Media Contacts

Oklahoma Department of Transportation
Office: (405) 521-6000

Terri S. Angier
Public Affairs Division Chief

David C. Streb
Planning Division Engineer

John R. Bowman
Project Development Engineer

Federal Highway Administration
(405) 605-6011

Public Review Locations

Following is a listing of the locations where the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was
placed by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation for public review purposes.

Interagency Coordination

Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were sent to numerous federal, state and
local agencies. Those included:

Federal Highway Administration - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Federal Highway Administration - Atlanta, Georgia
Environmental Protection Agency - Headquarters Office
Environmental Protection Agency - Regional Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Tulsa District
Department of Interior - Washington D.C.
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Defense Logistics Agency
U.S. Postal Service
Oklahoma Department of Transportation - Central Office
Oklahoma Department of Transportation - Division IV Office
Oklahoma Department of Transportation - Division IV Annex Office
Oklahoma Department of Commerce
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma Historical Society
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Oklahoma Highway Patrol
Oklahoma County
Association of Central Oklahoma Governments
Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority
City of Oklahoma City

Coordination letters from federal agencies in response to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement are included following this page. Also included are response letters from ODOT to
those federal agencies where response letters from OOOT were warranted.

A response letter from the City of Oklahoma City is included in the Public Hearing section on
page VII-5. Responses to the points itemized by Oklahoma City are included in the ODOT
Responses to Comments section on page VII-6.

U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

Oklahoma Division
300 N. Meridian, Suite 105-S
Oklahoma City, OK 73107-6560

March 28, 2001

IN REPLY REFER TO HEC-OK

Comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the I-40 Crosstown Project

Mr. Neal A. McCaleb, Director
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
Oklahoma City, OklahomaAttention: Mr. David Streb, P.E.

Dear Mr. McCaleb:

Enclosed for your review and inclusion into the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document is a copy of a letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Please note that the EPA has classified the I-40 draft EIS as "LO" (Lack of Objections). However, EPA has requested additional information on the cultural resource impacts and hazardous waste databases.

We have also enclosed EPA's detailed comments on the remaining draft EIS document for your review and consideration in preparing the final EIS.

If there are any questions, please contact Mr. Lubin M. Quinones at 605-6174.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature here]
J. Kudzia
Division Administrator

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 6
1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TX 75202-2733

March 22, 2001

Walter J. Kudzia
Division Administrator
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Oklahoma Division
300 N. Meridian Avenue, Suite 105-S
Oklahoma City, OK 73107-6560

Dear Mr. Kudzia:

In accordance with our responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Regulations for Implementing NEPA, the Region 6 Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has completed the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for the reconstruction of Interstate I-40 Crosstown Expressway within the city of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

EPA classifies your Draft EIS and proposed action as "LO" i.e., EPA has "Lack of
Objections to the preferred alternative. However, EPA requests additional information in the
areas of cultural resource impact mitigation and hazardous waste databases to strengthen the
FEIS ". Our classification will be published in the Federal Register according to our
responsibility under Section 309oftheClean Air Act, to inform the public of our views on
proposed Federal actions.

Detailed comments on the Draft EIS have been prepared and are enclosed with this letter
for your consideration in preparation of the Final EIS. If you should have any questions, please contact me at (214) 665-7451.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the Draft EIS. We request that you send our
office one (1) copy of the Final EIS at the same time that it is sent to the Office of Federal
Activities (2251A), EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20044.

Sincerely yours,

[handwritten signature]
Michael P. Jansky, P.E.
Regional EIS Coordinator

Enclosure

Internet Address (URL) - http://www.epa.gov
Recycled / Recyclable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsurner)

Detailed Comments
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
I-235 to Meridian Avenue
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Background

The Interstate Highway (IH)-40 Draft Environmental impact Statement analyzes the various alternatives for improving the transportation capacity and safety of the I-40 corridor and proposes the best transportation improvement from the alternatives evaluated. I-40 is an essential route for truck traffic with major freight terminals located south of the central business district along the corridor. The study area corridor is located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The corridor limits are:

North: NW l0th Street
South: SW 15th Street
East: Interchange with I-235/I-35 (near Lincoln/Byers)
West: Meridian Avenue

The primary concern, which initiated the study, is the existing condition and design of the bridge structure from west of Byers Avenue, west to Western Avenue. This structure is deteriorating and showing signs of fatigue, which indicate the progressive failure of a structure resulting from heavy repetitive loads. In addition the roadway is functionally deficient because of the existing I-40 roadway design. The design in deficient because of vertical curves which restrict sight distance, inadequate ramp spacing, and inadequate or no shoulders.

Alternatives

The No Build Alternative is the maintenance and reconstruction necessary to preserve existing
I-40 and maintain the bridges' structural integrity for 20 years. This alternative will be the baseline against which the other alternatives are compared.

TSM Alternative

TSM is the collective implementation of several strategies designed to increase the transportation system's efficiency without adding major roadway capacity. The FHWA defines a TSM alternative as those activities, which maximize the present system's efficiency. The Employer reduction strategy was selected for further consideration as the I-40 preferred TSM alternative.

This strategy's objective is to reduce vehicular demand during peak periods by: encouraging carpools, encouraging a shift of trips from peak to off-peak times, and eliminating the need for trips (compressed workweek schedules). This strategy relies on incentives and disincentives to make these behavioral changes attractive.

Alternative B

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 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 the 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

Alternative B-3 is an Alternative B variation that is south of Alternative B and has similar construction details; however, Alternative B-3 includes 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 Ave. to west of May Ave. would be upgraded to provide ten travel lanes. Cross streets could be Shields Blvd. and Robinson, Hudson, Classen, and Reno Avenues. The I-44/I-40 interchange would remain as is, including the I-40 connection west to Meridian Avenue.

Alternative D (Locally preferred alternative)

Alternative D provides a ten-lane facility constructed on a 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, crossover 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 transverse north/south, and to cross under the Shields Boulevard bridge to meet the existing Western Avenue grade. From Western Avenue to west of May Ave., the alignment would be at-grade, but cross under the Exchange Avenue bridge. 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; however, from west of Walker Avenue to Western Avenue, the existing I-40 bridge structure would be rehabilitated. From Western to Agnew Avenues, the existing I-40 facility would be converted to at 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 I-44/I-40 interchange would remain as is, including the I-40 west connection to Meridian Ave.

Alternative D will affect all of the referenced historical properties because they will be removed or demolished. The following measures are proposed to mitigate adverse affects to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible properties.

(A) Photo Documentation

1. Archival quality 35mm or large format B/W photographic documentation of the 12 buildings NRHP eligible only as contributing resources to the proposed Riverside Historic District. Since these resources lack individual distinction and exhibit only a local significance level, no additional graphic documentation of these buildings is warranted. Most photographs will emphasize building exteriors. Main interior spaces will be photographed, if these areas have not been extensively remodeled by modem additions or treatments.
2. Archival quality 35mm or large format B/W photographic documentation of the two individually eligible RR underpasses. This will be supplemented by compiling xerographic copies of the original construction plans or preparing entirely new architectural/engineering drawings if the original plans no longer exist.

(B) Narrative Documentation

1. Brief narrative descriptions of the 14 affected properties, including summaries of their main architectural/engineering features, construction history, and context within the Riverside District and Oklahoma City.
2. Preparing a substantive narrative study describing the Riverside District's history and development, focusing on its place within Oklahoma City's settlement and growth, as well as its developing importance in the mid and late 20th century to immigrant and minority Hispanic populations in Oklahoma City. This report will make use of primary archives, cartographic data, information and secondary reports already compiled regarding the Riverside area by Oklahoma City and the State Historic Preservation Office, and oral interviews with selected long term residents of the District and the areas directly affected by the project.
3. Preparation of a short popular illustrated summary of the more lengthy narrative report described in Section 2, above. This will be written in English and Spanish to provide the widest dissemination to people of the Riverside neighborhood. It will be provided free of charge to individuals, public libraries, schools, and other public and private entities interested in Oklahoma City history.

The EIS states that all documentation will be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for review and curatorial work. No project construction affecting the Riverside District will commence until the SHPO approves the documentation. The above measure form the substantive basis for a memorandum of agreement (MOA) for mitigating adverse effects to historic properties caused by the I-40 project. Please address in the FElS.

Hazardous Waste

This section should provide baseline data for hazardous waste sites. No listing was provided. If
any locations were close to the project area, then these sites need to be listed in this section as baseline conditions. Please address in the FEIS.

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

November 8, 2001

Mr. Michael P. Jansky, P.E.
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Dear Mr. Jansky:

Re: Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Statement for the I-40 Crosstown Expressway in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

The Federal Highway Administration received and forwarded to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, a letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the above noted Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The comments within the EPA letter are that the EPA classifies the DEIS and proposed action as "LO", i.e., EPA has "Lack of Objections to the preferred alternative". However, the EPA requested additional information in the areas of cultural resource impact mitigation and hazardous waste database information to strengthen the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

In regards to a direct request from the EPA that the FEIS address measures for mitigating adverse effects to historic properties, the FEIS has been revised to include a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement. Included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement in Chapter 10.0 Appendix, is a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), signed by the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer and the Federal Highway Administration. Additionally, the Section 4(f) Statement was revised to include a copy of the signed Memorandum of Agreement as Appendix B. The MOA details both the photographic and the narrative documentation required for the 14 affected properties.

Additionally, the EPA requested that a listing of the hazardous waste sites located close to the project be included in the FEIS. The DEIS contains a baseline listing of the sites in Section 5.7 of Chapter 5. The listing in Section 5.7 was not referenced in the discussion of the baseline survey in Section 4.6 of Chapter 4. Therefore, page 4-11, Section 4.6, Chapter 4 of the FEIS will be revised to reference the hazardous site listing contained in Chapter 5 so as to avoid any possible future confusion on this issue. A new paragraph will be inserted stating "Please refer to Chapter 5, Section 5.7, located on page 5-22 for details from the baseline study."

"The mission of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation is to provide a safe, economical. and effective transportation network for the people, commerce and communities of Oklahoma."

EPA Letter
November 8, 2001
Page 2

If you have any questions, or require additional information, please feel free to contact
this office at 52l-6916.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

David Streb, P.E.
Planning Engineer

cc: FHWA Oklahoma Division

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO CFR 800.6(A)

WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the reconstruction of the I-40 Crosstown Expressway in Oklahoma City will have an adverse impact to 12 properties contributing to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible Riverside Historic District, and 2 railroad overpass structures individually eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and has consulted with the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800 regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.470f);

NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the Oklahoma SHPO agree that the undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties.

STIPULATIONS
I-40 CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY RECONSTRUCTION

FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:

1. Archival quality 35mm or large format B/W photographic documentation of the 12 buildings determined to be eligible for the NRHP as contributing elements of the Riverside Historic District. Photographic documentation will emphasize exterior views, however main interior spaces will also be documented if they have not been extensively remodeled by modern additions or treatments.
2. Archival quality 35mm or large format BIW photographic documentation of the South Walker and Robinson Avenue railway underpasses. As these features are also individually eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, documentation will include xerographic reproduction of the original construction plans if they are still in existence or preparation of new architectural/engineering drawings if original plans are no longer extant.
3. Narrative Documentation of these resources and the overall Riverside Historic District will include the following:
   1. Narrative descriptions of the 14 directly impacted properties, including a summary of their main architectural/engineering features, construction history, and context within the Riverside District and Oklahoma City.
   2. Preparation of a substantive narrative study describing the history and development of the Riverside District, focusing on its place within the settlement and growth of Oklahoma City, as well as its developing importance in the mid and late 20th century to immigrant and minority Hispanic populations in Oklahoma City. This report will make use of primary archives, cartographic data, records, and secondary reports already compiled regarding the Riverside area by the city of Oklahoma City and the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office, and oral interviews with selected long term residents of the District and areas directly affected by the project.
   3. Preparation of a short popular illustrated summary of the formal narrative report described in Item (b) above. This will be prepared in booklet or pamphlet form in both Spanish and English to provide the widest dissemination to people of the Riverside neighborhood. It will be provided free of charge to individuals, public libraries, schools, and other public and private organizations with an interest in the history of Oklahoma City.

All documentation will be reviewed and accepted by the Oklahoma SHPO before any of the subject historic properties are demolished or removed. All documentation will be edited, catalogued and packaged in a manner acceptable to the Oklahoma SHPO. The Oklahoma SHPO will be the repository for the photographic and primary narrative documentation.

Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement and implementation of its terms evidence that FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the reconstruction of the I-40 Crosstown Expressway in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and its effects on historic properties, and that FHWA has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties.

Federal Highway Administration
BY [handwritten signature] DATE: 5/15/01

Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer
BY: [handwritten signature] DATE: 4/16/01

U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

Oklahoma Division
300 N. Meridian, Suite 105-S
Oklahoma City, OK 73107-6560

March 28, 2001

REPLY REFER TO HEC-OK

Comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the I-40 Crosstown Project

Mr. Neal A. McCaleb, Director
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
Oklahoma City, OklahoMA

Attention: Mr. David Streb, P.E.

Dear Mr. McCaleb:

Enclosed for your review and inclusion into the final Environmental Impact Statement DOI is a copy of a letter from the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). Please note that the 001 has concurred with our determination of the historic properties and with the proposed measures to mitigate the adverse effects to the properties. Also, DOI has no objection to the Section 4(f) approval. If there are any questions, please contact Mr. Lubin M. Quinones at 605-6174.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

Walter Kudzia
Division Administrator

United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
ER-01/29

This is in response to our request for the Department of the Interior's comments on the Draft EIS Section 4(f) HTO-OK, I-40 Crosstown Expressway Reconstruction, from the I-235/I-35 Interchange West to Meridian Avenue, Oklahoma City.

We concur that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed project, if the project objectives are to be met. The proposed alternative would adversely impact 14 historic properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by requiring their removal or demolition.

We are pleased to note that the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, acting on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration, has been consulting with the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office throughout the project. We concur with the proposed measures to mitigate adverse effects to the NRHP-eligible properties that will be outlined in a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Department of the Interior has no objection to Section 4(f) approval of the project by the Department of Transportation.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

Willie R. Taylor
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

November 8, 2001

Mr. Willie R. Taylor
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
United States Department of the Interior
1849 C. Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Mr. Taylor:

Re: Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Statement for the I-40 Crosstown Expressway in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation has received notice through the Federal Highway Administration, that the U.S. Department of the Interior concurs with the proposed measures to mitigate adverse effects to the properties that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Those proposed measures have now been formalized in a signed Memorandum of Agreement. Included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement in Chapter 10.0 Appendix, is a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement, signed by the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer and the Federal Highway Administration.

Additionally, the U.S. Department of the Interior stated that it has no objection to Section 4(f) approval of the project by the Department of Transportation. The Section 4(f) Statement was revised to include a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement signed by the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer and the Federal Highway Administration as Appendix B.

If you have any questions, or require additional information, please feel free to contact this office at 521-6916.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

David Streb, P.E.
Planning Engineer

cc: FHWA Oklahoma Division

"The mission of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation is to provide a safe, economical.
and effective transportation network for the people, commerce and communities of Oklahoma."

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO CFR 800.6(A)

WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the reconstruction of the I-40 Crosstown Expressway in Oklahoma City will have an adverse impact to 12 properties contributing to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible Riverside Historic District, and 2 railroad overpass structures individually eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and has consulted with the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800 regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.470f);

NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the Oklahoma SHPO agree that the undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties.

STIPULATIONS
I-40 CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY RECONSTRUCTION

FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:

1. Archival quality 35mm or large format B/W photographic documentation of the 12 buildings determined to be eligible for the NRHP as contributing elements of the Riverside Historic District. Photographic documentation will emphasize exterior views, however main interior spaces will also be documented if they have not been extensively remodeled by modern additions or treatments.
2. Archival quality 35mm or large format BIW photographic documentation of the South Walker and Robinson Avenue railway underpasses. As these features are also individually eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, documentation will include xerographic reproduction of the original construction plans if they are still in existence or preparation of new architectural/engineering drawings if original plans are no longer extant.
3. Narrative Documentation of these resources and the overall Riverside Historic District will include the following:
   1. Narrative descriptions of the 14 directly impacted properties, including a summary of their main architectural/engineering features, construction history, and context within the Riverside District and Oklahoma City.
   2. Preparation of a substantive narrative study describing the history and development of the Riverside District, focusing on its place within the settlement and growth of Oklahoma City, as well as its developing importance in the :mid and late 20th century to immigrant and minority Hispanic populations in Oklahoma City. This report will make use of primary archives, cartographic data, records, and secondary reports already compiled regarding the Riverside area by the city of Oklahoma City and the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office, and oral interviews with selected long term residents of the District and areas directly affected by the project.
   3. Preparation of a short popular illustrated summary of the formal narrative report described in Item (b) above. This will be prepared in booklet or pamphlet form in both Spanish and English to provide the widest dissemination to people of the Riverside neighborhood. It will be provided free of charge to individuals, public libraries, schools, and other public and private organizations with an interest in the history of Oklahoma City.
   All documentation will be reviewed and accepted by the Oklahoma SHPO before any of the subject historic properties are demolished or removed. All documentation will be edited, catalogued and packaged in a manner acceptable to the Oklahoma SHPO. The Oklahoma SHPO will be the repository for the photographic and primary narrative documentation.

Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement and implementation of its terms evidence that FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the reconstruction of the I-40 Crosstown Expressway in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and its effects on historic properties, and that FHWA has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties.

Federal Highway Administration
BY: [handwritten signature] DATE: 5/15/01

Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer
BY:[handwritten signature] DATE: 4/16/01

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
US ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, TULSA DISTRICT
1645 SOUTH 101 EAST AVENUE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74128-4609

June 6, 2001

Planning, Environmental and Regulatory Division
Regulatory Branch

Mr. David Streb
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 Northeast 21st Street
Oklahoma City OK 73105-3204

Dear Mr. Streb:

This is in reference to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed I-40 Crosstown Expressway Reconstruction Project, I-235 to Meridian Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Based on our review of the alternatives presented in the DEIS, all of the proposed alternatives would require the construction of a new bridged crossing of an unnamed tributary to the North Canadian River located between Villa and Pennsylvania Avenues. This stream is considered part of "waters of the United States" subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Any temporary or permanent placement of fill material in this stream required for construction of the new I-40 Crosstown Expressway would require authorization under Section 404 of the CWA from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Our assessment is that none of the alternatives offer advantages over the others with respect to the construction of a crossing of this stream. With respect to the factors considered in Section 404 permit decisions r alternative alignments "D" (preferred) "B" and "B-3" are anticipated to involve comparable effects.

This project has been assigned Case number 06744. You may reference this number in all future correspondence with this office concerning this project. If you have any questions concerning Section 404 permit authority or processing procedures r please contact Mr. Andrew R. Commer of our Regulatory Branch at 918-669-7616.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

David A. Manning
Chief, Regulatory Branch

Public Hearing

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation held a public hearing on the I-40 Crosstown Expressway Major Investment Study and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Tuesday, February 27, 2001 at the Myriad Convention Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The hearing was open house format from 4:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. There were 190 people registered, including 43 ODOT staff and consultants.

Publicity before the hearing consisted of legal notices published in the Daily Oklahoman and the Journal Record, a press release to local media, and meeting notice flyers mailed to those on the project mailing list, public officials and project advisory committees.

As attendees registered, they were given handouts and invited to view a two minute video summarizing the study process. Stations where those attending could view exhibits, ask questions of ODOT staff or project consultants, pick up additional handout material and make verbal or written comments included the following:

• Renderings of Pedestrian Bridge and Greenway Link over I-40
• Renderings of Retaining Wall Elevations and Wall Perspectives
• Environmental Information -Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Noise Study Information
• Model of Alternate D Design
• Right of Way Acquisition and Relocation Assistance
• Map of Alignment D with Boulevard
• Aerial Photo of Study Corridor
• Written and Verbal comments

A separate section with tables and chairs was set up so that attendees could sit down to read copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and fill out comment sheets or give verbal comments to the official stenographer.

Following this page is a certification of the public hearing. Included in the certification are copies of the attendance lists and handouts made available to those attending the public hearing and copies of all comments received during the public comment period of January 17, 2001 to March 15, 2001, including those made at the public hearing held on February 27, 2001. Additionally, it contains comments received by ODOT since the close of the official public comment period in an effort to capture all possible community input.

A total of 64 oral or written comments were received.

For ease of reference, each public comment letter or oral statement was given a number designation. Each substantive point made within the letter/statement was given a letter designation.

A copy of the two minute video is available for viewing at the ODOT Central Office located at 200 NE 21st Street, Oklahoma City.

Certification of Public Hearing
on
Federal Aid Interstate Project

I hereby certify that in accordance with Section 128a of Title 23, U.S. Code, a public hearing was held at:

Time: 4:00 P.M., February 27, 2001

Place: Myriad Convention Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

concerning the proposed location and major design features of a project to construct a realignment of and improvements to Interstate 40 (Crosstown Expressway) from the I-235 interchange to Meridian Avenue in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) has considered the economic and social effects of such a location, its impact on the environment and its consistency with the goals and objectives of such urban planning as has been promulgated by the community.

A copy of the transcript of said hearing is submitted. It includes copies of the sign in sheets and copies of the written and verbal comments received by ODOT during the public comment period of January 17, 2001 to March 15, 2001. Additionally, it contains comments received by ODOT from March 15, 2001 to November 15, 2001 in an effort to capture all possible community input.

A total of 64 oral or written comments were received.

[handwritten signature]

David Streb
Planning Engineer
Oklahoma Department of Transportation

I-40 CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY

February 27, 2001

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation held a public hearing on the I-40 Crosstown Expressway Major Investment Study and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Tuesday, February 27, 2001 at the Myriad Convention Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The hearing was open house format from 4:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. There were 190 people registered, including 43 ODOT staff and consultants. (Attendance list attached)

Publicity before the hearing consisted of legal notices published in the Daily Oklahoman and the Journal Record, a press release to local media, and meeting notice flyers mailed to those on the project mailing list, public officials and project advisory committees.

As attendees registered, they were given given handouts (attached) and invited to view a two minute video summarizing the study process. Stations where those attending could view exhibits, ask questions of ODOT staff or project consultants, pick up additional handout material and make verbal or written comments included the following:

• Renderings of Pedestrian Bridge and Greenway Link over I-40
• Renderings of Retaining Wall Elevations and Wall Perspectives
• Environmental Information -Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Noise Study Information
• Model of Alternate D Design
• Right of Way Acquisition and Relocation Assistance
• Map of Alignment D with Boulevard
• Aerial Photo of Study Corridor

1. Written and Verbal comments

A separate section with tables and chairs was set up so that attendees could sit down to read copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and fill out comment sheets or give verbal comments to the official stenographer.

Public Hearing - February 27, 2001
Attendees List

[16 pages follow with the handwritten sign-in sheet with addresses and group/organization for the names above ]

[I-40 Crosstown Planning Phase Nears Completion 11 X 17 folded flyer precedes the following page invitation]

YOU ARE INVITED

TO A

PUBLIC HEARING
I-40 Crosstown Expressway

MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001
Myriad Convention Center
Broadway at Sheridan, Oklahoma City, OK

OPEN HOUSE * Come and Go from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

There will be no formal presentation.

Information Exhibits Displays

Recommended Alignment
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Conceptual Design Features
Right-of-Way Acquisition Process
Preliminary Proposed Schedule
Questions Answered
Verbal and Written Comment Opportunities

Sponsored By
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation

Draft MIS/EIS available for review at OKC Area Metropolitan Libraries; City Hall, Oklahoma County Courthouse, ODOT Office, Latino Community Development Agency, Neighborhood Services Organization, Greater OKC Chamber of Commerce, South OKC Chamber of Commerce, Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, Capitol Hill Main Street

THE 1-40 CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY REALIGNMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
February 27, 2001 4:00-8:00pm

PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCT OF PUBLIC HEARING:

Welcome to this public hearing. There will be no formal presentations. Instead, you are given the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project, ask questions one-on-one with resource personnel from the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) and submit your comments for inclusion in the public hearing transcript.

Comments may be submitted in one of three methods:

1. For those wishing to make verbal comments, a court reporter/stenographer is available,
2. Written comments may be placed in the Citizen's Comment Box located in the room, or
3. Written comments may be mailed to:
   
   Planning Engineer
   Oklahoma Department of Transportation
   200 Northeast 21st Street
   Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
   
   by no later than March 15,2001.

Should you wish to make a verbal statement for inclusion in the transcript, please limit your statement to no more than five (5) minutes.

All comments received from the three methods outlined above will become part of the official public hearing transcript which will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Locations of Document
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ODOT Central Office
200 Northeast 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Greater Oklahoma City
Chamber of Commerce
(Downtown)
123 Park Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Neighborhood Services Organization
431 Southwest 11th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73109

Latino Community Development Agency
420 Southwest 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73109

Oklahoma City Clerks Office
200 North Walker Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

South Oklahoma City
Chamber of Commerce
701 Southwest 74th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73139

Association of Central
Oklahoma Governments
(ACOG) (Bricktown)
21 East Main Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73104

Oklahoma County Courthouse
320 Robert S. Kerr Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Capitol Hill Main Street
(Union Bank Building)
312 West Commerce Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73109

Location of Document
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Oklahoma Department of Libraries
200 N.E. 18th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 521-2502

Belle Isle Library
5501 N. Villa
Oklahoma City, OK 73112
Ph. 843-9601

Bethany Library
3510 N. Mueller
Bethany, OK 73008
Ph. 789-8363

Capitol Hill Library
334 SW 26
Oklahoma City, OK 73109
Ph. 634-6308

Choctaw Library
14385 NE 23
Choctaw, OK 73020
Ph. 390-8418

Del City Library
4509 SE 15
Del City, OK 73115
Ph. 672-1377

Downtown Library
131 Dean A. McGee Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Ph. 231-8650

Edmond Library
840 W. Danforth
Edmond, OK 73003
Ph. 341-9282

Midwest City Library
8143 E. Reno
Midwest City, OK 73110
Ph. 732-4828

Ralph Ellison Library
2000 NE 23
Oklahoma City, OK 73111
Ph. 424-1437

Southern Oaks Library
6900 S. Walker
Oklahoma City, OK 73139
Ph. 631-4468

The Village Library
10307 N. Penn
The Village, OK 73159
Ph. 755-0710

Warr Acres Library
5901 NW 63
Warr Acres, OK 73132
Ph. 721-2616

Drexel Library
NW 16th and Drexel
Oklahoma City, OK 73107
Ph. 943-9149

Harrah Library
1930 N. Church Avenue
Harrah, OK 73045
Ph. 454-2001

Jones Library
110 E. Main
Jones, OK 73049
Ph. 399-5471

Luther Library
115 S. Main
Luther, OK 73054
Ph. 277-9967

Nicoma Park Library
2240 Overholser
Nicoma Park, OK 73066
Ph.769-9452

Spencer Library
8310 1/2 NE 36
Spencer, OK 73084
Ph. 771-4031

Wright Library (WR)
2101 Exchange
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Ph. 235-5035

Locations of Document
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Linscheid Library
East Central University
Ada, OK 74820
(580) 332-8000, ext 369

J. W. Martin Library
Northwestern Oklahoma State University
Alva, OK 73717
(580) 327-1700

Bartlesville Public Library
600 S. Johnstone
Bartlesville, OK 74003
(918) 337-5334

Nash Library
University of Science & Arts of Oklahoma
1901 S. 17th Street
Chickasha, OK 73018
(405) 574-1262

Clinton Public Library
721 Frisco
Clinton, OK 73601
(580) 323-2165

H.G. Bennett Memorial Library
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Durant, OK 74701
(580) 924-0121

Max Chambers Library
University of Central Oklahoma
100 N. University Drive
Edmond, OK 73060-0192
(405) 974-5156

AI Harris Library
Southwestern Oklahoma State University
Weatherford, OK 73096
(580) 774-3031

Public Library of Enid & Garfield County
120 West Maine
Enid, OK 73701
(580) 234-6313

Lawton Public Library
110 S.W. Fourth
Lawton, OK 73501
(580) 581-3450

McAlester Public Library
401 N. Second
McAlester, OK 74501
(918) 426-0930

Bizzel Memorial Library
University of Oklahoma
401 W. Brooks
Norman, OK 73019
(405) 325-3141

Metropolitan Library System
334 S.W. 26th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73109
(405) 631-1149

Edmon Low Library
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK 74074
(405) 744-6546

John Vaughn Library
Northeastern State University
Tahlequah, OK 74464
(918) 456-5511

Tulsa City/County Library System
400 Civic Center
Tulsa, OK 74103
(918) 596-7946

McFarlin Library
University of Tulsa
2933 E. 6th Street
Tulsa, OK
(918) 631-2874

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

__________________
Name

__________________
Address

__________________
City, State, ZIP

PROPERTY RIGHTS BROCHURE

The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma insure that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.

It is with these provisions in mind that the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) (City)(County) pursues the acquisition of right-of-way. This brochure will provide you, the property owner, with general information as to this process. Your right-of-way agent will provide you with more additional specific information as it relates to you and your property.

APPRAISAL

Before the initiation of negotiations for the purchase of real property, an amount is established by (ODOT) (City) (County) which is reasonably believed to be just compensation for the value of the part taken and the damages to the remaining property, if any. In cases involving the purchase of real property by (ODOT) (City) (County) with a fair market value of $10,000.00 or less, no approved appraisal report will be required. Generally however, real property is first appraised by a State licensed or certified appraiser, and the property owners or their designated representatives are given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during the physical inspection of the property. The completed appraisal report is next reviewed by a separate review appraiser to ensure accuracy, completion, and the proper use and full compliance with recognized appraisal principles and standards. Finally, an authorized amount is established by (ODOT) (City)(County) based upon the appraisal review for presentation to the owners or their authorized agents.

NEGOTIATION

The right-of-way agent has given you a written offer letter of the amount established as just compensation for the property to be acquired with the amount for damages (if any) separately set out. The option to waive the appraisal process and donate your property to the State of Oklahoma (City) (County) is available to you if you so desire. The right-of-way agent has shown you the available plans for this project and has also explained to you the amount of property which will be required and what effect the acquisition will have on your remaining property, if any. Please keep in mind the right-of-way agent is not authorized to alter the amount established as just compensation. No current abstract of your property will be requested or required from you; however, the right-of-way agent will periodically request that you confirm the current surface ownership regarding individual owners of record, liens, mortgages and tenants (if any). You are encouraged advise the right-of-way agent when any actual or pending surface title changes occur.

ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER

If you agree to accept the offer, the right-of-way agent will prepare the deeds or easements, claim forms and other documents necessary to transfer ownership of the property. No formal closing is required, as you will simply be requested to execute and convey to the right-of-way agent the before mentioned documents. After these documents have been properly executed, they will be forwarded to ODOT's Oklahoma City office for processing and the issuance of a State warrant (check). After the required period for processing, which normally is 25 to 30 days, the check will be delivered to you. When your property is mortgaged, it is sometimes a longer check processing time due to the mortgagee agreeing to and processing a partial release or discharge of the mortgage. In the event the negotiation is on the basis of your retaining improvements and removing them from the right-of-way limits, a specific date will be established for you to remove the improvements. On those projects where the lead time permits, the Department may be able to lease the improvements and/or land to you on a month-to-. month basis until such time as the right-of-way must be eventually cleared for utility relocations or construction.

EMINENT DOMAIN

Should you decline to accept the State's (City) (County) offer, or should the title to the property needed by the State be defective, it will be necessary for the State (City) (County) to exercise its power of eminent domain. The power of eminent domain is the power of the State (City) (County) to take private property for public use upon the payment of just compensation. The legal process by which the power of eminent domain is exercised is known as condemnation.

Condemnation proceedings are commenced by the filing of a Petition in the District Court for the county in which your land is situated. You will be provided a copy of the Petition. The first step to be taken in condemnation proceedings is for the District Judge to appoint three unbiased disinterested freeholders, known as "commissioners," to decide the amount of compensation they think you should receive. These commissioners will be appointed at a hearing which will be held at the county courthouse, and you will be provided written notice at least ten (10) days prior to that hearing. Under the law, the District Judge has the authority to select all three of the commissioners. However, in some instances the District Judge asks the parties for suggestions as to whom to appoint. You have the right to attend the hearing, but you are not required to do so.

The three court-appointed commissioners then inspect the property and assess the amount of compensation that they believe the State (City) (County) should pay. The compensation awarded by the commissioners (known as the "commissioner's award") will include the value of the part of your tract actually taken, as well as any damages, if any, by way of reduction in value to the remaining portion of the tract which is not taken.

Any special and direct benefits to the part of the property not taken may be offset only against any injury (damage) to the property not taken. The commissioners will then file a written "Report of Commissioners" with the Court Clerk setting forth their findings.

Subsequent to the filing of the Report of Commissioners, the State (City) (County) will deposit the amount awarded by the commissioners with the Court Clerk. State law provides that upon such deposit the State (City) (County) acquires the right to take possession of the property. If you so desire, you may make application to the Court for disbursement of the commissioners' award to you (or at least that portion of the award to which you are entitled). The withdrawal of the commissioners' award in no way affects your right to pursue further legal actions, as detailed below.

If either party believes that there has been an error or omission in the Report of Commissioners, or if you wish to challenge the State's (City) (County) legal power to take your property, a written "exception" to the Report of Commissioners must be filed within thirty (30) days after the filing of the Report of Commissioners. The written exception must be filed with the Court Clerk. The Court may then confirm or reject the exception. If the Court confirms the exception, it may order a new appraisement. In that event, the State (City) (County) will have a continuing right of possession acquired via the first Report of Commissioners, unless and until the Court rules that the State (City) (County) does not have the power to condemn your property. If either party desires to challenge only the amount awarded by the commissioners, it must do so by filing a Demand for Jury Trial within sixty (60) days after the filing of the Report of Commissioners. The written demand for Jury Trial must be filed with the Court Clerk.

In the event of a jury trial and a jury verdict which exceeds the amount awarded by the court-appointed commissioners, the State (City) (County) would then have to deposit with the Court Clerk an amount equal to the difference between the jury verdict and the commissioners' award. Similarly, should the jury verdict he for an amount less than the commissioners' award, the property owner(s) would in that event be required to return that portion of the commissioners' award which exceeds the amount of the jury verdict. Should the amount of the jury's verdict exceed the amount of the commissioners' award by ten percent (10%) or more, then the State (City) (County) must reimburse the property owner(s) for their reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees, actually incurred in connection with the condemnation proceedings. Either party may appeal the action taken by the District Court to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

INCIDENTAL EXPENSES

As a real property owner, you may qualify for the reimbursement of incurred expenses for items such as: recording fees, transfer taxes and similar expenses incidental to conveying such real property to the State. The extent of such reimbursement must be actually incurred by you and shall be determined and pre-approved by the State. Also included are penalty costs for prepayment of any existing recorded mortgages.

If you are refused an incidental expense payment or if you believe the payment offered is not adequate to cover your expenses, you have the right to an appeal. To file an appeal you must write a letter to:

Chairman, Appeals Board
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
Office of Preconstruction
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

You must file your appeal within 60 days of the date Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) (City) (County) assumes legal possession of the property being acquired. This appeal procedure is provided in relation to incidental expenses only. If you are not satisfied with the fair market value offer to buy your property, see your right-of-way acquisition agent about your right to a court proceeding. The "fair market value offer" to buy is a separate offer and is not subject to review by the Appeals Board.

* * * * *

In the event you, as the property owner, would like to see the plans again on this project or if you decide to accept the State's (City) (County) offer, after the right-of-way agent has completed his attempts to negotiate, it is asked that you contact the Department of Transportation as listed below:

Oklahoma Department of Transportation
Right-of-Way Division
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
(405)521-2651

It is the sincere desire and hope of the Department of Transportation (City) (County) to be fair and to successfully negotiate with each property owner. It is also the policy of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (City) (County) to assure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, age or national origin, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (City) (County) received Federal financial assistance.

Revised MB/6/96

STOCKYARDS CITY
MAIN STREET

January 31, 2001

Mr. David Streb
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 Northeast 21st Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

RE: I-40 Realignment at Pennsylvania

Dear Mr. Streb:

I am writing to you on behalf of the property owners and businesses of historic Stockyards City, located south of I-40 along Agnew.

Oklahoma City Councilwoman Ann Simank has proposed that the I-40 exit at Pennsylvania be designed to include an access road connecting west to Agnew.

[1A] The Stockyards City Main Street Board of Directors voted unanimously to endorse the proposal by Ms. Simank. Convenient, well-marked access to Agnew from I-40 would support the continued redevelopment of the Stockyards City district.

The Stockyards City Main Street Board welcomes the opportunity to provide further input as the I-40 realignment is finalized

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

Mr. Barney U. Brown
Advisor and Board Member
Stockyards City Main Street, Inc.

1 [Number of comments later added to letters or comment sheets by hand]

[Comment 2, 2A, 2B transcribed from handwriting]

[2] I don't have a problem with the relocation of the I-40 Crosstown expressway except that I use it everyday to commute to my job at Tinker AFB from Yukon.

[2A] As long as you keep the current or existing road open and undisturbed until the new section opens for traffic, I support this

I-40 cuts my driving time significantly. If I am forced to use alternate routes such as diverting at the Amarillo junction to the highway that runs by SW Community College and Crossroads Mall (I-240?) it will take a lot more time to get to work

Please contact me if you have questions about my concerns. My phone # is 354-7322S

Cece Hennieh
724 Garden Grove
Yukon OK 73099

[2B] PS - Please don't make us drive through construction zones with a reduced number of lanes, etc., while you build the new road. Do you have a web site for comments?

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

2-27-01

[Comment 3A transcribed from handwriting]

My property is located at 600 S. Byers, which is on the Corner of 5th & Byers. There are 4 pieces of property: 736 S. 5th Has a house on it & 741 S. 5th is a vacant lot. I am interested in selling all of this property. I am a widow and need to sell it

Oneida Barber
Name

634 NE 16th
Address

OKC, OK 73104
City, State, ZIP

3 [Number of comment added by hand]

ROUTE 77--HUBCAP ALLEY ASSOCIATION

John Bowman
c/o ODOT
200 N.E 21st
RM 3-A7
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

Dear John:

I am writing you to summarize the concerns expressed to you and David Strebs during the many meetings that members of the Hub Cap Alley Association have attended with ODOT. As you may remember our concerns are based primarily from our recent experience with the construction of the Robinson Street and 15th Street bridges. You may remember that during that time access into our business community was blocked from several directions over the course of two years. Moreover, the strategic setup of detour signs made it appear that there were no businesses in operation past certain points on Robinson street. The ultimate result is that three businesses were finally closed and economic hardships were experienced by the rest of those who survived.

[4A] Our association realizes that progress must always come about especially in a city as large as Oklahoma City. Furthermore, as we have written to ODOT our association has endorsed the current proposal for the relocation of I-40. Our association feels that this is our civic duty. Moreover, as members of ODOT have requested our group has also joined in discussions with two other neighborhood organizations, namely the Riverside Neighborhood Association and the Latino Community Agency, to further unite in expressing our desires. Those united concerns have been sent to ODOT in a final format. Please make sure that you include those concerns with your final submissions of the Environmental Impact study since they represent the united expressions of all three associations.

[4B] In summary, the "Route 77 Hubcap Alley Association" is most concerned with the economic impact that we will experience when the construction begins due to lack of access into the area from the north. This is a concrete reality since the general plan suggests that both the Walker and Robinson street accesses will be closed simultaneously for new bridge construction. This will make access from the north quite difficult for both residence and customers. In our discussions, you suggested a possible entry on the east side of the old railroad station. Furthermore, you also implied that ODOT would bring access to the area from the east via Shields Blvd. Our association finds these both palatable as long as access from Shields comes in at 11th street. You may remember that one of our members has property separated at 12th street and if access is brought through at this point it would divide his yards and create a traffic hazard since he used heavy equipment between the two locations.

[4C] Finally, we would like to remind you that Oklahoma City Planning had a bond Issue
passed on December 12 for the development of a Street scape area for our business district. Please be sensitive to our needs when planning this project.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

Robert M. Massey
President

ROUTE 77--HUBCAP ALLEY ASSOCIATION

David Streb
200 N.E 21st Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-3204

June 9, 2000

Dear David:

I wanted to first tell you how much I appreciated the helpful advice that you gave to our organization at the last Riverside Neighborhood Association meeting on June 1. As I told you, I wanted to present the Riverside Neighborhood Concerns to the Hub Cap Alley Association and to have them select the items on this list of concerns that the association feels effects us specifically due to the relocation of Alternative D I-40. The attached copy of the Riverside Neighborhood Concerns has the Route 77 Hub Cap Alley Association's selections highlighted in blue.

These selected items were prioritized during the May 18 Riverside Neighborhood Association meeting where representatives from Riverside Neighborhood Association, the Latino Community Development Center, and the Route 77 Hub Cap Alley Association were present. Since some of these concerns do not affect the business owners, our organization felt the need to indicate those items which are important to the association. As you may remember, this list includes a combination of concerns to which the City of Oklahoma City officials, specifically the Planning Commission as well as Oklahoma City Police, are being asked to respond. The Hub Cap Alley Association realizes that some of these items are not in the focus of ODOT. Moreover, our organization is considering supporting the Alternative D relocation of I-40 plans. We will vote on that motion at our next meeting in July.

Please consider these concerns we have highlighted in blue which we believe will impact this area if relocation of I-40 using the Alternative D plan is adopted.

Sincerely Yours,

[handwritten signature]

Robert M. Massey
President

ADDITIONAL RIVERSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
(Community groups comprising residents and community-based organizations)

Over the last few years other Riverside community groups comprising residents and community-based organizations have developed a listing of neighborhood needs and concerns. Some concerns originate from obvious and long standing neighborhood quality of life issues while others from foreseeable impacts of moving I-40 closer to the neighborhood. These issues which should be mitigated prior to any decision to relocate I-40 can be organized into three main categories:

I. NEIGHBORHOOD SECURITY.

[4D] *Removal of drug houses
[4E] *Community Policing
[4F] *Additional lighting, paving of streets and construction of sidewalks

II. COMMUNITY PROTECTION.

[4G] *Fair and equitable replacements of lost housing and property due to I-40 reroute with comparable relocation free of cost to home and property owners. New affordable housing for people who are buying in the form of low interest loan and grants for those who already own their homes.
[4H] *Fair and equitable replacements of lost business property due to I-40 reroute with comparable relocation free of cost to business property owners
[4I] *Noise, vibration and pollution reduction measures to lessen the adverse impacts of the I-40 reroute on the neighborhood and its landmarks: Little Flower Church, Wesley Center, Riverside School and the Union Train Depot (Maximize resident and environmental safety).
[4J] *Access into and out of the community. Do not close Walker and Robinson streets. At the same time during bridge construction. Keep access open to the north for both business and emergency community concerns
[4K] *Transportation concerns. An accessible transportation/transit system be established for residents.

III. MITIGATION NEEDS.

[4L] *A construction fund for the anticipated damage to physical structures. This fund should remain available for 3-5 years.
[4M] *Fence, berm & vegetation. This is for property owners/residents that will be affected by the walkway to the river
[4N] *A medical clinic and medical trust funds for residents afflicted by environmental or physical hazards related to the I-40 reroute.
[4O] *Noise barrier for the freeway. This should be monitored for at least 3 to 5 years to make sure that there are no problems in the future.
[4-P] *A neighborhood youth center and gymnasium.
[4Q] *Training programs for displaced employees when employers have to re-locate.

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed handwritten comments:]

[5A] I personally favor the proposed "D" route. My concerns are

[5B] (1) "old" I-40 structure (leave alone, rebuild)?

[5C] (2) local condition bidding for the proposed project? Conflicts of interest? This will provide substantial economic growth. Waiver of Civil lawsuits!!!

[5D] (3) Condition of I-240 (resurfacing)? After completion of "D" project

[5E] (4) Warranty of project / schedule completion date / references

[5F] (5) Homeless people near construction site (fencing / security) , (liability)

[5G] (6) OKC police department of Okla. Highway Patrol, or Okla. County Sheriffs Dept. enforcing traffic laws on proposed route?

[5H] (7) compensation of displaced property owners - using a local Well-established realtor (appraisor) to determine market value

David Yahola
Name

733 S. Glen Lane Ct.
Address

Mustang, Okla. 73064
City, State, ZIP

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed handwritten comments:]

[6A] From May Ave Eastbound you have to go over 1 mile & 2 interchanges to get onto I-40E; you can't get to the new parkway at Agnew or Penn. You can't get off at May Ave from westbound I 40 either. But you can going west from the parkway! You lose all access to May Ave for the fair grounds, Mathis Bros on Reno, etc. This way & force all fair traffic to I 44 thru the Amarillo Junction. You need access to May at I-40 -- Here's my solution: eastbound, onramp from May, additional lane thru off-ramp at Agnew, eliminating new frontage Road between May & Agnew westbound; parkway intersects Agnew, then adds lane on I-40 W from Agnew onramp to off-ramp at May - eliminating another frontage road for 1/2 mile (sketch on back of sheet illustrates - see next sheet for graphic)

Paul E Wilson
Name

2736 NW 13th St.
Address

Okla. City OK 73107
City, State, ZIP

[graphic: back of Paul E. Wilson's Written Comments Sheet]

P.S. I'm an employee in Roadway Design at ODOT
200 NE 21st St.
521-6766

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed handwritten comments followed by copy of "The Intermodal Times, the commenter's newsletter:]

North American Transportation Institute proposes to file a complete, documented REVIEW & COMMENT on the "D" ROUTE PLAN BY MARCH 15, 2001.

[7A] THE REQUIREMENT for AN "ALL-NEW CROSSTOWN APPEARS TO BE DEBATABLE. CLEARLY, THE SEGMENT FROM WESTERN WEST SHOULD BE SERVICABLE FOR THE FORSEABLE FUTURE. IN ANY CASE THIS (THE"D") IS THE RADICAL SOLUTION

[7B] OKC Union Station is a transport asset of incalculable value. Its destruction - which is to say the complete, integral yard & approach corridors, including passenger & freight subways irrevocable linking the yard to the station building simply cannot be justified (over)

[7C] THE SUCCESS ENJOYED BY REDEVELOPED FACILITIES SIMILAR TO THIS ONE IN DALLAS, SALT LAKE & OTHER WESTERN CITIES SHOULD BE A WAKE-UP CALL TO OKC & STATE LEADERS. QUESTIONS OF "JUDGEMENT", IF NOT

[7 D] of the ESSENTIAL COMPETENCE or INTEGRITY, OF THOSE PUSHING THE RAIL FACILITY'S DESTRUCTION, ARE NATURALLY RAISED IN LIGHT OF THE CLEAR ANSWERS OTHER CITIES ARE FINDING IN THE REUSE of SUCH FACILITES THROUGH OUT THE WEST.

[7E] FUTURE CENTRAL OFLAHOMANS WILL PAY A HIGH PRICE FOR THIS NEED LESS DESTRUCTION.

NATI WILL FOLLOW UP ON THIS STATEMENT WITH A COMPLETE PAPER WITHIN 2 WEEKS.

2-27-01

Tom Elmore
Name

PO Box 6617
Address

Okla. City OK 73153
City, State, ZIP

* * * * *

ODOT's "New I-40 Crosstown" plan: Like amputating a leg to cure a hangnail - short-term "gain" not worth the long-term loss!

State Transportation Department simply cannot show that the benefits urban rail center in the west purported to accompany the new 10-lane expressway won't be outweighed, both near and long-term, by the reversible destruction of the finest potential urban rail center in the west.

More traffic = more problems [7 F]

ODOT insists the existing Crosstown must be replaced because it can't handle enough traffic. THIS IS MISGUIDED LOGIC. Creating a new 10-lane "funnel" directly through the city's center will encourage traffic, especially THROUGH TRUCKS to avoid existing bypasses and come "downtown" instead. More highway capacity will BRING MORE TRAFFIC, and with it, inevitable increases in AIR POLLUTION, TRAFFIC CONGESTION and HIGHWAY FATALITIES.

OKC is already on the verge of losing its federal air-quality rating because of ozone levels. The strategy should be to DISCOURAGE MORE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IN DOWNTOWN, and, especially, to route through trucks over I-240, I-44 and the new Kilpatrick Turnpike. This should benefit the truckers, as well, who will avoid downtown congestion and the infamous Fort Smith junction -where so many semi-rigs overturn each year.

More traffic = more maintenance expense and more danger [7 G]

According to state Transportation Secretary Neal McCaleb, Oklahomans faced over $11 billion in unfunded highway maintenance and "new construction" requirements in 1996. Have roads gotten better since then? According to a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study just released, Oklahoma now ranks FIFTH IN BAD BRIDGES, nationally, and SECOND IN THE RATE OF BAD BRIDGES. Reportedly, tens of millions of dollars in state road maintenance funds are now paying for BOND DEBT instead of road repairs.

Each big truck using Oklahoma highways pays less than 20% of the minimum cost of the damage it does. This is the main source of unrepaid damage to our highways. The taxpayers get stuck with the bill. Encouraging more big trucks to "blow through the middle of town" by building this new highway is a formula for massive new unfunded maintenance expense. Mixing more such traffic with OKC-area commuters will also inevitably bring more danger and more accident fatalities.

Creating more problems while destroying the obvious antidote [7H]

As outlined elsewhere in this newsletter, there is no doubt about the value of the rail plant at OKC Union Station. It holds expensive answers to existing problems which won't create new problems. Our western neighbors have already proven the worth of such facilities.

Moreover, Union Station itself and the rail lines serving it are clearly superior to any similar facility in the west. The apparent determination of some of our leaders to destroy this treasure should raise many serious questions. There is no doubt that ODOT is aware of the successes of rail transit in St. Louis, Dallas / Ft. Worth, Denver, Salt lake City and other western cities. Nevertheless, ODOT never seriously considered whether redevelopment of the Union Station facility could lessen the need for more inner-city highway capacity -or preclude the need for it altogether.

Instead of talking seriously about the value of the station, the Department acts as though leaving a single rail line near the depot "is all the rail capacity the station would ever need." This is an insult to the intelligence of any who have followed successful rail-transit redevelopment in other cities.

It's time for the nonsense to stop [7I]

Union Station was purchased in 1989 with a grant from the forerunner of the Federal Transit Administration. Throughout the grant-application paperwork, the value of the rail-lines serving the station is restated over and over again -even by people such as Neal McCaleb. Throughout the I-40 "major investment study (MIS)" process, ODOT has steadfastly avoided the question of the inherent value of Union Station and its railplant. There was no one on the advisory committees to speak in defense of the Union Station facility; no one to speak out against the calculated destruction of this irreplaceable asset.

Are we to believe the station and its rail lines has so little value? Are we so wealthy that we can afford to thoughtlessly cast away such gifts from our great-grandparents? To believe this, especially in light of the pressing problems of the age, is to give in to foolishness. OKC and its children need these facilities -and will need them more in the future. It's time for ODOT to stop the nonsense. It's time for Central Oklahomans to demand answers.

+ North American Transportation Institute + PO Box 6617 + Oklahoma City, OK 73153 + Tel: (405)794-7163 +

* * * * *

The Intermodal Times
Newsletter of North American Transportation Institute

American Transportation Institute PO Box 6617 Oklahoma City. OK 73153-0617 Tel: (405)794-7163 Fax: (405)799-264110...
Tom Elmore. Executive Director E-mail: gtelmore@aol.com

* * * * *

Why ODOT's plan to cripple OKC Union Station with a "new I-40 Crosstown" is UNACCEPTABLE [7J]

Union Station Rail Facility - 12 track bays, Ready street access. Grade-Separated Rail Crossings (Robinson and Walker Street underpasses). Surrounded by plenty of redevelopable land for parking and mail and express facility development. This should be our Amtrak station and bus center. Low cost rail transit can also be developed here when needed using existing corridors to: (1) Stockyards, Will Rogers Airport, Mustang, Chickasha, (2) Midwest City, Tinker AFB, (3) Bricktown, Near NE, Zoo/Omniplex/Remington Park, (4) Choctaw, Harrah, Shawnee, (5) Luther, Chandler, Stroud, Tulsa, (6) State Fairgrounds, I-40/Meridian, Yukon, El Reno, Weatherford

Spectacular Oklahoma City Union Station, opened in 1931, is undoubtedly the finest, most carefully planned urban surface transportation terminal in the state. The beautiful station building, its rail yard, approach corridors and street access were all conceived and built as an integral terminal complex by the Rock Island and Frisco railroad companies. Both depot and yard were built "at grade," allowing immediate rail-to-street interface on Hudson and Harvey avenues. One block east and west, the railroads built the beautiful Robinson and Walker underpasses or "subways," allowing arterial street traffic to flow, unimpeded, UNDER the yard.

Today, cities like Dallas. St. Louis, Salt Lake and Denver are wisely converting their old rail facilities into modern multimodal transport, linking autos and airports with new urban rail transit and bus service as well as intercity passenger trains and buses. Our regional neighbors are proving that intelligent reuse of old urban rail terminals and corridors makes attractive new transportation choices possible at low cost, greatly increasing access and mobility without the wholesale destruction of long established neighborhoods and businesses inevitably involved with new highways - and, without increased roadway congestion or air pollution. Such systems save wear and tear on both private autos and their owners.

As good as Dallas DART Rail and the other new western systems are, Oklahoma City Union Station is a far better facility with a better yard and better connections than ANY of them started with. In fact, the quality of the station complex is astounding. Although parts of the yard have been unused for 30 years and some of the station tracks have been removed, every essential design element remains as it was when built.

However, apparently still driven by its historic "highways-only" focus, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (OOOT) now proposes to blindly destroy the Union Station yard and approach corridors (as if they had no value!) by building a "new" I-40 Crosstown through them.

Central Oklahomans need to take a good look around. Will we not realize "what we had" until it's gone? No other western city would now be willing to blindly sacrifice such a superb, existing rail facility for another highway. It is simply irreplaceable. Its destruction would ensure that by 2010 central Oklahoma would be the ONLY metro area of its size in the west where folks have no choice but to drive -EVERY DAY -just to get to work, regardless of the price of gasoline, the quality of the air, or their capacities in light of age or disability to safely use automobiles. In short, we will needlessly have become "mobility-uncompetitive."

If we're wise enough to save Union Station, it may well save US! We simply can't afford to let short-sighted transportation planning rob us and our grandchildren of this critically important transportation asset and the needed solutions it can provide.

Elegant OKC Union Station: A gift of powerful solutions to 21st century problems from our great-grandfathers

Built by the Rock Island and Frisco Railroad companies, beautiful Oklahoma City Union Station opened in 1931. It was a landmark achievement. In an agreement with the City of OKC to move their individual depots and east-west tracks out of downtown to a less developed, less congested area, the railroad companies started with a "clean sheet of paper." The spectacular depot building itself was only part of a carefully planned, fully integrated terminal facility which included brand new railway corridors and a rail yard which could meet passengers and mail and express freight trucks "at grade" on Hudson and Harvey while allowing arterial street traffic to flow freely UNDER the yard at the elegant new Robinson and Walker underpasses or "subways". From the interior of the 55,000 square foot depot building, passengers boarded trains via a gentle ramp leading from the expansive grand hall to secure underground tunnels passing beneath the yard, then up stairways to their chosen trains at surface boarding platforms. The 12 track yard was, and remains, a marvel of functional design, allowing full public and commercial access without danger, and working WITH - not against - auto, truck and pedestrian traffic.

Today, many Oklahoma Citians are surprised to discover the strikingly beautiful depot building just south of the main OKC Post Office, and even more surprised to find that the fully restored architectural masterpiece is owned by Oklahoma City Metro Transit. Amazingly, the depot facility retains most of its original, wide-ranging railway connections and lies at the center of railway corridors leading to strategic points all over central Oklahoma and the rest of the state -an ideal candidate for redevelopment as a multimodal transportation center.

Western cities such as St. Louis, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Denver and Salt Lake City have had great success redeveloping existing former freight-railway facilities as fast electric urban rail transit systems. Throughout the American west, hundreds of thousands of commuters gladly leave their autos at secure park-and-ride lots on the outskirts of urban centers every day to ride swift, comfortable new trains to work. They've found using the trains lowers the costs of their daily travel by reducing mileage and maintenance on their expensive automobiles. They're happy to eliminate the ever-increasing hassle and expense of urban parking, and find (to their surprise) that they "can do without" the stress and uncertainty of the classic "freeway commute." New transit systems like Dallas DART Rail and Trinity Railway Express, St. Louis Metrolink, Salt Lake's TRAX and Denver's popular new RTD Light Rail have brought a sea-change of environmentally clean, low-cost, all-weather mobility to these western urban and suburban dwellers.

Meanwhile, urban planners in these cities are finding modern rail transit offers solid, low-cost answers to common urban problems. Quiet, clean electric trains offer giant increases in user-friendly mobility without accompanying increases in air pollution or roadway maintenance bills. Rail access from remote parking lots and garages limit the need for expensive new parking facilities in urban centers. Modern railway systems built on old railway corridors provide all these benefits without the wholesale destruction accompanying construction of new urban freeways. Investment in these user-friendly systems drives redevelopment booms in the older urban areas as nothing else can. There's no longer any question about it. Modern transit works, and even independent westerners love it.

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) proposes to put its "new I-40 Crosstown" here. Is the new road worth what's being lost?

The carefully designed yard, passenger platforms, underground passenger and freight tunnels (along with the Robinson and Walker street underpasses) were built in 1930 specifically to serve Union Station.

After meticulous restoration by previous owner Thurman Magbee, the Union Station depot building is now owned by Oklahoma City Metro Transit. It was purchased in 1989 with a grant from the Federal Transit Administration for development as a bus and rail center for the city. Together with its purpose-built yard, no finer potential urban transport center exists in the west. It could be pressed back into service at low cost as a central terminal serving intercity passenger trains and buses as well as modern transit buses and trains.

However ODOT is apparently determined to end this possibility by building a new 10-lane expressway directly through this corridor. Transportation options badly needed by central Oklahomans, and which "could have been had" at low cost with simple and inexpensive modernization of this elegant and irreplaceable facility would disappear forever with the destruction of the yard and railway corridors.

Everything within the white lines in the photo above would be destroyed, including all of the existing yard, passenger platforms, tracks and the underground passenger and freight tunnels linking the platforms to the depot building. The South Robinson and Walker street underpasses, located at each end of the passenger yard would also be destroyed.

The rail yard was built at street-level to provide optimum ease in transferring mail and express from trucks to trains (& vice-versa), making it ideally suited to support Amtrak intercity passenger trains' vital express freight and mail handling needs. However, if the yard is excavated per the ODOT plan, even the single track that remains will be lowered 9 feet into the "depression" also occupied by the new highway, making easy transfer of Amtrak's "RoadRailer" units from street to rail impossible. The basic design element which made this superbly functional facility by far the best in the state would be gone forever. Worse yet, direct BNSF track access from the station west to the Airport and east to Tulsa would also be lost.

* * * * *

This is progress? I-40 Crosstown plan will destroy historic South Robinson and Walker underpasses, sending more trains across street-level crossings in Capitol Hill. South OKC commuters face new potential delays, danger and less-certain emergency access.

The elegant Robinson &Walker "subways" have safely cleared autos, trucks and pedestrians under the railroad tracks tracks on the Union Station corridor for 70 years. Is the Oklahoma Department of Transportation "in reverse" on railway crossing safety?

One of the reasons OKC Union Station was created at the end of the 1920s was to rid downtown of the many street-level railroad crossings which served the old downtown Frisco and Rock Island Railway depots. The crossings themselves were undoubtedly a maintenance problem, and mixing auto and pedestrian traffic with trains is always a safety problem, as were the prospects that access for emergency vehicles might be blocked by trains at any time. At [?] 1931 opening, Union Station with its all-new rail corridors and street underpasses eliminated all those concerns.

Like the Union Station rail facility, the Robinson and Walker underpasses were "built to last." 70 years later, they're still doing their job, clearing street and pedestrian traffic safely under active rail lines. They're part of the OKC landscape and are probably taken for granted by most folks -which is to say few would normally think about them unless they suddenly disappeared, along with the solutions they've provided, leaving more trains crossing at street-level somewhere in the city. Of course, that goes against accepted planning standards in the modern world -but destroying ; overpasses and some of the solutions they brought is apparently what our state Department of Transportation proposes to do as part of the "New I-40 Crosstown plan." It's a poorly conceived and strangely backward plan.

Because ODOT places little value on railways, the "New Crosstown plan" would route the new 10-lane expressway exactly through the Union Station yard, destroying the historic underpasses along with the rest of the rail-plant which was built to serve the station. Burlington Northern Santa Fe trains which now use the station corridor over the underpasses would be RE-ROUTED on existing street-level crossings near the 2100 blocks of South Robinson and South Walker. The crossings would be upgraded - but they'd still be "at-grade" or street-level, with all the inherent safety and access problems associated with such crossings. Property values might suffer as well. After 70 years, "history would repeat itself" as the problems of old downtown are created all over again in Capitol Hill. If Capitol Hill residents and property owners had any idea this was part of "the plan," would they think of it as "progress?"

* * * * *

Cities all over the west are successfully reintroducing rail transit systems, many built at low cost using former freight-railway corridor and terminals like those at OKC Union Station. Modern rail systems boost quality-of-life with low-cost, all-weather mobility.

First phase of DART Rail was built with penny sales tax in Dallas & participating suburbs. Commercial and residential property served by the system is now 25% more valuable than similar real-estate not on the lines. Rail transit is driving an urban redevelopment renaissance.

Dallas Union Station

Once abandoned and considered a relic, Dallas Union Station has been reborn as a vital multimodal center for the Metroplex. Here, since June, 1996, passengers arriving from Chicago, LA or Florida on Amtrak's Texas Eagle can walk across a platform to fast, comfortable DART Rail electric trains or Trinity Railway Express commuter trains linking them to the entire Dallas Area Rapid Transit system. A DART day-pass is two dollars. Regular users pay even less. Few would trade the new-found freedom and economy of the trains for more new highway.

Over 40,000 ride the trains daily, a number expected to double with impending extensions to Garland, Plano and Richardson.

Trinity Railway Express Commuter Trains

Diesel-Electric commuter trains are used by Trinity Railway Express (TRE) to link Irving, Arlington and Richland Hills (along with remote access to DFW Airport) to the DART Rail System at Dallas Union Station. Ridership of the commuter trains doubled one morning last summer at the opening of the new line extension from its former western terminus at South Irving to Richland Hills. Park and ride facilities are already being expanded to meet burgeoning demand for the service. Extension of the line to Ft. Worth is in progress, scheduled for opening in October, 2001.

DART Light Rail Trains

These fast, clean, all-electric light-rail trains represent the state-of-the-art in modern transit service. Suburban commuters see the trains as low-cost extensions of their automobiles, which can now be left at secure park-and-ride lots near the outer edges of the Dallas urban center. While commuters themselves "de-stress" on the carefree train ride into work, their automobiles AREN'T racking up mileage, maintenance need and big-city parking fees.
Meanwhile, property values in old inner-city neighborhoods and business districts near the rail lines are skyrocketing as the attractive new transport option makes some "rethink" suburban living.

Although Dallas voters narrowly rejected a 1988 bond-financing plan presented to them by DART for the construction of a proposed rail transit system, Dallas transportation planners persevered. They knew - in spite of the loud derision of the "highways-only" interests -that Dallas needed and would benefit from such technology. Last summer, having had the opportunity to use the new urban rail systems in their own 'city for 4 years, north Texans voted 3-to-1 to provide 2.9 billion in bond financing to accelerate extensions of the system to THEIR suburbs and neighborhoods.

* * * * *

Oklahoma's HEARTLAND FLYER: Showing the way to better transport

Considered an airline service backwater, Oklahoma has other options - if state leadership is wise enough to exploit them. OKC Union Station can provide a critical head-start for advanced rail and intermodal service. Developing real high-speed service here, NOW, would "put Oklahoma on the map" in a way few other technologies could.

Advanced High-Speed Train Technology Comes to the U.S.

The first of Amtrak's Acela Express train sets are now in service in the northeastern United States. Although derived from French TGV technology, these trains were built much heavier to meet American collision-strength standards. Unlike the French trains which generally operate over all-new, purpose-built track on very straight, grade-separated corridors, it was necessary for the U.S. trains to tilt, allowing faster operation through the curves which characterize most domestic rail lines. Although the unique requirements brought a longer-than-projected development period, the trains are now in highly successful daily service at speeds up to 150 mph.

Oklahoma's "Heartland Flyer" Service

Since starting service in June, 1999, Oklahoma's OKC-to-Fort Worth, Texas HEARTLAND FLYER has performed far beyond initial projections. Stops include Norman, Purcell, Pauls Valley, Ardmore and Gainesville, Texas. Each of these cities has either upgraded or is in the process of upgrading its depot facilities, and enthusiasm for the service is high. Oklahoma and Kansas towns along the BNSF line north to Kansas City are promoting service extensions for their citizens. Tulsa wants passenger service, too. Meanwhile, signal upgrades. and other improvements are being incrementally phased in on, the current route which will soon reduce one-way trip time from the original four and-a-half hours to three hours, forty minutes. THE FLYER is a hit by any standard.

1. Hostler tractor positions trailer; the tractor's air system controls the unique ROADRAILER® suspension:
   
2. Trailer air suspension lifts rear of trailer, tractor backs trailer onto Mark V® rail bogie (illustration exaggerates lift angle):
   
3. Trailer air is vented. Steel coil springs lift tires clear of rail. Tractor backs trailer to couple with trailer set and rest of train:
4. Trailer set connected to train, trailer air connected to train lines and trailing CouplerMate® attached to end ROADRAILER®.
   

Taking big trucks OFF highways while helping passenger trains pay for themselves, here's how Wabash National's® RoadRailer® works for Amtrak's mail & express program.

Historically, U.S. long-distance passenger trains also carried first-class U.S. mail and express freight. These highly specialized, time-sensitive cargos were well-served by the predictable, all-weather capabilities of the trains, while often providing up to two-thirds of the revenue needed to make them pay.

Today, Amtrak is "Back in the firs-class mail and express business in a big way, and depots which can handle the unique transport technologies employed by the rail service are being developed. OKC Union Station is a rare facility which, with only minor modifications, would be perfectly suited to support Amtrak's RoadRailers, In fact, the quality of the facility is such as to provide an opportunity for development of a regional mail and express [?}

* * * * *

The I-40 Crosstown "D" Option:

A QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS to build a 10-lane non-stop speedway allowing transcontinental heavy trucks to blow through the middle of Oklahoma City without breaking stride (instead of using existing and now-building bypasses).

It will bring more traffic through the center of OKC - and with it, more problems -

• It will add to Central Oklahoma's growing air-quality problems.
• It will encourage and hasten future roadway congestion.
• It will have to be maintained - against current ODOT "unfunded maintenance and new construction requirements" which now exceed $11 billion.

Worse yet, the "D" will forever DESTROY the single obvious answer to the problems its presence will create - the rail facility at OKC Union Station (300 SW 7th).

• Existing direct rail access to Will Rogers Airport, Wheatland, Mustang, Chickasha, Lawton and Altus will be DESTROYED.
• Existing direct rail access to Tulsa, via Midwest City, Spencer, Jones, Luther, Wellston, Chandler, Bristow and Sapulpa will be DESTROYED.
• The magnificent Robinson and Walker street underpasses will be destroyed (and some of the trains now using them diverted across street-level crossings in Capitol Hill)
• Oklahoma City's opportunity to create a low-cost rail transit system using existing corridors -like Dallas' DART Rail-will be DESTROYED.
• Oklahoma's best facility for an advanced regional rail-passenger, mail and express hub will be DESTROYED.

The "D" Option: Central Oklahoma CAN'T AFFORD IT!

Intermodal Times + February 2001 Page 7

* * * * *

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation is receiving written public comments on their plan for "'the New I-40 Crosstown'" only until March 15, 2001

Write your elected representatives. Also, write these officials:

Oklahoma Department of Transportation
John R. Bowman, PE. -Crosstown Project
200 NE 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-3204
Tel: (405) 522-6611
Fax: (405) 521-6917
E-mail: jbowman@odot.org

Honorable Frank Keating
Governor of Oklahoma
212 State Capitol Building
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Tel: (405) 521-2342
Fax: (405) 522-3492
e-mail: governorkeating@email.com

Neal McCaleb
Oklahoma Secretary of Transportation
PO Box 11357
Oklahoma City, OK 73136-0357
Tel: (405) 425-3601
Fax: (405) 427-8246
E-mail: nmccaleb@ota.state.ok.us

Over one-quarter billion dollars for less than 4 miles of new highway? Bulldozing more historic Oklahoma City neighborhoods? Blind destruction of the critical rail yard at historic Oklahoma City Union Station? Demolition of the Robinson and Walker street underpasses? More big trucks on the Crosstown?

If you live in Central Oklahoma, the "New I-40 Crosstown plan" affects you!

Don't miss this opportunity to speak out regarding the future of Central Oklahoma.

The Intermodal Times
North American Transportation Institute
P0 Box 6617
Oklahoma City, OK 73153-0617

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments:]

[8A] It seems that the depressed area of alignment "D" is deeper than the river (Robinson to Walker, area under Ped. Bridge) where does the water go and how does it get there. Has the damming of the North Canadian been factored in this equation? Does anybody really read this or will some of this ink run off when you wipe with it.

Scott Lamirand
Name

Rt 1 Box 205-5
Address

Purcell OK 73080
City, State, ZIP

[8]

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments:]

[9A] I believe this plan benefits no one except the trucking industry

[9B] In a few years when Oklahoma City's urban sprawl indicates a real need for city light rail transportation, it simply won't be available because of the expressway

[9C] "realignment". This is poorly planned, as far as I know, the money is not

[9D] Available for it and the city would be better served by just repairing

[9E] And enhancing the existing structure

Elise Ross
Name

PO Box 60187
Address

OKC, OK 73146
City, State, ZIP

[9]

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments:]

I wish you would make the highway wider so that you would need to buy my property and pay me lots and lots of money for it.

Jonnie Suzanne Shutlz
Name

PO Box 25494
Address

OKC, OK 73125
City, State, ZIP

Owner, lots 13, 14, 15, 16 Wheeler Addition formerly 1104 S. Shartel

[10]

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments:]

I just want to make sure that my parents get a house (home) that has good Appearance, Safe and sound for their living.

Patricia Morales
Name

407 S.W. 10th St
Address

Oklahoma City, OK 73109
City, State, ZIP

[11]

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments:]

[12A] It doesn't look like they have enough right of way room.

[12B] I think the highway should be wider (more lanes), it would be cheaper to do it now instead of a few years later. How much money would be saved by increasing the number of lanes now instead of adding on in 10 years

JoAnn Waltrip
Name

622 SW 10
Address

Oklahoma City, OK 73109-1310
City, State, ZIP

[12]

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments:]

[13A] This is great. We need to come up to the 21st century. I live in the Riverside Community. I am all for it.

Diana Tillman
Name

212 S.W. 12th
Address

Oklahoma City, OK 73109
City, State, ZIP

[13]

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments:]

Dear Mr. Streb:

[14A] Please consider constructing I 40 immediately north of the existent I 40 location.

[14B] The proposed relocation to a block north of Little Flower Church will harm the church and the community that surrounds the church.

[14C] Criminals who live along the interstate may move south and live near the church. A lot of the people who live near the church walk and they will have to be on the lookout for them.

[14D] Some people who choose to live near the church will have to move - less people will be able To live near Little Flower church because of the new park.;

[14E] The traffic noise will brother residents in their sleep and member of Little Flower Church will hear the traffic noise will they are at worship.

[14F] The new park may become a place for criminals to congregate

Stephen N. Kennedy
Name

PO Box 26412
Address

Oklahoma City, OK 73126
City, State, ZIP

[14]

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments:]

[15A] As nice as it would be to ha e a new boulevard along the path of the old expressway, it would be remiss of us not to consider other uses. Specifically, we should consider using the corridor as a passenger rail link. The new construction will make Union Station unusable for passenger traffic. If we hope to have a passenger connection to the western half of the city - let alone the western half of the state and points farther west - we need to find an adequate substitute. Indeed, using the old expressway route would present the brilliant opportunity of having a station at the intersection of North-South and East-West tracks. You can imagine the possibilities that could come from this. Alternately, if we still do want the boulevard, this would be our one and only good opportunity to put a rail line under the boulevard, at least for part of the way. There must be some way to preserve a viable rail option.

Donald Baker
Name

6421 E Reno Ave.
Address

Midwest City, OK 73110
City, State, ZIP

[15]

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments:]

[16A] I like the new proposal for the realignment of I-40. The ground level design is attractive and practical

I happened to be viewing the exhibit when John Bowman stopped by. Kl He gave me excellent information on the project and answered all of my questions.

Joyce Smith
Name

2101 N. Lincoln - OPM
Address

Oklahoma City, OK 73105
City, State, ZIP

[16]

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments:]

[17A] Alt. D is ridiculous. [17B] Should repair road in place [17C] Don't want to destroy landmarks like Union Station getting messed up. I have been to London. London just grew and streets don't always need to line up. They took down beautiful buildings for streets.

[17D] Just limit weight allowed on bridge.

Theresa Pearn
Name

Address

City, State, ZIP

[17]

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 200 N. E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105-3204

March 1,2001

Mr. Stephen Kennedy
P.O. Box 26412
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73126

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

On behalf of the Department, I apologize for not properly responding to your comment letter of April 25, 1999 concerning the relocation of the I-40 Crosstown Expressway. Thank you for bringing the letter to my attention at the February 27, 2001 Public Hearing at the Myriad.

Your comment letter will be included as an official comment in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Department has conducted a thorough analysis of alternatives and is confident there will be no adverse impacts to the Little Flower Church, which is two blocks south of the proposed I-40 relocation.

It was a pleasure meeting you at the Public Hearing two nights ago and should you have any questions or need further information please contact me at 521-6916.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

David C. Streb, P.E.
Planning Division Engineer

DCS:dj

cc: John Bowman

"The mission of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation is to provide a safe, economical.
and effective transportation network for the people, commerce and communities of Oklahoma."

[Transcribed from handwritten comments]

Stephen N. Kennedy
PO Box 26412
OKC, OK 73126

25 April 99

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

Dear Mr. Streb:

[18A] As a life-long resident of Oklahoma City I am against moving Interstate 40 farther south towards the community of Little Flower Church.

[18B] The proposal to construct the interstate along the part of the existing railroad tract bed will result in the social disruption of this community even if the highway elevation is lowered several yards below the surface of the earth.

The church has always been filled everytime I have gone there. Even at the earlier services people have had to stand along the walls inside the church. Almost 1800 people attend that church every Sunday.

The church building occupies a special place in the hearts of many people who do not actually have a church membership there. The building is something like my church, Saint Joseph Old Cathedral at NW 4th and Harvey, where many people have some family member who was baptized or married or buried from there.

I hope you will reconsider the construction of Interstate 40 at any location farther south.

Sincerely,
Stephen Kennedy

[18]

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments:]

I hate the present bridge downtown!

[19A] There is no place to pull over if a tire is blown or if there is another problem. It also seems that there is constant maintenance that is always backing up traffic. It is just not safe!

[19B] The new I-40 at ground level or below ground would be a vast improvement as long as there is a shoulder to pull over to. I doubt if there would be as much maintenance on it due to the freezing-thawing like there is on the current bridge.

[19C] I'd be happy to sell my property in the area to get the highway redone so it is safer.

Gary Armstrong
Name

204 Red Oak Lane
Address

Newalla, OK 74857
City, State, ZIP

[19]

OKLAHOMA CITY
A better living. A better life.

GREATER OKLAHOMA CITY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

March 5, 2001

Mr. David Streb
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 NE 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Re: I-40 Crosstown Expressway Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Mr. Streb:

The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce served on the above referenced Advisory Committee during the five years it met to discuss various alignments and their respective impacts upon the areas through which each passed, as well as the community as a whole. For the following reasons we believe:

[20A] 1. The "D" alignment will have the least impact on the present I-40 facility during
construction as it will be built off system and tied in upon completion.

[20B] 2. The "D" alignment's impact upon businesses and neighborhoods will not be major due it being built through an existing transportation corridor.

[20C] 3. It offers the greatest access to motorists coming and going in the Central
Oklahoma City/Bricktown area, when coupled with the present elevated portion of I-40 being rebuilt as a boulevard.

[20D] This improvement is long overdue. The I-40 Crosstown traffic counts are way beyond design capacity and have had a very negative impact of wear and weight over the years, especially upon the elevated portion. Safety is another major concern; especially for motorists getting on the elevated portion as there are virtually no merging lanes or line of sight once you reach the top elevated grades(s).

[20E] For least impact to the motorists during the construction phases, minimal impact on businesses and residents, for greater access to points coming and going, plus the land use visuals and sound protection amenities built into the plan, the Greater Oklahoma City of Chamber herewith gives its approval and support to the I-40 Crosstown Expressway Draft Environment Impact Statement.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

Dean Schirf, Vice President
Community Improvement

123 Park Ave. Oklahoma City. OK 73102 405 / 297-8900 Fax 405 / 297-89I6 www.okcchamber.com

[20]

The City of
OKLAHOMA CITY
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
James D. Couch. City Manager

March 5, 2001

David Streb, P.E., Planning Engineer
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 NE 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

RE: I-40 Crosstown Reconstruction

Dear Mr. Streb:

The City of Oklahoma City Council and Staff appreciate the opportunity to have participated in the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the I-40 Crosstown Expressway and compliments the ODOT and the FHWA in bringing this document to fruition.

[21A] This 30-year-old facility has, for some time, been beyond its design life with the bridge structures being in a deteriorated condition and carrying traffic volumes far in excess of its design capacity.

Replacement of this structure is important to complement the revitalization of the Bricktown and Downtown areas by providing improved access.

[21B] The City supports the methodology used in identifying study routes and supports the selection of Alternative "D" and looks forward to working with the ODOT and other entities in the completion of this much-needed facility.

In reviewing the DEIS, the City has several comments and concerns which need to be addressed during the development of functional plans. Some of these concerns are as follows:

• [21C] The north/south arterial, in the area of Lincoln-Byers, needs to connect to the proposed boulevard to provide access to Bricktown and Downtown
• [21D] When the current I-40 bridge is reconstructed as an at-grade boulevard facility, with landscaping and lighting, it needs to provide access from the boulevard to the adjacent streets from Oklahoma Avenue to Walker Avenue.
• [21E] It is the City's understanding the proposed boulevard will be maintained by the State in a manner similar to an interstate business route.
• [21F] The design of the realigned I-40 from Pennsylvania Avenue to Agnew Avenue needs to address access to the Stockyards Area, and north and south Oklahoma City, as discussed with City staff and Stockyards area businesses.

200 North Walker • Oklahoma City. OK 73102 • 405/297-2345 • FAX 405/297-3069

21

Page 2
March 1, 2001

• [21G] Full interchange access is needed at Shields Boulevard. A bridge for the new I-40 and the railroad must be constructed to provide for the future.
• [21H] A bridge for the new I-40 and the railroad must be constructed to provide for the future extension and completion for the MAPS river canal as conceptually envisioned in the MAPS Master Plan and subsequent project designs.
• [21I] Traffic flow into the downtown area must be maintained at a reasonable level during construction.
• [21J] In areas where the proposed boulevard will remain elevated, consideration should be given to lowering the existing bridge decks as much as possible
• [21K] Some areas, such as Wheeler Park and to the west where the realigned I-40 is directly adjacent to the river, should be reviewed to determine if the sound walls should be extended beyond where they are shown in the DEIS.
• [21L] Final construction plans must include appropriate landscaping to enhance the I-40 corridor and the pedestrian bridge
• [21M] As final plans are developed, City staff will provide additional comments.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this facility which is so important to so many citizens.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

James D. Couch
City Manager

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments]

For the last 30 years, I have used the I-40 Crosstown Expressway to get to work and again for daily numerous meetings. [22A] I have seen it grow in traffic to the point it is, just flat dangerous in getting on or off on any downtown access points. There are no merging lanes and being elevated only adds to the stress factors of using the present facility that is way Beyond its design capacity. [22B] The Alt "D" alignment is the best of all alternatives discussed, which allows for Construction to go forward with least disruption to existing traffic flow. I served on the Citizens Advisory Committee during the 5 years this process took and want to commend ODOT staff for the professional effort put forth.

Dean Schirf
Name

19811 Linda Lane
Address

Harrah, OK 73102
City, State, ZIP

22

Oklahoma Highway Users Federation
12401 North May Avenue, Suite 104
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120-1967
Telephone (405) 753-9779
Fax (405) 753-9780

CHAIRMAN
Kent Pharaoh
Henryetta Chamber of Commerce
Henryetta

VICE CHAIRMAN
Gordon E. Penney
Penney Engineering Company
Oklahoma City

SECRETARY-TREASURER
Charles F. Mai, Jr.
AAA Oklahoma
Oklahoma City

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Danny George
Oklahoma Municipal League
Clinton
Phillip Klutts
Oklahoma Farmers Union
Okemah
M. C. Ollar
American Concrete Pavement Association
Muskogee
LaVern W. Phillips
Woodward Industrial Foundation
Woodward
Marvin Purdy
Oklahoma State Grange
Blackwell
Steve Rankin
Oklahoma Automobi7e Dealers Association
Oklahoma City
Dean Schirf
Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce
Oklahoma City
George W. Tomek
Oklahoma Trucking Association
Oklahoma City
David l. Turnbull
Northwest Technology Center
Fairview
Dr. Leonard B. West, Jr.
Oklahoma Traffic Engineering Association
Norman

CHAIRMAN EMERITUS
Thomas G. Marsh
Tulsa Automobile Dealers Association
Tulsa

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Paul W. Matthews
7806 Olde Hickory Lane
Oklahoma City. OK 73116-3010
(405) 842-8712

March 6, 2001

Mr. David Streb, Planning Engineer
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 N. E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

Dear Mr. Streb:

You did an excellent job in presenting the public hearing on the relocation of Interstate 40, south of downtown Oklahoma City. We thought there was a very good turnout for the public hearing.

[23A] The Oklahoma Highway Users Federation endorses the location of Alternate D for the new freeway. We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project and we think the plan should go forward.

The Federation hopes that the Federal Highway Administration will approve the Environmental Impact Statement.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature here]

Paul W. Matthews
Executive Director

Dedicated to the sound advancement of highway transportation.

23

March 7, 2001, 3pm

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments]

[25A] The crosstown is essential. I have lived in several large cities including Washington DC, Chicago, Houston & San Diego and they all have much nicer freeways that serve the downtown area. The current structure simply is not adequate to fill the needs of a growing community. In regards to the location I think the old rail corridor is perfect. [25B] While part of the community is concerned I am confident their fears will not be necessary. The renovation to 235 has been a benefit to my neighborhood at 30th & Hudson and we thought it would hurt our neighborhood. I thank you for the job well done

Drew Dugan
Name

3114 North Hudson
Address

OKC, OK 73118
City, State, ZIP

HONORABLE GOVENER FRANK KEATING March 6, 2001
[faxed to Gov. Keating's office]

Sir:

I have heard you speak to various groups including legislators concerning Forwarding Thinking, Thinking out of the box. That was probably not your words but I know you understand m meaning. Well Govener, I have not heard a word from you relative to the OPTION "D" Crosstown I-40. [26A] There is an issue involved with Option "D" that can and probably will set Oklahoma back several years pursuant to multi-modal transportation.

The job of the Secretary of Transportation at ODOT is to build highways. That is one of the many ways he justifies his position. I suppose that's the way it should be however, taking the downtown centralized location and infrastructure for past passenger service and future OKC light rail system in favor of a concrete highway that can be built on one of the other options is just Terrible and not at all a responsible thing to do.

Presently at that central location there are four legs of rail that can connect to anywhere in OKC. Union Pacific "Northwest Leg" goes to Bethany, Yukon, Elreno, then north and south through the heart of Oklahoma. Burlington Northern Santa Fe "Southwest Leg" goes through Southwest OKC very close to Will Rogers Airport including Mustang, Chickasha, Lawton to Quanna, TX. Burlington Northern Santa Fe "Northwest Leg" to Spencer, Jones, Luther and on to Tulsa. Union Pacific "East Leg" has a connection to the race track with an old track now in place. It also has a connection and a track in place that goes to Tinker and ends just on the north side of -40 right at Tinker. It continues on to Choctaw, Shawnee, McAlester and connects to the Kansas City Southern R.R. at Howe, OK.

Senator Herbert is working his heart out to get rail service north to Kansas and or service to Tulsa. I personally do not agree with the funding mechanism that keeps AMTRAK in Okla. With a 55 mph train to nowhere, I don't mean to berate and sound crude but 6.2 Mil. Per year for a very slow train to Texas is not passenger service (in my view).

Lets tie Tulsa and OKC together with true high speed rail (125 to 150 mph). l That will not only compete with airlines, it will beat it to Tulsa or to OKC. I would give a lot to be a mover and shaker as you are (that's a compliment) I would be preaching a MAPS like project to do exactly what I have tried to explain to you. However I'm just a pe --- [hole punch cut end of word] railroaded here at the Corp. Comm. Wanting and wishing something better for Oklahoma.

I can't visualize the benefits we could get from the corporate world with such a system. I do know this: corporations look at the ease with which there employees can get to work and we are about to destroy the only and best advantage we have it we would develop it. When its gone it will take tens or possible hundreds of millions to build, even then I doubt it would or could be built downtown. Right now we have it down town. Please help us keep it until we can develop it into a centralized multi-modal transportation system we must have before we can become what we all want for our great city. Thanks

G. R. (Buddy) Combs
1016 Haverhill Pl.
OKC, OK 73120

Oklahoma Department of Transportation 3-14-01
I-40 Corridor Public Comment
The Capital
Oklahoma City, OK.

Dear Sirs:

I fully support the proposed re-routing of I-40 through downtown Oklahoma City. As a former Transportation Supervisor for Trailways, Piedmont Airlines and the co-author of the Jacksonville (FL) Downtown Development Authority's Fixed Rail, historic trolley car project, and Author of the Florida Rail History Book, "Rails 'Neath the Palms, I have a fairly extensive background in Transportation. I am currently retired but always interested and involved, I am on the Board of Trustees, for the Town of Cashion.

[27A] The route south of the former Rock Island Railroad is excellent, it would set aside a completely new area for re-development, expands downtown commercial opportunities and encompasses the historic Farmers Market area.

[27B] However, taking as much as one inch of the former Union Station and its platforms, subway and old yard, would lock Oklahoma City out of contention as a future hub for Amtrak or High Speed Rail. Even a simple state system of 3 daily trains OKC-TUL, 2 daily OKC-FTW and a couple of EI Reno commuters, calls for as much as 4 trains in storage at night. The Santa Fe Station in Bricktown could not handle even one storage train beyond the current Heartland Flyer. It is also impossible to marshall the Road Railer, Highway/Rail truck trailers, from the Santa Fe Station. Road Railers and express is funding, indeed underwriting many Amtrak trains today. Union Station offers a street level area as large as several football fields to marshall these revenue vans and cars on and off the various trains. There is nowhere to go in expanding the Santa Fe Station, yet the former Union Station has room for all of the trains the high speed rail corridor project could throw at it.

Page 2/I-40 Corridor

This depot could also handle the regular Amtrak and Commuter trains. The property south of the old Union Station is mostly light density warehousing and industry, contained in 2 or 3 old buildings and vacant land. The proposed Freeway could arc south just 50 to 100 yards and swing around the Union Station property.

[27C] If the USPS buildings were ever removed, Oklahoma could develop a parkway, transportation center and gate to the City unlike any in the world. Just moving the freeway south of the Union Station Property gives us the opportunity to become a national leader. With careful planning far beyond the I-40 corridor relocation, there is opportunity for intercity rail, busses, city busses, Bricktown Trolleys and even fixed rail transit, neatly tucked between a major interstate, a rail corridor and a booming downtown.

I support the project, but the future of Downtown Oklahoma could ride on a 100 yard, 3 block long property. Please avoid Union Station.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

Robert W. Mann

You may contact me at anytime:
(405) 433-2216
E-Mail: confederatebob@yahoo.com

cc: The Honorable Dave Herbert, State Senate

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments]

Mr. Streb:

[28A] Concerning the plan for I-40, we would like to know where the exits going in and out of downtown OKC will be located. Will they widen those streets?

Cordially,

Mrs. E. L. Hyslip,
718 South Lee Ave
Okla. City, OK 73109-5142

28

ALBERT N. JANCO, P.E.
BOX 18797
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73154-0797
(24hr) 405/848-1991
FAX 405/ 843-6244
E-MAIL jancoa@asme.org

13 MARCH 2001

PLANNING ENGINEER
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
200 NE 21 STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105

DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
300 N. MERIDIAN SUITE 105 S
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73107

RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I-40 CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK JANUARY 2001
FHWA-OK-EIS-0l-(l)-D
COMMENTS: Albert N. Janco, P.E.

[29A] During the year 2000 I attended a number of meetings in Oklahoma City where the representatives of ODOT discussed the Alternative "D" for the relocation of the crosstown segment of I-40.

On each occasion I said that I wanted to be able to read and comment on the EIS. Each time I was told that I would have to read about the availability of the draft EIS -in the local press.
Only at the "so called" public hearing on 27 FEB. 2001 was I able to see a copy of the draft. Since there was not enough time to adequately study the document, I then had to go to a local library to study the EIS in more detail.

I regret that we were not given more time to study the EIS and prepare our comments.

[29B] By this letter, I am requesting an opportunity to review a copy of the "final" document before it is submitted to the Federal Highway Administration.

I call to your attention:

[29C] 1. Letter dated 24 July 2000 from Melvena Heisch, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer. File #0184-00. Refer to her statement: "Additionally, the tracks, although not the adjoining cement platform base, will be retained. Thus, the proposed work does not significantly impact the Union Station or its setting".

Is Ms. Heisch aware that only one railroad track will be retained and it will be depressed about nine feet? The proposed highway location will prevent Union Station from ever being used for a passenger rail station to serve the citizens and visitors to Oklahoma City. There will be significant negative impact on the station and its setting. Once destroyed, we may never be able to replace this facility.

29
Page 2, 13 March 2001, I-40 EIS comments

2. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The report states that the "NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE" does not solve the need for this project. It does not provide any back-up data to support this position and does not address all of the details of a "NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE".

[29D] For this reason, I believe that this report is not complete and must be reworked with a "NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE" given full consideration.

I envision a NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE to be as follows:

I-240 would become I-40.
What is now I-240 would be given a new designation, I-240, or Business Route I-40. Or it could just retain its historic designation of US 270.
All through truck traffic would be banned from this route through downtown Oklahoma City.
All trucks with hazardous material would be banned from this route through downtown Oklahoma City.
The elevated expressway through downtown Oklahoma City would be repaired and maintained to handle passenger automobile, light truck and bus traffic.

This alternative has the following very positive advantages:

1. It is less expensive and more cost effective.
2. It is much safer than a ten lane expressway through downtown Oklahoma City.
3. It will improve the air quality in downtown Oklahoma City.
4. It will reduce the opportunity for Oklahoma City to be in violation of EPA air quality standards.
5. It will not divide a historic community.
6. It will not destroy the historic Union Station Setting.
7. It will not prevent Union Station from being used in the future as an important rail hub.
8. The money saved could be used on other important projects or used to make the Kilpatrick Turnpike a free road, as it should be.

[29E] The report does not address the issue of of the quality of the air in the depressed portion of "Alternate D". What will be the quality of the air that the vehicles will be driving through? On some days will there be "valley smog" conditions?

I hope that you will address the items that I have mentioned and re-evaluate your decision.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

Albert N. Janco, P.E.

CC: Governor Frank Keating
OKC Mayor Kirk Humphreys
OKC Council Members: Frosty Peak, Amy Brooks, Larry McAtee, Frances Lowrey, Jerry Foshee, Ann Simank. Willa Johnson, Guy Liebmann, OKC City Manager, Jim Couch    

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments]

[30A] Have you allowed for a fund to cover the damages and inconveniences which may be experienced by the houses and people left behind after you've torn your way through the Riverside area creating your highway? [30B] I'm not satisfied with your assurances regarding noise and pollution. When an airport extended its runway near my Aunt's house in Colorado, all the storm windows and doors had to be replaced to block the noise and withstand the vibration. You still had to stop talking when an airplane went by. [30C] Do you have noise level measurements for the street in front of my house? I'm not interested in statistically - acceptable noise and pollution levels, I'm interested in what I'm living with now and what the levels of noise and pollution will actually be when the highway is built and in constant use.

Jo Ann Waltrip
Name

622 S. W. 10th Street
Address

Oklahoma City, OK 73109
City, State, ZIP

30

March 13,2001

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 NE 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
405-521-6916

RE: I-40 Relocation and its impact on my properties at 801 S. Walker and 821 S. Walker.

This is an area of roughly 90000 square feet, bounded generally by SW 7thStreet on the North, the railroad tracks on the south, S. Walker on the East, and S. Dewey on the West.

Dear Mr. David Streb,

[31A] We have met several times during these last 5 years as we watched this project progress to its current position of near reality. I am sure you recall that each time we met I expressed concern that some very bad things could happen to the above property, causing these market values to plummet from an appraised value of $400,000... to near worthlessness, on the open market.

It seems my worst fears have come to pass.

The 821 property is zoned Heavy Industrial, part of its value being its accessibility to rail siding, which now will be impossible, forever. .. also.. There will be zero street access to that one-half city block, a prime downtown industrial site, making it useless for any good commercial application.

Access to the 801 property will be severely limited. SW 7th Street will be closed from the west, forever. The main entrance to that nice 16000 Sq.Ft. office and warehouse location, the corner of SW 7th at S. Walker, will be closed for many months, maybe even years while the Walker underpass is removed and the Walker overpass is being built, probably to be damaged forever.

David, I owned and operated the Village Art Lamp Company at 801 S. Walker for 20 years but closed it last summer for fear that these very distressing developments would occur...and they did.

I am at your mercy. Please contact me at your earliest confidence. My home address in now in Shawnee.

Sincerely,

[Handwritten Signature]

Rex Stubbs
1938 N. Park
Shawnee, OK 74804
Phone 214-9398

31

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments]

Dear Mr. Sterb,

[32A] Ten years ago we mortgaged our home to start our own business, Freddie's Discount Tires located at I-40 & Agnew. We are an independently owned, single location with no corporate safety net. This business is our sole source of income as it is for most of our 15 employees, many of whom are minorities with low levels of education. Based on previous experience, we would need six to nine months to relocate and the ninety day notice would not be sufficient time before having to vacate. We would be forced to layoff our employees as we could not afford to pay them while closed therefore, risk loosing them to other employers. The training of new employees would be time consuming and costly as it takes months to become proficient in tire their tire and auto needs, resulting in a substantial loss to the clientele base it has taken us years to build. The end results would be a sizable loss of patronage for the company and of income to the many of us who depend on Freddie's for our livelihood. [32B] If at all possible, please do not take us out or at the very least, allow us more time to rebuild.

Ron & Cecile Ash
Name

2329 SW 4th
Address

Oklahoma City, OK 73108
City, State, ZIP

32

Stanislaus Whittlesey
12401 N. MacArthur #3001
Oklahoma City. OK 73142

March 14.2001

Planning Engineer
Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation
200 NE 21st St.
Oklahoma City. OK 73105

Dear Planning Engineer:

My previous letter to you under today's date of course should have read "I-40."

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

Stanislaus Whittlesey

33

Stanislaus Whittlesey
12401 N. MacArthur #3001
Oklahoma City. OK 73142
March 14.2001

Planning Engineer
Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation
200 NE 21st St.
Oklahoma City. OK 73105

Dear Planning Engineer:

[33A] I wish to comment on Option D for the I-35 relocation. I ask that you seriously take into consideration this plan's elimination of railway spurs which could be used for future freight or passenger traffic.

I recognize that the legislature is involved in determining the state's current rail priorities. However, permanent changes which eliminate railway rights of way clearly straightjacket the engineering logistics of possible future rail traffic. It would be unfortunate if future dire economic necessity or a need to be competitive with neighboring states compels the legislature to reinvent the wheel -- to fund exorbitant construction of various arteries which current tracks would serve.

Thank you for your conscientious attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

[handwritten signature]

Stanislaus Whittlesey

33

AMERICAN GI FORUM OF OKLAHOMA
Louis R. Rocco Chapter

'A Hispanic Veteran's Family Organization since 1948'

2401 So. Central/P.O. Bos 94725 Okla City. OK 73143-4725

J.Marty Martinez,
Commander.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation
Planning Division
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

March 14, 2001

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

[34A] This letter is to voice our concerns over the current plans to re-route Interstate 40 through the Riverside -Little Flower district. Many of our members live in that area of Oklahoma City and they are extremely c oncerned about the high volume of motor vehicle traffic that will be part of the current I-40 bypass plan.

[34B] We understand that change is inevitable and every option must be considered. For that reason, we would urge you to consider the proposals that are being put forth by the Latino Community Development Agency to ensure that when change does occur, that every consideration is given to those who will be forcibly displaced or inconvenienced. Adoption of those LCDA proposals will result in a favorable compromise without legal recourse and lessen the impact on the Riverside district and on those citizens who will be adversely affected. We will continue to support the Latino Community Development Agency proposals and ask you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jose Martinez, Commander
Louis Rocco Chapter

'Education is our freedom, and freedom is everybody's business.'

34

Planning Engineer
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 NE 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

March 14, 2001

RE: I-40 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Sirs:

Please accept my comments on the above referenced project. 1 appreciate the opportunity to review the document. Since the public meeting of February 27, the draft EIS has been very accessible.

[35A] I am opposed to the selection of Alternative D for the following reasons.

[35B] I believe that the No-Build Alternative is the best choice at this time for the citizens of Oklahoma City. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Oklahoma City's Council and Mayor, and the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce have been very shortsighted in selecting this alternative. Not only will "D" create increased traffic in downtown Oklahoma City, it will also increase the blight associated with most interstate highways. [35C] By relocating I-40 to the south and constructing a new boulevard on the existing right of way, we will be creating an island of inappropriate development and vacant lots directly south of downtown.

[35D] Alternative D will also greatly impact the existing Riverside Neighborhood. While the actual removal of structures will be kept to a minimum, the effect of locating a ten lane highway, even semi-depressed, will be devastating. The city has suggested the redevelopment of the adjacent area, but there is insufficient money available for such redevelopment. We're all aware how long it has taken the Urban Renewal Authority and Second Century to begin developing the area around our last major interstate project, I-235.

[35E] Alternative D will also greatly exacerbate highway maintenance and construction problems for the entire state. The estimated cost is approximately $236 million, which will escalate significantly by the time the project is underway. Additional future maintenance will be costly, not to mention the future maintenance cost of the new boulevard for the city, who is also presently strapped for street repairs.

[35F] Most importantly, the construction of Alternative D will eliminate any hope of Oklahoma City developing a viable transit alternative. Union Station stands poised to serve as a state of the art multimodal facility utilizing existing rail corridors within the city. This would allow connections to the airport, access to buses, and the possible development of light rail. Although the exterior structure of Union Station will remain, the tunnels and platforms as well as all but one rail line will disappear. This is in direct conflict with the intent of ISTEA and TEA-21 and is both unacceptable for and detrimental to the economic vitality of Oklahoma City.

35

The following are direct responses to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

[35 G] Preface, p-l. It is stated that the DEIS was circulated for review beginning January 17, 2001. The first opportunity for most citizens to view the document was actually at the public open house on February 27, 2001.

[35H] Summary, S.4 Additional Mitigation, p. S-3. The Oklahoma City Planning Department did develop a land use and mitigation plan for implementing Alternative D, but they have no funding sources to implement the results of the plan.

[35I] Purpose of Statement, 1.4 Transportation Goals and Objectives, p. 1-2. Alternative D runs counter to ISTEA and TEA-21 policy by a) not improving the mobility of the residents immediately adjacent to the project, b) reducing environmental benefits, c) by decreasing cost effectiveness, d) neither protecting nor enhancing the community or the natural environment.

1. The adjacent residents would be best served by accessibility to a nearby intermodal facility such as Union Station. With this project, Union Station's options for intermodal service will be removed.
2. Alternative D produces more pollution than the other alternatives. It also creates a significant paved scar across Oklahoma City where there currently are native grasses and small animals along the existing railroad tracks.
3. Alternative D may be the least expensive for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation but in order to complete the adjacent neighborhood revitalization and to maintain the proposed boulevard, the City of Oklahoma City and its citizens will have a substantial and undue burden placed upon them.
   
4. Alternative D creates additional noise and pollution, turns a relatively clean and quiet railroad right of way into a wasteland, and will essentially eliminate the best options for intermodal transportation in Oklahoma City.

Additionally, Alternative D is not consistent at the local level with either the City of Oklahoma City's Master Plan (1989-2010) or its recent update.

[35J] Alternatives Considered, 3.4.1 Tier One Evaluation, Figure 3-2. The screening results are flawed. Alternative D shows A.3 (Impact to Rail Freight Operations) as being excellent. Future rail freight could be severely diminished by this alternative. D.2 (Visual Quality and Aesthetics) is show as good. This should be poor. Others are questionable, but these two items are clearly incorrect, reducing D's score to 50, below Alternative A.

[35K] Alternatives Considered, 3.4.4 No Build Alternative Eliminated, p.3-8. This states that the No Build Alternative is not prudent and feasible. It is feasible because it allows Oklahoma City the opportunity to develop other transit alternatives before the structure must be replaced.

[35L] Environmental Consequences, 5.3 Land Use Impacts, p.5-12. Footnote 4 states that the emerging link from downtown to the river is divided by two major barriers, I-40 and the UPIBNSF rail corridor, and that the relocated corridor can reduce the number of barriers. This is a misconception. The relocated corridor will increase the effect of these barriers by reducing the possible crossings and increasing the potential pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. The Land Use Impact also states that Alternative B-3 would have the greatest impact on existing residential uses. Again, a false statement. Alternative D would have a greater impact by its proximity to more residential areas, as these areas would decline because of their relationship to this alternative.

[35M] Environmental Consequences, 5.15 Construction Impacts -Alternative D, p.5-38. This section states the rail line would continue to be operational and would experience no delays. This is a false statement. The line is expected to be moved, interrupting rail traffic and eliminating the only surviving rail link to Will Rogers World Airport.

[35N] Environmental Consequences, 5.19 Pedestrians and Bicyclists, p.5-40. Alternative D eliminates the possibility of using Union Station as an intermodal facility, a possibility still being considered by the city.

[35O] Appendix, 10.0 Section 4(1) Statement. Letter from Melvena Heisch, SHPO, to John Hartley, ODOT, dated July 24, 2000 is incorrect. Both the remaining platform and the underground tunnels are contributing components to Union Station and should be eligible for inclusion on the National Register. Mrs. Heisch's information that the tracks will be retained is incorrect. The tracks will be relocated.

[35P] In conclusion, I would like to say that the relocation of I-40 along Alternative D is costly, short-sighted, and detrimental to adjacent neighborhoods and the city as a whole. While I suspect there is little change that will be made to the project at this time, I would encourage both ODOT and the Oklahoma City Planning Department to, at a minimum, develop guidelines to limit commercial development along the corridor. This would certainly diminish the future detrimental effects to the surrounding neighborhoods.

Again thank you for the opportunity to comment.

[handwritten signature]

Todd Scott, AIA
721 NW 28th
Oklahoma City, 73103
cc: Rusell Claus, OKC Planning Dept.

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[transcribed from handwritten comments]

[36A] What about separation of church and state? Why is the architecture and design of the wall and park reflecting the architecture of the Little Flower Church?

Riverside School was built by the voters of Oklahoma City. Then it was closed and handed over) for a pittance* to a representative of the Roman Catholic community so that she could build a power base for herself and her religious clique. I don't deny that the pictures of the proposed walkway and wall are pretty but it seems like a wrong use of federal money to give the impression that all of this new construction is an extension of Little Flower's front yard. All Hispanics are not Roman Catholic! And this area is not the Hispanic community's core, although political wheeler-dealers are trying to create this impression *(by a stupid and incompetent school Superintendent)

J. S. Shultz
Name

P.O. Box 25494
Address

Oklahoma City, OK 73125
City, State, ZIP

36

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

[37A] I would like to see you guys publish an account of the land title transfers* for the area surrounding the new I-40 road. Mr. Boulware owned several houses south of the tracks. He was murdered at his place of business a couple of years ago and his properties belong to others now. Mr. Griffin owned the empty lots on the north side of the 600 block of SW 11th for many years. When we talked he always said he would not sell that land because he bought the ground and cleared it and paid a farmer to mow it every month because he was holding it as an investment for his grandchildren. Suddenly, employees of the Latino Center say they own it. The Roman Catholic Church, along with many others, made a lot of money off the Murrah bombing (in donations). Can you track the Riverside area land purchases back to the Church or its influence? Or trace it to the Perez Drug Cartel? Land transfers throughout history have (over)

Jonnie Schultz [handwritten signature]
Name

P.O. Box 25494
Address

Oklahoma City, OK 73125
City, State, ZIP

37

[continued on back of page]
from before Statehood (starting with Mr. Wheeler's land grant) or at least the last fifty years been tainted with blood-letting and corruption. but I think you ought to document the current instances of the R.C. Carmelite Fathers' and Latino Center's terrorist tactics (including inflammatory statements in newspaper articles and TV interviews) designed to control the neighborhood, the City Council and your downtown plans for the highway. Copies of these records should go in the terrorist museum downtown.

[37B] Will money be paid for the extra houses "offered" for the soccer park?
Where did the money come from to buy those houses in preparation for
"offering" them to you for the soccer park?

Hi-plains@juno.com on 03/15/2001 06:11:15 PM

To: jbowman@odot.okladot.state.ok.us, governorkeating@email.com, nmccaleb@ota.state.ok.us (bcc:: John Bowman/ODOT)

Subject: NO to Option D

[38A] Hello, concerning relocation of I-40 in Oklahoma City, I understand ODOT is advocating what is known as Option D, which will destroy the existing rail corridor next to Union Station (a combination of the BNSF ex-Frisco line Tulsa -Quanah, and the Union Pacific ex-Rock Island Choctaw route). These lines are ideally situated for future use in commuter operations. Their distruction would make this a very expensive proposition in the future ...please DON'T adapt Option D! Thank you!

--George Jenista
Ft. Worth, TX. 76123

GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj .

Common Cause Oklahoma

Mail: Immed. Past Chair - 1510 Rosemont Drive, Norman, OK 73072
Office mail-P.O. Box 456, Norman, OK 73070
Phones: Immed. past Chair -(405) 360-2194; Fax (405) 360-3246 ---Office -(405) 329-3505

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Rebecca Leikheim, Chair
Tulsa & Washington, D.C.
Robert A. Case
Vice Chair, Ponca City
Richard Morris
Treasurer, Norman
Vicki Michener
Secretary, Norman
Edwin Kessler
Immed. Past chr., Norman
M. E. Arnold
Tulsa
Lowell Betow
Ponca City
James L. Botkin
Norman
Lois Chiles-Braver
Norman
Mark Burkett
Oklahoma City
Marjorie Bedell Greer
Norman
Richard Hilbert
Norman
Lynn Howell
Oklahoma City
M. Coleman Hull
Oklahoma City
Paul James
Oklahoma City
Robert D. Pinney
Tulsa
O. Gail Poole
Norman
Margaret Wellman
Tulsa
Gary Wilburn
Morris

March 13,2001

Planning Engineer
Oklahoma Department of transportation
200 Northeast 21st Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

Dear Planning Engineer,

This letter presents our comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that concerns the I-40 Crosstown Expressway from 1-235 to Meridian Avenue, dated January 2001.

The I-40 Crosstown is a major thruway for both east-west continental traffic and local traffic, and its replacement and/or reconstruction would be costly and would leave imprints for many years to come. There are important implications for such wide-ranging topics as energy efficiency, carbon dioxide emissions and global warming, noise and the integrity of neighborhoods, Norman trucks vs. trains, efficiency and effectiveness of both local and national transportation systems, the balance of international trade, national security, and the quality of life, especially in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area. Therefore, it is clear that decisions must be developed very carefully and with regard for many disparate interactive elements in order that we not endanger our future with damaging unintended consequences. Resolution ofI-40 renovation/reconstruction issues will have important ramifications far beyond its immediate area and far beyond our State. And it is of utmost importance that the chosen path embodies an appropriate vision of our future.

We observe that the EIS calls for construction of a new thruway on the so-called D-route, with demolition of major portions of existing I-40 and its reconstruction to form a new boulevard. [39A] The D-route is along an existing Tulsa railroad alignment and adjacent to the former east-west passenger terminal, Union Station, and would permanently remove infrastructure essential to possible future rejuvenation of such rail transit in Oklahoma City. The D-route also passes through an historic [39B] neighborhood. We find that the process and Tulsa reasoning leading to these decisions are defective and that the D-route would burden rather than benefit our city and state. We ask that alternatives be thoroughly [39C] considered using criteria not previously included or inadequately treated. Our findings are detailed as follows.

Item 2.1 in the EIS defines and briefly describes the study corridor, which is inappropriately narrow. For example, 1-240,1-44 (Turner Turnpike to the northeast), the recently completed Kilpatrick Turnpike and the southwest turnpike loop under construction are all outside the study area. Such exclusion is incorrect [39D] because I-40 is interactive with these and other components of the transportation system in central Oklahoma and should be considered in terms of this interaction.

At the Public Hearing on the I-40 Crosstown Expressway on February 27th, the signer of this letter was told that the Kilpatrick was not considered because it is a turnpike while I-40 is a free road, and the Oklahoma Department of transportation cannot demand that trucks use turnpikes with tolls rather than free roads. Furthermore, it was said that another reason for exclusion of the Kilpatrick from consideration lay in its non-existence at the time the study was begun. But with investments of hundreds of millions of dollars in turnpikes we will not accept that their use cannot be optimized in terms of the total transportation system. Since the Kilpatrick is part of the present road system and is a direct connection with the Turner for through traffic, it should be part of the I-40 planning process now. Similar reasoning applies to the southwest loop, which is projected for completion years before completion of a new version of the present I-40 Crosstown. Could these routes be more effectively utilized and how might effective use of these roadways alter plans for I-40? Our state and federal administrators are responsible for the effective use of the total transportation system, and Oklahoma's Secretary of Transportation is also the Director of both the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the Oklahoma Transportation Authority. Huge public investments and commitments are involved here and we must avoid bad outcomes in a host of issues such as those iterated in the second paragraph of this letter.

Item 2.2 in the EIS describes and discusses existing transportation facilities. It notes that [39E] highways intersecting in Oklahoma City are key crossroads for interstate and international travel and essential routes for truck traffic. This section speaks also to an expectation that intersecting highways I-35 and I-40 will experience significant increases in national and international travel. Indeed, one of the defining elements of the study toward replacement or renovation of I-40 is the large and increasing use of I-40 by trucks, which contribute substantially to both wear and tear on the highway and to travel conditions that are particularly dangerous for those in smaller vehicles. In this matter we have three observations. First, note that the study was begun before the recent sharp escalation of prices for petroleum and its derivatives. It is obvious now that our country is experiencing a shortfall in delivery of energy at the more affordable levels existing until the year 2000, and resolution of this situation is problematic at this writing. It is certain, however, that higher prices for gasoline and natural gas are forces toward increased utilization of more energy-efficient forms of transportation, such as rail freight, and decrease in use or rate of [39F] increased use of trucks. Second, a cost allocation study conducted in Texas coupled with information about the tax structure in Oklahoma shows that the trucking industry in Oklahoma pays for substantially less than the full cost of maintenance charges imposed by that industry on our roads. One of the scenarios not considered in the EIS is the impact toward reduced truck use (and, probably, attendant increased rail use) that would result from imposition on the trucking industry of the full costs of their maintenance impact. Third, as already noted, the EIS does not indicate consideration of the diversion of through truck [39G] traffic from I-40 to the Kilpatrick and/or Southwest Loop and possibly to I-240 and/or relatively little used crosstown streets in Oklahoma City, where temporary designations as I-40 alternates might facilitate amendments and/or reconstruction of the elevated portion of present I-40.

2

Item 2.3 in the EIS treats specific transportation problems, particularly structural deficiencies, in the existing elevated highway. We are not highway engineers and are not qualified to evaluate its conclusion that elements of the situation require adjustment. However, we also observe that this issue is controversial, and it has been claimed [39H] that I-40 in essentially its present state could 39 I be effective for decades, especially if [39I] Oklahoma were to reduce the relatively high truck weights [39J] that it permits and make other non-structural adjustments harmonized with transcendent issues iterated above. These matters and others should be subjected to independent objective analysis.

Section 3 in the EIS considers various alternatives for correcting claimed deficiencies in existing I-40. For brevity, we here consider Fig. 3-2, the Evaluation Worksheet for Screening of Long List Alternatives. The sheet provides rankings of six alternatives in terms of six Performance criteria, four Cost and Cost Effectiveness criteria, two criteria concerning Financial and Institutional Feasibility, and nine criteria concerning Environmental and Other Community Impacts. All criteria were ranked zero to four and then added, with higher scores being favored. Alternative "A", Build in Place -- Wide/Twin received 52 points, and Alternative "D", Railroad Alignment -- 2200 feet South, received 56 points. The highest of the other alternatives received only 44 points and the lowest three received scores in the 30s.

[39K] We have two kinds of objections, one concerning an omission from the list of criteria and one concerning evaluation of criteria. First, the impact of the selected alternative on future passenger rail transit is not a listed criterion. If it were, the D-route would receive zero and the A-route would receive four. This change alone would produce an equal score for the [39L] two choices. Our second objection lies in the equal range of rankings given to every criterion. We think that some criteria are more important than others and that this difference in importance should be reflected in different scoring ranges. For example, a possible east-west rail transportation future for the Oklahoma City metropolitan area is much more important than "hazardous waste sites", which can be remediated in any event. (As it is, the D-route is rated one on hazardous waste and the A-route received the more favorable ranking of three -- our principal point, however, is that the A-route should receive an eight concerning passenger rail because it doesn't preclude a future for east-west passenger rail, and the D-route would have received zero on this criterion, which is not included.)

A second criterion inadequately ranked is "Neighborhood disruption". The D-Route would [39M] cleave an historic neighborhood. Indeed, the largest section of the extensive EIS is concerned with environmental impacts that are much less important on the A-Route, since that route is already established, does not traverse a substantial residential area, and the linear extension of new impact with construction along that route would be only about half of that impacted by the D-route. Surely, "Neighborhood disruption" is more important, for example, than "Noise impacts", for which the two routes received the same rating of three. And again, reasonable evaluation of the importance of neighborhood disruption would put the A-route far ahead of the D-route, since the A-route is substantially already established and the D-route is projected as substantially new through an established neighborhood. We do not discuss the neighborhood issue further here, but leave this to the inhabitants of the neighborhood. However, it should be noted that if the changes indicated here had been part of the evaluation matrix, the A/B route would have been the clear winner.

[39N] The rail situation is very important. The issue here centers on Union Station and its associated rail yard and other facilities, which date from 1931. The station is owned by the Central Oklahoma Transit and Parking Authority, was designed for passenger rail, and is in excellent condition. The plan for the D-Route would leave intact the station building itself but would ...

3

...remove the rail yard and all of the associated facilities originally designed for passenger rail, including tunnels for passenger access to different tracks and grade-separation infrastructure that enables independent movement of autos and trains. Two tracks would be retained for freight traffic. A Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) track that runs near Will Rogers World Airport and thence to Lawton and Altus and beyond would be relocated to the south, out of the area, and the Union Pacific track that goes to Yukon, El Reno and further west would be depressed nine feet along with the new roadway. The utility of the Union Station area as a rail terminal for future east-west passengers serving both local centers such as Will Rogers World Airport, Bricktown, and Tinker Field, and more distant sites such as Tulsa, St. Louis, Lawton, Altus, and even more distant places would be completely and permanently destroyed.

[39O] Two active railroad crossings with separate grades for autos and rail will also be destroyed if the D-route is completed. Freight traffic on the BNSF track at Union Station, formerly separated from auto traffic on Walker and Robinson Avenues, would be diverted and thereby increase rail freight traffic at other street level crossings on the same avenues. The already established street level crossings accommodate track that is presently lightly used for access to industry, but these crossings would accommodate a main freight line if the D-route were completed. Note that the cost of grade separation structures is in the $5 million range and that destruction of grade separation infrastructure is contrary to policy adopted nationwide and internationally in the interest of safety. This is confirmed by a resolution adopted by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission on February 20, 2001: "For safety concerns, it is the goal of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission as often as possible to keep railroads separated from other forms of surface transportation. To that end, it is the policy of the Commission to make all railroad crossings as safe as possible and as practical consolidate and improve all existing crossings. Should a crossing be necessary, the Commission strongly encourages the use of under and over passes to keep rail and other traffic separated rather than the use of surface crossings."

[39P] We realize that the rail companies immediately involved, Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe, were consulted on this plan and agreed to it, but it has recently come to our attention that BNSF officials were not apprised of all aspects of their rail relocation. Furthermore, since neither company is in the rail passenger business their agreement is of no import with respect to the demolition of future rail passenger prospects. Please note also [39Q] that the letter dated July 24, 2000, from the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer to Mr. John D. Hartley, which indicates "no adverse effect" of the proposed plan, deals only with the visible portion of the Union Station structure and not with the critically important functional elements that link the rail yard to the station. That letter is not in any way a validation of the proposal that would remove all possibilities of future rail service.

[39R] We ask that the decision for the D-route and its implications for future passenger rail traffic in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area be reconsidered in light of both historic and recent developments. The decision to abandon prospects for future east-west rail with several other local connections appears to have rested in part on a study by the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority, published in "Summary of Findings" in October 1995. This study, which was limited to passenger service in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area, seems seriously dated today. For example, it notes, "that Union Pacific could easily place great barriers to sharing its tracks", and it speaks to 45-minute headway on Union Pacific track as too infrequent. It sees liability insurance requirements of $200,000 to $250,000 annually as a serious impediment. It does not note that Union Pacific operates the tracks westward of Union Station under a long-term lease-purchase agreement with the State of Oklahoma and that a second track could be laid down at relatively small expense along the existing right of way.

4

This is not to say that future rail passenger transit is assured in Oklahoma City, though it seems to us to be a highly probable development, particularly because an unusually dense network of rail lines now used exclusively for freight is already in existence throughout the metropolitan area. And such is especially probable if network nodes and other infrastructure are not obliterated by continued development of highways in the presence of many signs that some of this continued development is not well advised.

[39S] Please observe also that the system known as Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is flourishing. Citizens reversed their decision of several years ago and in the year 2000 approved $2.9 billion for a 25-mile extension of the present rail system. Such an extension of DART requires acquisition of new right-of-way, but this is generally unnecessary in the Oklahoma City area because extensive rail lines already exist here. Even with a need to construct several grade crossings to accommodate high-speed passenger rail in safety in Oklahoma City, the cost per mile would be far less than in the Dallas metroplex.

[39T] We observe a need for special attention to justification of cost estimates. The EIS states that the D-route is the alternative with lowest cost. This seems strange, prima facie, in view of the fact that the D-route is much longer than the portion of existing I-40 that would be reconstructed. Much of the existing I-40 route, especially that west of Western Ave., is in very good condition and would be widened only; it does not require reconstruction, and need for reconstruction of the existing eastern portion is contested. Furthermore, the D-route calls for demolition of the elevated portion of present I-40 with construction of a new boulevard along the same route. Costs of right of way need particularly to be reviewed in light of very long-term effects of building a new roadway along the D-route. And non-structural measures that could eliminate much of proposed project costs do not appear to have been considered.

[39U] Negative aesthetic impacts of the D-route also appear to have been overlooked or inappropriately minimized. For example, the eastern end of the route would impose noise impacts on the MAPS project and reduce accessibility of several MAPS investments. And since the D-route is adjacent to Wheeler Park, it would be damaging to the use of that park.

[39V] Remarkably, the D-route seems to run counter to almost every emphasis in modem transportation practice. Both nationally and internationally, modem practice is directed towards separating truck from passenger vehicle traffic, decreasing the volume of truck traffic through city centers, encouraging long distance "piggy-backing" of trucks on railcars, rehabilitating urban rail transit systems and even developing new systems for urban rail. In old metropolitan areas in Europe as well as in Dallas, San Francisco, St. Louis and other U.S. cities, urban rail passenger systems are flourishing. Our policies must assign appropriate roles to road and rail transport based on analysis of social, environmental, financial and engineering consequences both short and long term. The air is not pristine over Oklahoma City at all times, and conditions will worsen with irreversible decisions that favor truck movements through the city center. A transportation market that is seriously distorted by implicit subsidies cannot be expected to produce economically optimum [39 W] results. The comprehensive review that we propose should include measured, objective, and independent consideration of these and other issues discussed above.

In summary, we believe that the decision to reconstruct I-40 through Oklahoma City resides in an insufficiently comprehensive examination of the total highway structure, and the choice of the...

5

...D-route does not reflect appropriate consideration of several contemporary issues of great importance. Even if, as some say, the present demographic situation in central Oklahoma is not conducive to immediate development of rail passenger transit, it seems incomprehensible that we would spend hundreds of millions of dollars in a project that would foreclose substantial future possibilities for rail transit. We are deeply concerned that the D-Route would stimulate a future of traffic of heavy trucks through Oklahoma City, trucks whose effects are almost wholly negative through noise and physical impacts on roads and emissions of carbon and nitrogen oxides and petroleum residues. We are concerned that the D-route decision if confirmed will be seen as a massive subsidy to the trucking industry in defiance of the free-market principle that calls for each component to pay its own way, and that it would act to the detriment of the State of Oklahoma and its people in the future. We are concerned that the confirmation of the D-route decision may tend to thwart market forces leading to a more sustainable future for our city, state, and country.

[39X] We believe that several existing alternatives are more appropriate than new construction on the D-route. Chief among them involves work with the existing structure, identified as A/B, and we would be glad to discuss these at a later date. We look forward to the results of your thoughtful examination of the issues.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Handwritten Signature]

Edwin Kessler, Immediate Past Chair
Common Cause Oklahoma

6

JOHN GOWANS GENERAL		RAYMOND COOPER TERRITORIAL COMMANDER
The Salvation Army FOUNDED IN 1865 BY WILLIAM BOOTH
MAJOR STEVEN HEDGREN DIVISIONAL COMMANDER	METROPOLITAN AREA COMMAND 311 S.W. FIFTH STREET' P.O. BOX 25516 TELEPHONE (405) 270-7800 - FAX (405) 270-7852 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73125	MAJOR LESLIE WHEELER AREA COMMANDER MAJOR LINDA WHEELER COORDINATOR WOMEN'S ACTVITIES

March 14,2001

Planning Engineer
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 Northeast 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Attention: Planning Engineer Department

We, "The Salvation Army" are in receipt of two documents, a copy of the "1-40 Relocation Land Use and Mitigation Plan" received January 11, 2001 and the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-40 Crosstown Expressway", dated January 5, 2001.

The undersigned has reviewed both documents in detail. Our name is mentioned directly approximately fifteen times referring to us in our specific location or included In the "Post Office Immediate Area."

[40A] Some of our concerns are as follows: We have yet to be contacted In person or by correspondence relative to what impact this would and might have on our facility as well as our community mission.

[40B] Needless to say we need to remain geographically in the general area we are in.

[40C] We petition consideration to whomever that the Post Office facility be made available to us on whatever terms possible. We desperately need what it would offer to us such as consolidation of our existing facilities, expansion of existing and proposed programming, and retention of area identification, plus the possibility of renting spare (environmentally acceptable) to subsidize our income.

Time is of the essence for us to be made aware of what to expect so we may address all the ramifications.

"The Salvation Army... The Heartbeat of Compassion"

40

Page 2

We are indeed aware of the multiplicity of studies and decisions your plans entail and would offer to help suppress anxieties and rumors by being more informed ourselves.

Sincerely yours,

[Handwritten Signature]

Wayne Jesse
Business Management Director

WJ:ce

U N I T E D A F F I L I A T E S I N C.

Phone: (800) 283-6142
(405)848-2213
Fax (405) 848-2215

Entrepreneurial Institute

Entrepreneur Business Center
Southwest Distributor
Dr. Thurman Magbee
FAX

March 14, 2001

TO:
Honorable Frank Keating, Governor of The State of Oklahoma
Mr. Neal McCaleb, Oklahoma Secretary of Transportation
Mr. John T. Bowman, PE. - Crosstown Project, Okla. Dept. of Transportation
Mr. Tom Elmore, Exec. Director - North American Transportation Institute
Mr. Brett Magbee, Exec. Director of Okla. Council of Public Affairs

Gentlemen:

I have been most interested in the publicity concerning the Union Station and how the new I-40 Crosstown plan will affect Oklahoma City's future needs. The few short years I was personally involved in the renovation of the Union Station I had many dreams about the river development and the potential of rail transit in economic development from a commuter standpoint. Oklahoma City has more potential than most larger cities in the Midwest for growth and expansion.

[41A] I know you have put much time and effort into this project. However I hope your decisions today do not seriously hamper the future development of all types of transportation needed In a vital and vibrant city of the future.

New technologies will enable other cities, multimodal capabilities never imagined before. This decision could irrevocably deter central Oklahoma from seizing the opportunity to join communities like Dallas and St. Louis in providing citizens and their business communities, flexibility, convenience and long term cost savings. I respectfully hope you will take into consideration the long range interest of this great city and state!

Sincerely,

[Handwritten Signature]

Thurman Magbee

3013 N.W. 59th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73112-4203

41

Written Comments Sheet
I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This form may be used for submitting written comments for the proposed project. During the public comment period of January 17, 2001 thru March 15, 2001. Place this in the Citizen's comment Box or mail to:

Mr. David Streb
Planning Division Engineer
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-6816 (Office)
(405)521-6817 (Fax)

My name is Leah A. Beale and I am the owner of Albright Steel & Wire Co. at I-40 & Virginia. We have been at this location as long as I can remember. I think my father moved our business here in 1958.

[42A] I generally support updating the I-40 crosstown segment. It is much needed and will be a positive addition to Oklahoma City's long term presence. Although alternate D was not the plan that 1thought would be best for my business in particular; I realized that it was probably the best for the community and the majority of other concerns in. the area. I appreciate that it was not a decision taken lightly.

My business requires access by semi-truck & trailers to deliver steel to us. My business has also benefited greatly because our customers have enjoyed easy access to our warehouse. Taking that advantage away from us would really have a negative impact on our sales.

I have three concerns existing "I-40 boulevard".

1. [42B] Please leave the current entrances and exits intact.
2. [42C] Please do not put any weight restriction to traffic on the "I-40 boulevard".
3. [42D] Please keep in mind the disruption to business caused by construction and repair work.

[handwritten signature]

Leah A. Beale
Name

12 S. Virginia
Address

OKC, OK 73106
City, State, ZIP
232-7526
Albright Steel L& Wire Co.

42

[Handwritten transcription]

Dear ODOT:

Please include these comments regarding the I 40 D Option.

[43A] The D option's utilization of the rail corridor between Shield Blvd. And Classen is short-sighted.

[43B] Full rail access will likely be needed in the future for intercity, commuter and freight rail.

Retention of the single U.P. track to El Reno is insufficient. Direct access to the airport and Mustang must be maintained. In addition, the terminal facilities near Union Station should also be left intact.

[43C] I reject the D. option. Redeck the existing structure or use B-3.

Matthew Dowty
731 E. Elm
Enid, OK 73701

43

Terry La <tmlafrance@yahoo.com> on 03/15/2001 02:16:01 PM
To: jbowman@odot.okladot.state.ok.us, governorkeating@email.com.nmccaleb@ota.state.ok.us
cc: (bcc: John Bowman/ODOT)
Subject: I 40 relocation

Gentlemen,

I would like to take a moment to express my views on the proposed crosstown relocation project.

[44A] As a transportation officer in the Army (and a native Oklahoman), I am VERY concerned that due diligence has not be given to all the alternatives. [44B] ODOT seems predisposed toward the Option D. This will destroy an important rail corridor through OKC. [44C] This corridor will be critical for any future commuter rail operation in OKC. If you think that there is no place in OKCs future for commuter rail then you must feel that OKC will not grow beyond it's present population. That this is so obvious to anyone with a basic level of common sense concerns me as to the true motives of ODOT. The only conclusion I can draw is that those in charge are negligent, incompetent, corrupt, or a combination.

I would hope that you gentlemen, who are charged with serving the greater good of Oklahoma, would not allow yourselves to be cast in such light.

I would be happy to offer my profession opinion in any matter that would assist you in making a proper choice, but Option D is definitely NOT it. Thank you for your time and consideration,

CPT Terry M. La France
Transportation Corps
U.S. Army

Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions -Buy the things you want at great prices.
ttp://auctions.yahoo.com/

44

Edwin Kessler
1510 Rosemont Drive
Norman, Oklahoma 73072
Voice phone -- 05-360-2194; Fax phone -- 405-360-3246
E-mail -- ekessler@ionet.net

June 5, 2001

Planning Engineer
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 Northeast 21st Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

March 13,2001

Refs: Ltr from Common Cause Okla., March 13, 2001
Memorandum from E. Kessler, March 26, 2001

Dear Planning Engineer,

This is further to the correspondence referenced above. It is a personal statement from me--- there has not been time to seek an opinion of the Board of Directors of Common Cause Oklahoma. This letter may supplement the referenced correspondence, but does not replace it.

As discussed with John Bowman last week, several things occurred to me as I was driving on I-40 eastbound in Oklahoma City a few weeks ago. First, it seemed to me incredible that demolition of the elevated portion of this route is being seriously proposed. Second, it seemed to me incredible that a second serious proposal is to accompany the demolition of the elevated structure with construction of a new 10-lane road that would facilitate the passage of trucks as well as cars through rather than around Oklahoma City. Third, a new alternate plan, apparently not well thought out to date, came to mind. Thoughts related to this new alternate plan are submitted here for your consideration.

[45A] First, instead of demolishing portions of present I-40, just leave it alone to continue its present function of providing good access to downtown Oklahoma City. Second, in anticipation of increased through traffic, build a bypass consisting of two lanes with a median strip and cross-lane-accident barriers and with shoulders for management of occasional disabled vehicles. The new two-lane road would supplement approximately the same stretch of I-40 that the presently proposed 10-lane highway would encompass, but it would differ from the present proposal not only in being much narrower in general but also in being further narrowed by having no interchanges along its approximately 3-mile length for exit and ingress. This road would be a bypass for cars and trucks whose drivers from east and west have no wish to enter downtown Oklahoma City. And since the road would be two-lane, all vehicles would travel at the same speed. While the road might be designed to a 70 mph standard, traffic might average just 55 mph. Note that the difference in elapsed time between 70 mph and 55 mph over a distance of three miles is just 42 seconds, and vehicles traveling at lower speeds travel with more safety and less noise.

Because the new road would be much narrower than that now contemplated, there are new options for its location. As indicated by the report from the Oklahoma City Planning Dept. that accompanied my memorandum of March 26, referenced above, there are probably good route choices even now other than that already selected for the 10-lane highway, and choices for the route of a two-lane highway would be further magnified. It would be important to locate the highway where it does not negatively impact future prospects for rail, cause removal of existing...

45

...safe railroad crossings, or negatively impact parks, residential neighborhoods, historic sites, and MAPS, as does the present proposal.

I do not have the training requisite to engineering analysis of this new proposal, but it does seem to me that a 2-lane road without the complexity of interchanges could carry a great volume of traffic. The diversion of through traffic, especially heavy truck traffic, from the existing I-40 would extend the life of that road, and a two-lane bypass without interchanges and without the impacts noted above would represent an enormous reduction of both cost and future negative consequences from the proposal presented in the draft EIS. I emphasize, however, that this letter does not replace the two messages cited in the heading on the first page of this letter.

Thank you for your time on the telephone, and I look forward to the results of your considerations.

Sincerely yours,

["Edwin Kessler" in handwriting]

North American Transportation Institute

Comments on the I-40 Crosstown Plan

3-15-01

[46A] ODOTS PRINCIPAL ASSUMPTIONS QUESTIONABLE

In spite of ODOT's contention to the contrary, it is not at all clear that the Department's insistence on replacing the entire existing Crosstown is in any way justified. While concerns regarding the capacity of the highway from Western Avenue east may be well founded, the segment from Western west to 1-44 is presently eight lanes operating at least at service level "D". This segment clearly has the capacity needed to handle both current and projected traffic volumes.

[46B] DESIGN OF PROPOSED REPLACEMENT LESS THAN OPTIMUM

In spite of the proposed use of separate express lanes, the "D" alignment's four additional long curves as the highway turns toward the south and then back toward the north would certainly seem to pose unnecessary safety risks, especially as regards commuter automobile traffic mixed with heavy trucks. While some believe the value of avoiding construction delays associated with rebuilding large portions of the existing road outweighs the destruction of neighborhoods and existing non-highway transport assets involved with the "D" Alignment, we're all going to have to "live" with the new highway for a long, long time. A straighter alignment would be fundamentally safer. With an extended period of construction interference with the existing route an inevitability, why should taxpayers settle for less than optimum safety in the newly rebuilt highway?

[46C] DOING IT RIGHT -THE FIRST TIME

ODOT planners insistently argue that the "D" alignment is superior to alternatives, among other reasons, because it is "the least expensive and could be built in the shortest time." Overshadowed as we now are by the difficult legacy left us by the builders of the existing Crosstown, we should by now have learned that "time savings" or "cost savings" are not excuses for "doing it wrong." We have the time to do it right, and, whatever the cost, it will be ultimately lower than if done wrong. If in the name of "doing it cheap" we blindly sacrifice existing assets which our children will need -well then, it's only cheap "for us," isn't it? How about doing it RIGHT -the first time, and leaving our offspring a facility for which they will bless, instead of curse us?

[46D] AMONG EXPERTS, ONLY ODOT PLANNERS BELIEVE THE "D" IS LEAST EXPENSIVE

Any number of non-ODOT experts have insisted that the "D" is, in fact, the most expensive of the alignment options. They point out that ODOT's cost figures for the "B" and "B-3" alignments appear to be significantly overstated, and that the costs for the "D" are significantly understated. Because the "D" destroys portions of the Riverside neighborhood, a massive "mitigation plan" has been proposed. While no overall cost has yet been assigned to the mitigation plan, it would not be necessary at all without the new highway -and must necessarily be considered part of the overall cost of the project (while it might not all come out of the same "budgets" it will all come out of the same "pockets").

[46E] DESTRUCTION OF THE UNION STATION RAIL PLANT CREATES MANY MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES

What will the cost of replacing the Union Station rail facility be when the time comes? Although ODOT apparently assigns NO VALUE to this asset, the "problem" is not with the asset. The problem is with ODOT. This is clearly one of the best designed surface transport terminals in the western United States. It was conceived and built in 1930-31 to eliminate railroad crossings from downtown streets while also providing...

46

North American Transportation Institute -3-15-01 Comments on the I-40 Crosstown plan Page 2

...grade-level access to a comprehensive, fully integrated new depot complex and its wide-ranging rail connections. These goals were so well met that the large Union Station yard is virtually invisible to those using streets surrounding the station building. While this is proof of the superb quality of the terminal's design, it has also, ironically, helped make the complex "a target of opportunity" exploited by the highway builders at ODOT.

As world conditions tend toward lower availability of petroleum resources and increasingly higher prices, it is amazing that Oklahoma's transportation leadership continues to act as if we all still inhabited the 1950s. We can say now that, although their predecessors from the 50s and 60s never bothered to provide for the eventual replacement of the existing Crosstown, at least they avoided the sort of needless destruction of other transport facilities involved in their successors' plan.

IS ODOT A "TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT" - OR JUST A "HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT?"

It cannot be overstated that, in its utter dismissal of the OKC Union Station rail facility, ODOT leadership is proving that theirs is not, in fact" a transportation department" at all -but still, as many have long believed, just the old "highway department" under, perhaps, a "higher sounding name." If Oklahoma is ever to have a truly modern, efficient transportation system, we probably need a separate and distinct agency to defend and develop the state's railways, and we might do well to "get at it" before our "transportation department" has crippled them all.

HOW ABOUT A LITTLE "LEADERSHIP" FOR A CHANGE?

We would not expect laymen to have an appreciation of the value of a rail facility as long disused as Union Station's. We WOULD, however, expect the transportation thinkers and leaders at ODOT to fulfill the duties implied in their public trust to LEAD and to EDUCATE those who pay their salaries. Unfortunately - and to their lasting discredit - ODOT leadership has apparently chosen, instead, to exploit public ignorance and prejudice instead of enlightening it in this case.

The simple truth is that ODOT never seriously considered whether redevelopment of the existing rail facility might have limited the need for more highway capacity in downtown Oklahoma City -or might have precluded it altogether. That ODOT has arbitrarily judged the facility useless - and will now proceed to make it so - makes serious questions about the judgment, competence and integrity of this organization's leadership inescapable.

[46F] URBAN RAIL REDEVELOPMENT IS ALREADY WORKING IN OTHER WESTERN CITIES

If existing "former freight-railway facilities" had not already been successfully redeveloped in other western cities with which Oklahoma City competes, perhaps ODOT's decision to destroy the usefulness of Union Station could be excused. However, overwhelmingly successful new urban rail systems incorporating parts of such historic assets in St. Louis, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Denver and Salt Lake City, stand as stark testament to the potential of OKC Union Station. They also provide an unmistakable warning against the precipitous destruction of such assets. Finding any in those cities who would now trade their developing rail systems for "more highway" would be very difficult. However, initial insistence on developing these systems came, NOT from "the public" which had no contemporary experience with rail transit, but from wise and forward-thinking transportation leaders and planners who not only saw the need, but refused to sit by quietly while irreplaceable existing infrastructures were threatened. Today, Salt Lake City's mayor is leading a lawsuit against the Federal Highway Administration to stop construction of a project called "The Legacy Highway." One of the stated reasons for the suit is that the new road will "impede future rail development." That lawsuit will undoubtedly serve as a pattern for others -and the planners of the "New Crosstown" would be unwise to consider themselves immune. to the purported "saving" of the northerly rail line - it will be "saved" nine feet deep in the trench also occupied by the new expressway. The yard and the at-grade access to surface streets it afforded will be gone, and with it, the only such rail access at a potential passenger facility in Oklahoma City. This is only important if we want to give intercity rail-passenger service a fighting chance at profitability, as this is where the mail and...

North American Transportation Institute -3-15-01 Comments on the I-40 Crosstown plan Page 3

...express freight that historically "pays the bills" for such service is handed off from road to rail and back again. The question for ODOT planners is this: "If it's important to 'save' the northerly rail line, then why isn't it just as important to save both lines, along with the yard? If rail is really so unimportant, why not wreck the whole thing?"

[46G] ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION KEY TO OKLAHOMA'S FUTURE

The availability of efficient and innovative transportation has indelibly changed the nation and the world. Oklahoma's geographic position and unique transportation assets are such that our flagging state economy and indifferent economic base might well be revolutionized by intelligent, energetic and creative transportation thinkers and planners. Key elements of such a drive would have to be a refusal to repeat the mistakes of the past and a determination to make the most of existing transportation assets. These are the essential components of modem intermodal / multimodal transportation thinking. The wise advice of Hippocrates to ancient physicians, "first, do no harm..." is certainly as vital now as when it was first spoken, and should also be heeded by those who would heal our state's economy.

However, while Oklahoma is the only state west of the Mississippi to lose a congressional seat this year, promising to fall behind Arkansas and New Mexico into the "47th slot" in per capita income by 2005, it's clearly "business as usual" at ODOT. If our leaders do not by now recognize the persistent, problematic outcomes of their customary practices, NOTHING is likely to impress them. It is to the mere discredit of state transportation leadership that it is not constantly preaching and teaching elected officials and others about the dangers of piling up billions of dollars in unfunded highway maintenance debt while at best ignoring, at worst DESTROYING infrastructures of efficient non-highway modes. That it would, at this late date, blindly and unnecessarily destroy the core of central Oklahoma's rail plant to "do more" of what has brought the state's current, profound burden of highway-related problems stands as inescapable self-condemnation. While our "ship of state" turns ever more directly toward the icebergs, our transportation leaders are dutifully busying themselves "rearranging the deck chairs."

Because "big money" is involved in the "New Crosstown" project, it will inevitably find many defenders regardless of what may be lost along the way. However, as our grandchildren will inevitably see this decision through the arguably clearer lens of history, judging us either for our vision or lack-thereof, we should be under no illusions but that they will know the truth of how valuable the Union Station complex might have been to them. There is no defense for its destruction.

"INTERMODAL" AND "MULTIMODAL" IS A JOKE AT ODOT

It is this sort of project that makes a complete joke of such exercises as the "Statewide Intermodal Plan." ODOT should either abandon the use of such terminology - or "get with the program." The future is here - and it's an intermodal / multimodal future. If, in 10 years, Oklahoma City is the only metropolitan area of its size in the west without a high-quality transit system, the "I-40 D-Option" -and its accompanying destruction of what could have formed the core of the best and most cost-effective transit system in the west -will be the reason. If the price of motor fuel in the state is by then over two dollars-a-gallon, the lack of such a transit system here will inevitably be a major cause for the loss of at least one more Oklahoma congressional seat in 2011. Oklahoma City will have become "mobility-uncompetitive" - and the blind, special-interest driven policies of our "transportation department" will be the reason for it.

STATESMEN NEEDED

It's said that politicians think of "the next election" while statesmen think of the next generations. The sad fact is that, all too often in its history, Oklahoma has suffered under "leaders" who have served the special-interests (including "their own") to the detriment of the taxpayers' interests. Never has this state needed statesmen, who will do the right thing for the right reasons, more than it does right now. Are there any statesmen at ODOT today?

ODOT's "New I-40 Crosstown" plan: Like amputating a leg to cure a hangnail - short-term "gain" not worth the long-term loss!

State Transportation Department simply cannot show that the benefits purported to accompany the new 10-lane expressway won't be outweighed, both near and long-term, by the irreversible destruction of the finest potential urban rail center in the west.

More traffic = more problems [46H]

ODOT insists the existing Crosstown must be replaced because it can't handle enough traffic.

THIS IS MISGUIDED LOGIC. Creating a new 10-lane "funnel" directly through the city's center will encourage traffic, especially THROUGH TRUCKS to avoid existing bypasses and come "downtown" instead. More highway capacity will BRING MORE TRAFFIC, and with it, inevitable increases in AIR POLLUTION, TRAFFIC CONGESTION and HIGHWAY FATALITIES.

OKC is already on the verge of losing its federal air-quality rating because of summer ozone levels. The strategy should be to DISCOURAGE MORE AUTO AND TRUCK TRAFFIC IN DOWNTOWN, and, especially, to route through trucks over I-240, I-44 and the new Kilpatrick Turnpike. This should benefit the truckers, as well, who will avoid downtown congestion and the infamous Fort Smith junction - where so many semi-rigs overturn each year.

More traffic = more maintenance expense and more danger [46 I]

According to state Transportation Secretary Neal McCaleb, Oklahomans faced over $11 billion in unfunded highway maintenance and "new construction" requirements in 1996. Supposedly to address this problem, several "billion dollar" highway bond programs" were passed by the state legislature in the late 1990's. Have state roads gotten better since then?

According to a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study just released, Oklahoma now ranks FIFTH nationally in the percentage of his highway bridges which are bad, and SECOND (only to Texas) in the actual number of bad bridges. Reportedly, tens of millions of dollars in state road maintenance funds are now paying for BOND DEBT instead of road repairs.

Each big truck using Oklahoma highways pays less than 20% of the minimum cost of the damage it does. This is the main source of unrepaid damage to ALL our roads. The taxpayers get stuck with the bill. Encouraging more big trucks to "blow through the middle of town" by building this new highway is a formula for massive new unfunded maintenance expense. Mixing more such traffic with OKC-area commuters will also inevitably bring more danger and more accident fatalities.

Creating more problems while destroying the obvious antidote [46J]

As outlined elsewhere in this newsletter, there is no doubt about the value of the rail plant at OKC Union Station. It holds expensive answers to existing problems; REAL answers which won't create whole new sets of problems. While neighboring western cities have already proven the worth of such assets, OKC Union Station is clearly superior to any similar facility in the west. The apparent determination of some of our leaders to destroy this treasure should raise many serious questions.

There is no doubt that ODOT is aware of the successes of rail transit in St. Louis, Dallas / Ft. Worth, Denver, Salt lake City and other western cities. Nevertheless, its planner never seriously considered whether redevelopment of the Union Station facility would lessen the need for more inner-city highway capacity -or preclude the need for it altogether.

Instead of talking seriously about the value of the station, the Department acts as though leaving a single rail line near the depot "is all the rail capacity the station would ever need" - an insult to the intelligence of any who have followed successful rail-transit redevelopment in other cities, and an affront to the wise forbears who designed and built Union Station.

Its time for the nonsense to stop [46K]

Union Station was purchased in 1989 with a grant from the forerunner of the Federal Transit Administration. Throughout the grant-application paperwork, the value of the rail-lines serving the station is restated over and over again -even by people such as Neal McCaleb. Throughout the I-40 "major investment study (MIS)" process, ODOT has steadfastly avoided the question of the inherent value of Union Station and its railplant. There was no one on the advisory committees to speak in defense of the Union Station facility; no one to speak out against the calculated destruction of this irreplaceable asset.

Are we to believe the station and its rail lines has so little value? Are we so wealthy that we can afford to thoughtlessly cast away such gifts from our great-grandparents? To believe this, especially in light of the pressing problems of the age, is to give in to foolishness. OKC and its children need these facilities - and will need them more in the future. It's time for ODOT to stop the nonsense. It's time for Central Oklahomans to demand REAL answers.

North American Transportation Institute Page 4

Why ODOT's plan to cripple OKC Union Station with a "new I-40 Crosstown" is UNACCEPTABLE [46LJ]

Highway plan will destroy what may be the finest urban rail facility of its kind I the West, robbing Central Oklahomans of needed transportation options.

Union Station Rail Facility - 12 track bays, Ready street access. Grade-Separated Rail Crossings (Robinson and Walker Street underpasses). Surrounded by plenty of redevelopable land for parking and mail and express facility development. This should be our Amtrak station and bus center. Low cost rail transit can also be developed here when needed using existing corridors to: (1) Stockyards, Will Rogers Airport, Mustang, Chickasha, (2) Midwest City, Tinker AFB, (3) Bricktown, Near NE, Zoo/Omniplex/Remington Park, (4) Choctaw, Harrah, Shawnee, (5) Luther, Chandler, Stroud, Tulsa, (6) State Fairgrounds, I-40/Meridian, Yukon, El Reno, Weatherford

Spectacular Oklahoma City Union Station, opened in 1931, is undoubtedly the finest, most carefully planned urban surface transportation terminal in the state. The beautiful station building, its rail yard, approach corridors and street access were all conceived and built as an integral terminal complex by the Rock Island and Frisco railroad companies. Both depot and yard were built "at grade," allowing immediate rail-to-street interface on Hudson and Harvey avenues. One block east and west, the railroads built the beautiful Robinson and Walker underpasses or "subways," allowing arterial street traffic to flow, unimpeded, UNDER the yard.

Today, cities like Dallas. St. Louis, Salt Lake and Denver are wisely converting their old rail facilities into modern multimodal transport, linking autos and airports with new urban rail transit and bus service as well as intercity passenger trains and buses. Our regional neighbors are proving that intelligent reuse of old urban rail terminals and corridors makes attractive new transportation choices possible at low cost, greatly increasing access and mobility without the wholesale destruction of long established neighborhoods and businesses inevitably involved with new highways - and, without increased roadway congestion or air pollution. Such systems save wear and tear on both private autos and their owners and offer commuters a comfortable, low-cost and stress-free alternative to driving.

As good as Dallas DART Rail and the other new western systems are, Oklahoma City Union Station is a far better facility with a better yard and better connections than ANY of them started with. In fact, the quality of the station complex is astounding. Although parts of the yard have been unused for 30 years and some of the station tracks have been removed, every essential design element remains as it was when built.

However, apparently still driven by its "highways-only" focus, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) now proposes to blindly destroy the Union Station yard and approach corridors - as if they had no value - by building a "new" I-40 Crosstown directly through them.

Central Oklahomans need to take a good look around. Will we not realize "what we had" until it's gone? No other western city would now be willing to blindly sacrifice such a superb, existing rail facility for another highway. It is simply irreplaceable. Its destruction might well ensure that by 2010, central Oklahoma would be the ONLY metro area of its size in the west where folks have no choice but to drive -EVERY DAY - just to get anywhere, regardless of the price of gasoline, the quality of the air, or their capacities in light of age or disability to safely use automobiles. In short, we will needlessly have become mobility-uncompetitive.

We simply can't afford to allow more of the symptomatic, short-sighted transportation planning which has created many of our current troubles to rob us and our grandchildren of this high-quality, critically important transportation asset. If we're wise enough to save Union Station and the needed solutions it can provide, it may well save US!               

Transportation Institute - Page 5

The "I-40 Crosstown 'D' Option plan will completely destroy the historic and elegant OKC Union Station yard, together with its passenger and freight "subways" ODOT claims this will have "no adverse effect" on the station.

In fact, the purpose-built yard and the tunnels indelibly linking the station building to the railways it was built to serve are the functional heart of the terminal complex. Their needless and short-sighted destruction will ruin much of the station's potential usefulness and rob Central Oklahomans of cost-effective transportation alternatives other western American cities are already using to great benefit.

That ODOT considers this facility to be "of no value" is instructive.

The "trouble" is NOT with Union Station. The trouble is WITH ODOT!

Beautiful OKC Union Station stands as a monument, not only to the wisdom of the leaders of our great-grandfathers' generation, but also to their hopes for those who would follow them. It was a triumph of planning and cooperation between Oklahoma City leaders and the management of two major railroad companies of the era. The Union Station complex was a landmark achievement, whose designers were able at their unique time in the history of the city, to design and build a grand and elegant and the way in which the public was enabled to meet the station's trains in complete would follow them. It was a surface transportation center without compromise

It simply could not happen again as it did in their day. The string-straight rail lines leading to Union Station stand in stark contrast to the more recent urban freeways which curve, meander and turn across the pre-existing development over which they were superimposed.

Union Station was, and IS arguably the best-designed complex of its type in the southwest, if not in all the American west. The classic beauty of the station building itself is matched in every way by the brilliantly functional yard, direct street access and the way in which the public was enabled to meet the station's trains in complete safety and security.

Unlike many more-recent transportation developments in Central Oklahoma, this was certainly a truly grand and ennobling structure which was, nevertheless, built to a human scale. While its design obviously enables safe, seamless interfacing of trains, automobiles and trucks (and, originally of the Oklahoma Railway Companys streetcars on what is now SW 7th), this was a structure built for people! Make no mistake - those who would now so thoughtlessly cast it away no longer think or build this way, nor could they ever duplicate it!

To thoughtlessly vandalize this grand achievement of our grandfathers' generation, and with it the gift of that generation to our own children and grandchildren is blind, indeed. The station complex is an irreplaceable legacy holding needed answers to today's problems. We have only to open our eyes to see this. We owe it to future Oklahomans-- and to ourselves-- to do so!

North American Transportation Institute - Page 6

OKC Union Station's passenger and freight tunnels - the functional center of the depot complex - would be destroyed by ODOT's "new I-40 Crosstown"

[46N] With a clear view of the elegantly functional design of OKC Union Station's passenger yard- looking "beneath the surface" - who could "look you in the eye" and say the destruction of the yard and these subways would have "no adverse effect" on the depot?

These facilities are "where the station meets the trains," This is what makes it all work. The superb quality of this design is unmatched by any similar facility in the Southwest. It could not be duplicated in Oklahoma City for any amount of money. It remains, today essentially unchanged as far as basic design elements are concerned. There is nothing like it anywhere else in the region. It should be USED-- not thoughtlessly destroyed!

North American Transportation Institute - Page 7

Elegant OKC Union Station: A gift of powerful solutions to 21st century problems from our great-grandfathers

Built by the Rock Island and Frisco Railroad companies, beautiful Oklahoma City Union Station opened in 1931. It was a landmark achievement. In an agreement with the City of OKC to move their individual depots and east-west tracks out of downtown to a less developed, less congested area, the railroad companies started with a "clean sheet of paper." The spectacular depot building itself was only part of a carefully planned, fully integrated terminal facility which included brand new railway corridors and a rail yard which could meet passengers and mail and express freight trucks "at grade" on Hudson and Harvey while allowing arterial street traffic to flow freely UNDER the yard at the elegant new Robinson and Walker underpasses or "subways". From the interior of the 55,000 square foot depot building, passengers boarded trains via a gentle ramp leading from the expansive grand hall to secure underground tunnels passing beneath the yard, then up stairways to their chosen trains at surface boarding platforms. The 12 track yard was, and remains, a marvel of functional design, allowing full public and commercial access without danger, and working WITH - not against - auto, truck and pedestrian traffic.

Today, many Oklahoma Citians are surprised to discover the strikingly beautiful depot building just south of the main OKC Post Office, and even more surprised to find that the fully restored architectural masterpiece is owned by Oklahoma City Metro Transit. Amazingly, the depot facility retains most of its original, wide-ranging railway connections and lies at the center of railway corridors leading to strategic points all over central Oklahoma and the rest of the state -an ideal candidate for redevelopment as a multimodal transportation center.

Western cities such as St. Louis, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Denver and Salt Lake City have had great success redeveloping existing former freight-railway facilities as fast electric urban rail transit systems. Throughout the American west, hundreds of thousands of commuters gladly leave their autos at secure park-and-ride lots on the outskirts of urban centers every day to ride swift, comfortable new trains to work. They've found using the trains lowers the costs of their daily travel by reducing mileage and maintenance on their expensive automobiles. They're happy to eliminate the ever-increasing hassle and expense of urban parking, and find (to their surprise) that they "can do without" the stress and uncertainty of the classic "freeway commute." New transit systems like Dallas DART Rail and Trinity Railway Express, St. Louis Metrolink, Salt Lake's TRAX and Denver's popular new RTD Light Rail have brought a sea-change of environmentally clean, low-cost, all-weather mobility to these western urban and suburban dwellers.

Meanwhile, urban planners in these cities are finding modern rail transit offers solid, low-cost answers to common urban problems. Quiet, clean electric trains offer giant increases in user-friendly mobility without accompanying increases in air pollution or roadway maintenance bills. Rail access from remote parking lots and garages limit the need for expensive new parking facilities in urban centers. Modern railway systems built on old railway corridors provide all these benefits without the wholesale destruction accompanying construction of new urban freeways. Investment in these user-friendly systems drives redevelopment booms in the older urban areas as nothing else can. There's no longer any question about it. Modern transit works, and even independent westerners love it.

North American Transportation Institute - Page 8

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) proposes to put its "new I-40 Crosstown" here. Is the new road worth what's being lost?

The carefully designed yard, passenger platforms, underground passenger and freight tunnels (along with the Robinson and Walker street underpasses) were built in 1930 specifically to serve Union Station.

After meticulous restoration by previous owner Thurman Magbee, the Union Station depot building is now owned by Oklahoma City Metro Transit. It was purchased in 1989 with a grant from the Federal Transit Administration for development as a bus and rail center for the city. Together with its purpose-built yard, no finer potential urban transport center exists in the west. It could be pressed back into service at low cost as a central terminal serving intercity passenger trains and buses as well as modern transit buses and trains.

However ODOT is apparently determined to end this possibility by building a new 10-lane expressway directly through this corridor. Transportation options badly needed by central Oklahomans, and which "could have been had" at low cost with simple and inexpensive modernization of this elegant and irreplaceable facility would disappear forever with the destruction of the yard and railway corridors

Everything within the white lines in the photo above would be destroyed, including all of the existing yard, passenger platforms, tracks and the underground passenger and freight tunnels linking the platforms to the depot building. The South Robinson and Walker street underpasses, located at each end of the passenger yard would also be destroyed.

The rail yard was built at street-level to provide optimum ease in transferring mail and express from trucks to trains (& vice-versa), making it ideally suited to support Amtrak intercity passenger trains' vital express freight and mail handling needs. However, if the yard is excavated per the ODOT plan, even the single track that remains will be lowered 9 feet into the "depression" also occupied by the new highway, making easy transfer of Amtrak's "RoadRailer" units from street to rail impossible. The basic design element which made this superbly functional facility by far the best in the state would be gone forever. Worse yet, direct BNSF track access from the station west to the Airport and east to Tulsa would also be lost.

North American Transportation Institute - Page 9

* * * * *

This is progress? I-40 Crosstown plan will destroy historic South Robinson and Walker underpasses, sending more trains across street-level crossings in Capitol Hill. South OKC commuters face new potential delays, danger and less-certain emergency access.

The elegant Robinson &Walker "subways" have safely cleared autos, trucks and pedestrians under the railroad tracks tracks on the Union Station corridor for 70 years. Is the Oklahoma Department of Transportation "in reverse" on railway crossing safety?

One of the reasons OKC Union Station was created at the end of the 1920s was to rid downtown of the many street-level railroad crossings which served the old downtown Frisco and Rock Island Railway depots. The crossings themselves were undoubtedly a maintenance problem, and mixing auto and pedestrian traffic with trains is always a safety problem, as were the prospects that access for emergency vehicles might be blocked by trains at any time. At [?] 1931 opening, Union Station with its all-new rail corridors and street underpasses eliminated all those concerns.

Like the Union Station rail facility, the Robinson and Walker underpasses were "built to last." 70 years later, they're still doing their job, clearing street and pedestrian traffic safely under active rail lines. They're part of the OKC landscape and are probably taken for granted by most folks -which is to say few would normally think about them unless they suddenly disappeared, along with the solutions they've provided, leaving more trains crossing at street-level somewhere in the city. Of course, that goes against accepted planning standards in the modern world -but destroying ; overpasses and some of the solutions they brought is apparently what our state Department of Transportation proposes to do as part of the "New I-40 Crosstown plan." It's a poorly conceived and strangely backward plan.

Because ODOT places little value on railways, the "New Crosstown plan" would route the new 10-lane expressway exactly through the Union Station yard, destroying the historic underpasses along with the rest of the rail-plant which was built to serve the station. Burlington Northern Santa Fe trains which now use the station corridor over the underpasses would be RE-ROUTED on existing street-level crossings near the 2100 blocks of South Robinson and South Walker. The crossings would be upgraded - but they'd still be "at-grade" or street-level, with all the inherent safety and access problems associated with such crossings. Property values might suffer as well. After 70 years, "history would repeat itself" as the problems of old downtown are created all over again in Capitol Hill. If Capitol Hill residents and property owners had any idea this was part of "the plan," would they think of it as "progress?"

North American Transportation Institute - Page 10

* * * * *

Cities all over the west are successfully reintroducing rail transit systems, many built at low cost using former freight-railway corridor and terminals like those at OKC Union Station. Modern rail systems boost quality-of-life with low-cost, all-weather mobility.

First phase of DART Rail was built with penny sales tax in Dallas &participating suburbs. 70mmercial and residential property served by the system is now 25% more valuable than :similar real-estate not on the lines. Rail transit is driving an urban redevelopment renaissance.

Dallas Union Station

Once abandoned and considered a relic, Dallas Union Station has been reborn as a vital multimodal center for the Metroplex. Here, since June, 1996, passengers arriving from Chicago, LA or Florida on Amtrak's Texas Eagle can walk across a platform to fast, comfortable DART Rail electric trains or Trinity Railway Express commuter trains linking them to the entire Dallas Area Rapid Transit system. A DART day-pass is two dollars. Regular users pay even less. Few would trade the new-found freedom and economy of the trains for more new highway.

Over 40,000 ride the trains daily, a number expected to double with impending extensions to Garland, Plano and Richardson.

Trinity Railway Express Commuter Trains

Diesel-Electric commuter trains are used by Trinity Railway Express (TRE) to link Irving, Arlington and Richland Hills (along with remote access to DFW Airport) to the DART Rail System at Dallas Union Station. Ridership of the commuter trains doubled one morning last summer at the opening of the new line extension from its former western terminus at South Irving to Richland Hills. Park and ride facilities are already being expanded to meet burgeoning demand for the service. Extension of the line to Ft. Worth is in progress, scheduled for opening in October, 2001.

DART Light Rail Trains

These fast, clean, all-electric light-rail trains represent the state-of-the-art in modern transit service. Suburban commuters see the trains as low-cost extensions of their automobiles, which can now be left at secure park-and-ride lots near the outer edges of the Dallas urban center. While commuters themselves "de-stress" on the carefree train ride into work, their automobiles AREN'T racking up mileage, maintenance need and big-city parking fees.

Meanwhile, property values in old inner-city neighborhoods and business districts near the rail lines are skyrocketing as the attractive new transport option makes some "rethink" suburban living.

Although Dallas voters narrowly rejected a 1988 bond-financing plan presented to them by DART for the construction of a proposed rail transit system, Dallas transportation planners persevered. They knew - in spite of the loud derision of the "highways-only" interests -that Dallas needed and would benefit from such technology. Last summer, having had the opportunity to use the new urban rail systems in their own 'city for 4 years, north Texans voted 3-to-1 to provide 2.9 billion in bond financing to accelerate extensions of the system to THEIR suburbs and neighborhoods.

North American Transportation Institute - Page 11

* * * * *

Oklahoma's HEARTLAND FLYER: Showing the way to better transport

Considered an airline service backwater, Oklahoma has other options - if state leadership is wise enough to exploit them. OKC Union Station can provide a critical head-start for advanced rail and intermodal service. Developing real high-speed service here, NOW, would "put Oklahoma on the map" in a way few other technologies could.

Advanced High-Speed Train Technology Comes to the U.S.

The first of Amtrak's Acela Express train sets are now in service in the northeastern United States. Although derived from French TGV technology, these trains were built much heavier to meet American collision-strength standards. Unlike the French trains which generally operate over all-new, purpose-built track on very straight, grade-separated corridors, it was necessary for the U.S. trains to tilt, allowing faster operation through the curves which characterize most domestic rail lines. Although the unique requirements brought a longer-than-projected development period, the trains are now in highly successful daily service at speeds up to 150 mph.

Oklahoma's "Heartland Flyer" Service Since starting service in June, 1999, Oklahoma's OKC-to-Fort Worth, Texas HEARTLAND FLYER has performed far beyond initial projections. Stops include Norman, Purcell, Pauls Valley, Ardmore and Gainesville, Texas. Each of these cities has either upgraded or is in the process of upgrading its depot facilities, and enthusiasm for the service is high. Oklahoma and Kansas towns along the BNSF line north to Kansas City are promoting service extensions for their citizens. Tulsa wants passenger service, too. Meanwhile, signal upgrades. and other improvements are being incrementally phased in on, the current route which will soon reduce one-way trip time from the original four and-a-half hours to three hours, forty minutes. THE FLYER is a hit by any standard.

1. Hostler tractor positions trailer; the tractor's air system controls the unique ROADRAILER® suspension:
   
2. Trailer air suspension lifts rear of trailer, tractor backs trailer onto Mark V® rail bogie (illustration exaggerates lift angle):
   
3. Trailer air is vented. Steel coil springs lift tires clear of rail. Tractor backs trailer to couple with trailer set and rest of train:
4. Trailer set connected to train, trailer air connected to train lines and trailing CouplerMate® attached to end ROADRAILER®.
   

Taking big trucks OFF highways while helping passenger trains pay for themselves, here's how Wabash National's® RoadRailer® works for Amtrak's mail & express program.

Historically, U.S. long-distance passenger trains also carried first-class U.S. mail and express freight. These highly specialized, time-sensitive cargos were well-served by the predictable, all-weather capabilities of the trains, while often providing up to two-thirds of the revenue needed to make them pay.

Today, Amtrak is "Back in the firs-class mail and express business in a big way, and depots which can handle the unique transport technologies employed by the rail service are being developed. OKC Union Station is a rare facility which, with only minor modifications, would be perfectly suited to support Amtrak's RoadRailers, In fact, the quality of the facility is such as to provide an opportunity for development of a regional mail and express [?}

North American Transportation Institute - Page 12

* * * * *

The I-40 Crosstown "D" Option:

A QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS to build a 10-lane non-stop speedway allowing transcontinental heavy trucks to blow through the middle of Oklahoma City without breaking stride (instead of using existing and now-building bypasses).

It will bring more traffic through the center of OKC - and with it, more problems -

• It will add to Central Oklahoma's growing air-quality problems.
• It will encourage and hasten future roadway congestion.
• It will have to be maintained - against current ODOT "unfunded maintenance and new construction requirements" which now exceed $11 billion.

Worse yet, the "D" will forever DESTROY the single obvious answer to the problems its presence will create - the rail facility at OKC Union Station (300 SW 7th).

• Existing direct rail access to Will Rogers Airport, Wheatland, Mustang, Chickasha, Lawton and Altus will be DESTROYED.
• Existing direct rail access to Tulsa, via Midwest City, Spencer, Jones, Luther, Wellston, Chandler, Bristow and Sapulpa will be DESTROYED.
• The magnificent Robinson and Walker street underpasses will be destroyed (and some of the trains now using them diverted across street-level crossings in Capitol Hill)
• Oklahoma City's opportunity to create a low-cost rail transit system using existing corridors -like Dallas' DART Rail-will be DESTROYED.
• Oklahoma's best facility for an advanced regional rail-passenger, mail and express hub will be DESTROYED.

The-"D" Option: Central Oklahoma CAN'T AFFORD IT!

North American Transportation Institute - 46T - Page 13

* * * * *

North American Transportation Institute
PO Box 6617
Oklahoma City, OK 73153-0617
Tom Elmore, Executive Director
Tel: (405)794-7163
Fax: (405)799-2641
E-mail: gtelmore@aol.com

North American Transportation Institute (NATI)

NATI is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization based in Oklahoma. City, Oklahoma, promoting market-driven, advanced intermodal and multimodal solutions to the nation's transportation problems.

We offer reliable facts, statistics and history of the current transportation picture, both regionally and nationally. We assess the capabilities of available transportation technologies. We analyze and project the effects of current and proposed future public transportation policies in light of available transportation assets and technologies

By providing reliable facts and analysis, we work to uphold the interests of U.S. taxpayers in the critical field of transportation, and to provide them with the means to hold special-interests and government accountable.

NATI is not affiliated with or supported by any element of the transportation industry, but is wholly funded by the tax-deductible donations of interested individuals.

NATI Board of Directors
Matthew D. Dowty - President, Oklahoma Passenger Rail Association, Enid, Oklahoma
Patsy E. Elmore - Retired Educator, Ardmore, Oklahoma
Dr. Edwin Kessler - Retired Director, National Severe Storms Lab, Norman, Oklahoma
E.L. Kitchell - Director National Association of Retired and Veteran Railway Employees (NARVRE), Bethany, Oklahoma
J.D. Metcalfe - Retired Professional Engineer and Tulsa Street Commissioner, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Linda Richardson - President, International Trade Services, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Jeff Taylor - Farmer, Rancher and former Logan County Republican Chairman, Guthrie, Oklahoma
James Townsend - Retired Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner, Shawnee, Oklahoma
Tom Elmore, Executive Director - North American Transportation Institute, Moore, Oklahoma

North American Transportation Institute - Page 14

Common Cause Oklahoma

Phones: (405) 360-2194; Messages: (405) 329-3505; Fax (405) 360-3246
Mail: -1510 Rosemont Drive. Norman, OK 73072; Office - P.O. Box 456. Norman. OK 73070

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - MARCH 16. 2001

Common Cause Oklahoma identifies serious deficiencies in I-40 Crosstown proposal

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) proposes that I-40 through Oklahoma City be relocated as a 10-lane thruway along the so-called D-route, which is nearer the north shore of the Canadian River-Further, ODOT proposes that the elevated portion of I-40 be demolished and reconstructed as a boulevard. The plan is described in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dated January 2001. Much better choices are available.

[47A] If this project proceeds as presently projected, it will greatly burden future Oklahoma City with the congestion. noise, and pollution attendant to major truck traffic through its center, and with elimination of economical means for possible future introduction of east-west passenger rail transit to the metropolitan area. Common Cause's analysis was presented on March 14th in a 5 1/2-page letter to ODOT, attached hereto.

[47B] ODOT's study and evaluation of alternatives for facilitation of east-west traffic flow was focused in a narrow space that essentially included only I-40 itself and not several major arterials of the total system with which the I-40 component in OKC interacts The total highway system in the Oklahoma City area, including I-44 (Turner Turnpike), I-240, the Southwest Loop under construction, and the Kilpatrick Turnpike, had little or no part in the analysis. But any highway proposal should be developed in light of all major interactive system elements.

[47C] The proposed project would destroy passenger rail infrastructures already in place at and near Union Station. Among these are underground passages to facilitate safe access by passengers to different tracks, a rail yard. and grade separation facilities on Walker and Robinson. Also, a track of the Union Pacific Railroad would be depressed at Union station, thereby foreclosing that line's future use for passengers. Freight traffic on a track of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe would be relocated to a track south of the Canadian River. That southerly track, used only lightly today for access to industry, would become a significant freight line with street level crossings at Walker and Robinson. While killing prospects for east-west passenger rail in Oklahoma City, the D-route would also produce increased rail traffic at dangerous street level crossings. Removal of grade separation facilities is contrary to a policy presented by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission last February 20th.

[47D] The project would cleave an existing historic neighborhood, take residences, reduce the integrity of historic sites, and at its east end produce noise detrimental to MAPS investments and reduce access to MAPS investments. To the west of MAPS, it would reduce the utility of Wheeler Park.

[47E] Impact of various alternatives on east-west rail service in Oklahoma City was not a criterion for evaluation of the project, and the weight given to neighborhood impacts was inappropriately low. If these factors had been properly considered, a focus of effort along the existing I-40 would have ranked most preferred among alternatives.

[47F] No consideration was given to non-structural adjustments to facilitate flow of auto traffic and greatly reduce need for reconstruction of I-40 and associated costs. Such non-structural adjustments could include diversion of through truck traffic from I-40 in Oklahoma City to other roads.

[47G] ODOT's proposal runs counter to major modern features of transportation practice, which includes separation of trucks from passenger vehicles, reduction of the volume of truck traffic through city centers, encouragement of long distance piggy-backing of trucks on railcars, rehabilitation of urban rail transit systems, and the building of new urban rail systems as in Dallas, St. Louis, and Salt Lake City. If the present plan is implemented, Oklahoma City's future will be severely compromised. It will also be a very poor model for the rest of our country and for the world.

[47H] Instead of proceeding with the project as presented in the EIS, Common Cause Oklahoma recommends a thorough, objective, and independent review of alternatives.

For further information, call Edwin Kessler, 405-360-2194 or Rebecca Leikheim, 703-567-5967 Also, see the letter from Common Cause Oklahoma to the Planning Engineer, Okla. Dept. of Transportation, March 13, 2001.

[handwritten: Edwin Kessler]

OKLAHOMA CITIZENS FOR OPEN. HONEST. AND ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT

47

March 19, 2001

Gentleman

[48A] I am writing you to tell you I think the new Crosstown plan "D" is a mistake. It will destroy the direct rail access that is in place now.

[48B] The energy shortage points up the need to find alternate forms of [48C] transportation in the near future. We need our rail systems. It would be at great expenses to replace what we will destroy with Plan "D" of the new crosstown.

[48D] We do not need to add to air pollutions in the center of our City.

We should plan to route heavy truck traffic around the City. The present IS 40 would then not need to be replaced.

[48E] For the good of Oklahoma City now and in the future, please consider changing the Option "D" plan to a better option for us all.

Sincerely yours

[handwritten signature]

Marion Fry , A concern citizen.
4201 N.W. 22
Oklahoma City, OK. 73107
(405)943-5266

48

March 26,2001

Memo from Edwin Kessler [handwritten signature]

To: Planning Engineer
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 Northeast 21st Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

Dear Planning Engineer,

Attached hereto is a copy of a report labeled as coming from "OKC Planning". It was apparently sent originally as a fax message on February 22, 1999. It raises some serious questions and concerns about the choice of the D-route for reconstruction of Crosstown I-40.

Have all of the questions and concerns raised in the report been addressed? If so, we in Common Cause Oklahoma wish to see the relevant documentation. If all have not been addressed, then we ask that there be a reasonable response before ODOT makes its final decision with respect to this Issue.

Thank you for consideration.

49

02/22/99 SUN 10:30 FAX 405-297-1631 OKC PLANNING 002

I-40 Realignment: A Critique of Alternative "D"

This paper addresses some unresolved issues relating to ODOT's proposal for realignment of I-40. While I work for the City of Oklahoma City and served on the Technical Advisory Committee for the Major Investment Study undertaken by ODOT, this paper represents my personal viewpoint and is not intended to represent an official position of the Planning Department or the City of Oklahoma City.

A proposal to relocate an interstate highway through the center of a city is fraught with a complex array of economic, social, political, city planning, and engineering considerations. It is predictable and perhaps inevitable that reasonable people would reach different conclusions regarding desirability of the alternative alignments. This certainly has occurred in Oklahoma City. My problem with this study goes beyond expected conflicts between planning community development, and engineering objectives. I believe the study used flawed assumptions and was carefully conducted to support ODOT's preferred route from the beginning. Please let me explain.

[49A] 1) Alternative "D" was ODOT's preference from the beginning.

The engineering community's preference for the "D" alignment was well known around city hall far in advance of ODOT undertaking this Major Investment Study. After the MAPS tax passed in December, 1994, the Oklahoma City Public Works Department commissioned a traffic study (completed by outside consultants in 1995) that assumed the "D" alignment as part of its recommendations. The Oklahoma City Public Works and MAPS staff/consultants worked with a graduate class of OSU students to produce a scale model of downtown Oklahoma City that also proposed the "D" Alignment with the boulevard on the existing I-40 rights-of-way.

The major investment study presentations were frequently convened with an announcement that "ODOT did not favor any of the alternatives", which would be followed by testimonials about the merits of Alternative "D". I have not talked to anyone that was extensively involved in this process that was not aware of ODOT's preference for Alternative "D" well before the study was complete. Both the ODOT staff and their consultants spent a disproportionate amount of time at public meetings stating the merits of Alternative "D" and emphasizing the problems associated with the other alternatives. This study was not a serious attempt at objectively analyzing a list of desirable alternatives. Alternative "B-3" as presented had serious flaws; it had poor access to downtown and Bricktown, proposed to close major arterials, and was routed through expensive real estate.

[49B] 2) The Major Investment Study was based on misguided premises.

Two fundamental premises guided the examination of the alternatives: 1: the desired design speed was to be 70 miles per hour and 2) the access points had to be spaced at least one mile apart. I am not aware of any interstate highway that passes immediately adjacent to a major downtown that has a 70 mile per hour speed limit or has access points spaced one mile apart. I have attached maps of other downtowns that have access points spaced closer than one mile.

Is it really safe or desirable for fully loaded trucks to proceed at 70 plus miles per hour through the center of a congested urban area with complicated interchanges on either end? Can ODOT give one example of an interstate that is constructed adjacent to a major downtown area that has either a 70 mile speed limit or one mile access spacing? Yet these are the assumptions that restrict reasonable access points from being proposed from the "B-3" alignment.

Can ODOT explain why the one mile access spacing is even an issue if through traffic is routed to separate express lanes?

[49C] 3) Contrary to ODOT's conclusion, Alternative "D" is the most costly alignment.

This is the big issue. We have to construct alternative"D" because it is the least expensive. ODOT's cost figures for Alternative "B" and "B-3" are, in my opinion, overestimated and their figures for Alternative "D" underestimated. ODOT"s cost figures for Alternative "B" and "B-3" include from 47 to 59 million dollars for the reconstruction of I-40 between Western and I-44 to widen it from eight lanes to ten lanes. It presently is an eight-lane facility, in good condition, and is functioning at service level "D" or better. It has capacity to carry the existing and anticipated traffic volumes and does not need to be rebuilt. ODOT contends that it needs to be rebuilt because it presently does not have a 70 mile per hour design speed.

ODOT's alignment for B-3 requires the acquisition of the cotton gin. An alignment that misses the cotton gin entirely appears to be possible. This would save $40 million in right-of-way acquisition costs.

Their cost estimates for Alternative "D" do not included an adequate bridge over the canal nor adequate sound barriers or mitigation for the remainder of the alignment. Their proposal does not include funds for a bridge east of Western that is necessary to make the Boulevard usable.

Perhaps more important than an accurate estimate of construction costs is an analysis of the life cycle costs of the various alternatives. ODOT has not completed this required analysis, is by far the most expensive alternative from a life cycle perspective. To claim that the construction, maintenance, and reconstruction of two parallel highways is cheaper than one is ludicrous on the face of it.

Life cycle costing is even more important in light of a member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation's recent announcement that additional "earmarked" funds may not be available for this project.

[49D] 4) Downtown OKC's economic viability is dependent on visibility and access.

Alternate "D" provides less convenient access to downtown and severely reduces its visibility form I-40.l this issue has been pointed out consistently by every credible expert that has looked at the proposal. This includes the ULI panel, the RTKL report, and the local real estate and downtown business community. Alternate "D" proposes to move a major portion of the regional traffic away from the downtown business core, which benefits from it. It proposes to reroute it through the Riverside Neighborhood, which is harmed by it. This issue is only partially corrected by keeping the existing bridge in place. The traveling public is still routed away from downtown.

[49E] 5) The long term viability of the Riverside Neighborhood is severely threatened by Alternate "D"

Neighborhoods do not benefit from having freeways built through or adjacent to them. This is especially true of the ten lane variety with 70 mile per hour design speed with interchanges on either side. Walls and sound barriers help, but do not solve the problem

[49F] 6) Federal law prohibits saving money on highway construction by routing them through minority neighborhoods.

While I don not agree that ODOT is saving money by choosing Alternate "D", that is their stated reason for their choice.

[49G] 7) Federal law prohibits routing highways through parks.

Alternate "D" proposes to shave the northern edge off of Wheeler park. If the highway is moved to the north to miss the park a railroad would have to be relocated, which appears to be unaccounted for in their cost estimates. Even if it misses Wheeler park, it will severely damage its tranquility and future use.

[49H] 8) Federal law requires an assessment of impacts on historic resources and reasonable efforts to mitigate impacts

ODOT's report regarding historic resources is oblivious to the many historic resources impacted. The report inventories obscure residential and commercial structures that are older than 50 years, while ignoring Alternative "D"'s impact on the Union Train Station, Little Flower Church, Wheeler Park, and the rest of the historic neighborhood. It is my understanding that, to date, the State Historic Preservation Office has not been contacted regarding this issue.

[49I] 9) Alternate "D"is harmful to the City's MAPS program.

Alternate "D" does not include an adequate grade separation of the canal and is devastating to the future of the river as a parks and recreational facility. The western end of the proposed route is to be constructed at grade adjacent to the river causing severe noise impacts and limiting the amount of adjacent green areas that can be developed.

Alternate "D" also reduces exposure and access to the remaining MAPS public and private investments. This is particularly true for the ballpark, arena, convention center, and downtown hotels.

Conclusion

In my view, ODOT's major investment study was orchestrated to justify a conclusion that had already been made. That conclusion was that Alternate "D" was easier to build than the other alternatives. There are many questions regarding the validity of their assumptions, the objectivity of their costs estimates, and the their assessment of neighborhood impacts, historical resources, and economic and community development impacts. We have recently learned that the bridge is not in danger of falling down and ODOT has not even attempted the required life cycle cost analysis. We should ask them to go back to the drawing boards to develop desirable alternatives based on realistic premises. These alternatives should be subjected to objective and independent analysis.

I am convinced that ODOT, working closely with the community, can develop an alternative that meets both Oklahoma City's needs and serves the traveling public. Oklahoma City deserves the best

[handwritten: some illegible:]
Pat Fennel 4-13-01
Cong. Istook Lt. Gov.
Jeff Clover Ann Syunacle
LCFA BOARD Member T. Douglas

RIVERSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS

(Community groups comprising residents, business owners and community based organizations)

Over the last few years, Riverside community groups comprising residents, business owners and community-based organizations have developed a listing of neighborhood needs and concerns. Some concerns originate from obvious and long-standing neighborhood quality of life issues that will be exacerbated by the impact of moving I-40 within the neighborhood. Other concerns relate directly from foreseeable impacts of the highway relocation to the neighborhood. These issues which should be mitigated prior to any decision to relocate I-40 can be organized into three main categories:

I. NEIGHBORHOOD SECURITY.

[50A] * Removal of drug houses
[50B] * Community Policing
[50C] * Additional lighting, paving of streets, construction of sidewalks, and improving sewers

II. COMMUNITY PROTECTION.

[50D] * Assurance and legal protection for fair and equitable replacements of lost housing and property due to I-40 reroute with comparable relocation free of cost to home and property owners. New affordable housing for people who are buying in the form of low interest loans and grants for those who already own their homes.

[50E] * Assurance and legal protection for fair and equitable replacements of lost business property due to I-40 reroute with comparable relocation free of cost to business property owners.

[50F] * Tax base frozen for lifetime for owner occupied residences and businesses to prevent gentrification. Tax base can be returned to the current tax base upon the death of the original owner.

[50G] * Noise, vibration and pollution reduction measures to lessen the adverse impacts of the I-40 reroute on the neighborhood and its landmarks: Little Flower Church, Wesley Center, Riverside School and Union Train Depot (Maximize resident and environmental safety).

[50H] * Access into and out of the community. Do not close Walker and Robinson streets at the same time during bridge construction. Keep access open to the north for both business and emergency community concerns.

[50I] * Transportation concerns. Along-term, accessible transportation/transit system be established for residents even after the highway is built.

III. MITIGATION NEEDS.

[50J] Green walkway from the new I-40 crosswalk and the river front.

[50K] * Fence, berm and vegetation for property owners/residents that will be affected by the walkway to the river.

[50L] * Riverfront property adjacent to Wheeler Park designated for a Latino Center for the Performing Arts.

[50M] * A plot of riverfront property deeded to the LCDA to establish an endowment to sustain the work of the agency in the neighborhood.

[50N] * First option on purchase of riverfront property between Walker and Robinson on both sides of the river granted to the LCDA for future development.

[50O] * A construction fund for the anticipated damage to physical structures caused by or related to the I-40 relocation. This fund should remain available for 8 to 10 years.

[50P] * A medical clinic and medical trust fund for residents afflicted by environmental or physical hazards related to I-40 reroute.

[50Q] * Noise barrier for the freeway. This should be monitored for at least 3 to 5 years to make sure that there are no problems in the future with assurance for necessary changes to accomplish effective barriers.

[50R] * A neighborhood youth center and gymnasium.

[50 S] * Training programs for displaced employees when employers have to re-locate.

[50T] * Legal fees incurred by the LCDA related to the relocation of I-40.

4/13/01

[A Court Reporter Product, each page had line numbers which were not reproduced in this OCR'd version]

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATE OF OKLAHOMA

IN RE: Crosstown Expressway 5

ODOT HEARING
TAKEN ON THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2001
IN THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY
AT THE CIVIC CENTER

REPORTED BY: REBECCA A. COFFMAN, C.S.R.

BAILEY
COURT REPORTING
(405) 232-7000
1619 FIRST NATIONAL CENTER OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73102

page 2

[51] [51A] DUNHAM: I'm Marshall Dunham and this is Ann Suttles, and we're with Stockyard City Main Street, and we have an office in Stockyard City.

Ann Suttles.

[51B] MS. SUTTLES: I'm Ann Suttles and the address is 17 Philbrooke, spelled like Philip, P-h-i-l-b-r-o-o-k-e Drive, Oklahoma City 73109. I'm also with Stockyard City Main Street.

[52] MR. DUNHAM: What we have come before you for is 11 to tell you that we had a meeting before with ODOT. We've had a meeting with Senator Leftwich. We've had a meeting 13 with Tom Love. And it's our understanding that they were going to do away with one of our exits at Agnew.

We're here today to make sure that they go ahead and give the exit at Pennsylvania but continue it on to Agnew so that our cattle trucks can get into the stockyards.

And they told us that they were going to work with us and try to make sure that happened. And that's why we're here today, to make sure that exit continues to work the way they tell us it's going to work, and at any time there's going to be a change from that, if they're going to deviate from that at all, we certainly want to be notified. Okay? And that's all we have.

Page 3

[53] MS. SUTTLES: Let's just add one thing, and that is that the cattle industry in Oklahoma City is the third largest industry behind only tinker and GM, and this would have a drastic effect if we did not have that exit.

[54] MR. DUNHAM: I would also say this, that the commissioner of the yards down there who is Rob Fisher said that if they close that exit off, that the yards would move, and we can't have that, it's been there since 1910. That's what he told us.

[55] MR. POOL: My name is Gail Pool. 705 Tiffin, Norman, Oklahoma 73071. Comments about what it is, I think that anyone who had a hand in making the decision with the [55A] deroute and what they're planning on doing, is either --- one of two things, is either incompetent or corrupt, or both.

The route change going to the de-route and tearing up a portion of the Union Station rail lines in the grade [55B] separations connected there, too, on Hudson and Walker, I think it is, it's going to tear up the potential and eventual center of mass transportation in central Oklahoma.

And I think it's just pure insanity for anyone to do this. And the only thing I can figure, it's for people [55C] who own a lot of property and make big bucks on changing the route.

We already have the crosstown route. It suffices,

Page 4

it can be rebuilt, redesigned in the location that it is at [55D] present. We wouldn't have the cost of acquiring new property and rights of way, and I just think it's a boondoggle to continue with what they're planning on doing. And other than that, now ---

[56] MR. CUNNINGHAM: MY name is R.C. Cunningham. 2534 West Interstate 40, and my telephone number is (405) 236-8332.

And my comment is that I own the Charlie O. Business Park, and we're going --- you're getting ready if you do Plan D, apparently, you're going to displace or move out 25 businesses. And I am very much against it, and I would like to figure out how I can object to it and make it known that I vehemently object to losing my business, because there's no place to replace the Charlie O. Business Park. That's the comment.

[57] MR. HELLAMS: My name is James A. Hellams, H-e-I-I-a-m-s. My residence is 1617 Randel Road, R-a-n-d-e-l, and that's Oklahoma City 73116-5627. (405) 842-9720.

[57A] Now, here we go. It is extremely unfortunate that the rail service to the Union Station is being wiped out by the I-40 Crosstown Expressway reroute. Let me give you [57B] some information. We now consume oil in the United States at the rate of 8 billion barrels annually. Worldwide the...

Page 5

...oil consumption is 29 billion barrels.

The Alaskan Oil Reserve, which is the last great oil reserve we have, is approximately 11 billion barrels, which means that in less than 18 months at the U.S. Consumption, that Alaskan Oil Reserve would be gone within less than five months at the Worldwide Oil consumption, that oil reserve would be gone.

Now, what does this have to do with the I-40 reroute? First of all, some figures. An airliner gets around 60 to 65 gross ton miles per gallon. A car gets around 25 to 50 gross ton miles per gallon. A bus gets 110 to 120 gross ton miles per gallon. A diesel truck, 18-wheeler, 120 to 200 gross ton miles per gallon. A diesel locomotive, 740 gross ton miles per gallon.

This means, for example, that in order for a two-ton car to get the same energy efficiency of a diesel locomotive, it would have to get 370 miles per gallon, or it would have to go two round trips, Oklahoma City to Tulsa, on one gallon of gas. Isn't that something?

Now, we need the rail service in this country because when the oil is gone worldwide, in another ten years when the oil industry goes into collapse, and you can refer to popular science, May 2000, Page 56, and see a report from the oil industry itself saying that around the year 2010 the oil industry will start collapsing on us.

Page 6

We need the train service, not only for the energy efficiency but also because it has a 200 history of being the most energy alternative means of transportation we have ever had. And that record is unmatched by any other mode of transportation.

[57C] This is extremely poor planning on the part of the Highway Department to reroute the Interstate 40 Crosstown to where it destroys the rail service to the Union Station. We will need that service when the oil starts collapsing on us.

Isn't that something?

And something else I might add, when the oil collapses we will face for the first time in the year 2010 a complete collapse of our transportation system. There will be nothing left for us to transport ourselves when the oil collapses, because we have not invested in the rail service in this country which, again, has a 200-year history of being the most energy-efficient and the most energy-alternative means of transportation we will ever have.

Let me -- in case someone comes back and says the trains are too slow, there are trains that are being developed now that can go from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth in 40 minutes, at 400 miles per hour. [58] MR. MASSEY: Jack R. Massey. I live at 433...

Page 7

...Southwest 26th Street, and my telephone number is 632-4387.

We haven't got a complaint. What we're interested in is when they start the construction, we have a business, is located at 1319 South Robinson, which has been there since 1946. And we're interested in if when they start the construction that they will either keep Robinson open, or the alternative is Walker. And if that is not possible, they're planning on making a trail across the construction here. And if they would make that where people could get into these businesses that is located on Robinson or Walker, it would be a big help. Because if they close this off for seven years, that's the end of the business. Nobody can --I went through two years of it in my lifetime when they built the bridge and repaired it. So, we would appreciate it if they could possibly leave at least one, either Robinson or Walker open during this construction.

And I've been to a lot of meetings. They -- because there's some of those businesses that have been down there even longer than I have. Acker's, for instance, have been there longer than ---

But ain't many of them that's been on that Robinson Street longer than I have.

[59] MR. HELLAMS: In 1973 we were 25 percent dependent on foreign powers for our oil supply, in 1999 and 2000, we have now reached approximately 60 percent...

Page 8

...dependency on foreign powers for oil. At the present rate of increase in our dependency on foreign powers for oil, we will be almost 100 percent dependent on foreign oil in THE next 30 years, which means that foreign powers now have the ability to take over and control this country, via the oil weapon.

[60] MIKKELSON: My name is Chuck Mikkelson, (405) 232-2281. And I'm with Mikkelson Beef Incorporated, which is a U.S.D.A. inspected meat and slaughter facility that will be affected by the route. And my concern is will I get just value for my business? Because I don't think appraisal value of the property will even come close to building the facility someplace else under the New U.S.D.A. guidelines. That's it.

[61] MS. HURON: My name is Mary Helen Huron. 525 Southwest 10th Street. My phone number is 236-5221. I'm a property owner, and I was concerned in the beginning because I thought our house was going to be taken along with the other houses on the other side of Walker. I am west of Walker and they're still saying that it might be a possibility if they need it and, you know, we think, well, whatever, there's nothing we can do about it, we know [61A] that. My real concern is of all the mess, the noise, all the closing of the streets, how it's going to affect us in our daily lives.

Page 9

And when it always gets finished, and they keep saying it's going to enhance the neighborhood, perhaps it will, and I [61B] think it's -- it will be a big change, but there's going to be some things that we're not going to like. It's just going to --I wish they wouldn't have to do so much at one time. Well, they are. [61C] Oh, yes, there is a concern for a lot of us because of homes in our area, you know, except for a few older homes. And with the vibration of the noise and everything we keep asking what's it going to do to our homes, you know, the foundation, you know, the walls and everything.

And the pastor of Little Flower asked, you know, if -- what is it, the Transportation Department, you know, would compensate him for any kind of damage, and they said no. So, I mean, that's the real part of the thing, is that whatever happens afterwards we're going to have to put up with.

[61D] The way I see it, 10th Street might be affected, I mean, very much, because we're just right there by the bridge. As it is right now we're close to the underpass. And so all this traffic comes in and out. They come out of there and they go in 50, maybe more, you know, miles an hour.

With the bridge --we're going to be surrounded by [61E] five bridges, so when the icy weather hits it's going to be...

Page 10

...a problem for some of us.

I feel better.

[62] MR. PUENTE: My name is David Puente, P-u-e-n-t-e. 685-8401. My mother lives at 523 Southwest 7th, one block north of the supposed bridge. My concern is to save that bridge. I don't mean -- I want to move it, I want to move it to the new park in recognition of the old neighborhood, something to be left and cherished by our grandchildren and our grandparents that have always been a part of our communication, to the north and south church, and downtown.

And we'd like to do something like that, say, preserve something of it, a big piece of it or --it's a beautiful place. A lot people have always played there, been there, met there, romantic, you know. And it has lights and everything above it, and it was a beautiful bridge. And I could just see it bulldozed over, you know, because that's progress anymore, you just destroy and never see it again.

So, we want to save the bridge and put it in the park, the new park, and that's what we're going to try and do. You know, we always can build highways, but to preserve something so beautiful from the past, people just are too concerned to tear it down.

Page 11

[63] MS. MADRID: I'm Mary Madrid. 708 Stall Drive. I live in Midwest City but I have property on the 7th Street, Southwest 7th and Walker, and my mom lives on Southwest 10th and Walker, so, we were just concerned about them taking her house, so now we can start working on her house. 63A That's one of the things I wanted to ask, is since they're going at the rebuild all this area, the houses that are going to be left, will they supply a low interest rate loan so they can fix their homes up, or do you know anything about that or who would we have to talk to? Because I know, you know, that's one of the things that we put off doing.

Well, I can write that in any way. We're having a meeting Thursday at our neighborhood association, and that's one of the things I wanted to bring up. [63B] And what else was I wondering, too? Do you know anything about the retaining wall, I mean, other than it being behind your property?

MS. ANDREWS: You know what, we are really only -- she is taking the -

MS. MADRID: Taking notes?

MS. ANDREWS: Uh-huh, and I'm here to help translate.

MS. MADRID: Okay. I know one of the guys that...

Page 12

...came, we were talking about our bridge on 10th and Walker, and we -- when we were little we just always used to go under it. David, you know. And we thought about I said, well, if there was a way 63C that we could save it, maybe just take pieces of the bridge and, like he said, put it in the park, maybe make a fountain around with those bricks that we --and then use the same bricks that we, you know, we walked on.

(off the record information given)

That's all we wanted to find out some information on because we had been talking and having our neighborhood association -- we wanted to bring it up and find out about that. It's a really neat design.

I know we need it, you know, that new freeway, and we were ready to move. So, you, know, my mom was ready. She said, if it has to happen, then let it happen, but they're kind of glad now that she's spared. Because she's old right now, she's in like her '70s and kind of - thanks anyway.

[64] MS. VINYARD: My name is Denia Vinyard. My address is 1630 Johnston Drive, Oklahoma City 03119. (405) 631-6909.

I work for Mr. Pick-Up Distributing and we are located at I-40 and Agnew in the Charlie O. Business Park. And we are definitely going to be affected by the new...

Page 13

...Crosstown Expressway.

And one of my problems that I had with most of the media coverage, in television and in newsprint was that they stated that 43 residences and 43 businesses would be affected by this relocation of the I-40 Crosstown.

The business complex that we are a tenant of, has probably 30 or 40, and possibly more, and I feel like this has been downplayed in the media so that the public doesn't really realize how many businesses are being affected, not just the initial small total that they have let us know, that would be being relocated by the I-40 Crosstown Expressway.

So I feel that it is very very important that we get an exact count and that the public does realize and know how many businesses and employees and thousands of dollars it will take to relocate these businesses. And I just feel that it has been already announced as being a very very low number.

And I feel that it needs to be truthfully printed exactly how many people and the total number of employees and the thousands of dollars in business investments that are going to be lost due to having to relocate finding that location is so important in business and there are so very very few high profile, high visibility locations left in Oklahoma City.

Page 14

I guess that's it.

* * * * *

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct Transcript of Proceedings had in the above-entiteld cause on the date afresaid,

[Handwritten Signature - Rebecca A. Coffman]

[Stamped with Rebecca A. Coffman's certificate]

I-40 Public Comment Summary

This listing represents a summary of the comments received by ODOT after January 17, 2001.

The official Public comment period ended March 15, 2001, but ODOT continued to accept comments received in an effort to capture all possible community input.
A total of 64 comments were received.

Point #1
Assumption of need/condition of bridge is questionable.
(3 Comments:7A, 39H, 46A)

The information included in Chapter 2 sufficiently addresses the need for action regarding the I-40 Crosstown Expressway. The statements therein regarding both the condition and structural components of the bridge are factual. Routing of vehicular traffic onto other roadways, free or turnpike, as a permanent solution to a deficient facility would create a gap in the interstate system. The diversion of traffic would not eliminate the need for improvements or repairs to the existing I-40 facility and would alter the existing conditions on other roadways, increasing traffic and amplifying the impacts to those roadways and corridors.

Point #2
Selection criteria was flawed/showed a lack of due diligence/defective reasoning/re-evaluate.
(9 Comments: 35J, 39B, 39C, 39K, 39L, 39M, 44A, 47E, 49B)

Goals and objectives reflective of the project sponsors', users', and community's expectations were developed as part of the public involvement process early in the study. Input from the Technical Advisory Committee, the Citizens Advisory Committee and general public were sought during public meetings held on August 6, 1996. The criteria and measures utilized in the tiered evaluation process were selected based upon the ability to best reveal differences among the alternatives, reflect local and regional goals and objectives, address known issues and minimize redundancy. The criteria and processes are explained in-depth in Chapter 3, section 3.4.

One comment stated that the impact to future passenger rail service should have been a ranking criteria. While this comment is noted, it would be difficult to make accurate predictions regarding impact of a roadway upon unknown, undefined and uncertain future passenger rail service. Another comment suggested that the criteria should have been weighted to reflect the relative importance of the various criteria. Weighting the various criteria would introduce more subjectivity to the review and evaluation process.

The I-40 Major Investment Study portion of the process included the findings of The MAPS Link. The MAPS Link is a Major Metropolitan Investment Study produced by the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) to meet the requirements of the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area Projects (MAPS) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) planning guidelines in pursuing the development of major corridor transit linkages. Evaluation of The MAPS Link considered several transportation alternatives, including rail, bus and transportation system management (TSM) improvements. The criteria selected to compare the alternatives for I-40 were based upon an attempt to evaluate and base decisions upon a balanced consideration of the need for safe and efficient transportation, of the social, economic and environmental impacts of the alternates and of national, state and local environmental protection goals. Those criteria and the tiered evaluation process are described in more detail in Chapter 3, part 3.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Point #3
Opportunity to review Draft Environmental Impact Statement was insufficient.
(2 Comments: 29A, 35G)

The required public notices were published stating the availability of the document for review. Additionally, ODOT held a press conference detailing the names and addresses of the locations where copies of the DEIS would be available for review. Those locations were: ODOT Central Office, Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, South Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, Neighborhood Services Organization, Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, Latino Community Development Agency, Oklahoma County Courthouse, Oklahoma City City Clerks Office, Capitol Hill Main Street, Metropolitan Library System Libraries and the libraries of the Oklahoma Department of Libraries. The number of libraries totaled 37 locations throughout the metropolitan area and statewide. The copies of the document were released January 17, 2001 and were available through the end of the public comment period on March 15, 2001.

Point #4
Request to review Final Environmental Impact Statement prior to submittal to the Federal Highway Administration.
(1 Comment: 29B)

The Final EIS will be made available to the public and resource agencies upon approval by the Federal Highway Administration to release the document. As such, individuals who have requested to receive the DEIS and/or the FEIS will have copies distributed to them when the FEIS is approved by the FHWA for release.

Point #5
Project is counter to ISTEA and TEA-21/City Master Plan/modern transportation practices.
(3 Comments: 35I, 39V, 47G)

The Major Investment Study process utilized for this project follows the consensus building and early involvement concepts outlined in the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) federal transportation bills.

The 2000 City Master Plan includes provisions for the I-40 Crosstown Expressway Alternate D.

Point #6
Support no-build/rebuild/repair/expansion of existing and limiting weight of trucks.
(10 Comments: 9E, 17B, 17D, 24B, 35B, 35K, 39I, 39J, 43C, 55D)

The information included in Chapter 2 sufficiently addresses the need for action regarding the I-40 Crosstown Expressway. The statements therein regarding both the condition and structural components of the bridge are factual. Routing of vehicular traffic onto other roadways, free or turnpike, as a permanent solution to a deficient facility would create a gap in the interstate system. The diversion of traffic would not eliminate the need for improvements or repairs to the existing I-40 facility and would alter the existing conditions on other roadways, increasing traffic and amplifying the impacts to those roadways and corridors. These suggestions are all able to be considered as part of the No Build Alternative. Chapter 3, part 3.4.4 details the reasons for elimination of the No Build Alternative.

Point #7
EIS does not consider entire system or the diversion of trucks/separation of trucks from cars.
(5 Comments: 39D, 39G, 47B, 47F, 48E)

Routing of vehicular traffic onto other roadways, free or turnpike, as a permanent solution to a deficient facility would create a gap in the interstate system. The diversion of traffic would not eliminate the need for improvements or repairs to the existing I-40 facility and would alter the existing conditions on other roadways, increasing traffic and amplifying the impacts to those roadways and corridors. These suggestions are all able to be considered as part of the No Build Alternative. Chapter 3, part 3.4.4 details the reasons for elimination of the No Build Alternative.

Point #8
Alt. D is more expensive when including the mitigation costs/revisit cost estimates.
(3 Comments: 39T, 46D, 49C)

Comparing the original estimates of the various alternates developed to the same level of detail at the same point in time reveals the following estimates for the alternates; D: $236.5 million, B: $272 million and B-3: $307 million (Chapter 3, Table 3-1). Utilizing the cost estimates included in the I-40 Relocation Land Use and Mitigation Plan produced by consultants for the City of Oklahoma City would increase the cost of Alternate D by $11.1 million for the measures that ODOT has committed to incorporating into the project. These mitigation measures are detailed in Chapter 5, part 5.24. By adding the mitigation measures into the original Alternate D estimate, the total estimated cost would become $247.6 million, which is still significantly below the next lowest estimate of $272 million for Alternate B. Since major interstate projects can not be constructed without impacts, any alternate selected would need to include mitigation measures. Closer examination of the other alternatives would reveal the need for mitigation measures not included in the original estimates.

Point #9
Perform a comprehensive independent review.
(3 Comment: 39W, 47H, 49J)

The Major Investment Study/Environmental Impact Statement process that was utilized in reaching the decision to pursue alternate D was a comprehensive and independent review of all reasonable and feasible alternates. A Technical Advisory Committee and a Citizens Advisory Committee were created to receive input from an interdisciplinary group consisting of a variety of informed and involved individuals and agencies. Additionally, the public meetings allowed public involvement in the development of the goals and criteria utilized in selecting a preferred strategy. All of the proposed alternates were subjected to a two tier evaluation process in an effort to fairly compare and contrast the alternates and provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Chapter 3, part 3.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement defines the screening and selection processes that were utilized in determining that alternate D was the most appropriate alternate for the needs of the community.

Point #10
Other alternates are more appropriate/better.
(2 Comments: 39X, 48F)

Chapter 3, part 3.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement defines the screening and selection processes that were utilized in determining that alternate D was the most appropriate alternate for the needs of the community. All of the proposed alternates were subjected to a two tier evaluation process in an effort to fairly compare and contrast the alternates and provide sufficient information to make an informed decision.

Point #11
Salvation Army has not been directly contacted.
(1 Comment: 40A)

The Salvation Army has been represented by Major George Hoosier, the Area Commander, on the Citizens Advisory Committee. As such, there should not be a lack of information within the organization in regards to the decisions to date. As indicated in Chapter 5, part 5.23a.3, Table 5-16, the Salvation Army will not be affected by the proposed right-of-way acquisition with Alternative D.

Point #12
Federal law prohibits saving money by routing projects through minority neighborhoods.
(1 Comment: 49F)

Federal rules and regulations do not allow for the selection of an alignment through minority neighborhoods based solely upon lower estimated costs. All of the proposed build alternates had impacts to minority neighborhoods. As stated in Chapter 3, part 3.5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, alternative D was selected based upon numerous reasons. Alternative D was chosen as being in the best overall public interest after all the alternatives were evaluated based upon a balanced consideration of the need for safe and efficient transportation, of the social, economic, and environmental impacts, and of national, state and local environmental protection goals. The criteria and processes utilized in selecting alternate D are outlined in Chapter 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Point #13
Don't harm/destroy landmarks such as Little Flower Church, Union Station or historic areas, concern about finding of no adverse effect to Union Station by State Historic Preservation Officer.
(8 Comments: 7J, 148, 17C, 29C, 35O, 39O, 46E, 49H)

In correspondence dated July 24, 2000 and contained in Draft Section 4(f) Statement Appendix A: Agency Coordination Letters, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) found that the project will have no adverse effect on the Union Station.

The SHPO was involved throughout the MIS/EIS process as a member on the Technical Advisory Committee. Representatives of SHPO attended the meetings and participated in the selection of alternatives as those alternatives were being developed. Therefore, the SHPO, through active participation in the process, was well informed as to the implications of the project. Please note that the SHPO finding of no adverse effect on Union Station relates solely to the eligibility of the property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and the determination of adverse effect on its

historical significance -not on its viability as a future passenger rail facility. ODOT has gone to great lengths to detail the anticipated impacts to historic properties in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Section 4(f) Statement. Alternate D will adversely effect 14 structures, 12 of which are buildings and 2 of which are underpasses for city streets under the railroads. The impacts and the resultant mitigation measures are discussed in Chapter 5, part 5.5 and are detailed in the Section 4(f) Statement which is included in Chapter 10 as Appendix F. SHPO is in concurrence with ODOT's recommendations and mitigation measures regarding historic properties.

Point #14
Concerns regarding noise, vibration and air pollution and the mitigation of the impacts.
(10 Comments: 4I, 4O, 7J, 30B, 34B, 46T, 48D, 50G, 50Q, 61C)

These issues are all addressed within Chapter 5.

In regards to air pollution, as seen in Chapter 5, part 5.1, a model using the worst case scenario 2020 design year traffic gives a peak hour concentration of carbon monoxide well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

As for noise, as discussed in Chapter 5, part 5.2, ODOT has committed to the construction of sound abatement walls at four impacted areas where the mitigation was determined to be feasible and reasonable. They are: Riverside Neighborhood North, Riverside Neighborhood South, Westlawn Gardens Neighborhood and Carver Community Neighborhood. Additionally, with respect to noise impacts, ODOT has committed to conducting additional noise impact studies in subsequent phases in order to ensure that all impacts are identified.

In relation to vibration, ODOT, with the assistance of the Federal Highway Administration, has found that studies conducted on transportation related vibration indicate that automobile vibrations are insignificant compared to heavy truck vibrations, and these, in turn, are insignificant relative to rail sources. Alternate D follows a rail corridor that has been in existence for over sixty years. Chapter 5, part 5.2c, Vibration Impact Analysis discusses these issues in-depth.

Concerns expressed regarding the impacts of vibrations on Little Flower Church, Wesley Center, Riverside School and Union Station have led ODOT to commit to structural surveys of these buildings in Chapter 5, part 5.2c.

Point #15
Concern regarding volume of traffic and disruption of Riverside Neighborhood and/or Little Flower Church.
(10 Comments: 14D, 14E, 18B, 34A, 35D, 35L, 47D, 49E, 61B, 61D)

The volume of traffic on local streets south of the alignment should not change as a result of the proposed action due to the fact that traffic generators are not being increased south of the alignment. Additionally, the safety of access into the Riverside area will be increased due to the improvement of geometrics and sight distances at the locations where both Robinson and Walker Avenues cross under the existing rail lines.

Point #16
Alt. D provides less visibility and access for downtown.
(1 Comment: 49D)

Alternate D would provide visibility for downtown from each end of the proposed alignment. As stated in parts 3.4.6 and 3.5 of Chapter 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, alternate D provides the best access for downtown Oklahoma City and Bricktown. Western, Walker and Robinson Avenues are major north/south streets, along with Shields Avenue, that cross the North Canadian River and provide access to downtown from the south.

Point #17
Alt. D has negative impacts to MAPS and Wheeler Park.
(3 Comments: 39U, 49G, 49I)

Oklahoma City has spent a great deal of time, effort and monetary resources developing the MAPS projects. As first described in part S.1 of the Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, alternate D includes a boulevard located within the existing I-40 corridor. The proposed boulevard would offer both access and visibility to the MAPS projects and downtown Oklahoma City. As the process progresses, public involvement with the enhancement aspects of the project will assist ODOT in determining methods to enhance the interfaces between MAPS projects, most specifically the canal, and to minimize the impacts of the proposed action on those investments.

Wheeler Park is located on the east side of Western Avenue. As stated in the detailed description of alternate D on page 5-15, part 5.3 of Chapter 5, the alignment is along the edge of Wheeler Park. In part 5.23a.3 of Chapter 5, access to the park will not be adversely impacted. Access to the park will be maintained during construction and permanent access will be provided via overpasses at Western, Walker and Robinson Avenues. Alternate D will not acquire property from Wheeler Park. At the request of the City of Oklahoma City, ODOT will conduct additional noise studies to evaluate noise impacts and the potential use of walls at or near Wheeler Park.

Point #18
Negative impact on remaining properties because criminals will relocate to the area.
(2 Comments: 14C, 14F)

Due to the depressed nature of the facility, pedestrian access to the roadway will be limited. Therefore, the likelihood of the facility attracting transients in a fashion similar to the existing overhead I-40 facility or the existing ground level rail corridor is reduced. The neighborhood park proposed as a mitigation measure in part 5.24 of Chapter 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement should improve the existing rail corridor which is currently attractive to illegal and transient activities. This park should enhance the visibility and prominence of adjacent structures such as the Latino Community Development Agency and the Neighborhood Services Organization.

Point #19
Concern that ODOT is downplaying business impacts, print actual number of people, businesses, and employees impacted.
(1 Comment: 64A)

The individual businesses anticipated to be required to relocate which were located within the corridor were counted, and the number of employees was estimated. The numbers reflected in table 3-3 in Chapter 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were determined in February 1998. The numbers in that table represent a comparison of the alternates at a uniform point in time and using comparable methods.

Point #20
Alt. D has a greater impact on residents than Alt. B-3.
(1 Comment: 35L)

Alternate D does have a greater impact in regards to the number of residential displacements as noted in Table 3-3 in Chapter 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. However, the land use impacts information contained within part 5.3 of Chapter 5 are based upon identification of current development trends as well as plans and policies on land use and growth within the area and is a comparison based upon acreage.

Selection of alternate D as the preferred alternate was based upon numerous ratings. All of the proposed alternates were subjected to a two tier evaluation process in an effort to fairly compare and contrast the alternates and provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Chapter 3, part 3.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement defines the screening and selection processes that were utilized in determining that alternate D was the most appropriate alternate for the needs of the community.

Point #21
Alternate D increases blight and vacant lots south of downtown.
(1 Comment: 35C)

As discussed within the last paragraph of part 5.3 of Chapter 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, transforming the existing facility to a grade-level boulevard with at-grade access to cross streets would provide the incentive for commercial development on vacant land and commercial redevelopment of existing industrial properties along the boulevard would increase.

Point #22
Investigate the need for soundwalls at Wheeler Park and west.
(1 Comment:21K)

Comment noted. ODOT will conduct additional investigations to determine the need for noise abatement measures from Wheeler Park and west.

Point #23
Preserve part of 10th and Walker railroad bridge in a park.
(2 Comments: 62A, 63C)

Comment noted. The railroad structures located on both Robinson and Walker will be adversely impacted by Alternate D. Mitigation measures for those structures are included in Chapter 5, part 5.5 and are detailed in the Section 4(f) Statement which is included in Chapter 10 as Appendix F. SHPO is in concurrence with ODOT's recommendations and mitigation measures regarding historic properties. These measures do not include the preservation of portions of the existing structures since there is no way to relocate the underpasses while retaining their essential historic function, features or design. They do however, as stipulated in Chapter 8 of the Section 4(f) Statement, include photodocumentation and preservation of existing plans or preparation of new architectural/engineering drawings. Additionally, the measures include the preparation of a substantive narrative report documenting the history of the area as well as a short version of the report. The short version will be provided free of charge to individuals, public libraries, schools, and other public and private entities interested in Oklahoma City history.

The SHPO was involved throughout the MIS/EIS process as a member on the Technical Advisory Committee. Representatives of SHPO attended the meetings and participated in the selection of alternatives as those alternatives were being developed.

Point #24
Provide additional lighting, paving, sidewalks, and sewers for neighborhood.
(3 Comments: 4F, 34B, 50C)

Alternate D includes the reconstruction of several city streets, most notably Agnew, Pennsylvania, Western, Walker, Robinson and Byers, which are directly impacted by the realignment. Upon reconstruction, these facilities will include all of the standard improvements such as lighting and associated sidewalks. Additionally, the Department will be working in cooperation with the City of Oklahoma City in order to determine the traffic flow impacts associated with the realignment and helping the City to best plan improvements with those demands in mind. The Department will commit to notify and encourage the City to consider this request for capital improvements to those areas not directly impacted by the realignment.

Point #25
Build sufficient number of lanes now.
(1 Comment: 12B)

Comment noted. As Table 3-1 in Chapter 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates, alternate D is able to carry the highest maximum traffic of any alternates at 146, 800 vehicles per day in the 2020 design year traffic.

Point #26
How will drainage be handled within depressed section and have impacts of dams been considered?
(1 Comment: 8A)

Stormwater would be collected in a storm sewer system for discharge into the river and its tributaries. The proposed project area is relatively flat and generally drains towards the river. Chapter 5, part 5.12 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement explains the effect to groundwater of damming the North Canadian River. The elevation of groundwater in the area of Shields to Walker Ave. will ultimately increase. ODOT will
take into consideration the estimated pool elevations of the impounded sections of the river as well as estimated groundwater elevations during the design phase.

Point #27
Revisit/reconsider interchange designs and access points.
(8 Comments: 1A, 6A, 21C, 21F, 21G, 52A, 53A, 54A)

ODOT is cognizant of the impacts associated with permanent changes in access for residents and businesses alike. The details of the preferred alternate are described at the beginning of both the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Final Environmental Impact Statement in the Summary on page S-1. Additionally, the alternate is described in Chapter 3, section 3.4.2 and a map is included as figure 3-4 of both the Draft and Final EIS. ODOT will study the interchanges along the proposed route, irrespective of the alternate finally cleared, in order to ensure that the final designs are based upon feasible and reasonable configurations for interchanges. The final configurations will be selected based upon anticipated design year traffic demands and design standards, taking into account safety, driver expectancy, right-of-way impacts, environmental impacts, cost and ease of construction. If significant changes are recommended for the interchanges reflected in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, ODOT will seek a modification to the FEIS through the processes established by federal policies as required.

Point #28
Boulevard should give access to surface streets between Oklahoma and Walker.
(1 Comment: 21D)

Comment noted. Access points to/from the at-grade portion of the boulevard will be determined in conjunction with the City of Oklahoma City during the design phase.

Point #29
Landscape boulevard, I-40, and pedestrian bridge.
(1 Comment: 21L)

Comment noted. ODOT anticipates including landscaping within the final design. Details will be developed with input from public involvement process. Part 5.24 of Chapter 5 discusses the pedestrian bridge and provides for the inclusion of special amenities and landscape features.

Point #30
Additional comments to come from Oklahoma City during design.
(1 Comment: 21M)

Comment noted. ODOT anticipates working closely with the City of Oklahoma City throughout the process.

Point #31
I-40 and railroad must bridge over MAPS canal.
(1 Comment: 21 H)

Comment noted. ODOT anticipates that structures will be required over the MAPS canal.

Point #32
Lower boulevard bridge from Western to Lee as much as possible.
(1 Comment: 21J)

Comment noted.

Point #33
Leave the entrance/exit ramps intact for the boulevard.
(1 Comment: 42B)

Exit and entrance ramps within the section of the proposed boulevard from east of Agnew to Western Avenue will remain as they exist now. Access points to/from the at-grade portion of the boulevard will be determined in conjunction with the City of Oklahoma City during the design phase.

Point #34
Will I-40 bridge be left alone or rebuilt?
(1 Comment: 5B)

The existing I-40 bridge structure is elevated from approximately Western Avenue to approximately Byers Avenue. The boulevard proposed to replace the existing facility will be elevated from approximately Western Avenue to approximately Lee Avenue west of Walker Avenue in order to avoid complex at-grade intersections with Classen Boulevard and Reno Avenue. The facility will be at-grade from approximately Lee Avenue west of Walker Avenue to the area necessary for elevation to begin in order to connect with the I-40/1-235 junction. This is first described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in part S.1 of the Summary.

Point #35
Ensure include fencing/security at site due to proximity of homeless people.
(1 Comment: 5F)

Comment noted.

Point #36
Provide fair housing replacements/compensation/safe and sound housing for displaced residents.
(5 Comments: 4G, 5H, 11A, 34B, 50D)

All property will be acquired and all residents will be relocated, as necessary, in a manner complying with all relevant Federal and State laws, statutes, regulations and policies. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation fully complies with the Code of Federal Regulations (Titles 23 & 49), State Statues (Title 69), Oklahoma Administrative Code (Title 730), Oklahoma Department of Transportation Policy, and Right-of-Way Division Policy & Procedures as applicable. Copies of the applicable laws, statutes, regulations, and policies & procedures can be made available upon request. The Relocation Assistance Program administered by the Department provides significant monetary and advisory benefits to the families, farms and businesses displaced by our many Federally funded transportation projects.

When projects of similar nature to the I-40 Crosstown have been undertaken in the past, there has occasionally been the need for Replacement Housing of Last Resort.

This method of providing replacement housing is especially useful in areas where little, if any, comparable replacement housing is available and is justified when comparable replacement dwellings are not available within the monetary limits for owners or tenants. Replacement Housing of Last Resort must be adequately justified on a case-by-case basis, per 49 CFR Section 24.404.

As always, no person will be required to move from a displacement dwelling unless comparable replacement housing is available.

Point #37
Provide new affordable housing/low interest loans/grants for repairs.
(3 Comments: 34B, 50D, 63A)

Various federal agencies and the City of Oklahoma City have a variety of loan and grant programs available. The Department will consider conducting educational seminars to introduce impacted individuals to the various programs available and the agencies responsible administering those programs.

All property will be acquired and all residents will be relocated, as necessary, in a manner complying with all relative Federal and State laws, statutes, regulations and policies. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation fully complies with the Code of Federal Regulations (Titles 23 & 49), State Statues (Title 69), Oklahoma Administrative Code (Title 730), Oklahoma Department of Transportation Policy, and Right-of-Way Division Policy & Procedures as applicable. Copies of the applicable laws, statutes, regulations, and policies & procedures can be made available upon request. The

Relocation Assistance Program administered by the Department provides significant monetary and advisory benefits to the families, farms and businesses displaced by our many Federally funded transportation projects.

When projects of similar nature to the I-40 Crosstown have been undertaken in the past, there has occasionally been the need for Replacement Housing of Last Resort. This method of providing replacement housing is especially useful in areas where little, if any, comparable replacement housing is available and is justified when comparable replacement dwellings are not available within the monetary limits for owners or tenants. Replacement Housing of Last Resort must be adequately justified on a case-by-case basis, per 49 CFR Section 24.404.

Point #38
Provide fair business replacements and provide time/expenses for relocation.
(6 Comments: 4H, 5H, 328, 34B, 50E, 60A)

All property will be acquired and all businesses will be relocated, as necessary, in a manner complying with all relative Federal and State laws, statutes, regulations and policies. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation fully complies with the Code of Federal Regulations (Titles 23 & 49), State Statues (Title 69), Oklahoma Administrative Code (Title 730), Oklahoma Department of Transportation Policy, and Right-of-Way Division Policy & Procedures as applicable. Copies of the applicable laws, statutes, regulations, and policies & procedures can be made available upon request. The Relocation Assistance Program administered by the Department provides significant monetary and advisory benefits to the families, farms and businesses displaced by our many Federally funded transportation projects.

Please note that, while the current relocation program provides for supplemental payments to residential owners and tenants to ensure replacement, no such benefits are presently in place for supplemental payments to displaced businesses for replacement, free of cost, of lost business properties.

Point #39
Willing to sell property/please take my property.
(3 Comments: 3A, 10A, 19C)

Comment noted. Final decisions on right-of-way takings will not be made until design plans are sufficiently developed. Work on the final design plans can not be started until after the Federal Highway Administration has signed a Record of Decision on the proposed project.

Point #40
Please don't take my property.
(1 Comment: 32A)

Comment noted. Final decisions on right-of-way takings will not be made until design plans are sufficiently developed. Work on the final design plans can not be started until after the Federal Highway Administration has signed a Record of Decision on the proposed project.

Point #41
Buy sufficient right-of-way now.
(1 Comment: 12A)

Comment noted. Final decisions on right-of-way takings will not be made until design plans are sufficiently developed. Work on the final design plans can not be started until after the Federal Highway Administration has signed a Record of Decision on the proposed project.

Point #42
Changing street and rail access will cause/has caused property values to fall.
(1 Comment: 31A)

Access to properties must be maintained both during and after construction. There is no proven fact, of which we are aware, in which changing permanent access to particular properties within the corridor will have an adverse impact to the property values. The Department is cognizant of the hardships caused by reduced access and traffic disruptions during construction. Due to that fact, the Department commits to investigating a number of alternative methods to maintain access to various areas during construction. The Department will strive to ensure that adequate means of accessing the area, local businesses and residences, are provided through the various phases of construction.

Point #43
Keep in mind traffic disruption and need for access to businesses and residents/do not close Robinson and Walker at the same time. Be sensitive to needs.
(10 Comments: 2A, 4B, 4C, 4J, 21I, 34B, 42D, 50H, 58A, 61A)

The Department is cognizant of the hardships caused by reduced access and traffic disruptions during construction. Due to that fact, the Department commits to investigating a number of alternative methods to maintain access to various areas during construction. However, due to the constraints of constructing a depressed section with an active railroad, there may be no manner by which to maintain traffic on Walker or Robinson at a given point in time. The Department will strive to ensure that adequate means of accessing the area, local businesses and residences, are provided through the various phases of construction.

Point #44
ODOT should maintain boulevard as an interstate business route.
(1 Comment: 21E)

Comment noted. Further discussions will be held with the City of Oklahoma City in order to determine responsibilities on the proposed boulevard.

Point #45
Do not have weight restrictions on boulevard.
(1 Comment: 42C)

Comment noted. A determination on that matter has not been made yet. ODOT will consider and evaluate the applicability of weight-restrictions for the boulevard when determining and developing specific design details and through continued discussions with the City of Oklahoma City.

Point #46
Icy bridges will cause access problems for area.
(1 Comment: 61E)

Comment noted. The proposed project removes the longest bridge in the state of Oklahoma. It would be replaced by several smaller structures with snow and ice removal the responsibility of Oklahoma City. The City of Oklahoma City has prioritized routes for the systematic removal of snow and ice. Sanding and salting operations are utilized as needed by the City of Oklahoma City.

Point #47
Current grade separated railroad activity will be moved to two at-grade crossings.
(3 Comments: 7J, 390,460)

It is correct that two grade separated crossings will be removed as part of Alternate D and that train traffic will increase on the Packingtown Lead located at approx. S 21st Street. However, it must also be noted that at-grade crossings are being eliminated at the following locations: Union Pacific (UP) at Shartel Ave., Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) at Shartel Ave., UP at Western Ave., BNSF at Western Ave., and UP at Pennsylvania. Additionally, train traffic will be reduced at the following BNSF crossings: SW 15th, Sulzberger Ave., Indiana Ave. and McKinley.

Therefore, Alternate D reduces the overall potential for train/vehicle conflicts.

Point #48
Alternate D has adverse impact on intermodal/multi-modal systems, particularly railroads/rail transit/Union Station function as rail facility.
(31 Comments: 7B, 7J, 9B, 24A, 26A, 27B, 27C, 33A, 35F, 35M, 35N, 38A, 39A, 39N, 39R, 41A, 43B, 44C, 46E, 46G, 46J, 46L, 46M, 46N 46D, 46P, 46T, 47C, 48B, 55B, 57A)

The potential impact of Alternate D to multi-modal transportation opportunities, most specifically to rail transportation, was the most commonly repeated concern within the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. There are comments that the placement of Alternate D within the railroad corridor will impact the use of the corridor as an efficient rail corridor and that it will eliminate the potential for rail transit within Oklahoma City and destroy the potential for passenger rail service from Union Station.

Reiterating the specifics of the corridor, along the portion of the corridor from approximately Western to approximately Shields, there are two active rail lines. The northernmost of these is a state owned line leased to, and operated by, the Union Pacific Railroad (UP). The southernmost of these is a line belonging to the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF). These are located immediately behind the Union Station located at 300 SW 7th.

Several statements regarding the final alignment of the railroads shall help clarify the final disposition of the rail lines. The line operated by the UP will be depressed, along with the roadway, from approximately Santa Fe Ave. to approximately Western Ave. and maintain approximately the current alignment. The east-west line belonging to the BNSF will be removed and the trains diverted to the south of the North Canadian River on an existing east-west line referred to as the Packingtown Lead. Utilization of this line and the existing north-south BNSF mainline in conjunction with improvements to the Flynn Yard will ensure continued service for the area, particularly continuing the connection between to the area of Will Rogers World Airport and downtown.

During plan development and design activities, sufficient width will be provided between Union Station and the UP operated rail line for a slip-track rail line to be constructed in the future for the support of passenger rail service if Union Station is ever brought back into use as a passenger rail facility.

Currently, the passenger rail facility serving Oklahoma City is the Santa Fe Station located on the BNSF mainline just three blocks east and six blocks north of Union Station.

Point #49
Alternate D is a bad idea/wrong/ridiculous/a mistake/shows incompetence or corruption/poorly planned/short sighted/less than optimum.
(13 Comments: 70, 7J, 9C, 17A, 18A, 35A, 43A, 46B, 48A, 55A, 55C, 56A, 57C)

Comments noted. The Department has gone through and completed numerous studies and accepted public comments throughout the process in reaching this decision. All of the proposed alternates were subjected to a two tier evaluation process in an effort to fairly compare and contrast the alternates and provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Chapter 3, part 3.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement defines the screening and selection processes that were utilized in determining that alternate D was the most appropriate alternate for the needs of the community.

Point #50
Alternate D is good idea/support selection/improvement/best.
(10 Comments: 4A, 5A, 13A, 16A, 19B, 20E, 21B, 22B, 23A, 25B)

Comments noted. The Department has gone through and completed numerous studies and accepted public comments throughout the process in reaching this decision. All of the proposed alternates were subjected to a two tier evaluation process in an effort to fairly compare and contrast the alternates and provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Chapter 3, part 3.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement defines the screening and selection processes that were utilized in determining that alternate D was the most appropriate alternate for the needs of the community.

Point #51
Remove drug houses.
(3 Comments: 4D, 34B, 50A)

ODOT is committed to acquiring those properties necessary to construct the proposed facility as well as those properties necessary to provide the three-square block neighborhood park bounded by Robinson Ave., Walker Ave., SW 9th Street and SW 10th Street. State and federal laws governing the acquisition of real property bind the actions of ODOT. A taking of additional private properties from individual citizens due to claims of, or in order to alleviate the potential for, illegal activities which may occur on those properties is not within the power of ODOT.

Point #52
Increase community policing.
(3 Comments: 4E, 34B, 50B)

In completing this project, ODOT will be working in a cooperative nature with the City of Oklahoma City. ODOT is willing to commit to formally notify and request that the City give consideration to this request for an increased police presence in the area.

Point #53
Freeze tax base to prevent gentrification.
(2 Comments: 34B, 50F)

ODOT is not responsible for determining, setting or influencing the taxes on real property. Those are wholly the responsibility of the City and County governments. ODOT will however, commit to notify and request consideration by the City and County governments of this request for adjustments to the current tax system.

Point #54
Provide improved transportation/transit system for Riverside Neighborhood.
(3 Comments: 4K, 34B, 50I)

The MAPS Link transit study conducted by the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) is embraced with the OEIS. COTPA, operating as Metro Transit, is currently proposing a long-range goal of establishing a family of services and designing a network of hubs where services meet for transfers. ODOT will commit to notifying COTPA of the noted concerns and requesting that they receive consideration.

Point #55
Create a walkway from I-40 to N. Canadian River.
(2 Comments: 34B, 50J)

This concept is addressed within the Interstate 40 Relocation Land Use and Mitigation Plan developed by the City. ODOT will commit to forwarding this request to the City for further consideration. However, ODOT maintains that the only concepts from the plan that will be incorporated into the I-40 realignment project are: the proposed boulevard, the park bounded by Robinson Ave., Walker Ave., SW 9th Street and SW 10th Street, the utilization of certain architectural aspects of the neighborhood in the design of the retaining/noise walls, and the enhanced pedestrian bridge.

Point #56
Provide berms and fences to line walkway from I-40 to N. Canadian River.
(3 Comments: 4M, 34B, 50K)

This item would need to be incorporated into the design produced by the City for the previous item. This is beyond the scope of anticipated measures instituted by ODOT, but ODOT will commit to forwarding your comment to the City for further consideration.

Point #57
Grant a section of river front property adjacent to Wheeler Park for Latino Center for Performing Arts.
(2 Comments: 34B, 50L)

This item will need to be presented to the City as it is beyond the scope of ODOT's authority and is under the purview of the City. ODOT will commit to forwarding this request to the City.

Point #58
Deed a plot of river front property to the Latino Community Development Agency (LCDA) to establish an endowment so that the LCDA may continue work.
(2 Comments: 34B, 50M)

This item will need to be presented to the City as it is beyond the scope of ODOT's authority and is under the purview of the City. ODOT will commit to forwarding this request to the City.

Point #59
Grant LCDA first option on purchase of river front property.
(2 Comments: 34B, 50N)

This item will need to be presented to the City as it is beyond the scope of ODOT's authority and is under the purview of the City. ODOT will commit to forwarding this request to the City.

Point #60
Establish a construction fund to pay for damages associated with I-40.
(4 Comments: 4L, 30A, 34B, 50D)

ODOT maintains that damages should not occur to structures as a result of the construction or operation of the facility. In the last paragraph of part 5.2c of Chapter 5, ODOT has committed to conducting building condition surveys for the area landmarks prior to and after construction of the facility in order to determine if construction and traffic induced vibration impacts result. ODOT does not establish separate construction funds to be held in the event that damages are sustained as a result of transportation projects.

Point #61
Construct a medical clinic and trust fund for damages associated with I-40.
(3 Comments: 4N, 34B, 50P)

ODOT maintains that there should be no residents "afflicted by environmental or physical hazards" related to the relocation of I-40. It is beyond the normal scope to construct medical facilities as part of transportation projects. However, ODOT will commit to assisting the LCOA, or other community group, in seeking funding for medical facilities from other agencies or entities as appropriate.

Point #62
Construct a neighborhood youth center and gymnasium.
(3 Comments: 4P, 34B, 50R)

ODOT maintains that a youth center and gymnasium are beyond the scope of this project. The proposed project does not directly impact existing youth center or gymnasium facilities and as such, construction of these facilities does not represent a viable mitigation measure. ODOT will commit however, to forwarding this request to the City and requesting that the youth center and gymnasium be given consideration by the City.

Point #63
Training programs for displaced workers.

(3 Comments: 4Q, 34B, 50S)

ODOT will assist all businesses affected by this construction project with their relocation needs as applicable to the aforementioned laws, statutes, regulations, policies & procedures. Specific training, however, is not a normal benefit provided to employees of displaced businesses. ODOT will investigate training opportunities for displaced employees which demonstrate a need.

Point #64
Reimburse legal fees incurred by the Latino Community Development Agency related to I-40.
(2 Comments: 34B, 50T)

ODOT will not reimburse the Latino Community Development Agency for legal fees incurred related to the relocation of I-40. ODOT is not willing to reimburse legal fees for individuals or organizations that employ the services of legal counsel unless ordered to do so as part of a judgment resulting from litigation.

Point #65
We have time, so do it right the first time.
(1 Comment: 46C)
Comment noted.

Point #66
Money is not available for I-40 or Oklahoma City's I-40 Relocation Land Use and Mitigation Plan. Alt. D creates more road to maintain/creates burden for OKC.
(7 Comments: 7G, 7J, 9D, 35E, 35H, 46I, 46T)

The comments are correct in that ODOT does not have sufficient funds currently available to complete construction on I-40. ODOT intends to continue seeking additional funds.

The plan developed within the I-40 Relocation Land Use and Mitigation Plan was developed by a consultant for the City of Oklahoma City as a plan to best address the surrounding land use considerations. Financing for the entire plan has not been secured by the City of Oklahoma City.

Maintenance responsibilities will be determined in future discussions with the City of Oklahoma City.

Point #67
Plan benefits trucking industry.
(1 Comment: 9A)

Comment noted. The increased capacity and safety associated with alternate D should benefit all of the traveling public. The Department has gone through and completed numerous studies and accepted public comments throughout the process in reaching this decision. All of the proposed alternates were subjected to a two tier evaluation process in an effort to fairly compare and contrast the alternates and provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Chapter 3, part 3.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement defines the screening and selection processes that were utilized in determining that alternate D was the most appropriate alternate for the needs of the community.

Point #68
Plan is not major impact due to existing transportation corridor.
(1 Comment: 20B)

Comment noted.

Point #69
I-40 north.
(1 Comment: 14A)

All of the proposed alternates were subjected to a two tier evaluation process in an effort to fairly compare and contrast the alternates and provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Chapter 3, part 3.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement defines the screening and selection processes that were utilized in determining that alternate D was the most appropriate alternate for the needs of the community.

Point #70
Current facility is beyond design life/bad condition/dangerous/support updating.

(6 Comments: 19A, 20D, 21A, 22A, 25A, 42A)

Comments noted. These comments reflect the condition of the facility as shown in Chapter 2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Point #71
Plan increases barriers for link from downtown to N. Canadian River.
(1 Comment: 35L)

Pedestrian linkage between downtown and the N. Canadian River would be facilitated and improved by combining the two existing barriers -the BNSF/UP railroad corridor and the I-40 corridor -into a single facility as proposed under alternate D. Protected pedestrian crossings will be accomplished at Robinson, Walker, Western, Pennsylvania and Agnew in addition to the dedicated pedestrian crossing facility referenced in part 5.24 of Chapter 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Each of these crossings will allow pedestrians, separated from traffic, to cross over the combined railroad/interstate facility. Currently pedestrians can only safely cross below the railroad corridor at the two grade separations at Robinson and Walker.

Point #72
Want noise and pollution levels for street in front of house before and after.
(1 Comment: 30C)

The existing and anticipated impacts of noise and air pollution are detailed in Chapter 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Obtaining data at every residential site is cost prohibitive. Baseline ambient noise levels were measured at strategic locations in the study area. These numerous sites are located throughout the length of the proposed improvement allowing for the generation of computer models to reflect the anticipated sound level contours. Part 5.2a.1 of Chapter 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement details the efforts to determine the noise contour lines. Parts 5.1a and 5.1b of Chapter 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement detail the air quality analysis and air pollution prevention strategies.

Point #73
Alternate D has the best access.
(1 Comment: 20C)

Comment noted. This concurs with the reasons for selecting alternate D as shown in
part 3.5 of Chapter 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Point #74
Separation of church and state should not allow use of federal funds for inclusion of architectural aspects of Little Flower Church in retaining/soundwalls.
(1 Comment: 36A)

Comment noted. The inclusion of architectural similarities to the Little Flower Church as committed to in part 5.24 of Chapter 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not represent the establishment of a state/religion relationship, but rather is representative of including aspects of surrounding physical features to make a transportation improvement blend into the natural and human environment.

Point #75
Alt. D encourages more traffic and congestion.
(4 Comment: 7F, 7J, 46H, 46T)

Alternate D, as reflected in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, will serve to reduce congestion. Table 3-1 in Chapter 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement shows that alternate D is the most capable of accommodating higher traffic volumes. Alternate D, with the proposed boulevard will reduce traffic congestion due in part to the separation of through and local traffic, thus increasing safety. Since the interchanges to which the proposed improvement connects will not be improved significantly, alternate D is not likely to encourage additional traffic due to the existing constraining features remaining in place.

Point #76
Revisit the no-build with other considerations.
(1 Comment: 29D)

Routing of vehicular traffic onto other roadways, free or turnpike, as a permanent solution to a deficient facility would effectively create a gap in the interstate system. The diversion of traffic would not eliminate the need for improvements or repairs to the existing I-40 facility and would alter the existing conditions on other roadways, increasing traffic and amplifying the impacts to those roadways and corridors. All of the proposed alternates were subjected to a two tier evaluation process in an effort to fairly compare and contrast the alternates and provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Chapter 3, part 3.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement defines the screening and selection processes that were utilized in determining that alternate D was the most appropriate alternate for the needs of the community.

Point #77
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad was not fully informed.
(1 Comment: 39P)

Both of the railroad companies, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company and the Union Pacific Railroad Company had representatives on the Technical Advisory Committee. This is reflected in the Technical Advisory Committee Membership List contained in Chapter 10 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Point #78
Look at DART and Heartland Flyer as successful examples of rail.
(3 Comment: 7J, 39S, 46S)

Comments noted.
The Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority conducted a major metropolitan investment study entitled "The Link" to study the development of major corridor transit linkages. This study found a rail transit linkage to west to be unfeasible.

The Heartland Flyer is currently operating on the BN&SF mainline out of the Santa Fe Station. The Santa Fe Station is located near numerous downtown attractions and is situated three blocks east and six blocks north of Union Station.

Point #79
The Intermodal Times, Feb. 2001 issue.
(1 Comment: 7J)

Article noted.

Point #80
Nobody on citizen/technical advisory committees to support rail interests or speak to value of rail.
(2 Comments: 7J, 46K)

The Technical Advisory Committee had members representing rail and transit interests which included the BN&SF Railway Company, Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, ODOT Rail Planning, Oklahoma Railroad Association and Union Pacific Railroad. This is reflected in the Technical Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee Membership Lists contained in Chapter 10 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Point #81
is the location of downtown exits and will streets be widened?
(1 Comment 28A)

The downtown area would be accessed by 1) the proposed boulevard, 2) exiting the new I-40 facility at Shields Boulevard or 3) exiting the new I-40 facility at Western Avenue. Alternate D would include reconstructing Agnew, Pennsylvania, Western, Walker, Robinson and Byers within the I-40 right-of-way. Currently there are no plans for widening any streets for access into downtown.

Point #82
Does ODOT have an internet web site for I-40?
(1 Comment: 2B)

ODOT does not currently have an internet web site for I-40.

Point #83
Would like additional retaining wall information.
(1 Comment: 63B)

Comment noted. Details on retaining wall types and locations will be made during the design phase of the project.

Point #84
Petroleum price increases will increase use of/need for rail/decrease trucks.
(4 Comments: 39E, 48C, 57B, 59A)

Comment noted.

Point #85
Cost allocation studies show trucks do not pay fair amount for maintenance.
(1 Comment: 39F)

Comment noted.

Point #86
Alt. D is good because it can be built without disturbing traffic during construction.
(1 Comment: 20A)

Comment noted.

Point #87
Use the existing I-40 alignment for passenger rail facility.
(1 Comment: 15A)

Comment noted. The Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority conducted a major metropolitan investment study entitled "The Link" to study the development of major corridor transit linkages. This study found a rail transit linkage to the west to be unfeasible.

Point #88
Salvation Army needs to remain in the geographic area.
(1 Comment: 40B)

Major George Hoosier, the Salvation Army area commander, served as a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee. As indicated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 5, Part 5.23a.3, the Salvation Army facility will not be affected by right-of-way acquisition for Alternate D.

Point #89
Salvation Army wants to be able to acquire the Post Office facility.
(1 Comment: 40C)

ODOT will inform the U.S. Post Office administrator at the SW 5th Street facility of the Salvation Army's expressed interest in acquiring the site.

Point #90
Construct a super two bypass for trucks along modified Alt. D and improve the existing structure.
(1 Comment: 45A)

Construction of a super two bypass for trucks does not address the needs of the existing I-40 facility. Construction of a two lane facility on separate alignment would alleviate a portion of the traffic impacts, but would not eliminate the conditions which exist within the current facility. Chapter 2 details the need for action regarding the condition of the existing facility. The condition of the deck and substructure of the existing bridge, in addition to the presence of approximately 250 fracture critical members, substandard geometrics, improperly spaced ramps and inadequate shoulders to provide safe refuge, would continue to plague the structure and hinder the traveling public. Action would still need to be taken and would result in the attendant disruption of traffic and financial costs. Additionally, the construction of a two lane facility with median and shoulders could not be accomplished without impacts to various railroad features, neighborhoods, historic properties, parks and/or MAPS improvements due to the urbanized setting within the corridor.

All of the proposed alternates were subjected to a two tier evaluation process in an effort to fairly compare and contrast the alternates and provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Chapter 3, part 3.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement defines the screening and selection processes that were utilized in determining that alternate D was the most appropriate alternate for the needs of the community.

Point #91
Can bidding be limited to local bidders to provide substantial economic growth?
(1 Comment: 5C)

Federal requirements will not allow bidding to be limited to only local bidders.

Point #92
Will 1-240 be resurfaced after completion of Alt. D?
(1 Comment: 5D)

The decision to resurface 1-240 is independent of the I-40 work.

Point #93
Request warranty of project/scheduled completion dates/references.
(1 Comment: 5E)

Comment noted. Under the provisions of 23 CFR 635.413, National Highway System projects are not allowed to include general project warranties. ODOT will determine construction contract durations in the development of construction contract documents.

Point #94
Who will have traffic law enforcement responsibility on proposed route?
(1 Comment: 5F)

All appropriate law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction will have enforcement capabilities on the proposed route.

Point #95
Boulevard and mitigation plan place a maintenance burden on Oklahoma City.
(1 Comment: 35E)

The ownership and maintenance responsibility for the proposed boulevard has not yet been determined. The mitigation plan committed to within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement also contains provisions for a Pedestrian Bridge and Greenway Link over I-40, a park from Robinson to Walker and from SW 9th to SW 10th , and noise walls reflecting similar architectural details of the Little Flower Church. These details are included in part 5.24 of Chapter 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The total plan developed within the I-40 Relocation Land Use and Mitigation Plan was developed by the City of Oklahoma City as a plan to best address the surrounding land use considerations. Financing for the entire plan has not been secured by the City of Oklahoma City and is not a part of this project.

Point #96
Other cities redeveloping depot facilities.
(5 Comments: 7C, 7H, 7J, 46F, 46R)

Comments noted. The Santa Fe Station Depot has been renovated recently in Oklahoma City. Alternate D will allow for the use of Union .Station as a passenger rail facility if it is ever appropriate in that the design will allow for sufficient room for a second track to be installed in the future if necessary.

Point #97
Future generations will pay price/be burdened by Alt. D.
(4 Comments: 7E, 7I, 7J, 47A)

Comment noted. All transportation improvements produce an irretrievable commitment of resources, both material and financial. Chapter 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement details the alternatives that were considered and provides the information utilized to make an informed decision for this situation in this community. Chapter 2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement outlines the current need for action.

Point #98
Realignment of roadway south of rail is excellent.
(1 Comment: 27A)

Comment noted. All of the proposed alternates were subjected to a two tier evaluation process in an effort to fairly compare and contrast the alternates and provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Chapter 3, part 3.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement defines the screening and selection processes that were utilized in determining that alternate D was the most appropriate alternate for the needs of the community.

Point #99
Limit commercial development along corridor.
(1 Comment: 35P)

Comment noted. Land use and zoning falls under the jurisdiction of the City of Oklahoma City.

Point #100
ODOT was predisposed to/wanted Alt. D all along.
(2 Comments: 44B, 49A)

All of the proposed alternates were subjected to a two tier evaluation process in an effort to fairly compare and contrast the alternates and provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Chapter 3, part 3.4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement defines the screening and selection processes that were utilized in determining that alternate D was the most appropriate alternate for the needs of the community.