Tippecanoe County senior planner Doug Pode presented a draft thoroughfare plan at the Citizens Participation Committee meeting on Sept. 10, outlining new standards that would require multimodal street design, perimeter sidewalks for subdivisions, and developer-provided connections to bus stops. The plan is a draft and no adoption vote was taken.

The draft would replace a thoroughfare plan last updated in 1981 and aligns local functional classifications with Federal Highway Administration standards. "Tonight, I'm excited to present to you our draft thoroughfare plan," Doug Pode said, noting the draft is posted on the Area Planning Commission (APC) website for public review.

Why it matters: The plan would change how new and reconstructed roads are designed across Lafayette, West Lafayette and several towns within Tippecanoe County by prioritizing pedestrians, bicyclists and transit in addition to motorists. It also creates an urban development boundary tied to anticipated sewer and water service over the next 25–30 years, which determines whether an urban or rural cross section applies.

Key proposals and details

- Multimodal focus: The draft adds pedestrians, cyclists and transit to the plan's design priorities instead of focusing mainly on vehicular traffic. Pode said the plan moves beyond simply "a stripe on the road" and aims to address the first/last mile for transit users by asking developers to provide bus stops and pedestrian connections to stops when developments fall on or near bus routes.

- Sidewalks and subdivisions: The draft would require sidewalks on perimeter streets of new subdivisions (residential or commercial), not just internal subdivision streets. Pode said this change followed road safety audits near McCutcheon High School and a nearby elementary school, which led to new pedestrian crossings and HAWK signals, and similar audits around Harrison High School that prompted additional improvements.

- ADA compliance: The plan reiterates federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for ramps and accessible crossings. Pode said recent ramps in the county have sometimes been built noncompliant and called out the need for consistent compliance.

- Urban development boundary and automatic updates: Rather than relying solely on the U.S. Census urban area, the draft maps an urban development boundary based on where sewer and water are expected to be available in the next 25–30 years. Pode said the plan will automatically expand that boundary if the county's long-range plan or future census designations extend the urban area, avoiding separate amendment steps.

- Functional classification and standards: The county will adopt the Federal Highway Administration functional-classification system used statewide. The draft provides separate cross-section tables for urban streets with and without on-street parking, and for rural roads with and without trails. Where on-street parking is allowed, right-of-way and pavement widths increase accordingly.

- Trails and bike lanes: The plan maps existing and proposed trails (a "spaghetti" map Pode described) and shows where bike lanes could be required. Pode said bike-lane and trail maps should be consulted when selecting a design standard for a given corridor.

- Temporary turnarounds and loading standards: The draft adds provisions for hammerheads or other temporary turnarounds where a subdivision road will later connect to future development, and includes on-street loading-zone standards and driveways-location guidance drawn from Federal Highway Administration guidance.

Questions and public comment

Committee members asked how the plan would apply to commercial-site pedestrian connections, parking expectations on residential streets, and whether sharrows (shared-lane markings) are in the plan. Pode said developers would be asked to provide pedestrian connections from public sidewalks or trails to building entrances and that parking assumptions for local roads generally include parking on both sides unless the local engineer approves otherwise. He said the draft does not include sharrows as a standard.

On enforcement and flexibility, Pode said local engineers (city, town or county) could waive or alter standards where topography or existing conditions make full compliance infeasible.

A YouTube commenter using the handle "I'm so cringe" urged a smaller urban boundary to protect farmland and recommended a minimum two-foot buffer between bike lanes and vehicle lanes. Pode replied that the county considered lane-width tradeoffs, noted that developers typically pay to extend utility service if a subdivision is far from existing sewers, and said he would raise the commenter’s buffer question with city and county engineers.

Budget and schedule notes

Pode noted a major school-area project (Harrison area) is still in early design with construction anticipated in 2029–2030 and estimated cost around $20,000,000. He said the plan's cross-section drawings (appendix of detailed cross-sections) are not complete; the county plans to hire a consultant to produce those illustrations after adoption.

Next steps

The draft is open for public comment on the APC website. Pode said staff have met with city and county engineers, presented the draft to mayors and county commissioners, and briefed the City Bus board. The plan will go to the ordinance committee in early November, then to technical and policy committees, followed by formal adoption actions by the Area Planning Commission and then individual local jurisdictions (the two cities, three towns and the county) if APC approves. Pode emphasized the document presented is not final and staff are continuing to collect feedback.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of past minutes: Motion to approve moved by Steve Clevenger and seconded by Amy Kristen Preston. Roll-call votes recorded in the transcript indicate Stuart Frescas, Nick Harvey, Steve Clevenger and Amy Kristen Preston voted to approve. Outcome: approved.

- Adjournment: Motion to adjourn moved by Steve Clevenger and seconded by Deanna McMillan. Roll-call votes recorded indicate Stuart Frescas, Steve Clevenger, Amy Kristen Preston, Niroshan and Deanna McMillan voted yes; Nick Harvey's vote was passed over because of audio issues. Outcome: approved.

What the meeting did not decide

No adoption or ordinance action on the thoroughfare plan occurred at the meeting; the draft remains subject to additional technical review and public comment. Any formal changes to subdivision or zoning ordinances to implement the plan would require separate adoption by the relevant jurisdictions.

Sources and transparency

This article is based on the Citizens Participation Committee meeting transcript and public comments posted to the meeting stream. Verbatim quotes and speaker attributions appear only where the transcript records them.

Ending

The Citizens Participation Committee will continue to accept comments while the draft moves through the ordinance, technical and policy committees; staff expect cross-section graphics to be prepared after formal adoption of the plan and after final comments are incorporated.