Public Hearing Held Oct 3, 2002 at Klondike Elementary
The
public hearing was held October 3, 2002 at Klondike Elementary School.
Over
215 people were in attendance to collect information regarding the
status of the overall project and to view results of the Draft Environmental
Document, which identifies Line 7 as the recommended preferred alternative.
Presentations regarding the format of the hearing and the status
of the project were given by Mary Wright (INDOT Public Hearings
Examiner) and Wendy Vachet (Project Manager for INDOT's project
consultant, Michael Baker Jr., Inc.). Immediately following the
presentations, public comments were heard. Information packets and
comment sheets were provided to all in attendance. This
information can be found below.
The official
comment period for the Draft Environmental Document ended October
18, 2002. Thank you to those that submitted comments. The comments
received on the document will be part of the official public hearing
transcript and addressed in the Final Environmental Document. To
view the comments on the Draft Environmental Document, click here
(1.46 MB PDF).
You may continue
to provide general comments and feedback on the project. However,
the comments received after October 18 will not be considered official
public hearing comments nor will they be addressed in the Final
Environmental Document. General comments are considered as an overall
part of the public involvement process for the project. Advance
to the feedback page to submit your comments.
You may view all public comments on the Draft Environmental Document
by clicking here
(1.46 MB PDF).
|
Information
Provided at Public Hearing:
|
 |
Public
Meeting #2 Held
The
second public meeting was held on June 6, 2002 at Klondike Middle
School. Over
170 people were in attendance to collect information regarding the
status of the overall project and the results of the preliminary
alternative analysis. A brief presentation about the status of the
project was given by Wendy Vachet (Project Manager for INDOT's project
consultant, Michael Baker Jr., Inc.). Patricia Mason (CAC Spokesperson)
also presented information regarding the role and activities of
the Community Advisory Committee (CAC). Immediately
following the two presentations, public comments were heard. Information
packets and comment sheets were provided to all in attendance. This
information can be found on the public meeting
page.
Comments
regarding this meeting will be accepted through June 21 via this
website's feedback page,
via mail (Wendy Vachet, Project Manager, Michael Baker Jr., Inc.,
701 E. 83rd Avenue, Merrillville, IN 46410) or via fax (to Wendy
Vachet - 219-755-0233).
|
Information Provided at Meeting #2:
|
Handout:
Project
Background
The Indiana
Department of Transportation (INDOT), in association with the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), currently is re-evaluating alternatives
originally proposed as part of the 1987 environmental impact study
for the relocation of US 231 from south of the Wabash River to US
52. That study was done in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). In June 2001, the southern segment of the project,
including the new bridge crossing the Wabash River as well as improvements
to South River Road, were completed and opened for traffic. The
planned middle segment between South River Road and State Street
is currently undergoing final design.
The northern
segment of the project was planned to alleviate traffic congestion
on the Purdue Campus by re-routing US 231 to the west. Several alternatives
were studied as part of the 1987 study, and a preferred alternative
was selected in a 1992 Record of Decision. However, significant
developments west of the campus have necessitated that the original
alternatives be re-evaluated. Therefore, INDOT is taking another
look at the project to determine the best alternative, including
a possible "No-Build" alternative, to meet current needs
while avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts to the area.
INDOT will make
the final decision on what alternatives will be eliminated from
further study and which alternatives will be carried forward for
detailed study in the Environmental Assessment (AFTER CAC and comments
from this public meeting are received).
Submit
Your Comments
Comments on
information presented at this public meeting, as well as comments
about the project in general, can be submitted by going to the feedback
page.
Synopsis
of First Public Meeting
The first public
meeting was held on January 17, 2002 at Purdue University's Stewart
Center. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the eight initial
alternatives for the continuation of the US 231 Relocation Project
between State Street (SR 26) and US 52.
Over 275 people
were in attendance to collect information relating to the project
history, potential alternatives, and the NEPA process. A brief presentation
was given by Wendy Vachet (Project Manager for INDOT's project consultant,
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.), about the history of the project and the
current study, after which individual comments were heard. Comment
sheets were included in the meeting handout packet for written questions
and comments. All information presented at the meeting can be found
on the project website (www.relocate231.com/pubmtg.htm) or in the
project repository (located in the Area Plan Commission's office
in the Tippecanoe County Building - 20 N 3rd Street, Lafayette).
The results
of comments received thus far are included in the project's first
newsletter. Comments will be accepted throughout the life of
the project via the project website, mail, and fax (see 'Submit
Your Comments above).
Community
Advisory Committee
The US 231 Community
Advisory Committee (CAC) is a group of approximately 20 individuals
formed to facilitate the transfer of information between the community
and state transportation officials regarding the proposed relocation
of US 231 from SR 26 to US 52. Public Involvement is considered
an essential component of the current effort to evaluate the potential
social, economic and environmental impacts of the proposed road.
The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) maintain ultimate authority over all decisions
regarding the project; however, the CAC serves in an important advisory
role. Information from the CAC workshops will be used to develop
a Community Impact Assessment Report for the project.
The CAC is comprised
of community members and representatives with a variety of affiliations
including:
- Area Plan
Commission Parks & Recreation Departments
- Neighborhood
Associations City Offices
- Purdue University
Wabash and Shelby Township Offices
- Local Community
Groups
The Committee
held its first workshop on April 11, 2002. Representatives of INDOT's
project consultant, Michael Baker Jr., Inc., provided CAC members
with data and aerial maps of the project study area displaying current
and proposed land use and development patterns in relationship to
several potential road alignments. Committee members were asked
to review and edit the data and maps and take their findings back
to other members of their neighborhoods and organizations. Documents
and photographs from that meeting, as well as a wealth of additional
information about the overall US 231 study is posted on the project
website (www.relocate231.com/cac.htm).
The Committee's
second workshop was held on May 16, 2002. Topics of discussion included
a review of the mapping and land use edits from the previous meeting,
a discussion of historic resources located in the study area, a
discussion of the alternatives analysis, and ideas for developing
and distributing the project newsletter for the local community.
You may view
the CAC meeting materials by visiting the project website (www.relocate231.com/cac.htm)
or the project repository (located in the Area Plan Commission's
office in the Tippecanoe County Building - 20 N 3rd Street, Lafayette).
Please keep in mind that the information provided to the CAC is
in DRAFT form and is preliminary information being presented to
INDOT.
Project Repository
A repository
for project documents has been established in the Area Plan Commission
offices (located in the Tippecanoe County Building - 20 N 3rd Street,
Lafayette). This is a location where citizens can go to view hard
copies of various project documents and regulations. The repository
includes the following items: 1987 DEIS, 1992 FEIS, 1992 Wetland
Finding/ROD, 1997 Reciprocal Agreement, the 2015 Comprehensive Plan
for Tippecanoe County, INDOT and FHWA procedure manuals, project
mapping, Draft Section 106 Report, printout of project website,
handout material from public meetings, public comments, Community
Advisory Committee (CAC) binder, Focus on the Future document, prior
project engineering reports, etc.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(NHPA)
What is Section
106 review? Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The review
process is administered by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP), along with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA/agency)
and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The historic
preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined
in regulations issued by the Council. Revised regulations, "Protection
of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), became effective
January 11, 2001, and are summarized below.
Why was Section
106 created? NHPA was enacted because of public concern that so
many of our Nation's historic resources were not receiving adequate
attention as the Government sponsored much-needed public works projects.
In the 1960s, Federal preservation law applied only to a handful
of nationally significant properties, and Congress recognized that
new legislation was needed to protect the many other historic properties
that were being harmed by Federal activities.
What does NHPA
say? Section 106 of NHPA requires that every Federal agency "take
into account" how each of its undertakings could affect historic
properties. An agency must also afford the Council a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the project.
What is a Federal
"undertaking"? This term includes a broad range of Federal
activities: construction, rehabilitation and repair projects, demolition,
licenses, permits, loans, loan guarantees, grants, Federal property
transfers, and many other types of Federal involvement. Whenever
one of these activities affects a historic property, the sponsoring
agency is obligated to seek Council comments.
What is a historic
property? For purposes of Section 106, any property listed in or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places is considered
historic.
The National
Register is this country's basic inventory of historic resources
and is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. The list includes
buildings, structures, objects, sites, districts, and archaeological
resources. The listed properties are not just of nationwide importance;
most are significant primarily at the State or local level. It is
important to note that the protections of Section 106 extend to
properties that possess significance but have not yet been listed
or formally determined eligible for listing. Even properties that
have not yet been discovered (such as archeological properties),
but possess significance, are subject to Section 106 review.
What is the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation? The 20-member Council
is composed of four members of the general public (including the
chairman and vice chairman), four historic preservation experts,
a Native American or Native Hawaiian, a governor, a mayor, seven
federal agency heads, and two ex-officio representatives of national
preservation organizations--all appointed by the President of the
United States.
Section 106
Participants
The Federal agency involved in the proposed project or activity
is responsible for initiating and completing the Section 106 review
process. Under certain circumstances, local governmental bodies
may act as the responsible agency. The agency works with the State
Historic Preservation Officer (an official appointed in each State
or territory to administer the national historic preservation program)
and the Council to do so. There can be other participants in Section
106 review as well. At times, local governments, representatives
of Indian tribes, applicants for Federal grants, licenses or permits,
and others may join in the review process when it affects their
interests or activities.
The following
is a list of consulting parties for this project:
- Angela Bowen,
Wabash Valley Trust for Historic Preservation
- Mark Dollase,
Historic Landmarks Foundation
- John P. Froman,
NAGPRA Principal Chief, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
- James F.
Howell, Shelby Township Historical Association
- Julie Olds,
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma
- David M.
Scholes, Delaware Nation
- Jon Smith,
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Division of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology
Section 106
Step-by-Step
1. Undertaking
Determination - Determines if the proposed project or action is
an "undertaking" by deciding whether the proposed action
could result in changes in the character or use of any historic
properties. If there is an undertaking, but it does not present
a type of activity that has the potential to have an effect on a
historic property, then the Section 106 obligations are complete.
It is also necessary
to plan on involving the public and to identify any consulting parties
(i.e., local governments, Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations,
and applicants for Federal assistance or permits, etc.).
2. Identifying
Historic Properties - Includes preliminary work, actual efforts
to identify properties, and an evaluation of identified properties
to determine whether they are "historic;" i.e., they are
listed on, or are eligible for inclusion in, the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP).
When properties
are found that may be historic but have not been evaluated, the
agency and SHPO consult about eligibility for each property.
If the property
is found to be ineligible, appropriate documentation must be given
to the SHPO/THPO and consulting parties must be notified. Once adequate
documentation is received, the SHPO/THPO has 30 days to object to
the determination. The Council may also object on its own initiative
within the time period. Lack of such objection within the 30-day
period means that the agency has completed its Section 106 responsibilities.
If the property
is found to be eligible, the effects of the undertaking on the property
must be assessed and consulting parties must be notified.
3. Assessing
Effects - Once eligible historic properties have been identified,
it is then determined whether the proposed undertaking could affect
the properties. The criteria of effect and adverse effect are used
to determine potential effects on historic properties.
The criteria
of adverse effect states that "an adverse effect is found when
an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics
of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in
the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity
of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, or association… Adverse effects may include reasonably
foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later
in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative."
[36 CFR 800.5(a)]
When applying
the criteria of effect and adverse effect, there are three possible
findings:
- No Effect:
There is no effect of any kind, neither harmful nor beneficial,
on the historic properties. The proposed undertaking may proceed.
- No Adverse
Effect: There could be an effect, but the effect would not be
harmful to those characteristics that qualify the property for
inclusion in the national register. Project documentation must
be submitted to the Council for concurrence.
- Adverse Effect:
There could be an effect, and that effect could harm characteristics
that qualify the property for inclusion in the national register.
Consultation must begin with the SHPO/THPO and the Council to
seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects.
4. Resolve Adverse
Effects - The agency consults to resolve adverse effects with the
SHPO/THPO and others (i.e., Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations,
local governments, permit or license applicants, and members of
the public). The Council may participate in consultation when there
are substantial impacts to important historic properties, when a
case presents important questions of policy or interpretation, when
there is a potential for procedural problems, or when there are
issues of concern to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations.
Consultation
usually results in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which outlines
agreed-upon measures that the agency will take to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate the adverse effects. In some cases, the consulting parties
may agree that no such measures are possible, but that the adverse
effects must be accepted in the public interest. If an MOA is executed,
the agency proceeds with its undertaking under the terms of the
MOA.
If consultation
proves unproductive and the adverse effect(s) cannot be resolved,
the agency or the SHPO/THPO*, or the Council itself, may terminate
consultation. If a SHPO terminates consultation, the agency and
the Council may conclude an MOA without SHPO involvement. However,
if a THPO* terminates consultation and the undertaking is on or
affecting historic properties on tribal lands, the Council must
provide its comments. The agency must submit appropriate documentation
to the Council and request the Council's written comments. The agency
head must take into account the Council's written comments in deciding
how to proceed.
5. Proceed with
Project - As stated in Step 4, if an MOA is executed, the agency
proceeds with its undertaking under the terms of the agreement.
Helpful Websites:
Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation
FHWA
Indiana Division Section 106 Consultation Procedures
Alternatives
Analysis
Introduction:
- History
of Alternatives Considered for the Project
- Range of
Alternatives to Complete the Project
- Alternatives
Reduction Analysis/Screening Process
- Alternatives
Eliminated From Detailed Study
- Alternatives
Carried Forward for Detailed Study
History of Alternatives
Considered (Previous Documents):
- Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposed Relocation of US 231 and Wabash
River Crossing, 1987 (DEIS)
- Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposed Relocation of US 231 and Wabash
River Crossing, 1992 (FEIS)
- Record of
Decision, 1992 (ROD)
Alternative
Reduction Analysis:
Develop and
Consider Environmental Constraints
- Existing
Information (State and Local agencies)
- Previous
Environmental Documents
- Secondary
Sources (FEMA, Aerial Photos, Wetland Mapping)
- Preliminary
Field Reconnaissance
- Community
Impact Assessment Development
- Public Involvement
Activities
Screening Criteria
- Purpose and
Need Requirements (Traffic and Land Use)
- Additional
Environmental Considerations (Floodplains, etc.) and potential
4(f) Resources
- Residential
Displacements/Community Issues
- Additional
Factors to Determine Reasonableness
Any alternative
not meeting the objectives of the screening criteria was eliminated
from detailed study.
No-Build: Carried forward per CEO and FHWA regulations
Line 1: The
Original Preferred Alternative (ROD 1996) - will be carried forward
Line 2: Eliminated
due to impacts associated with Celery Bog and has the largest #
of displacements (over 300+) due to Blackbird Farms and other existing
developments. (This alternative was developed during the DEIS and
dismissed in the 1996 FEIS)
Line 3: Eliminated
due to potential impacts related to Klondike Schools and has the
second largest # of displacements. (This alternative was developed
during the DEIS and dismissed during the 1987 DEIS)
Line 4: Eliminated
because it does not adequately meet the purpose and need for the
proposed action and will not be carried forward for detailed study.
Line 5: Eliminated
because it does not adequately meet the purpose and need for the
proposed action and will not be carried forward for detailed study.
Also has the third highest # of displacements.
Line 6: Eliminated
because it does not adequately meet the purpose and need for the
proposed action and will not be carried forward for detailed study.
Line 8: Eliminated
because it does not adequately meet the purpose and need for the
proposed action and will not be carried forward for detailed study.
Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study:
- Build Alternative
Line 2
- Build Alternative
Line 3
- Build Alternative
Line 4
- Build Alternative
Line 5
- Build Alternative
Line 6
- Build Alternative
Line 8
Alternatives
Carried Forward for Detailed Study:
- No-Build
Alternative
- Build Alternative
Line 1 (Original Preferred)
- Build Alternative
Line 7
- Build Alternative
Line 9
- Build Alternative
Line 10
Public Involvement
and Community Impact Assessment
- Public Information
Kick-Off Meeting Held January 17, 2002
- Community
Advisory Committee (CAC) Initiated to Facilitate Transfer of Information
Between the Local Community and State Transportation Officials
- CAC Kick-Off
Meeting Held April 11, 2002
- Public Information
Meeting #2 held June 6, 2002
- Additional
CAC and Public Information Meetings to
be Conducted Throughout the Study Proces
Conclusion
The No-Build
Alternative, and Build Alternative alignments, Line 1 (the original
Preferred Alternative) Line 7, Line 9 and Line 10,
will been recommended to INDOT to be carried forward for detailed
study based on the alternative screening process. These alternatives
will be fully evaluated for potential environmental consequences
in the Environmental Assessment.
Public
Kickoff Meeting
The
first public meeting was held on January 17, 2002 at Purdue University's
Stewart Center. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the
eight initial alternatives for the continuation of the US 231 Relocation
Project between State Street (SR 26) and US 52. Over 275 people
were in attendance to collect information relating to the project
history, potential alternatives, and the NEPA process. A brief presentation
was given by Wendy Vachet (Project Manager for INDOT's project consultant,
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.), about the history of the project and the
current study, after which individual comments were heard.
Comment
sheets were included in the meeting handout packet (see below) for
written questions and comments. The
results of comments received thusfar are included in the project's
first newsletter. Comments
will be accepted throughout the life of the project via this website's
feedback page.
|
Information Provided at Kickoff Meeting:
(Click the logo above to download the free
Acrobat Reader.)
|
 |
Handout:
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In
1992, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Indiana Department
of Transportation (INDOT), Tippecanoe County, Lafayette, and West
Lafayette jointly initiated a project to relocate US 231 and construct
a new bridge over the Wabash River. The project's Preferred Alternative
(PA), as identified in the 1985 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) and the 1992 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS),
consisted of "Line A" from south of CR 500S to Harrison
Bridge (including a Wabash River crossing), and "Line 1"
from South River Road to US 52. Since the September 1992 Record
of Decision (ROD), Line A and the Wabash River Crossing have been
constructed. Line 1 of the PA has not been constructed at this time.
In
the interval between the ROD and the current period, there have
been noticeable changes in the landscape due to new construction
and development within the original Line 1 Project Area. The original
Project Area is experiencing a period of rapid development that
is primarily confined to the eastern third of the area. In that
area, there are several new subdivisions under construction. Because
of this development, FHWA and INDOT have decided to reevaluate the
build alternatives for the area north of the Wabash River and initiate
an environmental document in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended.
INDOT,
on behalf of the FHWA, is also reinitiating the Section 106 Review
and Coordination process with the Indiana Division of Historic Preservation
and Archaeology (IDHPA) in accordance with the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's current regulations of 36 CFR 800, the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, and other applicable laws and regulations.
2.0
PROJECT HISTORY
In
September 1978, the Transportation Plan for the Lafayette area was
documented in a report entitled Greater Lafayette Area Transportation
and Development Study. This plan, which was adopted by the Area
Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County (TCAPC), included a project
to construct a new highway (US 231) with a new Wabash River crossing.
The road was envisioned to begin near CR 350S, cross over the Wabash
River, pass between the Purdue University Airport and the campus,
and tie into the west side of West Lafayette. According to the report,
"this highway would alleviate congestion on two principal Wabash
River bridges and improve access to West Lafayette and Purdue University."
In
1981, a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Tippecanoe County was adopted.
The 1978 Study was included in this plan.
In
1984, the City of West Lafayette, supported by the Tippecanoe County
Commissioners and the City of Lafayette, obtained an agreement with
the Indiana Department of Highways to proceed with the US 231 project.
In
1986, a proposed relocation of US 231 with a South River Bridge
crossing was included in the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) of the TCAPC and Indiana Department of Highways Improvement
Program (HIP). In addition, the 1981 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
for Tippecanoe County was updated by the TCAPC in response to an
announcement that the Subaru-Isuzu partnership would build and operate
a major automobile assembly plant in south Lafayette. The increased
employment from this plant with its associated growth required an
improved highway system. The Subaru-Isuzu Site Impact Study, Levee
Plaza Business Area Transportation Plan, and Strategic Plan for
West Lafayette also stressed the importance of the highway system.
The relocation of US 231 with a Wabash River crossing was considered
to be an integral part of those plans.
In
1987, a DEIS for the relocation of US 231 was developed and approved
for circulation. The DEIS discussed a No-Build alternative; a Transportation
System Management (TSM) plan; and five Build alternatives which
included three alternatives for segments south of the Wabash River
and two alternatives north of the river. All of the alternatives
south of the river began at either County Road 350S or 550S and,
following an approximately 2,000-foot bridge constructed over the
Wabash River, ended at South River Road in West Lafayette. The two
north alternatives began at South River Road and ended at US 52
and Cumberland Avenue.
In
addition to the Build alternatives, the DEIS addressed several system
improvements. These improvements were deemed crucial for the success
of the Build alternatives in reducing traffic flow problems in Lafayette,
West Lafayette and Tippecanoe County. The improvements included:
extending CR 350S between US 231 and CR 50E; widening South River
Road from the Conrail overpass to Harrison Bridge; extending Harrison
Street from Chauncey Street to South River Road (.25 miles); and
constructing new ramps at the Harrison Bridge Interchange.
The
DEIS concluded that the Build alternatives improved traffic conditions
over the No-Build alternative by: "providing a safer and quicker
route between the Purdue Campus/West Lafayette and the south side
of Lafayette; reducing congestion and delay on US 231, Fourth Street,
State Street and Grant Street; improving access to the south part
of Purdue using the Harrison Street extension; opening up the Harrison
Bridge and River Road interchange to access from all directions;
and reducing accidents on State Street, Fourth street, Third Street
and US 231."
In
1992, a FEIS was developed and approved. A preferred alternative
was selected based on four evaluation criteria developed in the
Purpose and Need section of the DEIS. These criteria were: 1) conformity
to existing transportation plan(s); 2) existing traffic and accident
characteristics; 3) future land use developments; and 4) future
traffic assignments.
The
preferred alternative identified in the FEIS consisted of "Line
A" from south of CR 500S to Harrison Bridge and "Line
1" from South River Road to US 52. Construction of the southern
section was slated to begin in 1993, while construction of the northern
section was not planned to "occur in the immediate future."
In
September 1992, the FHWA issued a ROD for the project. The ROD summarized
the FEIS and concluded that the preferred alternative better met
the purpose and need for the project than the other Build alternatives,
the No-Build and TSM alternatives, while minimizing social, economic
and environmental impacts to the area.
In
1997, the TCAPC adopted the Transportation Plan for 2015, a part
of the Comprehensive Plan for Tippecanoe County. The plan called
for the completion by 2000 of the southern segment of the US 231
project from south of CR 500S to SR 25; the segment from SR 25 across
the Wabash River (including the new bridge) to South River Road;
the segment from South River Road to Harrison Bridge; and the exit
and on ramps at Harrison Bridge. For the period between 2001 and
2010, the plan called for extending US 231 from South River Road
north, east around the Purdue Airport, then north and west around
the Purdue University campus to a northern terminus at US 52. Finally,
for the period between 2010 and 2015, the plan called for upgrading
and widening of McCormick Lane from US 52 to CR 500N to create an
"outer loop" for West Lafayette and a connection to the
new US 231.
In
May 2001, the TCAPC adopted the Transportation Plan for 2025. With
the southern segment, new bridge, and northern segment up to the
Harrison Bridge having been completed, the remaining work called
for by the plan includes: taking US 231 from South River Road to
US 52, as described in the 1997 Plan; the improvements previously
described for McCormick Road; and the extension of Intramural Drive
south through the Purdue University campus to meet realigned US
231. For the period between 2011 and 2025, the plan calls for continued
construction northward from US 52 to a new interchange at I-65 in
order to complete a circular by-pass around Lafayette and West Lafayette.
US 231 between Bloomington and Lafayette, Indiana is part of the
National Highway System. It also has been identified as a Statewide
Mobility Corridor in INDOT's 2000-2025 Long-Range Plan.
In
June 2001, the southern segment of the project, including the new
bridge crossing the Wabash River as well as improvements to South
River Road, were completed and opened for traffic. The project segment
between South River Road and US 26 (around the Purdue Airport) is
undergoing final engineering review.
Also
in June 2001, further environmental documentation for the northern
segment of the US 231 Relocation Project was initiated by the Project
Coordination Team consisting of FHWA, INDOT, TCAPC (MPO) and Michael
Baker Jr., Inc. (consultant). The purpose of the environmental documentation
is to determine if there are changes in the proposed action that
would result in significant environmental impacts that were not
evaluated in the EIS, or new information or circumstances relevant
to environmental concerns and bearings on the proposed action or
its impacts that result in significant environmental impacts not
evaluated in the EIS.
3.0
SYNOPSIS OF ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED
Currently,
alternatives to be considered include the "No-Build" alternative,
TCAPC alignment from the 2025 plan, three "Build" alternatives
carried forward from the previous EIS, two improvements to existing
roadways and two to three additional "Build" alternatives
to be determined west of the Kankakee, Beaverville and Southern
Railroad tracks.
The
"No-Build" alternative includes no new construction for
upgrading or realigning US 231 north of SR 26. This alternative
takes into account the completed southern segment of the project,
including the new bridge crossing the Wabash River as well as improvements
to South River Road; and the segment between South River Road and
SR 26, which is slated for construction.
For
the "Build" alternative, seven alignments are under consideration
(See Figure 1). Of these, two correspond to alignments carried forward
from the 1987 DEIS and 1992 FEIS.
-
Line 1 corresponds to Line 1 from the DEIS, which was selected
as the Preferred Alternative for the FEIS. Beginning at SR 26,
approximately 800 feet east of the Kankakee, Beaverville and
Southern Railroad, Line 1 heads in a northwest direction to
just past SR 126 (Cherry Lane) where it turns north crossing
CR 200N (Lindberg Road) at McCormick Road. Continuing north
for approximately 1.0 mile, Line 1 turns east and terminates
with existing US 231/52 in line with Cumberland Avenue. The
total length of Line 1 is 18,039 linear feet (approximately
3.4 miles). A 300-foot right-of-way and depressed grass median
were assumed on this alignment.
-
Line 2 corresponds to Line 2 from the DEIS. The southern terminus
of this alignment was proposed to connect with the northern
terminus of Line B (as described in the DEIS) at SR 26 and SR
526 (Airport Road). From there it heads northerly, parallel
to the east of the SR 526 right-of-way, to an intersection with
SR 126 (Cherry Lane). It then heads northwest crossing CR 200N
(Lindberg Road) approximately 1,570 feet east of the McCormick
Road intersection. It then heads northeasterly to its termination
perpendicular with existing US 231/52 at the Cumberland Avenue
intersection. The total length of Line 2 is 14,353 linear feet
(approximately 2.7 miles). A 300-foot right-of-way and depressed
grass median were assumed for this alignment.
Additional
Alignments currently under consideration include:
-
Line
3 corresponds to Discarded Line 3 from the DEIS: Beginning at
SR 26, approximately 800 feet east of the Kankakee, Beaverville
and Southern Railroad, Line 3 heads northwest along the eastside
right-of-way of the Kankakee, Beaverville and Southern Railroad
for approximately 2 miles to where it crosses CR 200N (Lindberg
Road). From there it heads northeast for approximately 0.5 miles
where it ties to existing McCormick Road. It then travels existing
McCormick Road for approximately 0.3 miles, terminating at existing
US 52 across from CR 250W. The total length of Line 3 is 17,277
linear feet (approximately 3.3 miles). A 300 foot right-of-way
and depressed grass median were assumed for this alignment,
with the center line of Line 3 assumed to be 800 feet east of
the center line of the Kankakee, Beaverville and Southern Railroad
to meet the required 800 to 1,000 feet clear zone.
-
Line
4: New Alignment. Beginning at SR 26, approximately 800 feet
east of the Kankakee, Beaverville and Southern Railroad, Line
4 heads northwest were it crosses the Kankakee, Beaverville
and Southern Railroad tracks approximately 1,400 feet north
of the SR 26 railroad crossing. It then runs northwest along
the western side of the railroad right-of-way crossing both
CR 200N (Lindberg Road) and CR 250N. Approximately 1,820 feet
north of CR 250N, Line 4 crosses the Kankakee, Beaverville and
Southern Railroad tracks again and continues northward for approximately
0.7 miles, terminating at US 52 approximately 1,800 feet west
of the intersection of US 52 and CR 300W. The total length of
Line 4 is 18,487 linear feet (approximately 3.5 miles). A 300
foot right-of-way and depressed grass median were assumed on
this alignment, with the center line of Line 4 assumed to be
800 feet west of the center line of the Kankakee, Beaverville
and Southern Railroad to meet the required 800 to 1,000 feet
clear zone.
-
Line
5: New Alignment. Beginning at SR 26, near Newman Road, Line
5 heads northwest along the centerline of SR 26, upgrading SR
26 from a two lane facility to a four lane divided facility
with a concrete median barrier, and also upgrading the existing
railroad crossing on SR 26. Line 5 continues along existing
SR 26, intersecting and/or crossing CR 250W, CR 300W, CR 325W,
CR 400W, CR 200N and CR 475W and improving the radii of three
existing horizontal curves before turning northeast approximately
0.6 miles past the intersection of CR 475W. Line 5 then crosses
CR 350N were it terminates with US 52. The total length of Line
5 is 25,874 linear feet (approximately 4.9 miles). A 150-foot
right-of-way and concrete median barrier were assumed on this
alignment.
-
Line
6: New Alignment. Beginning at SR 26, near Newman Road, Line
6 follows the same path as Line 5 for approximately 0.4 miles,
crossing the Kankakee, Beaverville and Southern Railroad. It
then turns in a westerly direction crossing CR 250W and running
along the northern edge of the Purdue University Horticulture
Farm. It then crosses CR 350W, turns and heads north for approximately
0.5 miles where it turns northwest crossing CR 400W. Line 6
then continues in a northwesterly direction for approximately
1.4 miles, crossing SR 26. Prior to crossing CR 600W, Line 6
turns north crossing Jackson Highway, CR 350N, Hoover Road and
US 52. It then turns west and terminates with SR 53/US231 approximately
1,550 feet north of US 52. The total length of Line 6 is 35,389
linear feet (approximately 6.7 miles). A 300-foot right-of-way
and depressed grass median were assumed on this alignment.
-
Line
7: TCAPC Alignment from 2025 Plan. Beginning at SR 26, approximately
800 feet east of the Kankakee, Beaverville and Southern Railroad,
Line 7 heads in a northwesterly direction to just past SR 126
(Cherry Lane) where it turns north until it ties in with McCormick
Road, north of the McCormick Road Lindberg Road intersection.
Line 7, as an improved McCormick Road from this point onward,
turns northwest, improving four horizontal radii along McCormick
Road until finally turning north and terminating at US 52. The
total length of Line 7 is 16,357 linear feet (approximately
3.1 miles). A 150-foot right-of-way and a concrete median barrier
were assumed on this alignment. McCormick Road will be improved
to a four lane divided facility northward from the point where
Line 7 ties into it.
-
Line
8: New Alignment. Beginning at SR 26, near Newman Road, Line
8 heads northwesterly along the centerline of SR 26, upgrading
SR 26 from a two lane facility to a four lane divided facility
with a concrete median barrier. Line 8 will also upgrade the
existing railroad crossing. Line 8 continues along existing
SR 26 for approximately 2 miles, intersecting and/or crossing
CR 250W, CR 300W, CR 325W, CR 400W, CR 200N and CR 475W. Line
8 improves the radius of one existing horizontal curve before
turning north and crossing CR 200N (Lindberg Road) and CR 250N.
Line 8 then turns northeast, crosses the Kankakee, Beaverville
and Southern Railroad and terminates at US 52. The total length
of Line 8 is 20,407 linear feet (approximately 3.9 miles). A
300-foot right-of-way and depressed grass median were assumed
on this alignment.
All
alternatives considered will be evaluated during the Alternative
Analysis Screening process to determine which alternatives will
be carried forward for detailed study in the Environmental Document
(See Figures
1 and 2).
4.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
The
purpose of the Public Involvement Plan is to encourage and facilitate
public participation in the US 231 Relocation Study in order to
aid the process of selecting the best alternative to meet the surrounding
community's needs. Specific objectives include:
- Providing
timely information to the public about the study process and project
alternatives.
- Soliciting
input from citizens on the resources of concern, impacts of alternatives,
and preferences with regard to alternatives.
- Involving
environmental justice communities in the transportation decision-making
process.
- Developing
an understanding of local issues that will enable the environmental
document to best provide the information needed for decision-making
while also fulfilling NEPA requirements.
A
Community Advisory Committee (CAC) will be assembled for this project
to assist in the 'Community Impact Assessment & Mitigation'
portion of the US 231 Relocation Study.
- The
committee will meet on a bi-monthly basis to solicit information
back to their respective communities.
- One
member from this committee will participate in the Public Hearing
to answer questions concerning the Community Impact Assessment
Report.
The
committee will be composed of the following members:
- City-elected
representatives
- County-elected
representative
- City
Administrators
- Parks
& Recreation representative
- Neighborhood
Leaders (up to 6)
- Purdue
University representative
- Others
as deemed appropriate
The
Public Involvement Kick-off meeting will take place on Thursday,
January 17, 2002 at Purdue University, Stewart Center, Room 206,
from 5 - 8 p.m. The public involvement process will continue throughout
the life of the project. Information will be provided on the project
web-site www.relocate231.com, in newsletters and through other media.
5.0
CONCLUSION
The
information provided in this packet is preliminary in nature and
intended to provide a framework for the study. Public involvement
is essential in ensuring the success of this project. Therefore,
your comments, as well as opportunities to discuss the project and
available information are encouraged.
Thank
you for your interest in the US 231 Relocation Study,
Wendy
L. Vachet, Project Manager
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
701
E. 83rd Avenue
Merrillville, IN 46410
wvachet@mbakercorp.com
219-755-0233 (fax)
Handout Figures:
Preliminary
Alignments to be Considered* (see note below)
Project
Overview
*Note:
Since the January 17, 2002 public kickoff meeting, two new alignments
have been added (lines 9 and 10). Click here
to see the new map.
|
