|
FHWA-OK-EIS-01-(1)-F
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
FOR
INTERSTATE 40 CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND
SECTION 4(f) STATEMENT
VOLUME I
SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and 49 U.S.C. 303
by the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
January 22, 2002
Date |
[handwritten signature-David
Streb]
Oklahoma Department of Transportation |
January 28, 2002
Date |
[handwritten signature-Walter
J. Kudzia]
Federal Highway Administration
|
Contact the following persons for additional
information concerning this document:
|
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
300 N. Meridian, Suite 105-S
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73107
(405) 605-6011
|
Planning Engineer
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 Northeast 21st Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
(405) 521-6916
|
This document describes the need for and
alternatives considered to reconstruct/realign
the I-40 Crosstown Expressway, from I-235/I-35
Interchange west to Meridian Avenue. The
examination and discussion of social, economic,
and environmental effects included in this
document allow for obtaining a "preferred" alternative.
Comments on this Final EIS will be accepted
for thirty (30) days after release. Send
all comments to the Planning Engineer, Oklahoma
Department of Transportation, 200 Northeast
21st Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105.
Copies of this document are available for
review at the ODOT office listed above and
area libraries. Please call (405) 521-6916
for additional information on document availability.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| |
Page |
PREFACE |
p-1 |
SUMMARY |
S-1 |
1.0 PURPOSE OF THE MAJOR INVESTMENT
STUDY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT |
1-1 |
| 1.1 Planning Context |
1-1 |
| 1.2 Major Investment Study |
1-1 |
| 1.3 Role of the MIS/DEIS in Project
Development |
1-2 |
| 1.4 Transportation Goals and Objectives |
1-2 |
| 1.5 Decision At Hand |
1-4 |
| |
|
2.0 NEED FOR ACTION |
2-1 |
| 2.1 Description of Study Corridor |
2-1 |
| 2.2 Existing Transportation Facilities |
2-1 |
| 2.3 Specific Transportation Problems |
2-3 |
| |
|
3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED |
3-1 |
| 3.1 Initial List of Alternatives |
3-1 |
| 3.2 Preliminary Long List Refinement |
3-2 |
| 3.3 Refined Long List of Alternatives |
3-5 |
| 3.4 Screening and Selection Process
(Part I and Part II) |
3-6 |
| 3.5 Preferred Alternative |
3-15 |
| |
|
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT |
4-1 |
| 4.1 Socioeconomics |
4-1 |
| 4.2 Air Quality |
4-7 |
| 4.3 Traffic Noise |
4-8 |
| 4.4 Land Use |
4-8 |
| 4.5 Historical/Cultural Resources |
4-9 |
| 4.6 Hazardous Waste Sites |
4-10 |
| 4.7 Other Environmental Parameters |
4-11 |
| |
|
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES |
5-1 |
| 5.1 Air Quality Impacts |
5-1 |
| 5.2 Noise Impacts and Vibration Analysis |
5-3 |
| 5.3 Land Use Impacts |
5-12 |
| 5.4 Floodplain Impacts |
5-17 |
| 5.5 Historic and Archaeological Preservation
Impacts |
5-17 |
| 5.6 Section 4(f) |
5-21 |
| 5.7 Hazardous Waste Sites |
5-22 |
| 5.8 Water Quality Impacts |
5-31 |
| 5.9 Threatened or Endangered Species |
5-32 |
| 5.10 Wetland Impacts |
5-32 |
| 5.11 Farmland Impacts |
5-32 |
| 5.12 Soils, Geology, and Geohydrology |
5-32 |
| 5.13 Wild and Scenic Rivers |
5-33 |
| 5.14 Joint Development |
5-34 |
| 5.15 Construction Impacts |
5-36 |
| 5.16 Energy |
5-38 |
| 5.17 Water Body Modification and Wildlife
Impacts |
5-38 |
| 5.18 Visual Impacts |
5-39 |
| 5.19 Pedestrians and Bicyclists |
5-40 |
| 5.20 Permits |
5-45 |
| 5.21 Relationship of local Short-term
Uses vs. long-term Productivity |
5-45 |
| 5.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable
Commitment of Resources |
5-46 |
| 5.23 Socioeconomic Impacts/Environmental
Justice |
5-46 |
| 5.24 Additional Mitigation |
5-54 |
| |
|
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS |
6-1 |
7.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS,
AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT
ARE SENT |
7-1 |
8.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION |
8-1 |
9.0 INDEX |
9-1 |
10.0 APPENDIX |
10-1 |
| A - Technical Advisory Committee Membership
list |
10-2 |
| B - Citizen Advisory Committee Membership
list |
10-3 |
| C - Public Meeting Summaries |
10-4 |
| D - Project Development Elements |
10-5 |
| E - Farmland Conversion Coordination |
10-6 |
| F - Section 4(f) Statement |
10-7 |
| G - Memorandum of Agreement |
10-8 |
| H - Technical Memoranda (under separate
cover) |
10-9 |
| |
|
LIST OF TABLES |
|
| TABLE 1-1 I-40 Corridor Goals and Objectives |
1-3 |
| TABLE 2-1 Routes Most Used by Trucking
Companies |
2-2 |
| TABLE 2-2 I-40 Accident Rates |
2-4 |
| TABLE 2-3 Level of Service Definitions |
2-5 |
| TABLE 2-4 I-40 Existing Level of Service |
2-6 |
| TABLE 3-1 Summary of Potential Impacts
and Estimated Costs by Alternative |
3-11 |
| TABLE 3-2 Alternative's Construction
Phases |
3-12 |
| TABLE 3-3 Summary of Displacements
by Alternative |
3-13 |
| TABLE 3-4 Unit Values for User Cost
Analysis |
3-14 |
| TABLE 4-1 1990 Race and Ethnicity in
Oklahoma City and in the I-40 Study Corridor |
4-1 |
| TABLE 4-2 Race and Ethnicity in the
I-40 MIS/EIS Corridor by Census Tract
and Tract Portion, 1990 |
4-2 |
| TABLE 4-3 Percent of Households in
Income Ranges Oklahoma City and I-40
Study Corridor, 1990 |
4-3 |
| TABLE 4-4 Number and Percentage of
Persons in Study Area Census Tracts and
Tract Portions with 1989 Income Below
Poverty Level |
4-4 |
| TABLE 4-5 1990 Employment by Economic
Sector in I-40 MIS/EIS Corridor |
4-5 |
| TABLE 4-6 Statistics on Public Schools
in the Corridor, 1994-95 School Year |
4-6 |
| TABLE 4-7 Land Uses in the I-40 Study
Corridor |
4-9 |
| TABLE 4-8 Zoning in the I-40 Study
Corridor |
4-9 |
| TABLE 5-1 Maximum Traffic Volumes by
Alternative for Year 2020 |
5-1 |
| TABLE 5-2 Air Quality One-Hour Carbon
Monoxide Predicted Concentrations (ppm) |
5-2 |
| TABLE 5-3 Noise Abatement Criteria |
5-4 |
| TABLE 5-4 Traffic Data |
5-5 |
| TABLE 5-5 Measured Existing and Modeled
Future Traffic Noise Levels |
5-6 |
| TABLE 5-6 Noise Contour Distance |
5-7 |
| TABLE 5-7 Affected Receptors Summary |
5-8 |
| TABLE 5-8 Recommended Noise Barrier
Walls |
5-10 |
| TABLE 5-9 Traffic Noise Impact Mitigation
Summary for Alternative D |
5-11 |
| TABLE 5-10 Displacement of Existing
Land Use by Proposed Right-of-Way |
5-13 |
| TABLE 5-11 Displacement of Zoned Land
Use by Proposed Right-of-Way |
5-13 |
| TABLE 5-12 Total Number of Sites by
Level and Alternative |
5-24 |
| TABLE 5-13 Potential Contaminant Source
Summary Level 1 Sites |
5-27 |
| TABLE 5-14 Area Affected by Alternatives
B, B-3, and D Estimated Racial and Ethnic
Composition |
5-47 |
| TABLE 5-15 Estimated Low-Income Persons
(Poverty Status) by Race and Hispanic
Origin, Areas Affected by Proposed Alternatives |
5-47 |
| TABLE 5-16 Community Facility Displacements
and Associated Impacts |
5-49 |
| TABLE 5-17 Summary of Displacements
by Build Alternative |
5-51 |
| |
|
LIST OF FIGURES |
|
| Figures follow the page indicated. |
|
| FIGURE 2-1 Study FIGURE 2-1 Study Area |
2-1 |
| FIGURE 3-1 Build Alternatives |
3-4 |
| FIGURE 3-2 Evaluation Worksheet |
3-6 |
| FIGURE 3-3 Short list of Alternatives |
3-9 |
| FIGURE 3-4 Preferred Alternative Alignment |
3-16 |
| FIGURE 3-5 Proposed Typical Section
- At grade |
3-16 |
| FIGURE 3-6 Proposed Typical Section
- Semi-depressed |
3-16 |
| FIGURE 4-1 1990 Population Distribution
by Census Tract |
4-1 |
| FIGURE 4-2 Percentage of Minority Population
by Census Tract – 1990 |
4-3 |
| FIGURE 4-3 Percentage of Persons with
Income Below Poverty Level by Census
Tract – 1989 |
4-3 |
| FIGURE 4-4 Percentage of Vacant Dwellings
by Census Tract - 1990 |
4-5 |
| FIGURE 4-5 Median Home Values by Census
Tract - 1990 |
4-5 |
| FIGURE 4-6 Area Neighborhood Boundaries |
4-5 |
| FIGURE 4-7 Community Resources |
4-6 |
| FIGURE 4-8 Zoning in Study Area |
4-8 |
| FIGURE 4-9 Known Study Area Cultural
Resources |
4-9 |
| FIGURE 5-1 Traffic Noise 66 dB Contour
-Alternative B |
5-5 |
| FIGURE 5-2 Traffic Noise 66 dB Contour
-Alternative B-3 |
5-5 |
| FIGURE 5-3 Traffic Noise 66 dB Contour
-Alternative D |
5-5 |
| FIGURE 5-4 Proposed Noise Barrier Wall
Locations -Alternative D |
5-9 |
| FIGURE 5-5 Zoning in Study Area: Alternatives
B, B-3, and D |
5-12 |
| FIGURE 5-6 Known Study Area Cultural
Resources: Alternatives B, B-3,
and D |
5-18 |
| FIGURE 5-7 Known Hazardous Waste Sites:
Alternatives B, B-3, and D |
5-25 |
| FIGURE 5-8 Known Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks: Alternatives B, B-3, and
D |
5-25 |
FIGURE 5-9 Percentage of Minority Population
by Census Tract -1990:
Alternatives B, B-3, and D |
5-46 |
FIGURE 5-10 Percentage of Persons with
Income Below Poverty Level
by Census Tract -1989: Alternatives B,
B-3, and D |
5-46 |
FIGURE 5-11 Median Home Values by Census
Tract -1990:
Alternatives B, B-3, and D |
5-53 |
| |
|
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
| AASHTO |
American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials |
| ACOG |
Association of Central Oklahoma Governments |
| ADT |
Average Daily Traffic |
| |
|
| CAC |
Citizen Advisory Committee |
| CBD |
Central Business District |
| CERCLA |
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act |
| CFR |
Code of Federal Regulations |
| CO |
Carbon Monoxide |
| COTPA |
Central Oklahoma Transportation and
Parking Authority |
| |
|
| dB |
Decibel |
| DEIS |
Draft Environmental Impact Statement |
| DOT |
Department of Transportation (also
USDOT) |
| |
|
| EIS |
Environmental Impact Statement |
| EPA |
Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
|
| FEIS |
Final Environmental Impact Statement |
| FEMA |
Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| FHWA |
Federal Highway Administration |
| |
|
| HABS |
Historic American Building Survey |
| HAER |
Historic American Engineering Record |
| HOV |
High Occupancy Vehicle, as in HOV lane |
| |
|
| I |
Interstate Highway, as in I-40 |
| ISTEA |
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 |
| ITS |
Intelligent Transportation Systems |
| |
|
| Leq |
Energy equivalent level |
| LOS |
Level of Service |
| |
|
| MAPS |
Metropolitan Area Projects |
| MIS |
Major Investment Study |
| MOA |
Memorandum of Agreement |
| MOU |
Memorandum of Understanding |
| MPO |
Metropolitan Planning Organization |
| |
|
| NAAQS |
National Ambient Air Quality Standards |
| NAC |
Noise Abatement Criteria |
| NAFTA |
North American Free Trade Agreement |
| NEPA |
National Environmental Policy Act |
| NHS |
National Highway System |
| NOI |
Notice of Intent |
| NRHP |
National Register of Historic Places |
| |
|
| O&M |
Operations and Maintenance |
| OCARTS |
Oklahoma City Area Regional Transportation
Study |
| ODOT |
Oklahoma Department of Transportation |
| |
|
| PPM |
Parts per million |
| |
|
| RCRA |
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act |
| ROD |
Record of Decision |
| ROW |
Right-of-Way |
| |
|
| SHPO |
State Historic Preservation Officer |
| |
|
| TDM |
Transportation Demand Management |
| TEA-21 |
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century |
| TSM |
Transportation System Management |
| |
|
| ULI |
Urban Land Institute |
| U.S. |
United States |
| UST |
Underground Storage Tank |
| |
|
| V/C |
Volume-to-Capacity (Ratio) |
| VMT |
Vehicle Miles Traveled |
PREFACE
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation
(ODOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) as the lead federal
agency and the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), has undertaken the preparation of
a Major Investment Study (MIS) and Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Interstate
40 (I-40) Crosstown Expressway in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma alternative transportation
improvements. The study analyzes various
alternatives and transportation improvement
options that will improve the travel corridor's
transportation capacity and safety.
The draft environmental impact statement
(DEIS) was prepared to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
The FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation,
developed environmental regulations for highway
projects. These regulations, Title 23 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 771,
provide instructions for assessing environmental
impacts specific to federally funded transportation
projects. The DEIS provided the public and
decisionmakers with information relating
to the proposed alternatives' social, economic,
and environmental impacts so that ODOT could
select a preferred alternative.
The DEIS was circulated for review by private
citizens, community officials, and public
agencies, beginning January 17, 2001 to March
15, 2001.
A public hearing was held February 27, 2001
to encourage further comments on the DEIS
and the preferred alternative. The final
alternative selection was made by ODOT after
the alternatives' impacts and comments on
the DEIS, including those from the public
hearing, were fully evaluated.
This final environmental impact statement
(FEIS) incorporates the comments received
on the DEIS during the pubic review period.
It provides responses, outlines interagency
agreements, and commits to project mitigation
measures. This FEIS is being submitted to
the FHWA for approval and a Record of Decision
(ROD) will be published. After the FHWA signs
the ROD and grants location and design concept
acceptance, the FHWA may authorize funding
for final design and project construction.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation,
Planning Division, is the main point of contact
for information about this project as indicated
on the cover page of this document.
SUMMARY
S.1 Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action involves reconstructing
I-40 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
from the I-235/I-35 interchange westward
approximately 7.2 miles to Meridian Avenue.
The locally preferred alternative would provide
a ten-lane interstate facility including
express lanes on new alignment approximately
2,200 feet south of the existing I-40 facility.
This proposed facility would be constructed
from the I-235/I-40 interchange southeast
of the Union Pacific tracks, cross over the
MAPS canal to the existing east/west Burlington
Northern/Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way south
of Union Station. This roadway section would
be semi-depressed to cross under the Burlington
Northern/Santa Fe Railroad tracks, which
traverse north/south, and cross under the
Shields Boulevard bridge to meet the existing
Western Avenue at grade. From Western Avenue
to west of May Avenue, the alignment would
be at-grade, but cross under the Exchange
Avenue bridge. The I-44/I-40 interchange
would remain as is, including the I-40 facility
from I-44 to Meridian Avenue.
Full interchanges are proposed at Shields
Boulevard and Western Avenue. A six-lane
at-grade boulevard would be constructed in
the existing I-40 right-of-way, from east
of the Union Pacific tracks at the I-235
interchange to west of Walker Avenue. From
west of Walker Avenue to Western Avenue,
the existing bridge structure would be maintained
and/or reconstructed as required to accommodate
local/non-truck traffic. From Western Avenue,
west to Agnew Avenue, the existing facility
would be converted to a divided boulevard.
Downtown access would be at Shields Boulevard
and Robinson, Western, and Agnew (Villa)
Avenues. Cross streets would be Shields Boulevard
and Robinson, Walker, Western, Exchange,
Pennsylvania, Agnew, and May Avenues. The
proposed I-40 facility, consisting of at-grade
and semi-depressed sections, would be designed
for 70-mph.
S.2 Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered
for I-40:
- No-Build
- Transportation System Management (TSM)1
- Mass Transit2
- Alternative B - involves constructing
a new I-40 ten-lane facility approximately
300 feet south of the existing alignment.
This facility would be constructed from
the I-235/I-40 interchange over the Union
Pacific tracks and MAPS canal to east of
the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad
tracks, which traverse north/south. The
proposed facility would be semi-depressed
between SW 3rd Street and SW 4th Street
to west of Western Avenue. The existing
alignment west of Western Avenue to west
of May Avenue would be upgraded to provide
ten travel lanes. Downtown access would
be at Robinson Avenue. Cross streets would
be Shields Boulevard and Robinson, Hudson,
Walker, and Western Avenues. The I-44/I-40
interchange would remain as is, including
the I-40 connection west to Meridian Avenue.
- Alternative B-3 - a hybrid and south
of Alternative B, would include a boulevard
constructed on the existing I-40 right-of-way
from Shields Boulevard to Western Avenue.
Downtown access would be at Robinson Avenue,
to and from the east to the boulevard.
A flyover would provide access to the boulevard
from the west. The existing alignment from
west of Western to west of May Avenue would
be upgraded to provide ten travel lanes.
The cross streets would be Shields Boulevard
and Robinson, Hudson, Classen, and Reno
Avenues.
- Alternative D - previously defined as
the proposed action.
The No-Build and TSM alternatives do not
feasibly or prudently solve the need for
the project. As noted, the Mass Transit alternative
is part of the preferred alternative.
As a result of the tiered-evaluation process
and comparing Alternatives B, B-3, and D
regarding project construction time, implementation
difficulty, traffic disruption, safety, access
to downtown, residential and business impacts,
and cost, the ODOT selected Alternative D
as the locally preferred alternative; however,
all three build alternatives were presented
in the DEIS.
S.3 Environmental Impacts
The following outlines the potential environmental
impacts associated with Alternative D.
This alternative will not affect the following
environmental elements:
- Floodplains;
- Water Quality;
- Threatened/Endangered Species;
- Wetlands;
- Farmlands;
- Soils, Geology, and Geohydrology;
- Wild and Scenic Rivers; and
- Water Body Modification and Wildlife.
Alternative D will not substantially affect
the Oklahoma City metropolitan area’s
air quality. The area is currently in attainment
for all federally regulated pollutants; however,
two pollutants of primary concern are ozone
in the summer and carbon monoxide in the
winter.
Modeled future traffic noise levels will
approach, equal, or exceed the FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria for residential areas
along the proposed I-40 alignment. Noise
barrier walls are reasonable and feasible
to mitigate some of these affected areas.
Additional right-of-way requirements involve
converting existing land use to highway right-of-way.
Redevelopment and joint-use opportunities
would exist. The ODOT is committed to implementing
several strategies identified in the City
of Oklahoma City's Draft I-40 Relocation
Land Use and Mitigation Plan, February 2000.
Fourteen National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) eligible properties will be adversely
affected. The ODOT and the State Historic
Preservation Officer have coordinated a photo
and narrative documentation mitigation plan
and Memorandum of Agreement. A Section 4(f)
statement is required. It was attached in
the Appendix of the DEIS and is attached
in the Appendix of the FEIS.
The possibility of contamination exists
with ten identified hazardous material sites
within the proposed alignment. Any contamination
will be addressed in accordance with all
applicable regulations.
Alternative D will affect a greater proportion
of minority group members and low-income
persons than similar projects in other areas
of Oklahoma City because the I-40 study area
has a higher minority and low-income population
than the city as a whole. Approximately 29
residences, 44 businesses, and one church
would be displaced; however, social service
providers in the area would not be displaced.
The acquisition of an additional 14 residences
is required to implement the recommended
mitigation measures.
S.4 Additional Mitigation3
Although the Oklahoma City officials endorse
Alternative D as the preferred alternative,
concerns regarding downtown access and identified
potential Riverside neighborhood impacts
continue to be expressed by local officials
and some institution and organization representatives
active in the Riverside neighborhood. As
a result, the City of Oklahoma City Planning
Department sponsored a study to identify
and develop a land use and mitigation plan
for implementing Alternative D.
The ODOT is committed to implementing four
of the strategies the study identified. These
strategies are the pedestrian crossing, the
park/soccer fields between 9th and 10th Streets,
the noise barrier walls reflecting similar
architectural details of the Little Flower
Church, and the modified boulevard.
S.5 Unresolved Issues With Other Agencies
No unresolved issues from other agencies
are known for this proposed action.
1 Transportation
System Management is a strategy designed
to enhance the efficiency of an existing
transportation facility without adding
major roadway capacity.
2 This
transit alternative is a rubber-tire bus
shuttle for The Link's Downtown Segment
and the West Segment as defined in the
COTPA The Link" Major Investment Study,
October 1995. The rail alternatives considered
were determined unfeasible. COTPA has implemented
these segments and they are part of the
preferred alternative.
3 City
of Oklahoma City, "Interstate 40
Relocation Land Use and Mitigation Plan," Draft
February 1, 2000.
|
Home | Photo Gallery | Glossary | Acronyms | Contact Us
