I did some digging, and found the following Clark County traffic study from 2002:

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/CLARK1.pdf

Here are some interesting tidbits. In 2002, the average daily traffic volume at Salem-Noble Road and SR62 was 17610.

That intersection, of course, is one in question here and does not currently have a light.

At the same time, the average daily volume at SR62 and Bethany Road (which does have a light) was marked at 16410. That's a 1200-car difference. Where did those cars go?

By comparison, the average flow at the "major intersection" of SR62 and SR3 was 9390.

So where are 8250 of those cars turning between Salem-Noble and Hwy 3? There are only three options: Salem Noble, Bethany Rd., and Stacy Rd. There's also sure to have been some minor plant traffic at the time.

Also by comparison, the traffic count at County-Line Road and SR311 was 12630. That intersection also has a light.

Keep in mind, also, that these numbers are from 2002. In 2002, there was no Whispering Oaks (or it was just getting started), no Raintree Ridge, no Windy Pines, no giant buildings at River Ridge, and especially no methadone clinic.

Things have certainly changed since 2002! If the state does a new study does not find need for a light, I'll be shocked.

One thing that concerns me... many of my friends and family in the area are now AVOIDING the intersection of Salem-Noble and either travelling via Charlestown Pike or Shungate Rd. to Utica-Sellersburg Rd. If the study is done and enough people are avoiding it, it may trend down the numbers a bit.

Supermike, you know as well as I do that studies can be skewed to invalue anything. If the people that pay for the study want a light there, the study will find for them.

If the people that pay for the study don't want there to be a light there, it won't.

Then, the question is, who pays for the light. Jeff City IS NOT going to pay for a light that is not on city property. That means the county will have to foot the bill. I don't think any one can put a light there except the state. S.R. 62 is owned by the state not the county if I'm not mistaken. I am be.

In the early 1980's a traffic light was needed at the intersection of Blackiston Mill Road and Gutford Road. Lots of traffic and lots of accidents. Clarksville wouldn't pay for it because it wasn't in town and the county couldn't afford it for several years. There needs to be a light there, but until the city annexes the road...

I did some checking... the girl that was killed in the accident on Hwy62 lived in Louisville. She worked for the "Technology Conservation Group", on National Turnpike - which is also in Louisville, south of 264 near the Airport and Ford LAP.

At the time of the accident, she was in the fast lane, heading North/East on Hwy62, AT but slightly PAST the first entry to River Ridge, where most would turn in for Connexions, etc. There were no skid marks indicating she attempted to stop.

So the question begs... what would someone from Louisville, who worked WAY on the South side of Louisville, be doing on Hwy62 in Jeffersonville, headed toward Charlestown, at 5:50AM.

Think it over, and the recent hit-and-run on 10th Street last week, and then tell me if you think the methadone clinic belongs where it is now. Sad.

And is it just me, or does anyone else feel like the Evening News has been asleep lately on real stories (these accidents, the $30k charge, etc.)?

quote:

Originally posted by Supermike:
I did some checking... the girl that was killed in the accident on Hwy62 lived in Louisville. She worked for the "Technology Conservation Group", on National Turnpike - which is also in Louisville, south of 264 near the Airport and Ford LAP.

At the time of the accident, she was in the fast lane, heading North/East on Hwy62, AT but slightly PAST the first entry to River Ridge, where most would turn in for Connexions, etc. There were no skid marks indicating she attempted to stop.

So the question begs... what would someone from Louisville, who worked WAY on the South side of Louisville, be doing on Hwy62 in Jeffersonville, headed toward Charlestown, at 5:50AM.

Think it over, and the recent hit-and-run on 10th Street last week, and then tell me if you think the methadone clinic belongs where it is now. Sad.

And is it just me, or does anyone else feel like the Evening News has been asleep lately on real stories (these accidents, the $30k charge, etc.)?

The lady that died had droped her sister off at the methadone clinic and went to the gas station to buy something for them to drink. She was on her way back to the methadone clinic when she hit the tray on the truck. She wasn't wearing a seat belt and the police think she drove her car toward the truck before hitting it.
I was just wondering, why people in Kentucky dont have their own methadone clinic to go to? These addicts dont need to be driving.

quote:

I was just wondering, why people in Kentucky dont have their own methadone clinic to go to? These addicts dont need to be driving.

Many other states have laws regarding the number of methadone clinics that can be located there. Kentucky is a state that does, while Indiana has no such laws. That's why methadone clinics are located all around the borders of Indiana. Our legislators have failed us.

Sad... at 6am, after probably already a half-hour in the car driving, she was probably sleepy. She may have dozed off and not even have seen it coming. The seatbelt probably would not have saved her in this case, but it underscores the issue. This clinic does not belong in that location. It's probably a good thing that truck was there, or she may have crossed over the highway and hit some innocent person head-on.

Additionally, lights in the area would have helped. Had there been a light at that intersection and the one at Salem-Noble, she would have been travelling at a slower rate of speed and may have been more aware.

This just in (you read it here first)... there was another wreck this morning in front of the fire station (#4, by the Circle-K) this morning. I don't think there were any fatalities... but just another example of the conjestion in the area.

An article of relative interest from the CJ:
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...EWS02/809080441/1025

quote:

Mike Moore said he already is concerned about an example of local governments not sharing responsibilities. Jeffersonville's annexation includes areas with expensive homes near Salem-Noble Road east of the city's current boundary, he said, but leaves out part of the heavily traveled road that needs widening and costly maintenance.

"There is a money grab here," Moore said, leaving the county government holding the bag.

Galligan acknowledged that parts of Salem-Noble Road near annexed areas weren't included in the city's takeover. But that's not because officials were avoiding responsibility, he said.

The annexation boundaries were determined by the location of city sewers and planning how best to extend services to annexed areas, he said.

"I think the Jeffersonville annexation will be good for the community," Galligan said, bringing municipal services to areas that need them and strengthening the identification of annexed residents with the city.

Note the comment in bold, above. Funny how the annexation was determined by "the location of city sewers and planning how best to extend services to annexed areas", however the City has already tried to extend sewers to the Methadone clinic, which is JUST OUTSIDE the annexation area. Also, folks in Whispering Oaks down Salem-Noble are on City Sewers, so what does that have to do with anything??

So part of the reason for the the annexation was for "strengthening the identification of annexed residents with the city."?? Well, isn't that nice. I'll bet the folks that were in the city PRIOR to the annexation will be glad to hear they needed to annex my neighborhood to strengthen their identification. What's wrong? Was the tax base getting too low? Was Jeff afraid of becoming the next Shively?

quote:

Originally posted by Supermike:
An article of relative interest from the CJ:
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...EWS02/809080441/1025

quote:

Mike Moore said he already is concerned about an example of local governments not sharing responsibilities. Jeffersonville's annexation includes areas with expensive homes near Salem-Noble Road east of the city's current boundary, he said, but leaves out part of the heavily traveled road that needs widening and costly maintenance.

"There is a money grab here," Moore said, leaving the county government holding the bag.

Galligan acknowledged that parts of Salem-Noble Road near annexed areas weren't included in the city's takeover. But that's not because officials were avoiding responsibility, he said.

The annexation boundaries were determined by the location of city sewers and planning how best to extend services to annexed areas, he said.

"I think the Jeffersonville annexation will be good for the community," Galligan said, bringing municipal services to areas that need them and strengthening the identification of annexed residents with the city.

Note the comment in bold, above. Funny how the annexation was determined by "the location of city sewers and planning how best to extend services to annexed areas", however the City has already tried to extend sewers to the Methadone clinic, which is JUST OUTSIDE the annexation area. Also, folks in Whispering Oaks down Salem-Noble are on City Sewers, so what does that have to do with anything??

So part of the reason for the the annexation was for "strengthening the identification of annexed residents with the city."?? Well, isn't that nice. I'll bet the folks that were in the city PRIOR to the annexation will be glad to hear they needed to annex my neighborhood to strengthen their identification. What's wrong? Was the tax base getting too low? Was Jeff afraid of becoming the next Shively?

Remember the annexation process including identifying the property to be annexed started about 3 years ago, well before the methadone clinic controversy. Are you saying you think the city should extend its boundary every time it extends its sewers outside the city limits?

It's not the city extending sewers to the clinic as much as its the clinic requesting sewers from the utility. Remember by law a utility can't deny a request for sewers because it does not "like" the end user.

Although not quoted above, the article also stated that the annexation will take away less then 1% ($200,000 of a $22,200,000 budget) of the county's budget while reducing some of the county's service obligations which will reduce some county costs. Of course no entity likes receiving less but its no where near the big money grab some in the county have contended.

Well, as I understand it, around three years ago John Perkins knew he was steering the clinic out that way. And you knew you were extending them to River Ridge, right? I believe it was around 3 years ago now when Bob Miller signed the letter promising sewers out there. I understand the Sewer utility can't deny sewers because of their business, but what about not extending them because it doesn't make sense economically? Have you looked up recently how much it's going to cost the utility to run sewers out there now that they have to run up Hwy62? Why has no-one reported how much it will cost taxpayers to put a sewer line in for the methadone clinic that the city engineer promised, now that they can't cut across land on which they have no easment?

You have admitted that the city should have annexed Salem-Noble Road (the PHYSICAL road), Ed, and I appreciate your candor. But I just wonder WHY it was not annexed when the city went all the way up it and took in Whispering Oaks on both sides. How could it have NOT been in the original plan?? Who looked at the map and said "we don't need to take that road."? THAT, and the fact you managed to avoid parts of Utica-Sellersburg Road between C-Town Pike and 62, is why it looks like a land-grab.

Supermike,
I don't have a good annexation map to go off of right now. The map available on the Jeff website is of no use at all. Could you please confirm for me how the annexation happened in relation to the road? Has the the annexation taken in land all of the way up to a road, but then stopped short of including the road? According to Indiana State Law, if an annexation goes up to a road, it must also include the road and both right-of-ways.

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.


IC 9-25-2-4
Public highway
Sec. 4. "Public highway" means a street, an alley, a road, a highway, or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the public.


Not sure if this describes the situation you have been talking about, but wanted to throw it out there in case it helps clear up the ownership issue...even if they don't claim it.

I believe the figure of $200,000.00 lost by the County will prove to be a huge error. It would be my guess Umbaugh was the consultant that gave the City those numbers quoted by Mr. McCauley. I am willing to bet the actual dollars commandeered by the City will prove to be much greater then they are letting on.

The City and County need to work together here, but first we need to start being honest with each other when it comes to funding and budgets. Let's quit letting these consultants cheerlead are arguments and sit down together. I'm available anytime.

quote:

Originally posted by Terra Incognito:
Supermike,
I don't have a good annexation map to go off of right now. The map available on the Jeff website is of no use at all. Could you please confirm for me how the annexation happened in relation to the road? Has the the annexation taken in land all of the way up to a road, but then stopped short of including the road? According to Indiana State Law, if an annexation goes up to a road, it must also include the road and both right-of-ways.

Terra,

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, the useless maps on the City of Jeff website are pretty much the same as were provided to those of us in the annexation areas. The map to my house was so bad, it looked like chickens with ink pens had done some artwork. That and the fact that all the descriptions were old (100ft to the big oak tree, 20 ft. to the rock in the ground, 500 feet to the culvert, blah blah blah) and I couldn't understand much of it.

That said, AS I UNDERSTAND IT the City of Jeffersonville has annexed all the way up Salem Noble to the Whispering Oaks I and II subdivisions, and taken both. Those developments are on SEPERATE sides of the road. I do not know which properties along Salem-Noble they managed to take in the process -- perhaps all of them, perhaps some -- which is what makes it confusing. HOW they could go up Salem-Noble and get those two very nice developments without taking the road baffles me. But from the law you posted, it would seem the County would have legal ground to force the City to take it over up to that point.

Whether it was intentional or an oversight (blame the sewers, right?), the CITY should be the one taking responsibility for that road up to Whispering Oaks now. It would seem to deny that would mean they are saying this law does not apply.

An update on this from today (09/19/08):

quote:

The commissioners are looking into handing over responsibility for the maintenance and improvements of Salem-Noble Road to the city of Jeffersonville. The city annexed about 450 homes on the road, but did not annex the entire roadway.

“It’s the road all those residents take to get to and from Ind. 62,” Commissioner Mike Moore said. “You basically leave the city, enter the county for two miles, and then you’re back in the city.

“I think it’s in everybody’s best interest if we hand Salem-Noble Road over to Jeff. It just makes sense.”

The commissioners didn’t take any action at the meeting, but have plans to discuss the road with Jeffersonville officials.

http://www.newsandtribune.com/local/local_story_263120025.html

Thanks for keeping after this, Mike!!

quote:

Originally posted by Supermike:
An update on this from today (09/19/08):

quote:

The commissioners are looking into handing over responsibility for the maintenance and improvements of Salem-Noble Road to the city of Jeffersonville. The city annexed about 450 homes on the road, but did not annex the entire roadway.

“It’s the road all those residents take to get to and from Ind. 62,” Commissioner Mike Moore said. “You basically leave the city, enter the county for two miles, and then you’re back in the city.

“I think it’s in everybody’s best interest if we hand Salem-Noble Road over to Jeff. It just makes sense.”

The commissioners didn’t take any action at the meeting, but have plans to discuss the road with Jeffersonville officials.

http://www.newsandtribune.com/local/local_story_263120025.html

Thanks for keeping after this, Mike!!

As I said before Salem Road going to the city does make sense and it probably should have been done before. In fact its very similiar to the logic for annexating certain areas of the county (donut holes) like Oak Park.

Look at Mike's quote and insert "OAK PARK" where it says "Salem-Noble Road"...

quote:

... “You basically leave the city, enter the county for two miles, and then you’re back in the city.

“I think it’s in everybody’s best interest if we hand OAK PARK over to Jeff. It just makes sense.”...