I believe Bob Lynn paid for the turning lane off 62, he was approved to put some storage units there, but I think he may be waiting to see how the annexation fight turns out up there on his adjoining property next to Bethany Farms. From what I know of Bob he probably has a bigger plan in mind for that property on 62.
I agree the entrance to Salem Noble Road off 62 needs a bigger turning lane, hopefully the city will consider that a top priority before the paving season ends this fall.
Posts: 317 | Location: soon to be forcibly annexed | Registered: June 21, 2007
I wonder if the City will really take responsibility for that portion of 62? Previous posters have noted that it SHOULD now be Jeff's responsibility, but I've seen no indication from them that they intend to do much out that way.
See if I have this correct. Salem-noble road is the county's, State road 62 is the state's, and you think the city is going to construct a turning lane? Don't hold your breath. That burden will fall on the state-its their road.
Posts: 1232 | Location: SUNNYSIDE | Registered: August 19, 2006
You can make a request to the state, just as we did with the Methadone Clinic entrance. The State will conduct a study to gauge traffic flow. With all the new revenue the city is gaining from the homeowners on Salem-Noble Road, I think this is the least they can do. My kids regularly visit their friends in Whispering Oaks out there, I for one would be happy to ask the city to pursue a larger turning lane. I don't think this is asking too much.
Let's take care of the basics first.Convention Centers and the development of Veteran's Parkway would be nice, but dealing with the problems and burdens of the little guy should be where our priorities start. Our streets and infrastructure demand our attention now. We need to address our "needs" before we address our "wants".
NSBHM - Again, there seems to be some indication that once a City annexes a portion of a state highway into their city limits, they become responsible for it:
quote:
IC 36-4-3-2.5 "Public highway" defined Sec. 2.5. (a) As used in this section, "public highway" has the meaning set forth in IC 9-25-2-4. (b) An annexation of territory under this chapter after June 30, 1996, that includes land contiguous to a public highway must also include contiguous areas of: (1) the public highway; and (2) rights-of-way of the public highway. As added by P.L.232-1996, SEC.1.
Problem is that code 9-25-2-4 doesn't exist anymore so you have to look at 8-2.1-17-14 which states:
IC 8-2.1-17-14 "Public highway" Sec. 14. "Public highway" means a street, alley, road, highway, or thoroughfare in Indiana used by the traveling public. As added by P.L.99-1989, SEC.8.
So, the city IS responsible for any areas of Salem-Noble Road where the boundary of the annexed territory touches (is contiguous with) the road.
Mike M. - I agree, 100%. I find all this talk of a convention center kind of silly. Is it the 70s all over again? Anyone remember when the camper place by the Holiday Inn was a "convention center"? We need to address existing infrastructure problems first before adding new issues. And NO, a convention center will not pay for turning lanes at Salem-Noble or elsewhere.
Shea - can the paper look into who is responsible for this portion of 62 and who is responsible for traffic issues there?
Unless the law has changed it is still the state's responsibility. Up until a few years ago all of 10th street to Spring was the state's to maintain. When it was "turned over" to the city the state gave the city close to 1.5 for improvements like corbs and gutters. Galligan used this money to reconstruct the lower portion of 10th. Until it was under the city's control the city could not do any repairs, cross overs, turning lanes, or access lanes without the state's OK. The city now has control from Spring to Allison Lane and maybe all the way to the I265 interchange. I think it was 2002 or 2003 when the city took control of 10th. I guess the city or county could add a turning lane but they would have to get the state's blessing before acting.
Posts: 1232 | Location: SUNNYSIDE | Registered: August 19, 2006
I believe I read recently that the official name of the stretch from Allison Lane to 265 is now 10th Street, meaning the State had turned it over to the city. If you are indeed correct, and I have no reason to doubt you, then it is unlikely that the city will even lobby on our behalf to get a turning lane there. And though it's a county road, since that stretch of 62 falls within the city limits, I guess it's doubtful the county will lobby them, either. As Mike Moore stated, the County asked the State to study a turning lane for the methadone clinic, but I've seen no signs or results of one thus far.
The study for the Methadone clinic showed a large traffic count in a small window time frame in the mornings, unfortunately the traffic count needs to be high through out the day. I believe the Salem-Noble road intersection may have a better chance of getting the data the state looks for when deciding the need.
Posts: 317 | Location: soon to be forcibly annexed | Registered: June 21, 2007
Another intersection that needs a traffic signal and a complete redesign is at Vissing Park Road and Route 62. There have been several accidents there, and the recent addition of painted traffic lines has only made the situation worse. Drivers are confused about who has the right of way, and there's only enough room for one or two cars to pull out of the passing lane to make a left turn onto Vissing Park.
The intersection also backs up pretty good during the morning commute; the completion of the new Rolling Ridge development has brought more traffic to an already dangerous intersection.
There seems to be some confusion about things that are "proposed" and reported, and things that are actually approved. It was "proposed" that Re-Development construct several hundred feet of road into the Developer's property. This "proposal" met resistance, led by Councilman Ed Z. When the actual project was voted on, this phase of the development was not even on the newer "proposal", the developer took on this phase of the project. As suggested by the opposition to the original proposal...
For exactly the reasons previously stated here: Approval of a development does not automatically require the city to build its roads. That is the developer's responsibility.
Posts: 112 | Location: Jeffersonville | Registered: February 13, 2006
Originally posted by Mike Moore, County Commissioner: The study for the Methadone clinic showed a large traffic count in a small window time frame in the mornings, unfortunately the traffic count needs to be high through out the day. I believe the Salem-Noble road intersection may have a better chance of getting the data the state looks for when deciding the need.
That actually makes sense, though I would think there would be a similar rush in the afternoon/evenings. Salem-Noble is ALL DAY every-day traffic. Who generally submits the study requests to the state? The commissioners? The City?
I would think this should come from the city since we're talking about traffic from residents who live in the city.
If the Mayor or a councilperson from the city would like to make this request with me that might be even better. I think it would be great to see Jeff city and County officials working together.
Thanks, Mike! I wonder if Ed Z. is still paying attention to these forums? We haven't heard from him lately since joe6pack started calling him out over the Pepper Cooper stuff.
Ed, would you be willing to work with Mike on this??
A two-vehicle accident with injury has been reported in Clark County, Ind., earlier this morning.
The accident occurred about 6 a.m. on Ind. 62 near Salem Noble Road.
Clark County dispatchers could not say if there was a fatality.
Clark County Police responded to the scene and are investigating.
County dispatchers would not say if it was a fatality, but the white sheet the first responders draped over the truck indicates that it most likely was. There was a dump-truck sitting in the median with it's back end sticking out onto the road. It appears a smaller truck ran right into the back of it. The scene was being worked at 6:30am, and as of 8:30am it is STILL being worked by multiple fire trucks, police cars, etc.
Apparently Ed Z. and others think the need for a light at Salem-Noble is all in my head (Ed will respond to every thread but this one). So Jeffersonville, here's your FIRST fatality at Salem-Noble and 62. I hope I'm not the next one, but I guarantee there will be more until something is done.
Just wondering if anyone might have an update on what happened this morning. The EN site doesn't even mention it, and the CJ hasn't updated their story.
