Transcript Welcome! New I-65 Interchange at Worthsville Road April 11, 2013 Welcome • • • • • • • Rickie Clark, INDOT Office of Public Involvement Purpose/Explanation of Public Hearing Public Hearing Format Visit our.

Welcome!
New I-65 Interchange at
Worthsville Road
April 11, 2013
Welcome
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rickie Clark, INDOT Office of Public Involvement
Purpose/Explanation of Public Hearing
Public Hearing Format
Visit our sign-in table
Informational Handouts
Submitting public comments
Informal Q & A following formal presentation and
comment session
Welcome
• Purpose of this Public Hearing
• Provide project update since last meeting
• Present the Preferred Alternative
• Receive public comments
• Public comment session
• Audio recording
• Written comment forms
• E-mail, call, or fax project staff (see handout)
• Allow for comments on the finding of “no historic
properties affected”
Public Notice
• Sign-in at attendance table to be added to project
mailing list
• A notice of public hearing was mailed to known
property owners within project area
• Announcement of this hearing was posted to INDOT
website at: http://www.in.gov/indot.htm
• Electronic notification via e-mail
• Legal notice was published in several newspapers on
multiple dates
Where is the Study Area?
STUDY AREA
Study Process: What is IJR?
•
The Interchange Justification Report (IJR) is a
stand-alone document which constitutes a
request from INDOT for FHWA approval of
new or revised access to the existing
Interstate System. The document will
demonstrate that reasonable care has been
taken in addressing the criteria described in
the Federal Register of February 11, 1998,
confirming that future traffic operations along
the affected Interstate corridor will not be
adversely affected by the proposed action.
IJR = Interchange Justification Report
Study Process: What is NEPA?
• The National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) requires federal
agencies to integrate environmental
values into their decision making
processes by considering the
environmental impacts of their
proposed actions and reasonable
alternatives to those actions.
Project Timeline
Summer
2012
Data
Collection
Project Development Process
Interchange Justification
2013
Alternative Selection
Environmental Documentation
2014
Detailed Design
Right of Way Acquisition
Begin
Construction
We are here
Community Advisory
Committee Meeting
December 2012
Public Meeting Public Hearing Community Advisory
Spring 2013
Winter 2012
Committee Meeting
Spring 2013
What Have Stakeholders Said?
Improve East-West connectivity
Relieve traffic congestion in the area
Coordinate with future land use plans
Coordinate with local land owners
regarding the Right of Way Acquisition
process
• Enhance economic growth potential in
the area
•
•
•
•
Purpose and Need – What Is It?
An important factor in selecting the best alternative is the ability to address the Purpose and Need for
improvements. Therefore, it is important to have a good understanding of those needs as we identify
possible alternatives. Based on the technical analysis and public involvement findings, five
transportation needs have been initially identified.
Stakeholder Input
Purpose & Need
Technical Analysis
A concise statement of the
transportation problems to be
addressed.
1. Improve Roadway
Connectivity
2. Enhance Safety in the
Corridor
3. Reduce Congestion at
Existing Interchanges
4. Foster Economic Growth
5. Maintain Consistency with
Local & Regional Planning
Alternatives
Identification &
Screening
Alternatives Evaluation
Stakeholder Input >Refine >Evaluate
Refine
Evaluate
Stakeholder
Input
Best Blend of:
 Improved Travel
Performance
 Avoid, minimize and
mitigate Environmental
Impacts
 Compatibility with
Community Goals
National Environmental Policy Act
• Consideration of Alternatives
• Evaluation of Impacts to Human and Natural
Environment
• Documentation of Impacts in an Environmental
Assessment at: http://www.in.gov/indot/3121.htm
• Interagency Coordination
• Public Involvement
Environmental Resources
Features Evaluated in EA
Historic Properties
Noise
Land Use
Farmlands
Water Quality
Air Quality
Construction
Relocations
Demographics
Floodplains
Wetlands and
Streams
Archaeology
Federally Protected
Species
Hazardous Waste
Parks, Preserves,
etc.
Public Involvement/Outreach
• Notice of Survey Letters
• Community Advisory Committee
• Public Information Meeting – December 12, 2012
• Information on the Project Website –
http://www.in.gov/indot/3121.htm
• Section 106 Consulting Party Coordination
• Media
• Public Hearing and Comment Period for EA
Parclo A4
Pros





Reduces traffic congestion in the study area
Improves safety in the study area
Least conflict points
Provides free east to north movement onto the
interstate
Simple bridge structure
Cons




Highest overall project cost
Most right of way required
Greatest impact to farmlands
Pond impact in southeast quadrant
Parclo A2
Pros





Reduces traffic congestion in the study area
Improves safety in the study area
Fewest parcels impacted
Minimize impact to property in southwest
quadrant
Heavy east to north movement provided by
right turn loop
Cons





Lowest traffic capacity
Highest crash risk
Most excess right of way required
Largest footprint
Pond impact in southeast quadrant
Diverging Diamond Interchange
Pros







Reduces traffic congestion in the study area.
Most efficient
Improves safety in the study area. Least crash
risk
Provides free movements onto the interstate
Least right of way required
Lowest overall project cost
Avoids pond in southeast quadrant
Fewest impact to farmlands
Cons
•
•
•
Most parcels impacted
Counter intuitive for drivers
Lower speed for through movements
What Are the Technical Findings?
• Improve operations of Main Street
interchange by reducing traffic by
30%
• Improve travel speeds and Level of
Service on I-65
• Reduce expected crashes on I-65
and surface streets in the area
• Operate at reasonably free flow
with forecasted traffic demands
Potential Impacts – Preferred Alternative
Displacements
Right of Way Acquisition
3
48 acres
Floodplains
4.4 acres
Wetlands and Streams
Noise
Federal and State
Protected Species
• 310 linear feet of streams
• no wetland impacts
1 impacted receptor
(no abatement)
Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Hazardous Waste Sites
None
Community Impacts
None
Historic Properties
• One Previously Recorded Home:
– Determined Eligible for NRHP in 2009
– Further evaluation (2012) determined to be Ineligible
• No other historic properties found Eligible for listing on
NRHP
• SHPO Concurrence on INDOT Finding of No Historic
Properties Affected for Project
• Public Input Sought on Historic Properties Determination
(Section 106 Finding)
Real Estate Acquisition Process
Real Estate Acquisition Process
What is the Land Acquisition Process?
 INDOT priority is to work with the property owners to minimize
impacts of all projects
 Process may begin after a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI)
 Process would include a plat of highway, independent appraisal,
an offer, and a period of negotiations
 Must propose fair market compensation for needed property
 Eminent Domain or Condemnation are always considered to be
last resorts
EA Document Review
The Environmental Assessment is
available for review at:
•
•
•
•
•
The project website
Greenwood Public Library
Greenwood City Office
INDOT Seymour District Office
INDOT Central Office
Ways to comment:
•
•
•
•
Public comment session
Audio recording
Written comment forms
E-mail, call, or fax project staff (see handout)
Express Your Opinion
Comment Forms
• Written and online comment forms
• Comments received by April 26,
2013 will be reviewed for future
consideration and incorporation.
Comment Session
•
Please be considerate of others
•
Please wait on microphone before speaking
•
Questions? Please see Project Staff in open house
area
•
Comments must be submitted by April 26, 2013
•
More info:
www.in.gov/indot/3121.htm
Thank you
Public Forum will begin now.
Please fill out a participation form
and hand to a Study Team member