645 MAR New Route Extension of KY 645 2006 From US 23 to Interstate 64 Lawrence, Elliott, Rowan and Carter Counties Six-Year Highway Plan, Item No. 12-115.00

other interested parties, and the public; identify The Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) has known issues, concerns, and constraints, undertaken this regional corridor study to consider including social, traffic, environmental, and the extension of KY 645 from US 23 in Ulysses to geotechnical considerations; define project goals; some location along Interstate 64 between establish the beginning and ending points of the Morehead and the Industrial Parkway (Exit 179) in project; develop and evaluate project alternatives Carter County. Portions of this new highway could based on project goals; and make pass through parts of Lawrence, Elliott, Rowan and recommendations. Carter Counties, providing improved access to employment centers, isolated communities, tourism This project was identified in the KYTC’s FY sites, and other regional corridors. Though a new 2000-2006 Six Year Highway Plan as Item No. route would not physically impact Martin County, it 12-115.00. Subsequent phases of project could also improve the mobility of Martin County development, including Design, Right-of-Way residents to points west. Acquisition, Utility Relocation, and Construction, are not scheduled in the most recent legislatively The purpose of this study was to listen to and share approved Kentucky Six-Year Highway Plan FY information with local officials, government agencies, 2005-2010.

The project ends somewhere along I-64 between Morehead and the Industrial Parkway (KY 67)

The project begins at KY 645 in Lawrence County EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Characteristics of KY 645 and other major highways Through the collection of study area data and the in the study area were analyzed as part of this study, public involvement process, the need for an including data and/or information on transportation improved highway network has been identified in systems, geometric characteristics, bridges, traffic each of the four study area counties. The goals listed conditions, crash history, adequacy ratings, below are based on a compilation of input from environmental features, geotechnical characteristics highway officials, local government agencies, and planned highway improvements. Consideration interest groups, members of the general public, the of these factors for existing roadways helps to Citizens’ Advisory Team (CAT) and the project team. evaluate the need for improved highways in the area. These goals address accessibility, economic benefit, connectivity, and operational conditions: The existing KY 645 corridor is a four-lane Develop a new or improved highway that provides an roadway through moun- improved connection to I-64, while also addressing tainous terrain with 12- the following transportation service objectives: foot lanes and 10-foot • Enhances regional accessibility and mobility shoulders. The speed • Improves access to isolated communities and limit is 55 miles per hour populations (mph) along the entire • Serves as an interstate connector from the I-73/74 length of the route. corridor near Kermit, West Virginia to I-64 This roadway is traveled Develop a highway corridor that will serve the most by coal trucks and other heavy vehicles, as well as traffic, while also meeting the following traffic-related the general public. The existing traffic volume along objectives: KY 645 in the study area is about 5,860 vehicles per • Diverts traffic from US 23 to reduce congestion on day (vpd), with about 37.1% trucks. that route All of KY 645 in Lawrence County operates at • Optimizes and/or addresses future traffic flow on acceptable levels; however, several other roadways regional highways within the study area operate at unacceptable levels, • Provides travel time savings in the region, including portions of US 60, KY 1, KY 7 and KY 32. including the improvement of emergency By the year 2025, additional segments of area response times roadways are expected to decrease in service to Develop a corridor that considers all study area unacceptable levels, including most (95-100%) of KY interests, including socioeconomic, education, 7 in Elliott and Carter Counties, 73% of US 60 in tourism, and the environment, while giving Rowan County, and 43% of US 60 in Carter County. consideration to the following objectives: While no “high crash segments” or “high crash spots” • Assists in promoting economic growth and were identified along KY 645 in Lawrence County, a development in areas that have low-income number of these locations were identified along populations portions of I-64, US 60, KY 1, KY 7, KY 32 and other • Increases employment opportunities and gives routes. special consideration to areas with high unemployment A preliminary environmental footprint was also • Provides access to existing employment centers, developed for the KY 645 project area. This analysis including area industrial parks identified potential issues and concerns within and • Expands access to social services such as surrounding the defined project area. The following education and health care special features are important to this project and were • Provides improved access to key tourist highlighted on the environmental footprint: Daniel destinations (examples include , Boone National Forest; Sheltowee Trace Trail; Yatesville Lake and the new golf course in Carter ; Grayson Lake Wildlife County) Management Area; Yatesville Lake State Park; • Avoids or minimizes impacts to environmentally Yatesville Lake Wildlife Management Area; Laurel sensitive areas (i.e., the National Creek; Caney Creek; Abandoned Mines; Dry and Forest, Laurel Creek, and Caney Creek) Abandoned Wells; and Numerous oil wells, gas wells, • Fits the natural surroundings and considers injection wells, water wells, and quarries. context-sensitive design ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT recommended that Corridors 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 Throughout the course of this study, the local would not move forward and that Corridors 2, 4, stakeholders and agency representatives were 5, and 9, as shown below, and the no-build given opportunities to provide input for the study and option, would be advanced for further to help develop the recommendations. There were consideration in the study process. two major rounds of coordination activities, including As part of the further evaluation process, Project Team Meetings, Local Elected Officials environmental and geotechnical overviews were Meetings, Local Agencies Meetings, Citizens conducted on the four corridors. The overviews Advisory Team (CAT) Meetings, Public Involvement provided additional detail within a more defined Meetings, Public Comment Surveys, and Resource area. A Level 2 Screening was also conducted, Agency Coordination. including: consideration of more detailed cost The first round of coordination sought to identify estimates; estimates of travel savings; cultural local needs, concerns and ideas for the project. and historic occurrences near the corridors; Map drawing exercises allowed the public to identify environmental resources within the corridor locations to avoid and/or access with a new route boundaries, such as water resources, natural or through the region. With input from the public, the forested areas, wetlands, floodplains, sensitive CAT and the project team, a total of nine (9) habitats, monitored sites, soil types, mines, preliminary corridors and the no-build option were cemeteries, and others; and geotechnical issues. developed for consideration, as shown in the map A second round of coordination gave local below. citizens, public officials and representatives of A Level 1 Screening of these corridors included government resource agencies the opportunity to consideration of the preliminary project goals and review the four corridors, the no-build option, and objectives, potential environmental and community Level 2 Screening. Of the 664 survey responses, impacts, planning level cost estimates, public input, 369 ranked Corridor 5 as the most preferred, and transportation and traffic issues. Based on the followed by Corridor 2 with 244 votes. The no- Level 1 Screening of the corridors, the Project Team build option was ranked as the least preferred.

8 5 6 7 9 3 4 1 2 RECOMMENDATIONS Ultimately, the Project Team recommended that two After carefully reviewing all the findings of the study, (2) alternatives be advanced for further consideration the Project Team recommended that Corridors 4 and in the next phase of project development: Corridors 2 9 should not move forward for further consideration. and 5. The Project Team also identified priority The Project Team also recognized the potential sections for Corridors 2 and 5, beginning at the benefits of Corridors 2 and 5 as two real needs in the existing terminus of KY 645 at US 23 and moving project area, and had a difficult time selecting one northwest, as shown in the map below. Estimated corridor over the other. costs for completion of the recommended corridors is Corridor 2 has a slight advantage in regional shown by section below, with a total of $413.1 million accessibility and mobility; will likely serve more traffic for Corridor 2 and about $363.5 million for Corridor 5. in the future and provides an improved route for CONTACT INFORMATION existing KY 32; offers better travel time savings; provides access to existing employment centers, Additional information regarding the KY 645 Regional including area industrial parks; and expands access Corridor Study can be obtained from the following to social services such as education and health care. KYTC Division of Planning staff members: Daryl J. Greer, P.E., Director; Jimmy C. Wilson, P.E., Team Corridor 5 has a slight advantage in improving Manager; and Ted Noe, P.E., Project Manager. access to isolated communities and populations; promoting economic growth, development, and Contact information: Division of Planning, Kentucky employment opportunities in areas that have low- Transportation Cabinet, Station: W5-05-01, 200 Mero income populations and high unemployment; avoids Street, Frankfort, KY 40622, Phone: (502) 564-7183, or minimizes impacts to environmentally sensitive FAX: (502) 564-2865. areas, such as the Daniel Boone National Forest; and it received the most overall public votes throughout the public involvement process.

5 Priority 7 US 60 to I-64 $25.5 million 3.0 miles

Priority 7 US 60 to I-64 Priority 6 $44.3 million KY 504/KY 1620 to US 60 3.5 miles Priority 6 $49.5 million ElliottvilleElliottvilleto to US 60 6.1 miles $65.5 million Priority 5 2 8.3 miles KYKY 32/KY 32/KY 7 7 to to Elliottville Elliottville $75.8 million Priority 5 9.5 miles KY 32/KY 7 to KY 504/KY 1620 $61.0 million 7.2 miles

Priority 4 IsonvilleIsonvilleto to KY 32/KY 7 $42.2 million 4.9 miles

Priority 3 MazieMazie to Isonville $44.5 million 5.2 miles Priority 2 KYKY 201 201 to to Mazie $61.9 million 7.7 miles Priority 1 US 23 to KY 201 $78.9 million 9.9 miles