Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineer urges DOT to study Highway 63/C‑57 intersection regionally after public concern over $3.9M J‑turn option
Summary
County engineer Kathy Nicholas told the board that Iowa DOT presented two primary options for the Highway 63/C‑57 intersection — a reduced‑conflict (J‑turn) option at about $3.9 million or a full interchange near $29 million — and the county asked DOT to evaluate the site in a regional freight context before settling on a design.
Kathy Nicholas, Black Hawk County engineer, briefed the board on an Iowa DOT study and recent public meeting for the Highway 63/C‑57 intersection on April 20. DOT narrowed many alternatives to two main options: a reduced‑conflict intersection (J‑turn/RCI) estimated at about $3.9 million with possible completion by 2028, and a full interchange that DOT estimated could cost roughly $29 million and take a decade to deliver.
Nicholas said the county asked DOT to consider the intersection in the context of regional freight and corridor planning rather than as a single isolated project: "we would like the DOT to study this intersection in more detail from a regional perspective," she said. She also recounted the county’s long‑running northeast industrial bypass and five‑year plan priorities, including a possible roundabout at Donald and Union Road.
Board members and residents who attended the DOT meeting expressed concerns about the J‑turn option. Several speakers said the maneuver requires drivers on the side road to make a right turn, a short U‑turn on the highway, then another right to continue — a sequence some residents said would be confusing and potentially hazardous for trucks and farm equipment. Some meeting attendees told the county they preferred waiting for a full interchange despite higher costs and a longer timeline.
Nicholas said DOT had presented a narrower diamond interchange alternative that would affect fewer properties but that cost and timing were driving DOT’s recommendation toward quicker, lower‑cost fixes. Supervisors discussed notifying residents of DOT’s comment period (posted on DOT’s website) and asked staff to follow up with DOT about submitting a formal county statement. One supervisor suggested drafting a resolution for board action as soon as next week.
No final county decision on design was made at the meeting; staff will follow up on the DOT comment period and consider a formal statement or resolution for future board action.
