The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has completed the US 50 Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Project to study the transportation needs/improvements of the US 50 corridor in Jennings and a portion of Jackson County.  The US 50 improvement corridor is approximately 18 miles long, running from the western terminus at I-65, near Seymour in Jackson County, to the eastern terminus near the Jennings/Ripley County Line, just east of North Vernon.  The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility of improvements to the US 50 corridor as well as other alternatives for improving mobility and alleviating congestion in the urban area boundary of North Vernon and in the general project vicinity.  Specifically, the study:

• Fulfilled the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements for this stage of the project development
• Satisfied the prerequisite for a FHWA decision to expend funds for any improvement to US 50
• Provided a system’s level planning and safety analysis for US 50
• Provided detailed planning analysis and environmental evaluation of US 50 thru North Vernon and in the vicinity of the proposed Muscatatuck Urban Training Center (MUTC)
• Established the need and purpose for improving existing US 50 and/or constructing a bypass around the City of North Vernon, Indiana
• Developed and analyze alternatives that met the need and purpose, including a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the transportation impacts of these alternatives
• Made recommendations to the INDOT and the FHWA for projects of independent utility (if any) which should be programmed for future development and study
• Recommended that those projects identified for future development will be subject to further National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation as required for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

The US 50 – North Vernon Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Project determined the degree to which the project is economically justified, environmentally or socially preferable, constructible and operational.  The goals of the study were:

• Involve key decision-makers in the study process
• Provide information to build consensus
• “Buy in” to the best solution

The US 50 – North Vernon Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Project analyzed the No-Build Alternative as well as a full range of build alternatives ranging from transportation system management improvements to major capital investments on existing and new alignment.  Each alternative was evaluated as both short-term and long-term solutions.  Some of the possible alternatives evaluated included:

• No-Build (Do Nothing) Alternative – represented by the existing roadway network plus programmed major roadway improvements in the study area.  This alternative served as the baseline for comparing “build” alternatives.
• Travel Demand Management (TDM) – actions to spread the peak-hour travel (i.e. flexible workdays)
• Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Applications – technology-based programs to actively manage the roadway system (i.e. providing travel information on roadway conditions to daily commuters via message boards, etc.)
• Transportation System Management (TSM) – low-cost capital investments to reduce congestion, improve traffic flow, and measures to optimize performance of the existing transportation infrastructure (i.e. intersection improvements, signal coordination and timing, lane control (reversible lanes)
• Added Travel Lanes (major widening) along the existing US 50 alignment from I-65 to the west edge of North Vernon, eliminating on-street parking in North Vernon, and added travel lanes (major widening) along the existing US 50 alignment from the east side of North Vernon to the Jennings/Ripley County Line
• Added Travel Lanes (major widening) along the entire existing US 50 alignment from I-65, thru North Vernon and to the Jennings/Ripley County Line
• Added Travel Lanes (major widening) along the existing US 50 alignment from I-65 to the west side of North Vernon, creating a one-way pair thru North Vernon, and added travel lanes (major widening) along the existing US 50 alignment from the east side of North Vernon to the Jennings/Ripley County Line
• Added Travel Lanes (major widening) along existing US 50 from I-65 to the west edge of North Vernon, new terrain bypass alternatives both north and south of North Vernon, and added travel lanes (major widening) along the existing US 50 alignment from the east side of North Vernon to the Jennings/Ripley County Line

An essential aspect of defining alternatives is a preliminary environmental analysis that identifies “must avoid” resources.  Information on sensitive environmental areas (i.e. parks, managed forests, wetlands, floodplains, historic structures, etc.) from an environmental resource map and the location of community facilities helped to determine the corridors for any new alignment bypasses north and south of North Vernon and influenced the nature of the added travel lanes (major widening) on the existing US 50 alignment through North Vernon.

INDOT selected Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates, Inc. (BLA), an engineering consulting firm located in Evansville and Indianapolis, Indiana, to complete this Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Project, which has been underway since October 2006.  A general outline as to the study process and the progress of the project is shown below.  For information related to the timeline of the study process, see the Project Schedule.

1. Identification of Existing and Future Conditions and Issues – (COMPELTED ACTIVITY)
   1. Initiate the public and agency involvement program (Public Involvement)
   2. Identify existing roadway characteristics
   3. Identify community facilities, development activity and future growth
   4. Generate Environmental Resource Map
   5. Collect background traffic data and develop Travel Demand Model
   6. Hold Public Open House and Community Advisory Committee meeting for input
   7. Solicit Consulting Parties for Section 106 Historic and Archeological Resources
      
2. Definition of Purpose and Need and Identification of Preliminary Alternatives –
   (COMPLETED ACTIVITY)
   1. Continue public and agency involvement
   2. Issue Early Coordination Letter
   3. Prepare Purpose and Need Statement
   4. Identify Preliminary Alternatives
   5. Hold additional Public Information Open House and Community Advisory Committee meeting for input
   6. Hold Interagency Review and Section 106 Consulting Parties meetings
3. Evaluation of Preliminary Alternative – (COMPLETED ACTIVITY)
   1. Continue public and agency involvement
   2. Traffic forecasts for alternatives
   3. Develop goals achievement by alternatives (performance measures)
   4. Identify traffic impacts of alternatives
   5. Identify community and environmental impacts of alternatives
   6. Agency considerations for alternatives (cost estimates, traffic flow maintenance, police enforcement costs and project cost-effectiveness)
   7. Evaluate each of the preliminary alternatives related to:
      1. Project Purpose and Need Measures
      2. Social and Environmental Measures – business/residential relocations, impacts to wetlands, farmland, forests, parks and recreation areas, historic and archaeological resources, streams, construction costs and constructability issues, etc.
         
4. Identification of Preferred Alternative(s) - (COMPLETED ACTIVITY)
   1. Continue public and agency involvement
   2. Refine final alternative(s) alignments
   3. Rerun Travel Demand Model for final alternative(s)
   4. Update community and environmental impacts for final alternative(s)
   5. Update project cost estimates
   6. Identify Area of Potential Affect for historic properties
5. Preparation of Final Report  – (COMPLETED ACTIVITY)
   1. Document the Preferred Alternative(s) to be carried forward in the subsequent NEPA Study and identify the nature of the NEPA Study (i.e. categorical exclusion, environmental assessment or environmental impact statement) for likely segments of independent utility
   2. Hold additional Public Information Open House and Community Advisory Committee meeting for input
   3. Hold Interagency Review and Section 106 Consulting Parties meetings
   4. Receive public and agency comments and provide comments to INDOT to be utilized in next phase of project development