Category: Environmental Impact Statement

October Update: Finalist SEIS End-To-End Alternatives Introduced; Public Meeting Held (AKA: The Fog Lifts)

Addendum (12-24-2021): After so many years of absence, I have decided to restart this blog in lieu of some major updates in the progress of the I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway project. Future posts will reflect the progress of the Functional Corridor Study and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) processes that are currently ongoing. I have also made some minor edits to this particular blog post to correct some misspellings. Further posts are incoming. — AJK

A new milestone in the development of the I-49 Lafayette Connector project was fulfilled yesterday.

The LADOTD and the Lafayette Connector Partners (LCP) consultant group held an official Public Meeting last Thursday to officially introduce to the public the finalist End-to-End Refinement Alternatives that would be analyzed and vetted through the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) process.

Essentially the final Refinement Alternatives will be down to comparisons of two options:

1) The Selected Alternative that was originally approved in the 2003 Final EIS/Record of Decision (ROD); and

2) a Base Refinement Alternative that was created and revised through the Tier II and Tier III Corridor Refinement Processes held during the previous 12 months; itself also broken down with 2 Subalternative designs.

The 2003 ROD Alternative is included only as a control for comparison purposes; the 2017 Refinement Alternative will be ultimately tweaked and revised into the final Supplemental Selected Alternative that will be approved through the SEIS process with a Supplemental ROD.

Here’s a full view of the original 2003 ROD Alternative (all graphics are screencapped from the official LADOTD/LCP Lafayette Connector website).

Full view from end to end of the originally approved 2003 EIS/ROD Selected Alternative alignment/design for the I-49 Lafayette Connector. This will be analyzed in the SEIS only for comparison purposes and will NOT be the final Supplemental Selected Alternative.

You can clearly see the main features of the original 2003 ROD alternative:

1) Three-level directional interchange at Kaliste Saloom Road;
2) Conventional slip-ramp diamond interchange at University Avenue/Surrey Street, dependent on displacement of Runway 11-29 at Lafayette Regional Airport as to adjust the runway’s glide path for aircraft approaches/landings/takeoffs;
3) Standalone Single Point Urban Interchanges (SPUI’s) at Johnston Street and a combined Second Street/Third Street couplet, with accompanying underpass grade separations of the BNSF/UP railroad mainline, for direct access downtown;
4) Incorporation of the existing Evangeline Thruway one-way couplet into the freeway frontage road system;
5) A slip-ramp Urban Diamond interchange at Willow Street, with “crossunder” connections under the elevated structure at Castille Avenue/Martin Luther King Drive and Donlon Avenue/Walmart Drive;
6) A higher than conventional vertical clearance (22 feet) along the downtown core area along the Sterling Grove neighborhood (which is a designated Historical District) in order to mitigate the visual impact on the district and surrounding neighborhood; and
7) A brief “dip” of fill section between Johnston and Jefferson streets to accommodate the downtown interchanges.

Due to the strong feedback by local officials who wanted major changes in the design, as well as providing for the changes in the environment and the general area since the 2003 ROD was issued; the Concept Refinement Process was initialized in January 2015 for the purpose of proposing changes and modifications to the design. The resulting three tiered process ended up producing first 19 alternative concepts and 6 series concepts for the central downtown core section, and 25 Potential Design Modifications throughout the corridor (Tier 1); which was reduced down to 4 proposed alignments using 2 series (Elevated and Partially Depressed, the latter split into Open Trench and Cut-and-Cover Tunnel suboptions). Further analysis during Tier II eliminated the Series 6 Partially Depressed option (much to the chagrin of many locals); and reduced the concepts down to two finalists:

Elevated with the existing Evangeline Thruway remaining in couplet form;

and

Elevated with the Thruway converted into a Grand Boulevard on its southbound ROW and the northbound ROW reverted into a local street.

Further analysis was undertaken involving local arterial street access and connectivity underneath the mainline Connector facility, revisions to avoid encroaching upon the LFT Runway 11-29 glide flight path made necessary by the revoking of the proposed displacement, and means to avoid further impacts to the Freetown-Port Rico neighborhood, which itself became a Historical District in 2015.

These new refinement alternatives and subalternatives reflect the consensus of the stakeholders and community in balancing the need for the Connector to handle the traffic logjam on the current Evangeline Thruway with the desire to maintain and improve connectivity and improve asthetics; and also upgrade multimodal access to include pedestrians and bicyclists.

The Base Refinement Alternative is shown below in full:

Proposed Base Refinement Alternative for I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway, reflecting the refinements and revisions developed through the tiered Concept Refinement Process.

The hatched blue segment at the southern end of the project reflects improvements that will be incorporated into the related US 90 interchange with Verot School Road; which will be designed and constructed separately from the Connector.

The primary features of the Base Refined Alternative are defined below.

1) The interchange with Kaliste Saloom Road is reduced in scope and design to a 2-level elevated Diverging T, where the cross movements meet at grade rather than are grade separated. This allows for a less expensive and visually less intrusive design, and also allows for adjusting the local connection roads between Kaliste Saloom Rd. and Hugh Walls Rd. to avoid encroaching a recently built motel and the Walls Estate property.

Revised Kaliste Saloom Road interchange under 2017 Base Refinement Alternative. Blue hatched segments are associated with the proposed US 90/Future I-49 South interchange with Verot School Road, which is a separate project.

2)  The University Avenue/Surrey Street interchange is moderately redesigned by depressing University/Surrey below its existing level by a maximum of 15 feet, adjusting the level of the frontage road system to connect with the lowered University/Surrey ROW, and reducing the vertical profile of the Connector mainline overpass of University/Surrey so that the current glide path for Runway 11-29 at LFT is not encroached. Pumping would be required during rainfall events at the University/Surrey underpass due to the proximity of the Vermilion River crossings of University and the Connector/Evangeline Thruway mainline/frontage system, and retaining walls will probably be necessary to accommodate businesses currently along the existing intersection.

Base Refinement Alternative showing revisions for the University Avenue/Surrey Street interchange.

3.)  The most significant change from the Tier II proposals is that the proposed connection ramps linking the Evangeline Thruway to the Connector are shifted completely out of the central core area. The north connection ramps I’ll get to shortly; but the south connection ramps, which formerly were placed to connect to the Thruway at Eleventh Street, have now been pushed well to the south to south of Pinhook Road. In addition, the ramps which would have been the north connection to University/Surrey have been shifted north to north of Pinhook Road, connecting with the Evangeline Thruway couplet system south of Taft Street.

The result: Pinhook Road now gets a full interchange with I-49.

Furthermore, the Pinhook Road intersection with the Thruway/Connector is improved by adding a displaced left turn segment from westbound Pinhook to southbound Evangeline Thruway, similar to what you would find in a continuous flow intersection. Adjustments and refinements are made to the local street system to accommodate these revisions; they have been tweaked a bit from the original proposals brought out in the September CSS meetings for improved local access.

Base Refinement Alternative design for the Pinhook Road interchange. The insert shows the Reduced Phase/Diverging Left Turn movement proposed for the intersection of Pinhook with the Evangeline Thruway. (Source: Lafayette Connector website)

4) The shifting of the downtown connection ramps out of the central core segment of the Connector greatly simplifies the design of the mainline; it simply “floats” on elevated structure through the corridor. The “tangent” section that straightens the ROW between Johnston Street and Jefferson Street away from the originally proposed sweeping curve is officially incorporated in the Base Refinement Alternative; as well as the realignment of the northbound Evangeline Thruway from Jefferson to Bellot Drive in order to shift it further away from the St. Genevieve Catholic Church and the Sterling Grove Historical District. The removal of the north connection ramps, originally proposed to connect to the Thruway north of Second Street, means that Simcoe Street and Mudd Avenue are no longer severed and can run continuous under the Connector ROW. Indeed, the current proposal basically keeps the status quo of the downtown street grid intact, save for the adjustments to the northbound Thruway.

Base Refinement Alternative Downtown core section. Inserts are the Subalternative (E-1 and M-1) modifications.

5) The Base Refinement Alternative includes the conversion of the Evangeline Thruway between Taft and Simcoe Streets into an urbanized Grand Boulevard centered on the southbound Thruway ROW. The current northbound Thruway in that section, and in the section orphaned through the realignment adjacent to Sterling Grove (Jefferson to Bellot), would revert to a local two-way street within the neighborhood street grid. As an alternative option, Subalternative E-1 is offered which would avoid the Grand Boulevard design and simply retain and improve the existing Thruway couplet, save for the northbound Thruway realignment from Jefferson to Bellot.

SubAlternative E-1, which would retain the existing Evangeline Thruway couplet.

In addition, due to the desire from locals (particularly the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team, through their Evangeline Corridor Initiative) to relieve the impact of the Connector structure and enhance connectivity and multimodal opportunities, another subalternative design was added for consideration. SubAlternative M-1 would raise the height of the Connector mainline structures to allow for an additional bump-up in vertical clearance in the downtown core area. The base condition would be 22 feet (as mandated in the 2003 ROD as part of the mitigation plan for the Sterling Grove Historical District); M-1 would raise that level up to 30 feet throughout the downtown area.

SubAlternative M-1, providing for a 30 foot vertical clearance in the downtown area.

6) The segment north of downtown between the Louisiana & Delta Railroad Breaux Bridge Spur and I-10 also underwent some major changes between Tier II and Tier III. In particular, LCP had to resolve a beef from the ECI over the latter’s proposal for a North Gateway design keyed on a large circle interchange for Willow Street. The consultants ultimately rejected that design due to insufficent and incompatible traffic flow, and went with the conventional slip-ramp urban diamond design from the original 2003 ROD. However, they did make some modest concessions to the ECI regarding the two local “crossunder” connections bracketing the Willow Street interchange; and they also found an unique way of providing the north connection ramps to the central Downtown segment. The graphic below shows the results.

Base Refinement Alternative North Segment, including the Willow Street interchange and local "crossunder" roundabouts for local access.
Base Refinement Alternative North Segment, including the Willow Street interchange, braided north connection ramps for the Thruway, and local “crossunder” roundabouts for local access.

The design revisions that stand out are: the two “dogbone roundabouts” that are now added to negotiate access at the Donlon Avenue/Walmart Drive and Castille Avenue/Dr. Martin Luther King Drive crossover intersections with the Thruway; and the newly relocated connection ramps to the Thruway that are now braided with the south ramps to the Willow Street interchange. In order to fit the Donlon and Northside Walmart access roads to meet the new “bone ’bout,” new local connectors are built, and the existing 3/4 intersection with Donlon/WMT are modded into RIRO (right-in/right-out) intersections. In addition, portions of the existing two-way service road fronting the Thruway are eliminated south of Chappius Drive, which is now channeled along the remaining portion to Willow Street.

The north roundabout connecting MLK Drive and Castille with the service roads flanking the Thruway also got some modest tweaking in order to save some ROW space and better serve local access. The biggest change is the addition of a new local street that would run parallel to the Thruway between MLK and Willow that would link to a new tie-in to a truncated frontage road. This would simplify greatly the design of the Castille/MLK roundabout, since it serves as the transition between the beginning of the one-way frontage road network and the existing two-way service roads. (The crossover at Chalmette Drive that was originally scheduled to be the transition is now eliminated, giving more space for the elevated section of the Connector mainline to drop back to grade level for the I-10 interchange.)

A closer view of the Base Alternative design for the Willow Street Interchange and the two dogbone roundabouts.

It was all of these refinements that were introduced by the LCP and LADOTD teams: first to the Community Work Group on Wednesday, and then to the Technical Advisory Committee Thursday morning and the general public via the Public Meeting/Moderated Session Thursday night.

Public and stakeholder comment (both oral and written) was solicited at the Open House Public Meeting; feedback will be taken and recorded for official posterity up until November 1st. Then, if warranted, revisions to the E2E alternatives will be developed and presented to the CSS committees (CWG and TAC), and presented to the public through another Open House Public Meeting. Once feedback response to that is received, the Executive Committee will be activated to ingest all the reaction and select the final recommended alternatives. After that happens, the finalists  would undergo the detailed evaluations of an SEIS, the selection of a Supplemental Preferred Alternative for approval from the Acadiana MPO and Lafayette Consolidated Government, the production and release of the Draft SEIS document for official review, the official Draft SEIS Public Hearing for public review, the development of the Final SEIS document with the selection of the winning Supplemental Selected Alternative for final approval, and the Supplemental Record of Decision for the SSA that would then head back into the originally planned CSS Corridor Functional Design Plan process to develop the detailed design specifics.

And then the real process of finding funding for the project begins.

That is, unless the Sierra Club and the Concerned Citizens group decide to take another legal shot at derailing the project. Based on the continuing howls of Connector opponents like Michael Waldon, who runs the anti-Connector blog Connector Comments, that’s pretty much a guaranteed deal. Waldon attended Wednesday’s CSS meeting, and submitted comments restating his opposition based on the concerns about: how the Connector would threaten to pollute the Chicot Aquifer by unleashing the poisons of the former Southern Pacific Railroad classification yard through digging of pilings; how the elevated freeway would blast noise into the surrounding neighborhoods such that expensive sound walls would be necessary; and how elevated freeways in general are such the devil that cities are demolishing them in droves to make way for beautiful surface boulevards more appropriate for local development. And, of course, to push for the Teche Ridge Bypass through St. Martin Parish as a much more friendly alternative. Considering the progress that LADOTD is getting on completing the rest of I-49 South/freeway US 90 through Lafayette Parish, including the now under construction Albertsons’ Parkway interchange and the proposed interchanges at South Ambassador Caffery Parkway, Youngsville Highway, and Verot School Road, however, it may be a bit too little, too late for that.

Another (or related) alternative suggested by Connector opponents is to simply build the Grand Boulevard segment of the Evangeline Thruway right now as a standalone project, while fully obstructing in every way progress in building the Connector freeway. Strangely enough, some proponents of the Connector are also warming to the idea of a standalone Grand Boulevard-ization of the Thruway; the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government and the ETRT just reached an agreement to make a push to apply for another US Department of Transportation TIGER grant (the same process that landed them funds for what became the ECI) to design and build the Grand Boulevard section as a interim stepping stone until the Connector gets funding. Whether this is real or simply a push to get LADOTD to drop in some more funding for the additional enhancements (Signature Bridge, bike/ped paths, hardscaping, Complete Streets, higher clearance) remains to be seen.

As always, watch this space for further updates.

A New Connector Update: Revised Designs Released For Proposed Tier III/SEIS Alternatives; Final End-to-End Alternatives Forthcoming

After nearly 2 months of analysis and tweaking of design, the I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway project is beginning to finally take its ultimate form. But, not without the usual controversies.

Last week, two of the I-49 Connector CSS committees (Community Work Group and Technical Advisory Committee) held meetings where the consultant group overseeing the design of the project (Lafayette Connector Partners) in conjunction with the LADOTD and FHWA) revealed some revisions they made to the original design approved in 2003. Earlier in July, they had revealed a major tweak to the proposed interchange between the Connector and Kaliste Saloom Road; this time, they covered the remaining segments of the project all the way to just short of Interstate 10.

The design changes are meant to move towards analysis of two finalist “End-to-End Alternatives” that will undergo the final evaluation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) study in order to produce a Supplemental Selected Alternative for final approval by FHWA and LADOTD. The original approved alternative from the 2003 Record of Decision generated from the October 2002 Final EIS will also be analyzed, but only as a control for comparison purposes with the other two alternatives.

The tweaks for the Kaliste Saloom Road interchange were already covered in my previous post; we’ll start from there northward.

 

University Avenue/Surrey Street/Pinhook Road

In the original concept approved in the 2003 ROD, the mainline Connector freeway would have a direct interchange with University Avenue/Surrey Street in order to provide access to Lafayette Regional Airport. A conflict with the overpass over University/Surrey cutting into the flight path of Runway 11-29 would be resolved by displacing the runway 350 further down, through extending it at its eastern end; thus allowing the overpass to be built to normal vertical clearances. Frontage roads paralleling the existing mainline Evangeline Thuway south of Pinhook Road would provide local access, while the mainline would be converted to freeway standards. The frontage roads would then transition to the existing Evangeline Thruway one-way couplet. No interchange would be built at Pinhook due to the proximity of University/Surrey nearby.

Original 2003 ROD concept of I-49 Connector freeway in Lafayette from University Avenue/Surrey Street to north of Fourteenth Street/Taft Street. (via Lafayette Connector website)

You will notice how the southbound Thruway frontage road brushes through the periphery of the newly created Freetown-Port Rico Historic District, which was established after the initial ROD was finalized. Also, this concept assumed a full interchange at Johnston Street (just beyond the scope of this segment).

Because of the desires of the local community to eliminate the Johnston Street interchange and open up more connectivity for both the Freetown and the neighboring McComb-Veazey neighborhoods, the initial Tier I and II studies focused on switching access between the Connector and downtown Lafayette to “connection ramps” using the existing Evangeline Thruway. In the proposed concept that came out of the Tier II studies, the connection ramps from/to the south would hook up with the Thruway at Eleventh Street, and the southbound frontage road would be realigned to remove any direct impacts on homes in the FTPR District.

Concept 4.2 from Tier II Study, with emphasis on south connection ramps between mainline Connector and Evangeline Thruway at Eleventh Street. (via Lafayette Connector website)

Apparently, though, that still created too much of an issue with the houses fronting the Thruway within Freetown, because what the consultants ended up with for their ultimate revision became radically different from what came before.

 

 

Revised design for I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway between University/Surrey and Taft, featuring new interchange with Pinhook Road.

The “interchange” with Pinhook Road is created by shifting the south connection ramps to/from the Evangeline Thruway to south of Pinhook as “slip ramps”, and moving the north off/on ramps that would have served University/Surrey north of Pinhook and over Taft Street.

The other radical revision is that the Pinhook intersection with the Thruway is converted to a “reduced phase” intersection, where the left turn movement from northbound/westbound Pinhook to southbound Evangeline Thruway/I-49 is segregated further out from the actual intersection. Because of that, some side streets that connected to Pinhook would have to be revised or even cut off, and access to some businesses fronting the Pinhook/Evangeline Thruway intersection would be constrained or have to be revised. Chag Street, for example, would have to end in a cul-de-sac rather than intersecting with Pinhook; and other streets would have to have their access to Pinhook altered.

The other major change shown here is that University Avenue/Surrey Street is now depressed in order to lower the profile of the Connector overpass located therein; this removes the conflict with LFT’s Runway 11-29. (The displacement that would have been used for the Connector freeway was overridden by a mandate from the Federal Aviation Administration for Emergency Materials Arrestor Systems (EMAS) extensions for runways to protect aircraft from overruns.)

Another minor adjustment is the addition of a local extension of Drain Street paralleling the southbound Thruway roadway to serve houses in Freetown fronting the Thruway. This is neccessary due to control of access standards caused by the ramp serving the new Pinhook “interchange”, and mitigating the impacts to the FTPRHD.

 

Downtown Core Area (Taft Street to L&DRR Rail Spur)

This is the segment that has generated the most controversy and debate, and has effected the greatest design variations.

First, the original concept from 2003:

 

Original 2003 ROD design of Connector freeway in central downtown Lafayette.

Two standalone direct interchanges (with adjacent railroad underpasses) with Johnston Street and the Second Street/Third Street couplet to serve downtown; the Thruway remaining in its present couplet form; Simcoe Street and Jefferson Boulevard depressed to maintain connectivity underneath the elevated freeway, and the northbound Thruway realigned from Jefferson northward away from the Sterling Grove Historic District. A decent and acceptable concept, right?

Not for the locals in Lafayette, it wasn’t. They didn’t like the loss of possible property from the two interchanges for development, nor the lost opportunities for reconnecting downtown with the surrounding neighborhoods. The section of at-grade mainline between the elevated segments didn’t satisfy them, either.

It was these objections that motivated the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team — the organization launched by local city government to mitigate the overall impacts of the Connector — to promote their alternative designs. In the end, their Evangeline Corridor Initiative group produced two concepts: an Elevated Mainline with a Signature Bridge, and a Partially Depressed and Covered Mainline featuring a “cut-and-cover” section paralleling the Thruway and the BNSF/Union Pacific main rail line. The latter option was studied and refined by the LCP, but ultimately was rejected due to costs and drainage issues.

Partially Depressed and Covered Mainline concept for I-49 Connector as proposed by the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team (ETRT) via their Evangeline Corridor Initiative (ECI).
Elevated with Signature Bridge concept proposed by ETRT/ECI.
Elevated with Evangeline Thruway Couplet (Concept 4.1) proposed by LADOTD/LCP via Tier II Process.
Elevated with Evangeline Thruway as Grand Boulevard (Concept 4.2) introduced by LADOTD/LCP after Tier II analysis.

The most significant alterations were done near Sterling Grove and the St. Genevieve Catholic Church; where proposals for severing access to the Sterling Grove Historical district from the Evangeline Thruway/frontage road system, as well as shift access from Simcoe Street to the Second/Third couplet were met with strong opposition due to disconnecting Sterling Grove from the west. The north “connection ramps” to the Thruway also had a potential visual impact to the St. Genevieve Church. Shifting the north connection ramps to north of Mudd Avenue was an option, but that got opposition from Sterling Grove HD residents fearing that that would send heavy traffic through their district.

In the end, apparently, LADOTD threw their hands up and said, OK…you get what you want, here’s nothing. This is what they came up with finally.

 

Revised design for Connector freeway in downtown Lafayette core, circa September 2017.

Essentially, the Connector just floats over the existing status quo downtown. No exits or entrances until you get to the Pinhook/University/Surrey southbound or the Willow Street interchange northbound. No adjustments to the existing Thruway (the Grand Boulevard option notwithstanding, although there is another option not shown here where the Thruway uses the existing couplet, with a realignment to the west from Jefferson Street northward on the northbound roadway to get some distance away from Sterling Grove).

So, with all that, how does traffic entering southbound access the Thruway and downtown? Don’t worry….they planned for that.

 

Rail Spur to I-10 (Including Donlon Avenue/Northside Walmart Connection, Willow Street Interchange, and Castille Avenue/MLK Drive Connection)

First, let’s take a look at the 2003 ROD schematics:

 

 

Original 2003 ROD design for I-49 Connector from the rail spur to I-10, including the Willow Street Interchange.

Under the original design, the elevated mainline would be extended above Donlon Avenue, Willow Street, and the crossovers at Castille Avenue/Martin Luther King Drive and Chalmette Drive before finally lowering at-grade to terminate just before the I-10/I-49 interchange. Full intersections would be built to replace the 3/4th intersections at Donlon Avenue/Walmart Drive, Castille/MLK, and Chalmette; the latter would be where the one-way frontage road network would end an transition into the existing two-way local frontage road network. Slip ramps would provide access between the freeway and the one-way frontage roads/Thruway couplet at Willow Street.

The ETRT, however, had far different plans for this segment. In May of 2016, using the resources of the ECI, they came out with a far-reaching and radical plan for transforming this segment into an attractive “gateway” entrance for Lafayette. The keystone of their proposal was a “grand circle” interchange for Willow Street where the Connector off/on ramps and the frontage roads would all come forth to a large circular roadway, with an arch-type building straddling the Connector mainline in the center of the circle. Smaller circle intersections would have been used for the Donlon/Walmart and Castille/MLK crossovers. A prototype design of what the ETRT/ECI proposed is below.

North Lafayette Gateway utilizing a Willow Street Circle Interchange, proposed by Evangeline Corridor Initiative.
Another view of the North Lafayette Gateway Arch design for the Willow Street Interchange, as proposed by the ECI.

Alas, their forward thinking design was ultimately rejected by LADOTD, again citing both costs and traffic design criteria. (This would create more of the friction that always seemed to exist between the ETRT and the consultants, as we will explore in a future post.)

During the Tier II analysis, some of the LADOTD engineers did float the idea of using a “dogbone roundabout” design for Willow Street. Basically, a dogbone roundabout connects two circles together with the cross streets in the shape of a dog’s bone, so that traffic between the ramps and the cross streets can mesh together without the need for signalization. The heavy amount of traffic using Willow Street and the Thruway, though, mitigated against that design.

In the end, the consultants reverted back to the original design of a regulation slip-ramp diamond interchange for Willow Street. However, that didn’t mean they weren’t capable of thinking outside the box. Behold, the result:

Revised design for the I-49 Connector freeway from the L&DRR rail spur to I-10.

Right away, you can see the radical changes they did:

1)  The Castille Avenue/MLK Drive crossover is now a dogbone roundabout, with transitions to the one-way frontage road network and the existing two-way frontage roads along the Thruway, which are now retained for local access.

2) A new roundabout structure is now built just south of the Donlon Avenue/Walmart Drive crossover, allowing for direct access to the “Northside” Walmart store parking lot and Donlon via a connecting road. The existing Donlon/Walmart connection is converted into a RIRO (Right In Right Out Only) intersection with the Thruway frontage road.

3) The two-way frontage road on the east side of the Thruway is now directly connected to Chappius Street, but not to the northbound frontage road.

4) New north connection ramps are now introduced for access to the Thruway/Connector between Willow and the rail spur; braided with the south Willow exits, and meeting the south roundabout. This replaces the north connection ramps originally planned for Mudd Avenue/Second Street in the Tier II analysis, and effectively replaces the Second/Third and Johnston interchanges for downtown access in the 2003 ROD.

5) Finally, the Chalmette Drive crossover is eliminated, since the MLK/Castille roundabout will serve as the crossing to the other side of the freeway. This shortens the elevated section, saving money and also adding a longer lag for the I-10 exits/entrances.

Overall Impressions of Revisions

For the most parts, these revisions reflect LADOTD’s goals of getting the Connector built at the least cost, while balancing local concerns with the basic need to get this project designed as soon as possible. It certainly won’t flip any of the Teche Ridge Bypass advocates, who’d oppose any design going through downtown for any reason; and the frustration from some local groups and the ETRT from many of their ideas being rejected is palpable, but in a project as huge as this, you can’t please everyone.

The next milestone for the project should take place next month, when the End-to-End Alternative finalists will be introduced; first to the CSS Committees, and then to the public though a Public Meeting. They will then be vetted through public comment, revised for a Second Public Meeting, vetted again, and then the final three alternatives (2 Supplemental Alternatives and the 2003 ROD Alternative) will get a final vetting under the SEIS for selection of a Locally Preferred Supplemental Alternative by Lafayette Consolidated Government and the Acadiana MPO. Then, the Draft SEIS will be prepared and distributed for appropriate comments by the proper authoritiess; an official SEIS Public Hearing will be held for public comments on the Draft SEIS; and the Supplemental Selected Alternative will be finalized and approved through the Final SEIS and Supplemantal Record of Decision. After that, the SSA will be used to determine the final CSS design concepts; and, pending funding sources are found, the Connector will finally be built.

That is, pending the second round of lawsuits to negotiate through…

Finally, A Fresh Connector Update: Tier III Studies Now Underway; LFT Airport Runway Issues Resolved; New Design For University/Surrey & Kaliste Saloom Interchanges, And More

Well..after three months of what seemed to be inaction, the I-49 Connector Concept Refinement Process/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/CSS Design processes seem to be back in action now.

On Wednesday and Thursday, two of the Connector CSS Committees – Community Work Group on Wednesday and Technical Advisory Committee on Thursday – had their first meetings in three months to get an update from the Lafayette Connector Partners consultant team on progress with the project. In case you have missed it, the LCP team recently got their contract extended for another 2-1/2 years in order to complete the Supplemental EIS and produce a new revised alternative to the freeway design approved in 2003.

The main points that came across from the meetings can be summarized below.

First, some major design tweaking was finalized on the southern section near Lafayette Regional Airport, in response to some major issues that had to be resolved.

The original concept passed by the 2003 ROD assumed that one of the LFT runways (Runway 11-29) would have to be displaced by 350 feet to allow for a regulation design for the University Avenue/Surrey Street overpass of the Connector mainline to avoid violating that runway’s flight path. In October of last year, however, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) imposed new rules requiring airports to install Emergency Materials Arrestor Systems (EMAS) runway extensions to prevent overruns of aircraft; this would have potentially added an additional 300 feet of runway extension to the already planned 350 feet displacement that would have been required for the Connector freeway.

Given that such an addition would have required taking far more wetlands than would have been proposed, the FHWA and the LCP was forced to reassess the design for the University/Surrey interchange and develop alternatives that would not require the runway displacement. This is required because Section 404 regulations are pretty tough on displacing wetlands.

The alternatives discussed included:

— Lowering the profile of the Connector freeway overpass over University/Surrey so that the existing flight path (without the 350′ runway displacement) would be retained. This would be accompanied by lowering the grade of University/Surrey to allow standard vertical clearance below the underpass.

— Shifting the design of the University/Surrey interchange so that University/Surrey would pass over the Connector freeway on a partially elevated structure, while the Connector mainline would be partially depressed to cross underneath University/Surrey.

— Shifting the alignment of University/Surrey sightly to the north to move the interchange further away from the glide path of Runway 11-29. This would, however, come with some major issues of taking land from Beaver Park, which is a Section 4(f) property, and potentially taking access from a boat launching facility for Beaver Lake, which would be a potential Section 6(f) violation. Both 4(f) and 6(f) regulations require that alternatives be taken to prevent taking of protected resources.

Ultimately, it was decided that the best and most cost efficient course was Option #1: reduce the profile of the Connector overpass and lower University/Surrey. This effectively removes the risk to Runway 11-29’s glide path and allows for the EMAS extensions to be implemented.

Another significant change was the revision of the design for the proposed Kaliste Saloom Road interchange. The original design approved by the 2003 ROD called for a 3-way fully directional interchange with flyover ramps over the Connector mainline and BNSF/UP railroad mainline. The highest ramp (from northbound Kaliste Saloom to the northbound frontage road and northbound Connector mainline) would be up to 40 feet high. Here’s an illustration graphic of the original proposal (from the presentation given at the latest meetings, via the Lafayette Connector website):

Also notice how the original design had the southbound frontage road wrap around the back of the Acadiana Dodge car dealership, and how the original ramps and access road connecting Kaliste Saloom Road and Hugh Wallis Road conflict with a hotel establishment that was recently built.

In its place, the LCP design team created an interesting alternative design which reduced both the ROW required and the height of the interchange. The flyover ramps are replaced by a single structure where the left turning movements (from east bound Kaliste Saloom Road to northbound Evangeline Thruway/I-49 and from northbound I-49 frontage road to westbound Kaliste Saloom) meet and cross each other at grade, similar to a Single Point interchange. In addition, the connecting access road between Kaliste Saloom and Hugh Wallis is shifted south to parallel the new Kaliste Saloom overpass structure, and split into two roadways which connect to Kaliste Saloom Rd. via RIRO (Right-In-Right-Out) connections just east of the Episcopal School of Acadiana entrance.

The new design also shifts the southbound frontage road to flank the Connector mainline, passing in front of Acadiana Dodge rather than behind it. There was some concern that such a design would require taking the showroom of the dealership, but apparently that has been resolved.

In addition to these changes, the LCP team also addressed which Potential Design Modifications (PDMs) would advance into the Tier III process. The page below lists all the PDMs considered. The ones highlighted in black are the ones that advanced into Tier III and will be incorporated into the End-to-End Alternatives to be studied in the SEIS; the red highlighted ones are those that were totally rejected; and the blue highlighted ones were to be further negotiated and discussed.

The most striking aspect about this list is that the blue highlighted PDMs that remain to be resolved all have to do with enhancements desired by Lafayette Consolidated Government to mitigate the impact of the Connector through the central core of Lafayette, but which by law the Federal and state government couldn’t fund directly as part of the project. This means that if LCG wants to have a signature bridge or pedestrian walkways or a higher clearance for the elevated structures, they would have to find the revenue to pay for it. That may be a significant sticking point, considering the paucity of funding and the general attitude against taxation.

Another real sticking point comes around the rejection of PDM #23-7, a proposed “dogbone roundabout” design for the Willow Street interchange.  The Evangeline Corridor Initiative, a project of the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team that was paid for by a Federal TIGER Grant, had proposed a different interchange design for Willow: a large rotary circle interchange in which an arch-like structure would straddle the elevated mainline to serve as a gateway for North Lafayette.

The LCP design team, though, had blown off the ECI’s proposal in favor of studying the “dogbone roundabout” design, which they have developed and implemented in other areas. Their traffic studies found that such a design would not work for Willow Street due to heavy turning volumes between Willow Street and the Evangeline Thruway/Connector, and pretty much recommended the original “slip ramp” diamond interchange design approved by the 2003 ROD.

Obviously, representatives of the ECI were not too happy, as seen in this snippage of coverage of the meetings from the Lafayette Advertiser:

Kevin Blanchard, who sits on the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team working for the city to improve the Evangeline Thruway area in conjunction with the I-49 project, was surprised to learn the ETRT’s plan for a rotary circle with signature feature at Willow Street has been scrapped by the I-49 planners.

The I-49 Connector will be elevated as it crosses Willow Street, a gateway into the city. Blanchard said the ETRT team proposed a large rotary circle with a gateway feature such as an arch that would add value to the urban space.

Blanchard asked for a comparison of traffic volumes expected in a roundabout versus a rotary circle.

“We’re talked in this process about partnering with locals,” he said. “Let’s look at what was proposed locally, which was not a roundabout. It is one of the priorities of the ETRT.”

This isn’t the first time that the ETRT has clashed directly with the Connector planners; it took the ECI to force the LCP and LADOTD to even consider the Partially Depressed/Cut and Cover options for Tier II, only to have it removed from further consideration with great consternation in Feburary.

The next steps for the LCP will be to finalize and introduce to the public the End-to-End Alternatives, that will then be refined and reduced to two finalist Supplemental Alternatives, which will then be fully vetted through the Supplemental EIS process. The original 2003 EIS/ROD Selected Alternative will also be included, but only as a control for comparison to the others. It’s assumed that a Supplemental Preferred Alternative would be presented prior to the release of the Draft SEIS, probably by spring of next year, with a Final SEIS/Supplemental ROD approved by fall of 2018, and the remainder of the Corridor Functional Plan process involving finalization of the CSS design elements finished by October of 2019.

Unless, of course, the Sierra Club and Citizens for Good Government decide to intervene with their inevitable lawsuit challenging the SEIS/SROD for threatening the Chicot Aquifer and pushing for their favored Teche Ridge Bypass.

As always, I’ll break in this space here with any further developments.

May 2017 Update: Contract For Connector Studies Extended Until October 2019 To Complete Supplemental EIS, Select New Alternative

An interesting turn of events has occured this past two months concerning the I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway studies.

The Lafayette Independent recently obtained via the Freedom of Information Act inquiry a copy of a new Supplemental Agreement that was signed by both the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and the lead consultant agency Stantec for the project. This new agreement extends the existing contract for engineering and environmental study and the Conceptual Design and Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) processes from its current termination of June 2017 to October 2019.

A copy of the Supplemental Agreement and its associated appendices is below (via Scribd.com):

The 28 month extension is essentially to allow for a full process of initializing, developing, and completing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), which the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had deemed to be necessary due to the substantial changes in the environment in Lafayette surrounding the project, as well as the design modifications sought by local Lafayette stakeholders and the public.

According to the terms of the Supplemental Agreement, LADOTD, FHWA, the Connector consulting crew (organized under the label Lafayette Connector Partners (LCP)), and the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government (LCG), will coordinate and organize new studies, analysis, and public interaction using the same 3-tier evaluation approach as used under the current Concept Refinement Process (CRP). That process was launched in January of 2016 due to the desire of stakeholders in Lafayette to modify the design of the alternative approved in the original 2003 Final EIS/Record of Decision in order to mitigate the footprint along the neighborhoods directly affected.

Originally, the CRP had produced an initial group of 19 Conceptual Design Alternatives (CDAs) utilizing 6 design concepts for the central section of the Connector freeway between Pinhook Road and the Louisiana & Delta Railroad spur rail line; complemented by 25 spot Potential Design Modifications (PDMs) along the entire length of the corridor from just south of Lafayette Regional Airport to just south of the I-49/I-10 interchange. This was analyzed under the Tier I evaluations, and reduced to 4 concept alternatives (2 “Series 4” elevated;  2 “Series 6” partially depressed), which along with the PDMs were further vetted through the Tier II analysis.

Under the newly refined process under this extended agreement, the remaining Tier II analysis would be finalized and six “hybrid” or “End-to-End” alternatives would be produced to advance into the Tier III more detailed environmental evaluation and to begin the SEIS process. This would result in two finalist Supplemental Alternatives which would undergo the full SEIS process vetting for environmental impacts. The original approved 2003 ROD alternative would also be included, but only as a control for comparison purposes.

A Supplemental Preferred Alternative would then be produced which would be sent first to LCG (via the City-Parish Council) and the Acadiana Metropolitan Planning Organization (Acadiana MPO) for review and ratification, and then presented in the Draft SEIS for review by the FHWA, relevant federal, state, and local agencies, and ultimately public comment via an official Public Hearing. Based on the feedback, a Final SEIS presenting the Selected Supplemental Alternative would be produced and reviewed, leading to a Supplemental ROD stating final approval. Then the original CSS/Conceptual Study scope would kick back in for detailed design features and developing the Complete Functional Plan for elements within and surrounding the corridor.

There are some very interesting aspects to be found in this modified process, and the agreement does reveal some new information not made public before.

The recent induction of the Freetown-Port Rico neighborhood as a Historical District has forced some minor alteration of design for a segment of the freeway near Pinhook Road, where the southbound Evangeline Thruway roadway serves as the boundary for the newly formed district. Some homes facing the southbound Thruway from Fifteenth to Pinhook along the FTPRHD would possibly be adversely impacted by the proximity of the elevated structure or control of access requirements, which would prompt a flag under Section 4(f) protocols.

Another more major conflict occurs at the proposed interchange with University Avenue and Surrey Street near the Lafayette Regional Airport (LFT). The original interchange design for the 2003 ROD approved alternative was based on a 350 foot displacement of a runway at LFT in order for the glide path approach to successfully clear the vertical height for the elevated overpass over University/Surrey. However, in 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration imposed new rules for airports requiring additional runway extension space for incorporating EMAS (Engineered Materials Arrest Systems) to prevent runway overruns. This added an additional 300 feet to the proposed 350 foot extension, which would cause a much more serious impact to wetland areas and Bayou Tortue. Therefore, new alternatives for the University interchange that would not require the runway displacement had to be developed, creating new issues and opportunities. A new proposal that would realign the University/Surrey interchange slightly northward to avoid impacting the glide path introduces 4(f) takings of Beaver Park near Beaver Lake, and could potentially flag 6(f) takings of a boat access ramp serving Beaver Lake. A University/Surrey overpass of a partially depressed I-49 mainline is also under consideration.

A third conflict that has developed involves the Kaliste Saloom Road interchange just south of the airport; a hotel was built on Hugh Wallis Road near the Walls Estate property that would affect the geometry of the on-ramp from the Connector southbound to Kaliste Saloom Road, as well as a local connector road that would replace the at-grade connection betweet Kaliste Saloom and Hugh Wallis.  Adjustments to the ramps would have to be made; and possibly even alterations to the design of the directional interchange.

The most significant issue to date, however, is the Connector’s crossing of the site that was formerly the old classification and maintenance yard for Southern Pacific Railroad. That site has been the target of litigation for allegedly being a hazardous waste producer that has contaminated both the soil and potentially the drinking water supply through the Chicot Aquifer, which runs nearly 40 to 60 feet under the city. Environmental Assessments have been done for the rail yard site, and further evaluation for remediation and cleanup will be done as part of the SEIS; nevertheless, it has become the main flash point for those who oppose the project in its entirity. On the other side of the debate, the Evangeline Corridor Initiative (ECI) has also targeted the site for future development upon cleanup as a means of reconnecting the Freetown-Port Rico and McComb-Veazey neighborhoods, through additional cross streets underneath the Connector freeway. That would also require shifting the south connection ramps linking the Connector mainline to the Thruway, currently proposed at Eleventh Street, to be shifted further southward or eliminated altogether.

The original issue of how the Connector would impact the adjacent Sterling Grove Historical District as it crosses just near downtown is still very much involved. The most recent proposals would shift the northbound Evangeline Thruway roadway further west away from the perimeter of Sterling Grove and St. Genevieve Catholic Church/School, but would also sever Mudd Avenue east of the Thruway and Simcoe Street by diverting its traffic onto the Second/Third Streets couplet and Chestnut Street. (The latter would allow for connection slip ramps to be built to link the Connector mainline to the Thruway frontage system at Second Street.) The ECI and locals would prefer to keep Simcoe and Mudd open and continuous, and shift the north connection ramps to just north of Mudd Avenue.

Finally, there is the north section from the L&DRR to I-10, where the ECI has developed an ambitious and striking plan to convert the corridor into a “gateway” for travelers coming into Lafayette. The original plan under the 2003 ROD was for the Thruway to evolve into a parallel frontage road system, with slip ramps connecting the mainline with the frontage roads making up the Willow Street interchange for local access. The ECI’s proposal, however, would replace that with a large traffic circle interchange, where Willow Street, the frontage roads, and the freeway ramps would integrate with each other using the super “roundabout”. (The image at the top of the home page of this blog illustrates the ECI’s “North Gateway” proposal.) Smaller circles tying into the Willow Circle would be developed at the intersection where the frontage roads meet Martin Luther King Drive/Castille Avenue and the intersection of the frontage roads with Donlon Avenue/the access road to the Lafayette Northside Walmart Supercenter store (“Walmart Drive”). For its worth, the LADOTD has proposed its own counter design for the Willow interchange, based on their “dogbone roundabout” design. Analysis and a final decision on design will be part of the SEIS/CFP process.

Other processes that would have to be resolved and finalized under the new SEIS process are as follows: Updating the Section 106 Historical Resources analysis and issuing a revised Memorandum of Agreement for mitigation plans for Sterling Grove and Freetown-Port Rico; revised and updated geometry to reflect increases in traffic counts; updated traffic modeling to compute traffic data for existing conditions, 2040 design year conditions both with and without the Connector built, and determining the scope of traffic modeling for the Thruway section downtown whether it remains a coupled or is converted into a “grand boulevard”; and adding additional public feedback, including two new SEIS Public Meetings and the official Draft SEIS Public Hearing.

The original three committee CSS approach (Community Work Group, Technical Advisory, and Executive) for vetting and approving elements of the process would continue under this new agreement.

All in all, everything has been basically pushed forward to hopefully streamline and improve the process. Let’s see what happens.

How Little Lies Grow Big (Or…Nope, The Connector Is NOT Going To Poison Lafayette’s Drinking Water)

My last post pretty much detailed the latest attempt by opponents of the Connector freeway project to exploit legitimate concern over the former Southern Pacific rail yard and potential possible contamination of the Chicot Aquifer, which provides Lafayette’s drinking water.

Well…further investigation confirms my initial belief that this is more blown up hype than actual threat. I’m not saying that clean water isn’t important, just that the screams from Connector opponents using this as a wedge to divert the project away are not as justified as they think.

The trigger of all this was a presentation on April 3rd given by the main anti-Connector group Concerned Citizens for Good Government (CCGG). They were the official group that sponsored the lawsuit in 2003-2004 which attempted to void the Record of Decision (ROD) issued in Feburary of that year, citing deliberate distortion and underreporting of harms to the neighborhoods affected by the freeway project through Lafayette. That lawsuit was dismissed by District Judge Tucker Melancon in August of 2004; whence he ruled that the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had followed correctly all its guidelines and protocols in their approval processes concerning the Connector. The ruling was appealed to the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but was upheld.

The CCGG then went a bit dormant until last year, when the LADOTD, FHWA, and Lafayette Consolidated Government decided to revive the Connector design and engineering study process with their Conceptual Design/CSS Study and preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Reviving their opposition to the Connector project as destructive to the “heart of Lafayette”; the CCGG were backing as an alternative an eastern bypass through St. Martin Parish along the Teche-Coteau Ridge above, refered to as the Teche Ridge Bypass.

While the main opposition from the CCGG in the original lawsuit was due to the possible impacts on the Sterling Grove Historical District which lies just to the east of the Connector right-of-way; an increasing point of opposition has become the direct impact of the elevated freeway on the property formerly used by Southern Pacific Railroad up to the 1950’s for their major classification and maintenance rail yard. The Connector ROW would transverse through the former rail yard property, which stands between the current Evangeline Thruway and the existing main rail line now used by BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad.

Map of old Southern Pacific rail yard in Lafayette, circa 1940’s.
Google Earth overview of former SP Rail Yard property boundary over existing Lafayette, with location of nearby Lafayette Utility System water wells. (From CCGG slideshow presentation)
Proposed Concept 4-2 (Elevated with Grand Boulevard) for I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway; showing relationship to former SP rail yard between Johnston and Taft streets. (from LafayetteConnector.com)

The concern of a major project such as the Connector affecting the drinking water of a major city is most certainly legitimate, and I’m most certainly not going to cast aspersions on those who do fear the worst. However, as has been the case for much of the main opponents of this project, further research shows that this concern has been blown up so far out of proportion into a scare campaign long on propaganda and rage, and short on actual facts. That is, when they don’t twist them to suit their agenda.

Some background here: a new lawsuit is now undergoing litigation that seeks to force the original owners of the Southern Pacific rail yard property, now UPRR, to pay the full costs of cleaning up the contamination of the site; and also seeks to force the federal EPA, state Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ), and Lafayette Utility Services (LUS) to declare the site and all water wells drawing water from the vicinity to be declared hazardous areas to be cordoned off and removed. LUS is involved in this because the main legal counsel for the lawsuit, William Goodell, Jr., had a very public press conference last December where he revealed that some contamination had been found in some LUS water wells surrounding the rail yard site, including trace elements of benzene, arsenic, and other pollutants. It is only a mere coincidence that Goodell was surrounded at his presser by representatives of the Greater Lafayette Sierra Club and by “activist” Michael Waldon. It is also just coincidence that the Sierra Club has been the principal opponent to the Connector project, and that Waldon is passionately opposed to the project enough to have a whole blog dedicated to trashing…ahhh, I mean, opposing it.

[Update (4-21-17): Michael Waldon has posted a comment to this post clarifying that he is NOT a plaintiff in the Goddell lawsuit; the correction is noted here. Also, much gratitude to Mr. Waldon for his graciousness, even if we disagree on the fundamentals regarding the Connector project.)

Which brings us to that April 3rd CCGG meeting, where Goodell, Waldon, and other Connector opponents and eco-worriers expressed their shock and horror that such a project would threaten to poison the people of Lafayette.

As we shall see, though, it’s more hype than real.

Part of the meeting was a slideshow presentation by Mr. Waldon where he attempted to make the case as to why the Connector was a dire threat to Chicot Aquifer and the water supply of Lafayette. The full slideshow is available here (via Google Drive); the group has also posted a video of the full meeting on YouTube.

For the record, Mr. Waldon’s credentials for this debate rests on his experience as a former hydrologist for the US Fish & Wildlife Service and his degrees in Environmental Engineering; he also teached at the local university in Lafayette transitioning between USL (Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana) and UL(L) (Univ. of Louisiana (Lafayette)).

Waldon starts with a history of the SP rail yard; serving freight and passenger rail traffic between Houston and New Orleans from as far back as the 1880’s up until 1959, when SP built an updated classification yard west of Lafayette near Walker Road.  Strangely enough, he does not go into what happened with the property for the nearly 60 years after the rail yard was abandoned. In a previous post here, I filled in those blanks:

It should be noted, of course, that the SPRR railyard has been inoperationable since the 1950’s, and that the property has been very much inactive save for the Consolidated Companies (“Conco”) distribution warehouse located at the intersection of the southbound Evangeline Thruway and Taft Street. There were earlier lawsuits that sought to mitigate the cleanup of the site by having Union Pacific pay for the full costs, but they were settled privately out of court.

A full article with details of the etology of the Goodell lawsuit appears here.

The Conco distribution plant is the only remaining active parcel left on the rail yard property, save for a gas station located on Johnston Street between the BNSF/UP RR crossing and southbound Evangeline Thruway. The remainder of the property appears to be abandoned.

Waldon’s presentation then goes into a geological description of the Chicot Aquifer itself:

Description of Chicot Aquifer geology (from CCGG presentation)

If anything, this graph actually understates the protection that the current aquifer has underneath Lafayette, because the clay layer protecting the water-laden sand is actually pretty thick in itself (15 to 20 feet), below the 30-40 foot surface soil. Considering that pilings for the Connector’s elevated structures would be dug generally to a depth of 30 feet, that should insure that the clay protective layer would not even be touched, let alone penetrated to the extent that the aquifer would be breached. Detailed soil borings that are required during the design and preliminary engineering process now ongoing would verify a lot of things.

Indeed, even if it was possible that the aquifer could be even remotely breached, it’s not as if LADOTD engineers and consultants aren’t aware of the issue and don’t have procedures and protocols available. This is straight from the 2003 Record of Decision, concerning possible impact of the Connector on the Chicot Aquifer:

In addition to all that, a Level 2 Site Assessment is now ongoing explicitly for the former railyard site as part of the Supplemental EIS, and an understanding has been reached with LADOTD where any cleanup of that site will be paid for through billing the original owners…which would be UPRR. LADOTD would be responsible for any costs of cleanup involving excavation for the pilings and direct ROW impacts.

Nevertheless, this probably won’t prevent Waldon from pushing on with his real agenda of stopping the Connector, since he apparently knows more than even the LADEQ hydrologists about the harms done by evil elevated freeways.

Moving on…we skip to this board where MW lists the contaminants that have been verified and are suspected to be found in the soils of the rail yard.

List of known and suspected contaminants found at former SP railyard (from CCGG presentation)

Now, that list does include some very bad dudes indeed. Arsenic can kill you in one drop. Creosote, used as a preservative for rail ties, is very toxic. No one will say that a site loaded up with that much waste shouldn’t be cleaned up, especially with a major freeway going through it. If this was Times Beach-level contamination, the hype would be worth it.

Problem is, though, the actual evidence defuses the screams of a potential toxic nightmare.

Lafayette Utilities Systems (LUS) is the local agency that regulates the quality of Lafayette’s water supply, and they are stringently regulated by LADEQ and the EPA to enforce the highest quality water standards. To that effect they are required to give an annual report on the quality of Lafayette’s drinking water using benchmark standards provided by the EPA. The last report covers inspections from 2015, and it gave Lafayette a solid, clean, bill of health regarding their drinking water supply. Remember, this covers Lafayette’s overall water quality, not just the area surrounding the rail yard. This chart from the report shows the prerequisite stats and values for the usual contaminants:

Lafayette Utilities System’s Water Quality Report for 2015 chart for contaminants (via LUS website, highlights added by me)

I’ve highlighted the values for some contaminants for a reason: those happen to be the very contaminants that Waldon, Goddell, and the Sierra Club plantiffs exploit the most to fuel the hyped dangers of the Chicot Aquifer being breached and polluted by the Connector freeway.

Take for example, arsenic. Waldon attempts in his presentation to magnify the threat by claiming that even a little bit of arsenic can be deadly to anyone’s water supply. What he conveniently ignores, though, is that the percentage of contamination of arsenic in Lafayette’s water is actually one-fifth of the value that the EPA declares as the benchmark for dangerous (2 parts per billion for Lafayette as compared to the 10 ppb standard). Zero, of course, would be the preferred standard, but considering that Lafayette is a huge city and that the rail yard has been inactive for nearly 60 years, there really is no danger of mass arsenic poisoning.

The same could be said of dichlorobenzene (DCB) which is a proven contaminant. The CCGG presentation (backed by a Goodell presser in January) makes major noises about how DCB has been found in the presence of water wells in north Lafayette since 2008 up to the latest 2015 report, and how that most definitely indicts and convicts the rail yard as THE source of contamination.

CCGG Presentation of alleged documented contamination of water wells in Lafayette by dichlorobenzene (DCB).

A look at the actual LUS 2015 report chart, though, says otherwise: the maximum rate for DCB was 0.25 ppb, as compared to the contamination benchmark set by the EPA of 75 ppb.

So…60 years of dormancy for a former rail yard has produced levels of contamination of Lafayette’s drinking water that don’t even begin to approach rudimentary levels of danger by EPA’s own standards?

Funny thing is, why wasn’t there that much concern about the railyard and its environmental after effects from these folks before the Connector freeway was envisioned? Oh, I know, the original plan was for the freeway to follow the Evangeline Thruway and avoid cutting through the rail yard site, but that would have devastated residents fronting the Thruway and McComb-Veazay. Is this newly found concern about the purity of Lafayette’s drinking water really just a ruse to find a new base for the next set of lawsuits forthcoming to halt the Connector and impose the more friendly to some people’s interest Teche Ridge Bypass?

My latter suspicion is confirmed by what Waldon does next in his presentation. He does actually acknowledge that the current Connector SEIS process now includes the Stage 2 Environmental Site Assessment for the rail yard that he originally said LADOTD would never, ever do; but then he muses that none of this is available to the public. (This is a standard grip that Waldon and the Teche Ridge lobbyists have for the Connector process overall.) Indeed, Waldon, in concluding his presentation, makes the same old tired accusations that the Connector public input process is corrupted because no one from his side was allowed to add feedback.

CCGG presentation board of alleged “deficiencies” of Lafayette Connector Stage 2 ESA and entire CSS process.

Of course, “no public involvement” means that Waldon and his Teche Ridge lobbyists weren’t able to dominate the Connector CSS meetings with hordes of “citizens” jumping to the mic to condemn this “evil monstrosity” and impose their “common sense” bypass route. Even though Waldon was able to literally cut and paste his entire blog into the record for the November public meeting before the Tier II process concluded. Even though Connector opponents were able to invade the Community Work Group and made an effort to impose their desired solution of Teche Ridge plus a “high speed boulevard” before they were found out and called out by Transportation Secretary Shawn Wilson. But no, the “public is being denied!!”

The best response to hyperbole is still to give out the facts and let reasonable people judge them by their merits. The process will tell the tale of whether the I-49 Lafayette Connector will be a net positive for the city or not…but in the meantime, beware of fearmongers selling nonsense in the name of “protection”. The only thing they are really protecting is their privilege.

The Connector And The Chicot Aquifer: A Threat Or A Ruse?

Now that it is more likely that the I-49 Connector freeway through Lafayette, if it is ultimately built, will be elevated through Lafayette, the battle lines are now more being more clearly drawn….especially by those who oppose the project and would rather it diverted east through the Teche Ridge Bypass.

It is becoming more and more apparent that the issue in which Connector opponents will hitch their battle on for defeating the project will be the possible impact on Lafayette’s Chicot Aquifer, which serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city.

After almost a year of inactivity, Michael Waldon’s Connector Comments blog in opposition to the project has revived itself in a fury of posts centered on the dire threat that the freeway project would pose to the drinking water supply of Lafayette.

The trigger for all this is a lawsuit currently ongoing in Federal court against the Union Pacific Railroad over their ownership of property in central Lafayette that used to serve for years by Southern Pacific Railroad as their main classification and distribution yard. The former site, which was abandoned in 1954 when the current rail classification yard was built west of Lafayette, used to house both maintenance facilities and reclassification for SP trains using the Lafayette Subdivision.

The lawsuit ostensively seeks to force the current owners of the property underlying the former rail yard, UPRR, to pay for a full environmental assessment and cleanup of the facility.

However, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit also have a second, more direct objective: to reveal the levels of contamination that the rail yard has caused, as a means to elevate concerns that construction of the Connector freeway would potentially threaten mass contamination of Lafayette’s water supply.

The prevailing theory is that pilings that would have to be dug to support an elevated freeway would threaten the protective layer of clay soils that overlay the aquifer, and possibly cause a breach that would allow hazardous materials into the water-bearing soils. In addition, there is the concern that driving pilings directly into the soils at the rail yard site would introduce a direct risk to the aquifer’s protection.

The Chicot Aquifer’s protective clay layer generally runs from 40 to 60 feet above the actual aquifer soils along the Connector’s stated route; the pilings that would be dropped to support the elevated structure would generally need 30 feet of depth. During the earlier Connector Environmental Impact study which led to the 2003 Record of Decision, it was noted that while there would be some potential weakening of protection for the aquifer, it could be managed through special design and construction techniques and outreach with state Department of Environmental Quality and local officials.

This latest lawsuit, however, has upped the ante a bit by citing that Lafayette’s water supply has recently been found to be breached with some marginal contamination from the railyard, including traces of arsenic, benzene, and other potential hazardous chemicals. The contamination was found to be below the levels of contamination set by the federal EPA, and mitigatable through treatment; nevertheless, the Lafayette Sierra Club (one of the plantiffs in the UPRR railyard suit) was inflamed enough to issue an open letter (warning, link is to PDF document via Google Drive) to Lafayette Consolidated Government officials calling for the following:

1) The shut off of all water wells drawing water from the Chicot Aquifer near the railyard site, pending a full assessment of the contamination;

2) The immediate closure and screening off of the railyard site as an official hazardous waste (“Superfund”) site;

3) A full assessment and cleanup of the site, paid for by the UPRR (in their capacity as the current owners of the SPRR).

Not surprisingly, since the Sierra Club is essentially the lead group for opponents to the Connector project, and Michael Waldon has also been one of their chief spokespeople as well as a long-time opponent of the project, he has exploited this issue to the fullest in brandishing the opposition. (In fact, the Connector Concepts blog notes that Waldon has been involved with the original plaintiffs in this lawsuit from the beginning; which include environmental attorney William Goddell, Jr. and original 2004 Connector lawsuit plaintiff Kim Goddell (William’s wife??); all of them spoke to a public anti-Connector meeting on January 19th sponsored by the Sierra Club’s Y-49 group.)

(Update 4-21-17: The previous paragraph has been corrected to reflect Michael Waldon’s role in support of the plaintiffs in the Goddell lawsuit; he is not, as I mistakenly noted originally, an actual plaintiff. My thanks to Mr. Waldon for noting the discrepancy of mine, and for his graciousness and congeniality, even as we are on opposite sides of this issue.)

Why this sudden shift in strategy by Connector opponents? Because the contamination issue is really the only issue that could potentially stop the Connector in its tracks. The last lawsuit in 2004 against the Connector ROD was based on the impacts to the Sterling Grove Historical District and the process not including any alternatives like the Teche Ridge Bypass; but that suit was totally rejected by US District Judge Tucker Melancon; and upheld on appeal.

It should be noted, of course, that the SPRR railyard has been inoperationable since the 1950’s, and that the property has been very much inactive save for the Consolidated Companies (“Conco”) distribution warehouse located at the intersection of the southbound Evangeline Thruway and Taft Street. There were earlier lawsuits that sought to mitigate the cleanup of the site by having Union Pacific pay for the full costs, but they were settled privately out of court.

In the meantime, the current consultants overseeing the current Conceptual Design Study and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) process for determining the final design for the Connector project are also reassessing what degree of impact the railyard site would have. Some advocates of the now rejected Partially Depressed/Covered design option have advocated that LADOTD, in addition to any direct mitigation for any ROW used over the rail site, should also foot the costs for a full Stage 2 Environmental Assessment for the site and perhaps even pay the full cost for remediation and cleanup. LADOTD’s stated policy is only to pay for remediation costs directly related to ROW takings such as pile driving or excavation.

In addition, the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team (ETRT), endowed by the LCG with developing means to mitigate the footprint of the Connector on the surrounding neighborhood, has suggested the same approach, with an eye on future development of the former site property.

In response, LADOTD (through Transportation Secretary Shawn Wilson, who is on the Executive Committee overseeing the project design) has said that while DOTD would not pay for a full remediation, LCG would not have to either, since standard protocol is to bill the property owners responsible for the contamination to begin with (i.e., UPRR).

The environmental reevaluation and SEIS process for the Connector project does include an updated assessment of the railyard site and other potential hazardous properties. A Stage 1 Assessment was already done for the entire Connector corridor last year, which did mark the rail yard for future investigation. Further analysis will be undertaken with the SEIS process; although Waldon naturally still is miffed that he had to undergo a Freedom of Information Act request to release the current information; and that the assessment in his view deliberately undersold the risk by not including the information from the Goddell lawsuit regarding contamination of the water wells.

All in all, the concern with the Chicot Aquifer and the Southern Pacific Railroad site is legitimate enough that those of us who support the Connector freeway project should demand LADOTD take the full measure to maximize protection for the drinking supply of Lafayette. Whether all the fuss thrown up by the Goddell lawsuit and Y-49 turns out to be real or just another amplified ruse to divert I-49 through Teche Ridge? That remains to be seen.

BREAKING: LADOTD Rejects LCG Final Push; Eliminates Depressed Options; Only Elevated Option Advances For Remaining Studies

And, as quickly the revolt rose, it was quashed.

The LADOTD’s I-49 Connector CSS Executive Committee just concluded their meeting; and they finalized their decision on which concept design for the Connector freeway would advance into the Tier III analysis and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) study. Only the Series 4 Elevated options will now advance forward, and the Series 6 Semi-Depressed/Covered options have been officially eliminated.

This reflected the most recent comments by Transportation Secretary Shawn Wilson that the entire Conceptual Design/CSS/SEIS process had gotten too bogged down, and that it would be easier to proceed if one concept was agreed to. It also reflected LADOTD’s historical bias towards the Elevated option as the least expensive and most direct alternative for the Connector freeway.

However, local officials with Lafayette Consolidated Government, in particular the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team (ETRT), had been pushing for more time to develop and analyze the Series 6 SD/C option as an alternative to Series 4. There was also concerns that many of the desired amenities that the local communities wanted to mitigate the footprint of an elevated Connector — such as a “signature bridge” landmark, an expanded greenspacing of the corridor, provisions for pedestrian walkways and bikeways, and greater connectivity between the neighborhoods that would be affected by the project — would not be funded by the state but passed on to LCG, risking the prospect of a cookie-cutter freeway traversing the heart of Lafayette.

Apparently, those concerns were overturned by the need to quickly finish the study in time to fight for limited funding.

My feelings on this are mixed here.

I’ve been all along a strong supporter of the Connector freeway as it stands, and it is apparent that the Elevated option is the most cost-effective and least disruptive alternative. I still would prefer this to any bypass of Lafayette (like the Teche Ridge Bypass further east).

However, LADOTD needs to be made aware that the implication of jamming a bare-bones elevated highway through Lafayette was how all the previous Connector efforts failed in a hail of public opposition. The ETRT’s Evangeline Corridor Initiative and the efforts of the local governmental groups were legitimate means of attempting to ease the impact of the project’s massive footprint; and their efforts were essentially summarily dismissed by LADOTD in a classic turf battle.

It remains to be seen if the final design concepts the consultants approve will include full funding and implementation of the ETRT’s design concepts. The implication of LADOTD “not caring” about the concerns of Lafayette, however, just got a major boost in justification…and that can’t be good. Especially if many jaded activists defect over to the Sierra Club/Teche Ridge Bypass lobby to fight against the project in its entirity.

The path to completing the Connector freeway just got that much more turbulent.

 

 

Connector Update: Community Work Group Revolts Against LADOTD; Calls For Additional Study Of Depressed/Covered Alternative

(Updated….scroll to bottom.)

Last night (Wednesday), the first of three meetings of the I-49 Lafayette Connector CSS committees took place. Originally, the idea for the Community Work Group’s meeting was to finalize the alternatives that would go into the final Tier III analysis for selecting the preferred alternatives that would go into the preliminary engineering and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) process.

That’s not the way it quite turned out, however.

What was supposed to be a summary of the Tier II process broken up into sub groups was transformed into a impromptu session where the entire CWG committee took control of the meeting from the Stantec consultants and rehashed some concerns they had over the process and the future of the Connector freeway design and construction timetable.

Essentially, the CWG, mostly made up of representatives from Lafayette Consolidated Government (LCG) and some community leaders, took major exception to LADOTD and the Lafayette Connector Partners (the consulting group paid by LADOTD to shepherd the Conceptual Design and SEIS processes) for what they said were unanswered concerns about the designs that were being pushed to Tier III.

The main objection they had was to the recent decision by LADOTD Secretary Shawn Wilson to only allow one concept design out of the two studied (the Series 4 Elevated and the Series 6 Partially Depressed/Covered) to be retained for the Tier III and SEIS processes. The fear was that the Elevated design that was favored by Wilson and the LADOTD would not include amenities sought after by LCG to mitigate and soften the huge impact the Connector would have on the footprint of the city. Also, they were convinced that the Depressed/Covered design of Series 6 had not been given a fair vetting; in particular, the design approach that was put forth by the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team (ETRT) through its Evangeline Corridor Initiative (ECI) Charette Meeting process. The design for the “Cut-and-Cover” alternative proposed by LADOTD was fundamentally different from what the ECI had proposed in its Charette process.

The other major concern was that of cost-sharing for the amenities sought by LCG and the ETRT. LADOTD to date has been a bit distant about negotiating the terms of what they would be willing to pay for regarding construction. That has jolted LCG because many of the desired additions that they want for mitigating the Connector’s impact — including a “signature bridge”, provisions for bicycle and pedestrian paths, additional space for community development, and clean up of the “brownfield” site of the former Southern Pacific Railroad rail yard site from possible toxic waste contamination — would not be paid for out of Federal/State construction funds, but out of local funds that might be out of their reach.

This email letter from LCG Planning Director Carlee Alm-LaBar to LADOTD Connector Project Chief Engineer Tim Nickel (released by the Lafayette Independent) is an encapsulation of all the concerns of the locals to what they perceive as LADOTD rushing the process to push the Elevated option ahead of any true vetting of all the analysis. Ms. Alm-LaBar is also a member of the Connector Executive Committee, as well as on the ETRT. (Reposted by me via Scribd.com; scroll to bottom for Fair Use notice.)

The meeting process continued today (Thursday) with the Technical Advisory Committee having met this morning. Tomorrow evening, the Executive Committee is scheduled to meet, whereupon it is expected that they will make their final decision on which design concepts would move on to Tier III and the SEIS. The CWG did vote by majority to recommend both Series 4 and Series 6 be advanced, in defiance to the prevailing notion by Wilson that only Series 4 would be pushed due to time and expense.

As always, I will update this as events warrant.

[Fair Use Notice: The email by Carlee Alm-LeBar was originally linked in the article posted at the Lafayette Independent. Since it is already linked as a public document, I am invoking the Fair Use-Public Domain protocol in reposting the email as a public document. If there is any objection from either the Independent or Ms. Lebar or any official of LCG, I will retract the document and link only to the article.]

 

UPDATE (3-31-2017):

Well, it looks like the CWG revolt may actually yield some results.

Today, the Lafayette Advertiser quoted LCG Mayor-President Joel Robideaux saying that there was a chance that the Connector Executive Committee, which is scheduled to meet later this afternoon, could delay the decision to reduce down the choice of design concepts down to one (the implication being that only the Elevated option would be retained for the Tier III and SEIS processes). This would possibly allow the Depressed/Covered option more time for vetting and analysis, or even get it included into the advanced studies prior to a final decision on which concept alternatives would be selected as the preferred alternatives.

Updates as they occur, of course.

A Long Overdue Connector Update: Tier II Studies Winding Down; Elevated Option Apparently Chosen By LADOTD/FHWA; LCG/ETWT Protests; Opposition Seethes And Preps For War

My apologies to you all for it being so long for an update to this blog; but life happens, as it is. (Until it isn’t.)

Things are beginning to happen right now with the I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway project that will have major ramifications down the road for the Conceptual Study and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) processes now ongoing. Here’s what has happened since we last met.

On Friday, March 10th, the Executive Committee for the consultant group Lafayette Connector Partners, who has been contracted by LADOTD and FHWA to oversee the Conceptual Design and SEIS processes, held an impromptu meeting after nearly two months of inaction. The stated purpose was to provide an update on the process ongoing; but it ultimately created some degree of fireworks for some changes in the process that were made.

For those not quite in the know: the Connector Conceptual Design Study process utilizes a three committee approach for analysis and decision making. The Community Work Group (CWG) is responsible for hashing out ideas for specific design features for the freeway project; the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provides technical support through detailed studies; and the Executive Committee (EC) makes final decisions based on the input and analysis of the other two groups. The EC includes the major leads for all the governmental entities involved in the project, including Transportation Secretary Shawn Wilson (who also just so happens to be a Lafayette native, a graduate of what was then USL (now ULL) who worked engineering on the Connector project during the initial stages); LADOTD Lead Engineer Tim Nickel; and Lafayette City-Parish President Joel Robideaux.

In addition, because of the fact that the Record of Decision approving the current Connector alignment is over 10 years old, a reevaluation of the approved Selected Alignment had to be done to update potential impacts to the community. In response to feedback from the locals who didn’t like what the 2003 ROD Selected Alternative offered them, the process was altered to allow for some major design alterations and modifications; and to offer new design alternatives. Hence, a Supplemental EIS was also called upon to reflect and analyze the modifications to the 2003 Selected Alternative, and to select a modified design alternative to proceed further.

At this point, the studies are nearing the conclusion of the Tier II analysis for both the design alternative concepts and the specific design modifications originally developed and analyzed during the Tier I process.

Thus far, the main focus has been on vetting and analyzing the proposed concepts for the core segment of the Connector freeway between Pinhook Road and the crossing of the Louisiana & Delta Railroad Breaux Bridge spur, that would pass through the heart of Lafayette along the Evangeline Thruway. What started out as 19 Conceptual Design Alternatives utilizing five concepts at the start of Tier I has now been reduced to 4 conceptual alternatives utilizing two “series” of design concepts. Two alternatives reflect the “Series 4” concept of an continuously elevated mainline freeway; while the other two reflect the “Series 6” concept of a freeway mainline partially depressed 10 feet with cross streets passing over the freeway on embankment.

Original Selected Alternative from 2003 EIS/ROD, used as a control for the other alternatives in this CDS/SEIS process.
Concept 4.1: Elevated Option with the Evangeline Thruway generally remaining in its present one-way couplet; indirect connections via ramp pairs to the Thruway.
Concept 4-2: Elevated Option, but with Evangeline Thruway repurposed as a “Grand Boulevard” using current southbound ROW. (Northbound Thruway reverts to local street within grid.)
Concept 6-1: Semi-Depressed Mainline with major crossing streets passing over freeway; Johnston Street overpass of freeway and BNSF/UP railroad mainline.
Concept 6-2: Semi-Depressed Mainline, but with the freeway covered through a “cut-and-cover tunnel” design allowing cross streets to pass over the tunneled mainline via embankment.

The Concept 6 series was developed mostly in response to the stated criticism from the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team (ETRT). This group was created by Lafayette Consolidated Government to develop and implement means to reduce and mitigate the footprint impact of the Connector freeway on the neighborhoods it would pass through and near. The ETRT, empowered by a federal Department of Transportation TIGER Grant, undertook detailed analysis and public feedback from locals on how to best integrate the Connector into the community, while retaining interneighborhood connectivity and better access for alternative transportation means than just vehicles (as in bicycling and walking). Based on their studies, they came up with two alternative concepts of their own for the Connector; utilizing the same “series” concept as the CDS Tier II alternatives.

ETRT/Evangeline Corridor Initiative conceptual design for Elevated Mainline freeway; note the special design for the Willow Street interchange which would allow for an Arc de Triumph-inspired circle plaza in the middle of the ROW as a gateway for Lafayette.
A closer view of the ETRT/ECI Elevated Mainline crossing through Downtown/Freetown-Port Rico/McComb-Veazey. This includes the Evangeline Thruway converted into an “grand boulevard” on its southbound ROW.

 

ETRT/ECI conceptual design for Semi-Depressed and Covered Mainline, with the Evangeline Thruway mainline shifted to directly over and/or flanking the capped freeway, as compared to the Concept 6-2 alternative from LADOTD/LCP.
A closer view of the ETRT/ECI SD/C Mainline alternative passing through Downtown/Freetown-Port Rico/McCovey-Veazey.

In addition to proposing design changes, the ETRT was also empowered by the Lafayette Consolidated Council to negotiate with the LADOTD and FHWA the terms of how the refinements in streetscaping and walkability/bikeability would be funded as part of constructing the Connector. FHWA and LADOTD policy allows for them to fund the bulk of the construction of amenities for mitigating impacts of the project; but many of the neighborhood amenities sought for by ETRT would probably have to be funded locally since that would be outside the immediate ROW impact.

That process has rubbed some nerves raw locally, since there is the fear that due to revenue pressures, LADOTD would attempt to push as much of the costs other than basic construction of the freeway onto LCG, but without considering all of the amenities that ETRT and LCG say they need to mitigate the impact of the project. In addition, there’s the perception going forth that the ETRT has been stonewalled at every turn by the Connector consultants, because the latter don’t consider their proposals to be legitimate and because the process has been slowed to nearly a crawl due to meeting their concerns. This has revived on its own local concerns that LADOTD is deliberately stoning ETRT in order to impose their desired Elevated Option without giving the ECI Covered Option a fair vetting.

As previously mentioned here, those frayed nerves have gone public previously, like in the last CWG meeting in December, when project chief engineer Tim Nickel got so frustrated with the questions that was thrown at him by local reps that he abruptly concluded the meeting. The ETRT responded with an official letter stating their concerns about how the process was being run; that led to the LCP and DOTD posting a detailed rebuttal response at their official Connector website (reposted below, via Scribd.com).

The ETRT responded that the LADOTD response wasn’t quite adequate enough; so they plan on airing their grievances directly to the Lafayette Consolidated Council, which does have the power under the process to approve or reject any design changes or call for negotiating all terms of joint use agreements.

This brings us to the last Executive Committee meeting of March 10th, where some changes in the process of developing and approving the ultimate design of the Connector were announced.

The original intent was to have at least 2 design concepts make it to the final Tier III analysis series by now, with a final alternative encompassing the entire Connector corridor selected and approved by July for the more detailed SEIS process. The assumption was that one Elevated and one Semi-Depressed alternative would be passed on to Tier III; although before this month LADOTD was being quite coy and indirect over whether they would allow the Semi-Depressed alternative through.

With this meeting, though, it seems like the coyness is now disappearing; Secretary Wilson announced there that only one concept series would now be advanced into the Tier III studies, citing the need to complete the now severely backlogged studies in time to produce the Draft SEIS by the end of this summer. The public meeting and CSS committee meetings that had been originally scheduled to introduce the “hybrid proposals” was also put off until at least April; only after which “a consensus” would be reached by the Executive Committee on which design concept would go forward. It was also announced that the LCG would not be allowed any official input until the final conceptual alternative was given by LADOTD and the CSS committees. The full handout of the presentation given at the March 10th meeting is posted below, along with a screenshot of the newly revised process schedule.

 

To further make the point across, the LCP added this Alternative Matrix where they give the official Tier II analysis of the four Conceptual Alternatives (along with the original Concept 1A consisting of the 2003 EIS/ROD Alternative). Green is very good, red is very bad.

Matrix of Tier II Technical Analysis for the conceptual alternatives for the Connector freeway.

So…it’s very likely that Concepts 4-1 and 4-2 will be the finalists for the ultimate design of the Connector freeway through downtown Lafayette, and the Depressed/Semi-Depressed options will go into history as great ideas that ultimately fell short because they were too expensive and disruptive.

The next steps will also probably be starting negotiations for the inclusion of various design amenities sought for by the ETRT and LCG, such as a “signature bridge” design for downtown, adding pedestrian and bikeway and streetscaping to beautify the corridor, fighting for the North Gateway including the circle design interchange at Willow Street, and resolving the issue of the potential contamination at the old Southern Pacific rail yard property.

And all this before residents of the Sterling Grove Historical District and the Greater Lafayette Sierra Club marshal their forces for the inevitable lawsuit to stop the project in its entirity and divert it through their preferred Teche Ridge Bypass east of Lafayette through St. Martin Parish or the Lafayette Regional Expressway proposed toll loop around western and southern Lafayette Parish.

Another major development is that the proponents of the Connector freeway are beginning to develop a public relations front to counter what’s sure to be heated and fiery opposition from the Sierra Club/”Y-49″/Teche Ridge contingent.

The “Connect Lafayette Coalition” has recently created a social media campaign via their official website (http://www.connectlafayette.com) and via Twitter and Facebook, to promote the positives of the Connector and rebuke the arguments of the Teche Ridge lobby. On January 22nd, the group held their first public press conference, which featured a passionate speech by LADOTD Secretary Wilson where he highlighted his own personal history of developing the project. The video of his speech is below.

 

How LADOTD Arrogance And Ramrodding The Elevated Option Could Kill The Connector Freeway Project

I just recently read this morning’s article from the Lafayette Advertiser by Claire Taylor over the ruckus that took place yesterday at the latest I-49 Connector Community Work Group meeting…and it has me fuming.

It is getting more and more obvious that the LADOTD, through their consultant group Lafayette Connector Partners, is insistent on ramming a bare bones Elevated Option freeway down the collective throats of Lafayette citizens, with little if any concern or respect for those citizens who would be affected, or those who actually want to make the Connector freeway work the best for Lafayette.

Ms. Taylor’s article documents the tense and often heated arguments that took place between LADOTD Project Manager Tim Nickel and some members of the CWG, concerning questions they had about the Tier II analysis of the four alternatives put forth.  In the end, Nickel ignored their questions, finished the presentation over their heads, and abruptly dismissed the meeting, leaving many members in shock.

More from Ms. Taylor’s article:

When Interstate 49 [C]onnector committee members asked questions and voiced concerns Thursday about the planning  process and level of public input, the state highway department’s project manager ignored their questions and adjourned the meeting.

Tim Nickel with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development appeared to become frustrated with questions by members of the I-49 Lafayette community working group. As committee members asked questions near the end of a two-hour meeting, Nickel returned to a PowerPoint presentation, speaking over over their questions, then abruptly adjourned the meeting.

“We’re citizens who were invited to attend and participate, and DOTD shut us down with questions still to be asked,” CWG committee member John Arceneaux said afterwards.

Margaret Trahan, executive director of United Way of Acadiana and a CWG member, added, “Tonight’s meeting was very frustrating. I’m not leaving with a clear understanding of why I’m here.”

The main frustration that the CWG members had was with the analysis of the Concept 6 series of alternatives, in particular the Concept 6-2 “Cut-and-Cover” alternative that called for a full 1-1/2 mile covered tunnel with jet engine ventilation. That alternative was vetted to be the most expensive for the downtown section between Pinhook Road and the Louisiana & Delta Railroad spur crossing, at more than $800 million dollars. By contrast, the Series 4 Elevated Options, which call for an continuously elevated freeway throughout the corridor, was vetted to cost less than $430-450 million dollars….but that did not include any consideration of a “signature bridge” or alterations for neighborhood connectivity or pedestrian/bicycle accessability.

The meeting also exposed the conflict between the LCP team authorized by LADOTD to design the project and the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team (ETRT), the group empowered by Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government to develop means to incorporate the Connector project with all the neighborhoods affected. The ETRT, through their Evangeline Corridor Initiative, had created their own separate design concepts for meeting that need; one each for the two concept design series that had advanced to the Tier II study analysis process. As a result, the ETRT had developed their own Cut-and-Cover proposal that ended up radically different than the Concept 6-2 “Cut-and-Cover” tunnel that was ultimately proposed by LCP/DOTD.

The main frustration from the CWG members was about why LCP didn’t allow for consideration in their cost analysis of the conceptual alternatives for additional funding for the “signature bridge” and other CSS design/connectivity components; and also why ETRT’s partial Cut-and-Cover proposal wasn’t given a better vetting or a chance to be altered.

Nickel’s response was that the LCP and consultant team couldn’t give an answer at that point because the process was still ongoing; and that the decisions would be done in January when final “hybrid” alternatives for the entire corridor would be created for Tier III and Supplemental EIS analysis and final selection.

In an earlier article for the Advertiser, Ms. Taylor summarized the situation nicely:

The tunnel version proposed by ETRT after meeting with residents near the interstate route wasn’t intended to be a 1.5-mile long tunnel, Blanchard said, but a partial cut and cover to reduce noise and provide connectivity. Instead of a cost estimate for a partial cut and cover, consultants provide a price for a 1.5-mile long tunnel with a large embankment and jet engine turbine. It includes all the bells and whistles, he said.

The elevated version is a bare-bones model that doesn’t include the cost of a signature bridge, pedestrian and bike lanes, or improvements along Evangeline Thruway such as a grand boulevard. Blanchard said it was a surprise to the ETRT Nov. 30 when Tim Nickel, project manager with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, said he couldn’t commit to paying for bike and pedestrian paths even if they are inside the project right of way.

The group asked for a more limited cost estimate for the partial cut and cover design that would include less tunnel and less embankment than a large tunnel.

“The concern is the 4 series cost estimates, because they don’t include the cost of components such as the signature bridge, are artificially low, while the costs of 6.2, because they may include all the ‘bells and whistles,’ are artificially high,” Blanchard wrote.

The ETRT, Blanchard said, also raised many questions about the signature bridge, which has substantial community support but was not included in the four designs the consulting team advanced in the planning process.

Nickel also, as did his predecessor Toby Picard, dismissed a bit causticly the ETRT’s role in analysis of the conceptual alternatives, stating that they weren’t “an equal partner” in the consideration for a final Connector freeway alternative. Never mind that the ETRT is fully empowered by the original Joint Collective Agreement signed by LADOTD, FHWA, and LCG to provide direct feedback on the project’s impacts on the abutting neighborhoods.

When ETRT member Kevin Blanchard asked Nickel if he would commit to saying that the Series 6 alternatives — especially the Cut-and-Cover alternative — would be allowed to be altered by ETRT or would be eliminated in favor of the Elevated Series 4 concepts, Nickel was noncommited, saying that that decision would be reached by then.

CWG members also expressed frustration with the limited public feedback allowed at their meetings; public comment was limited to only notes on cards, with no time given for verbal discussion. In addition, the membership of the CWG has significantly dwindled down from its initial 60 members down to around 11, and most feedback from the Open House Meeting was limited to comments from other committee members or submitted from attendees at that meeting.

The only compromise that Nickel would give to the ETRT was to allow their objections to be put in the public record at the meeting; but there was no commitment by him to even discuss any of their concerns.

And, it’s not the first time that the LCP has been frosty to the ETRT; when the ECI originally introduced their alternate concepts for the freeway back in August, then Project Manager Toby Picard dismissed them as irrelevant to the process. After an uproar by Lafayette Parish Govermment Councilman Bruce Conque, Picard backed off and reluctantly allowed the ETRT/ECI alternatives into consideration.

But, it appears that LADOTD is still under the impression that only the cheapest, bare bones Connector project will be able to get funding in these austere fiscal days, and that they are driven to push the Elevated option down the throats of Lafayette without any consideration for what may be better.

This is playing with fire, because if LADOTD can’t handle the friendly criticism and analysis of those who do want the Connector built but done right for the citizens of Lafayette, then how will they react when the community revolts in opposition and joins the Teche Ridge Bypass lobby with their ultimate lawsuits and obstruction? The resulting delays could potentially kill not just the best chance to build I-49 through Lafayette, but possibly kill the entire I-49 South extension to New Orleans.

DOTD really needs to take heed and listen to the people for a change before they lose everything.