Friends for a Better Boulevard

[Dubya61]

However, I'd encourage people to look at downtown in 2012, and to stop looking at downtown in 2000 (C2S) and especially throw out plans based on the 1990 outlook (ODOT's basis here). That 2012 reality, that so few people have keyed in on, is that I really think the best development opportunity is the west side of downtown - it has traffic counts that don't exist anywhere else (bumper-to-bumper traffic on Western), and it has cheap real estate fronting Western - classic rent gap situation. I'm not saying to abandon C2S, I'm just saying that C2S needs to evolve to reflect the changes that have occurred in the last 10 years in order to be as successful as we all want.

Then the bottom line, for me, becomes this - if you're wanting to put downtown's west side to the highest possible use to take advantage of this golden opportunity, you gotta do this traffic circle. It's such a natural way to build the world-class environment we're looking for.

In reality there are always more than two options, but the Market Circle (Octagon? Tetradecagon?) idea is a lot like OKC's past of doubling down on the bet (stealing from Steve Lackmeyer). Go big or go home ... and do nothing.

Certainly returning to the grid and doing nothing is lots better than doing nothing and letting ODOT run OKC.

[BoulderSooner]

In reality there are always more than two options, but the Market Circle (Octagon? Tetradecagon?) idea is a lot like OKC's past of doubling down on the bet (stealing from Steve Lackmeyer). Go big or go home ... and do nothing.

Certainly returning to the grid and doing nothing is lots better than doing nothing and letting ODOT run OKC.

odot is not running okc .. they are building a road on property that they already own ..

[Dubya61]

odot is not running okc .. they are building a road on property that they already own ..

Yeah, I get it, but why? Why does ODOT want to own that anyway? Forgive me if I'm late to the discussion, but what value does that land/road mean to ODOT or the State of Oklahoma?

[Buffalo Bill]

This land/road is something that ODOT is legally bound to by virtue of the EIS and the NEPA process that took place for the new crosstown.

[Tier2City]

Where is the boulevard EIS and documentation about the NEPA process?

[Dubya61]

So what would it take to get a better solution? If exes can get child custody modifications, certainly cities can negotaite changes to EIS / NEPA (/M-O-U-S-E?) stuff.

[Hutch]

Most of the traffic squares out there are associated with (a) vintage neighborhoods with perpendicular and parrallel streets with a small one-block square neighborhood park built into the middle of the grid or (b) vintage downtowns with perpendicular and parrallel streets with a small one-block court house area or small plaza or park built into the middle of the grid. Those involve two-lane, non-arterial streets intersecting at right angles that handle low-volume, low-speed traffic. They are not primary 4-lane avenues and boulevards intersecting on a radial pattern. They are not designed to nor do they efficiently move higher volume traffic through the numerous right angle turns that are involved. A traffic square is not the solution for the Boulevard.

[Just the facts]

Most of the traffic squares out there are associated with (a) vintage neighborhoods with perpendicular and parrallel streets with a small one-block square neighborhood park built into the middle of the grid or (b) vintage downtowns with perpendicular and parrallel streets with a small one-block court house area or small plaza or park built into the middle of the grid. Those involve two-lane, non-arterial streets intersecting at right angles that handle low-volume, low-speed traffic. They are not primary 4-lane avenues and boulevards intersecting on a radial pattern. They are not designed to nor do they efficiently move higher volume traffic through the numerous right angle turns that are involved. A traffic square is not the solution for the Boulevard.

You are right, there doesn't seem to be any high volume traffic squares. Since traffic circles and traffic squares exsited BEFORE the automobile I guess it is safe to assume that they impact the type and density of the surrounding development over long periods of time. Since the vision seems to be to make Market Circle a commerical area it would make sense to build the type of traffic feature that historically produces commercial development.

Logan Sqaure (actually a traffic circle) along Ben Franklin Parkway in Philly is almost void of all people, especially when compared to the number of people on streets just 2 blocks away. The park like setting of the Parkway prevents commercial development from occuring around the traffic circle. I wonder if they had built an actual square instead of circle if it would have produced a market for residential development - like Rittenhouse Sq just 1/2 mile south.

On the other hand, Philly's Courthouse Square handles a pretty large volume of traffic.

[soonerliberal]

The high traffic "squares" or rectangles in fact are a true pain in DC. While they seem to work very well in lower traffic residential areas, the high traffic areas such as Mount Vernon Square are a nightmare, even during the midday, weekends, or late nights.

Circles just seem to be much more efficient. There is a natural flow to things.

[Larry OKC]

But aren't we trying to design this thing so traffic does slow down, doesn't move in the most efficient manner etc. If that is the goal, then ODOT has it right to begin with.

[Buffalo Bill]

Where is the boulevard EIS and documentation about the NEPA process?

Here's a link: http://www.40forward.com/resources/h...volume_ii.aspx

I believe there are still copies of the document at the locations listed about half way down the web page. 2 big three ring binders if I recall correctly. Last one I saw was a few years ago at the Department of Libraries.

[Buffalo Bill]

Here's a link: http://www.40forward.com/resources/h...volume_ii.aspx

I believe there are still copies of the document at the locations listed about half way down the web page. 2 big three ring binders if I recall correctly. Last one I saw was a few years ago at the Department of Libraries.

Even better:

http://www.40forward.com/resources/reports.aspx

[Buffalo Bill]

So what would it take to get a better solution? If exes can get child custody modifications, certainly cities can negotaite changes to EIS / NEPA (/M-O-U-S-E?) stuff.

I think there is a re-evaluation of the original document to determine if there is a "no adverse effect" with the proposed changes. Not sure about this, though.

I do know that it can be a lengthy and/or cumbersome process.

[Hutch]

Here's a quick summary of the important relevant sections with regard to the Boulevard:

3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
"This chapter describes the alternatives and summarizes the evaluation process."
3.4.1 Tier One Evaluation
3.4.2 Short List of Build Alternatives Refinement
Alternative D
"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 a divided boulevard."
3.4.6 Tier Two Evaluation
Project Construction Time and Implementation Difficulty
"Alternative D’s Phase I construction would achieve the full traffic flow benefits projected for Alternative D because only the boulevard construction would remain for Phase II."
Access to Downtown
"The proposed boulevard from I-235 to Agnew Avenue will provide improved access to Bricktown and the downtown area from eastbound and westbound traffic."
3.5 Preferred Alternative
"As a result of the Tier-Two evaluation, the ODOT selected Alternative D as the locally preferred alternative because this alternative provides a ten-lane facility approximately 2,200 feet south of the existing I-40 alignment and involves converting the existing I-40 facility to a downtown business route. This business route would maintain the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western Avenues and bridge structure from Western Avenue to west of Walker Avenue and reconstruct the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets."
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
"This chapter presents potential beneficial and adverse social, economic, and environmental effects for the proposed relocation and construction of the I-40 Crosstown Expressway..."
5.2 NOISE IMPACTS AND VIBRATION ANALYSIS
5.2.a Traffic Noise
"The FHWA has established the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land use activity areas that are used as one of two means to determine when a traffic noise impact will occur."
"When a traffic noise impact occurs, noise abatement measures must be considered. A noise measure is any positive action taken to reduce an activity area’s traffic noise impact"
"Alternative D’s boulevard alignment was modeled at 45 mph from Robinson Avenue to Classen Boulevard and at 60 mph from Classen Boulevard to Agnew Avenue."
"As shown in Table 5-5, the projected noise levels with Alternative D would approach, equal, or exceed the receptor activity categories B and C’s NAC; therefore, this alternative would result in traffic noise impacts and mitigation measures must be considered in accordance with the 1996 ODOT Policy Directive, “Highway Noise Abatement.” This policy states that mitigation will not be considered for commercial or industrial areas or for those areas that are trending to commercial or industrial land use."
5.2c Vibration Impact Analysis
"There are no federal or state standards or regulations regarding traffic-induced vibration."
5.3 LAND USE IMPACTS
"The existing I-40 facility between the I-235/I-35 interchange and the Agnew/Villa interchange would be replaced under Alternative D with a boulevard. The current at-grade freeway would be converted to a boulevard from Agnew to Western Avenues. From Western Avenue to west of Walker Avenue, the existing I-40 bridge structure would be rehabilitated. From west of Walker Avenue to I-235, the boulevard would be a divided, multi-lane, grade-level facility with at-grade intersections with major cross streets and this is where land use impacts would occur."
"The boulevard's north side for the first two blocks west of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railroad would front the new indoor sports arena. The first block on the south side fronts an Oklahoma Gas and Electric facility and that use is not expected to change. The remainder of the boulevard corridor frontage will consist of over six linear blocks of vacant land and approximately seven blocks of commercial, industrial, and some institutional development on either side of the facility, including parking lots. Of the vacant land, most is zoned industrial, but one block is zoned residential, and another is currently unzoned since it falls entirely within the existing ROW. 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. The least impact would be no change in existing land use and, no requests for rezoning if market demand were to be stagnant. The greatest impact would be commercial development or mixed commercial and industrial development on all vacant lands and possible commercial redevelopment of existing industrial properties. This would require rezoning currently zoned residential and industrial properties. The current commercial zoning along the north side of the proposed boulevard between the sports arena site and Hudson Avenue is consistent with the ULI’s “Downtown Oklahoma City” plan. Those two blocks are within the plan’s designated downtown entertainment district. Similar development along the south side of the boulevard would also be consistent with the plan, given the area’s designation as a “flex” district, which is designed to capture expanded downtown development. North of the boulevard and west of Hudson Avenue, the ULI plan designates residential, loft apartment redevelopment of appropriate commercial warehouse structures. The land fronting the boulevard in this area includes vacant lots and is zoned for industrial uses. Market incentives and planning and development policies could guide new area development and redevelopment, rather than the expected commercial development. The overall effects of converting existing I-40 to a boulevard could have positive land use impacts on the downtown area."
5.5 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION IMPACTS
"Developing a grade-level boulevard serving the downtown area along the current I-40 alignment would change the SW 3rd Street Industrial District's visual setting. The change may bring the district closer to the original historic context, which included grade-level city streets. Therefore, this is anticipated to be a beneficial impact. Impacts to other historic resources would not be likely."
5.14 JOINT DEVELOPMENT
"ODOT recognizes the strategies identified in the City of Oklahoma City's land use and mitigation plan for implementing Alternative D. Alternative D would provide access to Bricktown's south end and downtown. Also, the urban boulevard would provide additional access to potential development sites between Walker and Western Avenues."
5.15 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
"For Alternative D, improving the existing alignment to a boulevard is scheduled after the new facility is completed. Vehicles crossing I-40 along this section would experience occasional delays or be directed to alternate crossings."
5.18 VISUAL IMPACTS
"Adding a street-level boulevard along the existing raised facility would also shorten the visual distance between the Riverside neighborhood and the downtown."
5.19 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
"The boulevards associated with Alternatives B-3 and D offer the opportunity for east-west bicycle and pedestrian travel, as well."
"Alternative D would include converting the existing alignment to a landscaped boulevard. This proposed facility was analyzed for its impacts to non-motorist activities. Crossings, which would merit attention as possible bicycle routes, include the same facilities as for Alternative B-3 (Agnew, Pennsylvania, Western, Walker, and Robinson Avenues and Shields Boulevard), with the addition of Reno and Classen. The facility would cross the Bricktown Canal Trail, but would present no greater impact than the existing I-40 facility. Using the I-40 ROW as a boulevard would have slight or no impact upon non-motorist access to nearby public schools. The current alignment is a boundary feature for Capitol Hill, Wilson, and Shidler Elementary School feeder areas, which means that students attending these schools should not have to cross the boulevard. The boulevard alignment is a prominent feature in the Mark Twain Elementary School feeder area. Although changing existing I-40 to a boulevard would result in a less imposing physical barrier for non-motorists, a boulevard would present greater opportunities for non-motorist conflicts with motorists than the present limited-access configuration. These conflicts could be minimized by using signalized crosswalks to allow non-motorist crossings without vehicular turning movements. Other possible safety measures include bicycle lanes, intersection design with places for pedestrians to stand at street corners and on the median, all-way red lights for pedestrian crossings, and raised crosswalks where
larger pedestrian crossing numbers are anticipated. Because other existing pedestrian and bicycle activity centers, including downtown, the Myriad Center, and the Bricktown District, are concentrated north of the existing I-40 alignment, using the present I-40 alignment as a boulevard would divert vehicular traffic away from these non-motorist activities and result in improved safety. The bicycle/pedestrian impacts of the proposed boulevard along the present I-40 alignment would likewise depend upon the ultimate facility design. While a boulevard potentially would represent more opportunities for non-motorist conflicts with vehicles than a controlled-access highway, abutting boulevard land uses and facility design would also be important considerations. Facilities that attract special-event, tourist, shopping, and cultural activities, would necessitate slower speeds and painted and signalized crosswalks. Additionally, where warranted by the pedestrian traffic levels, elevated crosswalks should be considered. Through traffic will be encouraged to use the new I-40 alignment."
5.23c Economic Impacts
"The property tax base in the affected study area could be enhanced by potential commercial development and redevelopment in available areas along the proposed boulevard under Alternative D."
5.24 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION
"Downtown access concerns have been addressed by identifying three boulevard options associated with Alternative D. These options included maintaining the existing I-40 facility; constructing the six-lane at-grade boulevard from I-235, east to Agnew Avenue; and providing a modified boulevard combining the other two options. The preferred option is the modified boulevard that provides a downtown business route. This option involves retaining the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western Avenues and
bridge structure from Western to west of Walker Avenues and reconstructing the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets."
USDOT - RECORD OF DECISION
"The decision is to select the preferred alternative, Alternative D, as described in the FEIS."
"The selected alternative will provide a six-lane at-grade boulevard in the existing I-40 right-of-way from east of the Union Pacific tracks at the I-235 interchange to west of Walker Avenue. From west of Walker Avenue to Western Avenue, the existing I-40 bridge structure will be rehabilitated. From Western Avenue, west to Agnew Avenue, the existing facility will be converted to a divided boulevard."

[Hutch]

The reason that I posted all of that was to show that the Environmental Impact Statement for the new I-40 involved significant analyis of both the new Crosstown and the proposed new Boulevard, as it should since federal money is involved in the consruction of both. As a result, its likely that any significant change in the design of the Boulevard, as described in the FEIS, will require a Supplemental EIS. Changing the design between Walker and Western from simply using a similar bridge structure to lowering the area to grade, whether it involves a roundabout or other solution, brings with it potential new impacts and would certainly be viewed as a significant design change. The additional design and environmental review processes, as well as any additional property acquisitions that would be required, could add 6 months to a year or more to the completion date of the Boulevard, not to mention any additional costs. That's where you'll likely run into a brick wall of opposition to change from ODOT and some within the City. That's not because they necessarily oppose better solutions, they just oppose better solutions that they view as late to the table and that will impact their current plans from a time or cost perspective. For ODOT, it's all about getting it done on time and on budget and that the project is structurally sound and effectively does what it was designed to do, which is move vehicles from point A to point B as efficiently as possible. ODOT is not interested in urban planning or economic development. As for some within the City, they are likely more interested in completing the Boulevard on time to support plans they have already made in the immediate downtown area than seeing it delayed to improve the urban design and encourage competing development to the west.

I'm not saying it can't be done. But it will take significant public and political pressure.

[Hutch]

Yeah, I get it, but why? Why does ODOT want to own that anyway? Forgive me if I'm late to the discussion, but what value does that land/road mean to ODOT or the State of Oklahoma?

The Boulevard means nothing to ODOT and they won't own it. Under the EIS, tearing down the old I-40 and building the Boulevard in its place is simply a mitigation requirement they agreed to perform for OKC. As soon as ODOT completes construction of the Boulevard, they will assign the right-of-way and responsibility of maintenance to OKC. That's one of the big hurdles to making any changes at this point. ODOT just wants to get it built and be done with it.

[Just the facts]

The additional design and environmental review processes, as well as any additional property acquisitions that would be required, could add 6 months to a year or more to the completion date of the Boulevard, not to mention any additional costs. That's where you'll likely run into a brick wall of opposition to change from ODOT and some within the City. That's not because they necessarily oppose better solutions, they just oppose better solutions that they view as late to the table and that will impact their current plans from a time or cost perspective.

Ask anyone who has ever been divorced if they should have spent more time up front making the right decsion. I would rather take 2 extra years and get it right than to get it done now and have to live with a bad decision for 50 years.

[soonerguru]

But aren't we trying to design this thing so traffic does slow down, doesn't move in the most efficient manner etc. If that is the goal, then ODOT has it right to begin with.

Not sure if serious, but ODOT's plan is similar to an in-town expressway. It's not going to slow anything down. It's actually more of a bypass.

I understand you may not find the traffic circle concept alluring, but your post is a real head scratcher.

[ljbab728]

Not sure if serious, but ODOT's plan is similar to an in-town expressway. It's not going to slow anything down. It's actually more of a bypass.

I understand you may not find the traffic circle concept alluring, but your post is a real head scratcher.

Doesn't make me scratch my head at all. I understand exactly what Larry is saying and I agree.

[Spartan]

Here's a quick summary of the important relevant sections with regard to the Boulevard:

3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
"This chapter describes the alternatives and summarizes the evaluation process."
3.4.1 Tier One Evaluation
3.4.2 Short List of Build Alternatives Refinement
Alternative D
"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 a divided boulevard."
3.4.6 Tier Two Evaluation
5.19 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
"The boulevards associated with Alternatives B-3 and D offer the opportunity for east-west bicycle and pedestrian travel, as well."
"Alternative D would include converting the existing alignment to a landscaped boulevard. This proposed facility was analyzed for its impacts to non-motorist activities. Crossings, which would merit attention as possible bicycle routes, include the same facilities as for Alternative B-3 (Agnew, Pennsylvania, Western, Walker, and Robinson Avenues and Shields Boulevard), with the addition of Reno and Classen. The facility would cross the Bricktown Canal Trail, but would present no greater impact than the existing I-40 facility. Using the I-40 ROW as a boulevard would have slight or no impact upon non-motorist access to nearby public schools. The current alignment is a boundary feature for Capitol Hill, Wilson, and Shidler Elementary School feeder areas, which means that students attending these schools should not have to cross the boulevard. The boulevard alignment is a prominent feature in the Mark Twain Elementary School feeder area. Although changing existing I-40 to a boulevard would result in a less imposing physical barrier for non-motorists, a boulevard would present greater opportunities for non-motorist conflicts with motorists than the present limited-access configuration. These conflicts could be minimized by using signalized crosswalks to allow non-motorist crossings without vehicular turning movements. Other possible safety measures include bicycle lanes, intersection design with places for pedestrians to stand at street corners and on the median, all-way red lights for pedestrian crossings, and raised crosswalks where
larger pedestrian crossing numbers are anticipated. Because other existing pedestrian and bicycle activity centers, including downtown, the Myriad Center, and the Bricktown District, are concentrated north of the existing I-40 alignment, using the present I-40 alignment as a boulevard would divert vehicular traffic away from these non-motorist activities and result in improved safety. The bicycle/pedestrian impacts of the proposed boulevard along the present I-40 alignment would likewise depend upon the ultimate facility design. While a boulevard potentially would represent more opportunities for non-motorist conflicts with vehicles than a controlled-access highway, abutting boulevard land uses and facility design would also be important considerations. Facilities that attract special-event, tourist, shopping, and cultural activities, would necessitate slower speeds and painted and signalized crosswalks. Additionally, where warranted by the pedestrian traffic levels, elevated crosswalks should be considered. Through traffic will be encouraged to use the new I-40 alignment."
5.23c Economic Impacts
"The property tax base in the affected study area could be enhanced by potential commercial development and redevelopment in available areas along the proposed boulevard under Alternative D."
5.24 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION
"Downtown access concerns have been addressed by identifying three boulevard options associated with Alternative D. These options included maintaining the existing I-40 facility; constructing the six-lane at-grade boulevard from I-235, east to Agnew Avenue; and providing a modified boulevard combining the other two options. The preferred option is the modified boulevard that provides a downtown business route. This option involves retaining the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western Avenues and
bridge structure from Western to west of Walker Avenues and reconstructing the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets."
USDOT - RECORD OF DECISION
"The decision is to select the preferred alternative, Alternative D, as described in the FEIS."
"The selected alternative will provide a six-lane at-grade boulevard in the existing I-40 right-of-way from east of the Union Pacific tracks at the I-235 interchange to west of Walker Avenue. From west of Walker Avenue to Western Avenue, the existing I-40 bridge structure will be rehabilitated. From Western Avenue, west to Agnew Avenue, the existing facility will be converted to a divided boulevard."

Here's what I don't understand about the EIS, is that it does spell out the option with all of the boulevard at-grade. It simply isn't stated as the preferred alternative. Does that mean we have to re-do the EIS after all to maintain the USDOT funding?

I'm also puzzled that ODOT's EIS seems to think that the only pedestrians that actually are a concern are school children walking to school. And of course, the conclusion is that there wouldn't be any of that, however it mentions a litany of schools some 2+ miles away, and makes no mention of the new DOWNTOWN elementary school. Is that a basis for re-doing the EIS and determining that the boulevard section between Walker and Western is suddenly now a concern for non-motorist conflicts with motorists?

Lastly, what the EIS says will be done is a rehabilitated I-40 bridge between Walker and Western. Hello, there is no I-40 bridge left to rehabilitate.

I'm going to conclude that stipulating that the EIS and NEPA work must be totally redone in order for the traffic circle is a bit of a canard. The current plan isn't really following this to a T anyway, in fact, there are some pretty glaring deviations and omissions.

[Hutch]

Here's what I don't understand about the EIS, is that it does spell out the option with all of the boulevard at-grade. It simply isn't stated as the preferred alternative. Does that mean we have to re-do the EIS after all to maintain the USDOT funding?

I'm also puzzled that ODOT's EIS seems to think that the only pedestrians that actually are a concern are school children walking to school. And of course, the conclusion is that there wouldn't be any of that, however it mentions a litany of schools some 2+ miles away, and makes no mention of the new DOWNTOWN elementary school. Is that a basis for re-doing the EIS and determining that the boulevard section between Walker and Western is suddenly now a concern for non-motorist conflicts with motorists?

Lastly, what the EIS says will be done is a rehabilitated I-40 bridge between Walker and Western. Hello, there is no I-40 bridge left to rehabilitate.

I'm going to conclude that stipulating that the EIS and NEPA work must be totally redone in order for the traffic circle is a bit of a canard. The current plan isn't really following this to a T anyway, in fact, there are some pretty glaring deviations and omissions.

Here's the specific federal regulations regarding the need for a Supplmental EIS:

Sec. 771.130 Supplemental environmental impact statements.

(a) A draft EIS, final EIS, or supplemental EIS may be supplemented at any time. An EIS shall be supplemented whenever the Administration determines that:

(1) Changes to the proposed action would result in significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS; or

(2) New information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS.

(b) However, a supplemental EIS will not be necessary where:

(1) The changes to the proposed action, new information, or new circumstances result in a lessening of adverse environmental impacts evaluated in the EIS without causing other environmental impacts that are significant and were not evaluated in the EIS; or

(2) The Administration decides to approve an alternative fully evaluated in an approved final EIS but not identified as the preferred alternative. In such a case, a revised ROD shall be prepared and circulated in accordance with Sec. 771.127(b).

(c) Where the Administration is uncertain of the significance of the new impacts, the applicant will develop appropriate environmental studies or, if the Administration deems appropriate, an EA to assess the impacts of the changes, new information, or new circumstances. If, based upon the studies, the Administration determines that a supplemental EIS is not necessary, the Administration shall so indicate in the project file.

(d) A supplement is to be developed using the same process and format (i.e., draft EIS, final EIS, and ROD) as an original EIS, except that scoping is not required.

(e) A supplemental draft EIS may be necessary for UMTA major urban mass transportation investments if there is a substantial change in the level of detail on project impacts during project planning and development. The supplement will address site-specific impacts and refined cost estimates that have been developed since the original draft EIS.

(f) In some cases, a supplemental EIS may be required to address issues of limited scope, such as the extent of proposed mitigation or the evaluation of location or design variations for a limited portion of the overall project. Where this is the case, the preparation of a supplemental EIS shall not necessarily:

(i) Prevent the granting of new approvals;

(ii) Require the withdrawal of previous approvals; or

(iii) Require the suspension of project activities; for any activity not directly affected by the supplement. If the changes in question are of such magnitude to require a reassessment of the entire action, or more than a limited portion of the overall action, the Administration shall suspend any activities which would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives, until the supplemental EIS is completed.

[Larry OKC]

Not sure if serious, but ODOT's plan is similar to an in-town expressway. It's not going to slow anything down. It's actually more of a bypass.

I understand you may not find the traffic circle concept alluring, but your post is a real head scratcher.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, I was serious. And yes, I don't like traffic circles (and will avoid them whenever I can), but I think it is preferred over what they are planning. My point I was trying to make is that the discussion of the Boulevard here and at Council has centered on the desire to redesign it so traffic does slow down, reducing it from 6 lanes to 4, making it pedestrian friendly. Having the equivalent of NW Expressway running though downtown will get traffic from point A to point B quickly but it goes against the stated desires of the City and what they envision the Boulevard eventually becoming. What logic is there in building an elevated highway (all but 8 to 10 blocks) to replace the elevated highway that served as a deterrent all around???

[Urban Pioneer]

What's interesting about this research is that essentially the environmental has been done for a completely At Grade scenario for a much longer length. It is just that as part of their process, they buried in in the option in the proposal that they knew was not going to be selected. So the argument that I can just know hear them making is that we don't have time to do the environmental for an At Grade Boulevard and stay on our schedule. Whereas, that excuse is "out the window."

If any sort of change for a more pedestrian oriented plan is to occur via pressure from City Leaders, it would probably only need a 30-day public hearing period since the bulk of the work has already been done.

[Hutch]

Here's what I don't understand about the EIS, is that it does spell out the option with all of the boulevard at-grade. It simply isn't stated as the preferred alternative. Does that mean we have to re-do the EIS after all to maintain the USDOT funding?

Good work Spartan...you just saved the day.

When I first read your comment above, I wasn't sure what you were talking about. The Preferred Alternative D did not provide for multiple options for the Boulevard design. Only the "rehabilitated" bridge option between Walker and Western was offered. However, your comment and the reference to "the boulevards associated with alternatives B-3 and D" in Section 5.19 of the EIS caused me to go back and take a detailed look at alternative B-3 as well. And guess what it says:

3.4.2 Short List of Build Alternatives Refinement
Alternative B-3
"As an Alternative B variation, Alternative B-3 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 Avenue to west of May Avenue would be upgraded to provide ten travel lanes. Cross streets would be Shields Boulevard 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."

So, ODOT has already conducted the necessary NEPA review requirements for constructing the boulevard at grade between Walker and Western under the EIS for I-40. As posted earlier, the FHWA regulations regarding the need for a Supplemental EIS states:

Sec. 771.130 Supplemental environmental impact statements.

"(b) However, a supplemental EIS will not be necessary where:
(2) The Administration decides to approve an alternative fully evaluated in an approved final EIS but not identified as the preferred alternative. In such a case, a revised ROD shall be prepared and circulated in accordance with Sec. 771.127(b)."

So, clearly ODOT and the FWHA have the authority to approve any alternative fully evaluated under the approved final EIS for I-40 without need for additional environmental review under NEPA, including an EA or Supplemental EIS. They simply issue a revised Record of Decision (ROD) indicating the change in the alternative. In this case, the decision to approve such should be a simple matter, as the change is the substitution of only a small part of the Preffered Alternative D with a part of Alternative B-3.

[Tier2City]

Here's what I don't understand about the EIS, is that it does spell out the option with all of the boulevard at-grade. It simply isn't stated as the preferred alternative. Does that mean we have to re-do the EIS after all to maintain the USDOT funding?

....

I'm going to conclude that stipulating that the EIS and NEPA work must be totally redone in order for the traffic circle is a bit of a canard. The current plan isn't really following this to a T anyway, in fact, there are some pretty glaring deviations and omissions.

Did they bother to redo the EIS when they found out they couldn't locate the new I-40 mainline fully below grade?