1 1 2 3 4 5 6 FUTURE I-49 SOUTH 7 8 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 9 10 ST. CHARLES PARISH 11 12 SIU 2 13 14 AUGUST 17, 2004 15 16 17 18 19 20 Proceedings taken at ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST 21 CATHOLIC CHURCH, 15404 Highway 90, Paradis, 22 Louisiana 70080, commencing at 6:30 p.m. 23 24 25 2 1 PRESENTERS: 2 3 4 MIKE AGHAYAN, P.E. 5 LOUISIANA DOTD 6 7 LOU COSTA 8 DMJM+HARRIS 9 10 11 SPEAKERS: 12 13 14 ANNABEL HOGAN 15 147 Vic's Lane 16 Des Allemands, Louisiana 70030 17 18 THELEZIA FOLSE 19 P.O. Box 1438 20 Paradis, Louisiana 70080 21 22 MICHAEL MATHERNE 23 185 Vic's Lane 24 Des Allemands, Louisiana 70030 25 3 1 MIKE PRENDERGAST 2 (No Address Given) 3 4 JARA ROUX 5 10391 River Road 6 Ama, Louisiana 70031 7 8 CLAY BOYCE 9 MONSANTO CORP. 10 P.O. Box 1741 11 Luling, Louisiana 70070 12 13 DR. E.E. "BO" JEANSONNE, JR. 14 23 Palmer Drive 15 Luling, Louisiana 70070 16 17 JIM KUEMMEL 18 20 Patricia Court 19 Luling, Louisiana 70070 20 21 STEPHEN ROMANO 22 P.O. Box 302 23 Hahnville, Louisiana 24 25 ST. CHARLES PARISH COUNCILMAN G. RAM 4 1 GEORGE HULL 2 17 Zee Ann Drive 3 Luling, Louisiana 70070 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 1 MR. AGHAYAN: 2 Let's take our seats now, please. 3 You will have an opportunity to look at 4 these maps in just a few minutes and 5 ask as many questions that you may 6 have. 7 Can you all hear me back there? 8 Rich? Can you hear me back there? 9 MR. MAJOR: 10 I can hear you loud and clear. 11 MR. AGHAYAN: 12 That is fine. 13 Good evening, ladies and 14 gentlemen. My name is Mike Aghayan. 15 I'm with the Department of 16 Transportation and Development. 17 On behalf of the Department, I 18 would like to welcome you tonight. The 19 study area for SIU 2 is the U.S. 90 20 corridor between approximately LA 306 21 in St. Charles and the existing portion 22 of the Westbank Expressway in Jefferson 23 Parish. 24 As many of you all know, this is 25 our Third Public Meeting for this 6 1 project. In the previous meetings, we 2 have received comments from the public 3 and also from the agencies. 4 Tonight, we have prepared -- our 5 consultant, DMJM+HARRIS, has prepared a 6 Power Point presentation to show the 7 remaining alternatives. You will have 8 an opportunity tonight to review these 9 maps, to comment and ask questions. 10 And, with that, we will turn it 11 over to our consultant, Mr. Lou Costa 12 with DMJM+HARRIS, who will introduce 13 our public officials -- I want to 14 recognize just a few people from the 15 Department of Transportation and 16 Development and also the Federal 17 Highway Administration. Mr. Nick 18 Kalivoda here with the Department of 19 Transportation, Mr. Bill Farr with the 20 FHWA, we have also, from real estate, 21 Mr. Paul Charron, Mr. Paul back there. 22 Also from our environmental section 23 tonight, we have Mr. Nguyen back there. 24 Anybody else -- and also Mr. Bob 25 Mahoney, Federal Highway Administration 7 1 back there. 2 Anyone else from the DOTD or the 3 Federal Highway Administration that I 4 did not mention? All right. 5 Well, with that, I will turn it 6 over to Mr. Lou Costa. He's going to 7 get the meeting started. 8 Lou? 9 MR. COSTA: 10 Thank you, Mike. Is this -- are 11 we sure this is working? Yes, I guess 12 it is. 13 Good evening, again, and, first, 14 the elected officials, I believe that 15 Representative Gary Smith is the only 16 one here. 17 Representative, do you want to 18 say anything? You'll withhold that 19 until I finish, but -- 20 Well, before we get started, I 21 would like to introduce some of the 22 people I have brought with me so you 23 know who to question during the break. 24 As Mike said, I will give the 25 presentation, and, then, there will be 8 1 a break for you to look at the maps 2 again and ask us questions. We'll 3 reconvene and you will be able to ask 4 questions and make comments on the 5 record. I'm Lou Costa and I'm the 6 project manager with DMJM+HARRIS. We 7 are the project management consultants 8 for this project. We are also 9 responsible for the line and grade 10 engineering. 11 We have with us tonight 12 Neel-Schaffer, which is the traffic 13 consultant, represented by Sonny Smoak 14 who will speak to you later, Nick 15 Ferlito and L.P. Ledet who are 16 somewhere in the room; Gcr, who is our 17 website consultant, with Joe Rexford in 18 the back. 19 I don't know if anyone is here 20 from Earth Search, the cultural 21 resources. I haven't seen them yet. 22 ARCADIS is the Environmental 23 Impact Statement consultant for this 24 SIU, and they're also doing the noise 25 and air quality analysis, and David 9 1 Escude' and Maddie Rogers in the back, 2 and Lynn who I just met tonight, and I 3 apologize for not remembering her last 4 name, and is anybody else here? Luci 5 is not here, is she? 6 And, then, the EIS for SIU 1 is 7 being done by Providence Engineering, 8 and Rich Major is here and Philip 9 Parker is somewhere back there. 10 And, then, of course, with 11 DMJM+HARRIS, I have Gene Gillen who is 12 sitting at the table who will be 13 pointing at things with a laser 14 pointer, and Martha Faulk will be 15 operating the machine, Om Dixit -- 16 these guys are almost all engineers, I 17 have to warn you -- and Ronnie Shuman 18 and Jonathan McDowell and Troy 19 Jeanfreau, and the other planner with 20 us tonight is Barry Brupbacher. 21 All right. The objectives of 22 this meeting. We have come tonight to 23 present the alternatives for SIU 2 that 24 have survived the environmental 25 screening and the design refinements 10 1 that were based on your comments and on 2 the review comments of the permitting 3 and regulatory agencies. We believe 4 that these alternatives best balance 5 the concerns of avoiding or minimizing 6 the potential impact to both the built 7 and natural environments. 8 We invite your comments on these 9 alternatives so that we have the 10 benefit of your input before 11 determining which alternatives will be 12 the subject of the Draft Environmental 13 Impact Statement for SIU 2. 14 As I said, the presentation will 15 review the NEPA planning process, 16 discover -- excuse me -- discuss the 17 surviving alternative alignments and 18 show you some traffic simulations of 19 the I-310 area. We will then take a 20 20-minute break for you to review the 21 displays. 22 After the break, we will 23 reconvene to hear your comments and to 24 respond to your questions. If you 25 would like to speak, please fill out a 11 1 speaker card. You also may submit 2 written comments. Thank you for coming 3 tonight. 4 As we have discussed at several 5 previous meetings, this project is 6 governed by the National Environmental 7 Policy Act or NEPA which governs the 8 planning process for all projects 9 funded by or receiving permits from the 10 Federal government. For those who are 11 unfamiliar with NEPA, the handout 12 contains additional slides that outline 13 the requirements of this act. 14 Under NEPA, every project must 15 have a Purpose and Need. This is the 16 justification for undertaking and 17 completing that project. The Purpose 18 and Need has its basis in the project 19 sponsor's goals and objectives. Since 20 the last meeting, we have completed the 21 Purpose and Need document that define 22 these project goals and objectives, and 23 the permitting agencies have concurred 24 in these goals and objectives. 25 At a national level, the goal of 12 1 I-49 is to connect Metropolitan New 2 Orleans and Southeast Louisiana to 3 Central United States and Canada. The 4 route of I-49 in Louisiana runs from 5 New Orleans, through West Jefferson and 6 then along the U.S. 90 corridor to 7 Lafayette and northwest to Shreveport. 8 From there, it travels north to Kansas 9 City to connect with I-29 and I-35. Of 10 course, the portion shown in blue on 11 the map of Louisiana is the incomplete 12 portion. 13 The goals of this project are 14 system linkage at the national, state, 15 regional and local levels, the 16 improvement of regional hurricane 17 evacuation by assuring that main line 18 roadways are above the hundred-year 19 flood elevation, to meet design year 20 travel requirements by providing 21 projected need for roadway capacity, to 22 improve roadway safety by meeting 23 interstate design standards, to support 24 coastal restoration by assuring that 25 highway design is consistent with 13 1 proposed programs and to support 2 economic development by providing 3 improved ground transportation 4 infrastructure for ports, airports, 5 regional industrial sectors and 6 tourism. 7 The project objectives are to 8 create an interstate corridor with the 9 least disruption of traffic during 10 construction, the least impact on the 11 natural and built environment and the 12 best possible access for local and 13 business traffic in the completed 14 project. 15 The major elements of the 16 planning process, there are three major 17 elements to the NEPA planning process. 18 The public involvement process includes 19 three cycles of formal, advertised 20 Public Meetings plus many more informal 21 meetings with community members and 22 public officials and with public and 23 regulatory agencies, followed by a 24 Public Hearing. The meeting tonight is 25 the third meeting for SIU 2. 14 1 And the Environmental Impact 2 Statement or EIS is the analysis and 3 documentation of the alternatives as 4 required by NEPA, and, then, the third 5 part is the Line and Grade Study which 6 is the description and design of the 7 alternative actions. One of these is 8 always the no-build alternative. 9 The next few slides will take you 10 step by step through the process of how 11 these elements work together. 12 This chart summarizes the 13 planning process under NEPA. Tonight, 14 we are bringing you the refined 15 alternatives to seek consensus on which 16 will be included in the Draft 17 Environmental Impact Statement for SIU 18 2. Remember that the discussion 19 tonight and written comments that you 20 send us after the meeting are your best 21 opportunities to participate in the 22 decision-making process. 23 After this, a Draft Environmental 24 Impact Statement will be prepared and 25 distributed to the public and to 15 1 interested agencies. After 2 distribution, there is an official, 3 advertised comment period that includes 4 a Public Hearing. Unlike the earlier 5 meetings such as tonight, we only 6 accept comments at the Hearing. If you 7 want to ask questions or engage us in 8 dialogue, you have to start doing that 9 tonight. 10 After the comment period, a Final 11 Environmental Impact Statement is 12 prepared that includes written 13 responses to all comments received in 14 writing or at the Public Hearing. 15 And the final step is the Record 16 of Decision issued by the Federal 17 Highway Administration when they 18 believe that the NEPA process has been 19 satisfied. Once the Record of Decision 20 is issued, the project becomes eligible 21 for funding for engineering, 22 right-of-way acquisition and for 23 construction. 24 As I believe most of you know, 25 this project undertakes planning for 16 1 two Sections of Independent Utility or 2 SIUs. Each SIU can achieve its Purpose 3 and Need without consideration of the 4 other. At previous meetings, we have 5 shown each SIU separately. We have not 6 previously presented how the two SIUs 7 would connect to complete the main line 8 of I-49 except at the third meeting for 9 SIU 1, which was held last May. At 10 that meeting, we shared a preview of 11 how each of the SIU 1 alternatives then 12 under consideration could connect to 13 each of the SIU 2 alternatives then 14 under consideration. 15 After that meeting, it was 16 determined that Link 3 would comprise 17 the I-310 interchange area and be 18 included in both SIUs. Also, Link 4 19 that extends from Link 3 to the Davis 20 Pond Diversion Canal will be included 21 in both SIUs. Tonight, we will review 22 what was selected for the Environmental 23 Impact Statement in SIU 1 as an 24 introduction to the SIU 2. 25 To review the progress of the 17 1 project, these maps, SIU 1 at the top 2 and SIU 2 at the bottom, present all 3 the build alternatives that have been 4 considered through May of this year. 5 Remember, there also is a no-build 6 alternative that compares the impacts 7 of not completing the project to those 8 of building the project. 9 For SIU 2, these are the 10 alternatives that we presented for 11 advancement at the last meeting, 12 meaning the second meeting for SIU 2, 13 not the last meeting in this room which 14 was the third meeting for SIU 1. 15 The St. Charles Parish Council 16 asked us to find another alternative. 17 The St. Charles Parish School Board 18 opposed all of them. Numerous 19 individuals commenting were opposed to 20 one or both or were undecided. 21 This is the summary of the public 22 comments in St. Charles Parish for and 23 against each alternative at the last 24 SIU 2 meeting. As you can see, T was 25 favored by the largest number, and 18 1 42 percent of all comments received 2 opposed Alternative W. 3 Now, before going on, we need to 4 discuss the links and the revised 5 designations of the alternatives. From 6 the beginning of the job, we have 7 sought ways to divide the project into 8 parts that made comparison easier 9 without requiring everyone to review 10 all 20 miles of each SIU. 11 By the time of the third meetings 12 for SIU 1, the links were roughly the 13 same that you see here with the 14 exception that Links 3 and 4 were 15 divided at the I-310/LA 3127 16 intersection with U.S. 90 rather than 17 slightly east of Paul Mallard Road and 18 that Links 4 and 5 were divided at the 19 Parish line of Jefferson rather than at 20 the Davis Pond Diversion Canal. 21 All pairs of alternatives in one 22 link have the same point that matches 23 with all the alternatives in the 24 adjacent links so that whichever link 25 is chosen -- whichever alternative is 19 1 chosen in one link, it will be able to 2 match with the alternative chosen in 3 the next. 4 The changes you see here were 5 adopted for use in both the DEIS 6 documents by DOTD and FHWA in 7 consultation with the permitting and 8 regulatory agencies. Within each link, 9 the alternatives are now designated by 10 the link number and alphabetically. 11 For example, Link 3 has two 12 alternatives, 3A and 3B. 13 And this highlights how SIU 1 14 includes Links 1, 2, 3 and 4, and SIU 2 15 includes 3, 4, 5 and 6. 16 Now, this map summarizes the 17 alternatives presented by link at the 18 third meeting for SIU 1. In Link 1, 19 there was only one build alternative 20 and, in Links 2 and 3, there were two 21 each. 22 So here is the latest proposals 23 with the links for both SIUs -- the 24 alternatives by link for both SIUs. In 25 SIU 1, it has been decided that Links 1 20 1 and 2 will include the alternatives as 2 presented at the last meeting for SIU 3 1. In Links 3 and 4, for SIU 1, the 4 alternatives that are being shown 5 tonight reflect, in the case of 3A, a 6 connection discussed at the SIU 1 7 meeting and, in the case of 3B, an 8 alternative adopted in response to 9 comments received at that meeting. 10 These are the alternatives that will be 11 included as shown tonight in the DEIS 12 for SIU 1. 13 But this SIU, SIU 2, we proposed 14 that the same alternatives be included 15 for Links 3 and 4. However, no 16 decision has been made regarding what 17 will be included in the SIU 2 DEIS. 18 And it could contain alternatives in 19 those links that are different from the 20 ones in SIU 1. Your comments tonight 21 are important in helping us make that 22 decision. 23 In Link 5, which is in Jefferson 24 Parish, Alternative 5A will be included 25 in the DEIS and compared to either Link 21 1 5B or 5C. Again, your input is needed 2 to make that determination. 3 In Link 6, the alignment will be 4 on the existing Westbank Expressway, 5 the only build alternative, but your 6 comments concerning ramp locations and 7 other details are sought. 8 Now, this is changes in the 9 designation of alternatives. I'm not 10 going to read this to you, but it is in 11 your handout and, if you wonder what 12 happened to some of those alternatives 13 you've heard of before, this tells you 14 what their new name is. If you don't 15 see it on here, it went away. 16 So now, getting to the new 17 proposals or the current proposals, 18 this is Link 3, Alternative 3A. It 19 begins about 2.3 miles west of Bayou 20 Gauche Road, which is LA 306, and 21 extends to just east of Paul Mallard 22 Road or LA 52. This represents an 23 extension of that link to the east to 24 be sure that the U.S. 90 connection 25 with I-310, I-49, LA 3127 is fully 22 1 included in the link. Together with 2 Link 4, it comprises the urbanized area 3 of St. Charles from Paradis to Luling, 4 and it is included in both SIUs. 5 Alternatives 3A and 3B both will 6 be in the SIU 1 DEIS, and we present 7 them again for your comments tonight 8 regarding SIU 2. On these maps of 9 alternatives, please note the circles 10 which represent the general locations 11 of interchanges with arterial streets. 12 Of course, the maps on the wall have a 13 lot more detailed information. 14 As shown in the table on the 15 previous slide, 3A evolved from a 16 connection of SIU 1 and SIU 2 17 alternatives. The new roadway north of 18 the LA 3127 interchange becomes an 19 extension of I-310, and the main line 20 of I-49 continues east/west across LA 21 3127 with an interchange that serves 22 both this roadway and trips destined 23 for U.S. 90. It works better as a 24 transportation facility, and it has 25 lower potential impact on both the 23 1 natural and built environments than the 2 other pairs of connections using other 3 previously presented SIU 1 and SIU 2 4 alternatives. 5 3A has the disadvantages of 6 residential takings in Mosella, on Old 7 Spanish Trail or LA 631 and in the 8 potential Environmental Justice 9 neighborhood in Boutte. It also 10 requires that LA 3127 south of the 11 interchange with I-310 would no longer 12 be a control-of-access freeway. 13 Alternative 3B was developed in 14 response to the comments received from 15 the public at the last SIU 1 meeting 16 and from the Corps of Engineers. This 17 alternative began as one more attempt 18 to use LA 3127 as the direct connection 19 from I-49 to I-310, primarily to 20 minimize potential impacts to wetlands 21 and to avoid residential takings north 22 of the railroad and a potential 23 Environmental Justice neighborhood. 24 While geometric design requirements 25 will not permit that exact route, the 24 1 goals of minimizing potential wetland 2 and Environmental Justice impact were 3 achieved. 4 Because the 2030 traffic 5 projections for trips westbound on I-49 6 to northbound on I-310 and southbound 7 on I-310 to eastbound on I-49 are 8 negligible in number, FHWA agreed that 9 the ramps making those connections 10 could operate at less than 70 miles an 11 hour. This allowed the curves to have 12 tighter radii and to be accommodated in 13 the space available. 14 Unlike in 3A, LA 3127 south of 15 the existing interchange with I-310 16 continues to be a control-of-access 17 freeway until it ends at a relocated 18 U.S. 90 that provides a single 19 interchange for both roads with I-49. 20 There are takings of developed 21 property, but the number of affected 22 residences is relatively smaller and 23 all the land appears to be zoned 24 commercial. 25 Now, this is the other part of 25 1 the urbanized part of St. Charles. 2 Alternative 4A is essentially identical 3 to previous alternatives east of Paul 4 Maillard Road. It is an elevated 5 roadway north of the BNSF Railroad 6 until just before Barton Avenue. It 7 then crosses the railroad and has an 8 interchange with Willowdale. Barton 9 Avenue remains as is. The interchange 10 allows for a future grade separation of 11 the railroad when the programmed 12 relocation of LA 3060 from Barton 13 Avenue to this new alignment is 14 constructed. 15 As mentioned earlier, Link 4 now 16 ends at the east end of the Davis Pond 17 Diversion Canal crossing rather than 18 near the Parish line. This alignment 19 is only one of several alternative 20 vertical and horizontal configurations 21 that could be used to build I-49 22 parallel to U.S. 90 and the BNSF 23 Railroad between Boutte and Willowdale. 24 This is Alternative 4B, which, of 25 course, is another way to do that. It 26 1 crosses the BNSF Railroad near Wal-Mart 2 and has several advantages. It is able 3 to be constructed at grade rather than 4 elevated. It uses existing State 5 right-of-way south of U.S. 90. It 6 rebuilds U.S. 90 to current highway 7 standards, and it provides a grade 8 separated crossing of the BNSF Railroad 9 as part of this project as opposed to 10 some future thing the Parish gets to 11 build. 12 This alternative requires the 13 relocation of the Monsanto entrance on 14 Queenie and access to Barton Avenue via 15 the Willowdale interchange and the 16 relocated LA 3060. The disadvantages 17 to this alternative include the takings 18 of some properties on the south side of 19 U.S. 90 that are not currently owned by 20 the State and the disruption during 21 construction that could result from 22 relocating U.S. 90. Some trips from 23 residential areas north of the railroad 24 would be marginally longer, but the 25 improved safety and reliability of 27 1 crossing the railroad on a grade 2 separated structure should justify this 3 slight increase in travel time. 4 And to help you understand what 5 the difference between these are, there 6 is some sections that are drawn looking 7 east along U.S. 90 between Wal-Mart and 8 Barton Avenue. The width, as you can 9 see, is the same in both cases. 4A 10 places I-49 on an elevated structure on 11 the Monsanto property north of the 12 railroad. Of course, we don't have the 13 pipelines drawn on here because we're 14 not a hundred percent sure where they 15 are, and Alternative 4B places I-49 at 16 grade where U.S. 90 is today and 17 relocates U.S. 90 farther to the south 18 into the area that has been preserved 19 in most cases for roadway improvements. 20 This is Link 5. We're leaving 21 St. Charles Parish, but, hopefully, you 22 all will bear with me while I read 23 about Jefferson. Alternative 5A has 24 always been one of the alignments under 25 consideration. It remains on the U.S. 28 1 90 right-of-way the entire distance 2 from Davis Pond to Segnette Boulevard. 3 The advantage of this is that it is a 4 relatively small amount of land 5 acquisition. 6 However, there are problems with 7 maintaining four lanes of traffic, 8 especially during construction in the 9 section between Davis Pond and Live 10 Oak, especially in Jefferson Parish 11 where the existing elevation of the 12 road is 3 feet or less which is lower 13 than the minimum acceptable elevation, 14 a reduction of total lane capacity in 15 the corridor relative to the other 16 alternatives under consideration, 17 comments received at the last SIU 2 18 meeting concerning community disruption 19 and noise impacts in Avondale, 20 potential Environmental Justice 21 concerns and drainage coordination 22 issues that may require additional 23 right-of-way. 24 Interchanges are located at Live 25 Oak and at the U.S. 90/U.S. 90 Business 29 1 intersection which leads to the Huey P. 2 Long Bridge. Ramps connecting with 3 Lapalco Boulevard are included in that 4 area. 5 Here is another section through 6 Alternative 5A as it passes through 7 Avondale and it also looks east. The 8 dotted lines are the existing elevation 9 of U.S. 90 and the drainage structures 10 on each side of the road. The fill 11 sections for the relocated U.S. 90 that 12 will function like a frontage road will 13 require the drainage to be relocated. 14 The additional right-of-way on the 15 south side which is to the right in 16 this drawing would be used for that 17 drainage. It has not been determined 18 whether it would be subsurface drainage 19 or an open drainage canal similar to 20 the existing. 21 Alternative 5B, like Alternative 22 5C, is based on the concept of creating 23 a new alignment to the south of U.S. 90 24 in Jefferson Parish to reduce or 25 eliminate the problems with 5A. In 30 1 Jefferson, unlike in St. Charles, U.S. 2 90 is not at an adequate elevation, and 3 the land south of U.S. 90 is a leveed 4 area that has been under pump for many 5 years. In St. Charles, U.S. 90 is at 6 an adequate elevation and the land to 7 the south is not under pump. It is 8 natural wetlands, so you have the 9 opposite situation. 10 This specific alignment was 11 created to coordinate with developments 12 planned in the area between Avondale 13 Homes Subdivision and Bayou Segnette 14 Park. Operationally, it is 15 conceptually the same as 5C. 16 And this is 5C. Previously, the 17 only alignment presented that bypassed 18 the existing U.S. 90 in Jefferson 19 Parish, it shares many characteristics 20 with 5B. The primary difference is the 21 alignment between Avondale Homes and 22 Segnette Boulevard. 5B runs between 23 the subdivision and the golf course, 24 and 5C runs between the golf course and 25 the park. Both have interchanges at 31 1 South Kenner and at Nicole as well as 2 at the U.S. 90/U.S. 90 Business 3 intersection leading to the Huey P. 4 Long Bridge. 5 Alternative 6A between Segnette 6 Boulevard and the existing completed 7 portion of the elevated Westbank 8 Expressway, Link 6 has only one build 9 alignment alternative. There was a 10 proposal earlier to connect the 11 southern alignment discussed in 5B and 12 5C across the south of Bayou Segnette 13 Park in Westwego and connect it with 14 the Expressway in Marrero near 15 Westwood. This was eliminated because 16 it did not meet the Purpose and Need, 17 especially regarding system linkage 18 because there is no connection with the 19 Huey P. Long Bridge. 20 While there is only one build 21 alternative, the locations of entrance 22 and exit ramps and other details of 23 construction are still being studied. 24 Traffic analysis indicates that the 25 most efficient configuration at 32 1 Westwood is to have diamond ramps, 2 meaning an exit before the connecting 3 road and an entrance after. This is 4 the design that exists on the remainder 5 of the expressway, but it is proposed 6 that the new construction would have at 7 least a thousand feet between the exit 8 and the connecting road to avoid the 9 weaving problems often experienced at 10 the existing exits. 11 Now, these tables are too 12 complicated to go over at this forum, 13 but I wanted you to have them in your 14 packet. This shows you the potential 15 impacts to the natural environment. It 16 allows you to compare the different 17 alternatives within each link. 18 These are the potential impacts 19 to the built environment which, again, 20 allows you to compare within the link 21 one to the other. 22 Now, in the case of the noise 23 receptors, I just want to remind you, a 24 potential noise receptor may not hear 25 anything. That is why we do the noise 33 1 study. This is simply the number of 2 properties that will be considered in 3 the study to determine if they have any 4 sort of impact, and it's really just 5 about every building within 650 feet of 6 the edge of the travel lane. 7 And these are estimates of the 8 length in additional right-of-way 9 requirements. We want to emphasize 10 that these are only estimates based on 11 this conceptual design. The required 12 right-of-way estimates will change as 13 the design is advanced and the 14 alternative is selected for the Final 15 Environmental Impact Statement. 16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 17 Is that supposed to be in this 18 packet? 19 MR. COSTA: 20 Yes, sir. All of those are in 21 the part of the packet that has -- 22 Page 36 is the lengths and the next one 23 is Page 37 which is just a slide -- 24 that is actually a picture of the 25 Westbank Expressway at Avenue A. 34 1 MR. AGHAYAN: 2 6 and 7, not 36, 6 and 7. 3 MR. COSTA: 4 Sorry, there is 6 -- yes, I 5 forgot there were six slides on a page 6 in your handout. I apologize. 7 As we refine the alternatives to 8 be included in the Draft Environmental 9 Impact Statement, we will refine the 10 estimated costs for right-of-way 11 acquisition, relocation expenses, 12 environmental mitigation and 13 construction. Each of these things, of 14 course, has its own cost, and, in 15 addition to that, there is the cost of 16 the engineering beyond what we're doing 17 in order to do the Environmental Impact 18 Statement. 19 Currently, the order of magnitude 20 construction cost estimates indicate 21 that SIU 2 would have a cost in 2004 22 dollars in the range of nine hundred 23 and sixty million to 1.1 billion 24 dollars, including a contingency. This 25 range varies by which alternatives, of 35 1 course, are selected in which link. 2 This number also includes Links 3 and 3 4, so it can't really be added to the 4 cost of SIU 1 because you would be 5 double counting 3 and 4. The 3 and 4, 6 the high estimate of building Links 3 7 and 4 is five hundred and seventy-five 8 million, and the low estimate is four 9 hundred and forty-five million. 10 This is our contact information. 11 Of course, this is in your packet also, 12 and you have our phone number, our 13 website and our e-mail. 14 And this, remember, is the last 15 round of scheduled Public Meetings for 16 SIU 2. There is one more meeting this 17 Thursday, August the 19th, at 6:30 p.m. 18 It is especially for Jefferson Parish, 19 but, of course, everyone is welcome. 20 It is at the Avondale Multipurpose 21 Center on Capitol Drive in Avondale. 22 We will, however, continue to respond 23 to requests for group meetings, but the 24 next scheduled event after this will be 25 the Public Hearings to receive your 36 1 comments on the Draft Environmental 2 Impact Statement, and that is currently 3 planned to happen in March of 2005. 4 Before we look at the wall 5 displays, let's review the roadway 6 elements of the legend. For the most 7 part, the existing roads are not 8 indicated except by their names on the 9 aerial photographs, but parts of U.S. 10 90 and some other highways that remain 11 in operation, however, we have 12 highlighted the portions that will 13 remain in black. Proposed roadways, 14 both I-49 and frontage roads, are shown 15 in green if they are at grade, and, if 16 they are elevated, they're shown in 17 blue. The existing right-of-way owned 18 by the State today is in black, and the 19 additional required right-of-way to 20 construct the proposed roadways is 21 shown in magenta. 22 We will now present the traffic 23 simulation followed by the 20-minute 24 break, and please go sign up to speak 25 if you haven't done that already, and, 37 1 while the break is going on, if you 2 have had your fill of the exhibits on 3 the wall, you can come up to the 4 computer table and either Sonny will 5 show you more traffic or Gene can show 6 you more environmental and engineering 7 information on the computer and get up 8 closer to things you might be more 9 interested in. 10 If you don't want to speak 11 tonight or if you think of something 12 you want to say later, your comments, 13 of course, can be sent in writing, and, 14 if we receive them on or before August 15 the 27th, they will become an official 16 part of the record of this meeting, so 17 thank you. 18 Sonny, I'll turn it over to you 19 and, then, when you sit down, I'll 20 start counting twenty minutes. 21 Thank you. 22 MR. SMOAK: 23 Before I get started, for those 24 of you who have never seen one of these 25 before -- I think a lot of you have 38 1 from the meetings we have had here 2 previously -- if you have any 3 questions, like Lou said, afterwards, 4 we will be at the table, we will be 5 happy to answer what we can, run the 6 models for you in different areas. 7 Whatever you would like to see, we'll 8 be more than happy to show you. 9 Again, those who have never seen 10 one of these before, this is called a 11 Corsim model. What a Corsim model is 12 is it is kind of like a look into the 13 future of what traffic will be like in 14 the variety of proposed geometric 15 alignments. The ones we're going to 16 show you today are a combination of 17 Link 3A and 4A. That will be one 18 model. Then the second one will be 19 Links 3B and 4B, so this is actually 20 going to go rather quickly. 21 The traffic you see on these 22 models is a projection into the year 23 2030. These projections have come 24 about through the regional model that 25 has been developed in this area, and 39 1 it's a variety of inputs, economic 2 inputs that are leading up to the 3 traffic production in the area, so, to 4 put it more simply, the traffic numbers 5 you see or the traffic activity you see 6 on these models is our best guess into 7 the future into the year 2030. 8 Each little rectangle or dot that 9 you see on these roadway networks 10 represents a vehicle, and, basically, 11 like I said, I don't want to make it 12 sound oversimplified, but it is a movie 13 into what traffic is going to be like 14 in the peak hour in this area through 15 the -- through the I-310 area down and 16 past Willowdale. 17 We're going to kind of glide 18 along from just west of the 310 19 interchange, and, in this area, you 20 will see where -- you will see where 21 the main line I-49 runs. It is in 22 gray, and you'll see a split where it 23 will be a connection from I-310, 24 existing I-310 and how it will connect 25 with I-49 going westbound in this area, 40 1 the black links and, then, going 2 eastbound, and you will see a breakoff 3 heading back towards the bridge. 4 This link right here is LA 3127, 5 and down here at the bottom corner, you 6 will see this is existing -- where 7 existing U.S. 90 is today. As far as 8 any congestion issues that are 9 concerning these models, you won't see 10 many because the capacity that has been 11 provided for the future growth performs 12 extremely well. This is Paul Maillard 13 Road and Highway 90, and, like I said, 14 this is actually the 4A alignment just 15 north of it. 16 And, in this area, you have -- 17 this is Barton and this is Willowdale. 18 They're pretty self-explanatory. 19 They're not really exciting to watch. 20 And like Lou said, with different 21 links, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, they're on the 22 wall, so, if you want to get a better 23 idea what the geometrics look like, 24 you'll be able to tell a lot better if 25 you go take a look at those diagrams. 41 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 2 What is the number of vehicles 3 per hour? 4 MR. SMOAK: 5 Vehicles per hour, oh, it depends 6 on what link you're talking about. It 7 can be anywhere from, I would say in 8 both directions, around three thousand 9 on the interstate sections. It 10 depends. At the end of the -- of this 11 presentation or during the break, if 12 you want to come up here, I can 13 actually pull that off and tell you 14 specifically in specific areas what it 15 will be, if you want me to show it to 16 you. 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 18 That is three thousand in what 19 time limit, how many? 20 MR. SMOAK: 21 It is going to be a p.m. peak 22 hour. That is what we typically use, 23 an a.m. and a p.m. peak hour, and, in 24 this case, we use the worst case in 25 those two situations, which would be a 42 1 p.m. peak. But as far as -- I can't 2 quite, off the top of my head, tell you 3 the exact numbers as far as vehicular 4 volumes are. At the break, I can give 5 you what the model's projections are in 6 whatever area on the model that you 7 want to see. 8 This model is 3B and 4B, the 9 connections with I-310, and, again, the 10 only difference between the previous 11 model as far as activity is concerned, 12 there really is none. The capacity 13 that is -- that would be out there 14 would be more than adequate. Again, 15 you will see where I-310 breaks off and 16 makes a connection with I-49 in this 17 area and, then -- however, existing 18 U.S. 90 in this scenario is relocated 19 south. Like I said, the diagrams on 20 the wall can give you a better idea 21 what the geometrics would look like. 22 That is Paul Mallard right there, 23 U.S. 90. 24 The difference that you see in 25 this model versus the other one, this 43 1 is a relocated road that will access 2 the Monsanto plant, and it doesn't 3 typically generate a whole lot of 4 volume compared to the other major 5 roadways in that area. Like I said, 6 not very exciting because it doesn't 7 project any real problems. And I'll be 8 pretty quick. 9 That is about it. Like I said, 10 if you have any questions, any idea of 11 what the volumes may be in a specific 12 area at the end of a peak hour, you can 13 come up here and I can pull that off 14 for you and it will be a lot more 15 accurate than me trying to pull it off 16 the top of my head. 17 MR. COSTA: 18 Okay, thank you, Sonny. 19 I just want to -- we're going to 20 take a break now, but Councilman Ram 21 just showed up back there. Would you 22 like to say anything, sir? 23 COUNCILMAN RAM: 24 Yes, the concern that I have is 25 the (inaudible). I have the same 44 1 concern with the interstate in the 2 existing community and commerce and 3 business that took thirty years to 4 grow. I don't want it to wither away. 5 The best choice I believe will have the 6 least impact on existing business, 7 existing community should be your 8 choice. Instead of another alternate, 9 to go further south, to go toward the 10 swampland and to go toward Jefferson 11 Parish aligning straight and do not 12 affect the commerce and the business in 13 St. Charles Parish, particularly Boutte 14 area. That is the biggest concern I 15 have. 16 After seeing what happened to 17 St. Louis, the last twenty-five, thirty 18 years, I am very concerned about the 19 commerce. We're all small 20 businesspeople. I don't want them to 21 have a major impact go by when nothing 22 happens in our community. That is the 23 only concern I have. You gentlemen can 24 give us an economic impact of all the 25 alternates on the existing business, 45 1 that will be illuminating to my 2 community. 3 Let's not have an underpass, the 4 feeders and also maintain all the 5 underground pipelines. Here, we're 6 putting it on the north side of the 7 railroad track. I don't know what type 8 of impact it will have. I went to the 9 website. I looked through all the 10 details. I don't know the impact on 11 existing business. 12 I'm not opposed to that, by the 13 way. 14 MR. COSTA: 15 Okay, thank you. All right. 16 Well, it's 20 minutes after 7, so at 40 17 minutes after 7, we will start up 18 again. 19 (Brief recess taken at 7:20 20 p.m.). 21 (7:40 p.m.) 22 MR. COSTA: 23 Ladies and gentlemen, it's been 24 twenty minutes. Please take your seats 25 and we'll reconvene the meeting. If 46 1 anyone else would like to speak -- we 2 don't have many cards here. 3 Okay. Well, first, by way of 4 introduction, I want to make an 5 apology. Apparently, when I was 6 telling you how much Links 3 and 4 7 cost, I said five hundred and 8 seventy-five billion dollars and I 9 didn't really mean that. I meant five 10 hundred and seventy-five million. We 11 probably all have that in our bank 12 account, but I just wanted to make that 13 straight for the record. Thank you. 14 Okay. I'll just begin calling 15 these out in the order I got them. The 16 first, Councilman Ram would like to 17 speak again, and I want to ask for 18 everyone, if you would, come up to that 19 microphone and give your name and -- so 20 the court reporter can get it down. 21 Thank you. 22 COUNCILMAN RAM: 23 Okay. Good evening, ladies and 24 gentlemen. 25 Lou, I thank you very much for 47 1 asking my input, and too much emotion 2 is involved in our community. I just 3 reflected that emotion. All of us are 4 not opposed to this project, but we 5 want common sense to a great extent to 6 prevail, not technicalities. 7 This is a small community. Many 8 of us are for this project, by the way. 9 We are not opposed to that, but we want 10 to make sure these communities are not 11 affected very much. 12 Our people here, three, four 13 generations living in the same house 14 for the past hundred years, one hundred 15 twenty years, there are some ladies who 16 have been born and raised in the same 17 house, and, if that highway come in 18 front of the house, I don't know how I 19 can look at them and tell them, well, 20 that is the way it is. And that is why 21 I plead with you, please put 22 extraordinary amount of common sense in 23 routing it. 24 If the southmost alignment in 25 Jefferson Parish is good for them, it 48 1 is very good for us. That is why we 2 would rather prefer go all the way 3 south and, if that is the way to do it, 4 the cost is going to be extra 5 percentage, be it so. I would very 6 much like you to look into that 7 alternate, rather than affecting the 8 existing commerce, the existing 9 businesses. Too much emotion is 10 involved. Too many people will be 11 affected, so please keep people in 12 mind. 13 You are an excellent person in 14 disseminating information. We thank 15 you for coming over here, explaining 16 the details. We really appreciate it. 17 MR. COSTA: 18 Thank you, but you have brought 19 up a couple of things that I think I 20 really need to sort of respond to. 21 You have to all remember, 22 although you can't remember this, 23 because I don't think I told you 24 before, but the first time we had 25 meetings and we went back and spoke to 49 1 the resource agencies and the 2 permitting agencies and they were upset 3 that we were much too concerned with 4 urban development and that we had to be 5 more considerate of the natural 6 environment, and so, then, we went back 7 and redesigned a lot of things and were 8 more concerned with the natural 9 environment, and we now are seeking 10 that magic balance that every 11 environmental document always has to 12 get, where the fewest number of people 13 are displaced or dispossessed in return 14 for the minimum damage to the natural 15 environment. 16 And you also have to remember 17 that the natural environment agencies 18 are doing what they're doing because 19 there are laws that make them do that. 20 They have to find the Least Damaging 21 Practicable Alternative, and so they're 22 going to be pushing for what they see 23 as the Least Damaging Practicable 24 Alternative, which is build everything 25 on dry, commercial property and don't 50 1 cut down any trees and don't get near 2 any water, and that is what we're here 3 to do is to listen to you and to listen 4 to them and to help our clients try to 5 figure out how to balance those things 6 out, and I'm trying to use common 7 sense, but it doesn't always work. 8 So I think what -- where we are 9 tonight is we're seeking your comments 10 on those two alternatives that will be 11 in the Draft Environmental Impact 12 Statement for SIU 1. If one or both of 13 them need something done to it to make 14 it a little more compatible with 15 community values, we can try to do that 16 for SIU 2, but we can't start over. I 17 mean, we have eliminated large numbers 18 of alternatives already. 19 We really can't go south if south 20 means south of U.S. 90 and east of 21 Magnolia Ridge because the areas east 22 of Magnolia Ridge that are south of 23 U.S. 90, they're not going to let us go 24 there. They've told us that already, 25 just like they're not going to let us 51 1 go north of the railroad unless we can 2 make them do it, like we did in 3A, 3 where there is a little corner taken, 4 so I just wanted to add, I'm not trying 5 to disagree, I'm not trying to be 6 argumentative. I just want everyone in 7 the room to understand where the 8 project has evolved to. 9 We have listened to both sides 10 and we've done everything we can to try 11 to make it balance out. We're not 12 finished trying to make it balance out. 13 You understand, when we say do the 14 draft environmental document, we're not 15 going to go off and do engineering 16 drawings and nobody is going to show up 17 here in six months with a bulldozer. 18 We're still trying to determine 19 where the route will be, and this 20 Environmental Impact Statement is a 21 much more detailed study of these 22 alternatives than we've given attention 23 to any of the previous alternatives. 24 And, once we've got those answers and 25 we come back and tell you what they 52 1 are, then, the State and the Federal 2 government will attempt to make a 3 decision based on your reactions to 4 those things and our findings on those 5 things as to where the route ought to 6 go. This is by no means over. We're 7 simply reaching a plateau where 8 something different is going to happen. 9 We're going to do more detailed studies 10 on fewer things. 11 And, Councilman, I have your list 12 on the back so I won't forget, okay? 13 George Hull? 14 MR. HULL: 15 Yes. 16 Yes, my name is George Hull, and 17 I have been to some of your meetings 18 and it seems we're always getting 19 pushed into this is going to be the way 20 the highway goes. More I think like 21 Ram does, that south would be the way 22 to go. I know we keep hearing, well, 23 we can't go south, but this seems to be 24 our community and our Highway 90. Why 25 can't we go south? 53 1 MR. COSTA: 2 Well, because you can't get a 3 permit from the Corps of Engineers is 4 the real reason, sir. You know, that 5 is -- that is what it is. 6 MR. HULL: 7 Well, then -- 8 MR. COSTA: 9 They give permits. 10 MR. HULL: 11 Do we need to bring everybody's 12 traffic through our community? 13 MR. COSTA: 14 Well, the whole idea of I-49 is 15 to get the traffic out of your 16 community and up onto the interstate 17 highway. 18 MR. HULL: 19 Well, Highway 90 seems to work 20 pretty well. In twenty-five minutes, 21 Highway 90 takes you down to New 22 Orleans. We're going to bring 23 everybody else that is going down that 24 way too through our community. That is 25 why I just don't see trying to use 54 1 Highway 90 as the corridor for 49. It 2 should be more south where it would be 3 out of everybody, take the traffic 4 through there, leave our local Highway 5 90 for our community to use. That is 6 really what I -- 7 MR. COSTA: 8 Well, when this is built, that is 9 the way Highway 90 will be. It will be 10 for your community. 11 MR. HULL: 12 No, it will be interstate. 13 MR. COSTA: 14 No, Highway 90 will still be a 15 four-lane highway running through 16 Boutte and Luling and Mosella. 17 MR. HULL: 18 Well, what is I-49? 19 MR. COSTA: 20 I-49 will also be there, and it 21 will also be running through those 22 communities, but it's going to be 23 separated, that is, like an interstate 24 highway is. 25 MR. HULL: 55 1 But it comes right down to where 2 Highway 90 was with the interstate. 3 MR. COSTA: 4 In one of the -- 5 MR. HULL: 6 They're two separate highways, 7 but it takes the same corridor. 8 MR. COSTA: 9 Well, yes, sir, it does. I'm not 10 going to deny that. That is because 11 there is really no other corridor. 12 MR. HULL: 13 But it seems like we're just 14 always getting these scenarios and we 15 have to select one of those. Why can't 16 we have another scenario that the 17 public likes maybe that is south but 18 yet the Corps of Engineers permitting, 19 and say this is what the public would 20 like? 21 MR. COSTA: 22 We had many of those and we were 23 told by the Corps that they were not 24 suitable. 25 MR. HULL: 56 1 Well, I haven't seen that many of 2 them from the south. I have heard it 3 talked about, but I've never seen it. 4 MR. COSTA: 5 Gene, do you have -- 6 MR. GILLEN: 7 Give me a second. 8 MR. COSTA: 9 That's right. You have the GIS 10 on; you don't have the slide show on. 11 MR. HULL: 12 But, anyway, that is all. 13 MR. COSTA: 14 There were numerous alternatives, 15 one of which was Alternative -- dare I 16 say it -- W, which, you know, that was 17 not particularly popular, but that was 18 an alternative that went south. And 19 there are just things down there that 20 we can't go through. 21 You can't go through the wildlife 22 reserve. You can't go through the 23 conservation servitude. You can't go 24 past -- 25 MR. HULL: 57 1 You can't go through Lafayette 2 through those same type of preserves? 3 MR. COSTA: 4 Well, they don't have any of 5 those there. This -- this was W, as 6 you know. I'm sure you all remember W. 7 We proposed W, and that was seen 8 as a way to try to make the community 9 happy by the resource agencies because 10 it went down into this area of 11 wetlands. The No. 1 reason there is no 12 W is it's down in these wetlands, and 13 nothing else that goes down in these 14 wetlands is going to get built either. 15 This is the conservation 16 servitude, which you cannot enter. 17 This is the wildlife management area, 18 which you cannot enter with a Federal 19 project, and it's not shown on here, 20 but, of course, all of that is the 21 Davis Pond ponding area, which, as you 22 know, they spent tens of millions of 23 dollars creating, and we didn't suggest 24 running a highway through there, but I 25 think we all know what their reaction 58 1 would be if I suggested it to them, so 2 that really leaves us with the Highway 3 90 corridor. 4 And I'm not saying this to be 5 argumentative. Again, I'm trying to 6 help you all through what we've been 7 through. You know, we came here before 8 we drew a line on the map and about 9 half of you said, oh, it would be great 10 to just follow the railroad, and about 11 the other half of you said, go south 12 somewhere, and so we drew several of 13 each, and these are the best two of the 14 two of them, and one of them has been 15 excluded, so, now, we're at the point 16 of figuring out how to build it in the 17 U.S. 90 corridor in a way that is the 18 most advantageous to St. Charles 19 Parish. 20 And I guess you would say the 21 first one we did, the old piece of T, 22 seems more advantageous to the existing 23 developed commercial property, and it 24 probably is because it goes on the 25 other side, it aggravates Monsanto a 59 1 little bit, but we're going to pay for 2 it, and they're a big company and their 3 factory is on the other side of the 4 property, so maybe that's not so bad. 5 The other one, though, gives you 6 a grade separation over a railroad 7 track and it gives you a brand new 8 Highway 90 that has real 12-foot lanes 9 like a real highway ought to have and a 10 whole bunch of other things, so we 11 think there is some value to both of 12 them. It is a matter of trying to 13 figure out which one you like best, and 14 there are still other ways to get 15 through there, but they're all going to 16 be within 500 feet of the center line 17 of existing Highway 90. 18 Yes? 19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 20 You keep bringing up the 21 environmental impact. What did they 22 say it would create? They just let us 23 build a big canal all the way through 24 the swamp for the diversion project. 25 They built 310 through the swamp; they 60 1 built 55 through the swamp. 2 MR. COSTA: 3 I can't make the judgment for 4 them. Their legal responsiblity -- 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 6 In answer to the legal question, 7 you said they wouldn't let you. What 8 was the reason they said there was 9 impact? 10 MR. COSTA: 11 I think it is because they 12 believe that there are practicable 13 alternatives that don't require the 14 taking of the wetlands. And that 15 practicable alternative is the Highway 16 90 corridor. If that exists, they are 17 required by law to not let us use 18 anything else. That is their job under 19 the 404 permit process, and, I mean, 20 that is. I can't argue with them about 21 it because it really is their job. 22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 23 Why can't we? 24 MR. COSTA: 25 Well, you can get your 61 1 congressmen to argue, but I can't. I 2 can't go and tell them, no, that is not 3 what the 404 permit process says, 4 because it is what the 404 permit 5 process says. 6 Now, in other parts of the 7 corridor, we can argue with them, 8 sometimes, because it's not abundantly 9 clear, but, in this case, there really 10 isn't anyplace to go if you don't go 11 south, and, if going south means W, 12 which nobody likes that either, then 13 there really isn't any other feasible 14 alternative except somewhere within 15 that 500 feet of the center line of 16 Highway 90. 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 18 You got the highway bypassing Des 19 Allemands, then coming back and 20 bypassing Paradis. Why not go 21 straight? It is the same land. 22 MR. COSTA: 23 No, it is not the same land. No, 24 that is inside the Sunset Drainage 25 District. I mean, all that area down 62 1 there, whichever drainage district it 2 is, this drainage district, the Paradis 3 area, that is all inside the levee, and 4 they've told us that, even though these 5 are very healthy and wonderful 6 wetlands, because they have disrupted 7 hydrology, they would prefer that we go 8 there than go north, and so the area 9 between the ridge and the levee and 10 Highway 90, if we have to go somewhere, 11 they will let us go there. 12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 13 You coming east. You go south 14 around Des Allemands, then you go back 15 to 90, then you go south around 16 Paradis. Why don't you just go 17 straight? 18 MR. COSTA: 19 Because, then, you couldn't get 20 off and on the highway. Where would 21 the exit be? 22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 23 Put it wherever you want. 24 MR. COSTA: 25 No. If I-49 doesn't either run 63 1 parallel to or intersect U.S. 90 -- 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 3 You're not listening to me. It 4 would parallel U.S. 90. 5 MR. COSTA: 6 Well, another gentleman asked me 7 the same question, I think it was the 8 same question, why didn't you do that. 9 Is that what you're asking me? 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 11 Where are you pointing? 12 MR. GILLEN: 13 Lou -- 14 MR. COSTA: 15 I think what you're asking me is 16 why didn't I do that? Am I -- I don't 17 know, maybe I'm wrong. Is that what 18 you wanted to know? 19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 20 Why don't you just go straight? 21 MR. COSTA: 22 Well, because the next exit -- 23 you wouldn't have an exit here. 24 Everybody would either have to go to 25 Lafourche Parish or they would have to 64 1 go to I-310. 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 3 Sounds great. 4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 5 You would have to make an exit 6 right there by 90, right? 7 MR. COSTA: 8 You would have an exit over here 9 at 310. 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 11 When you come bypass Des 12 Allemands, where you going to exit to 13 get on 90? 14 MR. COSTA: 15 We have one here, but, if we 16 would make this straight, you wouldn't 17 have one here. 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 19 Bayou Gauche Road. 20 MR. COSTA: 21 Well, there's not enough traffic. 22 I mean, I can't justify building an 23 interstate exit on Bayou Gauche road. 24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 25 Well, you told me interstate 65 1 through Des Allemands and Paradis. You 2 said nobody will get off at Bayou 3 Gauche Road to catch 90. Why get off 4 there? 5 MR. COSTA: 6 Well, because they're already on 7 Highway 90. If you're in Des 8 Allemands, you're on Highway 90. 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 10 The interstate is going to bypass 11 Des Allemands. You have to get off the 12 interstate -- 13 MR. COSTA: 14 Let's say I'm right there. I 15 want to go to New Orleans. 16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 17 Listen to me. 18 MR. COSTA: 19 Now, under this plan, I go on 20 Highway 90 and I get on the interstate 21 right there about 3 miles away, and I 22 go to New Orleans. If I want to go to 23 Lafayette, I can go the other way and 24 get on over here. That is entirely 25 different than if I want to go to New 66 1 Orleans from here, I've got to drive 2 all the way to 310. 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 4 I'm not leaving Des Allemands. 5 I'm on I-49 -- that is what you just 6 told me -- I'm on I-49 and I'm heading 7 to New Orleans. 8 MR. COSTA: 9 From where? 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 11 Heading east, New Orleans is 12 east. 13 MR. COSTA: 14 Okay. 15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 16 I'm on I-49. Why do I got to go 17 back to 90? 18 MR. COSTA: 19 You don't -- 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 21 Anybody -- 22 MR. COSTA: 23 -- unless you live there. 24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 25 Anybody going from Des Allemands 67 1 is going to go down Highway 90, going 2 to get on 310 and go to New Orleans. 3 So why do you have that road? How much 4 money -- 5 MR. COSTA: 6 That is what you do now because 7 it's the quickest way to get there, but 8 if you have an interstate highway on 9 the West Bank -- 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 11 I'm not going to go on the West 12 Bank. 13 MR. COSTA: 14 -- you might not go across 15 through Metairie. Why would anybody 16 drive through Metairie if they can 17 avoid it? 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 19 Let me tell you, I happen to live 20 here. All these people live here. 98 21 percent of the people that is going to 22 leave Des Allemands, Paradis, Boutte 23 and Luling ain't going to New Orleans; 24 they going to the east bank, Kenner, 25 Metairie, so forth and so on. 68 1 MR. COSTA: 2 Then they'll cross the Huey P. 3 Long Bridge. 4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 5 I go -- 6 MR. COSTA: 7 Huey Long Bridge will be six 8 lanes wide. 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 10 They been saying that forever. 11 MR. COSTA: 12 No, it really will be. Unlike 13 this project, they have the money. 14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 15 I drove every day to high school. 16 They said that twenty years ago. 17 MR. COSTA: 18 I enjoy this, but we really need 19 to let the people who signed up speak, 20 and, then, I'll stay here and talk to 21 anybody who wants to talk. 22 Steve Romano? 23 MR. ROMANO: 24 Steve Romano, 219 Browning Drive 25 in Luling. And I want to do this, I 69 1 wrote -- I wrote my comments and I 2 would like to submit those into the 3 record. 4 Can you hear me okay? Can you 5 hear me now? Good. 6 I'm in favor of Link 2B which is 7 the segment west of Des Allemands 8 because of how it's proposed to swing 9 southward before reaching the cluster 10 of residential uses just west of Des 11 Allemands, thereby limiting 12 displacement and impacts to the 13 communities. However, I encourage you 14 to ensure that great care be taken to 15 construct this segment in such a way 16 the wetlands and waterways would be 17 minimally impacted. I commend that 18 mankind has the capability of going 19 through a wetlands area without 20 sacrificing the wetlands. It was done 21 with 310 and, to a certain extent, to 22 Interstate 55. And I think the same 23 can be accomplished constructing I-49. 24 I'm very supportive of Link 3B 25 because I consider it the most logical, 70 1 straightest alignment, and it is the 2 best tie-in with I-310. However, I 3 encourage you to consider reducing the 4 areas that will encompass the 5 I-49/I-310 interchange. In other 6 words, tighten it up a little bit so 7 that you don't have to displace or cut 8 down as much trees, as many trees or 9 otherwise displace the woodlands or the 10 environmental area, and plus it would 11 also limit the amount of displacement 12 or property acquisition that might be 13 necessary to accomplish building this 14 interchange. 15 It's my opinion that both 4A -- 16 Link 4A and Link 4B have benefits that 17 warrant consideration but both have 18 potential negatives that I believe 19 warrant careful examination to 20 continue. There are some concerns that 21 I have and I know several folks in the 22 audience do have. And as you have 23 implied, it may basically come down to 24 which of these two links has the least 25 negative impacts or which ones would be 71 1 easier for the citizens of St. Charles 2 Parish to live with, to endure. 3 Regarding Link 4A, personally, I 4 like the fact that locating it north of 5 the railway would limit the amount of 6 displacement and impacts to existing 7 commercial land uses stemming from 8 interstate construction and after 9 completion. I'm not sure if this is 10 the case, but I believe that this link 11 would also reduce the noise impacts 12 when compared to Link 4B because of the 13 fact that it would be located further 14 from the points of impact, the 15 residential areas in particular. 16 However, if this link is to be 17 totally elevated, it may be a negative 18 impact -- may be a negative, rather, 19 because it would limit the exposure to 20 commercial facilities. Business owners 21 along Highway 90 might like the 22 exposure, you know, coming from 23 vehicles traveling on the interstate. 24 And If it's high up in the air and they 25 can't see the businesses, they might 72 1 continue to bypass. 2 Noise impacts, of course, this is 3 early and beyond the scope of the 4 current study, but traffic noise 5 generated from an elevated portion 6 might mean that the noise travels 7 further because it's higher and has 8 to -- you know, gravitational pull or 9 whatever would make it go down, but, on 10 the surface, without further 11 examination, I would think that a 12 ground-level interstate closer to the 13 points of impact, i.e., the residential 14 areas would -- I mean, it would be easy 15 to conclude that the noise impact would 16 be greater with Link 4A, which I 17 believe is the existing -- sorry, 4B is 18 utilizing the existing right-of-way of 19 Highway 90. 20 Regarding Link 4B, of course, as 21 you stated, the fact that it would be 22 less costly to build, particularly if 23 the portion could be built at ground 24 level, that is a benefit that I like, 25 but it would probably more -- be more 73 1 desirable to commercial businesses, 2 because, as I stated earlier, the 3 greater exposure from the interstate 4 that would Link 4A -- than with Link 5 4A, rather. 6 However, I'm concerned that the 7 negative impacts of this link might 8 outweigh the positive, in particular, 9 the impacts during construction, as you 10 stated earlier, and the noise impacts 11 stemming from traffic generated at the 12 completion, particularly within 13 residential areas, as I stated earlier. 14 And, of course, this alignment would 15 also displace several local businesses 16 that exist within the existing and 17 proposed right-of-way. 18 At first, I was concerned about 19 the plan to redirect Queenie Drive and 20 Barton Avenue to the roadway at 21 Willowdale, but I have to admit that I 22 like the potential benefits that the 23 community could have in that, as I've 24 sunk in, one of the consultants, there 25 is a potential benefit in that the 74 1 State would be -- would build the 2 over -- the overpass of Willowdale 3 Boulevard. 4 However, I would suggest two 5 things: No. 1, possibly trying to 6 extend or possibly trying to align the 7 roadway closer to the railroad so that 8 there is a separation from the 9 residential areas, the traffic coming 10 from Monsanto, and, B, I would suggest 11 extending the road further westward 12 toward Boutte if possible or at least 13 look into that so that possibly it 14 could end at the interstate with 15 another on ramp or, you know, on ramp 16 to the interstate, and, that way, you 17 wouldn't have a separation of access 18 from the interstate of the community of 19 Boutte. In other words, you would get 20 an interchange of some kind between 21 I-310 and Willowdale Boulevard. Okay. 22 Pertaining to 5A -- and I'll be 23 brief here -- 5A, I strongly urge you 24 to make all efforts to proceed with 25 this alternative because it utilizes 75 1 the existing alignment, it limits -- I 2 feel like it limits potential 3 displacement without -- particularly 4 with regard to the residential areas 5 because it would go right down a 6 commercial corridor. I like that idea. 7 It's straightest and it probably would 8 be less expensive. It doesn't impact 9 the wetlands areas south of 90. 10 I'm real troubled about 5A (sic). 11 As far as I'm concerned, it may as well 12 be called 5 Bad because, knowing how 13 interstate highways tend to result in 14 further development of land, what I see 15 south of Highway 90 to the proposed 16 alignment there are wetlands that will 17 be sucked dry and become residential. 18 I mean, that is just a fact, and I'm 19 real concerned about that. 20 There is a significant need for 21 transportation improvements within the 22 existing 90 corridor, particularly 23 we're taking into account that the 24 average daily traffic exceeds 25 twenty-five thousand vehicles per day 76 1 on average in St. Charles Parish. That 2 is 2002 data. We all have a rare 3 opportunity to determine as a large 4 body of people what we are willing to 5 accept. This project could fulfill the 6 need that this community will have in 7 the future, a future that it is safe to 8 say will witness increased traffic 9 totals, especially if nothing is done 10 to address the future transportation 11 needs. 12 MR. COSTA: 13 Thank you. 14 Jim -- is it Kuemmel? 15 MR. KUEMMEL: 16 Kuemmel. 17 MR. COSTA: 18 Kuemmel. 19 MR. KUEMMEL: 20 My name is Jim Kuemmel. I live 21 in Willowdale, so some of my questions 22 pertain to that. I don't have it as 23 prepared as you had it. 24 I guess I got two parts of the 25 question, has to do with all the 77 1 different alternatives that you started 2 with some time ago and what you're 3 showing us right now. Pertaining to 4 SIU 2, of all the options that you've 5 shown us tonight, are those the only 6 options other than the no-build 7 scenario? Are those the only options 8 that are being considered now? 9 MR. COSTA: 10 Well, for SIU 2, those are the 11 two options -- I assume you mean in 12 St. Charles Parish? 13 MR. KUEMMEL: 14 Yes, that is my primary interest. 15 MR. COSTA: 16 Okay. Those are the only two 17 that we are proposing to use. That 18 does not mean that yet another option 19 or that some version of one of those 20 that is slightly different in some way 21 cannot be put into the SIU 2 document. 22 That is possible. 23 That is why we're here, to hear 24 what you have to say about this and 25 think about it and consider it, but, of 78 1 all the ones that you've seen in the 2 past, in other words, the one that went 3 north of Paradis, for example, or the 4 ones that do other things that you have 5 seen before, either at one of these 6 meetings or if you were at one of the 7 meetings with some of the council 8 members of the Economic Development 9 Council where I've brought other maps 10 and shown them to people, those have 11 all been eliminated as they were then. 12 That doesn't mean that aspects of them 13 couldn't be brought back, and, if you 14 have some proposal that you think, if 15 you only did such and such to that, we 16 would like it better, please tell us 17 that because we can make it different. 18 MR. KUEMMEL: 19 But that would be some derivative 20 of, let's say, starting with this as a 21 base, whatever you're showing now, that 22 is kind of, as you say -- 23 MR. COSTA: 24 I'm saying that not because I'm 25 unwilling to start over but we've tried 79 1 just about everything. I mean, there 2 are very few grand scale different 3 things that you could try. 4 It gets down to where does the 5 ramp go and does it start curving here 6 or does it start curving there sort of 7 a change, but it could make a big 8 difference to somebody's home or to the 9 community at large. I mean, I'm not 10 saying that it wouldn't. I'm just 11 saying that that is the kind of change 12 that -- 13 MR. KUEMMEL: 14 The other part of the question is 15 along the same lines, only it's going 16 to refer to SIU 1. At the last meeting 17 for SIU 1, on one of the maps, it shows 18 a scenario for a tie-in to SIU 2. 19 MR. COSTA: 20 Right. 21 MR. KUEMMEL: 22 Now, it was not discussed at the 23 meeting at that time, apparently, that 24 was not part of the topics, the actual 25 tie-ins, different -- 80 1 MR. COSTA: 2 That is because, at the time we 3 had that meeting, SIU 1 was still 4 considered to be from Raceland to I-310 5 as far as the actual route of the 6 highway. The study area went to Davis 7 Pond, but the route of the highway we 8 were presenting to you went from 9 Raceland to I-310. 10 Since then, it was determined by 11 FHWA and DOTD, after we talked about it 12 often enough and listened to what you 13 all said and talked to the regulatory 14 agencies and looked at traffic data, 15 that that really wasn't going to work, 16 that we really had to include what 17 we're showing you here as Links 3 and 4 18 as part of SIU 1, and we also had to 19 include 3 and 4 in SIU 2, and, if -- 20 the 3 and 4 in SIU 1 does not have to 21 be identical to the 3 and 4 in SIU 2. 22 That is why I said, if you have some 23 idea that you believe you will get a 24 standing ovation from the group here or 25 somewhere else in St. Charles Parish, 81 1 tell us, because we can still change 2 it, and so these are the ones that will 3 be in SIU 1. SIU 2, we're proposing 4 them, but they're here on the table for 5 discussion. 6 And the only other thing I can 7 really say in reference to what you 8 prefaced is the 3A is essentially the 9 same as the former GG3-T connection 10 which we showed you at that meeting, 11 and this is a change to that which 12 really resulted from several iterations 13 of conversations with the Corps of 14 Engineers and Department of Natural 15 Resources and traffic. 16 There are a lot of traffic things 17 that drove how that was designed, the 18 fact, for instance, that the 2030 19 figures indicate that almost no one is 20 going to want to come from New Orleans 21 to cross the Hale Boggs Bridge and very 22 few people crossing the Hale Boggs 23 Bridge are going to go to New Orleans 24 by way of 3127. Most of the trips that 25 come from the east and go north or come 82 1 from the north and go east are using 2 Barton Avenue or the proposed 3 relocation of Barton Avenue, because, 4 as those of you who live there know and 5 as I know from coming here regularly 6 for over a year now, it's shorter. So 7 you're not going to drive all the way 8 over here to go back over there. 9 You'll go the shorter way. 10 Thank you. 11 Dr. Bo Jeansonne? 12 DR. JEANSONNE: 13 Yes. I'm Dr. Bo Jeansonne. Most 14 of you know me here. I live in the 15 Willowdale, and I own property at 16 Mosella. 17 Would you bring up 3A, please? 18 I want to say while he's doing 19 that, I am not and have never been 20 against the I-49 corridor. I was 21 quoted in our local paper out of 22 context. I was trying to make a joke 23 last meeting, but we need this. We 24 just need to take care of people, 25 commerce and the environment as well as 83 1 we possibly can, and I think a serious 2 effort is being made to do that. 3 3A, I hate this, obviously. It 4 goes right through my property that I 5 have -- is my heart, my dream. I was 6 delighted to see 3B. Halleluiah. 7 Common sense prevails. 8 Can we see 3B now? 9 This, to me, seems the most 10 logical for people, commerce and the 11 environment. East of I-310, which is 12 basically SIU 2, as I said, I live in 13 the Willowdale, and, obviously, this is 14 all going to affect me, but I think the 15 important thing is to preserve the 16 potential for commercial growth along 17 the Boutte/Luling areas that have 18 already developed, so I am very much 19 encouraged. I heartily endorse 3B, 20 that is 3B. 21 And, as far as the SIU 1, the 4s 22 and the 5s and the 6s, I just think 23 that everybody is trying to make an 24 effort to consider the residents, the 25 commerce and the environment, and, 84 1 obviously, there are restrictions. I 2 have been on Salvador and the other 3 areas that I know you can't go on 4 those. That is it. End of story. So, 5 you know, there are constraints for 6 that, so I think I've said my peace, 7 okay? All right. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. COSTA: 10 Okay. Thank you, Doctor. 11 Clay Boyce? 12 MR. BOYCE: 13 Good evening. My name is Clay 14 Boyce. I'm here on behalf of Monsanto 15 Company. 16 Mainly, our primary concerns or 17 interests are with Links 4A and 4B. 18 There are advantages and disadvantages 19 to both. Obviously, there is cost 20 impacts of building of 4A relative to 21 the underground pipelines, but it does 22 give you the separation from the 23 Highway 90. We're not here to endorse 24 one or the other but to express our 25 concerns with both. 85 1 4B will impact our operations. 2 It will impact by relocating our 3 entrance, and, you know, we strive very 4 hard to be good neighbors and we're 5 concerned about the amount of vehicles 6 coming out of the new entrance road and 7 impacting the traffic on Barton Avenue 8 either now or when they do relocate the 9 extension to River Road because the 10 folks that live in the Barton Avenue 11 Subdivision still will come out through 12 that location to get to all the 13 commerce on the south side of Highway 14 90, so I don't have any right answer 15 for this, but we are working with DMJM 16 and looking at the various options. 17 And, again, our only concern is 18 to make sure that we are here for the 19 long haul and what we end up with also 20 will not impact our capability of 21 further growth and that we do not 22 impact the community with our vehicles. 23 We have anywhere from fifty to sixty 24 large trucks on a daily basis coming 25 out of the plant. We have six to seven 86 1 hundred employees and three hundred 2 contractors, and we just want to make 3 sure we do not impact both Barton 4 Avenue and the Willowdale interchange 5 with that amount of traffic. 6 Thank you. 7 MR. COSTA: 8 Okay, thank you. 9 Jara Roux? 10 MS. ROUX: 11 Hi, my name is Jara Roux, and I 12 grew up in Boutte when my name was Jara 13 DeBroka (phonetically spelled), and 14 with all respect to Mr. Romano and 15 Dr. Jeansonne, I would like to tell you 16 a little bit about my family's dream. 17 My family located on the corner 18 of Boutte that 3B will totally wipe out 19 in the 1860s. My mother has lived in 20 that house for eighty years. Her 21 businesses that support her as a widow 22 are located on both corners there. 23 I would also like to point out 24 that, as a matter of economics, the two 25 businesses there provide taxes to 87 1 St. Charles Parish, and the salaries 2 they pay to the people that work there 3 also provide revenue to our community. 4 I think 3B is poorly designed and takes 5 in very little consideration, not only 6 to my mother's property and business 7 but the cemetery and other businesses 8 located between the cemetery and her 9 house. I think that an alternative 10 should be redesigned. 11 I have sympathy to the wooded 12 areas. Our family owns woods on the 13 other side of the track, so I have 14 sympathy to those environmental issues 15 as well, but I am definitely against 3B 16 as it exists now. 17 Thank you. 18 MR. COSTA: 19 Thank you. 20 Mike Prendergast? 21 MR. PRENDERGAST: 22 Mike Prendergast from 623 23 Willowdale Boulevard in Luling. 24 Lou, I would just like to ask 25 you -- I'm representing in this 88 1 question too the Willowdale Property 2 Owner's Association. 3 I have been involved in this 4 process from the very beginning, and, 5 like Mr. Kuemmel said, Jim Kuemmel, 6 he's seen some different alternatives 7 come and go over time. 8 MR. COSTA: 9 Right. 10 MR. PRENDERGAST: 11 I would just like to ask you, 12 prior to the process you have here, 13 when we get to the Record of Decision, 14 is there any chance that something that 15 looks like Alternative W could 16 reappear, an option that would 17 essentially bisect Mimosa and 18 Willowdale/Willow Ridge Subdivisions? 19 MR. COSTA: 20 I would find that -- 21 MR. PRENDERGAST: 22 I'm glad to see it gone. 23 MR. COSTA: 24 To do that, we would have to go 25 through the area the Corps of Engineers 89 1 doesn't want us to go through, so I 2 don't think we can get there and run 3 between those neighborhoods. 4 MR. PRENDERGAST: 5 The other question was, if you 6 think there is any chance that could 7 happen, how would we be notified as 8 property owners? 9 MR. COSTA: 10 Well, the process is, remember 11 these alternatives, what you see on the 12 wall over there right now, until and 13 unless something is said here or by the 14 resource agencies to cause us to change 15 them, they will be -- that is what will 16 be in the SIU 2 as well as the SIU 17 environmental document. Even if they 18 are changed, one of them will survive 19 into the Final Environmental Impact 20 Statement for SIU 2 and one of them, 21 hopefully the same one -- we have to 22 keep our fingers crossed -- will 23 survive into the environmental document 24 for SIU 1, and, at that time, the 25 Department -- well, the Federal Highway 90 1 Administration will make a decision as 2 to which alternative they're going to 3 grant a Record of Decision to, so you 4 will see always these alternatives or 5 something that evolves out of these 6 alternatives. 7 When we come to the Public 8 Hearing, we will show you the same 9 thing and we will tell you what is good 10 and bad about it, and if there were 11 some flaw that made one of them, for 12 instance, not possible unless we made 13 this fix, then we would show you the 14 fix we had made and say we're still 15 proposing this but, now, it looks like 16 this and this is why, and, then, from 17 that, you would comment on it, and, 18 remember, for the Draft Environmental 19 Impact Statement, it isn't only you get 20 to look at the website, if you 21 remember, and if I get the maps up 22 quick enough and you come to the 23 meeting and you listen to me talking 24 and you look at things on the wall and 25 you have to say things. You have a 91 1 thirty-day period during which time you 2 can personally obtain, through reading 3 it on the website or sending away for 4 it or going to the library, your actual 5 hardcopy of the document and you