Hammond marina access study final report--August, 1980

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

TC
328
R344
1980

HAMMOND, INDIANA

HAMMOND CITY OFFICIALS

@IaZ@jr I
Edward J. Raskosky

Common Council

George W. Carlson, Councilman-at-large
Charles McGregor, Councilman-at-large
John A. Skurka, Councilman-at-large
Gerald Bobos, Councilman of lst District
Don Smulski, Councilman of 2nd District
John H. Parrish, Councilman of 3rd District
Louis Karubas, Councilman of 4th District
Anthony C. Colantonio, Councilman of 5th District
Robert Golec, Councilman of 6th District

Plan Commission

Edward J. Wozniak, President
Michael Schweisthal, Vice-President
George W. Carlson
Thomas C. Conley
William Daniels
Anthony Kouf os
Clyde Rector
Barry Sherman
Barbara Stodola

p@@!artment of Planning and Development

April E. Wooden, Executive Director
J. Christopher Huff, City Planner
Kevin Augustyn, Land Use Planner

HAMMOND MARINA ACCESS STUDY

FINAL REPORT

OQk

AUGUST'j 1980

CITY OF HAMMOND/

HUGHES ASSOC IATES

PROJECT INDIANA CZ084-80-04

The ptepatation o6 thi.6 tepott wa.6 6inanced in patt thtough
a comptehenAive ptanning pant ptovided by the Coastat Zone
Management Act o6 1972, a.6'amended, admini.6te&ed by the
064ice oj Coaztat Zone Management, Nationat Oceanic and
Atmo.6phetic Adminizttation.

HAMMOND MARINA ACCESS STUDY
Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION .. . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . 1

ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS . . . . . . . 4
Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Lane Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Storage Requirements . . . . . . o . . . . . . . 15
Area Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Traffic Impacts . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . 17

LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Structural Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Public Rights-of-Way. . o . . o . . . . . . 24
Set-Backs . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Potential Land Use Changes. . . . . . . 30

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIO14S . . . . . o .33
Design Criteria . o . . o . . . . 33
Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . .*33
Convenience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Environmental Impact . . . . . . . 35
Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . 36
112th Street Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Calumet Avenue Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Lake Avenue Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Evaluation of Alternatives. . : * * o * * * * *44
.112th Street At-Grade Crossing . . . . . . . 44
Calumet Avenue At-Grade. . . o . . . . . . . 47
Calumet Avenue Overpass . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Calumet Avenue Underpass . . . . . . . . . . 48
Lake Avenue At-Grade . . . . o . . . . . . . 49
Corridor/Facility Recommendations . .49
Related Actions . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 53

HAMMOND MARINA ACCESS STUDY
Final Report

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 - Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 - Traffic Volume Counts - 1978 and Projected 2000 . . . . . . 18

3 - Existing Land Use . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4 - Structural Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5 - Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 25
6 - Set-Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 26

7 - Existing Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,

8 - Potential Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

9 - 112th Street Corridor, At-Grade Crossing (Alternate A-1), . 39

#10 - Calumet Avenue Corridor, At-Grade Crossing (Alternate B-1) . .41

#11 - Calumet Avenue Corridor, Overpass (Alternate B-2) . .42

#12 - Lake Avenue Corridor, At-Grade Crossing (Alternate C@-l) . .45

#13 - Calumet Avenue Corridor, Suggested Access Improvements . . . 51

HAMMOND MARINA ACCESS STUDY

Final Report

INTRODUCTION

The Lake County Park and Recreation Board has proposed the

development of a 200-600 boat marina to be located on the

Lake Michigan Shore of the City of Hammond.

One of the major concerns of the City of Hammond is pro-

viding access to the site which is safe and convenient for

Marina users and which produces a minimum of disruption of

existing traffic patterns in the area and existing commercial,

industrial and residential uses in the area.

The overall purpose of the study is to:

1. Identify the essential characteristics of an adequate

acces's facility in terms of capacity and safety;

2. Identify and quantify constraints to safe and con-

venient access including existing and projected auto-

mobile and rail movements in the area;

3. Determine how existing or future area land uses will

affect or be affected by Marina access;

4. Identify and evaluate potential access corridors and

facility designs in terms of economic and social

costs and the Marina's access requirement;

5. Identify other actions required to minimize conflict

between Marina access and area development and trans-

portation.

The principal focus of the study, the "planning area",

includes the area south of the lake shore to Indianapolis

Boulevard from the Commonwealth Edison plant on the west

to approximately 600 feet east of the Hammond Water Works

plant. (See,Figure 1)

The report is organized into three major sections covering

Access Requirements and Constraints, Land Use and other

physical characteristics of the area, and Analysis and

Recommendations regarding corridors and facilities.

These report sections correspond to preliminary reports

dealing with each of these areas.

Lake Michigan

---------- --------- ------------
--- ---------

0
N,

ou
00
0000
00 0 0
0
D
00

oo.. CpG.- 103
mmm
Boulevard
Inclonapolls

Lak" P killg-
Cha
C:@:3 '64, -, -@' I
aq -el
HAMMOND MARINA PLANNING AREA
Ago%-CESS STUDY

PROJECT INDIANA -80-04 -- THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED IN PART THROUG HA COM PPREHENSIVE
CZOOV81DED BY THE COASTAL ZONE MA AGEMENT ACT OF 1 7 ,AS ME DE ,
PLANNING GRANT P N 9 2 A N D ADMINISTERED BY THE
OFFI CE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION.

ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS

The purpose of this study phase was to develop estimates

of traffic to be generated by the Marina and other uses in

the area, determine access corridor capacity requirements,

and identify potential conflicts with other vehicular and

rail traffic in the area. All traffic estimates, pro-

jection and analysis relate to summer months when Marina

use will be at its peak.,

TRAFFIC

Since Indianapolis Boulevard is the arterial closest to

the lake shore and Marina site, the focus of concern

with traffic generation was the area between Indianapolis

Boulevard and the lake shore. The area is split by E.J. &

E., B. & 0., and Conrail rail lines. Only Calumet Avenue

and'Lake Avenue currently provide public access to the

lake front across these rail lines.

If either Calumet or Lake Avenues were to be used for

Marina access, they would have to accorModate existing

generators north and south of the rail lines as well as

the Marina. An entirely new access corridor could be

designed to serve only the Marina and other,uses north of

the rail lines. Thethree types or areas of traffic gen-

eration of concern then are the Marina, other uses north

of the rail lines (including existing recreational uses

and uses associated with the railroads themselves) and

uses south of the rail lines to Indianapolis Boulevard.

Projected Marina traffic was estimated for two schemes

which correspond to the two stages of planned development

outlines in the March, 1976 Lakeshore Park and Marina

Master Plan prepared by Ralph H. Burke Associates.

The fi rst stage of development would include 300 boat

slips, 54 moorings and parking for 390 cars. The first

stage would also include 8 launch ramps with parking for

256 car/trailer combinations. Under the second phase of

development, the 54 moorings would be replaced with 300

additional slips and parking for the slips would be

expanded to 600 spaces.

Based on traffic generation data for other marinas, it

is expected that each slip (or mooring) will generate an

average of 3.8 trips on peak days (Sundays and Holidays

during summer months), 2.3 trips on Saturdays and 1.1

trips on weekdays. Based on the Burke report, each

launch ramp could be expected to generate 36 trips per

day or a total of 288 trips per day for the 8 ramps.

Based on the above mentioned factors, thetotal peak day

average daily traffic (ADT) generated by the Marina would

be 1,633 for Stage I and 2,568 for Stage II.

National studies of marina use* i ndicate that Sundays and

Holidays would be the peak days of use and that peak use

within the day would occur between 6:00 and 10:00 A. M.

and 3:00 and 6:00 P. M.

Peak hour traffic from the Marina is estimated at 236 for

Stage I and 344 for Stage II. These estimates are based

on projections that the slips will generate trips (in-the

major direction of flow) equal to 40 percent of parking for

slips and a projected peak of 10 launches/retrievals per

hour/per-ramp.

For the purposes of this study, Saturday traffic was

estimated at 60 percent and weekdays at 30 percent of

dai ly and hourly peaks. Table 1 shows a summary of ex-

pected peak and average daily traffic for peak and off-

peak days.

Projected Traffic Volumes Table 1
Hammond Marina

S T A G E I: S T A G E II
Peak Peak
ADT Hour ADT Hour

Sundays/Holidays 1,633: 236, 2,568 344

Saturdays 990 142 1,541 206

Weekdays 490 71 770 103

Source: Hughes Associates

Institute of Traffic Engineers, Traffic Generation Manual

According to the Hammond Rail Relocation Study (Alfred

Benesch and Co.), current and projected average daily

traffic across rail lines at both Calumet and Lake Avenues

was 300. This traffic w ould include trips to and from the

Hammond Water Works plant, trips to railroad facilities as

well as some recreation oriented trips. While detailed

data is not available for these crossings from the Rail

Relocation Study, the Study in general assumed that Sat-

urdays and Sundays together would be approximately 125

percent of weekday ADT With Sunday at 65 percent and

Saturday at 60 percent of weekday ADT. It is estimated

that peak hour traffic will. be 15 percent of ADT. Table

2 summarizes estimated base line traffic generated north

of the rail lines in the study area.

Estimated Traffic Volumes Table 2
Lakeshore/Rail Corridor
Calumet and Lake Avenues
Peak
ADT Hour

Sundays/Holidays 195 29

Saturdays 180 27

Weekdays 300 45

Source: Hughes Associates

The third element of traffic generation in the study area

involves segments of existing streets between Indianapolis

Boulevard and the rail lines. These include generators

along Lake and Calumet Avenues.

Table 3 shows a summary of projected traffic on the Lake

Avenue corridor, combining Lake Avenue generat ors with

the Marina and other lake shore/railroad generators.

Table 3 shows that peak daily traffic will occur on Sun-

day and that peak hourly traffic will occur between 3:00

and 7:00 P . M. on Sunday. These peaks will be more than

six times normal Sunday traffic at the Lake/Indianapolis

Boulevard intersection, due to the addition of Marina

traffic.

Summary of Traffic Generators Table 3
Lake Avenue Corridor
Hammond Marina Access

Source Weekday Saturday Sunday/Holiday

ADT/Peak (Hours) ADT/Peak (Hours) ADT/Peak (Hours)
Marina-Stage I & 11 770/103 (4-7 pm) 1,541/206 (4-7 pm) 2,568/344 (3-6 pm)

Other Lake Shore/
Railroads 300/ 45 (4-7 pm) 180/ 27 (4-7 pm) 195/ 29 (4-7 pm)

Subtotal at Railroad
Crossing 1,070/148 (4-7 pm) 1,721/233 (4-7 pm) 2,763/373 (3-7 pm)

Lake Avenue-Indianapolis
to Railroad 368/ 44 (4-7 pm) 368/ 44 (4-7 pm) 321/ 39 (4-7 pm)

Combined at Lake Avenue
& Indianapolis 1,438/192 (4-7 pm) 2,089/277 (4-7 pm) 3,084/412 (3-7 pm

.Source: Hughes Associates

Uses along Calumet Avenue include residential (multi-

family), industrial and commercial. Lever Brothers'

truck loading docks and employee gate are the only uses

on tl@e west side of Calumet. Uses on the east side of

Calumet include (from north to south) Phil Schmidt's

Restaurant, two 24 unit apartment buildings, a social

club, a muffler shop,and tavern with two apartments above

at Calumet and Indianapolis.

The Lever Brothers facility has two gates which serve a

loading dock and a pedestrian gate for employees. The

loadingdock has 28 bays with additional parking for an

estimated 20 truck trailers. At the time of the field

surveys, a major construct.ion project was under way and

.an estimated 25 construction trailers were parked on

the site.

Employee parking for Lever Brothers was provided on the

east side of Calumet in two lots, the larger accommodating

approximately 100 cars and the smaller (shared with the

Calumet Social Club) accommodating approximately 40 cars.

On street, head-in parking on the west side of Calumet

provides space for approximately 85 additional cars.

Lever Brothers has recently constructed an enclosed pedes-

trian bridge to a 600 car employee parking lot loc ated

on the south side of Indianapolis Boulevard.

The company's traffic manager indicates that there are

approximately 60 trucks in and out of the area on week-

days for an average ADT of 120. Trucking operations are

virtually closed down on Saturdays and Sundays. Lever

Brothers' employee parking off Calumet is estimated to

generate weekday ADT of 600. Management indicated little

activity on Saturday and Sunday -- we estimated Saturday

ADT at 20 percent (120) and Sunday ADT at 10 percent (60).

Peak hours were estimated at 30 percent of ADT or 18 for

Sunday, 36 for Saturday, and 180 for weekdays. Management

.indicates that it is encouraging employees to use its 600

car parking lot south of Indianapolis Boulevard rather

than Calumet Avenue facilities. This action is expected

to help further reduce any future congestion on Calumet.

Phil Schmidt's Restaurant has a seating capacity o f

approximately 500, off-street parking for approximately

130 cars and approximately 20 on-street parking spaces.

Phil Schmidt's Restaurant is closed Sundays and Holidays

and there are no plans for changing the current operation.

The two 24 unit apartment buildings share a parking lot

which would accommodate approximately 26 cars and on-

street parking for approximately 6 cars.

The Calumet Social Club is a private dance hall. Manage-

ment indicates that the hall is used only on Saturday nights

and has a capacity of 250 to 300 persons. The Club has

parking for 6 cars on-street and approximately 40 cars off-

street (shared lot with Lever Brothers).

The next use south on the east side of Calumet is a Car

X Muffler shop which is currently under construction. It

appears that this, use will have eight bays and parking for

approximately 16 cars.

The tavern/apartment use at Indianapo lis and Calumet

provides off-street parking for approximately eight cars

with access to Calumet.

Taken together, it is estimated that these Calumet Avenue

uses would generate ADT's of 1,700 for weekdays, 1,600 for

Saturdays, and 350 for Sundays. Weekday peak traffic is

estimated at 250 per hour and is expected to occur between

4:00 and 7:00 P. M. Saturday peak traffic is estimated

at 355 and is expected to occur between 7:00 and 9:00

P. M. Sunday peak is estimated at 55 between 4:00 and

7:00 P. M.

Table 4 shows a sum mary of average daily and peak hour

traffic volumes for the Calumet Avenue corridor based on

development of both stages of the Marina. Time periods

in parenthesis indicate when the peak hour traffic could

be expected to occur. ADT and peak hour traffic are shown

both for the rail crossing and for the intersection of

Calumet Avenue with Indianapolis Boulevard. While ADT's
from each se'gment were added to obtain combined ADT, com-

bined peak hour traffic totals only those segments which

coincide plus estimated off-peak traffic from remaining

segments.

Summa ry of Traffic Generators Table 4
Calumet Avenue Corridor
Hammond Marina Access

Source Weekday Saturday Sunday/Holiday

ADT/Peak (Hours) ADT/Pe.ak (Hours) ADT/Peak (Hours)

Marina Stage I & 11 770/103 (4-7 pm) 1,541/206 (4-7 pm) 2,568/344 (3-6 pm)

Other Lake Shore 300/ 45 (4-7 pm) 180/ 27 (4-7 pm) 195/ 29 (4-7 pm)

Subtotal at
RR Crossing 1,070/148 (4-7 pm) 1,721/233 (4-7 pm) 2,763/373 (3-7 pm)

Calumet- Indiana-
polis to RR 1,700/250 (4-7 pm) 1,600/355 (7-9 pm) 350/ 55 (4-7 pm)

Combined at Calumet/
Indianapolis 2,770/398 (4-7 pm) 3,321/386 (7-9 pm) 3,113/428 (3-7 pm)

Source: Hughes Associates

Table 4 shows that while Saturday will have the highest

ADT, peak hourly traffic (because of the Marina) is ex-

pected to occur on Sunday afternoon. It is expected that

this traffi c will be split, 383 southbound and 45 north-

bound, during the 3-7 pm peak.

A similar type of summary for a Lake Av enue corridor would

involve substituting traffic from the Lake Avenue-Indiana-

polis to railroad peaks and. ADT's (page 6) for the cor-

responding Calumet Avenue segment. Any other access

facility would be required to handle all traffic generated

north of the rail lines.

LANE REQUIREMENTS

The Calumet Avenue traffic volumes would be equal to or

greater than either the Lake Avenue Corridor or a new

corridor providing direct access to the Marina. Lane

requirements thus were determined based on the expected

peak hour traffic on Calumet. Below is an outline of

capacities of various types; of facilities at various

.levels of service compared with the Calumet Avenue pro-

je,cted peak hour volume. The first two comparisons

relate to lane requirements along the corridor. The

third comparison is used to determi ne lane requirements

at the intersection of the access corridor with Indiana-

polis Boulevard. Level of Service (L.O.S.) C, D, and E

reflect the extent of congestion on a given facility

with various levels of traf fic. Level "C" is defined

as an ideal design.capacity and level "E" is considered

maximum capacity. In the first example, the ideal max-

imum level of traffic would be 1,500 autos. As traffic

increases, congestion increases, and the level of service

drops. The example also shows that capacity or level of

service also drops with the! addition of truck traffic.

(1) Free-flow (limited access such as bridges, ramps, etc.)
Capacity at 30-40 MPH, maximum 6 percent grade expressed
in vehicles/hour/lane.)

Capacity (Vehicles/Hour/Lane)
L.O.S. Autos 15% Trucks

C 1,500 1,050

D 1,600

E 1,875

kesult: A 2-lane bridge,or other limited access facility

with.2-way traffic, would be more than adequate

for a peak hour traffic of 383 vehicles/hour one

way.

(2)-* Typical at-grade street at 30MPH + expressed in
vehicles/hour/lane.

L.O.S. Capacity

C 1,200

D 1,350

E 1,500

Result: A 2-lane roadway with 2-way traffic would be more

than adequate with a peak hour demand of 383

vehicles/hour one way.

(3) Intersection capacity at traffic signal (4-lane).

Intersection South Bound Approach Capacity
L.O.S. Capacity 1 lane 2 lanes

C 1,200 312 624

D 1,350 351 702

E 1,500 390 780

Result: With the projected peak hour, one-way volume of

383 vehicles, two south bound approach lanes

Cexisting) will be required to provide level of

service "C". One lane would provide level of

service "E". Two south bound lanes will allow

1.6 times the projected peak hour volume before

reaching maximum capacity with present signal

timing. Present ;signal timing at Calumet/

Indianapolis gives green to south bound Calumet

26 percent of the time.

STORAGE REQUIREMENTS

One of the significant access constraints affecting the

proposed Hammond Marina is the series of lakeside rail

lines which separate the lake shore from the arterial

higbway system. One aspect of this constraint is.the

need to "store" vehicles while the railroad crossings

are blocked. The ra il lines actually consist of nine

tracks protected by three sets of gates and flashers.

Table 5 shows the number of trains and gross amount of

time crossings are closed (down time) by specified time

frames.

Train Traffic Table 5
Calumet/Lake Avenues Combined Crossings, 1977

Number Gross Down
Time Period of Trains Time (minutes)

6:00 am-9:00 am 12 19

9:00 am-3:00 pm 13 23

3:0.0 pm-6:00 pm 9

6:00 pm-10:00 pm 8 16

10:0 0 pm-6:00 am 13 29

55 103

Source: Alfred.Benesch & Company

During the 3:00-6:00 P. M. peak period for the Marina and

other lake side uses, there are nine trains with 16

minutes of down time. This equals an average of three

trains per hour with 1.77 minutes of down time each or

5.3 minutes of down time per hour. Based on the Benesch
study, the track crossing approach speed'is 20 MPH and

crossing roughness forces a speed reduction to 10 MPH.

In order to estimate needed peak storage capacity, the

following assumptions were made; (1) that 360 of the 373

(Table 4) peak hour traffic in the rail line to lake shore

segment is south bound, (2) that 80 of these vehicles

(peak hourly launch ramp capacity) have trailers, and (3)

that the average storage length per vehicle (or combina-

tion) is 30 feet.

The 360 south bound traffic during the peak hour equals

r
six vehicles per minute. Chis figure is divided by a 0.85

peak hour factor to arrive at a design volume of 7.06

vehicles per minut e. (This "Peak hour factor" allows for

fluctuations in traffic volumes within the peak hour.)

Since the average train generates 1.77 minutes of down

time, 12.5 vehicles will be stopped initially (7.66 X 1.77)

requiring 375 feet of vehicle storage (12.5 X 30'). However,

before these vehicles can disperse after the tracks clear,

another nine vehicles will accumulate for a total of 21.5

vehicles or 645 feet of vehicle storage required., A

similar (though slightly 'Less) storage capacity would be

required to accommodate an expected north bound morning

secondary peak.

AREA TRANSPORTATION,

As indicated earlier, Indianapolis Boulevard is the closest

arterial to the proposed Marina site. Calumet Avenue is

also an arterial south of its intersection with Indianapolis

Boulevard. Figure 2 shows 1978 and projected year 2000

ADT counts for these arterials. (The projected year 2000

counts are based on a multiplier used by the Northwestern

Indiana Regional Planning Commission.)

The Northwestern Ind iana Regional Planning Commission

(NIRPC) 1995 Transportation System Plan (1979) proposed

no changes in the area's arterial roads. The Alfred

Benesch & Company Hammond Railroad Relocation and Con-

solidation Plan (1979) proposed no changes in existing

rail facilities or traffic in the area.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS

As indicated by a comparison of projected Marina traffic

(Table 3) and existing arterial traffic (Figure 2), the

additional traffic from the Marina will be relatively

minor. Average weekday traffic on arterial roads in the

area range from 17,000 vehicles (on Indianapolis at

Calumet) to 30,000 vehicles on Calumet at 121st'Street).

< '7+,41

L
ST.

N 0
I

I 10th

bllb
>

11 h >
1141h ST

115th 11 5th

> -e

z
>
1116th ST@

col >
> >
(L w<1117th ST- lh Sl
<

0 >
a:
U >
118th ST. 118 lh >< ST.<> < w
-71 z >
< <
cc cc 0
0 a:
z w
w
> U
119ih ST. 4 F@
BUR70,v Cl. 4 FISCHRUPP ST

w
JOHN ST
>
E 1201h ST, 4
FRED ST FRED ST I
z
w w w 01
> > > > >
< < 121st ST.
121 st < wl
- 30 005 z
(56,600)5 < 0
lzj 7--
w LAKFVIFW
WOLF

LAKE

LA K E Cr
x
U
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS FIGURE
HAMMOND MARINA 1978 AND PROJECTED 2000
ACCESS STUDY 16,240 1978 AVE@AGE DAILY
City of Hammond TRAFFIC kADT) north
Hughes Associates (30,980) PROJECTED 2000 AVE@AGE 1200
DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT scale 0ff!5i2!!5iR feed

The proposed Marina would add a projected 770 vehicles

on weekdays during the boating season. Even this large
of an addition is likely to occur only when weather (and

driving) conditions are good.

As illustrated in Table 3, Marina peak traffic would

occur "off'peak" compared to most of the existing Calumet

Avenue traffic generators if the Calumet Avenue corridor

were used.

The existing Lake Avenue access could not be used for

Marina access without severly disrupting existing conditions.

Lake Avenue currently has only 28 feet of pavement with

parking on both sides of the street. Thus, only one lane

is available on a substantial portion of this street.

This type facility could not accommodate projected Marina

traffic without removal of parking on one side of the

street or widening the street.

LAND USE

The first section of this report covered current and

projected traffic in the study area, traffic generated

by the Marina and access corridor facility requirements.

The purpose of this study phase was to identify existing

conditions and potential future conditions in the study

area which might affect Marina access. Existing conditions

studied included land use, structural conditions, public

rights-of-way, building set-backs and natural and man-

made barriers to access. Potential future conditions

include development possible under the City's land use

controls.

EXISTING LAND USE

a survey of existing land uses in the study area was

conducted in February of 1980. The results of this survey

are shown in Figure 3. major uses include open area and

Hammond Water Works'in the lake shore; rail, rail yard

and industrial uses west of Calumet Avenue; residential

uses east of Calument between Railroad Avenue and Indiana-'

polis Boulevard; and commercial uses along Calumet and

Indianapolis Boulevard. Each of these use areas are well

defined and fairly homogeneous. The most significant

exception is the presence of a few apartment buildings in

the single family residential area.

:20

Lake Michigan

- ------ ---------- -- --- -
----------------- --------------- - ---------
--------------------- ------------ ----

I@dia@apolls BO.I.-d

V.
q.
HAMMOND MARINA EXISTING LAND USE
SINGLE FAMILY SNXII-IN PUBLIC
MULTI FAMILY RECREA
-Ar'-CoEsms BTUDY
PROJECTG INDIANAPCZ084-80-04 -- THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WASJFINANCED IN PART THROUGH A PPREHENSI"E @X@ RETAIL COMMERCIAL 'ZZl MANUFA
I
PLANNIN GRANT ROVODEDM THE COASTAL ZONE MA AGIMENT 97 COMBY THE
OFFICE OF COASTAL By N E ACTMOF 2C AS AMENDED, ADMINISTER SERVICE COMMERCIAL MOBILE
Z NE ANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEAN C AND AT OSPHER1 ADMINISTRATION. - - -- - -

STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS

A structural conditions survey was conducted at the same

time as the land use survey.. Each structure in the plan-

ning area was rated according to the following:

RATING C014DITIONS

#1 Sound Sound, well maintained with no

apparent deficiencies.

#2 Minor Deficiencies sound, but requiring minor repairs

such as paint or repairs to gutters

and downspouts, porches, trim or

replacement of roofing.
P

#3 Major Deficiencies Deterioration not correctable by

normal maintena nce such as replace-

ment of siding, roofing and roof

sheathing, wiring or plumbing.

#4 Delapidated Deteriorated to the point where.

repair becomes economically in-

feasible because of failure of

structural components such as wall,

floor, or roof structure.

Figure 4 illustrates the structural rating of each structure

in the study area. Only one structure, located south of

110th -Street on Indianapolis Boulevard, was rated #4 -

Dilapidated. 21 structures were rated #3 - Major Defi-

ciencies and 82 rated #2 - Minor Deficiencies. Structures

with major and minor deficiencies were concentrated along

Lake Michigan

----------
--------------------- -------
------------ =o
0

.000

Bo,levard
than

L@ke...,
C
h@
HAMMOND MARINA STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS
SOUND
-Arffi'O-CESS STUDY MINOR DEFICIENCIE
PROJECT INDIANA CZ084-80-04 -- THE PREPARAT OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED IN PART THROUGH A COMPPREHENSIVE MAJOR DEFICIENCIE
G THE COA STAL ZONEIDN MENT ACT OF I , S ME HOED AD INISTERED BY THE DILAPI DATED
PLANNIN GRANT PROV IDED By ANAGE 9 2@ A A
OFFIC E OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEAN IC AND ATM OSPHERI ADMIN ISTRA@IOHM

the Indianapolis Boulevard commercial strip and to a

lesser extent in the eastern portion of the residential

area and along Railroad Avenue.

PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY

Street rights-of-way were studied in order to identify

potentials for improving existing access corridors or

creating new access points. Street rights-of-way for the

study area are shown on Figure 5. Both Calumet and

Indianapolis were at least 80 feet with Indianapolis

widening to.100 feet west of Calumet. Rights-of-way on

the balance of the streets, mostly residential, were

either 60 or 66 feet. The only existing rights-of-way

across the rail lines were those of Calumet and Lake

Avenues.

SET-BACKS

Building set-backs, Figure 15, were generally one to five

feet along the Calumet and 'In dianapolis commercial strips.

Front yard set-backs for the residential streets range

from five (5) to twenty-five (25) feet, but were generally

twenty-five .(25) feet. Houses generally fronted on north-

South streets and side yard set-backs off east-west streets

were often less than five (5) feet.

BARRIERS

The principal existing barriers to Marina acc ess are rail

Lake Michigan

----------

----- --------------

cL3

0
00ou

oo..
e m win

Yvolf
k
C
h'a
nn.1

RIGHT-OF-WAY
HAMMOND MARINA all 40 FEET 8
ACCE 8 BOTUDY immimm 60 FEET 10
PROJECT INDIANA CZ084-80-04 -- THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED IN PART THROUGH A COM IPPREHENSIVE 66 FEET
PLANNING GRANT PROVIDED By THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF ", I AS AM ENDED,ADMINISTE RED BY THE
OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT MOSPHERI@ ADMINISTRATION.

Lake Michigan

- -------------
-- ---------------- --- ---
----- ----------

- - - - - - - - - -

000
'000
U cy0ou
U00U 0
oooul,-"@-
Ep
00
Cm
E] 0
0
III I I gill I III 1@11 III
ITIFTIM Indianyollis, Boulevard
@11111 7y'Volf
soon a

La
Ck Par ing
ha
a
nnel
HAMMOND MARINA SET BACK
1-5 FEET
11111111111m,10-15 FEET
.Ar-%CESB STUDY 01=110110120-25 FEET
PROJECT INDIANAPCZ084 -80-04 -- THESPREPARATIONNOF THNIS MAP WASIF17NANCEDIN PART THROUGH A COMPPREHIENSIVE
PLANNING GRANT ROVIDED By THE COA TAL ZONE MA AGEME T ACT OF9 2 AMENDED, ADMINISTERED BY THE
AS
OFFIC OF COASTAL Z RE ANACEMENT, NATIONAL OCEAN C AN AT OSPHE ADMINISTRATION.

lines and yards, a major industrial complex and a closely

developed residential area. The rail tracks parallel the

lake front creating a barrier ranging from 600 to 1,200

feet wide. The City currently has two rights-of-way

across these tracks at Calumet and Lake Avenues. The

Lever Brothers' complex occupies some 30 acres at Calumet

and Indianapolis Boulevard and has some 1,500 employees.

The residential area east of Calumet between Indianapolis

and the rail lines'is closely developed on narrow (28 feet)

residential streets. The vast majority of homes in this

area are sound and well maintained.

ZONING

Under the City's current Zoning Ordinance, the following

uses would be permitted in the study area as show in Figure 7.

1. "A" Residence District - "A" residential district gen-

erally allows only single family residential uses of up to

7 housing units per net residential acre. "A" residential

also allows contingent uses which are not incompatible with

residential uses.

2. "B" Residence District -- "B" residence district allows

single and two family units with single family densities

of up to 10 units per net residential acre and two family

densities of up to 14 units per net residential acre.

Other permitted uses are contingent uses which are com-

patible with residential USe.

2 7'

Lake Mich i g'a n

--- -- ----------------------------- -

-p
0

0
WXC@Q
i-4@0-leo,000wo
W000u,
0(:@ 6
IJ
00
ca

a 13
00-. Cp@- 0

Indianapol is Boulevard

HAMMOND MARINA EXISTING ZONING MAP
"A" RESIDENCE DISTRICT "GB" GENERAL
I Jif
"B" RESIDENCE DISTRICT LI LIMITED
ACCESS STUDY ...... .... .. C" RESIDENCE DISTRICT "HI" HEAVY I
PROJECT,INDIANAPCZ084-80-04 THEPREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS,gFINANCED IN PART THROUGH A COMPPREHENSIVE 113" LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
PLANNEINOFGRANT ROVTDEDMBY THE COA TAL ZONE MANAGEMENTDACTMOF 2@ A AMENDED ADMINISTERED BY THE
OFFIC COASTAL ZONE ANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEAN IC AN AT OSPHERI ADM INISTRAiION.

3. "C" Residence District - The "C" residence district

allows single family, two family, group housing, and

apartments with maximum of up to 36 units per acre for

apartment developments. In"'C" residence district, single

family uses can range up to 14 units per net residential acre.

4. "LB" Local Business District - Local business includes

automotive services, business and personal services, food

services including restaurants and groceries, retail sales

such as drug stores, apparel and showrooms, and commercial

recreation such as theaters, taverns, and bowling alleys.

"LB" districts require no set-back and buildings may be as

high as 60 feet or 5 stories.

5. "GB" General Business District - General business

permits all permitted uses in "LB" district and depart-

ment stores, wholesaling andwarehouses and passenger

transportation stations.

6. "LI" Limited Industrial District - Limited industrial

uses.include building and open area for manufacturing,

processing, repairing$ storage, and disposal, enclosed

junk.or wrecking yards,, bulk storage, truck terminals,

freight yards. This district requires no set back and

up.to 90 percent of the lot.may be occupied. Buildings

may be 60 feet in height or 5 stories.

7. "HI" Heavy Industrial District - Heavy industrial uses

includes limited industrial use in addition to railroad

yards and shop and.commercial harbors. "HI" requires no

set-back and uses may occupy 90 percent of the lot.

Buildings 60 feet in height -are permitted, taller build-

ings require set-backs.

Expansion of uses in the study area would be limited by

parking requirements established by the Ordinance. In

general, the existing Zoning Ordinance requires one space

for each residential unit, parking area of two times floor

area for business and commercial uses and one space for

every three employees for industrial uses.

POTENTIAL LAND USE CHANGES

In order to identify potential future impacts on or from

Marina access, possible changes in use in five use areas

in the study area where assessed. These areas include:

the rail lines; the industrial complex at the northwest

quadrant of Calumet and Indianapolis (Lever Brothers);

the commercial uses along Calumet; the residential area

west of Calumet; and the lake shore area itself.

The area of the lake shore rail lines is not expected to

change significantly in the future. The Rail Relocation

and Consolidation Study has made no recommendations re-

garding relocation of traffic to or from this area. It

may, however, be possible to consolidate tracks within

the corridor. Such consolidation would reduce the

roughness of at grade crossings, but would not be ex-

pected to decrease the number of train/car conflicts.

Lever Brothers is currently involved in a major five year

construction project which is scheduled for completion in

1983., This construction has resulted in the relocation

of employee parking from the site to the employee lot

across Indianapolis Boulevard. Other future construction

on the site (if any) would riot increase traffic on

Calumet. Management's efforts to encourage employee use

-d parking lot will result
.of the Indianapolis Boulevai.

in reduced congestion on Calumet and reduce the need

for on street parking on Calumet.

The City's off Street parking requirements could be used

to effectively limit any further traffic generation from

the commercial uses on the west side of Calumet. Any

expa nsion of these uses would require additional off

street parking space -- space which is not readily

available. In the past, some additional commercial park-

ing was developed through the removal of residential

uses.. Most of the homes in this area are, however-, in

good condition and further -parking expansion in this

manner is not expected to be substantial. The possible

future land use change with the greatest potential for

impact on the proposed marina, Marina access and the

area in generalcould occur in the Lake itself. The

Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) has

revived an old proposal calling for development of a

coal fired generating plant. The plant would be built

on fill extending into the Lake from property currently

owned by NIPSCO on the lake front between the Common-

wealth Edison plant and the Hammond Water Works.

Implementation of this idea would affect Marina siting

and would significantly increase traffic to the lake

shore. Such a facility might be expected to generate

construction employment of 600 to 800 and operating

employment of 200 to 300.

While the development of a generating plant would not pre-

clude Marina development in the area (perhaps east of the

Water Works plant), it would significantly change re-

quirements.for a lake front. access corridor.

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The first section of this report covered current and pro-

jected traffic in the study area, traffic generated by

the Marina and access corridor facility requirements.

The second section identified existing and potential

future conditions in the study area (land use, structural

conditions, barriers, etc.) which might affect or be

affected by the Marina access. The purpose of this

study section is to identif, and evaluate alternative
Y

access corridors, to make recommendations regarding

actions related to the recommended access alternative.

DESIGN CRITERIA

The work program for this study established safety,

convenience and minimum disruption of existing traffic

and land use as major areas of concern in establishing

criteria by which an access corridor or facility would

be evaluated. A fourth criteria, facility/corridor

cost, will of course be among the most important criteria

on which a final decision is made.

Safet

Concerns.for safety would include potential areas or

points of conflict between Marina user vehicles and other

vehicles, pedestrians, and trains. Concern with conflicts

among vehicles is reflected in criteria for facili ty

capacity, design level of service (L.O.S.) "C" was assumed

3-3

to be th e appropriate criteria for a fully acceptable

facility design. For potential v ehicular conflicts at

the intersection of the access facility with the arterial

highway system, it was assumed that signalized controls

would be required to provide adequate safety. Since

conflicts between through traffic and parking movements

are a major source of accidents, the effect of existing

parking practices (particularly on-street) was a sig-

nificant element in evaluation of alternatives.

Pedestrian safety is a concern especially where children

are present. The criteria of pedestrian safety would be

a concern primarily where access facilities pass through

residential areas or near schools.

The potential for vehicle/train conflicts.is obviously

a major factor in evaluating any access alternative. The

proposed Marina is separated from arterial system access by

a minimum of 9 sets of tracks including four high speed,

mainline tracks. Any Marina access facility should include

either grade.separation or protection by gates and flashers.
p

In addition, crossings would have to be smooth enough to

avoid damage to trailered boats. Separated crossings would

require reasonable approach slopes -- a maximum of 6 percent

slope for approaches was used.

Convenience

The design criteria for convenience of access corridors/

341

facilities in some cases overlapped criteria for safety.

For example, lane requirements, approach slopes, intersec-

tion capacities and other traffic elements were designed to

provide convenience as well as safety. Additional conven-

ience criteria related to prov iding as simple and direct

access, as possible, from the arterial system to the Marina.

This would include providing a place for vehicles to wait

while an at grade crossing is closed by train traffic. As

discussed in the first section of this report, as much as

600 feet of vehicle storage capacity (one lane would be

required to hold traindelayed, peak hour traffic.

Environmental Impact.

The major criteria for assessing environmental impact

was disruption of existing beneficial land uses and com-

munity values. Examples of adverse impacts would include

disruption of sound residential areas or idustrial or com-

merdial enterprises.

Cost

Obviously, the cb st of development of alternative access

facilities will play a major factor on the selection of an

alternative. Cost estimates (in 1980 dollars) were developed

for each potential alternative. In addition, environmental

impacts, such as the examples given above, would have

economic and social costs. While these costs were considered,

they were not specifically quantified.

ALTERNATIVES

Potentials for Marina access include alternative access

corridors and alternative types of facilities within

each co rridor. The first step in identifying access

potentials was to identify potential corridors in light

of existing barriers.

The existing barriers were identified in the preceeding

section of this report and are shown in Figure 8. These

barriers include the rai 1 lines and yards, the Lever

Brothers industrial complex and the residential area between

Indianapolis Boulevard and the rail lines. Based on an

analysis of these barriers and the established design

criteria, three potential access corridors were identified.

These corridors are also shown on Figure *8 and include an

extension of 112th Street ("A")? Calumet Avenue ("B"), and

Lake Avenue ("C"). Corridor "A" would require a new set

of rail crossings and new 3:,-ight-of-way, but would not affect

other barriers. The "B" and "C" corridors would use exist-

ing public rights-of-way. Corridor "B" would use Calumet

Avenue which has an 80 foot right-of-way. Corridor "C"

would follow the Lake Avenue right-of-way through the res-

idential area "barrier".

For each of the potential access corridors, severaltypes

of facility designs were considered. These include the

following:

3
@6

Lake Michigan

--------------------------------------- -- ---- ---- -----------
--------------- -----------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
f-A oe@
-.A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

--- - - - - - - - -

olz

- - - - - - - - ---

Al A-A- X,-,o,

00-6

Indianapolis Boulavard

k@
Cha
eat nnel
HAMMOND MARINA POTENTIAL ACCESS
A C C E S S BARRIERS
ACCESS STUDY POTENTIAL ACCESS CORR

PROJECT INDIANAPCZ084-80-04 -- THE PREPARATION OFETHIS MAP WASJF17NANCED IN PART THROLJGH A COM PPREHENSIVE
PLANNING GRANT ROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ZONE OANAG MENT ACT OF 9 2, AS AMENDED, ADM INISTERED BY THE
OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, NAT IONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION.

A. 112th Street Corridor

1. At Grade

B. Calumet Avenue Corridor

1. At Grade,

2. Overpass

3. Underpass

C. Lake Avenue Corridor

1. At Grade

A. 11 12th Street Corridor

1. At-Grade Cro,@sing - There is not sufficient space

available in this corridor to allow for the approaches

required for grade separations. This proposed at-grade

facility would extend from the existing signalized inter-

section of 112th Street and Indianapolis Boulevard north-

east to the Marina site. The facility would include 300

feet of 38 foot and 100 feet of 26 foot pavement from

Indianapolis to the rail lines and a 750.foot, 2 lane cross-

ing. In addition, 3 sets of gates and flashers would be

required as well as pavement markings and new signals at

the Indianapolis Boulevard crossing. The estimated cost

of this facility would be $1505,000. (See Figure 9)

B. Calumet Avenue Corridor

The existing public right-of-way for Calumet is 80 feet

wide extending to the lake shore. Sufficient width and

approach length is available to accomodate either an over-

pass or underpass.

-ik

New Gates and
Flashers

1:3

+ 000,

New 0(
Roadway --*-38'

Revise
Signalization
%*

Indianapolis Bc

Wolf
Lake
Channel
HAMMOND MARINA ALTERNATE. A-1 FIGURE
ACCESS STUDY
City of Hammond 112TH STREET CORRIDOR
Hughes Associates AT-GRADE CROSSING north
[scale

1. At Grade Crossing - A Calumet at-grade access would
utilize existing pavement and crossing protection. Four
existing sets of unused track should be removed. The entire
length of the crossing area (530 feet) needs to be resurfaced

and the nine crossings replaced to improve the speed and

convenience of crossing. The estimated cost of this

improvement would be approximately $178,000 including new
center, edge and crossing markings. In addition, parking

along Calumet should be converted from perpendicular to

parallel and removed for a south bound right turn lane at

Indianapolis Boulevard. (See Figure 10)

2. Overpass Bridge A Calumet overpass would provide

two traffic lanes and a five foot sidewalk in a width of

36.5 feet. The bridge would have to include spans over

access roads both north and south of the rail lines as well

as over the tracks themselves (see Figurell) . The overall

length of the structure would be 615 feet with 90 feet over

access streets and 525 feet: over track. The 23 foot rail

clearance would require 90CI foot approach ramps on each end

to provide a maximum 6 percent slope. The approach ramps

would be built with concrete retaining walls so that ground

level access roads could be maintained on both sides. A

sketch*.of the overpass layout and cross sections is shown in

Figure 11. The estimated cost of the grade separation is

$4,200,000.

epla e Remove Unused Track >
Crosscing s an
Resurface
Roadway

w,
000
00000
Do
00000
)00
0000
00

C 0 C-1
M.
n.
t
W]
o ..p

Remove Parking for
@3uu Might Turn Lane

Indianapolis Boulevard

0
-.7
Ono
HAMM 0ND MARINA ALTERNATE B-1 FIOURE
ACCESS STUDY CALUMET AVENUE-CORRIDOR
City of Hammond AT-GRADE CROSSING north
Hughes Associates scale 0 200- feed

bach
Service Lanes

0 C=313
0 R Bridge 530'
4b

000
-)nOO(-)
00
0000
000
0000800000000()
0
00@-@
000
-J.
Ep El
0

Indianapolis Boulevard

Wolf
Lake
Chnnn

HAMMOND MARINA ALTER NATE B-2
ACCESS STUDY CALUMET AVENUE CORRIDOR
OVERPASS

3. underpass - The layout of a Calumet Avenue/R.R.

underpass would be similar to that of the overpass. The

tunnel depth would be less. than the rail clearance height

for the overpass so that the approach ramps would be

only 600 feet. The 14-15 foot tunnel height would, however,

place the tunnel below lake level requiring permanent pump-

ing of ground water. Each of the nine rail tracks would

have to be relocated temporarily during construction.

If feasible at all, construction of an underpass would be

very expensive -- roughly '?20,000,000.

C. Lake Avenue Corridor

The Lake Avenue right-of-way is 66 feet wide and extends

to the Hammond Water Works Plant. Neither underpass nor

overpass facilities were considered because of a lack of

right-of-way width on the south and length on the north

to accommodate the approach ramps. Either underpass or

overpass structures would also have a degrading effect

on adjacent residential land uses.

1. At-Grade Crossing - The existing crossing and

needed crossing improvements at the Lake Avenue crossing area

is similar to those on Calumet Avenue. Approximately 540

feet of resurfacing and nine crossing improvements would be

needed, as well as the removal of four unused sets of rails.

.in addition, improvements would be required at both the

north and south approaches to the crossing. At the north

4 3

end the "U" and 900 turns should be replaced with reverse

curves of 150 foot radius. (see Figurel2). The access road

in front of the Water Works Plant would need to be widened

from 15 to 26 feet. South of the rail crossing, parking

would have to be eliminated on one side to provide full two

lane capacity. As an alternative, Lake Avenue could be
widened by four feet for a distance of .1,500 feet from

Railroad to Indianapolis Boulevard. Widening would

probably be carried out on the east side to minimize

loss of trees. The estimated cost of these improvements,

based on the first alternative -- removal of parking on

one side -- would be approximately $231,000.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Of course, the easiest means of comparing alternatives is

on the basis of cost. Table 6 shows a summary and com-

parison of costs of each of the alternatives described

above. Each of the alternatives would provide sufficient

capacity to accommodate the projected Marina traffic

volumes. Following are assessments of how well each

alternative meets the other criteria of safety, conven-

ience, and impact.

112th Street At-Grade Crossing

This alternative would require new rail crossings with

combined crossing length nearly 200 feet longer than those

existing at Calumet and Lake. The right-of-way and

414

Exisfing
Roadway

Sk
Widen to 26' and Resurfae
15 R
26'
oposed
lignm
Widen to 26'
Tracks
and

C=:p

...................

QO Q
cc,
/>Q

<.>
no 0 0 0 V//),
000(ju V .1V
00000 z

--6.

ndianapolls Boulevard
[]ROO
0,:3

HAMMOND MARINA ALTERNATE C-1
LAKE AVENUE CORRIDOR-
ACCESS STUDY
AT-GRADE CROSSING

COMPARATIVE COSTS BY ALTERNATIVE Table 6

HAMMOND MARINA ACCESS CORRIDORS/FACILITIES

IMPROVEMENT COMPARATIVE
ALTERNATIVE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION COST RATIO

A - 1 112th Street $ 505,000 2.8

B - 1 Calumet Avenue
At-Grade 178,000 1

B - 2 Calumet Avenue
Bridge 4,200,000 23.6

B - 3 Calumet Avenue
Tunnel 20,000,000 112.4

C - 1 Lake Avenue
At-Grade 231,000 1.3

Source: Hughes Associates

street would be new and access along the corridor could be

controlled. The open'area around the south end 'of this corridor

would also lend itself to the development of a more "park

like" entrance than the other alternatives. The major poten-

tial obstacle to this proposal would probably be obtaining

additional rights-of-way for at-grade crossings. This
right-of-wa'Y would be very near the existing Colehour

Rail Yards and, at the ti me of field surveys, train cars

were parked in the path of the proposed crossing. The cost

of this alternative was approximately 2.8 times the cost

of the least expensive alternative.

Calumet Avenue At-Grade

This facility currently exists, but needs improvements

as described previously. It is one of the most direct of

the alternatives and.has good, signal controlled access to

the arterial highway system (U.S. Routes 41 and 12/20).

The right-of-way and existing paved roadway of Calumet is

ad6quate to accommodate projected Marina traffic without

significantly affecting access to the existing uses. The

existing uses along Calumet (primarily industrial and

com mercial) are-not likely to be adversely impacted by the

Marina traffic. Peak use of the Marina will occur when

other Calumet Avenue traffic generators are closed or at

their lowest level of activity. Marina users will experience

some delays due to the rail activity averaging th ree trains

per hour during the peak hours of use. Existing perpen-
dicular parking on Calumet pos'es potentials for conflict

and traffic accidents. The estimated cost of needed

improvements for this alternative is the lowest of all

the alternatives.

Calumet Avenue Overpass

A Calumet Avenue access using a railroad-overpass.

would have most of the same benefits as the Calumet At-

Grade., In addition, all rail conflict and -inconveniences

would be eliminated. The need for approach ramps would,,

however, require a change in parking arrangements,from

perpendicular to parallel and would in effect create a

pair of one lane, one way streets for a least 900 feet along

Calumet. Any traffic entering this one way pair from the

south would have to continue north to the service road

under pass before returning south. This would result in in-

convenience to Patrons of businesses adjacent -to the ramp

and might create problems in getting trucks into the Lever,

Brothers plant. The ramps Would have adverse visual impacts.

For example, there would be a concrete wall 20+ feet high

approximately 20 feet from the front of Phil Schmidt's

Restaurant. At an estimated $4,200,000.00, this alterna-

tive is one of the most costly.

Calumet Avenue Underpass

A Calumet Avenue railroad underpass would have approx-

413

imately the same problems.and benefits as an overpass, with-

out the adverse visual impacts. However, with the problems

of temporary rail relocation, ground water, and the

$20,000,000.00 estimated cost, this alternative would clearly

be impractical.

Lake Avenue At-Grade

A Lake Avenue access would be less direct and more costly

than any similar access on Calumet. In addition, the use

of Lake Avenue would present an unacceptable adverse impact

on the adjacent, sound residential area. Safety hazards

would also be greater with a Lake Avenue access because of

the pedestrian traffic generated by the residential uses and

the Franklin Elementary School which is located at Lake

Avenue and.Indianapolis Boulevard.

CORRIDOR/FACILITY.RECOMMEND)kTIONS

Based on the preceeding analysis, the Calumet Avenue

Corridor with an at-grade rail crossing seems to be the

best alternative for access to the proposed Hammond Marina.

With the improvements described earlier, this facility

would provide:

1. Adequate capacity and safety;

2. The most direct and best access to the arterial

highway system;

3. The lowest cost; and

4. The least impact on surrounding traffic and

land uses.

While this facility would meet design criteria with the

improvements previously described, additional alternative

improvements would improve efficiency and provide a more

attractive corridor. Plan and profile sketches of sug-
gested improvements are shown in.figure 13. The.suggested'.'

corridor improvements illustrated in figure.13 would pro-

vide four traffic lanes between Indianapolis Boulevard

and Railroad Avenue and two lanes from Railroad Avenue

across the railroad tracks to the lake shore. The outside,

north bound traffic lane would terminate a s.a right turn

lane onto Railroad Avenue at a proposed pedestrian island/

traffic diverter.

On street parking would be provided in an eight foot park-

ing lane on the east side of Calumet. In addition, the.

outside traffic lane on the west side of Calumet would

be used for parking except for periods when south bound

Marina traffic is at its peak.

The suggested plan also includes a ten foot center lane

which is used for islands, mountable medians, and turn

lanes. The median islands would be large enough to

accommodate park signs, landscaping-and trees. Trees and

shrubs would have to be carefully located and maintained

to Provide maximum aesthetic benefit and to avoid creating

any traffichazards. Additional trees could be.planted

in the area of the railroad tracks,' as long as adequate

-site distances are maintained.

The plan includes a sidewalk from Railroad Avenue to the

lake shore to increase convenience for pedestrians. The

addition of rubberized railroad crossings should also be

considered to increase the ease of Marina access for
vehicles.., particularly those trailering boats.

While the cost of these additional improvements would

depend on more detailed design work than presented here,

the total cost should be approximately $180,000. The

largest single cost element,would be the installation of

rubberized crossings at an estimated cost of $1401,000.

Other estimated costs were: sidewalks - $6,000; traffic

islands $15,000; curbing - $10,000; medians, pavement

markings, signs $5,000; and landscaping

REf.A'PED ACTTONS

Recommendations regarding Marina access were based on an

assessment of existing conditions and an evaluation of ex-

pected future conditions. Major future changes, other than

those expected, could have an adverse impact on the Marina.

access facility. While the proposed.facility will be more

than adequa te for projected daily and peak traffic, sub-

stantial increases in traffic generation along the corridor

or in the lake shore area could,result in some additional

congestion. Even a major lake shore development could be

handled with the expansion. of the rail crossing segment to

four lanes.

Major increases. in traffic generation along Calumet would

be limited by a lack of space for further development and..

off-street parking requirements. Current zoning regula-

tions require, in general, one space for each residential

unit, parking area of two times floor area for business

and commercial uses and one space for every three employees

for industrial uses. As mentioned previously, on-street

parking on Calumet should, by ordinance, be changed from

perpendicular to parallel. This should probably be done

after Lever Brothers completes its current building pro-

ject. In fact, when this project is completed (1983),

and when Lever Brothers' Indianapolis Boulevard parking

lot is in full use (see page nine of this report), it

seems there will be little need for any on-street parking

on the west side of Calumet. This area then could be

.considered for either additional lane capacity, landscap-

ing, or both.

As mentioned earlier, the development of a coal fired

generating plant has been proposed, for the lake.front,

immediately east of the existing Commonwealth Edison

generating plant. If built, additional average daily

traffic counts along the access, corridor could be expected

to increase by as much as 800-900 or more vehicles,

depending on plant size and operating characteristics.

Such an increase in traffic might justify the construction

of a grade separation. In addition, power plant develop-

ment would result in a different location for the Marina

itself- perhaps to the area immediately east of the

'Hammond Waterworks plant. While this location would still

be best serve d by a Calumet Avenue corridor, Marina users,

particularly those coming from the east, would be tempted

to use Lake Avenue for access/egress. As pointed out

earlier, any increase in traffic on Lake Avenue would

generate local congestion and safety hazards and would

tend to degrade adjacent residential land uses. Thus,

ways to discourage use of Lake Avenue by Marina users

would need to be found. The current condition of the Lake

Avenue rail crossing would discourage many potential users..

Use of this access could further be discouraged by making

Lake Avenue crossing area one-way northor by closing the

crossing completely.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11011111111 1
3 6668 14109 2272 . I
HUGHES ASSOCIATES
PUKKUR 00MUHRug
106 LINCOLNWAY EAST MISHAWAKA, INDIANA 46544
I