Lafayette Consolidated Government – I-49 Lafayette Connector Support Blog

Brand New Connector Update (February 2022): Finalist SEIS Alternatives Revealed; CSS Process Concludes; Timeline For Draft & Final SEIS Documents Set

UPDATE: This update was originally scheduled to be posted in November of 2021, but because of outside issues (and this thing called “a life”), I had to push it forward until late February. In any case, this provides an update to the present regarding the process of preliminary design and environmental analysis on the Connector freeway project. All illustrations are taken from the official Lafayette Connector website. – AJK

It has been a while since I last posted on events concerning the proposed Interstate 49 Connector freeway through Lafayette; and some major events and milestones have been achieved in the interim. This post is dedicated to getting you (and me) back up to speed on the most recent developments, especially the finalization of the revised and refined alternatives that will be fully vetted in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for this project.

First, a bit of review for context’s sake.

The I-49 Lafayette Connector project was originally approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in conjunction with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) through an EIS process ending in a Final EIS published in October 2002, then finalized and approved via a Record of Decision (ROD) published in January of 2003. The approved alignment selected was Alternative RA-4, modified with the MPO Subalternative (itself a modification of Subalternative F, allowing for a reconnected and depressed Simcoe Street underneath the mainline near the proposed Second Street/Third Street interchange) and Subalternative H (a connection underneath the freeway mainline between Martin Luther King Drive (henceforth MLK Drive), Castille Avenue allowing for a transition with the existing frontage road system). An overall view of the 2003 Selected Alternative appears below. (All images in this post, unless otherwise noted, are from the Lafayette Connector website.)

The original I-49 Lafayette Connector Selected Alternative as approved in the 2003 Record of Decision — *I-49 Lafayette Connector 2003 ROD Selected Alternative*

The selection of the 2003 ROD Selected Alternative was, to say the least, highly controversial, with loud and consistent opposition to the project emanating from several groups of citizens, even leading to an unsuccessful lawsuit in 2003 to block further development of the project. The process to continue work on design of the Connector project hemmed and hawed through the period between then and 2015, when LaDOTD announced that they would attempt to revive the Functional Plan development to include Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) design concepts, final engineering, and a reevaluation of the 2003 ROD for relevance to the current environment.

Based on the feedback from local officials, however, it was decided that major refinements and changes to the 2003 ROD alternative were necessary. Thusly, LaDOTD and the team that was overseeing the Functional Study process developed a detailed three tier process called the Concept Refinement Series that created new conceptual designs for the Connector freeway that would meet and mitigate the issues and opportunities. In addition, the FHWA determined that in lieu of an Evaluation, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Supplemental EIS or SEIS) was more appropriate for the further development of the project.

For the next two years, the Connector design team, along with LaDOTD, FHWA, and officials of local/city Lafayette, hashed upon detailed design modifications and various design concepts for the project, particularly the section going through the central core of the city. (There were also issues regarding the conflicts between the 2003 ROD Selected Alternative and the glide flight path of Runway 11 at Lafayette Regional Airport which had to be further resolved due to modifications of the runway dictated by the Federal Aviation Administration conflicting with plans to displace the runway to avoid the glide path conflict.)

The result of this process was that 27 initial design concept proposals encompassing 2 grade design concepts were ultimately reduced in a 3 tier process to four refinement alternatives. All four refinements utilized an continuous elevated Connector freeway through the central core; they differed in both the treatment of the Evangeline Thruway segment outside of the Connector right-of-way (existing one-way couplet refined or urban “grand boulevard” using the existing southbound ROW and northbound roadway downgraded to two-way local street), and the possible height of the elevated viaduct section (22 feet as directed in the 2003 ROD or as high as 30 feet as proposed by locals).

I-49 Connector 2017 Base Refinement Alternatives — **Proposed Base Refinement Alternatives for I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway, reflecting the refinements and revisions developed through the tiered Concept Refinement Process.**

Once that was settled in late 2017, LADOTD, FHWA, the Lafayette Connector Partners group that was overseeing the entire Functional Plan/CSS/SEIS process revived the CSS design and concept development with a series of workshops and public meetings in order to hash out the features and refinements that would be added to the corridor. The process involved incorporating Complete Streets principles of adding bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to the entirety of the corridor, landscaping and “greenscaping” of the corridor to better blend into and enhance the surrounding neighborhoods, and continuing to develop and complete the environmental analysis of the corridor in order to complete the SEIS process.

Based on those studies and processes, the Corridor partners ended up with and introduced to the public last November two conceptual final Refinement Alternatives for more developed study and analysis; they presented them to the public in the form of a public meeting that was held on November 4th, 2021.

They also introduced a virtual website giving the public a 3-D enhanced view of the final proposed alternatives, the planned enhancements, the changes in design since the 2003 ROD Alternative, and providing a proposed plan for displacement of residents and commercial properties. The updated timeline for completing the entire process is listed below.

The two finalist Refinement Alternatives, along with the existing 2003 EIS/ROD Selected Alternative, will be the alternatives studied in detail in the Supplemental EIS.

The first decision that was made regarding the 2017 refinements was whether to use and refine the existing Evangeline Thruway couplet (the Evangeline Thruway couplet carries US Highway 167 and US Highway 90 through its length), or convert it to an “urban grand boulevard” in order to enhance commercial development. The decision was made to convert the westbound roadway ROW to the “grand boulevard” concept and the northbound roadway to a local two-way street. The northbound roadway was originally a local two-way street designated as Clay Street prior to the Thruway’s construction in the 1950’s. The southbound roadway was originally designated as Sittig Street.) This was due to overwhelming public support for the urban boulevard concept as a kicker for future economic development of the local neighborhood (McComb-Veazey) as well as potential as a buffer between the freeway and that neighborhood.

The second decision involved where to place the southbound access from the Connector to downtown Lafayette. It was decided that the southbound downtown exit would be placed at Second Street further into the core of Lafayette, rather than braided with the entrance ramp at the Willow Street interchange. This was because the braided option would terminate at a roundabout connection between the Thruway, a local two-way service road accessing businesses and Donlon Avenue, and an entry/exit to the former Walmart Supercenter store (now closed and transferred to another business); and would conflict with the Thruway crossing of a local railroad spur serving Breaux Bridge that is operated by the Louisiana & Delta Railroad off the BNSF Railway/Union Pacific Railroad mainline just to the west. It was also the preference of local officials to have the exit closer to downtown.

The last remaining issue to be resolved between the two alternatives is the treatment of major intersections within the “Grand Boulevard” segment of Evangeline Thruway between Mudd Avenue and Pinhook Road. The major intersections of the Thruway with Second Street/Third Street, Jefferson Boulevard, Sixth Street (which evolves into Lee Avenue upon crossing the BNSF/UP tracks), Jefferson Street/Louisiana Avenue, Twelfth Street, and Fourteenth Street/Taft Street would be allowed free flow across the boulevard in both options; the remaining cross streets would be severed and reduced to right-in/right-out termini. The difference between the two final alternatives is that one would feature signalized intersections with these major collectors/arterials as the original Thruway does (the C3 “Signalized” Alternative); while the other would convert the major intersections into roundabouts (the C4 “Roundabout” Alternative). Illustrations of the two alternatives, both their End-2-End and isolated central core sections, follow:

*I-49 Lafayette Connector SEIS Finalist Alternative: 6A Signalized Alternative*

*I-49 Lafayette Connector SEIS Finalist Alternative: 6B Roundabout Alternative*

*Central Core Section of Signalized Alternative*

*Central Core Section of Roundabout Alternative*

Many of the common features found in both finalist alternatives remain the same from the 2017 alternatives, but with some minor tweaks and revisions here and there. Going from south to north, here they are:

1) Southern Terminus to Kaliste Saloom Road Interchange

The terminus to the south on US 90 has been moved a bit further south to just before the existing Verot School Road intersection, in order to add some accessibility between the existing frontage road system along US 90, Alligator Road, and Perimeter Road. New continuous one-way access roads will be constructed to flank the existing US 90 mainline, which will be upgraded to a 6-lane fully access controlled freeway; these will also be extended southward along US 90 all the way to the Albertsons Parkway/St. Nazaire Road interchange that has been recently completed in Broussard. Interchanges/grade separations with Verot School Road, Southpark Road (LA Highway 89), and Morgan Avenue/Eola Road will also be built as part of the freeway upgrade of US 90, but that is a separate project outside of the scope of the Connector freeway. As part of the Verot School interchange, a two-way local access frontage road will be built for accessing the businesses currently along US 90; the one-way access roads will be elevated to connect to an elevated Verot School Road that will cross over both I-49/US 90 mainline and the BNSF/UP rail mainline. The two-way road will connect with the northbound one-way access road at Alligator Road, then will be extended north to curve into Perimeter Road, which serves as an access to properties on the edge of Lafayette Regional Airport. The existing continuous 2-way frontage road running on the west side of US 90 will be converted to a one-way southbound access road. Both access roads flanking the mainline of US 90 will serve as a continuation of the Evangeline Thruway and provide separate local access to the access-controlled US 90 mainline; slip ramps will provide connections between the mainline and access roads for selected interchange locations.

*South Terminus to LFT, including Kaliste Saloom Rd. Interchange*

The Kaliste Saloom Road interchange has also been tweaked somewhat since the 2017 refinements: the original 3-level directional interchange proposed and approved in the 2003 EIS/Record of Decision process has been modified into a 2-level “diverging T” interchange, where the left turning movements between I-49 and Kaliste Saloom now connect and intersect each other at grade rather than are grade separated. In addition, the connection between Kaliste Saloom and Hugh Wallis Road has been slightly modified, with connecting roads on both sides and an additional left turn movement for westbound Kaliste Saloom traffic to access commercial properties on the east side of K-S, using the existing K-S right-of-way.

2) University Avenue/Surrey Street Overpass (Lafayette Regional Airport) to Vermilion River Crossing

The University/Surrey overpass will have a reduced vertical profile for I-49/US 90 crossing over a depressed University/Surrey, due to the need to maintain the glide path of Runway 11-29 at Lafayette Regional Airport. Originally, as part of the 2003 ROD, this was to be a conventional overpass and interchange, with the subsequent conflict with 11-29’s glide path resolved through adding a 350-foot extension and displacement to that runway. That became infeasible, however, due to LFT being mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration to construct an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) extension on the east terminus of Runway 11-29, which would use up the area where the displacement extension would have been built. A separate ROD approved by the FAA for the original runway displacement (included within the FHWA/LaDOTD 2003 ROD) will require an update to adapt to the refinements for the University/Surrey overpass for the Connector SEIS process. This also mandated that the planned interchange for University/Surrey proposed in the original 2003 FEIS/ROD would have to be moved to Pinhook Road. Access to LFT from mainline I-49 would still be possible indirectly through the Pinhook and Kaliste Saloom interchanges and the continuous one-way access road system flanking the mainline I-49/US 90 roadways.

***University Avenue/Surrey Street Underpass near Lafayette Regional Airport***

The Connector freeway will then cross the Vermilion River using the existing Evangeline Thruway/US 90 ROW, with the existing Thruway transitioned to a 6-lane mainline freeway with 3-lane one-way access roads flanking the mainlines and providing local business access. The current pedestrian path that runs below the Thruway on the south approach of the Vermilion River that connects Beaver Lake (aka Heymann Lake) to Heymann Park and Vermilionville will remain, and will get some refinements thanks to the CSS/Joint Use enhancement addition process. In addition, a gateway will be installed as a landmark feature introducing travelers to the city of Lafayette.

**Vermilion River/Beaver Park Crossing near Vermilionville**

3) Pinhook Road Interchange

This will serve as the southern most access point between the Connector freeway and both the McComb-Veazey and Freetown-Port Rico neighborhoods, as well as the connection to the proposed Grand Boulevard along the Evangeline Thruway, which will access downtown. The mainline freeway will pass over Pinhook Road while the one-way access roads will directly connect with Pinhook, then transition into the proposed boulevard that will be built along the ROW of the existing southbound Thruway roadway. (The existing southbound Thruway roadway will be converted back to a local two-way street and returned to the City of Lafayette for maintenance.) The mainline I-49 diverts from the existing Thruway ROW just to the north of Pinhook near the Fourteenth Street/Taft Street intersection; here is where the transition from flanking access roads to boulevard will take place. Traditional ramps will serve as the connections to and from the frontage roads and the mainline to/from the north; slip ramps will provide the same to the south. The Pinhook intersection/interchange will also feature a unique “displaced left turn” design where traffic seeking to turn south on Evangeline Thruway/I-49/US 90 from westbound Pinhook Road would have to cross over eastbound Pinhook traffic via a signalized dedicated roadway prior to approaching the Thruway intersection. This would require closing the current Pinhook Road intersection with Judy Street and transferring the latter’s connections further south to the current intersection of Pinhook with Gauthier Road. The DLT would also necessitate closure of the existing intersection of Pinhook with Chag Street; that would be reduced to a Right-In-Right-Out (RIRO) intersection.

In addition, in order to mitigate impacts to the Freetown-Port Rico neighborhood, which happens to be a designated National Historical District, access to the southbound Thruway roadway would be modified to remove direct access to homes fronting the roadway. This is because of Federally mandated access control due to the onramp from the southbound mainlane of I-49 to the Thruway for the Pinhook interchange. Drain Street, which runs parallel to the Thruway from Fourteenth Street to Sixteenth Street, will be extended further south to connect with Alley Street, thus providing an alternative frontage access to houses and properties facing the southbound Thruway. In addition, in order to allow for the transition between the boulevard section and the existing Thruway access road couplet, Fifteenth and Sixteenth streets will be severed between the access roads, and the existing northbound Thruway/future local street will be dead-ended at Fifteenth Street.

**Pinhook Road Interchange/DLT Intersection**

4) Central Core/Downtown Section

This is where the Connector freeway leaves the Thruway and ventures on its own new terrain alignment, keeping straight before curving north across the former property of the old Southern Pacific Railroad classification yard to shadow Chestnut Street just east of the BNSF/UP railroad line. The continuous viaduct section through here would cut through the old railyard property, cross over Johnston Street, then shade Chestnut Street between the rail line and the current southbound Thruway roadway. That ROW would be converted into the 4-lane enhanced Urban Boulevard between Fourteenth/Taft and Second Street, where the Connector viaduct would return to the Thruway ROW. The current northbound Thruway would be rebuilt as a local two-way street.

A “Signature Bridge” feature would be built on the freeway viaduct as a landmark feature for downtown Lafayette, and the entire corridor would be transformed into an enhanced urban subspace through the application of Joint Use, CSS, and Complete Streets protocols. Bicycle lanes and wider pedestrian pathways would be constructed along the Thruway boulevard, and further enhancements in lighting, greenscaping, wayfaring, and other measures would be incorporated into the freeway and boulevard to fully integrate it into the existing neighborhoods and communities. This would allow opportunities for full redevelopment of businesses that would be displaced or disrupted by the construction of the Connector, and would also allow for connectivity of the Freetown-Port Rico and McComb-Veazey neighborhoods that have been divided from each other due to the Thruway and the railroad for decades.

The only remaining feature that remains to be resolved for the project is the mode of connecting the major cross streets to the Urban Boulevard. The plan is to retain full traffic movements between the boulevard and all the major cross streets; Fourteenth/Taft, Twelfth, Johnston Street/Louisiana Avenue, Sixth (which becomes Lee Avenue after crossing the railroad), Jefferson Boulevard, and the Second Street/Third Street one-way couplet. The other streets currently crossing the Thruway/boulevard would get RIRO treatments.

Two variations are being proposed for dealing with the major intersections:

a) Signalized Alternative

In this concept, the major cross streets would use traditional signalized intersections with the boulevard. Single dedicated left turn lanes would be built at these intersections (except at Johnston/Louisiana where double lefts would be built due to the heavier traffic and major importance of that arterial). The new two-way local street made from the old northbound Thruway roadway would have stop sign controls similar to traditional local streets, but would get some enhanced treatments (including possibly bike lanes and wider sidewalks). No adjustments would be needed to the existing street grid, other than having Simcoe Street severed on the west side of the Thruway system transition area near the Sterling Grove neighborhood. That is due to the proposed off-ramp from the freeway viaduct that would serve access from the north to the boulevard and downtown (via Second Street, which would remain a one-way westbound compliment to Third Street, which would remain one-way eastbound).

***Central Core Section; Signalized Alternative***

***Treatment at Simcoe Street/Sterling Grove – Signalized Alternative***

b) Roundabout Alternative

For this concept, instead of conventional intersections, the main cross streets will use roundabouts to connect with the Grand Boulevard. LaDOTD has become quite enamored with replacing major intersections with roundabouts of late; they say that roundabouts are less expensive and more efficient with handling traffic than the conventional signalized intersections. CSS designers and some urban planners are also more supportive of roundabouts due to their effect of slowing down (or “calming”) traffic. The same major intersections that currently take signals on the Thruway (plus Sixth Street, which does not) which would be improved under the Signalized Alternative, would get roundabouts under this alternative; and the Johnston Street/Louisiana intersection would get a “super roundabout” with additional lanes to meet its higher capacity.

Impacts would be slightly greater with the Roundabout Alternative due to alterations required at Simcoe Street, because of the proposed “dogbone roundabout” connected to the aforementioned access ramp from the mainline Connector to Second Street. This feature would modify Second Street to allow for two-way service westbound on Second across the railroad crossing, and the dogbone roundabout would allow for access to the east side of Simcoe Street, the urban boulevard, and the revised Thruway couplet through the Sterling Grove/Martin Addition neighborhoods. However, there would be some reduced accessibility due to construction of the Third/Simcoe/Boulevard roundabout severing Chestnut Street and portions of the west side of Simcoe Street, as well as severing the former northbound roadway fronting Sterling Grove (which would also be downgraded to a two-way local street; a new one-way access road would be built parallel to and aside of the Connector elevated mainline and the southbound roadway).

***Central Core Section – Roundabout Alternative***

***Treatment of Simcoe/Second/Boulevard/Downtown On-Ramp – Roundabout Alternative***

5) Second Street to L&DRR Rail Spur (Sterling Grove/Ballard Addition)

The proposed Connector freeway would return to the Evangeline Thruway couplet ROW right around Simcoe Street and would remain there up to the northern terminus at the existing I-49/US 167 interchange with I-10. The mainline would remain fully elevated through the section up to past the Willow Street interchange. An off-ramp starting just above Mudd Avenue would provide local access from southbound I-49 to the urban boulevard segment of the Thruway, as well as to Second Street for downtown access. The Evangeline Thruway would remain for local access to the Sterling Grove and Ballard Addition neighborhoods flanking it, with the viaduct shading the southbound Thruway roadway. However, as with the central section, the northbound Thruway would be reconstructed on a new roadway from Second Street to near Bellot Drive, where it would meet the old northbound roadway curvature. The old, orphaned segment of the northbound Thruway would, like its other component further south, be rebuilt as a local two-way street. This is done to reduce the impact of the Thruway system on the Sterling Grove Historical District by creating more of a buffer between the Connector freeway and revised Thruway frontage road system and Sterling Grove.

Cross street access underneath the freeway between Simcoe Street and the crossing of the Louisiana & Delta Railroad (L&DRR) rail spur would be retained at Mudd Avenue (US 90 West), Sampson Street, and Bellot Drive; all other streets would be terminated at the Thruway roadways. Simcoe Street would be severed from the west due to the Second Street off-ramp in both alternatives; though both alternatives do have means of accessing the east side of Simcoe.

**Connector Freeway/Evangeline Thruway segment through Sterling Grove/Ballard Addition (Roundabout Alternative)**

**Connector Freeway/Evangeline Thruway segment through Sterling Grove/Ballard Addition**
**(Signalized Alternative)**

6) L&DRR Spur to I-10/I-49 Interchange/Northern Terminus (Includes Willow Street Interchange)

From the crossing of the Louisiana & Delta Railroad spur rail line serving Breaux Bridge to Interstate 10, the proposed I-49 Connector freeway would consume the Evangeline Thruway ROW. The existing at-grade expressway features of the Thruway would be converted into a continuation of the fully elevated freeway concept north to the existing intersection of the Thruway with Castille Avenue and Martin Luther King Drive (and the local two-way frontage roads currently flanking the Thruway). A continuous one-way access road system would flank the elevated mainline to allow direct access to the mainline via the Willow Street interchange, and local access to other segments as a continuation of the Thruway. This would then transition back to an at-grade freeway north of MLK-Castille for the approach to the existing I-10 interchange.

**Connector Segment from L&DRR Spur to I-10 (including Willow Street Interchange**

This segment does include some major modifications to the local street system for enhancing local access and connectibility.

a) Donlon Avenue/(Former) Walmart Access Road “Dogbone Roundabout

First, a dogbone roundabount is situated just south of the crossing of the rail spur for traffic wanting to access Donlon Avenue and the former Walmart Supercenter property (currently run as a local church). This roundabout is connected to the current two-way local frontage road that serves local businesses from Donlon to Willow Street, serving to separate them from the northbound Thruway access road. This is necessary to control access for the braided ramps that will be built for access to the mainline freeway for both the Willow Street interchange and traffic leaving downtown wanting to enter the freeway. (The latter is the complement to the southbound exit at Second Street.

The existing RCUT intersection between Donlon Ave., the Thruway, and the entrance/exit to the ex-Walmart property will be removed, with Donlon terminating at the existing two-way frontage road and the Walmart egress/entrance ending in a RIRO with the southbound access road. (The existing two-way service road on the west side of the Thruway would remain as is and terminate at the Walmart access road.)

**Donlon Avenue/ex-Walmart Access Road Roundabout**

b) Willow Street Interchange

The Willow interchange will be fitted into the current ROW as a conventional slip-ramp diamond interchange, with the current Thruway roadways serving as the access connections. The frontage road connections to Willow Street will get minor tweakage in order to satisfy control-of-access requirements along Willow. The existing Lafayette Visitors Center site, now located within the median of the Thruway where it meets Willow Street, will remain in its general location, albeit adjusted to avoid being underneath the Connector viaduct structure. Access to the VC via the southbound Thruway access road would remain the same.

The MLK-Castille connection would undergo some significant changes as well. The current convoluted intersection and connection between the existing Thruway and MLK/Castille/frontage roads would be replaced with another dogbone roundabout underneath the mainline freeway, allowing for full movements between the frontage roads, Castille Avenue, and MLK Drive. There would also be connections allowing for transitions to and from the one-way access road system serving the local function of the Evangeline Thruway.

The only major revision would be the elimination of the two-way frontage road on the west side of the Thruway between MLK Drive and Willow Street. A new “boulevard” would be constructed some 400 feet west of the Thruway/Connector ROW as a new backage road connection between the two streets. The existing two-way road would be converted to a single-lane one-way connection to the southbound access road connection and off ramp from I-49 to Willow Street. Hence, those wanting to access the freeway from there on the west side would have to go over to Willow Street, or go further to the Donlon-Walmart roundabout to access the northbound on-ramp.

**Access Revisions at Willow Street interchange and MLK Drive/Castille Ave. Roundabout**

8) I-49/I-10 Interchange (Northern Terminus)

Finally, the Connector would feed into the existing Interstate 49 that runs north to Opelousas, Alexandria, and ultimately Shreveport, through the existing I-10/I-49 full cloverleaf interchange. Additional auxiliary lanes would be added at the northbound exit ramps to I-10 and the southbound entry ramps from I-10 in order to handle the increased flow. There are plans to convert the I-10/I-49 interchange to a fully-directional interchange in order eliminate the loop ramp movements, but that is beyond the scale and scope of the Connector project.

**I-10/I-49 Interchange (Northern Terminus)**

9) Conclusion (for now)

As of this posting (now February of 2022), that seems to be what the final proposed alternatives for the Connector freeway will encompass, though there more than likely will be some other tweaks and minor revisions as this finishes the CSS and SEIS processes. A “Supplemental Preferred Alternative” must be selected and approved by all the entities involved (LCG, LaDOTD, FHWA) before the Alternatives Analysis and full environmental impact studies can be completed; this will be presented then to the public at the next stage of public meetings that are scheduled for March or April. Then, work would be completed on the Supplemental EIS for release to the public around June or July of this year.

The SEIS would also incorporate a draft Joint Use Development Plan for any and all refinements within the direct ROW of the freeway and “grand boulevard” segments; a revised Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement for mitigation of impacts to Sterling Grove Historical District (and possibly Freetown-Port Rico Historical District as well); a CSS Design Standards Manual to incorporate and document all the CSS design features and refinements into the project; documentation of noise and air impacts and any mitigation of such as needed; and a Level 2 Environmental Assessment of the former Southern Pacific Railroad yard property for possible cleanup and mitigation of possible impacts to the Chicot Aquifer.

The completed Draft SEIS would then be subjected to feedback and analysis by all the relevant authorities, including an official Public Hearing which is tentatively scheduled for August of this year. Based on this feedback, a Final SEIS would be produced which would document the selection and approval of a final Supplemental Selected Alternative; that process would then conclude with the issuance of a Supplemental Record of Decision (S-ROD) submitting FHWA’s final approval of the project.

In short, there is still a long way to go before we can start celebrating the construction of the I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway….and that doesn’t even include the possible return of the lawsuits by those insistent on opposing this project. As always, watch this space for updates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elevated with the existing Evangeline Thruway remaining in couplet form;

and

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

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

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

The Base Refinement Alternative is shown below in full:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As always, watch this space for further updates.

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

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

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

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

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

University Avenue/Surrey Street/Pinhook Road

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, the original concept from 2003:

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

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

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

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

Partially Depressed and Covered Mainline concept for I-49 Connector as proposed by the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team (ETRT) via their Evangeline Corridor Initiative (ECI).

Elevated with Signature Bridge concept proposed by ETRT/ECI.

Elevated with Evangeline Thruway Couplet (Concept 4.1) proposed by LADOTD/LCP via Tier II Process.

Elevated with Evangeline Thruway as Grand Boulevard (Concept 4.2) introduced by LADOTD/LCP after Tier II analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North Lafayette Gateway utilizing a Willow Street Circle Interchange, proposed by Evangeline Corridor Initiative.

Another view of the North Lafayette Gateway Arch design for the Willow Street Interchange, as proposed by the ECI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall Impressions of Revisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The alternatives discussed included:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View this document on Scribd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map of old Southern Pacific rail yard in Lafayette, circa 1940’s.

Google Earth overview of former SP Rail Yard property boundary over existing Lafayette, with location of nearby Lafayette Utility System water wells. (From CCGG slideshow presentation)

Proposed Concept 4-2 (Elevated with Grand Boulevard) for I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway; showing relationship to former SP rail yard between Johnston and Taft streets. (from LafayetteConnector.com)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description of Chicot Aquifer geology (from CCGG presentation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My feelings on this are mixed here.

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

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

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

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

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

(Updated….scroll to bottom.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View this document on Scribd

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.

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