................................................................................... 58 5.2 Access Management Categories & Criteria ......................................................................... 59 5.3 Typical Standards .............................................................................................................. 60

5.3.1 Operational Standards .......................................................................................................... 60 5.3.2 Access Spacing Criteria .......................................................................................................... 61 5.3.3 Driveway Dimensions ............................................................................................................ 62 5.3.4 Median Types ........................................................................................................................ 63

5.4 Category Assignments ....................................................................................................... 64 5.5 Access Point Inventory ...................................................................................................... 67

5.5.1 Study Area and Counties ....................................................................................................... 67 5.5.2 Sections Overview ................................................................................................................. 69 5.5.3 Section 1: London Section Inventory (Category III) ............................................................... 70 5.5.4 Section 2: US‐40/I‐70 Section Inventory (Category II) .......................................................... 71 5.5.5 Section 3: I‐70 to Plain City Section Inventory (Category III) ................................................ 72 5.5.6 Section 4: Plain City Section Inventory (Category IV)............................................................ 72 5.5.7 Section 5: Plain City North Section Inventory (Category IV) ................................................. 73 5.5.8 Section 6: US‐33 Area Section Inventory (Category II) .......................................................... 73 5.5.9 Section 7: Delaware Section Inventory (Category II) ............................................................ 74 5.5.10 Interchange Spacing .......................................................................................................... 75

5.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 75

6.0 | RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 76 6.1 Applications & Techniques ................................................................................................ 76

6.1.1 Direct Access Control ............................................................................................................ 76 6.1.2 Design Improvements ........................................................................................................... 77 6.1.3 Land Use Policy & Code Changes .......................................................................................... 78

6.2 Access Management Improvements .................................................................................. 79 6.2.1 Section 1: London Section Recommendations ...................................................................... 79 6.2.2 Section 2: US‐40/I‐70 Section Recommendations ................................................................ 81 6.2.3 Section 3: I‐70 to Plain City Section Recommendations ....................................................... 82 6.2.4 Section 4: Plain City Section Recommendations ................................................................... 84 6.2.5 Section 5: Plain City North Section Recommendations ........................................................ 87 6.2.6 Section 6: US‐33 Area Section Recommendations ................................................................ 88 6.2.7 Section 7: Delaware Section Recommendations .................................................................. 93 6.2.8 Section Transition Point Recommendations ......................................................................... 95


AUGUST 2015 iii

6.3 Design Improvements ........................................................................................................ 96 6.3.1 Safety Improvements ............................................................................................................ 96 6.3.2 Mainline Capacity Improvements ......................................................................................... 97 6.3.3 Typical Sections for Category II Sections ............................................................................... 98 6.3.4 Typical Sections for Category III Sections .............................................................................. 99 6.3.5 Typical Sections for Category IV Sections ........................................................................... 100 6.3.6 Intersection Improvements ................................................................................................. 101 6.3.7 Multi‐Modal Improvements ................................................................................................ 102

6.4 Zoning & Development Recommendations ...................................................................... 104 6.4.1 Zoning Classification ............................................................................................................ 104 6.4.2 Limit Parcel Access .............................................................................................................. 105 6.4.3 Shared Parcel Access ........................................................................................................... 106 6.4.4 Alternative Road Parcel Access ........................................................................................... 107 6.4.5 Inclusion of Backage Road Easements ................................................................................ 108 6.4.6 Side‐loading Commercial and Industrial Properties ............................................................ 108 6.4.7 Side‐loading or Rear‐Loading Garages for Residences ........................................................ 109 6.4.8 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 109

6.5 Funding & Financing Mechanisms .................................................................................... 109 6.5.1 Improvements to US‐42 ...................................................................................................... 109 6.5.2 Public Funding for Local Circulation Improvements in the Corridor ................................... 110 6.5.3 Private and Alternative Funding Sources ............................................................................ 111

6.6 Implementation ............................................................................................................... 111 6.6.1 Short‐Term .......................................................................................................................... 111 6.6.2 Medium Term ...................................................................................................................... 112 6.6.3 Long‐Term ........................................................................................................................... 113


AUGUST 2015 iv

Figures Figure 1-1 - Intersection Conflict Points ..................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1 - Top Five Issues Identified at Stakeholder Meetings .............................................................. 9 Figure 5-1 - Study Area Access Points ..................................................................................................... 68 Figure 5-2 - Access Points by Type (Percentage) .................................................................................... 68 Figure 5-3 - Access Points per Mile .......................................................................................................... 69 Figure 5-4 - Access Points per Mile by Section ....................................................................................... 70 Figure 6-1 - Category II, 3-Lane Section with TWLTL & 4' Shoulder ....................................................... 98 Figure 6-2 - Category II, 3-Lane Section with Raised Median & 4' Shoulder ......................................... 98 Figure 6-3 - Category II, 5-Lane Section with Raised Median & 4' Shoulder ......................................... 98 Figure 6-4 - Category III, 2-Lane Section with 4’ Shoulders ................................................................... 99 Figure 6-5 - Category III, 3-Lane Section with TWLTL & 4’ Shoulders .................................................... 99 Figure 6-6 - Category IV, 2-Lane Section with Sidewalks ....................................................................... 99 Figure 6-7 - Category IV, 3-Lane Section with TWLTL & Sidewalks ...................................................... 100 Figure 6-8 - Category IV, 3-Lane Section with TWLTL, Bike Lanes & Sidewalks ................................. 100 Figure 6-9 - Proposed 3-Lane Section with Shared-Use Path .............................................................. 103 Figure 6-10 - Proposed 3-Lane Section with "Slow" Shoulders ............................................................ 104 Tables Table 3-1 - Existing Intersection Design Conditions ............................................................................... 15 Table 3-2 - Land Use by County ................................................................................................................ 19 Table 3-3 - Delaware County Population 2000 – 2010 ......................................................................... 24 Table 3-4 - Delaware County Per Capita Income 2010 - 2012 .............................................................. 24 Table 3-5 - Delaware County Unemployment Rates 2010 - 2013 ........................................................ 25 Table 3-6 - Delaware County Commute Times ........................................................................................ 25 Table 3-7 - Madison County Population 2000 - 2010 ............................................................................ 26 Table 3-8 - Madison County Per Capita Income 2000 - 2010 ............................................................... 26 Table 3-9 - Madison County Unemployment Rates 2010 – 2013 ........................................................ 27 Table 3-10 - Madison County Commute Times ....................................................................................... 27 Table 3-11 - Union County Population 2000 - 2010 .............................................................................. 29 Table 3-12 - Union County Per Capita Income 2000 - 2010 ................................................................. 29 Table 3-13 - Union County Unemployment Rates 2010 - 2013 ............................................................ 29 Table 3-14 - Union County Commute Times ............................................................................................ 29 Table 3-15 - Inventoried Structures ......................................................................................................... 31 Table 3-16 - Nearby Drainages ................................................................................................................ 33 Table 3-17 - Study Area Wetlands ........................................................................................................... 33 Table 3-18 - Floodplain Acreage by Flood Zone ...................................................................................... 34 Table 3-19 - Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species ..................................................................... 34 Table 3-20 - Madison County Soils .......................................................................................................... 36 Table 3-21 - Union County Soils ............................................................................................................... 36 Table 3-22 - Delaware County Soils ......................................................................................................... 36 Table 3-23 - Community Resources ......................................................................................................... 36 Table 3-24 - Hazardous Material Sites of Concern ................................................................................. 38 Table 3-25 - Delaware County Poverty Rates 2000 - 2010 ................................................................... 38 Table 3-26 - Madison County Poverty Rates 2000 - 2010 .................................................................... 39 Table 3-27 - Union County Poverty Rates 2000 - 2010 ......................................................................... 39 Table 3-28 - Transportation and Land Use Plans Reviewed .................................................................. 40 Table 3-29 - ODOT STIP Projects in the US-42 Study Area ..................................................................... 40 Table 4-1 - Level of Service Criteria ......................................................................................................... 43 Table 4-2 - US-42 Level of Service Results ............................................................................................. 43


AUGUST 2015 v

Table 4-3 - US-42 2036 Level of Service Results ................................................................................... 45 Table 4-4 - Signal Warrant Analysis Locations and Results ................................................................... 48 Table 4-5 - Multi-Modal Review Resources ............................................................................................. 54 Table 5-1 - Roadway Functional Class Designation ................................................................................ 61 Table 5-2 - Category II & IV Driveway Spacing (Not for High-Volume Drives)* ...................................... 62 Table 5-3 - Driveway Types ....................................................................................................................... 62 Table 5-4 - Recommended Basic Driveway Dimension Guidelines* ..................................................... 62 Table 5-5 - Access Management Category by Roadway Section ........................................................... 65 Table 5-6 - Access Points by Section ....................................................................................................... 69 Table 5-7 - Intersections in Section 1 ...................................................................................................... 71 Table 5-8 - Intersections in Section 2 ...................................................................................................... 71 Table 5-9 - Intersections in Section 3 ...................................................................................................... 72 Table 5-10 - Intersections in Section 4 .................................................................................................... 73 Table 5-11 - Intersections in Section 5 .................................................................................................... 74 Table 5-12 - Intersections in Section 6 .................................................................................................... 74 Table 5-13 - Intersections in Section 7 .................................................................................................... 75 Table 6-1- Existing Intersection Access Point Spacing, Section 1 ......................................................... 79 Table 6-2- Intersection Spacing After Proposed Changes, Section 1 .................................................... 79 Table 6-3 - Existing Intersection Access Points, Section 3 ..................................................................... 83 Table 6-4 - Intersection Spacing Inentory After Proposed Changes, Section 3 .................................... 84 Table 6-5 - Existing Intersection Access Points, Section 4 ..................................................................... 85 Table 6-6 - Intersection Spacing Inventory After Proposed Changes, Section 4................................... 86 Table 6-7 - Existing Intersection Access Points, Section 5 ..................................................................... 88 Table 6-8 - Intersection Spacing Inventory After Proposed Changes, Section 5................................... 88 Table 6-9 - Existing Intersection Access Points, Section 6 ..................................................................... 93 Table 6-10 - Intersection Spacing Inventory After Proposed Changes, Section 6 ................................ 93 Table 6-11 - Recommended Transportation Improvements ................................................................ 101 Table 6-12 - Recommended Basic Driveway Dimension Guidelines ................................................... 105 Exhibits Chapter 1 Exhibits

Exhibit 1.1 Project Location Exhibit 1.2 Study Area

Chapter 3 Exhibits

Exhibit 3.1 Design & Environmental Conditions Exhibit 3.2 Existing Land Uses Exhibit 3.3 Future Land Uses Exhibit 3.4 Jurisdictions Exhibit 3.5 Watersheds Exhibit 3.6 Soils Exhibit 3.7 Environmental Justice - Minorities Exhibit 3.8 Environmental Justice - Poverty

Chapter 4 Exhibits

Exhibit 4.1 Transportation Analysis Locations Exhibit 4.2 Design Year Mainline Peak Hour Volumes Exhibit 4.3 Design Year Intersection Peak Hour Volumes Exhibit 4.4 Existing Level of Service Exhibit 4.5 Future Level of Service


AUGUST 2015 vi

Exhibit 4.6 Study Area Crashes Exhibit 4.7 CR-71 Crash Diagram Exhibit 4.8 SR-29 Crash Diagram Exhibit 4.9 US-33 Crash Diagram Exhibit 4.10 CR-11 Crash Diagram Exhibit 4.11 SR-257/745 Crash Diagram Exhibit 4.12 SR-257/CR-149 Crash Diagram Exhibit 4.13 London Road Crash Diagram Exhibit 4.14 Multi-Modal Facilities

Chapter 5 Exhibits

Exhibit 5.1 Corridor Section Locations Exhibit 5.2 Section 1 Details Exhibit 5.3 Section 2 Details Exhibit 5.4 Section 3 Details Exhibit 5.5 Section 4 Details Exhibit 5.6 Section 5 Details Exhibit 5.7 Section 6 Details Exhibit 5.8 Section 7 Details Exhibit 5.9 Interchange Locations

Chapter 6 Exhibits

Exhibit 6.1 Section 1 Recommendations Exhibit 6.2 Section 2 Recommendations Exhibit 6.3 Section 3 Recommendations Exhibit 6.4 Section 4 Recommendations Exhibit 6.5 Section 5 Recommendations Exhibit 6.6 Section 6 Recommendations Exhibit 6.7 Section 7 Recommendations

Appendices Appendix A: Public Involvement Materials

1. Public Involvement Plan 2. Public Meeting Notes and Documentation 3. Online Survey and Comments

Appendix B: Existing Conditions

1. Cultural Resources Information 2. Hazardous Materials Information 3. Air Quality Information

Appendix C: Transportation Analysis

1. Tube Count Data 2. Miovision Turning Movement Count Data 3. Signal Warrant Information 4. Crash Data

Appendix D: Access Inventory

1. Access Inventory Data


AUGUST 2015 1

1.0 | INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background The northwest portion of Central Ohio includes some of the fastest growing areas in the state of Ohio. Population and employment in this area are projected to continue to increase. As a result of this growth, traffic will continue to increase on local and collector routes, feeding onto and adding to the growing number of through trips on United States Route 42 (US-42), a major connector through Madison, Union, and Delaware counties. Economic development opportunities in this area are currently limited due to the inability of US-42 to handle current traffic volumes effectively and safely. Improving mobility along this corridor, eliminating congestion, improving safety, and creating convenient and efficient accessibility to developable land will benefit these three counties as well as the greater Central Ohio region. In September 2014, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) announced it would lead a multi-county corridor planning/assessment study, the MAD/UNI/DEL-42-Access Management Study, to be conducted as a corridor-specific access management plan for US-42 from the City of London to the City of Delaware in accordance with ODOT Access Management Guidelines (see Exhibit 1.1: Project Location). The study examined the US-42 corridor including a study area that extended 1,000 feet on either side of the centerline. The study area began at the northeast corporation limit of London, Ohio and extended to the intersection of US-42 and US-23 in Delaware, Ohio. The corridor crossed three counties (Madison, Union, and Delaware), three municipalities (London, Plain City, and Delaware), and eight townships (see Exhibit 1.2: Study Area). 1.2 Project Goals This Study identifies techniques to successfully optimize existing corridor capacity and deter, at least for a time, the need for additional through lanes on major roadways. Such a plan would improve the corridor's operational capacity by identifying both protective and retrofit techniques given existing and planned conditions along the corridor, which could be implemented over time. The intent of the Study is to provide a guide that contains upfront information that could be utilized by both state and local agencies along with local property owners as development occurs or land use changes along the corridor. The final recommendations are conceptual with the intent to support and strengthen the intended of the functions of US-42, as the area develops. As a result, the goals of the study are to:

Improve public safety by reducing the number of crashes.

Improve the driving experience by increasing mobility and decreasing delay.

Provide necessary and safe access to property.

Minimize costs by making more efficient use of the existing roadways. Access management seeks to balance the need for access to properties with the need to provide a safe and efficient experience for through-traffic. Access management techniques include limiting the location, design, spacing, and operation of driveways and intersections to reduce accidents and improve the flow of traffic.


AUGUST 2015 2

Access Management Principles Driveways and intersecting roads tend to be where accidents happen. This is because they create conflict points, or areas where traffic moving in one direction intersects with the paths of vehicles making other movements. Vehicles slowing to make a turn, particularly in narrow two-lane sections like those found on US-42, present a safety hazard while also impeding the flow of traffic. The movements that are likely to cause more accidents, and to cause more severe accidents, are those involving left turns. The diagram (Figure 1-1) illustrates the 32 potential conflict points at a typical 4-leg intersection. A 3-leg “T” intersection, which occurs at most driveways, creates nine conflict points. It is not difficult to understand how multiple driveways and additional access points add to the potential for accidents, particularly if they are close together or near a major intersection. US-42 contains an average of 17 access points per mile through the study area, consisting largely of driveways and field drive access points to farms. Madison County has the most access points within the study area with a total of 562 driveways and intersections. Some of the intersections along US-42 are a particular safety problem due to the skew of the intersecting roads, which hinders visibility. Access Management seeks to reduce the number of conflict points, thereby improving the flow of traffic and reducing the potential for accidents. This can be accomplished in two ways: (1) reduce the number of driveways that exit onto the road and (2) strengthen the local road network. Reducing the numer of driveways that exit onto a road is the most direct manner to reduce conflict points. While driveways on corner lots can usually be moved to the intersecting road, driveways to other properties fronting on a major road such as US-42 can be more challenging to relocate, but some options include:

1) Consolidating driveways so that two or more properties share a single access point.

2) Move the driveway to a frontage road or backage road built parallel to the major road, either in front of or behind the existing buildings.

3) Change the driveway access to right-in/right-out only to remove the conflict points related to left-turning movements.

Property owners are likely to view these changes as an inconvenience, while commercial property owners may be particularly concerned about customers being unwilling to make U-turns or other indirect movements needed to enter a property with restricted access. However, the value of the safety improvement as well as the improvement in traffic flow (reduced delay), should not be underestimated. For residential properties, safer access can be important. And for commercial properties, the improved flow can reduce travel times for customers, meaning that the reach of the market areas for businesses widens (i.e., as drivers are willing to drive further to make a shopping trip). In addition, drivers who are not comfortable driving in a more risky environment will be more likely to use the road and patronize its businesses. As long as road designers are careful to provide spaces for U-turns and to install any signage that may be required to help drivers navigate through new access patterns, the overall impact of access changes should be positive. The second way to reduce conflict points while providing access for local traffic is to strengthen the local road network. In rural areas along the corridor, the vast majority of local trips are forced to use

2003 TRB Access Mgmt. Manual

Figure 1-1

Intersection Conflict Points


AUGUST 2015 3

US-42 due to the lack of nearby parallel roadways. As development increases along the corridor, the number of short local trips (e.g., from a subdivision to a school) will also increase, driving up accident rates. By creating parallel roads on either side of US-42 – either short roads to serve a limited developed area, or longer roads connecting to one or more county roads – drivers will be able to reach many of their destinations without having to use US-42. 1.3 Project Scope The purpose of this project is to prepare a corridor-specific access management plan, in accordance with ODOT’s Access Management Guidelines, for the US-42 corridor as it travels from London, Ohio to Delaware, Ohio through Madison, Union, and Delaware counties. As part of the development of this plan, the study area was identified and information on the existing conditions within the study area was collected from literature searches and field reviews. From the existing conditions information that was collected, design-related issues, areas of potential environmental concern, potential issues with major utilities, and potential real-estate encroachment issues were all identified and included as part of the base-mapping and existing conditions write-up. In addition to the existing conditions information, crash analyses were performed at six intersections along the corridor to determine potential safety issues. Crash data was also collected throughout the entire corridor to determine if additional areas should have a crash analysis performed. Existing traffic data was reviewed and used to perform signal warrant analyses at 33 intersections within the stud area and to identify which intersections needed to have turning movement counts performed. Twenty-four hour machine counts were also performed at these 33 intersections. Based upon this information, planning level traffic was developed and capacity analyses were performed to better assess the corridor’s future needs. A public involvement plan was also developed, which outlined the methods and details for public and stakeholder engagement in the project. Included in this plan was the identification of a stakeholder working group and county stakeholder committees, along with a listing of public involvement activities including the development of a project website, a project website survey, property owner notification letters, a plan for holding meetings to develop the project’s goals and objectives, a plan for meeting with developers, and plans for holding public meetings and local outreach. Once this information was developed, a draft plan was prepared that included the existing conditions, analyses, recommendations, and public involvement. Once comments were received on the draft plan, the final plan was developed which addressed these comments.


AUGUST 2015 4

2.0 | PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This chapter includes details and summaries on the public activities planned and implemented during the course of this project, including a summary of the public involvement plan, the public involvement activity schedule, a summary of the public meetings, and results from the public comments received. Please refer to Appendix A for copies of the public involvement materials. 2.1 Public Involvement Plan Purpose Public involvement and education are an essential component to planning studies of considerable size. Innovative and effective public outreach processes and tools are necessary to ensure maximum public input and response. The consultant team staff utilized outreach efforts that ranged from traditional procedures such as holding public meetings to discuss alternatives under consideration, to the use of social media. The US-42 Access Management Study Public Involvement Plan outlined how the consultant team utilized diverse outreach techniques to ensure that all stakeholders and public interests were sufficiently considered for any key decision-making discussions. The plan outlined both internal and external communication efforts. These included public meetings and outreach, targeted stakeholder meetings and outreach, and the use of social media. Goals Public involvement is an important effort in project development. Public involvement for this project included the following:

A public involvement plan that created a clear understanding of the project needs and identified conclusions among the Project Team and stakeholders.

A review and consideration of all public involvement activities in regards to this project.

Identification and engagement of stakeholders.

An effort to gain consensus on alternatives identified for consideration.

The inclusion of all people in the community, specifically adjacent residential property and business owners.

Project Team The Project Team was a partnership between ODOT (client), Burton Planning Services (prime consultant) (BPS), and Parsons Brinkerhoff (subconsultant) (PB). The following people were the primary participants in this project:


AUGUST 2015 5

Ohio Department of Transportation Role Name

Project Manager Dirk Gross Traffic & Safety Dave Carlin Environmental Brian Tatman Utilities Edie Adams Real Estate Jared Miller Contract Manager Susan Stehle

Burton Planning Services

Role Name Project Manager Kimberly Burton Env. Section Manager Jason Miles Planning Section Manager Kim Littleton Senior Traffic Engineer David Snelting Communications Mgr. Melissa Burris Project Planner Jonathan Miller Project Planner Joshua Kubitza GIS Specialist Rodney Saylor Senior Env. Specialist Elvin Pinckney

Parsons Brinkerhoff Role Name

Project Manager Howard Wood Lead Planner Tracey Nixon Snr. Traffic Engineer Jared Love Snr. Roadway Engineer Larry Sutherland

Stakeholders The key stakeholders for this study were essential public figures, community leaders, agency officials, and other critical members of the communities located in the three counties impacted by this study: Madison County, Union County, and Delaware County. These interested parties were notified through a formal invitation or by request to be a stakeholder in the decision-making process. These identified individuals played a key role in the decision-making process and had several opportunities to express their needs, opinions, and ideas in planned meetings. Impacted Public All members of the impacted public were recognized and thoroughly engaged throughout The US-42 Access Management Study. Outreach to these groups was identified as a critical element to ensure that every voice was heard, no matter their level of interest in this study. The impacted public was identified through census data and notified through property owner notification letters and a press release. These identified individuals played a key role in the decision-making process and had several opportunities to express their needs, opinions, and ideas in planned meetings and through social media interaction. Public Involvement Activities The Project Team utilized a diverse spectrum of public involvement activities to ensure that all impacted members of The US-42 Access Management Study were sufficiently kept up-to-date on the study’s progress. These activities used included: 1. Project Website: This website was utilized for sharing current and upcoming information,

meetings, and comments/concerns with citizens and project stakeholders.

ODOT set up a basic web page for the subject study.

Information on the website included:


AUGUST 2015 6

o Current project information (exhibits, updated reports, etc.). o Public involvement schedule. o Link to the online Project Website Survey and opportunity for public comments.

BPS provided the information and exhibits needed for the website.

The BPS team worked with the District to notify them when information was available for upload.

2. Project Website Survey: This survey provided all citizens the opportunity to provide insight on the

study area and the option to continue receiving project information/updates.

ODOT placed a link on the website to an online survey site.

BPS developed the survey, which accomplished the following: o Inquired on concerns/interests for the corridor. o Asked if the individual would like to be involved in the public involvement process. o Requested contact data, etc. o Provided opportunity for additional public comments.

BPS monitored the comments and provided analysis of the responses.

This site was monitored throughout the study. The surveys received as part of the property owner notification letters were summarized to gauge public input.

3. Property Owner Project Notification Letter: upcoming task 4. Goals and Objectives Meetings: In a two-day effort, BPS set up three meetings, one in each

county (Madison, Union, and Delaware).

The County Stakeholder Committees (elected and appointed officials along with key staff) were invited. Prior to the meeting they were provided a list of questions for them to begin data preparation and contemplation of future US-42 development.

BPS worked with ODOT and local agencies to establish the meeting location in each county.

BPS assisted ODOT in outreach to stakeholders, via e-mail. An e-mail invite was sent to all stakeholders with a general list of questions to be prepared to address.

BPS worked with ODOT officials to run each meeting. Large mapping of the project area was developed to assist in meeting dialogue.

BPS collected the information for development of a Stakeholder Goals and Objectives Report. This report assisted in understanding regional developmental preferences and supported the Purpose and Need Statement for future projects that develop from the final access management plan.

5. Business/Major Property Owner Meetings: upcoming task 6. Working Stakeholder Group: A core group of stakeholders that could provide informed, technical

feedback as the project plan was being developed and throughout the project was identified.

BPS worked with ODOT to form a working group.

These individuals were invited to attend the initial goals and objectives meetings, after which, as major components of the draft plan were developed, they were asked for their input via email.


AUGUST 2015 7

7. Public Involvement Meeting: Once the Draft Access Management Plan was completed, the general public was provided with the opportunity to interact with the Project Team, learn about the project and the proposed changes, and to provide input on the plan. One open house format public meeting was held.

upcoming task 8. Local Outreach: To enable the proposed project to reach as many people as possible, BPS staff

attended already-scheduled city council and township trustee meetings at the start of the project to provide information about the goals of the plan and again once the draft plan was ready for public comment. These meetings were publicly advertised and open to the public to allow for a second opportunity for those interested to be engaged with the project if they were unable to attend the general public meeting.

BPS staff attended two meetings at each of the following: task in progress o London (Madison), o Plain City (Madison), o Delaware (Delaware), o West Jefferson (Madison), o Dublin (Union), and o Townships that are not already represented with a city/village in this list:

Deer Creek (Madison), Monroe (Madison), Canaan (Madison), Jerome (Union), and Concord (Delaware)

BPS shared the following information: o Available exhibits and handouts (from Goals and Objectives meeting and/or PI

meeting). o Information directing citizens to the website and address to send comments.

Verbal comments were noted and included in the public involvement summary. Decision-Making Process Decisions were made through a collective collaboration with the Project Team, identified stakeholders, and the impacted public. The roles of stakeholders and the public were primarily advisory, with opportunities to express their viewpoints and needs throughout the duration of the study. All comments and alternatives given at meetings and through surveys were considered in the decision-making process by the consultant team. As this project was a study, the project development process was one that was constantly changing and was based upon findings through crash analyses, field reviews, and traffic data. Stakeholder and public viewpoints were crucial to the project development process and all final decisions were not made until after the last public meeting. Public Meeting Locations The main public meeting was centrally located within the project corridor at the Jerome Township Administration Building. The Stakeholder Work Group meetings were held at each of the three counties and at the Jerome Township Administration Building. Implementation of the Public Involvement Plan The public involvement plan was executed early in the US-42 Access Management Study and


AUGUST 2015 8

established continuous communication to stakeholders and the public. The plan was made available to all impacted community members and helped identify ways for their needs, concerns, interests, and viewpoints to be appropriately heard. 2.2 Public Meetings Throughout the duration of the US-42 Access Management Study, there were a variety of opportunities for stakeholders, developers, property owners, and the general public to get involved with the project’s planning process. The necessity and importance of the US-42 Access Management Study is substantial, and it is crucial that input, comments, and questions be acquired from stakeholders, developers, and the general public. Business, Property Owner & Developer Meeting: May 18, 2015 This was a closed meeting for developers within the US-42 corridor. Guests were encouraged to provide information on corridor needs (e.g., through-traffic, local traffic, etc.), upcoming development, and problems with the corridor. Some of the key topics discussed were proposed setback requirements, development timeframes (retail, 5-15 years), how this study relates to the US-33/I-270 study, visibility and sightline issues (especially with bad weather and fog), turn lanes, and how much land will be lost with the US-33 interchange improvements. Stakeholder Meetings: Delaware, Union, and Madison County Delaware County: January 7, 2015 The Delaware County stakeholders meeting had, in total, 14 attendees. Guests were encouraged to provide information on corridor needs (e.g., through-traffic, local traffic, etc.), upcoming development, and problems with the corridor. An open and informal atmosphere was encouraged to ensure that the future of the corridor is developed with local and county priorities in mind. Some of the key issues identified were overall access and mobility within the study area, bicycle and pedestrian accommodation for complete streets, connectivity to future development, and the promotion of commercial development as most of the existing development is residential. Madison County: January 7, 2015 The Madison County stakeholders meeting had, in total, 14 attendees. Guests were encouraged to provide information on corridor needs (e.g., through-traffic, local traffic, etc.), upcoming development, and problems with the corridor. An open and informal atmosphere was encouraged to ensure that the future of the corridor is developed with local and county priorities in mind. Some of the key issues identified were speed reduction within certain areas, bicycle and pedestrian planning with complete streets in mind, better turn lanes, need for four to five lanes of traffic, businesses donating right-of-way, accident and congestion prevention, and overall mobility within the corridor. Union County: January 12, 2015 The Union County stakeholders meeting had, in total, 15 attendees. Guests were encouraged to provide information on corridor needs (e.g., through-traffic, local traffic, etc.), upcoming development, and problems with the corridor. An open and informal atmosphere was encouraged to ensure that the future of the corridor is developed with local and county priorities in mind. Some of the key issues identified were a need for intersection improvements and safety enhancements to the US-33/US-42 interchange, need for traffic control, need for possible speed reduction or street lights in high accident areas, the existing roads inability to handle traffic resulting from new apartment developments, the possibility of widening US-42 and incorporating more turn lanes, and a need for bicycle planning with safety enhancements.


AUGUST 2015 9

Stakeholder Meeting Summary The top issues based upon comments provided from the three stakeholder meetings were access and mobility along with traffic and congestion followed by safety enhancements and pedestrian and bicycle planning. The final top issue was planning for complete streets (see Figure 2-1 below).

Figure 2-1 - Top Five Issues Identified at Stakeholder Meetings

Local Community Meetings The public outreach process was a significant element in ensuring accurate, reliable, and effective recommendations for the future of US-42 and the communities along this corridor. The Project Team concluded that having team members attend already scheduled local meetings within the communities along the study area’s corridor would prove to be beneficial to involving the elected leaders, staff, and the general public on the project. For the introductory round of meetings, the Project Team sent at least one representative to the following local meetings: Jerome Township, Union County, Board of Trustees Meeting, January 20, 2015 Village of Plain City, Madison County, Planning & Zoning Commission, January 21, 2015 Canaan Township, Madison County, Board of Trustees Meeting, February 2, 2015 City of Dublin, Delaware & Union County, Closed Meeting with Officials, February 5, 2015 Village of Plain City, Madison County, City Council, February 9, 2015


AUGUST 2015 10

Scioto Township, Delaware County, Board of Trustees Meeting, February 11, 2015 Deer Creek Township, Madison County, Board of Trustees Meeting, March 2, 2015 City of Delaware, Delaware County, Planning Commission, March 4, 2015 City of London, Madison County, City Council, March 5, 2015 City of Delaware, Delaware County, City Council, March 9, 2015 Jefferson Township, Madison County, Board of Trustees Meeting, March 18, 2015 Millcreek Township, Union County, Board of Trustees Meeting, April 5, 2015

The Project Team reached out to Concord Township in Delaware County and it was decided that a meeting would be held specifically for this community during the planning phases of development. The City of Dublin decided it was unnecessary for the Project Team to attend the scheduled city council meeting, and it was decided that a separate meeting with city officials that would include a formal presentation would serve their needs better. This meeting took place on February 5, 2015.

2.3 Public Comments The Project Team not only provided in-person public involvement activities, but there were also options for online project interaction. Through ODOT’s dedicated project webpage, anyone who wanted to provide further input in regards to The US-42 Access Management Study could have done so by filling out an online comment sheet and providing basic contact information to stay up-to-date on future public involvement opportunities. All responses were documented and recorded based on several key factors. The most important factor was the option to provide their concerns and general comments for US-42. The following is a summary of the key issues identified within these comments. Totals as of June 24, 2015 (ongoing task) Total Responses: 67 Responses that provided comments: 40 60 percent response rate Top 5 Reasons for Commenting

1. Resident/property owner on/near US-42


AUGUST 2015 11

2. Own a business on/near US-42 3. Work on/near US-42 4. Travel on US-42 5. Have general concerns with US-42

a. Safety b. High volume of accidents c. Lack of turn lanes d. Speed limits

Online Survey The Project Team also provided another online option for the general public to share their thoughts through an electronic survey. This online survey consisted of six general questions, a space for comments, and a space for contact information if the respondent would like to be kept up-to-date with future public involvement activities. The content of the online survey is listed below.

1. Where do you live? 2. How often do you travel on US-42? 3. Are you a property owner along US-42 (please check all that apply)? 4. How do you use US-42 (please check all that apply)? 5. What type of new development would you like to see along the corridor (please check all that

apply)? 6. What concerns do you have with the existing US-42 corridor (please check all that apply)? 7. General Comments (Please explain your responses above or add any further comments). 8. This survey is confidential. However, if you want to provide your contact information below,

we will use this information to invite you to future meetings and for other project-related announcements

Totals as of June 24, 2015 Total Responses: 141 Responses that provided comments: 81 57.5 percent response rate Question #1 Summary: Where do you live? Answered: 139 out of 141 Skipped: 2 out of 141 City: 89 respondents Village: 39 respondents Township: 81 respondents City: 64 percent Village: 28 percent Township: 58 percent


AUGUST 2015 12

Question #2 Summary: How often do you travel on US-42? Answered: 140 out of 141 Skipped: 1 out of 141 Daily: 94 respondents Weekly: 26 respondents Monthly: 15 respondents Rarely: 5 respondents Daily: 67.14 percent Weekly: 18.57 percent Monthly: 10.71 percent Rarely: 3.57 percent Question #3 Summary: Are you a property owner along US-42 (please check all that apply)? Answered: 48 out of 141 Skipped: 93 out of 141 I don’t own property, but I rent

along US-42: 4 respondents I live in the property that I own

along US-42: 31 respondents I own a business or have business

interests in a property along US-42: 11 respondents I have had interest in my property

for redevelopment: 4 respondents Rent: 8.33 percent Own/Live: 64.58 percent Own Business: 22.92 percent Redevelopment: 8.33 percent Question #4 Summary: How do you use US-42 (please check all that apply)? Answered: 138 out of 141 Skipped: 3 out of 141 Commute to Work: 96

respondents Access for Customers: 18

respondents Errands/Shopping: 98

respondents School: 24 respondents Other: 28 respondents Commute to Work: 69.45 percent Customer Access: 13.04 percent Errands/Shopping: 71.01 percent School: 17.39 percent Other: 20.29 percent


AUGUST 2015 13

Question #5 Summary: What type of new development would you like to see along the corridor (please check all that apply)? Answered: 133 out of 141 Skipped: 8 out of 141 Residential: 34 respondents Retail/Shopping/Restaurants: 53

respondents Business/Job Opportunities: 49

respondents No Development/Keep as is: 58

respondents Other: 10 respondents Residential: 25.56 percent Retail/Shopping/Food: 39.85

percent Business/Job Opportunities:

36.84 percent Keep the Same: 43.61 percent Other: 7.52 percent Question #6 Summary: What concerns do you have with the existing US-42 corridor (please check all that apply)? Answered: 140 out of 141 Skipped: 1 out of 141 No Concerns: 7 respondents Roadway Safety: 100 respondents Roadway Congestion: 100

respondents Environmental Pollution (water,

noise, air, etc.): 27 respondents Access (difficult to get home from

work): 63 respondents Increasing Development: 58

respondents Other: 18 respondents No Concerns: 5.00 percent Roadway Safety: 71.43 percent Roadway Congestion: 71.43 percent Environmental Pollution: 19.29 percent Access: 45 percent Increasing Development: 41.43 percent Other: 12.86 percent


AUGUST 2015 14

Question #7 Summary: General Comments (Please explain your responses above or add any further comments). Answered: 81 out of 141 Skipped: 60 out of 141

All of the 81 responses to Question 7 were read and analyzed for key trends and patterns. The responses were broken down into five main categories: traffic, roadway, safety, visual, and development ideas and concerns. The top three main concerns for US-42 based on these 81 respondents’ answers were a lack of turning lanes, overall accidents and safety, and a need for wider roadways and intersections. Question #8 Summary: This survey is confidential. However, if you want to provide your contact information below, we will use this information to invite you to future meetings and for other project-related announcements. Answered: 62 out of 141 Skipped: 79 out of 141

Answer Choices Response Rate Number of Responses Name 88.71% 55 Company 0.00% 0 Mailing Address 77.42% 48 Address 2 0.00% 0 City/Town 0.00% 0 State/Province 0.00% 0 ZIP/Postal Code 0.00% 0 Country 0.00% 0 E-Mail Address 100.00% 62 Phone Number 0.00% 0

2.4 Overall Summary To be added in the final draft of the report.

Top Issues Discussed by Respondents


AUGUST 2015 15

3.0 | EXISTING CONDITIONS

This chapter includes details on the existing conditions information collected and evaluated for this study, including design and geometric-related information, zoning and land use inventory, community characteristics, and environmental features. A list of the areas this study reviewed is also included in this section. 3.1 Study Area Description This project analyzed 33 miles of US-42, a minor arterial, as it travels west from the London city limits at Betty Wilson Road in Madison County, across the southeastern section of Union County, and into Delaware County until it intersects with US-23. The study area is mostly rural except where it travels through the Village of Plain City. The road configuration of the study area is almost entirely a two-lane rural roadway with the only exceptions being; where US-42 briefly becomes a four-lane divided highway at the intersection with Interstate Route 70 (I-70); at the intersection with State Route 161 (SR-161) in Plain City where the roadway widens to incorporate a center turn lane and retains these three-lanes until just south of the Three Mile Creek Bridge north of Plain City; at the intersection with US-33 where US-42 again briefly becomes a four-lane divided highway; at the intersection of London Road where a center turn lane is added; and finally as US-42 approaches US-23 where US-42 expands to five-lanes including two left-turn lanes and a right turn lane for eastbound traffic and a right-turn lane for westbound traffic. 3.2 Design Conditions 3.2.1 Engineering Inventory US-42 through the study area is classified as a rural minor arterial. Table 3-1 below lists the notable existing design conditions for intersections along US-42. Many problems are related to the skewed intersections where the northeast-southwest running US-42 intersects with the typically east-west and north-south roads in Union and Delaware counties. Madison County’s roads were not designed using section lines, and intersections there tend to be more perpendicular. Please see Exhibit 2.1: Design & Environmental Conditions Map.

Table 3-1 - Existing Intersection Design Conditions Intersection County Existing Design Conditions CR-135 (Betty Wilson Road) MAD -T-intersection, wide turning radius.

CR-71 (Spring Valley Road) MAD

-T-intersection. -Poor sight distances around the curve north of the intersection have increased rear-end accidents of cars stop/slowed to turn left on to CR-71 (Spring Valley Road) because there is no left turn lane. Additionally, nearby driveways may cause problems.

Old US-42 SE MAD -Extreme skew, no visibility problems, nearby driveways.


AUGUST 2015 16

Table 3-1 - Existing Intersection Design Conditions Intersection County Existing Design Conditions

CR-104 (Simpson Road) MAD -Close to major intersection (US-40), vertical grade and increase in posted speed limit (55mph).

US-40 MAD -High speeds on US-40 and US-42. -No existing signals at intersections of US-40 ramps and US-40.

I-70 MAD

-High traffic levels, high volume of trucks due to interstate. -Commercial development near interchange on both north and south sides, with multiple driveways. -2013 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Priority Location (#91), 2011 Study Location.

CR-29 (Urbana-West Jefferson Road) MAD

-Driveways near intersection. -2013 HSIP Priority Intersection Location (#114) -Traffic from two I-70 Interchanges nearby.

CR-137 (Byerly Mill Road) MAD -T-intersection with a driveway slightly offset from intersection

on west side. CR-14 (Taylor-Blair Road) MAD -Poorly-defined driveways on businesses adjacent to

intersection. CR-10 (Middle Pike) MAD -“K” style intersection.

-Church at intersection, with multiple poorly-defined, driveways off of CR-45. CR-45 (Lucas Road) MAD

CR-31 (A W Wilson Road) MAD -N/A (T-intersection).

CR-44 (M V High Road) MAD -N/A (T-intersection).

CR-32 (Price-Hilliards Road) MAD

-Canaan Middle School and bus garage at corner of intersection. -NB right turn lane but no SB left turn lane.

CR-33 (Killbury-Huber Road) MAD

-Jonathan Alder Junior High School at corner of intersection, and nearby driveways. -SB right turn lane but no NB left turn lane.

CR-36 (Amity Pike) MAD -Jonathan Alder High School at corner of intersection. -Center turn lane present on US-42.

CR-30 (Converse Huff Road) MAD

-Poorly defined commercial driveways near intersection. -Offset intersection with commercial on both east and west legs of CR-30.

Alcott Drive; Village Boulevard MAD

-Neighborhood entrances. -Commercial development at corner of US-42 and Village Blvd with entrances/exits on Village Blvd.

CR-40 (West Avenue) MAD -Commercial area, increased turn volumes. -2013 HSIP Priority Intersection Location (#69), 2012 Study Location.

Carlyle Avenue MAD -Minor urban street, Sidewalks. -Turn lanes from SR-161 extend back to intersection.

SR-161 UNI -Urban street intersection, with turn lanes on all approaches. -Signalized.

N. Chillicothe Street UNI -Left turn lanes on US-42 for future development.

Route 20 and 736 UNI -N/A CR-31 (Hickory Ridge Road) UNI -The skew of the intersection has already been corrected.


AUGUST 2015 17

Table 3-1 - Existing Intersection Design Conditions Intersection County Existing Design Conditions

CR-29 (Crottinger Road) UNI

-Few driveways in vicinity. -Railroad one-quarter mile away. -No left turn lane, but additional pavement to accommodate vehicles driving around left turning vehicles on northbound approach.

CR-8 (Currier Road) UNI -Railroad less than one-quarter mile away, numerous residential access roads between.

CR-28 (New California Drive) UNI -Nearby driveways.

-Access road to a subdivision, SB right turn lane.

CR-28 (Monteray Drive) UNI -Nearby driveways. -Access road to a subdivision.

CR-1 (Industrial Parkway) UNI

-Close to US-33. -Reduced visibility at corner due to auto sales. -2013 HSIP Priority Intersection Location (#35), 2012 Study Location.

US-33 UNI -Nearby commercial has poorly defined driveways, creating multiple conflict points.

CR-22 (Watkins-California Road) UNI -Very close to US-33 intersection.

-High northbound left-turn volume. CR-19 (Bell Road) and CR-17 (Wells Road) UNI -Skew, poorly defined driveway at adjacent business.

CR-18 (Harriott Road) UNI -Skewed intersection.

CR-11 (Jerome Road) UNI -N/A

CR-104 (Watkins Road) UNI -Skewed intersection, residential driveways near intersection.

CR-93 (Smart-Cole Road) UNI -Skewed intersection, nearby driveways. -Dirt shoulder is being used to bypass traffic waiting to turn left.

CR-129 (Concord Road) DEL -Skewed intersection, few driveways nearby.

CR-745 and CR-257 DEL

-Skewed intersection. -Signalized, existing red light ahead warning sign due to grade. -Trees may be reducing visibility.

CR-257 DEL -Skewed intersection, Bicycle Traffic due to close recreational trail, wide turning radius

CR-143 DEL -Skewed intersection, poor visibility due to trees along roadway. -Nearby residential and commercial driveways.

CR-5 (S. Section Line Road) DEL

-Skewed intersection, signalized. -Poorly defined curbs at commercial located at two of the quadrants. -Nearby residential and commercial driveways.

CR-142 (Owen-Fraley Road) DEL -Skewed T-intersection.

-Driveway on west side of intersection.

3.2.2 Mainline Speed Limits US-42 has three different signed speed limits in the study area. From the southern terminus to Village Boulevard (in Plain City), US-42 is signed at 55 mph. Between Village Boulevard and SR-161, the speed limit is reduced to 35 mph as it travels through Plain City. North of SR-161, US-42 returns


AUGUST 2015 18

to 55 mph until it reaches CR-142 (Owen-Fraley Road), where it is reduced to 50 mph until it terminates at the US-23 intersection. 3.2.3 Utilities Three overhead electric transmission lines cross the project study area. The first of these crosses the US-42 corridor just north of the US-42 interchange with I-70, and the second and third overhead transmission lines are located south and north of the Scioto River (see Exhibit 3.1). None of the towers associated with the transmission lines are located within the project corridor and therefore any proposed improvements to the US-42 corridor are unlikely to impact these overhead transmission lines. Utility lines parallel US-42 for almost the entire length of the corridor, crossing from side to side of the roadway. Many of these utility poles are within the project study area. Two cellular towers are located within the project study area. The first is located approximately one-half-mile north of the US-42 interchange with US-40. The second cellular tower is located approximately one-tenth of a mile north of the US-42 intersection with CR-45 (Lucas Road) approximately one-half way between London and Plain City. No power generation plants, oil refineries, oil pipelines, or other major utilities were identified within the project study area. 3.2.4 Public Right-Of-Way Limited Access Right of Way There are five locations along the US-42 project corridor that have limited access (see Exhibit 3.1). The first location with limited access is at the US-42 interchange with I-70 where access is restricted along US-42 between the on and off-ramps for I-70. The second location with limited access is in Plain City, north of the US-42 intersection with SR-161. This limited access along US-42 continues from the intersection with SR-161 until the intersection of US-42 and North Chillicothe Street. Similar to the US-42 interchange with I-70, access to US-42 is limited between the on and off ramps for US-33 at the interchange of US-42 and US-33. The fourth area of limited access along US-42 within the study area is near the City of Delaware between Jegs Boulevard and the US-42 interchange with US-23 as the far northeastern terminus of the project. The fifth location is at the US-40 and US-42 interchange. Real Estate Encroachments A total of 20 encroachments upon the right-of-way of US-42 are present along the project corridor (see Exhibit 3.1). All of these encroachments are located in the southwestern portion of the project study area between London and Plain City. There were no encroachments upon the right-of-way between Plain City and Delaware. Three encroachments on the existing right-of-way were identified within the vicinity of the interchange of US-42 with US-40, one to the south of the interchange and two to the north. Two additional right-of-way encroachments were identified along the I-70 westbound on-ramp. A single right-of-way encroachment was identified south of CR-45 (Lucas Road). Two additional right-of-way encroachments were identified along the western side of US-42 just north of CR-33 (Kilbury-Huber Road). Four additional encroachments were identified, three on the west side of US-42 including one at the Jonathan Adler High School and one along the east side. Eight right-of-way encroachments were identified within the Village of Plain City with two of them being along the east side of the limited access portion of US-42 extending north from the intersection with SR-161.


AUGUST 2015 19

3.3 Zoning & Land Use 3.3.1 Land Use Inventory The three counties that comprise the study area vary in their existing land use profile. Madison County, where the southern terminus is located, consists of a large amount of agriculture. As the corridor travels north, it enters Union County. Union County still consists of a large amount of agriculture, but the shift towards a services based economy results in a higher percentage of urbanized areas. Finally, Delaware County, where the northern terminus is located, sees a much more dramatic shift towards urbanized land use and away from agriculture as the corridor enters the Delaware city limits.

Table 3-2: Land Use by County

Land Use Madison County Union County Delaware County

Urban 5.7% 5.3% 16.7%

Cropland 81.1% 69.3% 52.6%

Pasture 6.8% 4.3% 2.6%

Forest 5.2% 18.9% 25.8%

Open Water 0.5% 0.5% 2.1%

Wetlands 0.7% 1.6% 0.01%

Barren 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% See Exhibit 3.2: Existing Land Uses Map Delaware County Trends Delaware County is the twenty-first fastest growing county in the United States and the fastest growing county in the Ohio. This increasing population trend is expected to coincide with residential development and overall development within the county. The US-42 corridor in Delaware County is mostly undeveloped; however, the City of Delaware plans to develop the sections of US-42 north of Bunny Station Road to include light manufacturing and office buildings. Madison County Trends Madison County predominantly contains vacant land and agriculture based land uses, which, combined, comprises roughly 272,568 acres or 94 percent of the total land within the county. Residential land use accounts for four percent of the total land within the county and 75 percent of developed land. Residential land use is the second largest use of land in Madison County behind agriculture. The county contains a total area of 289,077 acres and of that area, only 16,509 acres are actually developed, or six percent. While Madison County is still vastly agricultural, recent commercial developments, including a Walmart, and residential developments have been completed on US-42 near the London city limits. This development trend is expected to continue along US-42 to at least the London city limits. Union County Trends Similar to Madison County, Union County predominantly contains vacant land and agricultural based land uses, which account for roughly 238,050 acres or 85 percent of the total land in the county. This is a slight decrease from the year 2000 when these land uses accounted for 91 percent of all the land within Union County. Residential land use accounts for the second largest land use in the county and occupies 28,911 acres, or ten percent of the total land within the county. Between the year 2000 and 2010, agriculture and office based land uses were the only categories to drop in


AUGUST 2015 20

overall net acreage. The two Union County townships within the US-42 corridor, Jerome and Millcreek, are aware of the potential increase in development along the corridor. 3.3.2 Future Land Use Several of the counties, cities, and townships along the corridor have developed future land use plans for their respective areas. The focus of these plans is for these communities to identify what development patterns they think will best serve their communities in the future. (See Exhibit 3.3: Future Land Uses Map.) Delaware County Delaware County Line to Riverside Drive: This two and three quarter mile segment of US-42 lies within Concord Township and is primary considered a farm residential district. A few pockets of neighborhood businesses exist at the intersection of US-42 and Dublin Road. Riverside Drive to South Section Line Road: The intersections of US-42 with Riverside Drive and US-42 with South Section Line Road are both planned business areas with the one and one-half mile segment between these two intersections consisting of just rural residential properties. South Section Line Road to CSX Railroad: This area is clearly defined in the 2005 Gateways and Corridors Design Standards for the City of Delaware as a highlighted gateway to the city. The focus on this nearly four-mile segment is to develop light industrial and manufacturing and provide a more aesthetic gateway into the city. CSX Railroad to US-23: This final segment, almost one and one-half mile, carries traffic the rest of the way of the corridor to US-23. The segment is surrounded by residential land uses, however, all of the properties have rear-facing frontage and are largely inaccessible except for one entrance to the northern properties at Fern Drive. Madison County Betty Wilson Road to Simpson Road: This approximately two mile stretch from the City of London boundary to Simpson Road is classified as agricultural land use according to the county’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan. US-40 Interchange to I-70 Interchange Areas: The segment of US-42 from Simpson Road, through the US-40 and I-70 interchanges, to Little Darby Creek, including a light industrial pocket between US-40 and I-70 behind the parcels with frontage on US-42, stretches almost five miles and contains the largest pocket of commercial land use outside of an incorporated area in Madison County. The 2010 Comprehensive Plan for Madison County highlights this as an area to build upon to ensure that development stays dense and preserves the surrounding agricultural areas. It should be noted that Little Darby Creek is designated a State and National Scenic River, and as such, receives special protections in order to maintain the river’s current natural condition. Little Darby Creek to the Village of Plain City Boundary: At almost 13 miles, this stretch is almost exclusively agricultural land use with select pockets of low density residential with well/septic water treatments. There are very small pockets classified as commercial land use on the southwest corner of US-42 and CR-14 (Taylor Blair Road), just north of CR-33 (Kilbury-Huber Road) on the west side, and on the southwest corner of CR-30 (Converse Huff West Road). A few public properties exist as well, including the Tolles Career and Education Center between CR-32 (Price Hilliards Road) and CR-33 (Kilbury Huber Road), Jonathan Alder Junior High School at the northwest corner of CR-33 (Kilbury Huber Road), and Jonathan Alder High School at the T-intersection of US-42 and CR-36 (Amity Pike). Village of Plain City: US-42 runs through the middle of the Village of Plain City, a distance of approximately two and one-half miles. As US-42 crosses Plain City, the corridor transitions from


AUGUST 2015 21

agricultural land use to the south followed by a conservation residential area and an open space area before reaching the commercial area in central Plain City. The commercial corridor in the village runs from Alcott Street to Main Street. After Main Street, the 2010 Comprehensive Plan of Madison County suggests that the corridor should include mixed use and office space, before transitioning to an agricultural and light industrial area via another section of land that is currently open space. Union County The Village of Plain City Boundary to Monterey Road: This segment runs through Jerome Township in Union County. Jerome Township’s 2008 comprehensive plan identifies this almost four-mile segment as agriculture/rural residential and conservation development, the two most dominant land uses in the township. The agriculture/rural residential land use runs from the Village of Plain City to the CSX Railroad. From there, the land use becomes conservation development until CR-28 (Monteray Road). US-33 Interchange Area: The area from CR-28 (Monteray Road) to the proposed Ryan Parkway constitutes a planned commercial hub around the US-33 interchange. From CR-28 (Monteray Road) to CR-1 (Industrial Parkway), Jerome Township’s 2008 comprehensive plan calls for local retail, with the areas immediately around the interchange and up to the proposed Ryan Parkway acting as regional retail and mixed commercial and retail. Ryan Parkway to Millcreek Township Line: This segment was planned by Jerome Township as an area for reducing the land use intensity from regional retail to uses that serve a more local purpose. The area from Ryan Parkway to another proposed route, Eversole Parkway, is classified as office space. The area from Eversole Parkway to the township line is set aside for another section of local retail. Behind the office space and on nearby Jerome Road, several residential planned unit developments are being considered. Millcreek Township: Millcreek Township in 2006 set out its own future land use plan. This plan identifies a majority of the three-mile section of US-42 to be commercial and mixed-use properties with the intersection of US-42 and CR-11 (Jerome Road) acting as a commercial hub 3.3.3 Zoning Overview The zoning codes for property along the 35-mile stretch of US-42 that constitutes the project study area vary widely, partly due to the corridor crossing through three counties, eight townships, and three municipalities. As zoning can be applied at all three levels, specifics of the zoning codes along the corridor vary, however, the general schemes and development profiles are much the same. The corridor passes through seven different zoning jurisdictions; the City of London, Madison County, the Village of Plain City, Jerome Township (Union County, Millcreek Township (Union County), Concord Township (Delaware County), and the City of Delaware. All seven of these jurisdictions follow the same scheme in varying degrees. Agriculture Agriculture is a dominant zoning classification in the Madison County and townships’ zoning codes. This classification only permits agriculture in most of the jurisdictions where it is in place, with low-density single family residential permitted with approval from the zoning boards. Uses that are ancillary to agriculture are also permitted. Residential Residential zoning along the corridor primarily falls into a low-density residential classification, but does increase in intensity at certain points along the corridor to include medium to high density or multi-family classes. Agricultural uses are also permitted in these classifications. Low-density


AUGUST 2015 22

residential properties require large lot sizes and have front setbacks around 100 feet for properties along US-42. Side setbacks are around 30 feet. The higher intensity residential or multi-family classifications only occur in Jerome Township’s future land use plan. Commercial Commercial uses along the corridor vary between low intensity neighborhood businesses and planned retail corridors. The intensities can be broken into three categories; neighborhood businesses, regional businesses, and major commercial/retail. Neighborhood businesses are piecemealed throughout the corridor. They consist of small retail stores and offices. Regional businesses are larger in size and patronage and are generally reserved for grocery stores or entertainment. This classification is present in the Village of Plain City’s commercial corridor and in the future land use plans along the outer edges for the US-33 interchange. Major commercial and retail zoning generally refers to big box retail and commercial planned developments and is centered on the US-33 interchange in Jerome Township’s future land use plan. Industrial/Manufacturing Industrial and manufacturing zones are located north of the Village of Plain City, with a major industrial corridor in Delaware County from CR-5 (South Section Line Road) to the CSX Railroad underpass. The light industrial zone that is north of the Village of Plain City only permits light industrial activities or uses such as assembly and distribution. The industrial corridor in the City of Delaware however provides locations for all intensities. 3.3.4 Development Potential With the exception of a handful of sites, future development of land immediately adjacent to US-42 will be limited by a combination of physical constraints, overall truck and automobile access, and the abundance and protection of the agriculture industry. As the agriculture industry requires a number of specific needs, this will be the largest constraint in terms of future development opportunities along the US-42 corridor. Constraints Physical Features: The US-42 corridor traverses an area that is characterized by an extensive agriculture industry. The agriculture industry needs immediate access to roadways for the transport of goods in and out of the study area. The corridor also has large agricultural machinery that regularly uses the corridor for travel between fields and farms as well as for longer trips. This use of the corridor must be taken into consideration when determining what, if any development is the correct choice for the area’s future. Existing Development: Much of the most desirable frontage along US-42 is that which is most accessible from I-70 and US-33. The cities of London, Delaware, and Plain City also provide more properties that are desirable for development. These areas however, already have existing development that may not be compatible with future development regulations to ensure a safe, efficient corridor. Accessibility: The greatest accessibility is concentrated around the major cities of London, Delaware, and Plain City. The southernmost portion of the US-42 corridor study area around the City of London, US-40, and the I-70 interchange is highly accessible. Plain City can be easily accessed by US-33 and SR-161 and the City of Delaware can be easily accessed by US-23 and US-36. Development will most likely be centered around these access points. Opportunity Areas Due to the extensiveness of the agriculture industry along US-42, development opportunities are limited within the study area because of the needs for this industry. Some of the areas for potential development include:


AUGUST 2015 23

1. US-42 & I-70 Interchange: There is great opportunity here for industrial, commercial, and some residential development. This site benefits from good visibility and access from I- 70, although portions of the site may be constrained due to the agriculture lands immediately surrounding this site. While this location is not located in an incorporated area of Madison County, it is the largest concentration of commercial land use outside of the incorporated areas.

2. Plain City/US-42 & SR-161: This opportunity area is located in the center of Plain City. Currently there are predominantly residential neighborhoods surrounding a small core of commercial, religious, and industrial uses. There may be some constraints in expending development at this site, as Plain City is surrounded by agriculture uses, but there are opportunities for residential, commercial, and industrial expansion. This site benefits from access to I-270 and US-33.

3. Jerome Township/US-33 Interchange: The US-33 interchange is a great opportunity for future commercial development. This site benefits from excellent access and proximity to US-33, which would also prove to benefit future residential development. With US-33 acting as the major corridor to Columbus/Dublin, this location is highly travelled. With unit developments already planned in this area, additional development would assist in creating densely developed areas while maintaining some agricultural areas.

4. US-42 Near City of Delaware: This area, though mostly agricultural uses, currently contains

some residential neighborhoods, a small commercial area, and a large industrial area. The City of Delaware provides great access, being accessible to local residents and businesses, though I-71, US-36, and US-23. Overall, this area has potential for some residential use development, but potential development would likely involve predominantly industrial uses. This area is planned by the City of Delaware to have industrial uses in the future, but also acts a major gateway into the city.

Preservation Areas Most of the development constraints within the study area, also translate into preservation opportunities. There is a significant need to identify areas in which future development, redevelopment, and infrastructure improvements should be limited or controlled. Preservation areas include agricultural lands as well as historic districts, buildings, and overlays. Conclusions The project area contains several sites that should be studied to determine the feasibility of development and/or redevelopment. By focusing on these areas, dense developments can benefit the communities while leaving agricultural land intact. Access management improvements and land use enhancements may help alleviate some of these development concerns. The traffic within the corridor and within the study area should be considered as a driving force for both retail and residential development. Residential neighborhoods are second only to agricultural uses in total acreage and will be key in guiding future development. Another potentially limiting in future development is the agricultural lands as a whole. Large machinery, fertilizers, pesticides, and the potential for noise and odor pollution to adjacent communities should be carefully considered in determining what, if any, development is appropriate. 3.4 Communities & Socioeconomic Profiles Information for the socioeconomic profile was obtained from the United States Census Bureau and the Ohio Department of Development. The study area for this project is located along US-42 in three Central Ohio counties: Delaware, Madison, and Union counties. (See Exhibit 3.4: Jurisdictions Map.)


AUGUST 2015 24

3.4.1 Delaware County Population According to the 2010 Decennial Census, Delaware County is the twenty-second fastest growing county in the United States and the fastest growing county in Ohio (Table 3-3).

Table 3-3 - Delaware County Population 2000 – 2010

Year US Ohio Delaware County

2000 282,200,000 11,353,140 109,989 2010 309,300,000 11,536,504 174,214

Net Change 2000 - 2010 27,100,000 183,364 64,225 Percent Change 2000 -

2010 8.8% 1.6% 36.9%

Source: Ohio Department of Development In 2013, Delaware County had 184,979 people, which is by far the largest of the three counties within the study area. The population is heavily concentrated in the southern half due to the proximity to Columbus. At 36,459 people, the City of Delaware is the most populated municipality in the county and serves as the center of business for most economic activities within the county as well. Between the years 2000 and 2010, Delaware County grew by 64,225 people or 37 percent of its population. Compared to the national and state population growth over the same time frame, Delaware County grew over four times as fast the national rate and almost 24 times as fast as Ohio. The county’s population is expected to exceed a quarter of a million people by 2040. Employment & Economics As a result of the southern portion of the county functioning as wealthy, bedroom communities for Columbus, the per capita income of the county is almost 150 percent of the national per capita income for 2012 and is over 150 percent of the per capita income for Ohio (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4 - Delaware County Per Capita Income 2010 - 2012

Income Type US Ohio Delaware County

Per Capita Income - 2010 $40,163 $36,274 $56,036 Per Capita Income - 2011 $42,298 $38,657 $61,589 Per Capita Income - 2012 $43,735 $40,057 $64,115

Source: Ohio Department of Development Delaware County has the lowest unemployment rate of the three counties within the study area and over two percent lower than the national and state rates (Table 3-5).


AUGUST 2015 25

Table 3-5 - Delaware County Unemployment Rates 2010 - 2013

Year US Ohio Delaware County

Unemployment Rate - 2010 9.6% 10.0% 7.1% Unemployment Rate - 2011 8.9% 8.8% 6.1% Unemployment Rate - 2012 8% 7.4% 5.2% Unemployment Rate - 2013 7.4% 7.3% 5.2% Source: Ohio Department of Development

Commute Patterns A consequence of the bedroom community characteristic of Delaware County, particularly in the southern half of the county, is the extended commuting time. Delaware County has the highest mean commute time of any of the counties within the study area at 25.3 minutes and the fewest travelers within the interval of less than 15 minutes (Table 3-6).

Table 3-6 - Delaware County Commute Times

Time Ohio Delaware County

Total Labor Force 5,016,561 81,491

Less than 15 minutes 30.4% 22.4%

15 to 29 minutes 40.2% 37.5%

30 to 44 minutes 18.8% 28.9%

45 to 59 minutes 5.8% 7.6%

60+ minutes 4.9% 3.6%

Mean Travel Time (minutes) 23 25.3% Source: Ohio Department of Development

Summary Delaware County is one of the fastest growing counties in not only Ohio, but also the United States. In 2013, Delaware County had 184,979 people, which is by far the largest of the three counties within the study area. The population is heavily concentrated in the southern half due to the proximity to Columbus. As a result of the southern portion of the county acting as wealthy, bedroom communities for Columbus, the per capita income of the county is almost 150 percent of the national per capita income for 2012 and is over 150 percent of the per capita income for Ohio. With the massive population growth, Delaware County could have had trouble providing jobs for the influx of residents but it has maintained a lower unemployment rate -than both the state and national average. A consequence of the bedroom community characteristic of Delaware County, particularly in the southern half of the county, is the extended commute time. 3.4.2 Communities within Delaware County There are two primary communities located within Delaware County that the project corridor either crosses or runs adjacent to, which include: Concord Township and the City of Delaware. Concord Township Concord Township is located immediately west of the City of Delaware at the western limits of Delaware County and is traversed by US-42. Like Delaware County as a whole, Concord Township has seen exceptional population growth in the twenty-first century with a 56 percent growth in population between 2000 and 2010. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Concord Township has grown from a population of 4,088 in 2000 to 9,294 in 2010. Concord Township, within the study area, is primarily rural with residential developments.


AUGUST 2015 26

City of Delaware The City of Delaware is the county seat of Delaware County, Ohio and is located near the center of Delaware County at the eastern limits of the project corridor. The City of Delaware is a rapidly growing community with a population of 34,753 as of the 2010 U.S. Census, an increase of nearly 38 percent from the 2000 census. The city’s racial makeup is 91 percent white and five percent African American, with the remainder of the population being made up of Asian, Native American and other races. 3.4.3 Madison County

Population Madison County had population of only 43,277 in 2013 with its largest city, London, containing only 9,978 people. From 2000-2010, the population of Madison County increased by 3,222 people or seven percent. While Madison County’s growth rate is well above the approximately two percent average population growth rate that Ohio experienced, it is still below the national growth rate of nearly nine percent over the same time span (Table 3-7).

Table 3-7 - Madison County Population 2000 - 2010

Decennial Census US Ohio Madison County

2000 282,200,000 11,353,140 40,213

2010 309,300,000 11,536,504 43,435

Net Change 2000 - 2010 27,100,000 183,364 3,222

Percent Change 2000 - 2010 8.8% 1.6% 7.4% Source: Ohio Department of Development

Historically, Madison County has experienced a steady, linear growth, with the largest increase occurring between 1970 and 1980. Projected population values do not have Madison County exceeding 50,000 inhabitants by the year 2040, illustrating a decreasing growth rate over the long term. Employment & Economics Madison County’s per capita income follows the same patterns as the population values: below average values with linear growth over the long-term. The per capita income for the county was $36,769 in 2012 which is only 84 percent of national per capita income and seven percent lower than the state’s per capita income (Table 3-2).

Table 3-2 - Madison County Per Capita Income 2000 - 2010

Per Capita Income US Ohio Madison County 2010 $40,163 $36,274 $33,131 2011 $42,298 $38,657 $35,599 2012 $43,735 $40,057 $36,769

Source: Ohio Department of Development

Madison County’s unemployment rate in 2013 was nearly one percent less than the national level and one-half percent less than Ohio’s unemployment rate (Table 3-9).


AUGUST 2015 27

Table 3-9 - Madison County Unemployment Rates 2010 – 2013

Year US Ohio Madison County

Unemployment Rate - 2010 9.6% 10.0% 9.4%



Unemployment Rate - 2013 7.4% 7.3% 6.8% Source: Ohio Department of Development

Commute Patterns As a rural county outside of the Columbus metropolitan area with a heavy emphasis on agriculture, low commute times would be expected. However, as Table 3-10 shows, the commute times are on par with the state average. In line with the rural county demographic, a small percentage (12 percent) of commuters spends over 45 minutes to get to work. However, a larger percentage of commuters are in the 30 to 44 minute time interval than the state average, indicating a sizeable percentage of the population is commuting a fair distance.

Table 3-10 - Madison County Commute Times

Time Ohio Madison County



15 to 29 minutes 40.2% 30.1%

30 to 44 minutes 18.8% 26.2%

45 to 59 minutes 5.8% 7.7%

60+ minutes 4.9% 3.8%

Mean Travel Time (minutes) 23 23.8

Source: Ohio Department of Development Summary While Madison County’s growth rate is well above the nearly two percent population increase that Ohio experienced, it’s still below the national growth rate of nearly nine percent over the same time span. Projected population values do not have Madison County exceeding 50,000 inhabitants by the year 2040, illustrating a decreasing growth rate over the long term. Madison County’s per capita income follows the same patterns as the population values with below average values and linear growth over the long-term. Madison County’s unemployment rate in 2013 was nearly one percent less than the national average and one-half percent less than Ohio’s. As a rural county outside of the Columbus metropolitan area with a heavy emphasis on agriculture, low commute times would be expected. However, the commute times are on par with the state equivalent. 3.4.4 Communities within Madison County US-42 crosses or runs adjacent to numerous communities within Madison County, Ohio along the western limits of the project study area. Canaan Township Canaan Township is located in northeast Madison County and is crossed by US-42 in the western portion of the township. The population of Canaan Township was 2,496 as of the 2000 U.S. Census, an increase of eight percent from the 1990 census. Canaan Township is primarily rural with 94 percent of the township’s total acreage being used for agriculture and six percent for residential use.


AUGUST 2015 28

Darby Township Darby Township is located in the northern portion of Madison County with US-42 running through approximately the center of the township. Darby Township also contains part of the Village of Plain City within its limits. The population of Darby Township has increased over 29 percent between 1990 and 2000 going from a population of 2,225 to a population of 2,872 in 2000 according to the U.S. Census. Darby Township is primarily rural with 94 percent of the township’s total acreage being used for agriculture and four percent for residential use. Deercreek Township Deercreek Township is located along the western limits of the project area. This township contains part of the City of London and is centrally crossed by US-42, I-70, and US-40. Deercreek Township has a population of 1,030 as of the 2000 U.S. Census, and unlike the majority of communities within Madison County, Deercreek Township lost population, although a very minimal amount, between 1990 and 2000 going from 1,038 in 1990 to a population of 1,030 in 2000. Similar to the other communities in Madison County, Deercreek is rural and primarily agricultural with 92 percent of its total acreage being used for agriculture. Lafayette Community Lafayette is a small community centrally located in Deercreek Township near the southwestern limits of the project study area and just west of US-42. Approximately 92 percent of the land in Lafayette is agricultural. City of London The City of London is the county seat of Madison County and is located adjacent to the southwestern terminus of the project study area. The population of London is primarily White (89 percent) with the largest minority population being African American at six percent. The population of London has grown 11 percent between 2000 and 2010 according to the U.S. Census going from a population of 8,771 in 2000 to 9,904 in 2010. Monroe Township Monroe Township lies immediately northwest of the project study area near the project’s southwestern terminus. Monroe Township’s population has grown by 21 percent between 1990 and 2000 from 1,467 to a population of 1,769 in 2000. Like many of the other communities in Madison County, Monroe Township’s land use is primarily agricultural with 94 percent of the total acreage being dedicated to agriculture with the remaining six percent being residential. Village of Plain City The Village of Plain City is located in the northeastern part of Madison County and is centrally located in the project study area. US-42 cuts through the western portion of Plain City. Plain City has seen substantial growth recently, with a 33 percent population increase between 2000 and 2010 according to the U.S. Census, going from a population of 2,832 in 2000 to a population of 4,225 in 2010. Village of West Jefferson The village of West Jefferson is located east of US-42 south of the project study area. Going against the general trend for the area, West Jefferson has seen a modest decline in population going from a population of 4,331 in 2000 to a population of 4,222 in 2010 according to the U.S. Census. The racial makeup of the village was 98 percent white as of the 2010 Census.


AUGUST 2015 29

3.4.5 Union County Population With a 2013 population of 22,396, Marysville is Union County’s largest city. Like Madison County, Union County has a relatively small population, but the county is currently experiencing significant growth. Between the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses, Union County grew by 11,391 people or 22 percent. In comparison, that’s nearly three times the national growth rate and eleven times the population growth rate of Ohio (Table 3-11).

Table 3-11 - Union County Population 2000 - 2010

Year US Ohio Union County 2000 282,200,000 11,353,140 40,909 2010 309,300,000 11,536,504 52,300

Net Change 2000 - 2010 27,100,000 183,364 11,391 Percent Change 2000 - 2010 8.8% 1.6% 21.8%

Source: Ohio Department of Development Employment & Economics While Union County is seeing massive population growth, the area’s per capita income is only marginally increasing (Table 3-12). At approximately $5,000 less than the national per capita income, Union County is either not seeing an increase in higher wage positions consistent with its population growth or it is experiencing an increase in underemployed people because, as shows, Union County’s unemployment rate has been consistently below the national and state average.

Table 3-12 - Union County Per Capita Income 2000 - 2010 Year US Ohio Union County

Per Capita Income - 2010 $40,163 $36,274 $34,340 Per Capita Income - 2011 $42,298 $38,657 $37,195 Per Capita Income - 2012 $43,735 $40,057 $38,615


Table 3-13 - Union County Unemployment Rates 2010 - 2013

Year US Ohio Union County Unemployment Rate - 2010 9.6% 10 8.2 Unemployment Rate - 2011 8.9% 8.8% 7.2% Unemployment Rate - 2012 8.0% 7.4% 5.8% Unemployment Rate - 2013 7.4% 7.3% 5.7%

Source: Ohio Department of Development Commute Patterns The mean commute time for Union County is 23 minutes 36 seconds, which is only 36 seconds longer than the state average. The interval with the largest number of commuters is the 15 to 29 minute interval with nearly 40 percent of Union County’s population falling within that range (Table 3-14). This indicates that the average commute time in Union County is similar to other areas of Ohio.

Table 3-14 - Union County Commute Times


AUGUST 2015 30

Time Ohio Union County



15 to 29 minutes 40.2% 37.9%

30 to 44 minutes 18.8% 21.8%

45 to 59 minutes 5.8% 7.9%

60+ minutes 4.9% 3.6%

Mean Travel Time 23% 23.6%


Summary Like Madison County, Union County has a relatively small population, and the county is experiencing significant growth. While the county’s per capita income is increasing, it remains slightly over $5,000 lower than the national average. Unemployment rates are, however, lower than that of the national and state averages, indicating that while the county’s population is finding employment, they are receiving lower wages than the national average. Commute times in Union County are similar to the state average. 3.4.6 Communities within Union County US-42 crosses along the southeastern portion of Union County, traversing or running adjacent to numerous communities. City of Dublin The City of Dublin is located in Franklin, Delaware, and Union counties and is located just southeast of the project study area. Dublin’s population as of the 2010 U.S. Census was 41,751, an increase of 25 percent from the 2000 Census when Dublin had a population of 31,392. The racial makeup of Dublin is 81 percent White, 15 percent Asian, and two percent African American. Jerome Township Jerome Township is located in the southeastern corner of Union County and is primarily rural. US-42 cuts through the center of the township. As of the 2000 U.S. Census, the township had a population of 3,950. City of Marysville Marysville is the county seat of Union County and is located northwest of the project study area. As of the 2010 U.S. Census, Marysville had a population of 22,094 that is up nearly 28 percent over the 2000 Census when Marysville only had a population of 15,942. The racial makeup of Marysville is 90 percent White, five percent African American, and two percent Asian. Millcreek Township Millcreek Township is a rural community located along the southeastern portion of Union County. US-42 crosses Millcreek Township along its western limits. As of the 2000 U.S. Census, the township had a population of 935. New California Community New California is a census-designated place in central Jerome Township, located just southwest of the US-42 interchange with US-33.


AUGUST 2015 31

3.5 Environmental Conditions A literature review of material pertinent to the project corridor was conducted to identify any environmental “red flags”. This review considered existing cultural and ecological resources, hazardous material concerns, Section 4(f) properties, and Environmental Justice areas. (See Exhibit 3.1: Design & Environmental Conditions Map). 3.5.1 Cultural Resources Fifty-one archeological sites and 35 historic structures were identified within the project study area, including a monument at the intersection of Industrial Parkway and US-42. These sites and structures are shown in See Exhibit 3.1: Design & Environmental Conditions Map, and the original collected information is provided in Appendix B. Archaeological Sites The archaeological sites identified as part of this project are largely clustered in two areas: along the north side of Plain City and immediately south of the City of Delaware. In each of these areas there are a few archaeological sites that have been identified within or abutting the study area. Between Plain City and Three Mile Creek, two sites were identified east of US-42 within the study area. South of Delaware, six sites were identified within the study area, four west of US-42 and two south of US-42. Inventoried Structures Information on the type and location of inventoried structures was obtained from the Ohio Historic Preservation Office’s online database. Below is a summary of this information organized by county (Table 3-15).

Table 3-15 - Inventoried Structures

Type Address Description Madison County

National Register Listing 7040 US-42 S Domestic Structure

Historic Structure Guy St Henry Boats Inc.- Mill/Processing/Manufacturing Facility

Historic Structure 7040 US-42 S Millard Yoder Home - Single Dwelling Historic Structure SEC 3rd and Cumberland St Former Truck Stop - Hotel/Inn/Motel

Historic Structure 6681 Amity Pike West Jacob Milliken House – Residential/Domestic

Union County Historic Structure US-42 & Industrial Pkwy Jerome Township Soldiers Monument Historic Structure US-42 N of #736 Route 42 Residence Historic Structure 542 Gray St Heineman Property Historic Structure 538 Gray St Travis Property Historic Structure 529 Gray St Carpenter Property Historic Structure 533 Gray St Glass Property Historic Structure 539 Gray St Bohlen Property Historic Structure 543 Gray St Phillips House Historic Structure 488 W Main St Smucker Property Historic Structure 539 W Main St Smucker Property - Single Dwelling Historic Structure 516 W Main St Smucker Property - Single Dwelling


AUGUST 2015 32

Table 3-15 - Inventoried Structures

Type Address Description Historic Structure 515 W Main St Hallam Residence - Single Dwelling Historic Structure 510 W Main St Phillips Property - Single Dwelling Historic Structure 509 W Main St Edgington Property - Single Dwelling Historic Structure 500 W Main St English Property - Single Dwelling Historic Structure 499 W Main St Meaige Property - Single Dwelling Historic Structure 493 W Main St Walter Property - Single Dwelling Historic Structure 530 Gray St North Property - Single Dwelling Historic Structure 531 Gray St Wolford Property - Single Dwelling Historic Structure 9123 North St Daniel Log House - Single Dwelling

Delaware County Historic Structure CR-241 Bellepoint Road Bridge - Bridge Historic Structure US-42 SE Johnson Co Pole Barn - Barn Historic Structure 927 Havens Rd Hart House – Single Dwelling Historic Structure 951 Havens Rd Hyatt, Perry, Ely – Single Dwelling Historic Structure 976 Havens Rd Owens House – Single Dwelling Historic Structure 984 Havens Rd Rivercrest – Single Dwelling Historic Structure 614 S Sandusky St McDaniel House – Single Dwelling Historic Structure 1911 US-42 Jackson Farmstead – Single Dwelling Historic Structure 2613 US-42 S Shivley Property – Single Dwelling Historic Structure 2050 US-42 Stone Acres – Ceremonial Structure Space

3.5.2 Section 4(f) Parks/Recreation/Monuments “Section 4(f)” of the Federal Department of Transportation Act (1966) and its revisions (1968 and 1983) protects publicly owned park and recreation areas that are open to the general public, publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public or privately owned historic sites including prehistoric and historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects that have national, state, or local significance, and are listed in, or are eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places. During preliminary environmental studies, “red flag” areas within the study area were identified so those areas could either be avoided or considered for measures to minimize harm. The literature reviews conducted for this project identified several historic and potentially historic properties as well as public parks and recreation areas within the study area. If any of these resources are anticipated to be impacted as a result of the proposed project, a Section 4(f) evaluation must be prepared to ensure that no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the property exists and that the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property. Potential Section 4(f) properties identified within the project study area are identified in Exhibit 3.1: Design & Environmental Conditions Map. 3.5.3 Ecological & Water Resources Streams & Rivers Stream and river data was obtained through the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), which is maintained by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS). The US-42 study area contains 19 different linear water sources and 11 different polygonal water sources. Most of the polygonal water sources are in the form of retention ponds built near residential developments or large corporate office parks or warehouses. The names of the intersecting water features by county are identified in Table 3-16, and locations of the waterbodies are shown in Exhibit 3.1: Design & Environmental Conditions Map.


AUGUST 2015 33

Two of the water sources identified in the study area, Big Darby Creek in Union County and Little Darby Creek in Madison County are designated as State and National Scenic Rivers. These water bodies received this designation because they retain most of the natural characteristics and they are home to a tremendous diversity and abundance of both aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals. This designation provides special protections to these water bodies in maintaining their natural characteristics.

Table 3-16 - Nearby Drainages

Madison County Union County Delaware County

Name Length (ft)

Name Length (ft)

Name Length (ft)

Bidwell Elsey Ditch 2,358 Big Darby Creek 5,390 Mill Creek 2,092 Deer Creek 8,603 Fry Ditch 2,178 Olentangy River 2,782 Eli Jones Ditch 2,472 Robinson Run 3,155 Scioto River 1,432 Fitzgerald Ditch 2,243 Sugan Run 3,568 No Name 2,757 Glade Run 1,736 No Name 3,234 No Name 2,737 Little Darby Creek 5,263 No Name 2,013 No Name 3,160 Powell Ditch 1,816 No Name 3,188 No Name 4,396 Reafey Ditch 2,020 No Name 16 No Name 2,859 Sweeney Run 2,121 No Name 2,210 Wilson Ditch 1,479 No Name 5,654 Worthington Ditch 2,045 No Name 931 Yutzy Ditch 2,093 No Name 90 No Name 159 No Name 2,193 No Name 2,162 No Name 2,301 No Name 18

Wetlands Wetland data was collected through the Ohio Wetland Inventory (OWI) and the National Wetland Inventory (NWI). According to the NWI, only four of the wetland types are present within the corridor; freshwater emergent, freshwater forested, riverine, and other. Table 3-17 outlines how many of these wetlands are present and their total acreage. A comprehensive view of the wetlands can be viewed in Exhibit 3.1: Design & Environmental Conditions Map.

Table 3-17 - Study Area Wetlands

Wetland Type Count (#) Total Acreage

Freshwater Emergent 27 64,445

Freshwater Forested 23 68

Riverine 4 13,151

Floodplains Floodplain data was obtained through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Exhibit 3.1: Design & Environmental Conditions Map shows the mapping of the floodplains. An overview of the acreage by flood zone is shown in Table 3-18.


AUGUST 2015 34

Table 3-18 - Floodplain Acreage by Flood Zone

Type Acreage

A (100-yr) 279 AE (100-yr) 220 X (500-yr) 13,541

Watersheds The study area stretches over two different watersheds; the Upper Scioto and Lower Scioto. Within these watersheds exist six subbasins with each having separate permitting requirements; the Little Darby Creek, Big Darby Creek, Olentangy River, Mill Creek, Deer Creek, and Scioto River subbasins. The locations of each watershed and subbasin can be found in Exhibit 3.5: Watersheds Map. Drinking Water Source Protection Areas Ohio’s Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) program assists communities in protecting their sources of drinking water from contamination. Wellhead protection areas were designed to safeguard public drinking water supplies by preventing, detecting, and remediating ground water contamination in a zone around public water supply wells or wellfields. For the communities along the US-42 study area corridor, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s (OEPA’s) GIS database was utilized to identify the wellhead protection areas within the immediate vicinity of the project study area. Mapping of these areas is included in Exhibit 3.1: Design & Environmental Conditions Map. Within the immediate vicinity of the project study area, there were zero wellhead protection areas identified in Delaware County, approximately 29 wellhead protection areas in Madison County, and four wellhead protection areas in Union County. For any work conducted within the immediate vicinity of a wellhead protection area where the project has the potential to contaminate a public water supply, coordination with public water systems should take place, and basic protective measures such as avoiding refueling and maintenance activities should be implemented. Threatened, Endangered and Rare Species The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystem upon which they depend. To receive protection under the Endangered Species Act, “endangered” or “threatened” species must first be placed on the Federal List for Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or Plants. An inventory of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was taken for threatened and endangered species and their status within all of the three counties of the study area. The list of the identified species and their locations is in Table 3-19 and Exhibit 3.1: Design & Environmental Conditions Map.

Table 3-19 - Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species

Species Common Name Location Mammals

Myotis Sodalis Indiana Bat

Hibernacula: Caves and Mines Maternity and foraging habitat: small stream corridors with

well-developed riparian woods; upland forests. Delaware, Madison, Union

Myotis septentrionalis

Northern long-eared bat

Hibernates in caves and mines, swarming in surrounding wooded areas in autumn. During late spring and summer roosts and forages in upland forests Delaware, Madison, Union


AUGUST 2015 35

Table 3-19 - Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Species Common Name Location

Fish Noturus trautmani Scioto madtom Stream riffles of moderate flow over sandy gravel bottom.

Madison, Union Mussels

Pleurobema clava Clubshell

Found in coarse sand and gravel areas of runs and riffles within streams and small rivers. Madison, Union

Epioblasma torulosa rangiana

Northern riffleshell

Large streams and small rivers in firm sand of riffle areas; also occurs in Lake Erie. Madison, Union

Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical

Rabbitsfoot Fish Creek, Ohio River, Muskingum River, Walhonding River,

Big Darby Creek, Little Darby Creek. Madison, Union

Villosa fabalis Rayed bean Smaller, headwater creeks, but they are sometimes found in

large rivers, and lake Erie. Delaware, Madison, Union

Epioblasma triquetra Snuffbox

Small to medium-sized creeks in areas with a swift current and some large rivers, and Lake Erie. Delaware, Madison, Union

While bald eagles are no longer protected under the federal Endangered Species Act and Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is no longer necessary, bald eagles remain protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 3.5.4 Geological Resources A review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for Delaware, Madison, and Union counties, along with a review of GIS mapping, identified the major soils located within the study area for each county. The five soils that comprise the largest area within the study area for each county are identified in Tables 3-20, 3-21, and 3-22 below. Additionally, soil mapping identifying all of the soils within the study area is shown in Exhibit 3.6: Soils Map. Madison County The study area within Madison County is made up of 18 soil types. A soil map of the study area within Madison County is available in Exhibit 3.6: Soils Map. The five primary soil types found in Madison County, along with their total square footage, the percentage of the study area they occupy, and a description of the soil type are listed in Table 3-20 below.

Table 3-20 - Madison County Soils Soil Type Area (Sq ft) Percent of Area Description

Ko 75,336,983 44% Kokomo silty clay loam, 0 to 2% slopes CsA 35,650,185 21% Crosby‐Lewisburg silt loams, 0 to 2% slopes CsB 32,779,844 19% Crosby‐Lewisburg silt loams, 2 to 6% slopes

CrA 8,993,511 5% Crosby silt loam, Southern Ohio Till Plain, 0 to 2% slopes

LeB 4,837,311 3% Lewisbury‐Celina silt loams, 2 to 6% slopes Union County The study area within Union County is made up of 24 soil types. A soil map of the study area within Union County is available in Exhibit 3.6: Soils Map. The five primary soil types found within Union


AUGUST 2015 36

County, along with their total square footage, the percentage of the study area they occupy, and a description of the soil type are listed in Table 3-21 below.

Table 3-21 - Union County Soils Soil Type Area (Sq ft) Percent of Area Description

Blg1A1 24,035,123 23% Blount silt loam, ground moraine, 0 to 2% slopes

Ble1B1 16,924,971 16% Blount silt loam, end moraine, 2 to 4% slopes Pm 13,583,076 13% Pewamo silty clay loam

Ble1A1 11,145,979 10% Blount silt loam, end moraine, 0 to 2% slopes

Gwe1B1 2,940,326 3% Glynwood silt loam, end moraine, 2 to 6% slopes

Delaware County The study area within Delaware County is made up of 13 soil types. A soil map of the study area within Delaware County is available in Exhibit 3.6: Soils Map. The five primary soil types found within the study area in Delaware County, along with their total square footage, the percentage of the study area they occupy, and a description of the soil type are listed in Table 3-22 below.

Table 3-22 - Delaware County Soils Soil Type Area (Sq ft) Percent of Area Description

Blg1A1 27,430,213 35% Blount silt loam, Ground moraine, 0‐2% slopes

UdB 14,031,511 18% Udorthents, clayey‐Urban land complex, undulating

PwA 13,653,491 17% Pewamo silty clay loam, 0 to1% slopes

Gwg1B1 11,948,555 15% Glynwood silt loam, ground moraine, 2 to 6% slopes

MoB 2,980,155 4% Milton silt loam, 2 to 6% slopes 3.5.5 Community Resources Based on information obtained from GIS mapping, site visits, and literature searches, the following community resources were identified for each of the three counties within the project study area (Table 3-23). These resources are shown on Exhibit 3.1: Design & Environmental Conditions Map.

Table 3-23 - Community Resources Community Resource Location

Delaware County

Parks Klondike Park, 4535 Klondike Road, Delaware, OH 43015 O’Shaughnessy Reservoir Park, Powell, OH 43065

Schools Delaware Christian School, 45 Belle Avenue, Delaware, OH 43015 Bellpoint United Methodist Preschool, 4771 OH-257, Delaware, OH 43015

Religious Institutions Delaware Bible Church, 45 Belle Avenue Delaware, OH 43015 Bellpoint United Methodist Church, 4771 OH-257, Delaware, OH 43015

Social Services NA Madison County Parks N/A Schools Jonathan Alder High School, 9200 US-42, Plain City, OH 43064


AUGUST 2015 37

Table 3-23 - Community Resources Community Resource Location

Jonathan Alder Junior High School 6440 CR-33 (Killbury-Huber Road), Plain City, OH 43064 Tolles Career and Technical Center, 7877 US-42, Plain City, OH 43064 Columbus State Community College, 7877 US-42, Plain City, OH 43064 Canaan Middle School, 7055 US-42, Plain City, OH 43064

Religious Institutions

Agape Christian Church, 241 Maple Street, Plain City, OH 43064 Vineyard Church of Plain City, 340 W. Main Street, Plain City, OH 43064 United Bethel Mennonite Church, 11342 Lafayette-Plain City Road, Plain City, OH 43064 Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, 226 Willowbrook Court, Plain City, OH 43064 Maranatha Community Fellowship, 6240 CR-45 (Lucas Road), Plain City, OH 43064 London Christian Fellowship, 255 US-42, London, OH 43140 Faith Assembly Worship Center, 2600 US-40, London, OH 43140 Lafayette United Methodist Church, London, OH 43140

Social Services Central Township Fire Department, 75 Middle Street, SE, London, OH 43140

Union County

Parks

Jerome Township Park, Plain City, OH 43064 Jerome Township Fire Department Park, CR-28 (New California Drive), Plain City, OH 43064 Pastime Park 344-350 N. Chillicothe Street, Plain City, OH 43064 Little Darby Creek, National Wild and Scenic River London County Club, 1199 Spring Valley Road, London, OH 43140

Schools N/A

Religious Institutions

New California Presbyterian Church, 10089 Co Hwy 1, Marysville, OH 43040 Plain City Church of Christ, 8280 Rickard Road, Plain City, OH 43064 St. Joseph Catholic Church, 670 W. Main Street, Plain City, OH 43064 Plain City United Methodist Church, 202 N. Chillicothe Street, Plain City, OH 43064

Social Services Pleasant Valley Fire Department, 650 W. Main Street, Plain City, OH 43064 Jerome Township Fire Department 9689 US-42, Plain City, OH 43064

3.5.6 Hazardous Materials The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA’s) EnviroMappper and Envirofacts websites provide geographically searchable online databases compiled from the USEPA’s Toxics Release Inventory National Analysis Report, the RCRAinfo database, and the CERCLIS database. Based on information obtained from the USEPA’s EnviroMapper and Envirofacts websites (last visited June 25, 2015), the following sites of concern identified in Table 3-24, are located within or near the US-42 project study area:


AUGUST 2015 38

Table 3.24 - Hazardous Material Sites of Concern Sites of Concern by County Delaware County

Advance Auto Parts Delaware Distribution Center, 1675 US-42 South, Delaware, OH 43015 Shelly Materials Inc. Ostrander, 8328 Watkins Road, Ostrander, OH 43061

Madison County Cohesion Paper Products, 250 S. Jefferson Avenue, Plain City, OH 43064 Hostetler Trucking, 6495 CR-30 (Converse-Huff Road), Plain City, OH 43064 Dutch Kitchen, 8690 US-42 South, Plain City, OH 43064 Jonathon Alder HS, 6440 CR-33 (Kilbury-Huber Road), Plain City, OH 43064 Central Ohio JVS District, 7877 US-42 Northeast, Plain City, OH 43064 Canaan Middle School, 7055 US-42, Plain City, OH 43064 JD Equipment Inc., 1660 US-42 NE, London, OH 43140 Travel Centers of America London, 940 US-42 NE, London, OH 43140 Spring Valley MHP, 769 US-42 SE, London, OH 43140

Union County Ranco North America, 8115 US-42 N., Plain City, OH 43064 Gaul Charles Construction 214 Jefferson Avenue, Plain City, OH 43064 222 S. Jefferson Avenue, Plain City, OH 43064 Sunoco Service Station, Jefferson and Carlyle, Plain City, OH 43064

See Exhibit 3.1: Design & Environmental Conditions Map for site locations and Appendix B for further information collected on the sites. 3.5.7 Environmental Justice A review of minority populations and low to moderate-income populations was performed within the study area boundary. This review was performed through the USEPA’s online EJ Viewer. Delaware County The percentage of the population living in poverty in Delaware County is the lowest of the three counties and is nearly a third of the national and state poverty rates (Table 3-25). During the same ten-year span that increased Madison County’s poverty rate by six percent and Ohio’s poverty rate by six percent, Delaware County’s poverty rate only increased two percent.

Table 3-25 - Delaware County Poverty Rates 2000 - 2010 Year US Ohio Delaware County

Poverty Rate - 2000 11.3% 9.8% 4.2% % of National Average -- 86.7% 37.2% Poverty Rate - 2010 15.3% 15.8% 5.8%

% of National Average -- 103.3% 37.9%

Source: Ohio Department of Development See Exhibits 3.7 and 3.8: Environmental Justice Maps for Minorities and Poverty. Madison County Madison County has maintained the percent of people living under the poverty line to less than that of the national and state average. All jurisdictions saw dramatic increases between the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses, however, Madison County made the largest jump with a six percent increase in 2010 from 2000. Table 3-26 illustrates the growth of poverty in the county compared to that of the national and state levels during the same ten-year time span.


AUGUST 2015 39

Table 3-26 - Madison County Poverty Rates 2000 - 2010 Year US Ohio Madison County

Poverty Rate - 2000 11.3% 9.8% 8.8%


Poverty Rate - 2010 15.3% 15.8% 15.0%



See Exhibits 3.7 and 3.8: Environmental Justice Maps for Minorities and Poverty. Union County Union County’s poverty rates are nearly half of the national and state levels as Table 3-27 illustrates.

Table 3-27 - Union County Poverty Rates 2000 - 2010 Year US Ohio Union County

Poverty Rate - 2000 11.3% 9.8% 5.6%


Poverty Rate - 2010 15.3% 15.8% 8.2%


Source: Ohio Department of Development See Exhibits 3.7 and 3.8: Environmental Justice Maps for Minorities and Poverty. 3.5.8 Noise & Air Quality Traffic Noise The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires the evaluation of potential environmental impacts of all projects subject to federal funding or approval. Noise analyses are conducted in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Aid Policy Guide, Subchapter H, Part 772, Procedures For Abatement Of Highway Traffic Noise And Construction Noise and ODOT’s Highway Traffic Noise Analysis Manual. Based on information obtained during this review, it appears that noise sensitive land uses are found within the project study boundaries, such as schools, homes and recreation facilities, so if and when capacity is added to US-42 or other intersecting roadways or if a roadway is moved closer to noise sensitive land uses, a noise analysis will need to be performed to determine impacts and potential mitigation measures. Air Quality Delaware and Madison counties are in non-attainment for ozone (8 hour). The entire project area is in attainment for all other National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). See Appendix B for further information. 3.6 Related Studies & Projects The existing comprehensive plans as well as known development plans for the relevant counties, townships, and cities were collected and reviewed. They provided background information into future development, community character, and transportation goals for the areas surrounding the US-42 corridor within the study area. See Table 3.28 for a list of plans that were reviewed.


AUGUST 2015 40

Table 3-28 - Transportation and Land Use Plans Reviewed

County Plan Year Madison County Comprehensive Plan 2014 Madison County Zoning Plan 2002 Madison/Union Village of Plain City Comprehensive Plan 2003 Union Jerome Township Comprehensive Plan 2008 Union Jerome Township Zoning Plan 2009 Union Millcreek Township Zoning Plan 2014 Union Darby Township Comprehensive Plan 2003 Union Darby Township Zoning Plan 2010 Union Union County Economic Development Strategy 2014 Union Southeast Union County Thoroughfare Plan (not adopted) 2008 Union Union County Comprehensive Plan 2013 Union US-42 Corridor Traffic Study (MORPC) 2011 Delaware City of Delaware Comprehensive Plan (with Land Use Map) 2004 Delaware City of Delaware Gateways & Corridors Design Standards 2005 Delaware City of Delaware Zoning Plan 2010 Delaware City of Delaware Bikeway Plan 2010 Delaware City of Delaware Downtown Historic Districts Overlay 2010 Delaware COTA Transit System Map 2015

In addition, an online search of the FY2016-2019 ODOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) found the following scheduled projects within the US-42 study area (Table 3-29).

Table 3.29 - ODOT STIP Projects in the US-42 Study Area

PID C-R Location Description Sponsor Year

94022 MAD-42-24.78

US-42 and CR-40 (Perry Pike)/West Avenue

Intersection improvement; includes addition of left turn

lanes on US-42 and installation of traffic signal

Madison County

Engineer FY2016

16987 UNI-736-0.00 Intersection of SR-736 & US-42 Resurfacing ODOT

District 6 FY2014

3.7 Summary A variety of engineering and environmental information was collected for this study and described in this chapter, which was used when developing recommendations later in this report. After completing this evaluation, the next step was to analyze the traffic and crash data in detail to identify deficiencies.


AUGUST 2015 41

4.0 | TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

This chapter includes the analysis of the corridor and major connecting routes, including capacity analyses and signal warrant analyses at the intersections, crash evaluation for the corridor, crash analyses for seven intersections, and a multi-modal facilities evaluation of the region as it relates to the corridor. 4.1 Traffic Volumes To document traffic characteristics along US-42, traffic counts were taken in late 2014 and early 2015 at major and minor crossroads. Analyses were conducted to determine operational characteristics within the study area. The results of these analyses are discussed in the following sections. See Exhibit 4.1, Transportation Analysis Locations, for the traffic count locations and Appendix C for the traffic data collected. 4.1.1 Planning Level Traffic Volumes Weekday 24-hour tube counts were conducted at the following county roads in November of 2014 to determine traffic volumes on roads that intersect with US-42:

1. CR-135 (Betty Wilson Road) 2. CR-71 (Spring Valley Road) 3. Old US-42 SE 4. CR-104 (Simpson Road) 5. CR-137 (Byerly Mill Road) 6. CR-14 (Taylor-Blair Road) 7. CR-10 (Middle Pike) 8. CR-45 (Lucas Road) 9. CR-31 (A W Wilson Road) 10. CR-44 (M V High Road) 11. CR-32 (Price-Hilliards Road) 12. CR-33 (Killbury-Huber Road) 13. CR-36 (Amity Pike) 14. CR-30 (Converse Huff Road) 15. Alcott Drive Village Boulevard 16. CR-40 (West Avenue) 17. N Chillicothe Street

18. CR-31 (Hickory Ridge Road) 19. CR-29 (Crottinger Road) 20. CR-8 (Currier Road) 21. CR-28 (New California Drive) 22. CR-28 (Monteray Drive) 23. CR-1 (Industrial Parkway) 24. CR-22 (Watkins-California Road) 25. CR-19 (Bell Road) 26. CR-17 (Wells Road) 27. CR-18 (Harriott Road) 28. CR-11 (Jerome Road) 29. CR-104 (Watkins Road) 30. CR-93 (Smart-Cole Road) 31. CR-129 (Concord Road) 32. CR-5 (S. Section Line Road) 33. CR-142 (Owen-Fraley Road)

The tube count data was adjusted for daily and seasonal variations to develop the planning level peak hour traffic volumes. In addition, turning movement counts from January 2015 were obtained from ODOT Miovision counts for the following intersections:

1. US-42/London Road 2. US-42/Riverside Drive 3. US-42/Section Line Road 4. US-42/SR-745/Dublin Road 5. US-42/I-70 Eastbound Ramps

6. US-42/I-70 Westbound Ramps 7. US-42/Pilot Truck Entrance 8. US-42/Pilot Truck Exit 9. US-42/Spring Valley Road 10. US-42/SR-29


AUGUST 2015 42

11. US-42/TC America Entrance 12. US-42/TC America Exit 13. US-42/Chillicothe Street 14. US-42/New California Drive

15. US-42/SR-161/W Main Street 16. US-42/US-33 Eastbound Ramp 17. US-42/US-33 Westbound Ramp 18. US-42/Watkins Road

The turning movement counts were also adjusted for daily and seasonal variations to develop the planning level peak hour traffic volumes. Planning level peak hour traffic volumes were developed per ODOT’s Certified Traffic Design Manual for the No Build existing condition utilizing the tube counts and turning movement counts. The traffic data was brought to year 2016 (existing) using growth rates based on historical traffic count information from ODOT’s Transportation Information Mapping System (TIMS). Please note that the traffic data used for the project is not certified-level traffic (via ODOT approval). 4.1.2 Traffic Volumes Evaluation The existing (2016) and projected (2036) traffic volumes generated from the collected traffic data were evaluated for lane capacity needs on US-42. Roadway Segments According to the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (2000), the capacity of a two-lane highway is 1,700 passenger cars per hour per lane, which assumes there are no impediments to through-traffic flow such as a traffic signal displaying a red indication, or a stopped vehicle waiting to turn. A review of design year traffic volumes indicates the highest traffic volumes in the corridor occur between I-70 and London (in the range of 550 to 700 vehicles per hour), and from US-33 north to SR-257/SR-745 (in the range of 540 to 600 vehicles per hour). As a result, based upon through-traffic volumes, US-42 is not expected to need an additional through lane for the next 20 years (see Exhibit 4.2: Design Year Mainline Peak Hour Volumes). Intersections While a through lane will not be required for US-42 through the year 2036 based on through-traffic volumes, the potential need for additional through-lanes at signalized intersections was also examined because through-movements on US-42 are frequently stopped to permit conflicting traffic to enter these intersections. The results of the intersection capacity analyses also indicated that no additional through lanes will be required at signalized intersections through the year 2036. However, some locations may require exclusive left or right turn lanes, as noted in Exhibit 4.3: Design Year Intersection Peak Hour Volumes. 4.2 Traffic Operations According to the Highway Capacity Manual, level of service (LOS) is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. For interrupted flow conditions, such as signalized and two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections, level of service is defined in terms of total delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and increased travel time due to geometrics, traffic, and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel times actually experienced and the travel time that would result in the absence of geometric delay, traffic control, other vehicles, and incidents. Levels of service range from LOS A (best) to LOS F (Table 4-1). An acceptable level of service for interrupted flow conditions is LOS C; however, LOS D is acceptable in urban areas, with approval of the local planning commissions, and when it can be shown that obtaining LOS C incurs extreme costs.


AUGUST 2015 43

Table 4-1 - Level of Service Criteria

Level of Service TWSC Intersection Signalized Intersection

Control Delay per Vehicle (seconds per vehicle)

Control Delay per Vehicle (seconds per vehicle)

A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 and ≤ 15 > 10 and ≤ 20 C > 15 and ≤ 25 > 20 and ≤ 35 D > 25 and ≤ 35 > 35 and ≤ 55 E > 35 and ≤ 50 > 55 and ≤ 80 F > 50 > 80

For signalized intersections, LOS A indicates that delay is minimal, progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. LOS F, on the other hand, generally indicates poor progression, long cycle lengths, high delay, and individual cycle failures (e.g., having to wait through more than one green phase to travel through the intersection). For TWSC intersections, level of service is determined for each minor-street movement and major-street left turns. Level of service is not determined for the intersection as a whole or for the major-street through movements because major-street through vehicles are assumed to experience zero delay, the disproportionate number of major-street through vehicles at a typical TWSC intersection skews the weighted averages of all movements, and the resulting low delay can conceal important level of service deficiencies for minor movements. The level of service criteria for signalized and TWSC intersections are summarized in Table 4-1. 4.2.1 Existing (2016) Traffic Operations A series of level of service analyses was conducted using the planning level traffic developed to determine the existing (2016) operational conditions along US-42. (Please note that existing signal timing data was not analyzed as part of this project.) As a result, the signalized intersections were analyzed as optimized isolated intersections to determine levels of service and volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. The level of service and the v/c ratios are summarized in Table 4-2 and provided in the Appendix C. For TWSC intersections, the level of service and v/c ratio shown in the table are those of the worst movement for that intersection. For signalized intersections, the level of service is the overall level of service, and the v/c ratio is the highest ratio of the intersection. All levels of service at the intersections along US-42 were LOS C or above except for the US-33 West exit ramp in the PM Peak. The resulting LOS E at the ramp is due to the influx of vehicles exiting US-33 West during the PM Peak.

Table 4-2 - US-42 Level of Service Results

Intersection with US-42 AM Peak PM Peak

LOS v/c Ratio (Highest) LOS v/c Ratio

(Highest) CR-135 - Betty Wilson Road B 0.04 (EB) B 0.05 (EB) CR-71 - Spring Valley Road B 0.20 (WB) B 0.15 (WB) US-42 SE B 0.12 (EB) C 0.20 (WB) CR-104 - Simpson Road C 0.09 (WB) C 0.11 (EB) I-70 EB Ramps* B 0.15 (SBT) B 0.32 (SBT) I-70 WB Ramps* B 0.20 (SBR) B 0.29 (SBR) SR-29* B 0.26 (NB) B 0.36 (WB)


AUGUST 2015 44

Table 4-2 - US-42 Level of Service Results


LOS v/c Ratio (Highest) LOS v/c Ratio

(Highest) CR-137 - Byerly Mill Road B 0.09 (WB) B 0.03 (WB) CR-14 - Taylor-Blair Road B 0.05 (WB) B 0.05 (WB) CR-10/CR-45 - Lucas/Middle Pike+ B 0.09 (WB) B 0.09 (WB) CR-31 - A W Wilson Road B 0.03 (EB) B 0.03 (EB) CR-44 - M V High Road B 0.03 (EB) B 0.03 (EB) CR-32 - Price Hilliards Road C 0.29 (WB) B 0.29 (WB) CR-33 - Killbury-Huber Road B 0.06 (EB) B 0.03 (EB) CR-36 - Amity Road B 0.05 (WB) B 0.04 (WB) CR-30 - Converse Huff Road W B 0.10 (EB) B 0.15 (EB) CR-30 - Converse Huff Road E B 0.10 (WB) A 0.13 (WB) Alcott Drive B 0.08 (WB) B 0.06 (WB) Village Blvd B 0.05 (EBL) B 0.06 (EBL) CR-40 - West/Perry Road C 0.25 (EB/WB) C 0.25 (WB) SR-161* C 0.28 (SBT) C 0.35 (WBL) N Chillicothe Street B 0.11 (WB) B 0.17 (WB) CR-31 - Hickory Ridge Road B 0.13 (EB) B 0.08 (EB) CR-29 - Crottinger Road B 0.03 (EB) B 0.04 (EB) CR-8 - Currier Road B 0.03 (WB) B 0.04 (WB) CR-28 - New California Drive B 0.08 (EBL) B 0.09 (EBL) CR-28 - Monteray Drive B 0.08 (EB) B 0.05 (EB) CR-1 - Industrial Parkway* C 0.58 (EB) C 0.60 (SB) US-33 E B 0.29 (EB) B 0.37 (EB) US-33 W B 0.22 (WB) E 0.86 (WB) CR-22 - Watkins-California Road B 0.29 (EB) C 0.45 (EB) CR-19/CR-17 - Bell/Wells Road B 0.07 (EB) C 0.08 (WB) CR-18 - Harriott Road B 0.15 (WB) C 0.17 (WB) CR-11 - Jerome Road C 0.25 (WB) C 0.21 (WB) CR-104 - Watkins Road C 0.23 (WB) C 0.20 (EB) CR-93 - Smart Cole Road B 0.04 (EB) C 0.15 (EB) CR-129 - Concord Road B 0.04 (WB) B 0.05 (WB) SR-745* C 0.53 (SB) C 0.57 (NB) SR-257 - Klondike/Riverside Dr* C 0.64 (SB) C 0.55 (NB) CR-5 - Section Line Road* C 0.52 (EB) C 0.77 (NB) CR-142 - Owen Fraley Road B 0.07 (WB) B 0.07 (WB) London Road* C 0.37 (SBT) C 0.37 (SB)

*Signalized Intersections +Due to the layout of the intersection of Lucas Road and Middle Pike Road with US-42 they were analyzed as one intersection.

See Exhibit 4.4: Existing Level of Service Map and Exhibit 4.5: Future Intersection Level of Service Map. 4.2.2 Design Year (2036) Traffic Operations A series of level of service analyses were conducted using the planning level traffic developed to determine the design year (2036) operational conditions along US-42. The signalized intersections were analyzed as optimized isolated intersections to determine levels of service and volume to


AUGUST 2015 45

capacity (v/c) ratios. The level of service and v/c ratios are summarized in Table 4-3 and provided in the Appendix C. As in Table 4-3, the level of service and v/c ratios shown in the table are those of the worst movement for TWSC intersections. For signalized intersections, the level of service is the overall level of service and the v/c ratio is the highest ratio of the intersection. There were six intersections with levels of service less than a LOS C. US-33 West produced a LOS F for the westbound (WB) movement due to the volume of traffic exiting US-33. The addition of a right turn lane on the US-33 West exit ramp would bring the approach level of service up to a LOS D, however the left turn movement would still be LOS F. While the intersection level of service for Industrial parkway is LOS C, the southbound left turn movement produces a LOS D. The northbound left turn movement in the PM peak at Section Line Road results in a LOS F, and the overall level of service for the PM peak is LOS D.

Table 4-3 - US-42 2036 Level of Service Results


LOS v/c Ratio (Highest) LOS v/c Ratio (Highest) CR 135 - Betty Wilson Road B 0.09 (EB) C 0.12 (EB) CR-71 - Spring Valley Road C 0.33 (WB) C 0.26 (WB) Old US-42 SE C 0.17 (EB) C 0.33 (WB) CR-104 - Simpson Road D 0.27 (WB) D 0.33 (EB) I-70 EB Ramps* B 0.15 (SBT) B 0.32 (SBT) I-70 WB Ramps* B 0.20 (SBR) B 0.29 (SBR) SR-29* B 0.26 (NB) B 0.36 (WB) CR-137 - Byerly Mill Road B 0.06 (WB) B 0.09 (WB) CR-14 - Taylor-Blair Road B 0.10 (EB) B 0.13 (WB/EB) CR-10 - Lucas/Middle Pike+ B 0.13 (WB) B 0.10 (WB) CR-31 - A W Wilson Road B 0.06 (EB) B 0.07 (EB) CR-44 - M V High Road B 0.05 (EB) B 0.07 (EB) CR-32 - Price Hilliards Road C 0.46 (WB) C 0.62 (WB) CR-33 - Killbury-Huber Road B 0.09 (EB) B 0.07 (EB) CR-36 - Amity Road B 0.06 (WB) B 0.07 (WB) CR-30 - Converse Huff Road W B 0.16 (EB) B 0.21 (EB) CR-30 - Converse Huff Road E B 0.14 (WB) B 0.19 (WB) Alcott Drive B 0.12 (WB) B 0.10 (WB) Village Blvd B 0.05 (EBL) C 0.09 (EBL) CR-40 - West/Perry Road C 0.31 (EB/WB) D 0.33 WB SR-161* C 0.28 (SBT) C 0.45 (WBL) N Chillicothe Street B 0.16 (WB) B 0.26 (WB) CR-31 - Hickory Ridge Road B 0.19 (EB) B 0.14 (EB) CR-29 - Crottinger Road B 0.08 (EB) B 0.09 (EB) CR-8 - Currier Road B 0.10 (WB) B 0.09 (WB) CR-28 - New California Drive B 0.20 (EBR) C 0.15 (EBL) CR-28 - Monteray Drive B 0.13 (EB) B 0.11 (EB) CR-1- Industrial Parkway* C 0.58 (EB) C 0.79 (SB) US-33 E C 0.41 (EB) C 0.55 (EB) US-33 W B 0.33 (WB) F 1.30 (WB) CR-22 - Watkins-California Rd C 0.59 (EB) E 0.75 (EB) Bell/Wells Road C 0.19 (WB) C 0.21 (WB) CR-18 - Harriott Road C 0.28 (WB) C 0.34 (WB)


AUGUST 2015 46

Table 4-3 - US-42 2036 Level of Service Results


LOS v/c Ratio (Highest) LOS v/c Ratio (Highest) CR-11 - Jerome Road C 0.22 (WB) C 0.21 (WB) CR-104 - Watkins Road C 0.38 (WB) D 0.38 (EB) CR-93 - Smart Cole Road B 0.09 (EB) C 0.20 (EB) CR-129 - Concord Road B 0.09 (WB) C 0.12 (WB) SR-745* C 0.53 (SB) C 0.57 (NB) SR-257-Klondike/Riverside Dr* C 0.85 (SB) C 0.65 (NB) CR-5 - Section Line Road* C 0.66 (NB) D 1.07 (NB) CR-142 - Owen Fraley Road B 0.10 (WB) B 0.07 (WB) London Road* C 0.37 (SBT) C 0.37 (SB) *Signalized Intersections +Due to the layout of the intersection of Lucas Road and Middle Pike Road with US-42 they were analyzed as one intersection. 4.3 Signal Warrant Analyses The purpose of signal warrants analyses is to determine what, if any, characteristics of a given intersection could require the installation of a traffic signal. Each intersection would be analyzed on nine different warrants looking at factors, such as high traffic volume, increased pedestrian use, school or railroad proximity, platooning issues, and a high volume of crashes, all of which could be mitigated by installing a traffic signal. On the other hand, some intersections, which are already signalized, may no longer require a signal. In these cases, signals can slow down the flow of traffic and cause an increase in collision rates when the signal is not required. 4.3.1 Signal Warrant Types Each intersection underwent analyses on nine different warrants. The different warrants are as follows: Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume This warrant examines the total traffic volume over an eight-hour period. There are two conditions that can be met to meet the warrant levels. One involves higher traffic numbers on the major route, while the second involves high traffic volumes on the minor route. Those volumes are also adjusted for high-speed routes such as US-42. To meet the warrant requirements, volume criteria must have been met for a minimum of eight hours. The hours do not have to be consecutive Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant two looks at the traffic volumes for four hours. The hours do not have to be consecutive. The highest approaching traffic volume for either direction of the minor route is plotted against the respective hour’s major route traffic volumes. The points must lie above a predetermined threshold for any four different one-hour periods to satisfy warrant two. Warrant 3: Peak Hour The peak hour warrant looks to see if there exists a situation where traffic spikes drastically for at least one hour. Such occurrences would involve major industrial hubs, shipping centers, office complexes, or any other place that might cause a large number of vehicles to be released onto a roadway in a very short time. The traffic volumes are again plotted on a curve to see if the ratio satisfies the warrant thresholds.


AUGUST 2015 47

Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume This warrant looks at pedestrian volumes at the intersection. Like warrants two and three, the pedestrian warrant looks at pedestrian crossing counts over four hour and at peak hour thresholds. The thresholds are designed to determine if enough pedestrians experience a delay due to increased traffic. Warrant 5: School Crossing The school crossing warrant looks to see if there is a school in the nearby vicinity that might have school-aged children crossing the major route. “School-aged” is considered elementary through high school. Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System This warrant looks at the platooning effects of two intersections that are close together. If the traffic at one intersection is enough that it disturbs the signal phasing effects of the second, then a signal may be warranted. Warrant 7: Crash Experience The crash warrant looks at crash reports over the most recent three full years of crash data to determine if a crash pattern exists that could be remedied by the installation of a traffic control signal. A signal is only warranted though when previous countermeasures for the crashes have been exhausted. Warrant 8: Roadway Network This warrant looks to see if the roadway network is designed to make the intersection a major point of traffic flow. If the intersection is designed as such, then projected volumes will satisfy the warrants. Warrant 9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Warrant nine looks to see if the traffic volumes are high enough that vehicles could experience delay times long enough to back traffic up to railroad crossings, putting the vehicles in danger. 4.3.2 Signal Warrant Analyses Signal warrant analyses were performed at 33 intersections within the study area to determine what, if any, potential issues regarding the necessity of signals could be mitigated by the installation of a traffic signal. Thirty of the 33 analyzed intersections were unsignalized - these 30 unsignalized intersections were selected in order to match up with the same unsignalized intersections that had 24-hour tube counts performed. The remaining three intersections were already signalized, and in addition to also having 24-hour tube counts, they were selected for analysis in order to determine if traffic signals were still necessary: CR-5 (South Section Line Road), CR-1 (Industrial Parkway), and CR-104 (Watkins Road). Table 4-4 provides a listing of all the intersections where signal warrant analyses were conducted. Where the table has an “x”, that intersection met the warrant level for that particular warrant. Intersections where two or more of the signal warrant analyses met or exceeded the warrant levels are recommended to be considered for the installation of a traffic control signal.


AUGUST 2015 48

Table 4-4 - Signal Warrant Analysis Locations and Results

Intersection Warrants TOTAL Possible Sight

Distance Issues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CR-135 (Betty Wilson Road) -- -- CR-71 (Spring Valley Road) -- -- Old US-42 SE -- -- CR-104 (Simpson Road) -- -- CR-137 (Byerly Mill Road) -- -- CR-14 (Taylor-Blair Road) -- -- CR-10 (Middle Pike) -- -- CR-45 (Lucas Road) -- -- CR-31 (A W Wilson Road) -- --

CR-44 (M V High Road) -- --

CR-32 (Price-Hilliards Road) X X 2 YES

CR-33 (Killbury-Huber Road) -- -- CR-36 (Amity Pike) -- -- CR-30 West (Converse Huff Road) -- -- CR-30 East (Converse Huff Road) -- --

Alcott Drive -- --

CR-40 (West Avenue) X X 2 YES

N Chillicothe Street -- -- CR-31 (Hickory Ridge Road) -- -- CR-29 (Crottinger Road) -- -- CR-8 (Currier Road) -- -- CR-28 (New California Drive) -- --

CR-28 (Monteray Drive) -- --

CR-1 (Industrial Parkway)* X X X 3 --

CR-22 (Watkins-California Road) X X 2 -- CR-19 (Bell Road)/CR-17 (Wells Road) -- --

CR-18 (Harriott Road) -- --

CR-11 (Jerome Road) -- --

CR-104 (Watkins Road)* -- -- CR-93 (Smart-Cole Road) -- --

CR-129 (Concord Road) -- --

CR-5 (S Section Line Road)* X X X 3 --

CR-142 (Owen-Fraley Road) -- -- *Currently signalized See Exhibit 4.1, Transportation Analysis Location for the location of the signals analyzed, and see Appendix C for further information on the signal warrant analysis results.


AUGUST 2015 49

4.3.3 Signal Warrant Results Five of the thirty-three intersections analyzed returned met warrants:

1. CR-32

2. CR-40

3. CR-1

4. CR-22

5. CR-5 Of the three intersections that already had traffic control signals installed, two were among the five that returned met warrants (CR-1 and CR-5). CR-104 (Watkins Road) no longer meets the warrants for a traffic signal. The intersections that met signal warrants are discussed below. CR-32 (Price-Hilliards Road) Price-Hilliards Road met both warrants one and two. Warrant one was satisfied by meeting both the minimum vehicular volumes and interruption of continuous traffic conditions for the 80 percent thresholds. The threshold for minimum traffic was met for the hours of 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM, and 2:00 PM to 8:00 PM. The interruption of continuous traffic volumes were met for the hours of 7:00 AM to noon, and 1:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Due to the satisfaction of both warrants one and two, the intersection of CR-32 (Price-Hilliards Road) and US-42 is recommended for consideration of a traffic control signal. Possible sight distance issues might occur for eastbound and westbound traffic at the intersection, caused by the overhanging trees on the south leg. In the absence of the crash warrant being met, the site distance issues are likely negligible. CR-40 (West Avenue) West Avenue is the main route through Plain City and is currently signalized. The intersection met the requirements for both warrants one and two, and was very close to meeting the thresholds for warrant eight. Warrant one was met under both possible scenarios. The 100 percent threshold for minimum traffic was met, along with the 80 percent thresholds for minimum traffic and interruption of continuous traffic conditions. The 100 percent target values were met for hours of 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM, while the 80 percent target values were met for the minimum traffic volume thresholds from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM, and the interruption of continuous traffic values from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, and 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Warrant two met the four hour vehicular traffic volumes for the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM and the three consecutive hours of 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Warrant eight was nearly met. CR-40 (West Avenue) is considered a major collector route, however, total approaching traffic volumes for the peak hour was only 975 vehicles. The warrant requires a minimum of 1,000 entering vehicles for the peak hour. With both warrants one and two being met, the intersection of CR-40 (West Avenue) is recommended to maintain the traffic control signal. Sight distance issues may also be present at this intersection. Westbound traffic may have restricted views of southbound traffic caused by the trees on the east side of the north leg of the intersection. Since warrant seven was not met, the sight distance issues are negligible. CR-1 (Industrial Parkway) Industrial Parkway is currently signalized and is one of the two locations that met the requirements for three warrants; one, two, and eight. Warrant one was met under the 100 percent thresholds for minimum traffic volume for the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, and 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Warrant two met the four-hour vehicular traffic volumes for four consecutive hours from 2:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Warrant eight was also met. CR-1 (Industrial Parkway) is considered a major collector and had a total entering traffic volume of 1,000 vehicles during the peak hour. Since CR-1 (Industrial Parkway) met not only warrants one and two, but also warrant eight, it is recommended to consider this intersection for a traffic control signal.


AUGUST 2015 50

CR-22 (Watkins-California Road) Warrants one and two were satisfied at this intersection. Warrant one was met by satisfying the 80 percent threshold levels for both minimum traffic volumes and the interruption of continuous traffic volumes. The threshold for minimum traffic volumes was met between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 AM, and 11:00 AM and 7:00 PM. Interruption of continuous traffic volumes at the 80 percent threshold were met for the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, and 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Warrant two, the thresholds for four-hour traffic volumes, were met for the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM and the three consecutive hours of 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Since both warrants one and two were met, this intersection is recommended for consideration of a traffic control signal. However, CR-22 proximity to US 42 interchange ramps will have an impact on the opportunity of providing a signal even though warrants have been met. CR-5 (South Section Line Road) South Section Line Road, currently signalized, met the requirements for three of the warrants; one, two, and eight. Warrant one was satisfied under both the 100 percent and 80 percent thresholds. The 100 percent thresholds were met for the minimum traffic volumes for the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, while the thresholds for interruption of continuous traffic volumes were met at the 100 percent thresholds for the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM, and 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. The 80 percent minimum traffic volumes was met for the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM, while the interruption of continuous traffic volumes were met at the 80 percent threshold for the hours of 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Warrant two met with the four highest volume hours being the two consecutive hours from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM, and 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Warrant eight was also met. CR-5 (South Section Line Road) is considered an arterial and has a peak hour entering traffic exceeding the minimum threshold of 1,000 vehicles with 1,345 entering vehicles. Because warrant eight was met in addition to both warrants one and two, the intersection of CR-5 (South Section Line Road) and US-42 is recommended to maintain the traffic control signal. 4.4 Crash Analyses Crash data was obtained from the Ohio Department of Public Safety and analyzed for existing trends along the US-42 corridor in the study area. Data from years 2011 to 2013 were used. After scrubbing the crash data and geolocating the crash sites, a high-level review of the crashes in the entire US-42 corridor was performed using the CAMTool provided by ODOT. From that high level review, an overview was prepared that summarized the crash patterns in the corridor. See Exhibit 4.6: Study Area Crashes, showing an overview of the locations of all of the crashes in the corridor, and see Appendix C for the crash data information and CAMTool printouts. 4.4.1 US-42 Corridor Safety Evaluation Between 2011 and 2013, the corridor had 517 total crashes. Of those 71 percent were classified as property damage only crashes, 29 percent were injury crashes, and less than one percent (four) were fatalities. The consistency of the accidents remained equal, with approximately one third of the crashes occurring in each of the three years. The four most common crash types accounted for nearly three quarters of the total crashes equating to 380 crashes. Rear end crashes along the corridor were the most common crash type at 33 percent or 168 of the total crashes. The next most common crash type was Fixed Object at 97 total crashes or 19 percent. Angle and Animal crashes were the next two most prevalent crash types at 12 percent and ten percent respectively. After those types, crashes drop significantly with left turn crashes being the next most common type at five percent. The majority of the rear end crashes were the result of vehicles rear ending other vehicles that were stopped or slowing in traffic (79 percent).


AUGUST 2015 51

Across the corridor, 72 percent of the collisions occurred on dry pavement, 82 percent happened during clear or cloudy weather conditions and straight contour conditions accounted for 92 percent of the collisions that would indicate that weather, road conditions, and horizontal curvatures are not presently an issue. Roadway lighting, however, may be an issue with only 67 percent or 348 of the collisions occurring during daylight conditions. Unlighted nighttime driving conditions accounted for 22 percent of the collisions or 116 crashes, while lighted nighttime conditions only accounted for five percent. Further analysis showed that lighting is an issue primarily for fixed object crashes which accounted for 27 percent of the collisions. The second most common crash type for nighttime collisions were animal crashes, accounting for one quarter of the collisions at 26 percent or 36 crashes. All but two of the nighttime animal crashes occurred in unlighted conditions. Animal crashes are typically removed prior to any crash analysis. Removal of the animal crashes, however, changes the total daylight collision percentages to 73 percent of the total crashes. The high-level corridor evaluation identified the following intersections with the highest crash rates: Union County -124 Total Crashes, 2011 to 2013

1. Industrial Parkway 2. US-33 Interchange 3. CR-11 (Jerome Road)

Delaware County - 124 Total Crashes, 2011 to 2013

1. London Road & Jegs Boulevard 2. Fern Drive and Sandusky Street

Madison County - 247 Crashes Total, 2011 to 2013

1. CR-71 (Spring Valley Road) 2. RV Headquarters/Community Entrances 3. Simpson Road 4. Fire Station at MP 11.75 5. I-70 Interchange 6. Curve in the area of the Lucas Road intersection 7. Killbury Huber Road & Schools 8. Converse Huff Road 9. Village Boulevard 10. West Avenue & Perry Pike

Upon review, ODOT selected the following intersections for a more in-depth crash analysis to determine the underlying contributing factors that could be causing the crash problems:

1. CR-71 (Spring Valley Road) 2. SR-29 3. US-33 Interchange (segment) 4. CR-11 (Jerome Road) 5. SR-257/SR-745 6. Klondike Road/SR-257 7. London Road


AUGUST 2015 52

4.4.2 Crash Analysis by Intersection Below is the crash analysis for each of the intersections selected by ODOT. CR-71 (Spring Valley Road) CR-71 in Madison County is a two-lane rural minor collector. CR-71 intersects with US-42 at an unsignalized T-intersection just north of the City of London. The intersection is located within a wide horizontal curve. Between 2011 and 2013, this intersection had 16 crashes, half of which resulted in injuries. The most common crash type was rear end collisions at 56 percent or nine total crashes. Fixed object collisions was the second most common type of collisions at 19 percent or three crashes, while sideswipe meeting collisions, backing, angle, and a parked vehicle collision were the rest with only one incident for each of those collision types. Clear and cloudy weather conditions accounted for 88 percent of the collisions and dry road conditions were present for 75 percent of the collisions. With 94 percent of the collisions occurring during daylight conditions, there is no pattern of crashes resulting from weather, road, or lighting issues. Only 68 percent of the collisions, however, occurred on a straight section of roadway (level or graded). At the same time, 81 percent of the collisions occurred in southbound traffic. Of the eight injury collisions, five were from rear end crashes. All of those rear end collisions, and 89 percent of all rear end collisions, occurred in southbound traffic. The combination of the horizontal curvature with the pervasive nature of the southbound traffic issues would indicate that southbound traffic has site distance issues when approaching the Spring Valley intersection, especially when there are traffic backups from left-turning traffic. The site distance issues needs to be confirmed as part of a future study. See Exhibit 4.7: CR-71 Crash Diagram and Appendix B for the crash data. SR-29 SR-29 is a two-lane rural major collector that connects with US-42 at a signalized intersection roughly 0.8 miles north of I-70. The main function of SR-29 is to connect the more rural sections of the area to US-42 and I-70. Twelve crashes occurred at this intersection between 2011 and 2013. Three of those collisions, or 25 percent, resulted in injuries. The rate of crashes has also increased slightly, by one per year each year. The two most common crash types are rear end and angle collisions, which accounted for three incidents (25 percent) of the collisions for each type. Weather, road, light, and contour conditions are not contributing factors at this location with 83 percent of collisions occurring during clear and cloudy conditions with dry pavement. Daylight accounted for 58 percent of the lighting conditions that existing during the crashes and all of the crashes occurred on straight, level pavement. Crashes occurring in northbound and southbound traffic are also equal. The data suggests that there are not any abnormal outstanding issues regarding this location. See Exhibit 4.8: SR-29 Crash Diagram and Appendix B for the crash data. US-33 Interchange One of the more heavily travelled segments along the US-42 corridor, the US-33 interchange acts as the point of ingress and egress for travelling between the cities of Marysville and Columbus. The segment had 22 crashes between 2011 and 2013, with 12, or 55 percent of those occurring in 2013. The increasing number of residential areas in recent years has created in influx of vehicles travelling this section and as a result, collision occurrences have increased as well. Injuries account for 36 percent of the collisions with 88 percent of those resulting from rear end collisions. All of the crashes at this location involved vehicles on the exit ramps of US-33. The most common crash type, by far, were rear end collisions at 86 percent of the crashes. One incident occurred for each of the other present crash types: animal, sideswipe passing, and angle. Weather, lighting, road, and contour conditions did not play a role in the crashes. Clear and cloudy weather was present for 91 percent of the collisions, and the road was dry for 86 percent. Daylight


AUGUST 2015 53

accounted for 82 percent and 82 percent occurred on straight sections. Most notably, the crashes along this section occurred exclusively during the workweek with 68 percent of those happening between the hours of 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Additionally, 77 percent of all crashes occurred on the westbound exit ramp from US-33 to US-42, which is when there is an influx of commuters returning home from Columbus. See Exhibit 4.9: US-33 Crash Diagram and Appendix B for the crash data. CR-11 (Jerome Road) CR-11 is a two-lane rural major collector that primarily serves as a route for residential neighborhoods to connect with US-42 at an unsignalized intersection. CR-11 connects northwest of US-42 with CR-104 (Watkins Road) at the main driveway into the Shelley Company quarry and extends southeast of US-42 into the City of Dublin. There were six crashes at the intersection between 2011 and 2013, 33 percent of which resulted in injuries. Road, weather, and contour did not play a role in the crashes at this location. Dry road conditions accounted for 83 percent of the collisions, and clear and cloudy weather conditions accounted for 83 percent. All of the crashes occurred on straight, level contour conditions. Daylight conditions only accounted for 67 percent of the crashes while the remaining 33 percent occurred under dark conditions with no lights. Half of the crashes that occurred at the Jerome Road intersection resulted from loss of control. Two of the crashes, or 33 percent, resulted in fixed object crashes while the third crash resulted in the vehicle overturning. Underlying causes of the vehicles losing control varied - two had a contributing factor of improper lane changes, while the overturning vehicle crash had a contributing factor of failure to control. All three of those, however, resulted from making turns. Rear end collisions also accounted for 33 percent of the crashes. Both collisions occurred on US-42 due to a vehicle waiting to turn left. There was one rear end collision in either direction indicating there is not an issue with a particular direction. The high speed on US-42 and lack of lighting seem to be the two main underlying factors contributing to the crashes at this intersection. See Exhibit 4.10: CR-11 Crash Diagram and Appendix B for the crash data. SR-257/SR-745 (Dublin Road) Just southwest of the Scioto River, SR-257 connects to US-42 from the north and SR-745 connects with US-42 from the south at a skewed signalized intersection. Both routes are two-lane rural major collectors. The primary focus of these routes is to connect rural residential areas along the Scioto River to US-42 and the City of Dublin. Eight crashes occurred here between 2011 and 2013, only 13 percent of which result in injuries. Weather, road, lighting, and contour conditions did not play a role in the crashes at this location. All of the crashes occurred in clear and cloudy weather conditions and on dry, straight, level contours. Daylight accounted for 88 percent of the crashes. The most common crash type was rear end collisions at 75 percent. All of the rear end collisions occurred on US-42 and were split between directions. The total collisions, however, occurred primarily during the workweek (88 percent) and between the hours of 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM (75 percent). This would indicate an issue with traffic being backed up at the intersection during the evening peak hour commute. See Exhibit 4.11: SR-257/SR-745 Crash Diagram and Appendix B for the crash data. SR-257 (Riverside Drive)/CR-149 (Klondike Road) Just northeast of the Scioto River, SR-257 connects to US-42 from the south and CR-149 connects to US-42 from the north at a skewed signalized intersection. SR-257is a rural major collector at this location and extends south into the City of Dublin. CR-149 is a local road with numerous residential connections. Between 2011 and 2013, the intersection had ten crashes, 40 percent of which resulted in injuries. Six of the total crashes, or 60 percent, occurred in 2013, which was three times as many collisions as 2011 and 2012.


AUGUST 2015 54

Road, weather, and contour did not play a role in the crashes at this location. Clear and cloudy weather conditions with dry pavement accounted for 80 percent of the collisions. Nine of the crashes (90 percent) occurred on straight, level contour conditions. Daylight conditions, however, only accounted for 40 percent of the crashes. Dark, no light conditions were present for 30 percent of the collisions, while the remaining 30 percent occurred during dawn and dusk lighting. The prevalence of non-daylight conditions indicated a possible issue with lighting at this location. The most common crash type at this location was rear end collisions that accounted for half of the crashes. The second most common type was animal crashes at 40 percent. Animal crashes are typically removed prior to any crash analysis. Once animal crash types were removed from analysis, rear end collisions increased in percentages from 50 percent to 83 percent of the crashes. With no other crash patterns emerging from the rear end collisions, the crash pattern as this intersection indicates an issue with visibility and with traffic backups at the intersection. See Exhibit 4.12: SR-257/CR-149 Crash Diagram and Appendix B for the crash data. London Road London Road connects to US-42 from the north at a signalized intersection approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the City of Delaware corporation limit. Jegs Boulevard connects to US-42 from the south at this intersection, which serves JEGS Performance headquarters. The intersection is located within a horizontal curve. There were thirteen crashes at this location between 2011 and 2013, 15 percent of which resulted in injuries. Weather conditions are not applicable at this intersection. Clear and cloudy weather conditions accounted for 85 percent of the crashes. The most common crash types at this location were rear end and fixed object collisions at a combined 62 percent of the crashes. Both types accounted for four crashes each, or 31 percent of the crashes. Improper Backing crashes accounted for three of the crashes, or 23 percent as well. Those three types comprised the majority of the collisions, with a combined total of 85 percent of the total crashes. Wet road conditions may have contributed to the prevalence of those crash types, accounting for 46 percent or six of the crashes. Additionally, 62 percent of the crashes occurred during non-daylight conditions, and 31 percent of the crashes occurred on a horizontal curve. Three of the four fixed object collisions occurred on wet pavement, while two of the four crashes involved horizontal curvature. Additionally, 67 percent of the wet pavement crashes also occurred during non-daylight conditions. Wet pavement and unlighted conditions reduced the drivers visibility and traction which combined, created hazardous driving conditions around a horizontal curve. See Exhibit 4.13: London Road Crash Diagram and Appendix B for the crash data. 4.5 Multi-Modal Facilities Evaluation Multi-Modal interactions generally refer to a transportation system or a transportation facility where more than one mode of transportation is available. This summary encompasses modes of transportation in Madison County, Union County, and Delaware County. In addition to roadways and highways, these modes include: public use airports, freight and passenger railroad services, bus transit services, marine terminals and other water ports, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Table 4-5 identifies the resources reviewed to gather the multi-modal information

Table 4-5 - Multi-Modal Review Resources

Multi-Modal Review Resources Central Ohio Transit Agency (COTA) City of Delaware Bikeway Plan City of Delaware Comprehensive Plan City of Delaware Corridor Plan


AUGUST 2015 55

Table 4-5 - Multi-Modal Review Resources Multi-Modal Review Resources

City of Delaware Gateway & Corridor Plan Darby Township Comprehensive Plan Delaware County Delaware County Transit Agency (DATA) Greyhound Bus Jerome Township Comprehensive Plan Logan-Union-Champaign Regional Planning Commission Madison County Madison County Comprehensive Plan Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Mill Creek Township Zoning Plan Ohio Department of Transportation Bikeway and Trail Map Union County Union County Comprehensive Plan Village of Plain City Comprehensive Plan

Airports All three counties (Madison, Union, and Delaware) have county public airports. Madison County Airport is located north of the City of London. This airport is located outside the general project study area. Union County Airport is located near the city of Marysville and is outside the general project study area. Delaware Municipal Airport is located southwest of the City of Delaware and just north of US-42. This airport is located within the vicinity of the project study area and is shown on see Exhibit 4.14: Multi-Modal Facilities Map. The nearest commercial service airport is the Port Columbus International Airport and Rickenbacker International Airport that are located in the city of Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio. Freight and Passenger Railroads Currently there is no passenger rail that serves any of the counties or local communities within the project study area. There are two rail lines that intersect the study area. US-42 has an at-grade crossing with a CSX Transportation rail line north of Plain City, between Plain City and US-33, and US-42 crosses over a CSX Transportation rail line as it enters the City of Delaware (see Exhibit 4.14: Multi-Modal Facilities Map). Transit Madison County: Madison County is served by Madison County Ride, which provides door-to-door service with a fee and 24-hour notice. Madison County does not offer a fixed route service. In addition, the Madison County Veterans Service provides no-cost daily door-to-door transportation for veterans who have appointments at a VA medical facility. Union County: Union County is served by the Union County Agency Transportation Service (UCATS). UCATS provides transportation for seniors over 60 years of age, disabled individuals, and various agencies in Union County. Due to a lack of funding, UCATS is not able to provide public transportation. However, UCATS does provide public transportation to the general public when seats are available on their scheduled trips. Union County does not offer a fixed route service. Union County Veterans Service Office offers no-cost round-trip transportation for all Union County Veterans and their spouse or caregiver to any federal Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facility or VA-referred medical facility in the State of Ohio. In addition, Greyhound has one bus station in Marysville, Ohio that provides service to Greyhound bus stations around Ohio. Delaware County: Delaware County is served by the Delaware County Transit Agency (DATA), a publicly owned transit system. DATA’s transportation services include demand response and fixed


AUGUST 2015 56

route service with paratransit service available. DATA’s service area includes all of Delaware County and the northern portion of Franklin County. DATA also provides transportation service to medical facilities in other adjacent counties. DATA offers numerous fixed routes within the City of Delaware; however, no fixed route service is available specifically along US-42. DATA has one bus stop within the vicinity of the project study area that is located within the adjacent residential neighborhood see Exhibit 4.14: Multi-Modal Facilities Map). In addition to DATA, the Delaware County Veterans Service provides no-cost transportation for veterans who have appointments at the Veteran Affairs (VA) Outpatient Clinic in Columbus, Ohio. Central Ohio Transit Agency (COTA) also provides three fixed routes to the southern portions of Delaware County. DATA and COTA accept transfers between their fixed route systems. Marine Terminals and Other Water Ports There are no marine terminals or other water ports in Madison, Union, or Delaware Counties. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Madison County: There are two regional multi-use trails that connect Madison County with adjacent counties. The Heritage Trail runs south from CR-34, south of the Village of Plain City, to the city of Hilliard in Franklin County. The Village of Plain City Comprehensive Plan recommends connecting the Heritage Trail with the existing village path system. The second regional multi-use trail is the Ohio to Erie Trail that runs from Cincinnati through the City of London, Columbus, and ends in Cleveland. This trail runs along US-42 (Rail-to-Trail facility) into the City of London, runs along local streets within London, and connects back onto a rail-to-trail facility that heads toward Columbus. Neither regional trail is within the vicinity of the project study area. The City of London and the Village of Plain City both have localized bicycle facilities. As shown on Exhibit 4.14: Multi-Modal Facilities Map, there are no bikeways along this portion of US-42. A proposed bikeway route could cross US-42 within the Village of Plain City as the Heritage Trail is extended through the Village. The City of London and the Village of Plain City have localized pedestrian facilities that are focused on residential areas. Exhibit 4.14: Multi-Modal Facilities Map, shows areas with a greater density of sidewalk facilities. A portion of US-42, within Plain City, has a sidewalk on the east side of the roadway but there are large gaps with no sidewalks. Towards the more recently developed area within Plain City there are sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. The remaining portion of project study area within Madison County does not provide sidewalks or pedestrian crosswalks at any point along the project study area. Union County: Union County does not have any existing cross county regional bikeways, however, Union County does have two localized bikeway systems. These systems are located at the southeastern portion of the county and within the city of Marysville. The southeastern system is localized at Glacier Ridge Metro Park and the City of Dublin. This system connects to Delaware County and the larger bikeway system within Franklin County. There are no existing bicycle facilities along this portion of US-42 within Union County. There are proposals to extend the Heritage Trail from the Village of Plain City toward Marysville, Ohio. Specifically, The Jerome Township Comprehensive Plan (2008) states that the Heritage Trail extension into Village of Plain City and beyond would remove many of the bike riders from surface streets. Additionally, The Jerome Township Comprehensive Plan (2008) stated that The Union County 1999 Future Land Use Plan proposed three new bike routes including a new route along US-42 from the City of Delaware to Madison County, an extension of the Heritage Trail, and a third bike route along the proposed road that parallels US-33. All three of these bike routes would then either follow along or cross US-42. The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) did not include the proposed bike route along US-42 from the City of Delaware to Madison County on their bikeway GIS mapping. However, the MORPC Columbus Metro Bike Map shows the Bicycle Level-of-Service (BLOS) for a portion of US-42


AUGUST 2015 57

within Union County from the intersection of US-42 and North Chillicothe Street to the intersection of US-42 and Harriott Road as being rated as poor. The Village of Plain City, Jerome Township, and the City of Dublin have localized pedestrian facilities that are focused within residential areas. Exhibit 4.14: Multi-Modal Facilities Map shows areas with a greater density of sidewalk facilities. A portion of US-42 in the recently developed area within the Village of Plain City has sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. The remaining portion of US-42 within Union County does not provide sidewalks. Additionally, there are two marked pedestrian intersection crosswalks along the project study area within the Village of Plain City. The remaining route along US-42 does not provide pedestrian crossings in Union County. Delaware County: Delaware County does have existing regional bikeways that connect Marion County, Delaware County, and Franklin County. This regional connectivity is focused east of the City of Delaware and outside the project study area. Delaware County does have localized bicycle facilities that are focused within Delaware County cities. The nearest of these facilities to US-42 is within the City of Delaware. Exhibit 4.14: Multi-Modal Facilities Map shows a single existing bicycle facility crossing the project study area. This facility is a multi-use path that connects nearby residential neighborhoods with Ohio Wesleyan University. This facility runs underneath US-42. There is no direct connection from US-42 to the facility. There are proposed/future connections that would connect an existing multi-use path south of the City of Delaware that would cross US-42 near the intersection of US-42 and Slack Road. This route would end north of US-42 at South Section Line Road. The City of Delaware Bikeway Plan proposes future bikeway connections that would run along US-42, and intersect with US-42, within the project study area. The bikeway would run along US-42 from the intersection with South Section Line Road to the intersection of London Road and Liberty Road. The Bikeway Plan would also have a connecting route along Slack Road from the intersection of US-42 and Slack Road to the intersection Slack Road and Liberty Road. Additionally, MORPC has a planned bikeway route along US-42 from the intersection with Dublin Road to the intersection with London Road. These routes are shown on Exhibit 4.14: Multi-Modal Facilities Map. The City of Delaware has localized pedestrian facilities that are focused in residential areas. The portion of the project study area, within the City of Delaware, is within the vicinity of these localized sidewalks. Exhibit 4.14: Multi-Modal Facilities Map shows areas with a greater density of sidewalk facilities. Along US-42, there are no existing sidewalks or marked pedestrian crossings. 4.6 Summary This chapter analyzed the traffic and crash data in the study to determine deficiencies that should be addressed in the recommendations. A variety of areas were identified, from turn lanes to signal warrants to multi-modal facility incorporation. These results were used in the following chapters to develop the access management sections and their recommendations.


AUGUST 2015 58

5.0 | ACCESS MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT

The Project Team evaluated the information for the US-42 corridor detailed in the preceding chapters of this report to determine the functions of US-42 within the study area and identify the locations where the functions changed. The roadway was then divided into sections and Access Management Categories were assigned to each section that best fit their function. Then recommendations could be developed for each section that fit within the category standards and requirements. This chapter contains details on the US-42 sections, access management categories and standards, category assignments by section, and a full inventory of the access points in the corridor. 5.1 Study Area Sections Throughout the study area, US-42 has different functions and characteristics. Because of this, the US-42 corridor was divided into seven sections. Because each section functions differently, the sections were analyzed and evaluated separately in order to develop customized recommendations. See Exhibit 5.1 for the Corridor Section Locations. Sections were grouped together to incorporate similar areas. The sections were selected by factoring in roadway intersections, existing land uses, functions of US-42, and design and environmental factors, in addition to planned future development and land uses. Below are the sections, with descriptions: Section 1: London Southern Terminus (CR-135) to CR-104 (Madison County | 1.5 miles)

o Currently this section is mostly rural/agricultural with some low density residential and few access points. Future land uses and densities are projected to remain similar in this section.

Section 2: US-40/I-70 Interchanges CR-104 to SR-29 (Madison County | 3.4 miles)

o Currently this section has a variety of uses, from rural/agricultural to some residential, commercial, and industrial uses due to the presence of US-40 and I-70 and adjacent small community of Lafayette. The section contains the separated grade intersection of US-40/US-42 and the I-70/US-42 interchange. The village of West Jefferson is located one and one-half-mile to the southeast along SR-29 and I-70 and two miles to the east along US-40. In the future, properties in the US-42 corridor are projected to further develop into higher-intensity uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial uses with little to no remaining rural/agricultural uses due to their proximity and access to US-40 and I-70 and growth from the village of West Jefferson.

Section 3: I-70 to Plain City SR-29 to CR-30 (Madison County | 9.9 miles)

o Currently this section is mostly rural/agricultural with minimal development, containing some low density residential and a few schools, businesses, recreational areas, and churches. The small community of Gillivan is located at the crossroads of US-42 and CR-14, but it is not incorporated and does not include any delineated development areas. Future land uses and densities are projected to remain similar in this section.


AUGUST 2015 59

Section 4: Plain City CR-30 to SR-161 (Mason/Union Counties | 1.7 miles)

o Currently this section encompasses the northern and southern limits of Plain City and has a variety of land uses, from rural/agricultural to some residential, recreational, institutional, commercial, and industrial uses. This section is unique from the other sections in the corridor because US-42 travels through the middle of Plain City and thus serves as one of the main local thoroughfares (Jefferson Street). SR-161 also travels east-west through this section and through Plain City. Future land use in the city is projected to further develop into higher-intensity uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial uses with little to no remaining rural/agricultural uses.

Section 5: Plain City North SR-161 to SR-736 (Mason/Union Counties | 1.0 miles)

o Currently this section encompasses the undeveloped land on the north side of Plain City. Although the land is currently undeveloped, the future land use plan indicates substantial commercial and industrial growth for the entire area. US-42 is limited access in this section already. There are three curb cuts for intersecting roadways in place and no private drives, nor are any allowed in the future.

Section 6: US-33 Area SR-736 to CR-5 (Union/Delaware Counties | 12.0 miles)

o Currently this section is mostly rural/agricultural with minimal development, containing some low density residential, a few subdivisions, businesses, recreational areas, churches, a quarry, and the Scioto River. The US-33/US-42 interchange and an at-grade railroad crossing are located in this section along with the small communities of Arnold (near the railroad crossing and Railroad Street) and New California (near the US-42/CR-1 intersection). Neither community is incorporated, but they both include some residential subdivisions and other developed areas. The northwestern limits of the City of Dublin are located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of this section of the US-42 corridor. In the future, this section is expected to experience substantial residential and commercial growth due to the presence of the US-33/US-42 interchange and expanding outward growth from the Central Ohio area, with little to no rural/agricultural uses remaining.

Section 7: Delaware CR-5 to Northern Terminus (US-23) (Delaware County | 4.1 miles)

o Currently this section encompasses the portions of the City of Delaware within the study area and has a variety of uses, from rural/agricultural to residential, commercial, industrial uses in addition to a separated grade railroad crossing, the Delaware Municipal Airport, and an at-grade signalized intersection with US-23. In the future, the city is projected to further develop and expand into higher-intensity uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial uses with little to no remaining rural/agricultural uses.

5.2 Access Management Categories & Criteria Proper Access Management seeks to balance the goal of safe and efficient though-travel with the need to provide access to adjacent properties. An essential tool in determining how to best balance theses needs is the categorization of road types. Some roads, such as freeways and interstates, are intended primarily (or solely) for through travel, while others are intended primarily for local property access, such as local streets and suburban cul-de-sacs. US-42 falls in-between these two extremes, as it serves long-distance travelers as well as local residents and businesses. Furthermore, as future


AUGUST 2015 60

development changes land uses along the US-42 corridor, the use of the road (and therefore its category) may change as well. The categories, criteria, and typical standards used for this study were adapted from the Ohio Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual (Version 8-15-03). In the ODOT manual, each category includes detailed descriptions and characteristics of the function and operational standards of the roadways. A summary of the five categories is provided below: Category I: Interstate highway/freeway

o Designed for high volumes, high speeds, and long distance travel

Category II: Roadway of statewide importance (strategic or principal arterial)

o Designed for relatively high speeds, high volumes, long distances, through traffic for interstate, intercity, and some intra-city travel

Category III: Roadway of regional importance (other arterial)

o Designed for moderate to high speeds, volumes, and distances for inter-regional, intercity, and intra-city travel.

Category IV: District Roadway (Collector) o In rural areas, designed to provide access

and mobility at moderate to high speeds and volumes for moderate to short distances in rural areas; in urban areas designed to provide low to moderate speeds and volumes for intercity, intra-city, and intra-community travel.

Category V: Local Roadway o Designed to provide local land access.

5.3 Typical Standards

For each of the above categories, typical standards have been developed from the ODOT Access Management manual for this project, including:

Operational standards

Access spacing criteria

Driveway dimensions

Median types 5.3.1 Operational Standards Based on US-42’s ODOT functional class designation of rural minor arterial and from the descriptions and information in the table below, the US-42 corridor in the study area falls primarily into two categories - Categories II and III, with a short section through Plain City operating within Category IV (highlighted in Table 5-1 below). Therefore, these are the three categories that will be utilized for this project.


AUGUST 2015 61

Table 5-1 - Roadway Functional Class Designation

Cat. Roadway Type Travel* Priority Speed Median Public

Access Private Access Volumes

I Interstates/ Freeways Long Mobility High

>55 mph Non-

traversable Interchange None High

II Strategic/ Principal Arterials

Long Mobility High >45/50 mph Varies

Interchange or

Intersection

None, unless no other reasonable

alternative High

III

Rural Arterials, Urban Arterials, Urban Collectors

Moderate to Long Mobility Mod to High

>35/45 mph Any Interchange

or Intersection

High/medium volumes drives

allowed

Moderate to High

IV

Rural Collectors

Moderate to Short

Access & Mobility

Mod to High, 35-55 mph

Any Intersection 1 per parcel;

preferred local street connection

Moderate to High

Urban Arterials & Collectors

Low to Mod, 25-45 mph

Low to Moderate

V Lcal Roadway Short Access Low Any Intersection 1 per parcel Low

*Travel: Long Distance: inter-state, intra-state, inter-regional, and inter-city Moderate Distance: inter-city and intra-city Short: intra-city, intra-community

5.3.2 Access Spacing Criteria Within ODOT’s Access Management Manual, access spacing criteria are provided for each category based on a varied set of conditions, which are shown below for the three relevant access categories. Please note that within Categories III and IV, there are “High Emphasis Access Management” standards and “Low Emphasis Access Management” standards in ODOT’s manual. Due to the focus and goals of this project and the future growth anticipated in this area, the “High Emphasis Access Management” standards were selected for the access spacing criteria below, which have a higher level of protection and access management. Category II/Principal Arterials: Interchanges: permitted, one-mile minimum spacing

(preferred - rural: eight miles, suburban: four miles, urban: two miles) Intersections: permitted, one-mile spacing; turn lanes required Driveways: preferred no access; permitted only if no other reasonable access exists Medians: traffic-dependent:

o Five-lane sections: non-traversable median preferred o Three-lane sections: TWLTL or non-traversable median, depending on land

uses, safety, speed and turning volumes o Two-lane sections: no median, to allow for passing, except at intersections

where turn lanes may be added Category III/Rural Arterials: Interchanges: permitted, one-mile minimum spacing

(preferred - rural: eight miles, suburban: four miles, urban: two miles) Intersections: permitted, one-mile spacing; turn lanes if needed Driveways: varies by driveway volume (driveways defined in below table)

o Permitted for high volume drives; signal if warranted; 0.50-mile spacing o Permitted for medium volume drives; stop-controlled right-in/right-out;

spacing requirement based on speed limit (see below table)


AUGUST 2015 62

o Preferred no access for low volume drives or minimum use drives; permitted only if no other reasonable access exists

Category IV/Collectors: Interchanges: not used Intersections: permitted, one-mile spacing; turn lanes if needed Driveways: varies by driveway volume (driveways defined in below table)

o Permitted for high volume drives; signal if warranted; 0.25-mile spacing o Permitted for medium volume drives; stop-controlled; full access based on

mainline lanes and median; spacing requirement 360 ft to 495 ft based on speed limit (see below table)

o Preferred no access for low volume drives; permitted only if no other reasonable access exists

o Permitted for minimum use drives; stop-controlled; full access based on safety; spacing requirement based on speed limit (see below table)

Table 5-2 - Category II & IV Driveway Spacing (Not for High-Volume Drives)*

Posted Speed Minimum Distance 25 mph 155 ft 30 mph 200 ft 35 mph 250 ft 40 mph 305 ft 45 mph 360 ft 50 mph 425 ft 55 mph 495 ft 60 mph 570 ft 65 mph 645 ft

*ODOT Access Management Manual

Table 5-3 - Driveway Types

Category Peak Hour Trip Ends Examples

Minimum Use <5 single family

residence, field drives

Low Volume 5-100

general office building, car

dealership, day-care

Medium Volume 100-200 bank,

gas station

High Volume >200 fast food, grocery store

5.3.3 Driveway Dimensions Based on the land use (single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, farm/field, and industrial/retail) and the intersecting angle (70°-90°), allowable driveway dimensions vary, see Table 5-4.

Table 5-4 - Recommended Basic Driveway Dimension Guidelines*

Type Farm/Field Residential Commercial Industrial/ Retail

Single-Unit Truck Passenger Vehicle Single-Unit Truck (WB=30’)

Semi-Trailer (WB=50’)

Min (ft) Max (ft) Min (ft) Max (ft) Min (ft) Max (ft) Min (ft) Max (ft)

One-Way - - 12 14 14 20 14 26

Two-Way 14 20 12 24 26 32 26 38

Right-Turn Radius 25 35 15 25 25 35 35 75

*ODOT Access Management Manual


AUGUST 2015 63

These dimension guidelines will be used to evaluate existing driveways to assess any recommended changes. In addition, they should be followed when considering placement and design of future driveways. 5.3.4 Median Types Medians are an important consideration in an access management study because they control left-turn movements. Left turns increase vehicular conflicts as well as conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists, causing increased collisions, delay, and complicated signal timing. Therefore, medians have a substantial impact on roadway operations and safety. There are four major median types that will be considered as part of this study: Undivided Roadway

There is no control of or refuge for turning vehicles and/or crossing vehicles.

Two-Way Left Turn Lane A continuous center lane, level with the travel lanes, that serves as a refuge for left-turning vehicles in both directions. Pros and cons include:

o Effective for improving traffic flow on two-lane and four-lane undivided roads.

o Generally safer than undivided roads, with crash rates that are about 35 percent lower.

o Increases capacity as compared to undivided roads.

o Reduces delay as compared to undivided roads. o Does not provide the safety benefits of a non-traversable median. o Can result in overlapping left-turn movements. o Can accommodate rather than discourage numerous access points. o Do not provide for pedestrian refuges.

Most appropriate for the following conditions:

o Roads in urban/suburban areas with an ADT <24,000. o Collectors in developing residential areas where residences directly access the

collector. o Collectors in developing suburban areas where direct access is needed to small

abutting parcels. o Collectors in developed urban/suburban areas where there is no crash pattern that is

correctable by a nontraversable median.

Traversable Median A paved median that is level with the travel lanes; It is not intended to be crossed but it does not actively restrict left-turns or crossing movements (Example: painted median). Pros and cons include:

o Lower cost than construction of a nontraversable median; easier for


AUGUST 2015 64

snow removal than a nontraversable median. o Does not provide positive control over lefts turns; as a result this option is not

recommended in this study.

Nontraversable Median A depressed or raised median, of various materials or treatments, that actively restricts crossing and turning movements (Examples: concrete barrier or landscaped island). Pros and cons include:

o They physically separate vehicles traveling in opposite directions and can be designed to greatly reduce the potential for head-on collisions.

o Locations where left-turns are and are not permitted are clearly identifiable by drivers.

o Preventing left-turns in the travel lane reduces delay and crash potential and improves traffic operations.

o The number of left-turn conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists is reduced, and the median can also serve as a refuge for pedestrians crossing the road.

o The access to and from parcels adjacent to the main road is limited. o On high-speed roadways, a buffer between the travel lanes and the edge of the

median is required for safety purposes. o They prevent passing of slower vehicles on the opposing side of the roadway.

Most appropriate for the following conditions:

o All new multilane urban arterials o Existing multilane urban arterial with ADT > 24,000 o Rural multilane roadways o Bypasses o Roadways of aesthetic concern o Multilane roadways with a high number of pedestrians o High crash locations where crashes are correctable by a nontraversable median

5.4 Category Assignments As discussed in the Transportation Analysis Chapter, the US-42 corridor in the study area was grouped into seven sections. Based on the transportation analysis, the Project Team assigned access management categories to each section (Table 5-5).


AUGUST 2015 65

Table 5-5 - Access Management Category by Roadway Section

Section Name Termini Access

Management Category

Lanes & Medians

Log Points

1 London Section

Southern Terminus (CR-135) to CR-104

III | Rural Arterial 3 Lanes TWLTL

Madison County: 9.19 to 10.65

2 US-40/I-70 Section CR-104 to SR-29 II | Principal Arterial

3 Lanes Median

Int. Turn Lanes


3 I-70 to Plain City Section SR-29 toCR-30 III | Rural Arterial

2 Lanes No Median

Int. Turn Lanes


4 Plain City Section CR-30 to SR-161 IV | Collector 3 Lanes

TWLTL

Madison County: 23.90 to 25.50 &

Union County: 0.00 to 0.11

5 Plain City North Section

SR-161 to SR-736 II | Principal Arterial 3 Lanes Median

Int. Turn Lanes


6 US-33 Area Section SR-736 to CR-19 II | Principal Arterial

3/5 Lanes TWLTL/Median Int. Turn Lanes


Delaware County: 0.00 to 3.23

7 Delaware Section

CR-5 to Northern Terminus (US-23) II | Principal Arterial 3 Lanes

TWLTL Delaware County:

3.23 to 7.29

Section 1 | London Section: Category III Limits: Southern Terminus (CR-135) to CR-104, Madison County: Log Point 9.19 to 10.65 Access Management Category III was selected for this section. A Category III road is designed for moderate to high speeds, volumes, and distances for inter-regional, intercity, and intra-city travel. It prioritizes mobility over access but allows for any type of median treatment and permits direct access to high and medium volume private drives.

Due to the function of this section, the projected land uses of a mix of rural and low-density residential, and the proximity to the City of London, it is appropriate to allow for left turn access into the properties via a two-way left turn lane (TWLTL). New access points, including roadways and private driveways, should adhere to the spacing and dimension standards for this category of roadway. Section 2 | US-40/I-70 Section, Category II Limits: CR-104 to SR-29, Madison County: Log Point 10.65 to 14.02 Access Management Category II was selected for this section. A Category II road is designed for relatively high speeds, high volumes, long distances, through traffic for interstate, intercity, and some intra-city travel. It prioritizes mobility over access, and does not permit private driveway access. Median requirements vary based on traffic volumes, safety, and land uses.


AUGUST 2015 66

Category II was selected so that this high-demand commercial/industrial section, that includes the I-70/US-42 and US-40/US-42 interchanges, continues to function efficiently as the land uses expand and increase in intensity of use. It is recommended to construct traversable or non-traversable medians with turn lanes at intersections, limit turning vehicles to intersections, and limit private driveway access to side roads. New access points, including roadways and private driveways, should adhere to the spacing and dimension standards for this category of roadway.

Section 3 | I-70 to Plain City Section: SR-29 to CR-30, Category III Limits: CR-104 to SR-29, Madison County: Log Point 14.02 to 23.90 Access Management Category III was selected for this section. A Category III road is designed for moderate to high speeds, volumes, and distances for inter-regional, intercity, and intra-city travel. It prioritizes mobility over access but allows for any type of median treatment and permits direct access to high and medium volume private drives.

Due to the function of this section, low projected traffic volumes, and future land uses of minimal to low density, it is appropriate to maintain the two-lane section with widening at intersections for turn lanes where warranted. If in the future the low projected traffic volumes change to higher numbers, then a three-lane section that allows left turn access into the properties via a TWLTL should be considered. New access points, including roadways and private driveways, should adhere to the spacing and dimension standards for this category of roadway.

Section 4 | Plain City Section, Category IV Limits: CR-30 to SR-161, Madison County: Log Point 23.90 to 25.50 & Union County: Log Point 0.00 to 0.11 Access Management Category IV was selected for this section. A Category IV road is designed to provide low to moderate speeds and volumes for intercity, intra-city, and intra-community travel in urban areas. It balances access and mobility, allows for any type of median treatment, and permits one direct private access per parcel.

Due to the function of this section as a main thoroughfare through Plain City, it is appropriate to allow for left turn access into the properties via a TWLTL with turn lanes at intersections. New access points, including roadways and private driveways, should adhere to the spacing and dimension standards for this category of roadway.

Section 5 | Plain City North Section, Category II Limits: SR-161 to SR-736, Union County: Log Point 0.11 to 1.13 Access Management Category II was selected for this section. A Category II road is designed for relatively high speeds, high volumes, long distances, through traffic for interstate, intercity, and some intra-city travel. It prioritizes mobility over access and does not permit private driveway access. Median requirements vary based on traffic volumes, safety, and land uses.

Due to the planned function of this section as a bypass of Plain City and the already-existing limited access right-of-way, it is appropriate to classify this section in Category II. New access points, including roadways and private driveways, should adhere to the spacing and dimension standards for this category of roadway.

Section 6 | US-33 Area Section, Category II Limits: SR-736 to CR-17, Union County: Log Point 1.13 to 9.89 and Delaware County: Log Point 0.00 to 3.23 Access Management Category II was selected for this section. A Category II road is designed for relatively high speeds, high volumes, long distances, through traffic for interstate, intercity, and some intra-city travel. It prioritizes mobility over access, and does not permit private driveway access. Median requirements vary based on traffic volumes, safety, and land uses.


AUGUST 2015 67

Based on future land use projections, this entire 12-mile length of US-42 will develop into residential, commercial, and some industrial uses, with little to no rural undeveloped areas remaining. The highest intensity of development will be centered around the US-33/US-42 interchange, but other commercial and industrial development is also expected throughout this area. As a result, this area will experience development but at varying levels of traffic volumes, so specific lane and median recommendations were sub-divided within this section:

1. South of US-33: SR-736 to CR-1 (Industrial Parkway) This area is projected to develop into primarily residential uses, so a three-lane section with a TWLTL is recommended for this sub-section.

2. US-33 Interchange: CR-1 to CR-19 (Bell/Wells Road) This area is projected to develop intensely into commercial and industrial uses with high traffic volumes, so a five-lane section with a non-traversable median and turn lanes at intersections is recommended for this sub-section.

3. North of US-33: CR-19 to CR-104 (Watkins Road) This area is projected to develop into a mix of commercial and residential uses. Depending on the rate of development, a three or five-lane section would be appropriate. The three-lane option should include a TWLTL and the five-lane option should include a traversable or non-traversable median with intersection turn lanes.

4. SR-745/SR-257/Scioto River Area: CR-104 to CR-5 (Section Line Road) This area is projected to develop into primarily residential uses, so a three-lane section with a TWLTL is recommended for this sub-section.

For the entire section, new access points, including roadways and private driveways, should adhere to the spacing and dimension standards for this category of roadway.

Section 7 | Delaware Section, Category II Limits: CR-5 to Northern Terminus (US-23), Delaware County: Log Point 3.23 to 7.29 Access Management Category II was selected for this section. A Category II road is designed for relatively high speeds, high volumes, long distances, through traffic for interstate, intercity, and some intra-city travel. It prioritizes mobility over access, and does not permit private driveway access. Median requirements vary based on traffic volumes, safety, and land uses. This area is projected to develop into a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Therefore, a three-lane section with a TWLTL is appropriate for this section. New access points, including roadways and private driveways, should adhere to the spacing and dimension standards for this category of roadway. 5.5 Access Point Inventory This inventory itemizes the access points in the US-42 corridor’s study area. The purpose of the inventory is to understand in detail the quantity of access points and their details in order to develop recommendations in the appropriate context. Appendix D contains the access inventory data. 5.5.1 Study Area and Counties As shown in Figure 5-1, the portion of the US-42 corridor in the study area is 33 miles long and contains 567 access points, averaging 17 access points per mile. Access types include 23 signalized intersections, 59 unsignalized intersections, 360 private driveways, and 125 field


AUGUST 2015 68

driveways (for farming, utility access, etc.), in addition to three interchanges. The below chart shows that most of the access points are private driveways (86 percent) with the remaining access points classified as unsignalized (10 percent) and signalized (four percent) intersections.

Figure 5-1 – Study Area Access Points

With the access inventory data grouped by county, the information in Figure 5-2 below shows that most of the access points in each county are private driveways, ranging from 79 percent to 89 percent; followed by unsignalized intersections, ranging from five percent to 17 percent; and then the remainder were signalized intersections, ranging from two percent to ten percent.

Figure 5-2 - Access Points by Type (Percentage)

Because US-42 travels through each county for a different length, the access point densities were calculated on a per mile basis to allow for more balanced comparisons. As can be seen in Figure 5-3, when the access points were equally spread out over total length, Madison County had the most access points (19 per mile) and Union County had the fewest access points (15 per mile). Madison County had the most private driveways (17 per mile) and fewest signalized intersections (less than one for every two miles); Union County had the fewest private driveways (12 per mile) and the most unsignalized intersections (2.5 per mile); and Delaware had the most signalized intersections (1.5 per mile).

Study Area Madison Union Delaware

Field Drive 125 72 31 22Private Drive 360 196 89 75Unsignalized Intersection 59 28 25 6Signalized Intersection 23 6 6 11Total Access Points 567 302 151 114

Length (miles) 33.5 16.4 9.9 7.2Drives / Mile 14.5 16.3 12.1 13.5Unsignalized Intersections / Mile 1.8 1.7 2.5 0.8Signalized Intersections / Mile 0.7 0.4 0.6 1.5Total Accesses / Mile 16.9 18.4 15.3 15.8


AUGUST 2015 69

Figure 5-3 - Access Points per Mile

5.5.2 Sections Overview As shown in Table 5-6 below, each section included a wide range of access points. Section 5 had the fewest (seven) and Section 6 had the most (203).

Table 5-6 - Access Points by Section

Each section included a varying length of US-42, ranging from 1.0 mile to 12.0 miles, so the access point information was divided equally over the length of each section to provide for more balanced comparisons. As shown in Table 5-6, Section 5 (Plain City North) had the shortest length, fewest access points (seven), and lowest access point density (6.9) since the entire section is limited access. Section 1 (London) had the second fewest access points (41); however, its short length resulted in the highest access point density of all of the sections (28.1 per mile). Section 4 (Plain City) had the second highest access point density (26.9 per mile). Section 7 (Delaware) had the second lowest access point density (12.3 per mile) for similar reasons to Section 5 – part of this

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Section 1London

Section 2US-40 /

I-70

Section 3I-70 to

Plain City

Section 4Plain City

Section 5Plain City

North

Section 6US-33 Area

Section 7Delaware

Field Drive 8 10 48 6 3 36 14

Private Drive 28 39 100 31 0 137 25

Unsignalized Int. 5 7 10 7 4 22 4

Signalized Int. 0 6 0 2 0 8 7

Total Access Points 41 62 158 46 7 203 50

Length (miles) 1.5 3.4 9.9 1.7 1.0 12.0 4.1

Drives / Mile 24.7 14.5 15.0 21.6 2.9 14.4 9.6

Unsignalized Int. / Mile 3.4 2.1 1.0 4.1 3.9 1.8 1.0

Signalized Int. / Mile 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7 1.7

Total Accesses / Mile 28.1 18.4 16.0 26.9 6.9 16.9 12.3


AUGUST 2015 70

section has limited access right-of-way. As shown in Figure 5-4 below, both Section 4 (Plain City) and Section 1 (London) had access point densities in the upper twenties, which were much higher than the rest of the corridor. Section 4’s densities are due to its high number of private driveways and unsignalized intersections, which is appropriate for the center of a community. Section 1’s high densities are a result of a high number private driveways and unsignalized intersections – although this section is not located within a community, it is near the City of London. Sections 5 (Plain City North) and Section 7 (Delaware) had access point densities near ten or below, which were much lower than the rest of the corridor. These low densities were mostly a result of the limited access areas located within their sections.

Figure 5-4 - Access Points per Mile by Section

In summary, the study area-level, county-level, and section-level comparison evaluations above provided a high-level overview to assist in the development of an accurate access inventory in the US-42 corridor. Next, a more detailed investigation was performed at the section-level for each section. The section-level evaluations below include identification and measurement of access point types and locations; median types and locations; and access point spacing and dimensions for driveways, intersections, and interchanges. 5.5.3 Section 1: London Section Inventory (Category III) This southern-most section of the US-42 corridor in the study area is 1.5 miles in length and contains 41 access points, an average of 28 per mile, which is much higher than the study area average of 17 per mile. Of these access points, zero (0 percent) are signalized intersections, five (12 percent) are unsignalized, and 36 (88 percent) are driveways. This section has the highest access point density in the corridor. A painted median is present on either side of the US-42/Old US-42 SE intersection, but the remainder of the section does not have a median. See Exhibit 5.2: Section 1 Details Map for access details. All of the intersections in this section are unsignalized T-intersections. As can be seen in Table 5-7, none of the intersections meet the 1.0-mile spacing criteria in this section, and CR-135 is the only road that meets the one-half-mile spacing criteria.


AUGUST 2015 71

Table 5-7 - Intersections in Section 1

The private driveways in this section include residential, commercial, and field drives. When compared with the recommended basic driveway dimension guidelines established in the ODOT Access Management Manual, 31 (86 percent) have widths in excess of the maximum width and the remaining five (14 percent) fall within the acceptable dimensions. In addition, when evaluated for driveway spacing criteria, 32 (89 percent) did not meet the minimum spacing requirements. 5.5.4 Section 2: US-40/I-70 Section Inventory (Category II) This section of the US-42 corridor in the study area is 3.4 miles in length and contains 62 access points, an average of 18 per mile, which approximately matches the study area average. Of these access points, six (ten percent) are signalized intersections, seven (11 percent) are unsignalized, and 49 (79 percent) are driveways. There are a variety of medians present in this section, including a combination of painted/raised channelizing islands at the US-40/US-42 ramps and a mixture of painted medians and jersey barriers at the I-70/US-40 interchange. See Exhibit 5.3: Section 2 Details Map for access details. The intersections in this section include signalized full-movement intersections, unsignalized full-movement intersections, and unsignalized T-intersections. As can be seen in, Table 5-8, only one of the intersections meet the one-mile spacing criteria in this section, and only the northern I-70 signalized intersection and the SR-29 intersection meet the one-half-mile spacing criteria.


The private driveways in this section include residential, commercial, utility drives, and field drives. When compared with the recommended basic driveway dimension guidelines established in the ODOT Access Management Manual, only seven (14 percent) fall within the acceptable dimensions. Two (four percent) have widths that are below the minimum width, while the remaining 40 (82 percent) have widths in excess of the maximum width. When evaluated for driveway spacing criteria, the large majority of driveways, 39 (80 percent) did not meet the minimum spacing requirements.

ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion1 Unsignalized T Int CR-135 west 0.70 Only allowable if no alt access

16 Unsignalized T Int CR-71 east 0.28 Not Permitted19 Unsignalized T Int Spring Valley MHP east 0.03 Not Permitted20 Unsignalized T Int Spring Valley MHP east 0.24 Not Permitted38 Unsignalized T Int US-42 SE west 0.34 Not Permitted

ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion42 Unsignalized Int CR-104 west 0.29 Not Permitted43 Unsignalized Int CR-104 east 0.29 Not Permitted49 Unsignalized T Int US-40 Ramp east 0.19 Not Permitted50 Unsignalized T Int US-40 Ramp east 0.07 Not Permitted51 Unsignalized T Int US-40 Ramp west 0.20 Not Permitted52 Unsignalized T Int US-40 Ramp west 1.30 Full Intersection Permitted79 Unsignalized T Int I-70 Ramp east 0.08 Not Permitted80 Signalized Int I-70 Ramp east 0.23 Not Permitted81 Signalized Int I-70 Ramp west 0.23 Not Permitted82 Signalized Int I-70 Ramp east 0.87 Only allowable if no alt access83 Signalized Int I-70 Ramp west 0.87 Only allowable if no alt access98 Signalized Int SR-29 west 0.84 Only allowable if no alt access99 Signalized Int SR-29 east 0.84 Only allowable if no alt access


AUGUST 2015 72

5.5.5 Section 3: I-70 to Plain City Section Inventory (Category III) This section of the US-42 corridor in the study area is 9.9 miles in length and contains 158 access points, an average of 16 per mile, which is near the study area average. Of these access points, the vast majority are driveways (148, 94 percent). None of the access points are signalized intersections, and the remaining ten (six percent) are unsignalized. A painted median is present on either side of the US-42/CR-36 intersection but medians are not present at any other locations in this section. See Exhibit 5.4: Section 3 Details Map for access details. The intersections in this section include unsignalized full-movement intersections and unsignalized T-intersections. As can be seen in Table 5-9, four of the intersections meet the one-mile spacing criteria in this section, two meet the one-half-mile spacing criteria, and the other two intersections do not meet the spacing criteria.


The private driveways in this section include residential, commercial, school, farm, park, utility drives and field drives. When compared with the recommended basic driveway dimension guidelines in the ODOT Access Management Manual, approximately 25 percent of the driveways (36) fall within the acceptable dimensions. Of the remaining driveways, 12 (eight percent) have widths that are below the minimum width and 100 (68 percent) have widths in excess of the maximum width. When evaluated for driveway spacing criteria, 120 (81 percent) did not meet the minimum spacing requirements. 5.5.6 Section 4: Plain City Section Inventory (Category IV) This section of the US-42 corridor in the study area is 1.7 miles in length and contains 46 access points, an average of 27 per mile. Of these access points, two (four percent) are signalized intersections, seven (15 percent) are unsignalized, and 37 (80 percent) are driveways. This section has the second highest access point density in the study area. A painted median is present on either side of the US-42/SR-161 intersection. See Exhibit 5.5: Section 4 Details Map for access details. The intersections in this section include signalized full-movement intersections, unsignalized full-movement intersections, and unsignalized T-intersections. As can be seen in Table 5-10, two of the intersections meet the one-mile spacing criteria in this section, and one meets the one-half-mile spacing criteria.

ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion112 Unsignalized T Int CR-137 east 1.21 Full Intersection Permitted142 Unsignalized Int CR-14 west 2.42 Full Intersection Permitted143 Unsignalized Int CR-14 east 2.42 Full Intersection Permitted183 Unsignalized T Int CR-45 east 0.39 Not Permitted192 Unsignalized T Int CR-31 west 0.42 Not Permitted198 Unsignalized T Int CR-44 east 1.40 Full Intersection Permitted217 Unsignalized Int CR-32 east 1.51 Full Intersection Permitted218 Unsignalized Int CR-32 west 1.51 Full Intersection Permitted239 Unsignalized T Int CR-33 west 0.71 Only allowable if no alt access252 Unsignalized Int CR-36 east 0.76 Only allowable if no alt access


AUGUST 2015 73


The private driveways in this section include residential, commercial, farm, utility drives and field drives. When compared with the recommended basic driveway dimension guidelines established in the ODOT Access Management Manual, 11 (30 percent) fall within the acceptable dimensions while two (five percent) have widths that are below the minimum width, and 24 (65 percent) have widths in excess of the maximum width. When evaluated for driveway spacing criteria, 34 (92 percent) did not meet the minimum spacing requirements. 5.5.7 Section 5: Plain City North Section Inventory (Category IV) This section of the US-42 corridor in the study area is 1.0 mile in length and contains seven access points, an average of seven per mile. Of these access points, zero are signalized intersections, four (57 percent) are unsignalized, and three (43 percent) are driveways. This section has the lowest access point density in the study area. A painted median is present throughout the length of this section. See Exhibit 5.6: Section 5 Details Map for access details. The intersections in this section include unsignalized full-movement intersections and unsignalized T-intersections. As can be seen in Table 5-11, none of the intersections meet the one-mile or one-half-miles spacing criteria in this section.


The three driveways in this section are currently all field drives. When compared with the recommended basic driveway dimension guidelines established in the ODOT Access Management Manual, all of them have widths in excess of the maximum width, but all of them meet the minimum spacing requirements. It is important to note that these field drives are expected to turn into roadways as this area develops, which is why they are wider than typically driveways – one access point lines up with the North Chillicothe Street roadway, and the other two are in line with each other on either side of US-42, just to the south of North Chillicothe Street. 5.5.8 Section 6: US-33 Area Section Inventory (Category II) This section of the US-42 corridor in the study area is 12.0 miles in length and contains 203 access points, an average of 17 per mile, which approximately matches the average access point density for the study area. Of these access points, eight (four percent) are signalized intersections, 22 (11 percent) are unsignalized, and 173 (85 percent) are driveways. A median is present at the US-33/US-42 interchange and is a combination of painted, grassy, and raised concrete materials. See Exhibit 5.7: Section 6 Details Map for access details.

ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion261 Unsignalized T Int CR-30 West west 0.15 Not Permitted266 Unsignalized T Int CR-30 West east 0.72 Full Intersection Permitted276 Unsignalized T Int Alcott Drive east 0.20 Not Permitted284 Unsignalized Int Village Drive west 0.11 Not Permitted287 Unsignalized Int CR-40 west 0.38 Only allowable if no alt access288 Unsignalized Int CR-40 east 0.38 Only allowable if no alt access305 Unsignalized T Int Carlyle Avenue east 0.06 Not Permitted306 Signalized Int SR-161 west 0.59 Full Intersection Permitted307 Signalized Int SR-161 east 0.59 Full Intersection Permitted

ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion308 Unsignalized Int N Chillicothe Street east 0.17 Not Permitted309 Unsignalized T Int Rickard Road east 0.26 Not Permitted310 Unsignalized Int CR-20 east 0.26 Not Permitted311 Unsignalized T Int SR-736 west 0.26 Not Permitted


AUGUST 2015 74

The intersections in this section include signalized full-movement intersections, unsignalized full-movement intersections, and unsignalized T-intersections. As can be seen in Table 5-12, two of the intersections meet the 1.0-mile spacing criteria in this section, and 12 meet the 0.5-mile spacing criteria.


The private driveways in this section include residential, commercial, farm, utility drives and field drives. When compared with the recommended basic driveway dimension guidelines established in the ODOT Access Management Manual, 42 (24 percent) fall within the acceptable dimensions, 18 (ten percent) have widths that are below the minimum width, and 42 (24 percent) have widths in excess of the maximum width. When evaluated for driveway spacing criteria, 132 (76 percent) did not meet the minimum spacing requirements. 5.5.9 Section 7: Delaware Section Inventory (Category II) This northernmost section of the US-42 corridor in the study area is 4.1 miles in length and contains 50 access points, an average of 12 per mile, the second-lowest access point density in the study area. Of these access points, seven (14 percent) are signalized intersections, four (eight percent) are unsignalized, and 39 (78 percent) are driveways. Medians are present in two areas of this section. This first is a combination of painted and raised concrete median located on either side of the US-42/London Road/Jegs Boulevard intersection, and the second is a combination of painted

ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion316 Unsignalized T Int CR-12 east 0.73 Only allowable if no alt access329 Unsignalized T Int CR-31 west 0.50 Only allowable if no alt access335 Unsignalized T Int CR-29 west 0.26 Not Permitted343 Unsignalized T Int Railroad Street west 0.07 Not Permitted344 Unsignalized T Int North Street west 0.07 Not Permitted345 Unsignalized T Int CR-8 east 0.57 Only allowable if no alt access354 Unsignalized T Int CR-28 west 0.32 Not Permitted359 Unsignalized T Int CR-28 west 0.26 Not Permitted364 Signalized Int CR-1 east 0.33 Not Permitted365 Signalized Int CR-1 west 0.33 Not Permitted375 Unsignalized T Int US-33 Ramp east 0.18 Not Permitted376 Unsignalized T Int US-33 Ramp west 0.18 Not Permitted377 Unsignalized T Int US-33 Ramp east 0.16 Not Permitted378 Unsignalized T Int US-33 Ramp west 0.16 Not Permitted380 Unsignalized T Int CR-22 west 0.85 Only allowable if no alt access394 Unsignalized Int CR-19/CR-17 east 1.90 Full Intersection Permitted395 Unsignalized Int CR-19/CR-17 west 1.90 Full Intersection Permitted418 Unsignalized Int CR-18 west 0.74 Only allowable if no alt access419 Unsignalized Int CR-18 east 0.74 Only allowable if no alt access431 Unsignalized Int CR-11 east 0.98 Only allowable if no alt access432 Unsignalized Int CR-11 west 0.98 Only allowable if no alt access442 Signalized Int CR-104 east 0.79 Only allowable if no alt access443 Signalized Int CR-104 west 0.79 Only allowable if no alt access448 Unsignalized T Int CR-93 west 0.53 Only allowable if no alt access457 Unsignalized T Int CR-129 east 1.31 Full Intersection Permitted486 Signalized Int SR-745/Dublin Road east 0.57 Only allowable if no alt access487 Signalized Int SR-257 west 0.57 Only allowable if no alt access491 Signalized Int SR-257/Riverside Drive east 0.95 Only allowable if no alt access492 Signalized Int CR-149 west 0.95 Only allowable if no alt access514 Unsignalized T Int CR-143 west 0.18 Not Permitted


AUGUST 2015 75

and grassy medians at the US-23/US-42 intersection. See Exhibit 5.8: Section 7 Details Map for access details. The intersections in this section include signalized full-movement intersections, signalized T-intersections, unsignalized full-movement intersections, and unsignalized T-intersections. As can be seen in Table 5-13, two of the intersections meet the one-mile spacing criteria in this section, and three meet the one-half-mile spacing criteria.


The private driveways in this section include residential, commercial, farm, and field drives. When compared with the recommended basic driveway dimension guidelines established in the ODOT Access Management Manual, six (15 percent) fall within the acceptable dimensions, while five (13 percent) have widths that are below the minimum width, and the remaining 28 (72 percent) have widths in excess of the maximum width. When evaluated for driveway spacing criteria, 27 (69 percent) did not meet the minimum spacing requirements. 5.5.10 Interchange Spacing There are three interchanges located within the study area – US-40/US-42 separated-grade intersection, I-70/US-42 diamond interchange, and US-33/US-42 diamond interchange (see Exhibit 5.9: Interchange Locations Map). The spacing between US-40 and I-70 is 1.75 miles, and the spacing between I-70 and US-33 is 16.75 miles. Located two miles to the south of US-40 is the City of London, and 9.5 miles to the north on US-33 is the City of Delaware. Based on the guidelines in the ODOT Access Management Manual, interchange spacing of eight miles is recommended in rural areas, with a minimum of one-mile spacing. Therefore, only one additional interchange could be located in the corridor part-way between I-70 and US-33 if the eight-mile spacing guidelines are observed. 5.6 Summary This chapter was the final chapter in creating baseline information and standards prior to developing recommendations. The information creating in this chapter was informed by preceding chapters and served as the basis and structure for the recommendations in the next chapter.

ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion523 Signalized Int CR-5 east 1.25 Full Intersection Permitted524 Signalized Int CR-5 west 1.25 Full Intersection Permitted546 Unsignalized T Int CR-142 east 0.52 Only allowable if no alt access551 Unsignalized Int Slack Road west 0.63 Only allowable if no alt access558 Signalized Int Jegs Boulevard west 1.04 Full Intersection Permitted559 Signalized Int London Road east 1.04 Full Intersection Permitted560 Unsignalized T Int Fern Drive west 0.50 Only allowable if no alt access561 Signalized T Int Sandusky Street west 0.05 Not Permitted562 Unsignalized T Int US-23 Ramp east 0.04 Not Permitted563 Signalized Int US-23 east 0.00 Not Permitted564 Signalized Int US-23 west 0.00 Not Permitted


AUGUST 2015 76

6.0 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for this project were developed utilizing the access management information developed and evaluated in the previous chapter, combined with the existing conditions information and transportation analyses conducted as part of this study. This chapter includes a detailed list of recommendations, including a list of types of recommendations considered, recommended access management improvements divided by section, other design-related improvements recommended along US-42 and at the intersections along the corridor, recommended multi-modal improvements, and recommended zoning and land use changes. The chapter then concludes with details on various funding opportunities and implementation recommendations. 6.1 Applications & Techniques Numerous applications and techniques exist that either directly or indirectly affect access management. These options are grouped into four types:

1. Direct Access Control 2. Capacity/Safety Improvements 3. Policy Changes 4. Other Improvements

They are identified below and then evaluated for effectiveness as recommendations. 6.1.1 Direct Access Control

Create additional limited-access areas ODOT could consider working with local governments to identify and delineate additional areas where access would be completely prohibited, especially considering future roadway projects.

Restrict left-turns with signage In areas with a left-turn crash issue or backups from waiting for a left-turning vehicle.

Convert private access to right-in/right-out In areas where there is a left-turn crash issue or backups from traffic waiting for a left-turning vehicle.

Narrow/delineate driveways At driveways that exceed the driveway width and/or turning radius as recommended by ODOT.

Install non-traversable medians In areas where there is a left-turn crash issue or backups from traffic waiting for a left-turning vehicle.

Install U-turns In areas where left-turns are restricted, traffic could be directed to a location where it is safe to perform a U-turn and thus access the parcels on the opposite side of the road. These would be especially effective in areas with non-traversable medians and right-in/right-out driveways that do not have service road access. This could be a shorter-term, lower-cost solution when undeveloped areas are being developed and these areas do not yet have a backage road constructed.


AUGUST 2015 77

Relocate driveways/roadways In areas where driveways could be rerouted to access a different roadway. Realign is a minor shift in location, and relocate is a major change in location.

Consolidate driveways/roadways To maintain access to the main road but focus access at fewer locations.

Close driveways/roadways In areas where access is available and spacing criteria are not currently met.

Install service roads (frontage, backage or combination) To divert local trips from US-42, service roads adjacent to US-42 could be used by traffic. These service roads could be located immediately adjacent to mainline (frontage) roads between the mainline and the buildings or they could be located adjacent to the mainline but offset behind the buildings (backage roads). Another variation would be a zig-zag combination of the two. Backage roads are typically preferred over frontage roads because frontage roads have short queue lengths. As a result, the use of frontage roads often results in traffic backing up along the mainline when mainline traffic is attempting to access the frontage roads.

Restrict new access points Access points could be restricted based upon proximity to intersection and/or required access to non-arterial roadway.

Restrict number of access points The number of access points could be restricted based upon spacing requirements and/or by parcel.

6.1.2 Design Improvements

Add a Continuous Two-Way Left-Turn Lane (TWLTL) In areas where it is desired to allow left turns but where there is a left-turn crash issue or backups from traffic waiting for a left-turning vehicle.

Add travel lanes Where warranted in congested locations.

Add auxiliary lanes Such as right or left turn lanes at intersections where the capacity warrants.

Install signals Where warranted for congestion, safety, system, or other reasons.

Construct roundabouts Roundabouts could be considered as an alternative to traditional intersections and/or in locations where it is preferred to reduce traffic speeds.

Correct geometric sight-distance issues In locations where sight distance is deficient.

Develop local street networks Enable options for local trips to use local roads instead of US-42.

Reduce speed limits The purpose is to slow down traffic; however, US-42 has statutory speed limits, which means they were established by legislative action based on the function of the roadway and are therefore difficult to change.


AUGUST 2015 78

“Slow shoulders” To be used by large and/or very slow vehicles such as farm equipment, heavy trucks, and bicyclists. This would include pavement treatment to discourage speeding

Center passing lanes This would provide an option for faster vehicles to pass slower vehicles in a single center lane. This option is considered unsafe, especially at higher speeds where head-on collisions could result in severe injuries or fatalities, so this option is not recommended for this corridor.

Pedestrian-actuated crossings In locations with pedestrian or bicyclist crossings.

Sidewalks For pedestrians.

Bicycle facilities off-street shared-use paths Sharrows, bicycle lanes, and off-street shared-use paths for bicyclists (and pedestrians).

Wildlife crossings In areas (1) with a high deer crash issue and/or (2) that are near sensitive or high quality natural areas. If animal collisions were to substantially increase in this corridor in the, this option should be considered.

6.1.3 Land Use Policy & Code Changes

Rezone parcel to lower intensity of use To reduce the amount of traffic that will need to use the main road.

Limit parcel access to a single drive To maintain access to the main road but focus it in only one location per parcel.

Require shared-access easements between adjacent property owners To maintain access to the main road but focus this access in fewer locations.

Require subdivision of parcels to meet ODOT Access Management driveway spacing requirements To maintain access to the main road but focus access on internal street network and side roads.

Require parcel access to different roadway (1) If the other roadway already exists, or (2) include it as a requirement when a future roadway is built, such as a backage road.

Require easement for future backage roads As properties develop, the backage road could be built because the easement is already in place.

Require side-loading for commercial and industrial properties As properties develop, this requirement would make it easier for properties to access the future backage road and potentially incentivize buildings to face the backage road if desired.

Require rear or side-loading garages for residential properties As properties develop, this requirement would make it easier for residences to access the future backage roads.


AUGUST 2015 79

6.2 Access Management Improvements This section includes the access-related improvements that were evaluated and recommended for each section in addition to recommendations of treatments at each of the transition points between the sections. 6.2.1 Section 1: London Section Recommendations This southern-most section of the US-42 corridor in the study area had the highest access point density in the corridor, and only one road met the one-half-mile spacing criteria for intersections, Of the driveways in this section, 86 percent have widths in excess of the maximum recommended width, while 89 percent did not meet the minimum spacing requirements. This section is projected to remain mostly rural with mixed residential. Therefore, the access management recommendations identified as part of this study focus on addressing these concerns while also incorporating the anticipated access needed for future development. See Exhibit 6.1: Section 1 Recommendations. Interchanges No interchanges currently exist in the section. The US-40 and I-70 interchanges are located just to the north of this section, and the City of London is located just to the south of this section. Therefore, no interchanges are recommended to be added in this section due to the close proximity of interchanges and city corporation limits on either end of the section. Medians Due to the large number of access points in this section, widen US-42 to add a center two-way left turn lane for the entire length of this section in order to accommodate turning movements. Intersections For Access Management Category III, one-mile intersection spacing is preferred with one-half-mile spacing allowable if there is no other alternative access. Below are the recommended changes/improvements to the intersections in this section. Table 6-1 identifies the existing intersection access points in Section 1 and their spacing, while Table 6-2 identifies the intersection spacing after implementing the proposed changes. CR-13: maintain a 500-foot buffer to driveway access on all approaches. CR-71: create a 500-foot driveway buffer on all approaches through construction of frontage

and backage roads and required parcel connections to those roads while eliminating access on US-42.

Spring Valley MHP: remove the northern access road and retain the southern access road. US-42 SE: remove intersection access to US-42 and make this accessible at CR-104

instead. No additional public intersections are recommended in this section due to intersection

spacing constraints.

Table 6-1 - Existing Intersection Access Point Spacing, Section 1

Table


16 Unsignalized T Int CR-71 east 0.28 Not Permitted19 Unsignalized T Int Spring Valley MHP east 0.03 Not Permitted20 Unsignalized T Int Spring Valley MHP east 0.24 Not Permitted38 Unsignalized T Int US-42 SE west 0.34 Not Permitted


AUGUST 2015 80

6-2 - Intersection Spacing After Proposed Changes, Section 1

Driveways and Service Roads The following recommendations are included to help this section meet the access management standards for Access Management Category III.

Driveway recommendations: o New/future driveways should be located to meet the spacing criteria. o Future driveways would need to be in-line with each other on either side of the road. o New/future driveways should be designed and built to meet the standard driveway

width guidelines.

CR-135 to CR-71: The west side is currently undeveloped, while the east side is a mixture of undeveloped and developed parcels.

o As the area develops, new right-in/right-out access points could initially be allowed at the 500-foot minimum spacing.

US-42/CR-71 intersection: o The residences on the east side near the CR-71 intersection are closely spaced and

some are too close to the intersection, therefore a frontage road is recommended to serve those residences in order to relocate the driveway access off of US-42 and onto the service road. Due to the large offset distances from US-42 and lot depths, a frontage road is feasible for these residences without having to change their driveways alignments.

Spring Valley MHP and Old US-42 SE: o The northern access point at the Spring Valley MHP is recommended to be

eliminated. The southern access point could serve the residents and the commercial property.

o The Old US-42 SE intersection with US-42 is recommended to be eliminated. Old US-42 SE could be extended to the south to serve as a frontage road for the residences along US-42 (#24-#36) in that area. Those residences would then connect with Old US-42 SE instead of US-42 directly, and they would access US-42 via CR-104 to the north since US-42 SE already intersects with that roadway. Due to the large offset distances from US-42 and lot depths, a frontage road is feasible for these residences without having to change their driveways alignments.

US-42 SE to CR-104 o The undeveloped parcels on the east side of US-42 should be restricted to one new

access point each For a new parcel access point that will be near access point #40, the new access should be in line with #40.

o For the developed commercial property on the west side of US-42, access point #39 should be removed.

Future Development Future development should be required to enter into a cross access agreement/easement agreement to allow for backage roads to be constructed in the future. Although this section is not anticipated to become intensely developed, if/when it does:

1. This section’s access management category should be revisited for possible reclassification to Access Management Category II.

2. The intersection spacing will not need to be changed since it is the same in Category III.


16 Unsignalized T Int CR-71 east 0.28 Not Permitted19 Unsignalized T Int Spring Valley MHP east 0.61 Only allowable if no alt access


AUGUST 2015 81

3. Backage roads should be constructed in the easements. 4. The center TWLTL could be converted to a non-traversable median (raised concrete, grass

and/or landscaped) if needed. 6.2.2 Section 2: US-40/I-70 Section Recommendations This section of the US-42 corridor in the study area has an access point density near the corridor average. One road meets the one-mile spacing criteria for intersection distance and two meet the one-half-mile spacing standard. Of the driveways within this section, 82 percent have widths in excess of the maximum recommended width, and 80 percent did not meet the minimum spacing requirements. This section is projected to have intense commercial and industrial development in the future. Therefore, the access management recommendations focused on addressing these concerns while accounting for the anticipated needs associated with future development. See Exhibit 6.2: Section 2 Recommendations. Interchanges Two interchanges currently exist in this section, the US-40 and I-70 interchanges, which are 1.75 miles apart. They do not meet the preferred rural interchange spacing of eight miles, but they do meet the minimum 1.0-mile spacing standard. Therefore, no changes are recommended related to interchange spacing. Due the presence of two interchanges, no new interchanges are recommended to be added in this section in the future. Medians Currently no median exists along US-42 in this section. Therefore it is recommended that US-42 is widened to add a center non-traversable median (raised concrete, grass, and/or landscaping) for the entire length of this section. In areas with right-in/right-out driveways, the nearest intersections should be designed for legal and safe U-turns, especially prior to construction of backage roads. Intersections For Access Management Category II, one-mile intersection spacing is preferred with one-half-mile spacing allowable if there is no other alternative access. Below are the recommended changes/improvements to the intersections: CR-104 – maintain 500-foot driveway access buffer on all approaches. CR-29 – maintain 500-foot driveway access buffer on all approaches. Add one to two new intersections (public road or high volume private drive) between US-40

and I-70 to serve anticipated future development; 1.0-mile or 0.5-mile spacing standards would be met.

Add a new intersection (public road or high volume private drive) between I-70 and SR-29 to serve the existing/future development; 0.5-mile spacing standard will be met.

Except for the new intersections mentioned above, no additional full movement intersections are recommended in this section due to intersection spacing constraints.

No changes to the existing intersection access point inventory are recommended. The distance between the CR-104 and US-40 intersection is slightly below the one-half-mile intersection spacing requirement with US-40. Otherwise, the US-40 ramps and I-70 ramps are adequately spaced apart from each other and future proposed intersections would maintain the standards. Driveways & Service Roads For Access Management Category II, private drives are only allowed at a minimum 500-foot spacing, and they must be right-in/right-out access only (due to the center median). High volume drives can be full movement intersections with access through the median, but they then must adhere to the


AUGUST 2015 82

one-mile/one-half-mile spacing criteria of intersections.

Overall recommendations: o The driveway spacing standards for this category require a minimum of 500 feet

spacing. o New/future driveways should be located to meet the spacing criteria. o New/future driveways should be in-line with each other on either side of the road. o New/future driveways should be designed and built to meet the standard driveway

width guidelines.

CR-104 to US-40: o As the remainder of the area develops, new right-in/right-out access points at 500-

foot minimum spacing along this section of US-42 could initially be allowed. o Once the area is more fully developed, backage roads could be constructed to

connect and serve these properties. Depending on traffic and safety conditions, the right-in/right-out access points could be removed once the backage roads are constructed.

US-40 to I-70: o Existing commercial access points could be consolidated to meet the 500-foot

spacing and converted to right-in/right-out accesses. o As the area develops, new right-in/right-out access points could initially be allowed at

the 500-foot minimum spacing. o New intersection(s) could be constructed with portions of the backage road for

already-developed parcels. o Once the area is more fully developed, the full length of the backage roads could be

constructed to connect and serve all of these properties (and connect to the future intersection). Depending on traffic and safety conditions, the right-in/right-out access points could be removed once the backage roads are constructed.

I-70 to SR-29: o Existing commercial access points could be consolidated to meet the 500-foot

spacing and converted to right-in/right-out accesses. o As the area develops, new right-in/right-out access points could initially be allowed at

the 500-foot minimum spacing. o The new intersection could be constructed with portions of the backage road for

already-developed parcels. o Once the area is more fully developed, the full length of the backage roads could be

constructed to connect and serve all of these properties (and connect to the future intersection). Depending on traffic and safety conditions, the right-in/right-out access points could be removed once the backage roads are constructed.

Future Development All future development should be required to enter into a cross access agreement/easement agreement to allow for backage roads to be constructed in the future. This section is projected to become intensely developed, and the access management category assigned accounts for this projected development. 6.2.3 Section 3: I-70 to Plain City Section Recommendations This section of the US-42 corridor in the study area has an access point density near the corridor average. Two intersections do not meet the spacing criteria. Of the driveways, 68 percent have widths in excess of the maximum recommended width, and 81 percent do not meet the minimum spacing requirements. This section is projected to remain mostly rural in nature. Therefore the access management recommendations focus on addressing these concerns while accounting for the access needed to accommodate future development. See Exhibit 6.3: Section 3 Recommendations.


AUGUST 2015 83

Interchanges No interchanges currently exist in the section. The US-40 and I-70 interchanges are located just to the south of this section, so no interchanges are recommended to be added in this section in the future. Medians No medians are recommended for this section based on the current projections. Intersections For Access Management Category III, one-mile intersection spacing is preferred with one-half-mile spacing allowable if there is no other alternative access. Below are the recommended changes/improvements to the intersections in this section. Table 6-3 identifies the existing intersection access points in Section 3 and their spacing, while Table 6-4 identifies the intersection spacing after implementing the proposed changes. CR-137: relocate to the north to achieve 1.0-mile spacing with SR-29 and fixed skewed

intersection; possible future extension to the west to connect with CR-116. New Intersection – construct new intersection between CR-14 and CR-31, maintain 1.0-mile

spacing; connect west and east to existing roads. CR-10, CR-45 and CR-31: remove US-42/CR-10/CR-45 intersection access; realign CR-45 to

the north to connect at existing CR-31 T-intersection to provide for 1.0-mile intersection spacing, address four-point T-intersection issue, and create a full movement intersection.

CR-44: relocate to the north to meet 0.5-mile spacing standard. CR-33: realign to the south with possible eastern extension, to address 1.0-mile spacing

standard, fix skew intersection, and create a potential full movement intersection in the future.

No additional public intersections are recommended in this section due to intersection spacing constraints.

Table 6-3 - Existing Intersection Access Points, Section 3

With the proposed changes, the intersection spacing inventory will be improved (intersections on either end of the section were included for measurement context):

ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion112 Unsignalized T Int CR-137 east 1.21 Full Intersection Permitted142 Unsignalized Int CR-14 west 2.42 Full Intersection Permitted143 Unsignalized Int CR-14 east 2.42 Full Intersection Permitted183 Unsignalized T Int CR-45 east 0.39 Not Permitted192 Unsignalized T Int CR-31 west 0.42 Not Permitted198 Unsignalized T Int CR-44 east 1.40 Full Intersection Permitted217 Unsignalized Int CR-32 east 1.51 Full Intersection Permitted218 Unsignalized Int CR-32 west 1.51 Full Intersection Permitted239 Unsignalized T Int CR-33 west 0.71 Only allowable if no alt access252 Unsignalized Int CR-36 east 0.76 Only allowable if no alt access


AUGUST 2015 84

Table 6-4 - Intersection Spacing Inventory after Proposed Changes, Section 3

Driveways & Service Roads To meet the access management standards, the below recommendations should be followed.



width guidelines. o

Future Development Future development should be required to enter into a cross access agreement/easement agreement to allow for backage roads to be constructed in the future. Although this section is not anticipated to become intensely developed, if/when it does:

1. This section’s access management category should be revisited for possible reclassification to Access Management Category II.

2. The intersection spacing will not need to be changed since it is the same in Category III. 3. Backage roads should be constructed in the easements. 4. The center TWLTL could be converted to a non-traversable median (raised concrete, grass

and/or landscaped) if needed. 6.2.4 Section 4: Plain City Section Recommendations This section of the US-42 corridor in the study area has the second highest access point density in the corridor. Three of the roads do not meet the one-half-mile spacing criteria for intersections. Of the driveways, 65 percent have widths in excess of the maximum recommended width, and 92 percent do not meet the minimum spacing requirements. This section is projected to remain the same into the future – a mix of commercial, industrial and residential located within a community. Therefore, the access management recommendations focus on addressing these concerns while accounting for the access needs of anticipated future development. See Exhibit 6.4: Section 4 Recommendations. Interchanges No interchanges currently exist in the section. The US-40 and I-70 interchanges are located ten miles south of this section and the US-33/US-42 interchange is located three miles north of this section. Therefore, no interchanges are recommended to be added in this section in the future based on the nearby proximity of interchange access.

ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion112 Unsignalized T Int CR-137 east 1.00 Full Intersection Permitted142 Unsignalized Int CR-14 west 1.02 Full Intersection Permitted143 Unsignalized Int CR-14 east 1.02 Full Intersection Permitted

- Unsignalized Int New Intersection west 1.80 Full Intersection Permitted- Unsignalized Int New Intersection east 1.80 Full Intersection Permitted

183 Unsignalized T Int CR-45 east 0.50 Only allowable if no alt access192 Unsignalized T Int CR-31 west 0.50 Only allowable if no alt access198 Unsignalized T Int CR-44 east 1.33 Full Intersection Permitted217 Unsignalized Int CR-32 east 1.25 Full Intersection Permitted218 Unsignalized Int CR-32 west 1.25 Full Intersection Permitted239 Unsignalized T Int CR-33 west 1.00 Full Intersection Permitted252 Unsignalized Int CR-36 east 1.00 Only allowable if no alt access


AUGUST 2015 85

Medians Widen the road to add a center TWLTL for the entire length of this section. Intersections For Access Management Category IV, one-half-mile intersection spacing is preferred with one-quarter-mile spacing allowable if there is no other alternative access. Below are the recommended changes/improvements to the intersections in this section. Table 6-5 identifies the existing intersection access points in Section 4 and their spacing, while Table 6-6 identifies the intersection spacing after implementing the proposed changes. CR-30 Offset T-intersection: realign both approaches to create an aligned full movement

intersection. CR-30 to Alcott Drive: one or two new intersections could be built in this area while observing

the one-half-mile (or one-quarter-mile) intersection spacing criteria. Alcott Drive: realign Alcott Drive to move the intersection further south in order to attain 0.25-

mile intersection spacing standard to the north and south. SR-161 to North Chillicothe Street: one new intersection could be constructed between these

two roads along US-42 where the curb cut was already located; a roundabout could potentially work at this new intersection; Converse Drive could potentially be extended to connect to the new intersection.

North Chillicothe Street: consider a modern roundabout for the intersection, which would be effective a reducing speeds since the speed limit is proposed to change to 35 mph in this location and serve as a northern gateway to Plain City.


It is encouraged that the Village of Plain City should further develop its local network and enhance its local road connectivity to and within this area, especially focusing on a well-connected grid-type network that would be easily navigable by motorists and would offer a variety of routes to and from destinations.

The existing intersection access point inventory for Section4 is included below in Table 6-5.


With the proposed changes, the intersection spacing inventory will be improved (Table 6-6).

ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion261 Unsignalized T Int CR-30 West west 0.15 Not Permitted266 Unsignalized T Int CR-30 West east 0.72 Full Intersection Permitted276 Unsignalized T Int Alcott Drive east 0.20 Not Permitted284 Unsignalized Int Village Drive west 0.11 Not Permitted287 Unsignalized Int CR-40 west 0.38 Only allowable if no alt access288 Unsignalized Int CR-40 east 0.38 Only allowable if no alt access305 Unsignalized T Int Carlyle Avenue east 0.06 Not Permitted306 Signalized Int SR-161 west 0.59 Full Intersection Permitted307 Signalized Int SR-161 east 0.59 Full Intersection Permitted


AUGUST 2015 86


Driveways & Service Roads To meet the access management standards in this section, the following recommendations should be considered.

Overall recommendations: o The driveway spacing standards for this category are a minimum of 250 feet. o New/future driveways should be located in such a way as to meet the spacing

criteria. o New/future driveways should be in-line with each other on either side of the road. o New/future driveways should be designed and built to meet the standard driveways

width guidelines.

CR-30 to CR-40: o As the undeveloped portion of US-42 between CR-30 and Alcott Drive develops, a

backage road should be constructed on both sides of US-42 to connect the properties.

o As the partially developed portion of US-42 between Alcott Drive and CR-40 develops, a backage road should be constructed to connect the properties; on the west side, Village Boulevard could be extended; on the east side, a new service road could be extended from Alcott Drive to the north to CR-40.

CR-40: o Driveway access points should be restricted within 250 feet of the US-42/CR-40

intersection.

CR-40 to SR-161: o As the undeveloped portion of US-42 between CR-40 and SR-161 develops, a

backage road should be constructed on both sides of US-42 to connect the properties.

o In the developed areas, right-of-way and easements should be purchased to contract a backage road that would connect the properties on both sides of US-42; The service road should be connected to CR-40, Carlyle Avenue, and SR-161; Foster Avenue on the east side could serve as part of the backage road; service drives and the back property lines could also serve as the best locations for the backage roads.

o Commercial driveway #289 could be relocated further north to the north edge of the property line to maintain 250-foot spacing from CR-40 intersection.

o Der Dutchman: Southern access point (#290) could be closed and the north access point #291 could be converted to a roundabout (some site rework of parking lot may be necessary); The access point on west side undeveloped property could be lined up to use this roundabout.

o Consolidate/define/narrow commercial driveway #292 to meet driveway width guidelines and spacing standards, in addition to aligning with driveways on the west side of US-42.

ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion261 Unsignalized T Int CR-30 West west 0.76 Full Intersection Permitted266 Unsignalized T Int CR-30 West east 0.76 Full Intersection Permitted276 Unsignalized T Int Alcott Drive east 0.25 Only allowable if no alt access284 Unsignalized Int Village Drive west 0.11 Not Permitted287 Unsignalized Int CR-40 west 0.38 Only allowable if no alt access288 Unsignalized Int CR-40 east 0.38 Only allowable if no alt access305 Unsignalized T Int Carlyle Avenue east 0.06 Not Permitted306 Signalized Int SR-161 west 0.28 Only allowable if no alt access307 Signalized Int SR-161 east 0.28 Only allowable if no alt access


AUGUST 2015 87

o Close commercial driveway #295 in order to meet driveway spacing criteria. o Stream crossing to Carlyle Avenue: consolidate/redefine/narrow commercial

driveways between the stream and Carlyle Avenue (#297-#304) into two full access commercial driveways that line up with each other on both sides of the road in order to maintain driveway spacing standards and driveway width guidelines; Remove long commercial driveways on both side of US-42 running adjacent to stream and include as part of consolidation.

o Carlyle Avenue to SR-161: remove all commercial access points between these two roads to maintain driveway spacing standards; on east side of US-42 create access to the east and a short backage roads to serve those properties.

SR-161 to N Chillicothe Street: o This area is restricted limited-access. Therefore, no driveways or curb cuts are

permitted except in the two locations already designated for intersections. So no new driveways are recommended here.

Future Development All future development should be required to enter into a cross access agreement/easement agreement to allow for backage roads and connections to the existing local street system to be constructed in the future. This section is projected to become intensely developed, and the access management category assigned to it already takes this projection into account. 6.2.5 Section 5: Plain City North Section Recommendations This section of the US-42 corridor in the study area has the lowest access point density in the corridor. None of the roads meet the one-half-mile minimum spacing criteria for intersections. All of the driveways are field drives that may be converted to roadway intersections as the area develops. This section is projected to remain develop into commercial/industrial uses in the future; limited access right-of-way is already in place along US-42 through this section. Therefore, the access management recommendations focus on addressing these concerns while accounting for the access needs of anticipated future development. See Exhibit 6.5: Section 5 Recommendations. Interchanges No interchanges currently exist in the section. The US-40 and I-70 interchanges are located ten miles south of this section and the US-33/US-42 interchange is located three miles north of this section. Therefore, no interchanges are recommended to be added in this section in the future based on the nearby proximity of interchange access. Medians Retain the existing striped median with turn lanes at the intersections. Intersections For Access Management Category II, one-mile intersection spacing is preferred with one-half-mile spacing allowable if there is no other alternative access. Below are the recommended changes/improvements to the intersections in this section. Table 6-7 identifies the existing intersection access points in Section 5 and their spacing, while Table 6-8 identifies the intersection spacing after implementing the proposed changes. SR-161 to North Chillicothe Street: one new intersection could be constructed between these

two roads along US-42 where the curb cut was already located; Converse Drive could potentially be extended to connect to the new intersection.


It is encouraged that the Village of Plain City further develop its local network and enhance


AUGUST 2015 88

its local road connectivity to and within this area, especially focusing on a well-connected grid-type network that would be easily navigable by motorists and would offer a variety of routes to and from destinations.

Rickard Road: remove intersection and relocate access to a backage road that connects to N Chillicothe Street in order to maintain minimum 0.5-mile spacing standards.

CR-20: remove access point to US-42 and allow US-42 connection via CR-12 in order to maintain 0.5-mile spacing standards.

SR-736: relocate roadway and intersection to the north, from being adjacent to river and CR-20 to connect to CR-12, in order to maintain 0.5-mile intersection spacing standards.

The existing intersection access point inventory for Section 4 is included below in Table 6-7.




Driveways & Service Roads To meet the access management standards in this section, the following recommendations should be considered.



width guidelines. o This area is restricted limited-access. Therefore, no driveways or curb cuts are

permitted except in the two locations already designated for intersections. So no new driveways are recommended here.

Future Development All future development should be required to enter into a cross access agreement/easement agreement to allow for backage roads and connections to the existing local street system to be constructed in the future. This section is projected to become intensely developed, and the access management category assigned to it already takes this projection into account. 6.2.6 Section 6: US-33 Area Section Recommendations This section of the US-42 corridor in the study area has an access point density near the corridor average. Eight roads do not meet the one-mile or one-half-mile spacing standards. Of the driveways,

- Intersection New Intersection west 0.31 Not Permitted- Intersection New Intersection east 0.31 Not Permitted

308 Unsignalized Int N Chillicothe Street east 0.68 Only allowable if no alt access311 Unsignalized T Int SR-736 west 0.59 Only allowable if no alt access


AUGUST 2015 89

24 percent have widths in excess of the maximum recommended width and 76 percent did not meet the minimum spacing requirements. This section is projected to fully develop into residential, commercial, and some industrial uses, with little to no rural undeveloped areas remaining in the future. Therefore, the access management recommendations focus on addressing these concerns while accounting for the access needs of anticipated future development. See Exhibit 6.6: Section 6 Recommendations.

Interchanges One interchange currently exists in this section at US-33. Therefore, no new interchanges are recommended to be added in this section in the future.

Medians The highest intensity of development will be centered around the US-33/US-42 interchange, but other commercial and industrial development is also expected throughout this area. As a result, this area will experience development but at varying levels of traffic volumes, so specific lane and median recommendations were sub-divided within this section:

1. South of US-33: SR-736 to CR-1 (Industrial Parkway) This area is projected to develop into primarily residential uses, so a three-lane section with a TWLTL is recommended for this sub-section.

2. US-33 Interchange: CR-1 to CR-19 (Bell/Wells Road) This area is projected to develop intensely into commercial and industrial uses with high traffic volumes, so a five-lane section with a non-traversable median and turn lanes at intersections is recommended for this sub-section.

3. North of US-33: CR-19 to CR-104 (Watkins Road) This area is projected to develop into a mix of commercial and residential uses. Depending on the rate of development, a three or five-lane section would be appropriate. The three-lane option should include a TWLTL and the five-lane option should include a traversable or non-traversable median with intersection turn lanes.

4. SR-745/SR-257/Scioto River Area: CR-104 to CR-5 (Section Line Road) This area is projected to develop into primarily residential uses, so a three-lane section with a TWLTL is recommended for this sub-section.

Intersections For Access Management Category II, one-mile intersection spacing is preferred with one-half-mile spacing allowable if there is no other alternative access. Below are the recommended changes/improvements to the intersections in this section. Table 6-9 identifies the existing intersection access points in Section 6 and their spacing, while Table 6-10 identifies the intersection spacing after implementing the proposed changes.

CR-12: realign intersection with US-42 to fix skewed intersection; meets spacing standards; possible eastern connection with CR-23.

CR-31: realign intersection with US-42 to fix skewed intersection; meets spacing standards.

CR-29/North Street/CR-8: o Relocate CR-29 to north of the railroad tracks, connect with North Street o Retain old CR-29 intersection, but relocate south to maintain spacing o Realign CR-8 to connect directly to 4th Street/CR-29(new)

Railroad Street: remove access to US-42; access via North Street instead.


AUGUST 2015 90

CR-28/New California Drive to CR-28/Monteray Drive: remove both access points with US-42; construct a new road between these two roads to serve as the main intersection for the subdivision in order to maintain 0.5-mile spacing.

CR-22: relocate to the north in order to maintain 0.5-mile spacing; possible future connection to the east and CR-16.

CR-19/CR-17: relocate to the north to fix existing intersection skew.

New Intersection: construct a new intersection between CR-19/CR-17 and CR-18; possible extension of CR-2 (Hyland-Croy Road); maintains intersection spacing.

CR-18: remove CR-18 intersection access from US-42 and relocate road; extend CR-15/CR-124 (Blaney Road/Home Road) through corridor at the same intersection location; extend roadway west and north up to CR-96; this would fix the skewed intersection while maintaining appropriate intersection spacing.

CR-104: relocate western approach to the south to fix skewed intersection.

CR-104/CR-93: relocate eastern approach of CR-104 to the north to connect with CR-93 at US-42; fixes skewed intersection, maintains intersection spacing.

CR-129: realign intersection with US-42 to fix the skew; possible extension to the west with CR-92; maintains intersection spacing.

SR-745/SR-257: realign intersection to fix skew; maintains intersection spacing.

CR-143: realign/relocate the intersection and roadway to the south to fix the skewed intersection with US-42 and to meet minimum intersection spacing criteria.

Except for the new intersections mentioned above, no additional full movement intersections are recommended in this section due to intersection spacing constraints.

The existing intersection access point inventory for Section 5 is identified in Table 6-9.


AUGUST 2015 91



ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion316 Unsignalized T Int CR-12 east 0.73 Only allowable if no alt access329 Unsignalized T Int CR-31 west 0.50 Only allowable if no alt access335 Unsignalized T Int CR-29 west 0.26 Not Permitted343 Unsignalized T Int Railroad Street west 0.07 Not Permitted344 Unsignalized T Int North Street west 0.07 Not Permitted345 Unsignalized T Int CR-8 east 0.57 Only allowable if no alt access354 Unsignalized T Int CR-28 west 0.32 Not Permitted359 Unsignalized T Int CR-28 west 0.26 Not Permitted364 Signalized Int CR-1 east 0.33 Not Permitted365 Signalized Int CR-1 west 0.33 Not Permitted375 Unsignalized T Int US-33 Ramp east 0.18 Not Permitted376 Unsignalized T Int US-33 Ramp west 0.18 Not Permitted377 Unsignalized T Int US-33 Ramp east 0.16 Not Permitted378 Unsignalized T Int US-33 Ramp west 0.16 Not Permitted380 Unsignalized T Int CR-22 west 0.85 Only allowable if no alt access394 Unsignalized Int CR-19/CR-17 east 1.90 Full Intersection Permitted395 Unsignalized Int CR-19/CR-17 west 1.90 Full Intersection Permitted418 Unsignalized Int CR-18 west 0.74 Only allowable if no alt access419 Unsignalized Int CR-18 east 0.74 Only allowable if no alt access431 Unsignalized Int CR-11 east 0.98 Only allowable if no alt access432 Unsignalized Int CR-11 west 0.98 Only allowable if no alt access442 Signalized Int CR-104 east 0.79 Only allowable if no alt access443 Signalized Int CR-104 west 0.79 Only allowable if no alt access448 Unsignalized T Int CR-93 west 0.53 Only allowable if no alt access457 Unsignalized T Int CR-129 east 1.31 Full Intersection Permitted486 Signalized Int SR-745/Dublin Road east 0.57 Only allowable if no alt access487 Signalized Int SR-257 west 0.57 Only allowable if no alt access491 Signalized Int SR-257/Riverside Drive east 0.95 Only allowable if no alt access492 Signalized Int CR-149 west 0.95 Only allowable if no alt access514 Unsignalized T Int CR-143 west 0.18 Not Permitted


AUGUST 2015 92


Driveways & Service Roads For Access Management Category II, private drives are only allowed at a minimum 500-foot spacing, and they must be right-in/right-out access only. High volume drives can be full movement intersections with access through the median, but they then must adhere to the one-mile/one-half-mile spacing criteria of intersections. To meet the access management standards in this section, below are the following recommendations.



width guidelines. o As development occurs in the undeveloped areas of this section, backage roads

should be built to funnel traffic to existing and proposed intersections since spacing does not exist for any new full movement intersections to be constructed in this area.

SR-736/CR-20 to CR-12: o Construct backage roads on both sides of US-42 to connect undeveloped parcels as

they develop.

ID Access Type Access Name Side of Road Access Spacing (mi) Disposit ion316 Unsignalized T Int CR-12 east 0.59 Only allowable if no alt access329 Unsignalized T Int CR-31 west 0.50 Only allowable if no alt access335 Unsignalized T Int CR-29 west 0.50 Only allowable if no alt access344 Unsignalized T Int North Street west 0.73 Only allowable if no alt access345 Unsignalized T Int CR-8 east 0.73 Only allowable if no alt access354 Unsignalized T Int CR-28 west 0.50 Only allowable if no alt access364 Signalized Int CR-1 east 0.33 Not Permitted365 Signalized Int CR-1 west 0.33 Not Permitted375 Unsignalized T Int US-33 Ramp east 0.18 Not Permitted376 Unsignalized T Int US-33 Ramp west 0.18 Not Permitted377 Unsignalized T Int US-33 Ramp east 0.51 Only allowable if no alt access378 Unsignalized T Int US-33 Ramp west 0.51 Only allowable if no alt access380 Unsignalized T Int CR-22 west 0.69 Only allowable if no alt access394 Unsignalized Int CR-19/CR-17 east 1.14 Full Intersection Permitted395 Unsignalized Int CR-19/CR-17 west 1.14 Full Intersection Permitted

- Intersection New Intersection west 0.62 Only allowable if no alt access- Intersection New Intersection west 0.62 Only allowable if no alt access

418 Unsignalized Int CR-124 west 0.75 Only allowable if no alt access419 Unsignalized Int CR-124 east 0.75 Only allowable if no alt access431 Unsignalized Int CR-11 east 0.73 Only allowable if no alt access432 Unsignalized Int CR-11 west 0.73 Only allowable if no alt access442 Signalized Int CR-104 east 0.50 Only allowable if no alt access443 Signalized Int CR-104 west 0.56 Only allowable if no alt access448 Unsignalized T Int CR-93 west 0.50 Only allowable if no alt access457 Unsignalized T Int CR-129 east 1.34 Full Intersection Permitted486 Signalized Int SR-745/Dublin Road east 0.57 Only allowable if no alt access487 Signalized Int SR-257 west 0.57 Only allowable if no alt access491 Signalized Int SR-257/Riverside Drive east 0.95 Only allowable if no alt access492 Signalized Int CR-149 west 0.95 Only allowable if no alt access514 Unsignalized T Int CR-143 west 0.64 Only allowable if no alt access


AUGUST 2015 93

CR-12 to CR-31: o Construct backage roads on both sides of US-42 to connect the parcels as they

develop. o No private access points in this area on US-42.

CR-31 to CR-29 (on new location, south of railroad): o Construct backage roads on both sides of US-42 to connect the parcels as they


CR-29 (on new location, south of railroad) to railroad tracks: o Construct backage roads on both sides of US-42 to connect the parcels as they

develop. o Construct a frontage road to serve residences (#336-#341) on west side of US-42;

remove direct access onto US-42 and instead use service road.

Railroad tracks to CR-1: o Construct backage roads on both sides of US-42 to connect the parcels as they


CR-1 to US-33: o Construct backage roads on both sides of US-42 to connect the parcels as they

develop. o Up to two right-in/right-out access points would be permitted within the 500-foot

driveway spacing guidelines.

US-33 to CR-19

o Construct backage roads on both sides of US-42 to connect the parcels as they develop.

o No private access points in this area on US-42 preferred, but right-in/right-outs permitted with 500-foot spacing if needed.

Future Development All future development should be required to enter into a cross access agreement/easement agreement to allow for backage roads to be constructed in the future. This section is projected to become intensely developed, and the access management category assigned to it already takes this projection into account. 6.2.7 Section 7: Delaware Section Recommendations This section of the US-42 corridor in the study area has the second-lowest access point density in the corridor. Most of the intersections meet the one-mile or one-half-mile spacing standards. Of the driveways, 72 percent have widths in excess of the maximum recommended width and 69 percent did not meet the minimum spacing requirements. This section is projected to have intense development in the future. Therefore the access management recommendations focus on addressing these concerns while accounting for the access needs associated with the anticipated future development. See Exhibit 6.7: Section 7 Recommendations. Interchanges The US-33/US-42 interchange is located eight-miles to the south of this section and an at-grade intersection with US-23 is located at the northern terminus of this section. The US-33 interchange meets the preferred rural interchange spacing of eight miles and the access to US-23 serves as another access to a major highway. Therefore, no changes are recommended related to constructing new interchanges or changing interchange spacing due the nearby presence of US-33 and US-23.


AUGUST 2015 94

Medians Widen the road to add a TWLTL for the entire length of this section. Intersections For Access Management Category II, one-mile intersection spacing is preferred with one-half-mile spacing allowable if there is no other alternative access. Below are the recommended changes/improvements to the intersections: CR-143/CR-141/CR-5/CR-368: realign/relocate the intersections and roadways to fix the

skewed intersections with US-42 and to meet minimum intersection spacing criteria of one-half-mile.

Sawmill Parkway extension: extend Sawmill Parkway to connect with US-42. CR-142 & CR-146: realign the access point at US-42 to fix the skewed intersection by

connecting to the Sawmill Parkway extension instead of US-42. Fern Drive: Fern Drive should be considered for closure. This site had been investigated in

prior studies and should have no significant impact on the nearby residential areas. Besides the new intersections mentioned above, no additional full movement intersections

are recommended in this section due to intersection spacing constraints. No changes to the existing intersection access point inventory are recommended. The only area in this section that does not meet the intersection spacing criteria is the US-23/US-42/Sandusky Street intersection area at the northern terminus, which contains some closely spaced access points, but no changes are recommended. Driveways & Service Roads For Access Management Category II, private drives are only allowed at a minimum 500-foot spacing and they must be right-in/right-out access only. High volume drives can be full movement intersections with access through the median, but they then must adhere to the one-mile/one-half-mile spacing criteria of intersections. To meet the access management standards in this section, some driveways need to be relocated, consolidated, eliminated, widened/narrowed, redesigned and realigned.



width guidelines. o As development occurs in the undeveloped areas of this section, backage roads

should be built to funnel traffic to existing and proposed intersections since spacing does not exist for any new full movement intersections to be constructed in this area.

CR-143/CR-141/CR-5/CR-368 to CR-146: o As this area develops, backage roads should be constructed on both sides of US-42

and access to them should be required.

CR-146 to London Road/Jegs Boulevard: o On the west side of US-42, a backage road should be constructed to serve the

existing and future commercial development from London Road to the parcel with access point #556 and then connect back to CR-147. A cross access agreement should be considered with the parcel connecting at CR-146 for increased connectivity.


AUGUST 2015 95

o On the east side of US-42, there is a large undeveloped area; as these parcels develop, a backage road should be constructed that connects from SR-146 to Jegs Boulevard, and/or these parcels could be required to access CR-146 instead of US-42.

London Road/Jegs Boulevard to US-23: o South side of US-42 – on the south side of US-42, there are large undeveloped areas;

as these parcels develop, backage road could be constructed that connects from Jegs Boulevard to CR-9, and/or these parcels could be required to access CR-146 instead of US-42; no driveway access to US-42 is permitted in this area, the right-of-way is limited access.

Future Development All future development should be required to enter into a cross access agreement/easement agreement to allow for backage roads to be constructed in the future. This section is projected to become intensely developed, and the access management category assigned to it already takes this projection into account. 6.2.8 Section Transition Point Recommendations Section 1 to 2 Transition: US-42/CR-104 Intersection Median Type Change, Possible Future Signal

o As indicated on the future land use map, the land use along the US-42 corridor is projected remain rural and low density residential from Betty Wilson Road at the southern terminus of the study area up to Simpson Road to the north. At Simpson Road, the land uses are projected to change to commercial/industrial as they approach US-40. Therefore, it is recommended at the US-42/Simpson Road intersection to transition the TWLTL of Section 1 to a non-traversable median in Section 2.

o In addition, as the land adjacent to the US-42/Simpson Road intersection develops in the future, converting this two-way stop-controlled intersection to a signalized intersection may be feasible. A signal warrant analysis and intersection capacity analysis would be needed to determine feasibility and design details.

Section 2 to 3 Transition: US-42/SR-29 Intersection, 1,800 feet north Median Type Change

o As indicated on the future land use map, the land uses are projected to change from commercial/industrial at US-40 and I-70 back to rural and low-density residential 1,800 feet north of the US-42/SR-29 intersection. Therefore, it is recommended at this location to transition the non-traversable median in Section 2 to no median Section 3.

Section 3 to 4 Transition: US-42/CR-30 Offset Intersection Possible Roundabout

o One-half-mile north of Converse Huff Road are the current corporation limits of Plain City. As indicated on the future land use map, Plain City is projected to expand its residential development south of its current corporation limits to near Converse Huff Road. Therefore, a transition point at the offset intersection of US-42/Converse Huff Road would be appropriate. Because of the substantial speed limit reduction on US-42 through Plain City, the access management category change from arterial to collector, and the local interest in encouraging traffic calming through Plain City, a modern roundabout is recommended in this location. The roundabout would also help the community create a sense of place by serving as a gateway feature, and in


AUGUST 2015 96

addition could address/realign the offset Converse Huff intersection with US-42. Section 4 to 5 Transition US-42/SR-161 Intersection Possible Roundabout

o South of SR-161, it is recommended to add a TWLTL, and north of SR-161 there is already a striped median with limited access right-of-way. In addition, this intersection is where the speed limit on US-42 changes, and SR-161 serves as the northern gateway of Plain City. Therefore, it is recommended to consider converting this intersection to a roundabout. A roundabout in this location would balance the other roundabout recommended on the southern gateway for Plain City, it will support the speed limit reduction on US-42 through Plain City and act as a traffic calming measure, and there is local interest in encouraging traffic calming through Plain City and creating a sense of place via gateway features.

Section 5 to 6 Transition: US-42/SR-736 Intersection Median Type Change

o North of SR-736, land uses are projected to substantially convert to residential; therefore, it is recommended that the median type transition from the striped median in Section 5 to a TWLTL for Section 6.

o In the future, a signalized intersection at SR-736 may be feasible, so a signal warrant analysis should be performed at that time.

Section 6 to 7 Transition: US-42/CR-5 Intersection Median Type Change, Signal, Road Relocation/Consolidation

o As indicated on the future land use map, the projected land uses are projected to change from the predominately residential and some rural land uses of Section 6 to commercial/industrial north of Section Line Road. Therefore, it is recommended that the TWLTL continue from Section 6 into Section 7.

o As the land adjacent to the US-42/Section Line Road intersection develops in the future, the realignment of Section Line Road, Freshwater Road, and Bunty Station Road so that they all safety and efficiently interact with one another and US-42 is recommended.

6.3 Design Improvements The following recommendations will improve the function of US-42 by increasing traffic flow and reducing conflicts in the corridor. These recommendations should be implemented in conjunction with the access management improvements listed above as they complement those improvements and would indirectly improve and enhance access management. 6.3.1 Safety Improvements At the six intersections analyzed for this study, the following safety-specific improvements and studies are recommended:

1. CR-71/US-42 Intersection o Perform a capacity analysis and evaluate for turn lanes, especially a southbound left

turn lane on US-42. o Perform a ball bank study to check the safety of the horizontal curve, and consider

warning signage. o Install intersection-ahead warning signage (W2-1) on US-42.

2. SR-29/US-42 Intersection o Perform a capacity analysis and evaluate for turn lanes.


AUGUST 2015 97

3. US-33/US-42 Interchange o Perform a signal warrant analysis at the interchange. o Consider roundabouts instead of signals at the interchange.

4. CR-11/US-42 Intersection o Consider installing lighting. o Perform a capacity analysis and evaluate for turn lanes.

5. SR-745/SR-275/US-42 Intersection o Perform a capacity analysis and evaluate for turn lanes. o Analyze signal timing.

6. SR-257/SR-149/US-42 Intersection o Perform a capacity analysis and evaluate for turn lanes. o Analyze signal timing. o Consider installing lighting.

7. London/US-42 Intersection o Consider installing lighting. o Perform a ball bank study to check the safety of the horizontal curve; consider warning

signage; consider increasing pavement friction. 6.3.2 Mainline Capacity Improvements Based on the evaluation of existing and design year traffic volumes on US-42 mainline, only one travel lane in each direction will be needed. The traffic volumes and projections are based on current available information, and because of this, as the area develops this assumption could change. The traffic analysis indicated that turn lanes are needed to assist with intersection and mainline operations and that a combination of turn lanes at intersections and a center TWLTL in sections without a raised median would be beneficial to the efficient function of the corridor. Therefore, it is recommended to convert/widen US-42 to a three-lane section to address existing and design year needs and reserve right-of-way for a possible five-lane section if it is needed in the future. The only section that should not have the right-of-way reserved for a five-lane section is Section 5 that runs through Plain City. Since this portion of US-42 functions as a collector in a developed urbanized area, a five-lane section is not appropriate in this location. The right-of-way widths recommended include Three-Lane Section: 80 feet, plus backage road easement. Three-Lane Section with shared-use path: 95 feet, plus backage road easement. Five-Lane Section: 105 feet, plus backage road easement. Five-Lane Section with shared-use path: 120 feet, plus backage road easement. Plain City Section with bicycle lanes and sidewalks: 60 feet, plus work with property owners to

build backage roads at rear of properties and/or develop cross-access easements. Typical sections are shown below to illustrate these recommendations and clarify the recommended mainline details for each section in the corridor:


AUGUST 2015 98

6.3.3 Typical Sections for Category II Sections Category II sections include: Section 2 (US-40/I-70 Interchange), Section 5 (Plain City North), Section 6 (US-33 Interchange area), and Section 7 (Delaware). Below are renderings of typical sections for the main options available for Category II Access Management.

Figure 6-1 - Category II, 3-Lane Section with TWLTL & 4’ Shoulder

Figure 6-2 - Category II, 3-Lane Section with Raised Median& 4’ Shoulder

Figure 6-3 - Category II, 5-Lane Section with Raised Median & 4’ Shoulder


AUGUST 2015 99

6.3.4 Typical Sections for Category III Sections Category III sections include: Section 1 (London), Section 3 (I-70 to Plain City). Below are renderings of typical sections for the main options available for Category III Access Management.

Figure 6-4 - Category III, 2-Lane Section with 4’ Shoulders

Figure 6-5 - Category III, 3-Lane Section with TWLTL & 4’ Shoulders


AUGUST 2015 100

6.3.5 Typical Sections for Category IV Sections The Category IV section is Section 4 (Plain City). Below are renderings of typical sections for the main options available for Category IV Access Management.

Figure 6-6 - Category IV, 2-Lane Section with Sidewalks

Figure 6-7 - Category IV, 3-Lane Section with TWLTL & Sidewalks

Figure 6-8 - Category IV, 3-Lane Section with TWLTL, Bike Lanes & Sidewalks


AUGUST 2015 101

6.3.6 Intersection Improvements In addition to access management improvements, geometric improvements could be made to increase the capacity and safety of US-42. While the design year capacity of US-42 does not indicate a need for additional lanes along most of the corridor, the number of access points along US-42 may require additional lanes for safety improvement. A TWLTL may be considered in areas with left-turn crash issues, or backups from traffic waiting for a left-turning vehicle. Where capacity or safety warrants it, right or left turn lanes could be added at intersections along US-42. Signals should also be considered for intersections where capacity warrants them. If an intersection does not have the traffic volumes to warrant a signal, a roundabout could be considered where lower speeds and improved traffic control is sought after. Table 6-11 below lists additional transportation improvements at specific intersections along US-42 that are recommended for consideration and further study.

Table 6-11 - Recommended Transportation Improvements Intersection CO Additional Transportation Improvements

Section 1 (London Section)

CR-135 MAD -A southbound left turn lane is suggested for capacity improvements and to accommodate poor sight distances.

CR-71 (Spring Valley Road) MAD -A southbound left turn lane is suggested for capacity

improvements and to accommodate poor sight distances.

Old US Hwy 42 SE MAD -Mitigate the skew of the intersection through geometric improvements or a signal if warranted. -Add southbound right turn lane.

Section 2 (US-40/I-70 Section)

CR-104 (Simpson Road) MAD -As capacity increases add turn lanes to accommodate demand.

I-70 MAD -Investigate adding turn lanes for businesses near I-70 interchange.

SR-29 (Urbana-West Jefferson Road) MAD -As capacity increases add turn lanes to accommodate

demand. Section 3 (I-70 to Plain City Section) CR-10 (Middle Pike) MAD -Modify intersection so all three roads do not meet at the same

point. CR-45 (Lucas Road) MAD CR-32 (Price-Hilliards Road) MAD -Add traffic signal or modern roundabout, based on signal

warrant analysis. CR-33 (Killbury-Huber Road) MAD -Add northbound left turn lane if warrant requirements are met.

Section 4 (Plain City Section) CR-30 (Converse Huff Road) MAD -Improve driveway definitions of business near the intersection.

CR-40 (West Avenue) MAD -Keep existing signal or convert to roundabout and add appropriate turn lanes to accommodate traffic capacity.

Section 5 (US-33 Section)

CR-29 (Crottinger Road) UNI -Add northbound left turn lane on US-42 to accommodate traffic.

CR-28 (New California Drive) UNI

-Add northbound left turn lane on US-42 as capacity demand increases.


AUGUST 2015 102

Table 6-11 - Recommended Transportation Improvements Intersection CO Additional Transportation Improvements

CR-1 (Industrial Parkway) UNI -Install warranted traffic signal or modern roundabout and add appropriate left turn lanes.

US-33 UNI

-Add a right turn lane on the US-33 W exit ramp (improves LOS from F to D). -Capacity improvements will need to be made in the future. Options to consider are signals or a roundabout. -When improving the interchange, address sight distance issues related to vertical grade.

CR-22 (Watkins-California Road) UNI

-Install warranted traffic signal or modern roundabout and add northbound left turn lane on US-42.

Section 6 (US-33 to Delaware Section) CR-19 (Bell Road) & CR-17 (Wells Road) UNI -Mitigate the skew of the intersection by realigning or offsetting

minor intersection segments.

CR-18 (Harriott Road) UNI -Mitigate the skew of the intersection by realigning or offsetting minor intersection segments.

CR -104 (Watkins Road) UNI -Mitigate the skew of the intersection through geometric improvements or a signal if it is warranted.

CR-93 (Smart-Cole Road) UNI -Improve skew at intersection through realignment or offsetting the minor leg segments. -If warranted, add left turn lane on US-42.

CR-129 (Concord Road) DEL -Mitigate the skew of the intersection through geometric improvements.

SR-745 and 257 DEL

-Improve skew at intersection. -Look into coordinated timing of signal and advanced warning sign. -Consider converting to a modern roundabout. -Reduce tree line to increase visibility.

Section 7 (Delaware Section)

CR-143 DEL -Explore skew improvement options at the intersection. -Reduce tree line to increase visibility.

CR-5 (S. Section Line Road) DEL -Redefine driveways at business on corners.

-Maintain existing signal. CR-142 (Owen-Fraley Road) DEL -Mitigate the skew of the intersection through geometric

improvements. 6.3.7 Multi-Modal Improvements Other transportation modes were evaluated as part of this study in order to identify any related multi-modal improvements to US-42 that could assist and complement the access management recommendations. Because fixed-route transit is not present in this corridor, recommendations were not developed for transit. The recommendations predominately focused on pedestrian and bicycle modes. Regional Bicycle Routes: Along US-42 in Union and Delaware counties, several future bicycle

routes are planned to either cross US-42 or run adjacent to US-42. As a result, right-of-way should be acquired now in order to provide enough space to add shared-use paths alongside US-42 in the future. In addition, safe crossings of US-42 should be identified and enhanced to accommodate bicyclists (and pedestrians), such as at signalized intersections and the application of roundabouts.


AUGUST 2015 103

Figure 6-9 - Proposed 3-Lane Section with Shared-Use Path

Paved Shoulders: Along US 42, bicyclists must either ride in the vehicle lanes or on unpaved

shoulders. A minimum of four feet of paved shoulder should be provided along US 42 to create a rural on-road but separated bicycle facility. On-road bicycle facilities can co-exist with existing and future off-road facilities and caters to different levels of cyclists. In addition, this paved shoulder would improve the roadway safety for all users and are often a cost effective approach to increasing bicycle facilities.

Village of Plain City Sidewalks: Within the Village of Plain City, there are existing sidewalks and planned bicycle routes. The gaps in the existing sidewalk network should be completed. In addition, pedestrian and bicycle crossings should be installed where needed. Along US-42, depending on right-of-way constraints, bicycle lanes or sharrows, a shared lane marking, could be installed due to the lower speed limit of US-42 through the village.

“Slow Shoulders”: Throughout the corridor, there is a reoccurring presence of slow-moving vehicles, including large, slow-moving farm machinery, professional bicyclists, and heavily-loaded large trucks. US-42 serves a variety of functions, from a regional bypass alternative for regional traffic to local residential and commercial trips to recreational crossing of bicyclists, to farming access for agricultural uses. This mix of uses does create conflicts, especially when very slow moving vehicles, which are at-times too wide to pass, such as farm machinery, are using the roadway. An outside-the-box idea to address this group of vehicles is to create “slow shoulder” areas where such vehicles are prevalent. These shoulders would be wider than would typically be used on this grade of road, being 10-12 feet wide to allow for the slower moving vehicles to either fully utilize the shoulder or, for the overly-wide vehicles, to straddle to shoulder and travel lane, in order to make it easier for faster-moving traffic to pass. Concerns with faster moving cars attempting to pass nominally-slower traffic in the “slow shoulder” lane could be addressed by adding signage and a type of pavement treatment that is uncomfortable to drive on at higher speeds but still safe for bicyclists. The areas in the corridor that have been identified for this option include:

o CR-137 to CR-30 (in Section 3) o CR-19 to CR-15/CR-104 (in Section 6) o These areas are projected to remain predominately rural into the future; however, if

some or all of these areas do transition from mostly undeveloped/agricultural uses to developed uses, the shoulders should be reevaluated for their continued use at that time.


AUGUST 2015 104

Figure 6-10 - Proposed 3-Lane Section with “Slow” Shoulders

6.4 Zoning & Development Recommendations Zoning controls are widely accepted as an effective method of handling access management. The most common elements to control are:

1. Zoning classification o Parcels can be upzoned or downzoned to have the intensity of the property match the

roadway’s characteristics. 2. Limit parcel access

o Regulations regarding inclusion of direct access to major roadways can help manage the number of access points in a corridor.

3. Shared parcel access o Regulations can mandate shared driveways for adjacent parcels.

4. Alternative road parcel access o Parcel access can be restricted to nearby access or utility roads.

5. Inclusion of Backage Road Easements o Makes the land needed for backage road development available when needed.

6. Side-loading for commercial and industrial properties o Provides easier access to backage roads and allows the ability to change property

frontage to the backage road. 7. Side-loading or rear-loading garages for residences

o Creates easier access to homes through backage roads. The most effective way to implement changes to these elements of the zoning code for the purpose of access management is to develop a corridor overlay. A US-42 corridor zoning overlay would ensure that only parcels along the corridor are required to adhere to the changes, without the need to create new zoning classifications or modify the existing zoning regulations which may work well for all properties other than those with US-42 frontage. Additionally, overlays can require additional oversight to protect certain land uses by restricting certain development altogether and ensure that permitted development occurs in the manner that’s intended. While the corridor changes its profile, both existing and future, throughout the corridor, these elements can be applied to most, if not all, of the different segments. 6.4.1 Zoning Classification An upzoning of property entails changing the zoning classification to a more intense use of the property (i.e. agricultural to residential or residential to commercial). Likewise, downzoning means changing the zoning of a property to a less intense land use (i.e. residential to agricultural or commercial to


AUGUST 2015 105

residential). Rezoning can be a useful to achieve the desired profile of a corridor by concentrating traffic volumes in certain areas, which consequently relieves congestion in other areas. The land uses along the corridor, existing and planned, are already generally consistent with good land use policies for high mileage corridors; dense, clustered development nodes connected by rural, agricultural segments. Development may be expected to encroach into the rural areas from the development nodes, but rezoning should be used sparingly and only after a thorough design review. Rezoning should only be permitted on properties that are immediately adjacent to the desired zone classification to limit the amount of development spread and ensure dense nodes of development to protect the agricultural properties. The US-42 corridor overlay should also consider including a provision that prohibits single family residential as a permitted use on agriculture property with frontage on US-42. Doing so would ensure no additional driveways are built along the corridor and reduce the amount traffic, especially in the rural segments with residential frontage on US-42. The provision should be considered to include an amortization period for existing residential properties along the corridor. The period would result in the current land use being permitted until the property changes ownership, at which point, the protective overlay would take effect and prohibit residential use. Doing so however, would be considered eminent domain and would require compensation in the amount of the difference between the property value as a residential land use and the property value as an agricultural land use. 6.4.2 Limit Parcel Access Access management recommendations regarding properties’ access to the state highway system are outlined in the State Highway Access Management Manual (SWAMM). Zoning regulations should include provisions to regulate the manner in which properties are accessed in accordance with the SWAMM. The following table reviews the segments, their access management classifications, and the associated spacing recommendations. See Table 6-12 for the recommended basic driveway dimension guidelines. Additional provisions, however, should also be included to ensure strict compliance with the access management recommendations. Parcels which are eligible for direct access to US-42 should be limited to one access point which does not exceed the recommended driveway dimension guidelines.

Table 6-12 - Recommended Basic Driveway Dimension Guidelines

Type Farm/Field Residential Commercial Industrial/Retail

Single-Unit Truck Passenger Vehicle Single-Unit Truck (WB=30’)

Semi-Trailer (WB=50’)

Min (ft) Max (ft) Min (ft) Max (ft) Min (ft) Max (ft) Min (ft) Max (ft) One-Way - - 12 14 14 20 14 26

Two-Way 14 20 12 24 26 32 26 38 Right-Turn

Radius 25 35 15 25 25 35 35 75

*ODOT Access Management Manual Semi-circle or horseshoe drives should also be strictly prohibited, along with any other driveway types whose design allows for more than one point of entrance to the roadway regardless of how many drives there are.


AUGUST 2015 106

The above countermeasures will reduce the number of access points along the corridor, which will in turn reduce the frequent slowing and speeding of traffic, which ultimately creates unsafe driving conditions and congestion. Madison County: Single-family residences, apartments for labor, and bed and breakfasts should be prohibited as conditional uses under the (A-1) Agricultural District classification with amortization periods for currently owned residences along US-42. Plain City: Contains no agricultural uses. Jerome Township (Union County): The rural district (U-1) should have the very low density residential use removed from the list of permitted uses, as well as removing enclosed storage facilities, limited business, and home occupations from the list of conditional uses. Millcreek Township (Union County): Consider removing single family dwellings, home occupations, adult family homes, and day care facilities from the list of permitted uses in the U-1 Farm/Residential zone. Conditional uses that should be removed are commercial recreation, veterinary services, and bed and breakfast lodging. Concord Township; (Delaware County): The farm residential district should be altered to a singular farm district. Single-family dwellings, manufactured/mobile homes, and adult family homes should be removed from list of permitted uses in this district. Model homes and group homes should be removed from the list of conditional uses. City of Delaware: The agricultural district property on US-42 should be upzoned to M-1, light manufacturing, to match the neighboring land uses and promote a more cohesive corridor as a gateway into the City of Delaware. 6.4.3 Shared Parcel Access Zoning regulations can frequently include provisions that promote shared driveway easements. As a method to reduce the number of drives, such provisions can include requirements for access drives to be located near adjacent property lines, along with requirements and incentives to encourage shared driveways. Incentives vary and can include measures such as partial tax abatements and waiving portions of development or property fees. The benefits of shared driveway easements are reciprocal. Property owners get monetary benefits, while the community sees a reduction in the number of access points along heavily travelled roadways. The shared driveway easement benefits should only be available to adjacent properties who both have no other means of access other than directly to US-42. Otherwise, access should be strictly limited to secondary or backage roads, in which case shared driveways would provide a smaller amount of benefit to the community. Madison County: The corridor overlay should utilize this countermeasure in future development that’s expected to occur north of London, Ohio, and especially in the vicinity of the US-40 and I-70 interchanges. Village of Plain City: While many driveways already exist in this area and it will be difficult to construct shared access driveways, this countermeasure can be implemented in the planned office/mixed use areas north of Main Street. Jerome Township (Union County): With a lot of development planned in the near future around the US-33 interchange, it will be vital to include this countermeasure. The focus would be on the business and office centers.


AUGUST 2015 107

Millcreek Township (Union County): Millcreek Township should consider adding this countermeasure to the design overlay to limit access drives along US-42 for any residential properties that may be built along the corridor if residential properties remain a permitted use in the U-1 zones. Concord Township (Delaware County): Concord Township should also consider requiring shared access drives for any potential residential development that might occur should residential properties remain a permitted use in the farm/residential district. City of Delaware: As a focused gateway corridor in the City of Delaware, this countermeasure would provide the most benefit to the City of Delaware. With the light industrial zone, it’s crucial that industrial properties utilize shared drives as much as possible to reduce the points at which heavy traffic will be entering and exiting US-42. 6.4.4 Alternative Road Parcel Access Some zoning regulations have elected to prohibit direct access to a roadway when other reasonable means of access are available. This method of managing the number of access points along a roadway is both effective and recommended in the State Highway Access Management Manual. Alternative access can include secondary roads or side streets, and backage roads or utility drives that run behind the properties. Backage roads, utility drives, and secondary road driveways not only limit the number of access points along the corridor, but also act to funnel traffic through the pre-existing intersections. As traffic volumes increase, signals can be installed which would allow the flow of traffic and congestion to be managed, whereas that degree of management wouldn’t be possible with access points along the main corridor. While the communities themselves can build the backage roads and utility drives ahead of development, a reduction of impact fees can also be offered as an incentive for developers to include them in development plans on their own accord. If the roads are built at a later date, existing access points that are direct can be prohibited in lieu of the new backage road access. Madison County: Requiring alternative access points to US-42 would remove low-volume driveways associated with agriculture from the corridor altogether. Existing access points onto US-42 should be combined when possible and removed when a local street access point is available. Village of Plain City: Alternative access points would be more of a long-term goal in this developed area. While direct access driveways are permitted in this area, the focus should be on diverting access for corner lots onto the local roadways. Jerome Township (Union County): Planned developments should be required to divert traffic to local roadways whenever possible. Existing access points onto US-42 should be combined when possible and removed when a local street access point is available. Millcreek Township (Union County): With development along this segment of the corridor at a minimum, keeping access drives off of US-42 is extremely important to ensure the continued flow of traffic. Existing access points onto US-42 should be combined when possible and removed when a local street access point is available. Concord Township (Delaware County): Limiting access to local side streets is equally important here. Existing access points onto US-42 should be combined when possible and removed when a local street access point is available, especially in the vicinity of SR-257.


AUGUST 2015 108

City of Delaware: With the majority of planned access drives resulting in medium to high volumes, most properties would be permitted to have a direct access point. It would be important to restrict these direct access points to only those properties that do not have any other reasonable means of accessing US-42. 6.4.5 Inclusion of Backage Road Easements Also included in development regulations are the easements for backage roads. In the event that a developer would choose not to include the construction of the backage road in their plans, the property would still be made available for communities to build the roads themselves to provide access for all of the properties along that particular segment. Doing so would create reasonable secondary access to US-42 and would make prohibiting direct access possible. Madison County: This countermeasure will be important in this jurisdiction. With a large amount of undeveloped land, it would be important to require backage road easements as part of the development agreements to assure the land is available. Making this land available will make the construction of backage roads possible to ensure no additional direct access points on US-42, especially in the areas just north of the City of London’s boundary. Village of Plain City: As a Category IV, which is primarily developed, this countermeasure would be more difficult to enforce. Because direct access points are permitted here and the speed limit is reduced, it may be less important to ensure the development of backage roads south of Main Street. They should, however, definitely be included in development agreements for properties north of Main Street. Jerome Township (Union County): Backage roads would also be more difficult to be constructed here. Business properties want the visibility of US-42 frontage at the US-33 interchange. This issue would require placing more importance on shared access drives and drives onto the local side streets. Millcreek Township (Union County): Backage road easements will be very important here to ensure that any future development will not have any problems finding alternative access. Concord Township (Delaware County): Like Millcreek Township in Union County, it would be important to include backage roads to ensure alternative access points. City of Delaware: Backage road easements would be important here and more easily able to be implemented, but would be implemented for the alternative reason of providing reverse frontage. Industrial properties could be developed with reverse frontage to reduce the visual eyesore in the corridor’s gateway. 6.4.6 Side-loading Commercial and Industrial Properties Side-loading, as it pertains to commercial and industrial properties, refers to locating the parking lots on the side of the building lot as opposed to the front. Zoning regulations could include provisions that would prohibit locating parking lots on the front of the property, and the side which abuts US-42. This would instead require that parking lots be side-loaded. The side-loaded parking lots would encourage the development of backage roads in two ways; promoting the use of backage roads and creating reverse frontage opportunities. Requiring side-loaded parking lots would reduce the distance from an existing or proposed backage road. Reducing the distance would decrease the cost associated with the drive making it more cost effective to connect to a backage road rather than directly accessing US-42. Reducing the cost of driveway development would encourage businesses and developers to be more supportive and


AUGUST 2015 109

proactive in the development and usage of backage roads. Side-loading opens the possibility of designing properties to have frontage on the backage road, otherwise known as reverse frontage, where the backs of buildings would actually face US-42. Reversing the frontage for industrial properties would have the added benefit of reducing eyesore from US-42. 6.4.7 Side-loading or Rear-Loading Garages for Residences In terms of residential properties, side-loading refers to the direction that the garage faces; the side. Likewise, rear-loading refers to garages which face the rear. Zoning could also regulate the loading directions of garages. The benefits for residential properties are similar to commercial and industrial properties, with the additional benefit of beautification. Side-loaded garages would locate the garage on the side of the residence and behind the façade, hiding the garage from the front view. 6.4.8 Summary While access to the street system cannot be prohibited, zoning regulations can dictate the manner of access, so long as the provisions are reasonable. These methods are all available, whether written into a zoning regulation or not. Currently, none of the jurisdictions zoning regulations require the use of any of these methods. These seven land use control countermeasures can be employed individually or in conjunction to reduce the number of low to medium volume access driveways that connect directly to US-42. Implementing these control countermeasures would make US-42 a more safe and efficient corridor by removing the number of points where traffic flow would be inhibited by vehicles entering and exiting the corridor. To be effective as a tool in reducing access drives, regional planning commissions and counties would need to work closely with one another to ensure that the zoning overlay is in effect for all jurisdictions. 6.5 Funding & Financing Mechanisms There are a number of potential sources available to fund the recommendations described in the previous sections. 6.5.1 Improvements to US-42 For major improvements to US-42, funding would typically come from traditional federal and state highway funding sources, which may require a local match, for example, if the project is within municipal boundaries. The types of improvements for which these funding sources are appropriate vary, but would typically include: Widening the pavement to add shoulders, passing lanes, intersection turn lanes, “slow

shoulders,” or center turn lanes. Intersection improvements (roundabouts, re-alignments, signalization). Correction of curves or other geometric deficiencies.

The funding sources available to ODOT and local governments to fund these improvements are as follows:

ODOT-managed programs Major/New Program, managed by the Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC), funds

projects greater than $12 million that add capacity to the transportation system.


AUGUST 2015 110

Highway Safety Program, managed via ODOT’s central office, which funds projects that address areas with high crash rate or frequency.

ODOT District 6 funding, which is allocated by central office to districts for bridge and pavement preservation. Small improvements can be made in conjunction with a pavement or bridge preservation project.

MORPC-managed programs MORPC receives an allocation of federal-aid highway funding, which it manages and

distributes to projects within its Central Ohio jurisdiction which includes the Delaware County portion of the US-42 corridor. MORPC has specific administrative processes for the funds it manages.

Local programs For projects within municipal boundaries, local governments have a number of local options

for funding, including revenues received from the state gas tax, local tax revenue, State Issue II funds, and local bond proceeds. Local projects on US-42 would require coordination with and, usually, a funding contribution from ODOT.

6.5.2 Public Funding for Local Circulation Improvements in the Corridor Many of the access management strategies discussed above do not directly impact state roads, and provide benefits to local circulation (e.g., frontage/backage roads). State funding is not typically appropriate or available for these types of improvements, unless broader purposes are served, such as economic development or safety improvements to a high-accident location. The most important and likely source of funding for local road improvements are county, township, and municipal revenues from income taxes, license plate registration fees, gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. Some of the costs of property access changes would be borne by the property owners. State funding sources that can be used for local road improvements include: County Surface Transportation County Highway Safety Program Safe Routes to School ODOT Safety funds ODOT Small City funds Transportation Alternatives Program (for bike and pedestrian improvements) Ohio Public Works Commission (State Capital Improvement Program & Local Transportation

Improvement Program) Ohio Department of Development funds (various) Housing & Community Partnerships (usually related to businesses) Rural Business Enterprise Grants

These funding sources, in some cases, can also be used to provide the local match required for federal/ODOT funds. Loans from the State Infrastructure Bank may also be used, although these are not grants, and would need to be repaid over time. Additional information on most of these sources can be found in the ODOT Program Resource Guide. Many of these sources have limited funding availability, which would place the counties and municipalities along the US-42 corridor in competition with other parts of the state for these grants.


AUGUST 2015 111

6.5.3 Private and Alternative Funding Sources Some of the access management improvements can be funded by property owners, either directly or through special taxing districts or development impact fees. Property Owner-Funded Improvements For new developments, the implementation of new access management regulations would simply be part of the development cost. Private landowners would be responsible for the design and construction of driveways that meet the new guidelines, along with designing proper setbacks and setting aside any required easements for future backage roads or for linkages to neighboring properties. Developers could also be required to pay impact assessment fees to cover some or all of the cost of the municipal infrastructure required to serve the new development. For existing developments, access changes could be required of the owners when changes to the property are made. This would be consistent with Section 2.10 of ODOT’s State Highway Access Management Manual. Other retrofitting would need to be done on a case-by-case basis in coordination with ODOT, local governments, and property owners. Every situation would have its own set of challenges as moving a driveway on a corner lot to a side road is typically easier than creating shared driveways among adjacent properties with multiple owners. In some cases, property owners may need to be compensated for changes that reduce their ability to fully utilize their property. Special Assessment Districts Where funding is needed for major improvements, such as the construction of backage roads, it may make sense to develop a special assessment district where a supplemental tax is levied on the specific properties that would be served by the proposed improvements. This method can be used to pay for all or part of major improvements, assuming the property values in the district would support project costs. Special assessment districts are also used to fund lower-cost improvements (e.g., installing street-lighting or signage) or to provide for ongoing maintenance (e.g., of shared driveways). There are a number of variations on this concept, including Tax Increment Financing districts (where no additional tax levies are required), Joint Economic Development Districts (where improvements are needed across jurisdictional boundaries), and Transportation Improvement Districts. Revenues from these funding arrangements could be used to directly pay for the improvements over time, or in some cases, could be used as security to guarantee bonds (loans) to speed construction. 6.6 Implementation A large number of recommendations have been made in this study. Some of these recommendations could be cost-prohibitive and/or may never be constructed, however, it is still important to go through this exercise to develop a plan that establishes the ideal future roadway conditions in order to provide a guide with a high level of detail and supporting documentation for future practitioners to work towards, incrementally and over time. 6.6.1 Short-Term These recommendations include options that are either:

1. Lower-cost 2. Transitional


AUGUST 2015 112

3. High priority need 4. Combination of two or more

These recommendations include: Create additional limited-access areas. Restrict left-turns with signage which would be transitional until medians are constructed. Convert private access to right-in/right-out. Narrow/delineate driveways. Install U-turns, either permanent or transitional. Restrict development of new access points. Restrict the number of access points. Add auxiliary lanes to address current safety-related issues. Install signals where warranted. Correct geometric sight-distance issues in areas where this is a low-cost fix. “Slow shoulders” that could be either permanent or transitional if land uses in the area

transition such that road user types do not need these shoulders. Pedestrian-actuated crossings. Sidewalks, including closing the gaps for main pedestrian areas Rezone parcels to lower intensity of use. Limit parcel access to a single driveway. Require shared-access easements between adjacent property owners. Require parcel access to different roadways instead of US-42. Require easements for future backage roads. Require side-loading for commercial and industrial properties. Require rear or side-loading garages for residential properties.

6.6.2 Medium Term These recommendations include options that are either:

1. Moderate cost 2. Not immediately needed but soon 3. Not short or long-term

These recommendations include: Add a continuous two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL), either permanent or transitional if the area

further develops and needs a non-traversable median instead. Install non-traversable medians. Relocate roadways. Install service roads (frontage, backage or combination) where the area is already developed. Add travel lanes when needed to accommodate capacity. Add auxiliary lanes where warranted, as the area develops Install signals where warranted, as the area develops Construct intersection improvements. Correct geometric sight-distance issues where this wouldn’t be too costly Sidewalks in areas with pedestrian use.


AUGUST 2015 113

Bicycle facilities including off-street shared-use paths to complete system gaps. 6.6.3 Long-Term These recommendations include options that are either:

1. Highest cost 2. Full land use build-out 3. Not immediately needed 4. Future ideal 5. Uncertain if needed

These recommendations include: Install service roads (frontage, backage, or combination) if the area has not yet developed. Correct geometric sight-distance issues. If costly, fix in conjunction with a major roadway

rehabilitation project. Develop local street network. Bicycle facilities including off-street shared-use paths to extend connections to new areas. Wildlife crossings if needed.

Documents

US-42 ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY€¦ · MAD/UNI/DEL-42 ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY AUGUST 2015 ii 4.1.2 Traffic Volumes Evaluation ... Exhibit 4.1 Transportation Analysis Locations Exhibit