1. (a)

   1. (1) Once early coordination has occurred, the proposing entity can begin development of an Interchange Justification Report (IJR).
   2. (2) A scope of work for the IJR should be developed by the proposing entity and coordinated with Planning and Research Division staff and appropriate stakeholders.
   3. (3) The IJR should address the eight (8) Federal Highway Administration policy requirements described in 27 CAR § 95-106.
   4. (4) If the proposing entity is not the department, close coordination with department Planning and Research Division staff should occur.
   5. (5) If the proposing entity is the department, the Planning and Research Division will be responsible for preparing the document.
   6. (6) If the proposing entity is utilizing a consulting firm, close coordination with the department Consultant Coordinator should take place.
   7. (7) See the appendix for technical resources for additional information and guidance.

2. (b) The following information is expected in the IJR:

   1. (1)

      1. (A) Introduction.
      2. (B) An introduction to the proposed project should be provided that summarizes the following:
3. (i)
4. (a) (a) Project location.
5. (b) (b) Include an overview map of the proposed project location.
6. (c) (c) A second, more detailed map should also be included that shows the area of influence (or study area) of the proposed project.
7. (d) (d) This map should be to scale and can consist of schematic drawings that show distances between interchanges, intersections, and other key features.
8. (e) (e) The study area should include, at a minimum, the adjacent interchanges on the freeway and the first major intersections along the crossroad as appropriate.
9. (f) (f) See Figure 2 for an illustration of the area of influence concept.

10. (g) (g) Factors used to define the study area should be discussed, including:

    1. (1) (1) Interchange spacing;
    2. (2) (2) Signal locations;
    3. (3) (3) Anticipated traffic impacts;
    4. (4) (4) Anticipated land use changes; or

    5. (5) (5) Proposed transportation improvements; and

       1. (ii)
11. (a) (a) Background.

12. (b) (b) Any background or supporting information that explains the basis for the proposal, e.g., proposed arterial on an MPO’s MTP, proposed project from a corridor study, planned private development, known political support, etc.;

    1. (2)

       1. (A) Purpose and need.
       2. (B) The project’s purpose and need should be identified in this section.

       3. (C) This section should include the following:

          1. (i)
13. (a) (a) Existing conditions.

14. (b) (b) This section should identify current conditions.

    1. (c) (c) Text, figures, and tables should be used as appropriate to describe the existing land use, transportation system, demand, performance, and environmental conditions considering the following:

    2. (1)

       1. (A) (1)(A) Land use.
       2. (B) (B) Existing land use within and around the study area should be summarized by general land use classifications (residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, etc.).
       3. (C) (C) Nearby major developments should be identified and any local land use plans should be provided as appropriate.
       4. (D) (D) Aerial photos or maps should be utilized as appropriate; and

    3. (2)

       1. (A) (2)(A) Transportation network.

       2. (B) (B) Roads and highways within and around the study area should be identified by:

          1. (i) (i) Functional classification;
          2. (ii) (ii) Numbers of lanes; and
          3. (iii) (iii) Other relevant descriptions.
       3. (C) (C) Any nearby relevant transportation projects, under construction, programmed, or planned, should be identified.

       4. (D) (D) Maps, including any local master street plans, should be included as appropriate;

          1. (ii)
15. (a) (a) Operational analysis.

16. (b) (b) The results from an operational analysis of the no-build alternative including the methodology, assumptions, and conclusions should be summarized.

    1. (c) (c) Current and future year no-build traffic, including average daily traffic and peak hour or peak period traffic, should be shown along with a discussion of the methodology and assumptions of forecasted traffic.

       1. (d) (d) Maps, photos, tables, and figures should be utilized as appropriate.

17. (e) (e) See 27 CAR § 95-401 et seq., for more details; and

    1. (iii)
18. (a) (a) Safety analysis.

19. (b) (b) The results from a safety analysis of the existing conditions, including the methodology and conclusions, should be summarized.

    1. (c) (c) Maps, photos, tables, and figures should be utilized as appropriate.

       1. (d) (d) See 27 CAR § 95-501 et seq., for more details; Source: Adapted from Florida Department of Transportation, Interchange Handbook Figure 2. Area of Influence (or Study Area)

    2. (3)

       1. (A) Environmental constraints.
       2. (B) Any environmental constraints, particularly any potential fatal flaws or areas of concern, within the vicinity of the proposed project should be identified and briefly discussed.
       3. (C) This analysis is not intended to provide extensive examination of environmental and community impact issues that will be accomplished in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., process;

    3. (4)

       1. (A) Compatibility with transportation plans.
       2. (B) This section will discuss the proposal’s relationship to any existing corridor studies or similar investment studies.
       3. (C) The relationship of the proposed project to the TIP, STIP, or an MPO’s MTP should also be discussed, as well as the attainment status of the area for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards established in the Clean Air Act Amendments;

    4. (5)

       1. (A) Compliance with policies and engineering standards.
       2. (B) This section will document the consistency with department and Federal Highway Administration policies and engineering standards for design.
       3. (C) Any design exceptions based on the preliminary engineering concepts must also be documented;

    5. (6)

       1. (A) Coordination.
       2. (B) Any coordination between stakeholders or any public involvement that occurred should be documented;

    6. (7)

       1. (A) Proposed alternatives.

       2. (B) This section should describe each proposed alternative along with an analysis of each, which should include the following:

          1. (i)
20. (a) (a) Initial alternatives.

21. (b) (b) Any initial alternatives that were considered and removed from further analysis should be included.

    1. (c) (c) Reasons why each initial alternative was removed from further consideration should be discussed.

       1. (d) (d) Layouts of any initial design alternatives should be included as appropriate;

          1. (ii)
22. (a) (a) Alternatives description.

23. (b) (b) A description of each alternative carried forward should be included.

    1. (c) (c) Layouts of each alternative on a current aerial photo where one inch equals two hundred feet (1” = 200’) should be shown that includes:
    2. (1) (1) Lane and shoulder widths;
    3. (2) (2) Auxiliary lane lengths;
    4. (3) (3) Taper lengths;
    5. (4) (4) Ramp radii;
    6. (5) (5) Intersection turning radii;
    7. (6) (6) Grades; and

    8. (7) (7) Other relevant geometric information.

       1. (d) (d) Existing and proposed right-of-way and control of access limits should also be shown.

24. (e) (e) Lane configuration schematics should also be included for complex alternatives as needed;

    1. (iii)
25. (a) (a) Conceptual signing plan.

26. (b) (b) A conceptual signing plan layout of each alternative on a current aerial photo where one inch equals two hundred feet (1” = 200’), or other scale as appropriate, should be provided.

    1. (c) (c) It should include all signs required for each alternative as well as any modifications to existing signage that would be required; and

       1. (iv)
27. (a) (a) Alternatives analysis.

28. (b) (b) The results from an operational analysis of the alternatives should be provided.

    1. (c) (c) Forecasted traffic for the build alternatives should be shown on maps and figures.

       1. (d) (d) Measures of effectiveness, e.g., delay, travel time, queues, LOS, etc., should be described in text, figures, or tables as appropriate.
29. (e) (e) Other considerations, such as environmental constraints, safety issues, signing, and costs should be discussed as appropriate.

30. (f) (f) A comparison of each alternative should be included, in either tabular form (e.g., evaluation matrix), discussion of advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, or some other form of evaluation as appropriate;

    1. (8)

       1. (A) Funding plan.
       2. (B) A funding plan that includes proposed funding sources, e.g., private development, local, state or federal-aid funds, for all phases of the proposed project should be included; and

    2. (9)

       1. (A) Appendices.

       2. (B) Appendices should include operational analysis documentation, master street plans, meeting minutes, or other relevant supporting documents.

          1. (c)
    3. (1) Once the IJR is complete, an appropriate number of copies should be submitted to the Chief Engineer of the Arkansas Department of Transportation along with a letter requesting a finding of engineering and operational acceptability.
    4. (2) If the department concurs, the request will be forwarded to the Arkansas Division of the Federal Highway Administration with a copy of the IJR for review and consideration.

    5. (3) If the Federal Highway Administration determines the request is acceptable, project development may continue.

       1. (d)
    6. (1) The department and Federal Highway Administration concurrence with the finding of engineering and operational acceptability is valid for eight (8) years.

    7. (2)

       1. (A) If the project has not received final approval within that time, or if there is a significant change in conditions or design, a reevaluation must be made through a revised IJR.
       2. (B) See 27 CAR § 95-105.
    8. (3) The process for determining the nature and scope of the revised IJR should be jointly determined by the department, the Federal Highway Administration, the MPO (if applicable), and the proposing entity.
    9. (4) The revised IJR should contain an updated analysis explaining the changes that have occurred since the initial finding of engineering and operational acceptability.

31. (e)

    1. (1) Documentation of the alternatives analysis from the IJR must be included in the environmental documentation.
    2. (2) All feasible and reasonable alternatives must be carried through the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process.
    3. (3) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 documentation should also include reasons for discarding alternatives.
    4. (4) Although it is only required that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process be completed before final access approval is given by the Federal Highway Administration, it is recommended that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process and the determination of engineering and operational acceptability through the IJR be accomplished concurrently.
    5. (5) This is to ensure that both the purpose and need and the alternatives analysis meet the needs of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process.

Codification Notes: “MPO” means metropolitan planning organization. "MTP" means metropolitan transportation plan. "TIP" means metropolitan transportation improvement program. "STIP" means statewide transportation improvement program. The Clean Air Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.