Preliminary work is underway on planning for widening a portion of the Mountain Parkway in eastern Kentucky from an undivided two- and three-lane route to a four-lane divided highway.
A public hearing was conducted last night to allow for public comments as the environmental assessment is completed. It's expected that a FONSI will be issued and the project can proceed to selection of an alignment from among the alternatives some time next year.
No funding is currently in place for phase II design, ROW acquisition, utility relocation or construction. The section under study is a 17-mile stretch from Exit 57 in Wolfe County to Exit 75 in Magoffin County.
Press release on the hearing is at http://tinyurl.com/lgxu62 (http://tinyurl.com/lgxu62)
Pre-hearing press release is at http://tinyurl.com/nwshw7 (http://tinyurl.com/nwshw7)
Television coverage on WMYT-TV from their 6 p.m. local newscast on Aug. 27 is located at http://tinyurl.com/lmq8ff (http://tinyurl.com/lmq8ff)
Further coverage on WMYT-TV's 11 p.m. newscast of the same date is at http://tinyurl.com/mt65c3. (http://tinyurl.com/mt65c3.) Choose the 11 p.m. newscast from WYMT-TV (not WKYT-TV) on Aug. 27 and forward the video to the 10:30 mark.
I have PDFs of the exhibits showing aerial photographs with property lines and potential alternative corridors superimposed at work. I'll try to post them somewhere on Monday.
Was any consideration given to keeping the tolls on to pay for this, back in the 80s? It seems to me that this road, unlike the Daniel Boone, paid itself off in good order, and could have been expanded to 4 lanes with a continuation of the tolls for maybe 10-15 more years.
There was discussion of leaving the tolls on, not to pay for expansion, but to keep up maintenance. However, there was a huge public outcry of opposition and the idea was quickly abandoned as fast as that trial balloon was shot down. My understanding is that the idea of reinstituting the tolls to pay for expansion has been floated but as of now is a non-starter in Frankfort.
The Daniel Boone was on schedule to pay the bonds off but the congressional appropriation allowed it and the Cumberland to be paid off ahead of schedule. A similar appropriation a couple of years later resulted in the tolls being removed from the Green River and Audubon parkways.
(Is anyone else having trouble getting the "quote" function to work to reply to posts? It is not working for me, and I've tried in Safari and Firefox both.)
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2009, 10:23:28 PM
There was discussion of leaving the tolls on, not to pay for expansion, but to keep up maintenance. However, there was a huge public outcry of opposition and the idea was quickly abandoned as fast as that trial balloon was shot down.
Oh I love that American mentality... We Europeans accept everything the government does X-(
By Mountain Parkway you mean the "Bert T. Combs Mountain Parkway" from Winchester to Salyersville?
Yes, that is the road in question. Kentucky went on an, unfortunate IMHO, spate of renaming its named parkways after politicians.
Kentucky is in the minority of states that operated its toll system under what I consider an honest basis.
Kentucky built, starting in the 1960s, an entire system of "parkways" (these are ordinary expressways, not scenic routes) on a toll basis. Some are 4-lane and, except to the most geeky of road geeks, indistinguishable from interstates, while others were built to the "super 2" standard. Kentucky promised to take the tolls off as the roads were paid off. And it did. The last four roads were, as mentioned above, paid off early by a federal appropriation.
Other states that kept their promise were Connecticuit and Virginia, along with the Canadian provence of Quebec.
Most states, however, have kept tolls on, despite promises and even in the direct face of laws, for generations after pay off, often diverting money to all manner of non-transportation projects.
With the widening, how close would that put the Mountain Parkway to Interstate standards?
Quote from: njroadhorse on August 29, 2009, 11:15:12 AM
With the widening, how close would that put the Mountain Parkway to Interstate standards?
Virtually indistinguishable to the average driver or even the average "roadgeek" but there probably will be some engineering deviations, probably in median width. The existing four-lane has some deficiencies in accel/decel lanes at exits and also median width, but if that portion of I-70 between New Stanton and Washington can be a major interstate, then the Mountain Parkway could be a 3di.
I-364? :cool:
I-164 may give some confusion with the I-164 around Evansville, although the Mountain Parkway and Evansville are not very close to eachother.
US 460 would be more fitting, IMO...
Quote from: froggie on August 31, 2009, 06:32:39 PM
US 460 would be more fitting, IMO...
In a lot of ways, I agree. As it is now, US 460 ends at Frankfort. From Salyersville to Frankfort it runs across what was once old KY 40. In fact, when the new US 460 between Salyersville and Paintsville was built, old 460 was renumbered back to 40.
I'd flop US 460 and KY 114 (the KY 114 designation dates back to before US 460's entrance into Kentucky) and then it would be perfectly logical to run US 460 across the existing Mountain Parkway and end it at I-64.
Personally, I think that all of the Kentucky Parkways should pick up the nearest appropriate route number. Now that these are not toll roads, it makes no sense for one state to have a seperate system of named routes.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 01, 2009, 08:15:54 PM
Personally, I think that all of the Kentucky Parkways should pick up the nearest appropriate route number. Now that these are not toll roads, it makes no sense for one state to have a seperate system of named routes.
They are unsigned numbered routes (9000-series) but the only signed indication of such is the bridge for the westbound lanes at the Mountain Parkway's terminus at I-64 has a small "KY 9000" green text marker.
As for numbers:
Mountain: US 460
Bluegrass and Western KY: US 62
Hal Rogers and Cumberland: KY 80
Green River: US 231
Pennyrile: US 41
Audubon: US 60
The only parkway that doesn't have a route paralleling it for its entire route or a logical extension of a route is the Purchase. Not sure what number I'd give it but it will eventually be I-69 so it really doesn't matter, I guess.
Dusting off this thread . . .
As of early November, the four lane section of the Mountain Parkway extends east of the KY 15 interchange (Exit 42) - is widening the rest of the parkway still on track?
On a related note, there is a new diamond interchange under construction on the Mountain Parkway near Milemarker 11.
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 11, 2013, 04:31:42 PM
Dusting off this thread . . .
As of early November, the four lane section of the Mountain Parkway extends east of the KY 15 interchange (Exit 42) - is widening the rest of the parkway still on track?
Yes. Widening of the easternmost couple of miles could go to bid next year. I'm hearing that the leadership in the Kentucky House of Representatives plans to make this a priority for funding. And the president of the Kentucky Senate represents, or has represented in the past, the Mountain Parkway counties, so he's on board as well.
QuoteOn a related note, there is a new diamond interchange under construction on the Mountain Parkway near Milemarker 11.
Long needed. This will give residents of eastern Clark County better access to the county seat of Winchester. Currently, there are no exits in Clark County other than the western terminus of the Mountain Parkway at I-64, making the parkway useless to residents of Clark County.
There's also a project under development to make the western terminus at I-64 a full exit instead of a partial exit. Unnecessary, in my opinion. There won't be a lot of traffic from the westbound parkway to eastbound I-64, or westbound I-64 to the eastbound parkway. Making a U-turn at Exit 96 (KY 627) isn't that much of an inconvenience that needs a multi-million dollar fix.
QuoteThere's also a project under development to make the western terminus at I-64 a full exit instead of a partial exit. Unnecessary, in my opinion. There won't be a lot of traffic from the westbound parkway to eastbound I-64, or westbound I-64 to the eastbound parkway. Making a U-turn at Exit 96 (KY 627) isn't that much of an inconvenience that needs a multi-million dollar fix.
Is KYTC looking at making improvements to I-64? If so, it might be FHWA pushing for the full interchange, since FHWA frowns upon partial Interstate interchanges these days.
Quote from: froggie on November 12, 2013, 09:32:47 AM
Is KYTC looking at making improvements to I-64? If so, it might be FHWA pushing for the full interchange, since FHWA frowns upon partial Interstate interchanges these days.
I-64's been widened to six lanes all the way east from I-75 to the Mountain Parkway, but I know of no plans to extend the widening eastward toward Mt. Sterling.
Quote from: froggie on November 12, 2013, 09:32:47 AM
QuoteThere's also a project under development to make the western terminus at I-64 a full exit instead of a partial exit. Unnecessary, in my opinion. There won't be a lot of traffic from the westbound parkway to eastbound I-64, or westbound I-64 to the eastbound parkway. Making a U-turn at Exit 96 (KY 627) isn't that much of an inconvenience that needs a multi-million dollar fix.
Is KYTC looking at making improvements to I-64? If so, it might be FHWA pushing for the full interchange, since FHWA frowns upon partial Interstate interchanges these days.
I-895 in Baltimore still has those partial interchanges, with an exception being Lombard Street (Exit 12), where once you enter, you can't exit until you pay the toll for the tunnel.
Quote from: Henry on November 13, 2013, 01:38:11 PM
I-895 in Baltimore still has those partial interchanges, with an exception being Lombard Street (Exit 12), where once you enter, you can't exit until you pay the toll for the tunnel.
This is a feature, not a bug, as it keeps hyper-local traffic off the road and prevents congestion. And the road predates the interstate system so FHWA rules don't apply the same way.
Normally, however, I tend to agree that partial interchanges are undesirable since they prevent you from being able to use services off the exit and then continue your trip, and also make the mistake of having taken a wrong exit much harder to correct.
(and missing movements can be annoying for clinching roads :))
Will they ever add more flyover bridges so you can access the Mountains Parkway from the east coming from Mount Sterling.
There was a bad wreck at the Winchester 627 exit and I it made it worse with all the Mountain Parkway traffic merging with 64. If they had an eastbound ramp atleast people could have detoured around the mess.
SM-G950U
Quote from: ibthebigd on August 17, 2019, 05:12:31 PM
Will they ever add more flyover bridges so you can access the Mountains Parkway from the east coming from Mount Sterling.
There was a bad wreck at the Winchester 627 exit and I it made it worse with all the Mountain Parkway traffic merging with 64. If they had an eastbound ramp atleast people could have detoured around the mess.
SM-G950U
There's a project under development that would convert that to a full interchange. I'm not sure where it is in the planning process, or if it's been put on hold due to the SHIFT prioritization process that's been implemented since the last public meeting was held.
https://transportation.ky.gov/DistrictSeven/Pages/Mountain-Parkway-Interchange.aspx
Quote from: ibthebigd on August 17, 2019, 05:12:31 PM
Will they ever add more flyover bridges so you can access the Mountains Parkway from the east coming from Mount Sterling.
There was a bad wreck at the Winchester 627 exit and I it made it worse with all the Mountain Parkway traffic merging with 64. If they had an eastbound ramp atleast people could have detoured around the mess.
SM-G950U
Was there ever consideration for an interchange at KY 1960/Ecton Road?
Just looking at maps, it does not seem to me that the volumes at for the missing movements at the I-64/Mountain Parkway interchange would be great enough to warrant putting them in. Using Google, I get a difference of 13.7 miles and 3 minutes for using the Mountain Parkway and I-64 between the Mountain Parkway just before Exit 10 and I-64 just east of Exit 110 versus using KY 974, KY 11, and KY 686. Moving the starting point farther east on the Mountain Parkway to near Campton seems to keep the KY 974 option as the second best time wise to Mt. Sterling versus using KY 213.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 17, 2019, 11:13:13 PM
Quote from: ibthebigd on August 17, 2019, 05:12:31 PM
Will they ever add more flyover bridges so you can access the Mountains Parkway from the east coming from Mount Sterling.
There was a bad wreck at the Winchester 627 exit and I it made it worse with all the Mountain Parkway traffic merging with 64. If they had an eastbound ramp atleast people could have detoured around the mess.
SM-G950U
Was there ever consideration for an interchange at KY 1960/Ecton Road?
Not to my knowledge.
QuoteJust looking at maps, it does not seem to me that the volumes at for the missing movements at the I-64/Mountain Parkway interchange would be great enough to warrant putting them in. Using Google, I get a difference of 13.7 miles and 3 minutes for using the Mountain Parkway and I-64 between the Mountain Parkway just before Exit 10 and I-64 just east of Exit 110 versus using KY 974, KY 11, and KY 686. Moving the starting point farther east on the Mountain Parkway to near Campton seems to keep the KY 974 option as the second best time wise to Mt. Sterling versus using KY 213.
That KY 974 interchange was built primarily for local traffic in that section of Clark County, long after the tolls were removed (several other exits have been built on various former toll roads after the tolls came off). It was federally funded as a pet project of former Congressman Ben Chandler. It's signed for Winchester/Mt. Sterling, but no one is going to use that route to get to Mt. Sterling. KY 974 and various connecting roads leading toward Mt. Sterling are very narrow and not really suited for through traffic. Using KY 627 to do a U-turn isn't really an inconvenience. Most traffic going to Mt. Sterling from the westbound Mountain Parkway uses either KY 11 from Clay City, or KY 213 and US 460 from Stanton.
Is there a timetable for widening the 2-lane segment of the Mountain Parkway to 4 lanes, and/or extending it to US 23 in Prestonsburg?
All of that can be found at https://mtnparkway.com/
Gov. Beshear Announces $55 Million Grant to Expand Mountain Parkway in Wolfe County (https://kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-stream.aspx?n=GovernorBeshear&prId=213)
QuoteFRANKFORT, Ky. (June 16, 2020) — Gov. Andy Beshear announced Tuesday that his administration successfully secured for a $55,150,000 Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to fund the Mountain Parkway Expansion through Wolfe County. The grant was awarded to the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC).
The federal grant will be used to widen 11 miles of the Mountain Parkway, creating a safer and modernized four-lane corridor for drivers travelling between Interstate Highway 64 and Salyersville. The expansion will increase capacity for freight and goods along this corridor, reduce travel time and connect Eastern Kentucky to the rest of the commonwealth.
"This is a great step forward for the people of Eastern Kentucky, is great news for Team Kentucky and will open up the region for so many opportunities," Gov. Beshear said.
The INFRA grant will fund the following:
Upgrade the last remaining two-lane section of the Mountain Parkway corridor between I-64 and Salyersville;
Improve the safety and efficiency of travel through the corridor;
Provide for the reconstruction of the existing Campton interchange (KY 191) to allow full eastbound and westbound access;
Modernize the Hazel Green interchange (KY 1010) to improve safety and mobility.
"Moving forward with construction on the Wolfe County segment will bring the Mountain Parkway Expansion one step closer to closing the only gap in a 400-mile, four-lane, high-speed corridor for commerce and mobility across Kentucky," said Jim Gray, Secretary of Transportation. "Closing this gap is an investment in safety, in future economic development and most of all, in Kentuckians."
This investment in the Parkway will also provide significant support for Kentucky's growing shipping, manufacturing and logistics industries.
Updates on this project can be found on the Mountain Parkway Expansion website at www.mtnparkway.com
This is the last remaining section to be widened, as construction is already done or is underway on the rest of the route. It was thought that this would not be done for quite some time, since this is the least-traveled segment of the route, so the state undertook a big project to rehab the pavement between exits 46 and 57, redeck a bridge just west of Exit 57, and rebuild the overpass for KY 1010 at Exit 53. Hopefully they will be able to use the work that was already done so they don't have to tear down the new bridge they just built or tear up the pavement they just rehabbed.
Also, it would appear that Mitch McConnell's re-election campaign is in full swing. The state had pretty much abandoned the widening of this portion for the short term. The project was not dead, and it wasn't on life support, but it was pushed to the back burner.
A question regarding the Parkway and it's potential extension -
Have they chosen a preferred alignment for the corridor to Prestonsburg? Last I was aware, options included widening KY-114 or constructing a new alignment.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 16, 2020, 08:50:46 PM
A question regarding the Parkway and it's potential extension -
Have they chosen a preferred alignment for the corridor to Prestonsburg? Last I was aware, options included widening KY-114 or constructing a new alignment.
Not yet. They still haven't decided. Still balancing ROW costs and the effects of relocating dozens of families vs. construction costs on a new-terrain alignment.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 17, 2020, 02:44:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 16, 2020, 08:50:46 PM
A question regarding the Parkway and it's potential extension -
Have they chosen a preferred alignment for the corridor to Prestonsburg? Last I was aware, options included widening KY-114 or constructing a new alignment.
Not yet. They still haven't decided. Still balancing ROW costs and the effects of relocating dozens of families vs. construction costs on a new-terrain alignment.
From what I've seen, the cost of new alignment wasn't much more.
I personally believe that would be the best route to go, and would allow a full freeway with 70 mph speeds.
Drove the whole Mountain Parkway for the 1st time over the weekend.
I thought it was done all the way to Salyersville, I was so wrong.
I wonder if the Infrastructure Bill could help speed it up
SM-G996U
Quote from: ibthebigd on April 25, 2022, 07:07:32 PM
Drove the whole Mountain Parkway for the 1st time over the weekend.
I thought it was done all the way to Salyersville, I was so wrong.
I wonder if the Infrastructure Bill could help speed it up
SM-G996U
The remaining two-lane section (between exits 46 and 57 in Wolfe County) is being let for bids this month.
That section just had an extensive pavement rehab, sign replacement, and a replacement of the KY 1010 bridge about three years ago.
It's the least-traveled portion of the route.
My assumption is that the new KY 1010 bridge will be removed? Why was this constructed?
When I first heard of the Mountain Parkway expansion and extension, I expected the extension from Salyersburg-to-Prestonburg to be a limited-access parkway with interchanges and grade-separations. I did not realize the extension was going to be widening the existing roadway to four lanes, while maintaining the existing at-grade intersections.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2022, 03:27:53 PM
When I first heard of the Mountain Parkway expansion and extension, I expected the extension from Salyersburg-to-Prestonburg to be a limited-access parkway with interchanges and grade-separations. I did not realize the extension was going to be widening the existing roadway to four lanes, while maintaining the existing at-grade intersections.
Not sure what the final decision is. They evaluated both widening and a new location roadway built to interstate standards.
Quote from: seicer on April 26, 2022, 11:11:10 AM
My assumption is that the new KY 1010 bridge will be removed? Why was this constructed?
Same reason, I guess, that the Exit 72 KY 30 bridge was reconstructed when the route was two lanes and later removed for the widening. There must have been problems with the existing KY 1010 bridge, but I never knew what they were. When that full rehab was done, it was believed that widening was many years in the future. The project got accelerated.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2022, 05:31:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2022, 03:27:53 PM
When I first heard of the Mountain Parkway expansion and extension, I expected the extension from Salyersburg-to-Prestonburg to be a limited-access parkway with interchanges and grade-separations. I did not realize the extension was going to be widening the existing roadway to four lanes, while maintaining the existing at-grade intersections.
Not sure what the final decision is. They evaluated both widening and a new location roadway built to interstate standards.
Long before the widening and the extension of the Mountain Parkway was proposed in its current form, there was a proposal to extend the Mountain Parkway along the ridgetop just to the south of existing US 460 along what's locally called "Restaurant Row" in Salyersville. The road would have tied in somewhere near the existing US 460/KY 114 intersection and would have bypassed the current alignment. There was extreme local opposition to this plan. The fear was that bypassing the businesses along the route would have a devastating effect on the local economy, as Magoffin County is traditionally the county with the state's highest unemployment. So the decision was made to widen existing US 460. Those plans were incorporated into the Mountain Parkway final plans.
AFAIK, there has still not been a decision made on whether to use a new-terrain alignment or existing KY 114 with a few modifications on the segment between Salyersville and Prestonsburg.
HB: Do you have a photo of the current KY 1010 bridge? I'm sure you do, but as many photos as you've posted, looking for it would be a daunting task.
I don't have a photo of the bridge, but the KYTC photolog does:
(https://storage.googleapis.com/kytc-photolog-data/Van5_Mandli_Data_2021/03-29-2021/2021_V5_077-KY-9009W/2021_V5_077-KY-9009W/Front/Dir_043/R_04365.jpg)
It's a typical new-construction bridge.
Here's how it looked before it was replaced:
(https://storage.googleapis.com/kytc-photolog-data/Van2_Mandli_Data_6/04-28-2017/2017_V2_077-KY-9009W/2017_V2_077-KY-9009W/Front/Dir_043/R_04388.jpg)
These views are looking westbound.
My eyes may be playing tricks on me but it looks like the horizontal clearance between the piers is a bit narrower than before.
With the embankment on the right-hand side of the rebuilt bridge, it doesn't look like they left enough space to make the roadway four lanes. It appears they should have left space for the four-lane expansion project. Unless they'll rebuilt the bridges and the interchange a second time (which seems redundant).
Quote from: plain on April 28, 2022, 01:04:59 PM
My eyes may be playing tricks on me but it looks like the horizontal clearance between the piers is a bit narrower than before.
It's the different camera angle throwing you off.
In this case, I happen to know the older photo was taken from a camera mounted lower on the DOT vehicle than the newer photo.
This is really strange. The bents are much closer to the shoulder than they generally are with new construction, as illustrated here (https://goo.gl/maps/MsR1itjWPnQBwCoz7). Perhaps they made an exception so they could use AASHTO beams on a heavily-skewed span as they did on one side here (https://goo.gl/maps/fHTBz3FMY3pDeWXa9).
Quote from: plainMy eyes may be playing tricks on me but it looks like the horizontal clearance between the piers is a bit narrower than before.
To me, it looks like the clearance is
exactly the same as before. I think they retained the existing bents, capped them for extra height, and replaced only the old deck and the tee beams cast monolithically with it. :clap: They do that kind of thing quite a bit in Indiana.
I don't know about the support piers or the ends, but I do know the entire deck of that old bridge at KY 1010 was torn down and replaced.
Had to go to Paintsville for a work function yesterday, and noticed that the speed limit on the two open portions of the four-lane route (from Exit 57 in Wolfe County extending east into Magoffin County, and near the new Exit 70 all the way to the end of the parkway at US 460) has been permanently posted at 55 mph.
I don't know if this will be changing once the section in between those two portions is completed or not.
The four-lane extending east of Exit 43 to Exit 46 is posted at 65 mph, while the entirety of the old four-lane portion is signed for 70 mph.
How sharp are the curves on the sections signed for 55?
The redesigned sections of the Parkway have a design speed of 70 MPH. My take is that it requires legislative action to raise the speed limit to 70 MPH, so we probably won't see it increased from Campton to Salyersville until it's all finished. I wonder the default upper limit for the state is still 65 MPH without legislative action.
Quote from: seicer on May 11, 2022, 10:31:48 PM
The redesigned sections of the Parkway have a design speed of 70 MPH. My take is that it requires legislative action to raise the speed limit to 70 MPH, so we probably won't see it increased from Campton to Salyersville until it's all finished. I wonder the default upper limit for the state is still 65 MPH without legislative action.
Existing legislation (see https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=51582 (https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=51582)) would seem to already allow a speed limit increase up to 70 for the Mountain Parkway by the secretary of transportation. The statute also reads as if the secretary could up the speed limit to 70 even for two lane sections of the Mountain Parkway and the "Bert T. Combs Mountain Parkway Extension".
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 11, 2022, 11:00:21 PM
Quote from: seicer on May 11, 2022, 10:31:48 PM
The redesigned sections of the Parkway have a design speed of 70 MPH. My take is that it requires legislative action to raise the speed limit to 70 MPH, so we probably won't see it increased from Campton to Salyersville until it's all finished. I wonder the default upper limit for the state is still 65 MPH without legislative action.
Existing legislation (see https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=51582 (https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=51582)) would seem to already allow a speed limit increase up to 70 for the Mountain Parkway by the secretary of transportation. The statute also reads as if the secretary could up the speed limit to 70 even for two lane sections of the Mountain Parkway and the "Bert T. Combs Mountain Parkway Extension".
I am sure that KYTC determines speed limits based upon characteristics of the roadway and environmental factors. Simply because the max can be 70 doesn't mean it will be.
Quote from: plain on May 11, 2022, 08:21:59 PM
How sharp are the curves on the sections signed for 55?
Not sharp enough to warrant the lower speed limit.
I imagine it's a temporary condition. I recall them saying, at least for a potential new location portion east of Salyersville, the speed limit could be as high as 70 mph.
Given the recent widening brought the parkway up to modern interstate standards, and realigned some sharper curves, I imagine the speed limit will at least be raised to 65 mph eventually, and ideally to 70 mph.
Not sure why it can't be done now though. My guess is they were going to post 55 mph, the existing speed, then complete a study in the immediate years following to determine an increase. You would have think the project would've included a higher speed limit upon completion built into it.
It's possible that they didn't want a hodge-podge of varying speed limits along the stretch of route. Going from 70 to 65 near the end of the old four-lane and its extension provides a transition to the 55 zone. The speed limit would go from 70 to 45 (the work zone limit) in the western Magoffin segment. And it would go from 70 to 45 in that stretch between Exit 70 and Restaurant Row in Salyersville.
Contrast that with Virginia, which will sign a higher speed limit on a couple of miles of highway.