HB 660 creates a new section of KRS Chapter 176 to require the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to give advance written notice to affected cities before certain state highway resurfacing projects are let. The bill applies only to resurfacing, rehabilitation, or similar improvement projects that will permanently reduce the number of through traffic lanes on a state-maintained highway. At least 60 days before the letting date, the department must notify the mayor or chief administrative officer of any city where the project is located or that has a public road or access point directly connecting to the affected highway segment.
The required notice must include a project description, the proposed post-project lane configuration, and supporting plans or diagrams. Cities receiving notice would then have 30 days to submit written comments or feedback on traffic patterns, safety, economic impacts, or alternative designs. The department must consider timely comments and provide a formal response, but it is not required to change the project based on the feedback.
Impact
The bill would add a procedural consultation requirement to state highway project planning, specifically for resurfacing projects that reduce through lanes. It does not change substantive highway design standards or give cities veto power, but it does require the Transportation Cabinet to provide detailed notice and respond to municipal concerns before moving forward. The practical effect is to increase local government involvement and documentation for certain state-maintained road projects, especially where lane reductions may affect traffic flow, access, or local business conditions.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong support for the measure, with the House adopting a veto override by a unanimous 92-0 vote. No committee transcript excerpts are available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s structure, the general sentiment appears to favor greater transparency and local input in highway planning without imposing a hard constraint on the department’s authority.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between state transportation authority and municipal input. Supporters would view the bill as a modest notice-and-comment safeguard for cities affected by lane reductions, while any critics would likely focus on the added administrative step and the possibility that local objections could delay projects, even though the bill expressly says the department is not required to modify a project. Another possible concern is that the bill targets projects that permanently reduce through lanes, which may be seen as limiting flexibility in roadway redesigns.