Category: Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team

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.

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.

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.

 

Why I-49 Connector Should Go Beyond “More Than Standard”: An Open Letter Response To Shawn Wilson

Dear Secretary Wilson:

I am someone who has followed intimately the progress of the I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway project since its inception; and I understand all of the controversy and battles that have ensued in the development of this project. Therefore, I can totally understand the frustration you must be feeling over the criticism that your agency and the consultants that you paid to direct the Conceptual Design/CSS/Supplemental EIS processes for this vital and important freeway project for Lafayette.

Nevertheless, I must take some bit of exception to your latest article that was posted at the Lafayette Connector website (and cross-posted to the Lafayette Advertiser), where you defend the current process against criticism from both Lafayette Consolidated Government officials and some in the public who question the depth of the current process.

I will use the text of your article as a foundation for my friendly rebuttal.

I will note from the beginning that I am and have been a strong and unswerving supporter of the Connector project alignment as approved through Lafayette, and am not a supporter of using any bypass alternative around the city, such as the Teche Ridge Bypass. In my view the Connector alignment is the most cost-efficient, most effective, and most balanced alignment for getting I-49 through Lafayette and completing the ultimate extension to New Orleans.

Nevertheless, even as a supporter of the current alignment, I find myself agreeing with the friendly yet critical editorial posted by the Advertiser that prompted your reply. There are several issues that I have with the current process and the implication that LADOTD and Lafayette Connector Partners are ignoring and dismissing the legitimate efforts of local groups and LCG agencies to improve upon the approved design concepts.

Here’s how your editorial rebuttal to the Advertiser began (The link to the original Advertiser editorial has been added by me; since it was added to the paper’s repost of your followup):

I was disappointed after reading an Editorial published by The Advertiser on Dec. 22, 2016, as the hard work of citizens and DOTD was dismissed by a failure to present facts and instead peddled misrepresentations.

It suggested “…a lack of interest from state officials about what local people have to say…”

FACT: We’ve held 30 Stakeholder Interviews, 29 Community, Technical, and Executive Meetings, 5 Public Meetings, and 24 structured interactions with various groups.  As of today, 1,164 Public Comments are recorded with 6,360 recorded participant responses from the Vision and Values Workshop.

We’ve responded in earnest to the community’s feedback, altering schedules, designs and concepts to better reflect the desires and concerns shared with us. Questions regarding how community input is being used strike me as odd; the design concepts now under consideration are based on community feedback. These are Lafayette’s ideas, not DOTD’s.

This came at a cost, in both time and money, and was a necessary step to advance the project.  If we were not interested, would we have undertaken such an effort just to reject all ideas?  Absolutely not.

The “misrepresentations” you decry, Secretary Wilson, are actually legitimate concerns by Lafayette citizens and Lafayette Consolidated Government agencies that have been given less than an open chance to offer their alternatives to the design alternatives that have emerged from the Tier II analysis. The four proposed Concept Alternatives that your consultants produced do represent a response to feedback and critique from local officials…but, some can legitimately question whether these alternatives really address the objections and issues raised.

The biggest issue, in my view, is the dismissive attitude that the LCP consultants seem to have towards the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team, the agency that was endowed by LCG with the goals of incorporating the Connector freeway within its environment and the neighborhoods that would be directly impacted by its footprint. Through the Evangeline Corridor Initiative program that was funded in large part through a US Department of Transportation TIGER grant, they have come up with their own proposals for designing the Connector to fully integrate with the central core of Lafayette. The ECI has the full endorsement and support of the LCG, and is fully empowered through the original Joint Cooperative Agreement that was endorsed by all agencies (DOTD, FHWA, and LCG) involved in the design of the project as part of the conditions of the 2003 Record of Decision approving this project.

And yet, in countless venues, the ECI’s proposals for improving and mitigating the footprint of the Connector freeway have been treated with at best a flippant “We’ll think about it” attitude, and at worst totally dismissed as irrelevant to the process.

The recent statement by new LADOTD Project Director Tim Nickel that the ETRT was not considered an “equal partner” in the Conceptual Design process, in spite of it being empowered by LCG, who is very much an equal partner, is testimony to the prevailing attitude of the consultants. It’s as if they are so offended that people like Kevin Blanchard, Robert Guercio, and the other members of the ETRT would dare to “invade their turf” in order to impose their idea on engineers…even if those ideas would have legitimate merit.

And, the alternatives for the central core produced by the consultants do indeed raise issues of how seriously LADOTD and LCP really do take legitimate friendly criticism.

It also suggested DOTD has already made up its mind about what I-49 will look like.

FACT:  Since inserting significant time in the process, in response to the community’s request, significant changes have occurred that will change the outcome.  The original plan now has 19 core area concepts with 25 potential design modifications being investigated for inclusion, many of which work well, add great value, and ALL of which have come from the public in this process. Some changes include eliminating interchanges and ramps, removing embankments, elevating structures, incorporating additional bike/pedestrian friendly elements, and enhanced protection of historic areas.

Based on the public response and technical evaluations, we narrowed the list of possible concepts down to two viable series: one based on an elevated structure and another based on a depressed/semi-depressed structure (proposed by a local advisory group).

As Secretary of DOTD, I assure you, we have not made decisions beyond what was originally approved in the original Record of Decision.  We are trusting the process to determine which of those decisions will change and what they will become. However, no one should perceive that their participation guarantees their preferred outcome.

You are correct, Secretary Wilson, in saying that no decision has been officially made on what final design for the central core section of the Connector will be implemented. However, how else can we conclude that the evidence is a bit loaded towards a bare-bones Elevated option with the way that the alternatives that have been proposed are presented?

The Concept 4 alternatives, which are two variations of the Elevated option of a mainline Connector freeway on structure, use initial cost estimates that do NOT include any consideration of any of the following: (1) building a “signature bridge” design that has strong support locally; (2) raising the height of the elevated Connector mainline further than the standard 22 feet to 30 feet, if not the desired maximum of 40 feet; (3) any consideration of provisions for Complete Streets conversion of cross streets for alternative vehicular/bicycle/pedestrian accessibility and neighborhood connectivity; (4) consideration for additional grade-separated underpasses of the BNSF/UP railroad mainline that parallels the Connector other than the existing Jefferson Street underpass; and/or (5) consideration of retaining cross-street vehicular access near St. Genevieve Church and School and the Sterling Grove Historical District.

But, this pales in comparison to the Concept 6 semi-depressed alternatives (one open, the other a “cut-and-cover” full tunnel between Taft and Second Streets). This proposal is a magnitude different than the Partially Depressed and Covered Mainline proposal that the ETRT/ECI unveiled in August in response to LCP opening up the process for further “concept modifications”. That proposal called for a much less broad embankment than the Concept 6-2 “Cut-and-Cover” alternative; shifted the surface-level Evangeline Thruway frontage road system west to directly over the mainline as an avenue-type boulevard, and allowed for increased development on both sides of the boulevard as well as increased connectivity between the Freetown-Port Rico and McComb-Veazey neighborhoods through extending some streets over the mainline. It also was flexible enough to call for intermittent park decks to cover the freeway mainline at strategic places rather than a full tunnel.

It would be more acceptable that LCP ultimately rejected the ETRT’s proposed designs if adequate reasons and justifications were made transparent and public. Problem is, no logistics for justifying either LCP’s design for the Cut-and-Cover or the rejection of the ECI’s design are given; it is simply “assumed” that the LCP alternative is the final say for any depressed design.

This begs the question of whether LCP is even open to revising the Cut-and-Cover design to better integrate and give a proper vetting to alterations proposed by the ETRT/ECI. Considering the prevailing chilling attitudes thus far from the consultants, I have little hope. Given the heated response that Mr. Nickel had at the last CSS Community Workgroup Committee hearing last December to locals merely asking questions, that last bit of hope is sinking fast.

The public involvement process of the Connector study thus far has been pretty fair and inclusive…but also feels very top-down and enforced from LCP rather than truly interactive. People have complained about not being able to ask questions to CSS meeting presenters; and the format of the meetings not allowing for even written comments is a bit stifling. Unless this is changed, it will begin to feel like LCP and DOTD is imposing their choice on Lafayette rather than engaging in a true study; which not only dissolves trust in this project when it needs it most, but is an absolute gift to those who are fundamentally opposed to this project and would much prefer I-49 diverted around the city through the Teche Ridge Bypass.

There is also the issue of the former Southern Pacific Railroad railyard site, which was recently found to be a source of contamination of Lafayette’s drinking water. Federal and state laws would require a full remediation of that site before construction of the Connector would ensue; but the level of contamination and the impact of construction on the site is still to be determined. Is there any consideration, Secretary Wilson, for the need to initiate proper analysis and, if necessary, cleanup of that site to the benefit of protecting Lafayette’s drinking water supply? That is one of the main issues that could permanently block the Connector; it probably should be addressed soon, if not now.

It was suggested that “Too few people attend meetings, too little is known about how the information working group members provide to the DOTD is used.”

When compared to other communities with similar projects, public participation here is better than par, but par is never enough.  Like many other public decision processes, such as city councils and elections, we all struggle with participation, which is why we use volunteer, appointed, and elected leaders.

As we are now nearing the end of the Tier II phase of the project, the information we get is validated and considered by technical experts and professionals based on public safety, engineering standards, constructability, and its alignment with previous decisions.  The results of the technical analysis, both positive and negative, have all been shared with members of the CSS working groups, the bottom line being that semi- or fully depressed concepts are far more complex, expensive and problematic than an elevated mainline structure. This should not have come as a surprise, but it seems for those who preferred those designs, it has been a disappointment.

The problem with that assessment, Secretary Wilson, is that there is a distinct impression that the LCP consultants are rigging the game in favor of a bare-bones Elevated option, while not even considering either the ECI Partially Depressed-Covered Mainline proposal as they originally proposed, or not considering even alterations to the LCP proposal that could reduce the heavy costs included therein. What about shifting the Evangeline Thruway surface streets to directly above the covered mainline? What about a significantly reduced embankment on the east side of the mainline that would not require the entire current Thruway couplet ROW to be taken? What about shifting the connection ramps to allow for more connectivity and extending more streets over the freeway mainline? What about splitting the Johnston Street and Louisiana Avenue connection into two distinct streets rather than one connection in order to remove horozontal clearance issues? How about only capping the freeway at designated locations with park decks, leaving the majority of the faciity uncovered, resolving ventilation/light/emergency situations? For that matter, how about considering raising the railroad on structure at the same height of the cap of the freeway mainline, allowing cross streets to pass underneath the railroad unabated and removing both a major blockage and penetration of the Freetown-Port Rico Historical District?

I would think that given the strong support for the Partially Depressed-Covered Mainline alternative locally, DOTD and LCP would have a bit more respect for the local community and at least give these proposals a much fairer vetting before dismissing them outright.

I should note that I would have no objection to an Elevated Connector freeway, provided that as many, if not all, of the enhancements for CSS and connectivity proposed by the ETRT/ECI were fully incorporated into the final design and construction. I probably would be disappointed if a depressed freeway design couldn’t be implemented, but the need for building this project the right way supersedes any disappointment I’d have. I would be far more upset if the Connector wasn’t built at all or diverted.

As for meeting attendance….it probably appears to me that those who are against this project have simply made up their minds and are boycotting the process entirely. But, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a real problem when friendly critics aren’t given a proper voice to speak their mind and give suggestions.

It stated, “…DOTD Secretary Shawn Wilson should step in and show leadership…”

FACT:  Nearly one year ago, I agreed and authorized this process to become more open in its efforts. We expanded the process with the support of our federal partners. A characteristic of leadership is sharing decision-making responsibility and not dictating an individual opinion. Leadership is responsibly integrating data, best practices, and public opinion in a smart way to make a decision that is in the best interest for ALL involved.  The Community, Technical, and Executive committees are part of a leadership structure that is working. With Lafayette’s Parish President and APC CEO, we have jointly led a public engagement process that is unprecedented for Louisiana, one that is changing the trajectory of this project in a good way.

I do think that in this case, Secretary Wilson, you should be given full credit for developing the process. The structure of the process is working fine; it’s the communication between the consultants and the locals that is needing repair. Yes, FHWA and DOTD is paying most of the freight for this freeway, but it will be Lafayette that will feel the full benefits and issues for this massive footprint; they have to feel they have a say in the final design.

It’s also stated, “DOTD is building mistrust here.”

After a nearly three hour CWG meeting, the facilitator ended the meeting, as the agenda had been exhausted.  His closing of the meeting was not a rejection of ideas, just the end of a meeting that night.  If that offended you, we apologize.  Processes like these are not easy. They are frustrating and difficult, very complex.  A perfect public process where everyone is happy and satisfied is a unicorn standing next to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, yet to be found.  I will make judgment of DOTD’s effort and the process after all decisions are made.  I trust the process and I trust the people that are at the table.

FACT:  Trust in people and this process has already made this project better than when we started.

The problem with this is, Secretary Wilson, that Mr. Nickel’s abrupt cancellation of the CWG meeting last December was not the first time that LCP consultants have had to clean up some controversy. Remember when the first Project Director, Toby Picard, posted a letter challenging some members of the CWG to resign because they had suggested building a boulevard in lieu of the Connector freeway? I supported that action because it looked like Connector opponents were infiltrating the process to deliberately sabotage it with their “boulevard only” option, and only screamed about “censorship” when they were caught and called out. In addition, it was local reaction to the ETRT’s initial ideas not being included in the original 19 Refinement Alternatives that prompted Picard, after first initially dismissing ETRT as “irrelevant”, to modify the process to the current evolution today.

Certainly, in the design and evolution of a project as massive as the I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway, everyone will not get their way. It is still necessary for those who are developing this project to at the very least be transparent in their intentions, and give solid, understandable, and accurate analysis in ultimately designing and constructing this vital project. Anything else gives rocket fuel to the Sierra Club/Y-49/TecheRidgePlusBoulevard lobby who is more than itching for a legal rematch to stop this project and get their way. If you support this project as I do — and I am sure, Secretary Wilson, that you do — there needs to be a lot more listening on everyone’s part. We have one shot only to make the Connector work, so let’s do it right.

Yours sincerely,

Anthony Kennerson

 

Could The Connector Be Improved? A Few Suggestions

Although the process for the Connector freeway Conceptual Design Study has already produced plenty of suggestions for refinements and alterations, there are a few that may have been missed out on. Here’s some of my own that I think would improve the prospects.

1) Shift the north access ramps from the Evangeline Thruway frontage road system from north of Second Street to north of Mudd Avenue, and retain cross-street access for both Mudd Ave. and Simcoe Street.

The current plans for the “refinements” put forth by the LCP and DOTD drop the north exit/entrance off ramps down between Greig and Second Streets, and block off Simcoe Street altogether in order to create more space for a plaza around St. Genevieve Catholic Church and School. In addition, all the options sever Simcoe St entirely, and partially severs Mudd between the Thruway frontage system and the old northbound Thruway, which is converted into a two-way local street from Greig Street to Bellot Drive.

This has the advantage of offering a buffer zone for the Sterling Grove Historical District, but at the cost of providing vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle access across the freeway. With both Mudd and Simcoe severed, vehicles wishing to cross the freeway to access neighborhoods to the west would have to either use the Second/Third one-way couplet, or use a turnaround that would be provided just before the crossing of the rail spur north of Tissington Street.

It’s understandable why planners want to reduce vehicular access to Sterling Grove, but not at the expense of removing two vital cross-circulation arterials.

Shifting the north access ramps to before Mudd would allow both Mudd and Simcoe to retain their full access, and also allow for a full buffer for Sterling Grove that doesn’t interrupt full vehicular access.

The only drawback in this is that in order to make way for the ramps, all of the local cross streets between Mudd and Bellot Drive would have to be severed (Goldman, Hobson, Sampson); but the old Thruway could handle the transition.

2) Shift the south access ramps, which are currently planned to connect to the Thruway at Eleventh Street, to more traditional “slip ramps” south of Taft Street. 

The current LCP proposal uses traditional ramps to curve to meet the existing Evangeline Thruway couplet at Eleventh Street. These ramps are supposed to also provide the connection between the freeway and Johnston Street/Louisiana Avenue in lieu of a direct interchange.

The problem with this concept is that it conflicts with the desire of city officials to better connect the McComb-Veazey and Freetown-Port Rico neighborhoods. The two areas are separated from each other by the heavy industrialized property now occupied by Conco Distribution Company and the former Southern Pacific Railroad distribution yard property. The Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team (ETRT), through its Evangeline Corridor Initiative, had been looking at ways to extend some streets (such as Eleventh or Twelfth Street) across that property in order to connect McC-V and FTFR better; their proposals allow for that by shifting the access ramps between the Connector and the Thruway frontage road system further south to either south of Taft Street or south of Pinhook Road.

The LCP/DOTD Concept 4 proposals, however, nixes that by placing the south connection ramps to meet with the Thruway at its connection with Eleventh Street, essentially blocking any means of connecting McC-V with FTPR other than the existing connections of Taft Street, Pinhook Road, and Louisiana Avenue/Johnston Street. The Concept 6 proposals, if anything, are worse; they shift the Taft Street connection from Fourteenth Street to Thirteenth Street, and they totally wipe out the median of the Evangeline Thruway in order to provide for the grade changes to elevate the southbound frontage road to cross the depressed freeway mainline.

The ECI’s Partially Depressed/Covered option solves that problem by shifting the Thruway from its existing couplet paralleling the freeway to directly over the freeway mainline, which would allow the existing Thruway roadways to be converted to local two-way streets; and also allowing enough of a transition over the embankment to extend some cross streets. Moving the south connection ramps to south of Taft and north of Pinhook allows for that option to work.

The ECI’s Elevated option even shifts the south connection ramps even further south to south of Pinhook Road; but that brings a conflict with the connection to East University Avenue/Surrey Street, which serves Lafayette Regional Airport. (But, more on that later.)

In any case, shifting the south ramps to south of Taft, whatever the final design would be, could for those very reasons open up more and better connections between McComb-Veazey and Freetown-Port Rico.

3) Resolve access to the Sterling Grove Historical District and the abutting neighborhood to its west across the proposed freeway ROW by restoring cross-street access via Mudd Avenue and Simcoe Street.

The main issue here is that in order to protect Sterling Grove and the St. Genevieve Church and School from more direct impacts, LCP’s planners designed to cut access through that neighborhood by severing both Mudd Avenue and Simcoe Street. The Concept 4 alternatives do allow for Mudd to be connected to both the southbound and realigned northbound frontage roadways, but still severs Mudd east of the new northbound roadway. The Concept 6 alternatives completely sever Mudd between the northbound and southbound roadways. In addition, both concepts completely sever Simcoe Street to allow for the north ramp connections to meet the frontage road at Second Street; Simcoe is diverted to the Second/Third one-way couplet and then either to a realigned Chestnut Street (for the elevated Concept 4 alternatives) or to Grant Street (for the depressed Concept 6 alternatives).

Naturally, this creates a major issue for Sterling Grove residents wanting to access the neighborhood on the other side of the Thruway, and vice versa. Obviously, you don’t want to encourage major traffic to blow through Sterling Grove using Mudd Avenue, but Mudd is still a significant collector arterial both west and east; and Simcoe is the principal connector between Sterling Grove and another historical neighborhood, Parkside.

Solution 1) as defined above (shifting the north connection ramps to north of Mudd Avenue) would do plenty to resolve the situation, since that would allow for retaining both Mudd and Simcoe as cross connections. Alongside that, the potential issue of Mudd Avenue becoming a convenient speed magnet through Sterling Grove can be resolved through two means: remaking Mudd from the Thruway to Louisiana Avenue into a Complete Streets corridor, and building a roundabout between Mudd and the former southbound Thruway/future local street.

One other issue is that shifting the connection ramps would cause some of the existing cross streets (Hobson Street, Sampson Street, Goldman Street) to be severed between the frontage road Thruway system (although, the existing former northbound Thruway converted to a local street could still serve as a buffer). The benefits of keeping Simcoe and Mudd open would in my view offset this..and you could keep Bellot Drive and Tissington Street open as cross streets or add some turnarounds to reinforce access.

4) Consider elevating the BNSF/UP railroad line at its current ROW on structure through downtown Lafayette, allowing the cross streets to pass underneath at ground level.

The handling of the BNSF/UP main railroad line through Lafayette has been one of the most contentious issues with the Connector freeway design. The originally approved 2003 FEIS/ROD design had two direct single point diamond interchanges between the freeway and both a merger of the Second Street/Third Street one-way couplet and Johnston Street; with the interchanging cross streets depressed to pass underneath the railroad line. The original Base Case also severed the Sixth Street/Lee Avenue crossing in order to allow room for the ramps to the two downtown interchanges.

This was altered in the Conceptual Alternatives Enhancements revisions to eliminate the direct interchanges altogether, restore the Sixth/Lee crossing, and devise new means of connecting the cross streets through the freeway ROW. Under the Elevated concepts, it’s a simple deal: the cross streets pass underneath the elevated structure at grade level as they do now; with only the option of a depressed underpass at Johnston Street offered to improve access. Under the Partially Depressed and Cut-and-Cover concepts put forth by LCP/LADOTD, it gets a bit more complicated; 2nd/3rd. Jefferson, and Lee/Sixth get at-grade crossings of the railroad, but Johnston gets an overpass that penetrates the Freetown-Port Rico Historical District to such an extent that both the Johnston Street intersections with Garfield Street and Lincoln Street would have to be elevated either on fill or structure.

What all of those proposals share is the common design that the railroad remains at current level in its existing ROW. One design alternative that was rejected as part of the Partially Depressed series would have shifted the railroad ROW about 50 to 100 feet to the west of the current position, then lowered it 10 feet to the same level as the depressed freeway. That proved to be too costly and too destructive, as it would severely affect existing crossings outside of downtown Lafayette.

However, there is one alternative design that has not been considered that really should be: raising the BNSF/UP railroad line on structure throughout the downtown area so that the cross streets can pass underneath at existing ground level. It’s not an unprecedented feat for commercial rail lines to be elevated above ground level and seperated from ground-level traffic; Jackson, Mississippi has a similar system using the Canadian National/Illinois Central rail line, and a similar structure is planned for the BNSF line through Tupelo, Mississippi.

The idea generally is to begin the elevated structure just east of the current North University Avenue underpass, then gradually grade it so that it is elevated at least 15 feet from the St. Antoine Street crossing through the curve at Pierce Street and Mudd Avenue/Cameron Street and Simcoe Street, then reaching its full peak of  20 foot elevation downtown between Jefferson and Johnston Street, with a platform built across from or at the Rosa Parks Transportation Center for the Amtrak terminal there, then gradually lowering it back to grade level near the existing East University Avenue underpass. All the major cross streets from St. Antoine Street to Pinhook Road would remain open to pass underneath the mainline; the connection to the Louisiana and Delta Railroad spur to Breaux Bridge would remain at its existing ground level.

The advantages to raising the railroad would be obvious from a noise and traffic standpoint; but it would be especially beneficial for both Downtown Lafayette and the surrounding neighborhoods because the existing ground level track could still be converted into a passenger-based light-rail system that could potentially be extended through Lafayette.

Raising the railroad would be especially beneficial with the ECI Partially Depressed/Covered Mainline proposal, because with the railroad elevated and the cross streets returning to ground level underneath without the conflicts of safety, the impacts on Freetown-Port Rico would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. Also, the Rosa Parks/Amtrak depot platform could be extended to match the height of the elevated embankment needed to mask the semi-submerged freeway mainline.

An alternative to this would be to realign the BNSF-UP mainline to follow the L&D RR mainline to Breaux Bridge, then utilize the abandoned UP line running along the Teche-Coteau Ridge along LA 31 to reconnect with the mainline near New Iberia; and convert the BNSF mainline between Lafayette and New Iberia to a commuter rail/Amtrak/light rail line. This would create its own issues of noise impacts along the L&D line, as well as cost issues.

5) Consolidate the University/Surrey and Kaliste Saloom Road interchanges into one interchange system, and simplify the ramp exit/entrance system to reduce weaving and flood abatement issues.

The southern terminus of the Connector freeway has its own multiple issues as well. There is the bisecting of the flight path of Runway 11-29 of Lafayette Regional Airport; the crossing of the Vermilion River and its floodplain that has been the source of heavy flooding of late, and there is the expense of the Kaliste Saloom Road interchange that has to cross over the BNSF-UP railroad mainline and Hugh Wallis Road and connect with the frontage road system as well as mainline I-49 to maintain access to LRT and the Episcopal School of Acadiana. There is also the conflict involving the Adrien Vega Acadiana Dodge auto dealership, which is located on the Thruway directly across from LFT.

The illustration above shows the design for that section that was approved in the 2003 FEIS/ROD. Note how the directional ramps for the Kaliste Saloom Road interchange connect with both the frontage roads and the I-49 Connector mainline to/from the north, and also how the southbound frontage road is routed around the rear of the Acadiana Dodge dealership. Note also how the Petroleum Helicopters International training facility right across from the current intersection of US 90 with Kaliste Saloom Road effectively limits any ROW acquisition south of that interchange.

Some modifications in design have been proposed and are under consideration for this segment. Due to new regulations involving building runway extensions in wetlands, the University/Surrey interchange design is being modified so that the existing Runway Protection Zone for LFT’s Runway 11-29 will be retained and no extension required. This would entail the possibility of having University/Surrey passing over a depressed I-49 mainline, or depressing University/Surrey to the point that the I-49 overpass doesn’t invade the current RPZ. As for Acadiana Dodge, an alternative design is being offered that shifts the southbound frontage road to a more conventional frontage road format in front of the facility. Minor refinements to the access road connecting Hugh Wallis Road to Kaliste Saloom Road in order to adjust for a new hotel that was built in the original ROW as well as access to the ESA are also being considered.

Further complicating matters are the proposals of the ECI for redeveloping the Vermilion River basin (which includes Beaver Park, Heymann Park, and Vermilionville) as a major recreation area. Their ideas include elevating the mainline to allow for direct vehicular and pedestrian access to connect the park areas now severed by the Thruway; incorporating the former Trappey’s plant on the west side near Beaver Park into the new recreational facility, and building a “Riverwalk” facility connecting the two park areas together.

The proximity of interchange ramps between the Kaliste Saloom and University/Surrey interchanges also may become an issue with interchange spacing, especially since they may also conflict with any possible shift of the south connection ramps to the Evangeline Thruway for downtown to south of Taft Street.

I would think that the ramp system could be greatly simplified by eliminating and consolidating some ramp access between Pinhook Road and south of Kaliste Saloom Road. I’d place the south ramp connection just south of Taft Street; add a ramp connection to University/Surrey just south of the Vermilion River crossing, eliminate the direct ramps to the I-49 mainline to Kaliste Saloom to/from the north, and combine University/Surrey and Kaliste Saloom into one interchange system connection.

It could also be considered to reduce and eliminate the directional interchange at Kaliste Saloom in favor of an elevated tight diamond/frontage road connection where Kaliste Saloom and the frontage roads would have an elevated connection so that the former could cross over the railroad and Hugh Wallis Road on structure. A similar design is being planned for the downstream interchange of US 90/Future I-49 South with Verot School Road.  The main issue, though, would be providing access to the PHI facility on the opposite side, and perhaps some additional ROW requirements.

That’s only a sample of my own suggestions; feel free to add your own. As long as they don’t involve Teche Ridge or downgrading to a boulevard…that’s still a non-starter with me.

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.

The Battle Of “The Covers”: ECI’s Partially Depressed Covered vs. LCP’s “Cut-and-Cover”

One interesting byproduct so far of the I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway design process is the emerging differences that are developing between the proposals put forth by the main Lafayette Connector Partners (LCP) design team paid by LADOTD to design the final product, and the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team (ETRT) proposals floated through their Evangeline Corridor Initiative (ECI) process.

As many well know, the ECI was created by the ETRT to satisfy the mandate of the US Department of Transportation TIGER grant they had been awarded back in 2014 to study the best means of integrating the Connector freeway into the broader Lafayette community and better connect the abutting neighborhoods that would be affected by the project. That is a different mandate from the LCP, who is being paid by LADOTD to actually put forth preliminary design and engineering for the project.

It was mainly the ECI and ETRT which had raised concerns about the initially approved design that was vetted through a Record of Decision in 2003; as a result of their concerns, LADOTD was induced to add a series of design modifications and develop alternative concepts for the core downtown segment of the freeway. As a result of the process, four alternative concepts remain for consideration:

— 2 Elevated Freeway options (originally Concept Group 4), one with the Evangeline Thruway remaining as a one-way couplet outside of the freeway ROW (Concept 4-1), the other with the Thruway converted into an urban boulevard (Concept 4-2); and

— 2 Partially Depressed Freeway options (Concept Group 6), one with the freeway depressed on an open trench (Concept 6-1), and the other with the freeway completely capped as a tunnel for 1-1/2 miles (Concept 6-2).

The main issue, however, is that the proposals from LCP are a bit different from what the ECI/ETRT TIGER team has been promoting, and that has caused a bit of concern. Yesterday, Claire Taylor posted an article over at the Lafayette Advertiser detailing the ETRT’s expressed questions for the LCP over their most recent proposals.

The ECI had issued its final and adopted Charrette Report in late October detailing their proposals for neighborhood connectivity alongside the Connector. It appears below (accessible as a Scribd document):

It was right about the same time that the LCP held their second Open House Public Meeting to reveal to the public both the 4 Connector Concept Alternatives and the resolution of Possible Design Modifications (PDM’s) for subsegments of the freeway proposal. A full presentation of both appears below:

 

This post is to discuss the differences between the official LCP alternatives and those put forth by the ECI, and why they may matter a great deal down the road.

First let’s look at the Elevated options, starting with the LCP Concept 4 alternatives:

Both C4 alternatives utilize an elevated freeway through the core downtown area, and use ramp pairs to the Evangeline Thruway (north connections before Second Street, south connections to the Thruway at Eleventh Street). The difference is that Concept 4-1 retains the existing Evangeline Thruway couplet south of Jefferson Street to near Taft Street; while Concept 4-2 converts that section into an “urban boulevard” running down the southbound Thruway ROW (the existing northbound Thruway roadway south of Simcoe Street is converted back to a two-way local street).

Generally similar is the ECI’s approach to the Elevated Mainline option..but there are some differences.

4

The main major deviation between the C4-2 proposal and the ECI proposal is that with the ECI’s concept, the northern ramp connection with the Connector is pushed back further north to north of Mudd Avenue rather than Second Street; and that both Mudd Avenue is kept open and free flowing underneath the elevated mainline. Under the ECI’s proposal, the south connecting ramps are also shifted further southward to south of Pinhook Road, enabling more connections between Johnston Street/Louisiana Avenue and Taft Street/Fourteenth Street underneath the freeway. This was done to better connect the Freetown-Port Rico and McComb-Veazey neighborhoods. Also notice that like C4-2, the ECI Elevated Mainline proposal assumes a boulevard utilizing the southbound Thruway ROW, and that Simcoe Street is severed and realigned to allow more space at St. Genevieve Church for an open space plaza to mitigate the visual effects.

But those are minor quabbles compared to the differences between the Depressed proposals by both groups. First, the two LCP Concept 6 alternatives:

The main features of the C6 concepts are: 1) depressing the Connector mainline 10 feet below ground level, and adding 10 more feet of vertical clearance above ground level to create 20 feet of vertical clearance; having cross streets pass over the depressed freeway (and, in the case of Johnston Street, over the parallel BNSF/UP rail line as well); 2) elevating and realigning the southbound Evangeline Thruway to allow for raised connections with all the major cross streets; 3) realigning Taft Street to connect with Thirteenth Street rather than Fourteenth Street to better fit the ultimate south ramp connections; and 4) severing both Mudd Avenue and Simcoe Street across the freeway due to insufficient vertical clearance and concern about penetrating the Sterling Grove Historical District. The main difference is that C6-1 uses an open trench for the mainline with bridge structures crossing the freeway; while C6-2 uses an earthen embankment to completely cover the mainline, with a full tunnel structure directly underneath.

That is a significant radical difference from the Partially Depressed/Covered Mainline proposal originally brought forth by the ECI/ETRT team.

The original concept for the “Cut-and-Cover” proposal from the ECI implied only a limited embankment extending only as far as the southbound Thruway and the railroad, with all cross streets returning to grade to cross the railroad. (That proved to be infeasible for Johnston Street, prompting the LCP proposal to add an railroad overpass at that location.) Their proposal also included the option of realigning the Thruway frontage roads directly on top of or immediately flanking the depressed mainline structure, reverting both original roadways using the current Thruway to local streets. There was also an option for a surface boulevard taking in the southbound Thruway as with the Elevated concepts. In addition, similar to the ECI’s Elevated options, the ramp connections to the Thruway were set to north of Mudd Avenue and south of Taft Street, with both Mudd and Simcoe remaining open and free flowing over the covered freeway. Finally, in lieu of a complete tunnel, there were options for a partially covered or cantilevered mainline to avoid ventilation issues with a closed tunnel.

LCP does give as part of their presentation during the November Open House Public Meeting a decent explanation of why the ECI option for an at-grade Johnston Street crossing of the BNSF railroad is not feasible, and why a crossing that directly penetrated the Freetown – Port Rico Historic District was selected as the most viable option. They are a bit less open, though, on why expanding the depressed option to allow Mudd Avenue and Simcoe Street to cross over was not allowed, as well as why the cross connections between Taft and Johnston were not feasible. My guess is that interchange spacing and possible issues with excessive gradients were the main reasons for rejecting ECI’s approach. There was also the issue of penetrating the FPRHD, although why that wasn’t considered a problem for the Johnston Street crossing would then be a decent question to ask.

This wasn’t the first time that there was conflict between the ETRT and the LCP, either. When the ECI first offered up the Partially Depressed and Elevated options, they got a very chilly reception from then LADOTD Project Manager Toby Picard; he essentially accused ETRT of jumping out of their lane and overstepping their boundaries. Apparently, they were only supposed to act on the connectivity portion for the neighborhoods after LADOTD had selected a final alternative. ETRT, however, is backed in its mandate by Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government, which by law is required to approve any design for the Connector freeway under the terms of the Joint Agreement that was signed by all parties as part of the Record of Decision in 2003. (Picard ultimately blinked and allowed ETRT’s concerns to be placed on the record; he then left the project and DOTD entirely, claiming “personal reasons”.)

The Taylor article in the Advertiser quotes an email from ETRT member Kevin Blanchard to the LCP and LADOTD expressing concern that before any options are eliminated, the ECI’s questions about the method to the analysis of the alternatives are answered.

One of their main concerns was the cost projections for the four concept alternatives. The C6-2 “Cut-and-Cover” alternative has far and away the most expense, but that includes both the front end construction costs and the back end operations and maintenance costs of the full tunnel. The Elevated options, though, do not include any consideration for the “Signature Bridge” costs; LCP has said that that would be considered later on in the process. The main fear is that LADOTD might invoke financial concerns to drop many of the ECI’s proposals in order to go along with a basic design for the Elevated options.

Kevin Blanchard, who is on the ETRT team, recently posted an article at the Lafayette Independent where he directly states his concerns to LCP about the process, and calls for not eliminating any options until their questions are answered fully. He also proposes some variations to the Depressed options to remove the need for a full tunnel, and also addresses the Johnston Street overpass issues with Freetown – Port Rico and the BNSF/UP railroad. Another idea floated about is converting Johnston Street into a “Complete Streets” corridor with a reduced design speed, which would allow for a gradient tight enough to reduce the penetration of FPRHD.

In any case, this is an issue that will continue to be hashed out as the Connector design process evolves. Updates as they come in.