One interesting byproduct so far of the I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway design process is the emerging differences that are developing between the proposals put forth by the main Lafayette Connector Partners (LCP) design team paid by LADOTD to design the final product, and the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team (ETRT) proposals floated through their Evangeline Corridor Initiative (ECI) process.
As many well know, the ECI was created by the ETRT to satisfy the mandate of the US Department of Transportation TIGER grant they had been awarded back in 2014 to study the best means of integrating the Connector freeway into the broader Lafayette community and better connect the abutting neighborhoods that would be affected by the project. That is a different mandate from the LCP, who is being paid by LADOTD to actually put forth preliminary design and engineering for the project.
It was mainly the ECI and ETRT which had raised concerns about the initially approved design that was vetted through a Record of Decision in 2003; as a result of their concerns, LADOTD was induced to add a series of design modifications and develop alternative concepts for the core downtown segment of the freeway. As a result of the process, four alternative concepts remain for consideration:
— 2 Elevated Freeway options (originally Concept Group 4), one with the Evangeline Thruway remaining as a one-way couplet outside of the freeway ROW (Concept 4-1), the other with the Thruway converted into an urban boulevard (Concept 4-2); and
— 2 Partially Depressed Freeway options (Concept Group 6), one with the freeway depressed on an open trench (Concept 6-1), and the other with the freeway completely capped as a tunnel for 1-1/2 miles (Concept 6-2).
The main issue, however, is that the proposals from LCP are a bit different from what the ECI/ETRT TIGER team has been promoting, and that has caused a bit of concern. Yesterday, Claire Taylor posted an article over at the Lafayette Advertiser detailing the ETRT’s expressed questions for the LCP over their most recent proposals.
The ECI had issued its final and adopted Charrette Report in late October detailing their proposals for neighborhood connectivity alongside the Connector. It appears below (accessible as a Scribd document):
It was right about the same time that the LCP held their second Open House Public Meeting to reveal to the public both the 4 Connector Concept Alternatives and the resolution of Possible Design Modifications (PDM’s) for subsegments of the freeway proposal. A full presentation of both appears below:
This post is to discuss the differences between the official LCP alternatives and those put forth by the ECI, and why they may matter a great deal down the road.
First let’s look at the Elevated options, starting with the LCP Concept 4 alternatives:
Both C4 alternatives utilize an elevated freeway through the core downtown area, and use ramp pairs to the Evangeline Thruway (north connections before Second Street, south connections to the Thruway at Eleventh Street). The difference is that Concept 4-1 retains the existing Evangeline Thruway couplet south of Jefferson Street to near Taft Street; while Concept 4-2 converts that section into an “urban boulevard” running down the southbound Thruway ROW (the existing northbound Thruway roadway south of Simcoe Street is converted back to a two-way local street).
Generally similar is the ECI’s approach to the Elevated Mainline option..but there are some differences.
4
The main major deviation between the C4-2 proposal and the ECI proposal is that with the ECI’s concept, the northern ramp connection with the Connector is pushed back further north to north of Mudd Avenue rather than Second Street; and that both Mudd Avenue is kept open and free flowing underneath the elevated mainline. Under the ECI’s proposal, the south connecting ramps are also shifted further southward to south of Pinhook Road, enabling more connections between Johnston Street/Louisiana Avenue and Taft Street/Fourteenth Street underneath the freeway. This was done to better connect the Freetown-Port Rico and McComb-Veazey neighborhoods. Also notice that like C4-2, the ECI Elevated Mainline proposal assumes a boulevard utilizing the southbound Thruway ROW, and that Simcoe Street is severed and realigned to allow more space at St. Genevieve Church for an open space plaza to mitigate the visual effects.
But those are minor quabbles compared to the differences between the Depressed proposals by both groups. First, the two LCP Concept 6 alternatives:
The main features of the C6 concepts are: 1) depressing the Connector mainline 10 feet below ground level, and adding 10 more feet of vertical clearance above ground level to create 20 feet of vertical clearance; having cross streets pass over the depressed freeway (and, in the case of Johnston Street, over the parallel BNSF/UP rail line as well); 2) elevating and realigning the southbound Evangeline Thruway to allow for raised connections with all the major cross streets; 3) realigning Taft Street to connect with Thirteenth Street rather than Fourteenth Street to better fit the ultimate south ramp connections; and 4) severing both Mudd Avenue and Simcoe Street across the freeway due to insufficient vertical clearance and concern about penetrating the Sterling Grove Historical District. The main difference is that C6-1 uses an open trench for the mainline with bridge structures crossing the freeway; while C6-2 uses an earthen embankment to completely cover the mainline, with a full tunnel structure directly underneath.
That is a significant radical difference from the Partially Depressed/Covered Mainline proposal originally brought forth by the ECI/ETRT team.
The original concept for the “Cut-and-Cover” proposal from the ECI implied only a limited embankment extending only as far as the southbound Thruway and the railroad, with all cross streets returning to grade to cross the railroad. (That proved to be infeasible for Johnston Street, prompting the LCP proposal to add an railroad overpass at that location.) Their proposal also included the option of realigning the Thruway frontage roads directly on top of or immediately flanking the depressed mainline structure, reverting both original roadways using the current Thruway to local streets. There was also an option for a surface boulevard taking in the southbound Thruway as with the Elevated concepts. In addition, similar to the ECI’s Elevated options, the ramp connections to the Thruway were set to north of Mudd Avenue and south of Taft Street, with both Mudd and Simcoe remaining open and free flowing over the covered freeway. Finally, in lieu of a complete tunnel, there were options for a partially covered or cantilevered mainline to avoid ventilation issues with a closed tunnel.
LCP does give as part of their presentation during the November Open House Public Meeting a decent explanation of why the ECI option for an at-grade Johnston Street crossing of the BNSF railroad is not feasible, and why a crossing that directly penetrated the Freetown – Port Rico Historic District was selected as the most viable option. They are a bit less open, though, on why expanding the depressed option to allow Mudd Avenue and Simcoe Street to cross over was not allowed, as well as why the cross connections between Taft and Johnston were not feasible. My guess is that interchange spacing and possible issues with excessive gradients were the main reasons for rejecting ECI’s approach. There was also the issue of penetrating the FPRHD, although why that wasn’t considered a problem for the Johnston Street crossing would then be a decent question to ask.
This wasn’t the first time that there was conflict between the ETRT and the LCP, either. When the ECI first offered up the Partially Depressed and Elevated options, they got a very chilly reception from then LADOTD Project Manager Toby Picard; he essentially accused ETRT of jumping out of their lane and overstepping their boundaries. Apparently, they were only supposed to act on the connectivity portion for the neighborhoods after LADOTD had selected a final alternative. ETRT, however, is backed in its mandate by Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government, which by law is required to approve any design for the Connector freeway under the terms of the Joint Agreement that was signed by all parties as part of the Record of Decision in 2003. (Picard ultimately blinked and allowed ETRT’s concerns to be placed on the record; he then left the project and DOTD entirely, claiming “personal reasons”.)
The Taylor article in the Advertiser quotes an email from ETRT member Kevin Blanchard to the LCP and LADOTD expressing concern that before any options are eliminated, the ECI’s questions about the method to the analysis of the alternatives are answered.
One of their main concerns was the cost projections for the four concept alternatives. The C6-2 “Cut-and-Cover” alternative has far and away the most expense, but that includes both the front end construction costs and the back end operations and maintenance costs of the full tunnel. The Elevated options, though, do not include any consideration for the “Signature Bridge” costs; LCP has said that that would be considered later on in the process. The main fear is that LADOTD might invoke financial concerns to drop many of the ECI’s proposals in order to go along with a basic design for the Elevated options.
Kevin Blanchard, who is on the ETRT team, recently posted an article at the Lafayette Independent where he directly states his concerns to LCP about the process, and calls for not eliminating any options until their questions are answered fully. He also proposes some variations to the Depressed options to remove the need for a full tunnel, and also addresses the Johnston Street overpass issues with Freetown – Port Rico and the BNSF/UP railroad. Another idea floated about is converting Johnston Street into a “Complete Streets” corridor with a reduced design speed, which would allow for a gradient tight enough to reduce the penetration of FPRHD.
In any case, this is an issue that will continue to be hashed out as the Connector design process evolves. Updates as they come in.