DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Speed Limits in Kentucky (KYSPR 96-172)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Speed Limits in Kentucky (KYSPR 96-172) Research Report KTC-97-06/SPR96-172 KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER College of Engineering EVALUATION OF SPEED LIMITS IN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY Our Mission We provide services to the transportation community through research, technology transfer and education. We create and participate in partnerships to promote safe and effective transportation systems. We Value... Teamwork -- Listening and Communicating, Along with Courtesy and Respect for Others Honesty and Ethical Behavior Delivering the Highest Quality Products and Services Continuous Improvement in All That We Do For more information or a complete publication list, contact us at: KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER 176 Raymond Building University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0281 (859) 257-4513 (859) 257-1815 (FAX) 1-800-432-0719 www.engr.uky.edu/ktc [email protected] The University of Kentucky is an Equal Opportunity Organization Research Report KTC-97-6 EVALUATION OF SPEED LIMITS IN KENTUCKY (KYSPR-96-172) by Kenneth R. Agent Research Engineer Jerry G. Pigman Research Engineer and Joel M. Weber Research Assistant Kentucky Transportation Center College of Engineering University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky in cooperation with Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Commonwealth of Kentucky and Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the University of Kentucky, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. April 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ iii 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................1 2.0 Procedure ......................................................................................................................2 2.1 Review of Literature ........................................................................................3 2.2 Speed Data .........................................................................................................3 2.2.1 Moving Speeds.........................................................................................3 2.2.2 Speed Monitoring Stations.......................................................................4 2.2.3 Speed Limit Changes ...............................................................................4 2.2.4 Construction Zone Speeds .......................................................................5 2.3 Accident Data.....................................................................................................5 2.3.1 Characteristics of Speed-Related Accidents ............................................5 2.3.2 Speed Limit Changes ...............................................................................5 2.3.3 65 mph versus 55 mph Interstate Speed Limits.......................................6 3.0 Results ............................................................................................................................6 3.1 Review of Literature ..........................................................................................6 3.1.1 Methods Used to Establish Speed Limits ................................................6 3.1.2 Results of Changing Speed Limits...........................................................7 3.1.3 Differential Speed Limits.........................................................................8 3.1.4 Current Status of Speed Limits................................................................8 3.2 Speed Data .........................................................................................................9 3.2.1 Moving Speeds on Various Highway Types ...........................................9 3.2.2 Speed Monitoring Data by Type of Highway........................................10 3.2.3 Speed Data Before and After Speed Limit Change ...............................11 3.2.4 Construction Zone Speeds .....................................................................13 3.3 Accident Data...................................................................................................13 3.3.1 Characteristics of Speed-Related Accidents ..........................................13 3.3.2 Locations with High Number of Speed Related Accidents ...................15 3.3.3 Accident Data Before and After Speed Limit Change...........................16 3.3.4 Accident Rates for 65 mph versus 55 mph Interstates...........................17 4.0 Conclusions..................................................................................................................18 4.1 Speed Data .......................................................................................................18 4.2 Accident Data...................................................................................................18 5.0 Recommendations........................................................................................................19 5.1 Establish Speed Limits.....................................................................................19 5.2 Speed Limits ....................................................................................................19 Appendix A Review of Literature.........................................................................................49 Appendix B Moving Speed Data for Specific Highways .....................................................69 Appendix C Speed Monitoring Data for Specific Locations................................................77 Appendix D Locations with High Number of Speed-Related Accidents 83 i LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Moving Speed Data for Various Highway Types (Cars) Table 2. Moving Speed Data for Various Highway Types (Trucks) Table 3. Example Comparisons of Speed Limit versus Operating Speed (Cars) Table 4. Speed Monitoring Data by Type of Highway (1994 and 1995) Table 5. Speeds Before and After Speed Limit Change Table 6. Speed Data in Construction Zones (Cars) Table 7. Speed Data in Construction Zones (Trucks) Table 8. Characteristics of Speed-Related Accidents (1993-1995) Table 9. Characteristics of Fatal Speed-Related Accidents (1993-1995) Table 10. Percent of Speed-Related Accidents by County (1993-1995) Table 11. Speed-Related Accidents by Highway Type (1992-1994) Table 12. Accidents Before and After Speed Limit Change Table 13. Comparison of Accident Data for Adjacent Sections of Interstates with 65 mph and 55 mph Speed Limits Table 14. Recommended Maximum Speed Limits Table B-1. Moving Speed Data for Specific Highways (Cars) Table B-1. Moving Speed Data for Specific Highways (Trucks) Table C-1. Speed Monitoring Station Data for Specific Locations (1994 and 1995) Table D-1. One-Mile Sections with Highest Critical Rate Factor for Speed- Related Accidents (1992-1994 Accidents) ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objectives of this study were to examine current criteria and procedures used for setting speed limits on public roads and to recommend appropriate maximum speed limits for various types of roads. The study involved three major areas. These were: review of literature, collection and analysis of speed data, and collection and analysis of accident data. The speed data included collecting data on various highway types using the “moving” radar mode, use of data from speed monitoring stations, comparison of spot speed data before and after speed limit changes, and both moving and spot speed data at construction zones. Accident data were collected at locations where speed limits were changed and also on sections of adjacent interstates with different speed limits. A recommendation is that the 85th percentile speed should be used as the standard method to establish speed limits. The speed limit should be posted in 5 mph increments and should be obtained by rounding the 85th percentile speed down to the nearest speed value in miles per hour that end in 5 or 0. The posted speed limit may be set at a speed where the minimum design speed for an entire road may allow the design speed for a specific location to be less than the speed limit. In those instances, advisory speed signs may be used to warn drivers to reduce their speed to less than the posted speed limit. An exception to the use of the 85th percentile speed would be for legislatively mandated speed limits. The speed data show that a large percentage of vehicle speeds exceed currently posted speed limits. The highest percentage exceeding the limit was on urban interstates and two-lane parkways where the speed limit was 55 mph. The speeds for trucks were slightly less that for cars on all types of highways with a difference of less than 5 mph when the 85th percentile speed is considered. A comparison of speed data at locations where speed limits were changed showed differences but not dramatic changes. The data support the theory that drivers will drive what they consider an appropriate speed regardless of the speed limit. A comparison of accident rates at adjacent sections of interstate where the speed limit was 55 and 65 mph did not find
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CHAPTER 153 ( HJR 23 ) a JOINT RESOLUTION Designating Honorary Names for Various Roads and Bridges and Directing the Placement of Honorary Roadside Signs
    CHAPTER 153 1 CHAPTER 153 ( HJR 23 ) A JOINT RESOLUTION designating honorary names for various roads and bridges and directing the placement of honorary roadside signs. WHEREAS, from time to time, the General Assembly has seen fit to honor various Kentuckians by naming portions of state highways and erecting commemorative roadway signs in their honor; and WHEREAS, these Kentuckians have come from all walks of life, held a multitude of jobs, and had a variety of reasons that they were deserving of the honor; and WHEREAS, these individuals have included former Governors, decorated veterans, slain law enforcement officers, local elected officials, astronauts, doctors, educators, distinguished athletes, and civic leaders; and WHEREAS, every citizen of the Commonwealth owes a great debt of gratitude to the patriotic men and women killed and wounded in service to their country in times of great need; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly has often honored the veterans of this state by naming portions of several roads, from interstates to small two-lane country roads, in their honor; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly again sees fit to honor a group of individuals who have made the lives of their fellow Kentuckians better and brought honor and respect to the Commonwealth; NOW, THEREFORE, Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky: Section 1. The Transportation Cabinet shall designate United States Route 25 X, also known as the Dry Ridge Bypass, from the intersection of Kentucky Route 467 north and east to the intersection of Kentucky Route 22, as the "SFC Jason L. Bishop Memorial Highway," and shall, within 30 days of the effective date of this Resolution, erect appropriate signs denoting this designation.
    [Show full text]
  • Single Tenant Net Lease | $1,253,000 Dunkin' Donuts 9913 Brownsboro Road Louisville, Kentucky
    SINGLE TENANT NET LEASE | $1,253,000 DUNKIN’ DONUTS 9913 BROWNSBORO ROAD LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY DUNKIN DONUTS’ | LOUISVILLE, KY OFFERING MEMORANDUM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Offering Investment Highlights Qualified Investors are extended the opportunity to acquire a 100% fee simple Ideal 1031 or Private Equity Investment interest in a single-tenant, NNN lease Dunkin; Donuts in affluent eastern • A 10 year NNN lease with approximately 8 years of term remaining Louisville, Kentucky. The 2,050 square foot building on 0.55 acres prominently provides investors with limited landlord responsibilities and excellent located on Brownsboro Road (Highway 22) just east of the Interstate 265 underlying real estate exchange near Interstate 71. Louisville’s Most Affluent Demographics • Over 49,000 people live within a three mile radius of the subject with The area has experienced major residential and commercial growth over the median household incomes reaching $80,000 past two decades with the development of Louisville’s only lifestyle center. The Paddock Shops, Old Brownsboro Crossing (Cabela’s, Lowe’s, Costco, Norton High Traffic Site with Great Accessibility and Visibility Hospital, Norton Children’s Hospital), Louisville’s only “New Urbanism” planned • Nearly 30,000 vehicles pass the location daily community Norton Commons, and various other shopping centers, Class A multifamily developments, professional office buildings, and single family Premier Trade Area • The Paddock Shops and Old Brownsboro Crossing are two of the most residence neighborhoods. vibrant retail and medical developments in the region driving significant traffic and creating maximum synergies for quick service restaurants in the Fast growing population, affluent demographics, and interstate access to both area I-265 and I-71 have made the Brownsboro Road trade area one of Louisville’s premier commercial corridors.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Knox, Kentucky
    Fort Knox, Kentucky JOINT LAND USE STUDY (JLUS) 2008 Update Prepared for: FORT KNOX JLUS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE June, 2008 This manual was prepared under contract from Lincoln Trail Area Development District, Elizabethtown, Kentucky, with financial support provided by the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of Lincoln Trail Area Development District and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I: Description of Joint Land Use Study 1 Purpose 1 Scope 2 Organization 2 Study Methodology 3 SECTION II: Study Area Profile 5 Study Area Boundaries 5 Physical Setting and Population 5 Study Area Land Use 6 Physical Features 10 Utility Services Infrastructure 19 Transportation 24 Mission Encroachment 32 Noise/Vibrations 37 Compatible Land Use Buffer Zone 39 SECTION III: Land Use and Mission Compatibility Plan 58 Impact Analysis 58 Goals and Objectives 63 SECTION IV: Implementation Schedule 67 List of Appendices Appendix A-Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Six-Year Highway Plan Appendix B-Summary of State and Federal Economic Development Incentive and Assistance Programs Appendix C-Maps Section I Description of Joint Land Use Study SECTION I DESCRIPTION OF JOINT LAND USE STUDY PURPOSE Fort Knox is a compelling economic, historic, and cultural presence in our tri-county region. It is a certified Kentucky City covering approximately 170.4 square miles; the seventh largest community in Kentucky. Fort Knox was occupied by American Soldiers as early as the civil War, and the government considered the site for a military post in 1903. Congress allocated $1.6 million to purchase 40,000 acres in 1918 and construction of facilities began in July of that year.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • D5 Roadshow 100812
    Highway District 5 Serving the Kentucky Counties of Bullitt, Franklin, Henry, Jefferson, Oldham, Shelby, Spencer and Trimble 8310 Westport Road Louisville, KY 40242 PH: 502/210-5400 FAX: 502/210-5498 ROADSHOW for the week beginning October 8, 2012 Inclement weather or other unforeseen circumstances may occur, so the information below is strictly of an advisory nature and is subject to change with no notice. Pothole patching, sweeping, drain & ditch cleaning, pavement marking, and maintenance crews may work on major interstates in the Louisville Metro area only during non-peak daytime hours and at night. Motorists should watch for roadside maintenance and pavement marking crews on interstates and highways throughout the rest of the district on a daily basis. Jefferson County: Interstate 265 (Gene Snyder Freeway): Construction delays possible at the bridge over KY 22 (mile point 34.0) due to bridge deck restoration. Two lanes of traffic will be maintained in each direction during the majority of the construction work. Lanes will be shifted and the roadway shoulders utilized for driving lanes. Some lane closures will be necessary during the set-up phase of these traffic shifts. Lane closures will not be allowed on weekdays 7-9 AM and 3-6 PM. The speed limit in the work zone will be reduced to 55 MPH and double fines will be enforced. Eastbound Interstate 264 (Watterson Expressway): Left lane will be closed on exit ramp to US 42 (Exit 22) as part of interchange improvements. This lane closure is scheduled for Monday, October 8th from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 APPENDIX B-Mega Projects
    KENTUCKY RECOMMENDED SIX-YEAR HIGHWAY PLAN FY 2005 -2010 APPENDIX B “MEGA-PROJECT” STATUS “Providing Kentuckians with a safe and reliable Highway System...” APPENDIX B Kentucky’s “Mega-Projects” As the 2004 edition of the Recommended FY 2005-2010 Six-Year Highway Plan was developed, strong consideration was given to the funding needs associated with four “Mega-Projects” located in Kentucky. As the attached map shows, these projects are (1) the Louisville Bridges project, (2) the Interstate 71/75 Brent Spence Bridge congestion relief project in northern Kentucky, (3) Proposed Interstate 66 in southeastern Kentucky, and (4) Proposed interstate 69 in far western Kentucky. Each of these projects would be an expensive, but welcome, addition to Kentucky’s highway system. The term “Mega-Project” is a reference to the fact that each project will cost near, or in excess of, $1 billion. As we contemplate the fiscal realities associated with such extreme costs, there is a key factor common to each “Mega-Project” that must be reconciled before tremendous amounts of Kentucky’s regular federal-aid and state fund revenues can be applied to any of them. That key factor is the amount of special federal funding that can be earmarked for each project during the reauthorization of federal transportation programs over the months ahead. Given the extremely tight fiscal status of Kentucky’s Road Fund, we cannot plan for huge investments in any of the “Mega-Projects” until the true extent of federal support for each project can be gauged. Each of the four “Mega-Projects” is underway, with varying levels of progress achieved.
    [Show full text]
  • AN ACT Relating to Speed Limits. 1 Be It Enacted by the General Assembly
    UNOFFICIAL COPY 17 RS BR 1558 1 AN ACT relating to speed limits. 2 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky: 3 Section 1. KRS 189.390 is amended to read as follows: 4 (1) As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise: 5 (a) "Business district" means the territory contiguous to and including a highway 6 if, within six hundred (600) feet along the highway, there are buildings in use 7 for business or industrial purposes that occupy three hundred (300) feet of 8 frontage on one (1) side or three hundred (300) feet collectively on both sides 9 of the highway; 10 (b) "Residential district" means the territory contiguous to and including a 11 highway not comprising a business district if the property on the highway for a 12 distance of three hundred (300) feet or more is improved with residences or 13 residences and buildings in use for business; and 14 (c) "State highway" means a highway or street maintained by the Kentucky 15 Department of Highways. 16 (2) An operator of a vehicle upon a highway shall not drive at a greater speed than is 17 reasonable and prudent, having regard for the traffic and for the condition and use 18 of the highway. 19 (3) The speed limit for motor vehicles on state highways shall be as follows, unless 20 conditions exist that require lower speed for compliance with subsection (2) of this 21 section, or the secretary of the Transportation Cabinet establishes a different speed 22 limit in accordance with subsection (4) of this section: 23 (a) Sixty-five (65) miles per hour on interstate highways,[ and] parkways, and all 24 other state highways which have four (4) or more lanes; 25 (b) Fifty-five (55) miles per hour on all other state highways; and 26 (c) Thirty-five (35) miles per hour in a business or residential district.
    [Show full text]
  • The Interstate Highway System Turns 60
    The Interstate Highway System turns 60: Challenges to Its Ability to Continue to Save Lives, Time and Money JUNE 27, 2016 202-466-6706 tripnet.org Founded in 1971, TRIP ® of Washington, DC, is a nonprofit organization that researches, evaluates and distributes economic and technical data on surface transportation issues. TRIP is sponsored by insurance companies, equipment manufacturers, distributors and suppliers; businesses involved in highway and transit engineering and construction; labor unions; and organizations concerned with efficient and safe surface transportation. Executive Summary Sixty years ago the nation embarked on its greatest public works project, the construction of the Interstate Highway System. President Dwight D. Eisenhower provided strong support for the building of an Interstate Highway System that would improve traffic safety, reduce travel times and improve the nation’s economic productivity. Serving as the most critical transportation link in the nation’s economy, the Interstate Highway System has significantly improved the lives of U.S. residents and visitors. Throughout the nation, the Interstate system allows for high levels of mobility by greatly reducing travel times and providing a significantly higher level of traffic safety than other routes. But 60 years after President Eisenhower articulated a vision for the nation’s transportation system, the U. S. again faces a challenge in modernizing its aging and increasingly congested Interstate highway system. If Americans are to continue to enjoy their current level of personal and commercial mobility on Interstate highways and bridges, the nation will need to make a commitment to identifying a long-term funding source to support a well-maintained Interstate Highway System able to meet the nation’s need for additional mobility.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 65 Interchange Economic Development Plan
    INTERSTATE 65 INTERCHANGE CITY OF FRANKLIN M AY, 2015 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN INTERSTATE 65 INTERCHANGE CITY OF FRANKLIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN Table of Contents Section 1: Background ................................................................ 1 Section 2: Planning Process ......................................................... 5 Section 3: Issues Identifi cation ..................................................... 11 Section 4: Existing Conditions ...................................................... 17 Section 5: Economic Development Principles ................................. 27 Section 6: Project Recommendations............................................ 37 Section 7: Implementation Strategies............................................ 61 Appendices ................................................................................ A.1 This page intentionally left blank. Acknowledgments PREPARED FOR: The City of Franklin, IN CONTACT INFORMATION: City of Franklin 70 E. Monroe Street P.O. Box 280 Franklin, IN 46131 (317) 736-3631 Mayor Joe McGuinness CITY COUNCIL: Janice Bullman Joseph R. Ault Ward 1 David Clendening Richard Wertz Ward 2 Keith Fox William T. Murphy Ward 3 Tina Gross Kenneth Austin Ward 4 Pete Grimmer Joseph P. Abban Ward 5 Krista Linke Stephen Hougland At Large Angie Longtin Steve Barnett At Large Mayor Joe McGuinness Cheryl Morphew Rhoni Oliver Travis Underhill Brooke Worland FRANKLIN REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: PREPARED BY: Bob Heuchan President Jay Goad Vice-President BJ Deppe Secretary Rob Henderson
    [Show full text]
  • 65-71 Regional Connector Final Report
    65-71 Regional Corridor Study Final Report Prepared for Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Central Office District 5 Prepared by HDR In partnership with Palmer Engineering CRA Associates, Inc. HMB Professional Engineers, Inc. Corn Island Archaeology Integrated Engineering Civil Design, Inc. Executive Summary The 65-71 Regional Connector Study examines the need for, and the feasibility of, a new and/or upgraded highway that would connect I-65 in Bullitt County to I-71 in Oldham County. Purpose and Need The need for new or improved transportation connections in the study area is based on: 1. Substantial and increasing congestion on the radial freeways (I-71, I-64, and I-65) as well as the outermost circumferential freeway (I-265). 2. A lack of circumferential routes, with inefficient travel between I-65, I-64, and I-71 outside I-265. This causes many trips to go in to the region’s core and back out with considerable diversion from the desired direction of travel. 3. Congestion or operational issues on the radial arterials (US 31E, KY 155, US 60 and KY 22) as well as the few partial circumferential routes (KY 44, KY 53, KY 55). 4. Significant existing and planned residential, industrial, and commercial development, especially in Bullitt, Oldham, and Shelby Counties. 5. Increased freight / economic activity and general mobility needs in the study area that cannot be accommodated by the existing circumferential rural two-lane highways. In response to these needs and input from five project focus groups, the study identified four primary purposes for a new or improved connection between I-65 in Bullitt County and I-71 in Oldham County.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 106 Update Memo 3
    100 North Senate Avenue PHONE: (317) 234-5168 Eric Holcomb, Governor Room N642 Joe McGuinness, Commissioner Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 March 20, 2019 This letter was sent to the listed parties. RE: Dual Review Project: I-65/I-70 North Split Interchange Reconstruction Project (Designation (Des.) Numbers (Nos.) 1592385 & 1600808) Section 106 Update Memo #3 Dear Consulting Party, The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposes to proceed with the I-65/I-70 North Split Interchange Reconstruction Project (I-65/I-70 North Split Project) in the City of Indianapolis, Marion County (Des. Nos. 1592385 & 1600808). HNTB Corporation is under contract with INDOT to advance the environmental documentation for the referenced project. Project Location The proposed undertaking includes the I-65/I-70 North Split interchange; south along I-65/I-70 to the Washington Street interchange; the portion of I-65 west of the North Split interchange to approximately Meridian Street; and, the portion of I-70 east of the North Split interchange to approximately the bridge over Valley Avenue (west of the Keystone Avenue/Rural Street interchange) in downtown Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. It is within Center Township, Beech Grove United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Quadrangle, in Section 36, Township 16N, Range 3E; Sections 1 and 12, Township 15N, Range 3E; and Section 31, Township 16N, Range 4E. Please see Attachment A for general location and USGS topographic maps. State Certificate Approval Dual Review Process Please note that per the permanent rule issued by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) effective August 14, 2013 (312 IAC 20-4-11.5), INDOT is requesting that this project be subjected to “dual review”; that is, reviewed by the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) simultaneously under 54 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • See the Public Comment Summary
    MEETING SUMMARY The North Split project received 219 comments and/or inquiries on the System-Level Analysis. The official comment period started on May 3, 2018, and lasted through June 7, 2018. Comments were also accepted for a one-week grace period through June 14, 2018. The feedback was received via: • Emails both with and without attached letters (99) • Comment cards (83) • Verbal comments at the open house (33) • Phone calls (1) • Facebook (3) Overall, nearly half requested that INDOT pause its plans for the North Split interchange and fund a comprehensive study that measures impacts to neighorhoods, economic development and walkability. Several comments were adapted from a form letter, and several individuals submitted comments via more than one medium. A general breakdown of the focus of the comments, with sample comments, is included below. Further Study (101 comments) • I hope that, since the INDOT's mission is to enhance the economy of the state, and, of course, Indianapolis, that they'll look at the alternatives very seriously since simply doing the usual kind of widening and massification will actually depress Indianapolis' economy. • It's a project that is going to have significant long-term impacts, and I think, given the scope and breadth of the impact, it's all the more essential that INDOT make sure it has studied a wide range of implications. • We can really create the future by contemplating and implementing alternative plans that don't separate communities, that don't create more asphalt, that don't create more noise pollution, that are creative, solid plans to make Indianapolis even more attractive for folks to live here and thrive here.
    [Show full text]