Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment

Home , Abraham Lincoln Bridge, Interstate 79, Sherman Minton Bridge

Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment and EJ Analysis Community Impact Assessment and Environmental Justice Analysis Technical Report Sherman Minton Renewal Project Indiana Department of Transportation April 10, 2020

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 6 ES.1 Purpose and Need ...... 7 ES.2 Public Perception...... 10 ES.3 Existing Traffic Conditions ...... 10 ES.4 Proposed Action and Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Options ...... 11 ES.5 Project Study Area and Timeline ...... 14 ES.6 CIA and EJ Methodologies ...... 15 ES.7 Public Involvement Effort and EJ Outreach ...... 17 ES.8 Community Profiles and Demographics ...... 18 ES.9 CIA and EJ Impacts ...... 21 ES.10 CIA/EJ Findings and MOT Recommendations ...... 29 1. Project Purpose and Need ...... 1 1.1 Project Overview ...... 1 1.2 Project Need ...... 4 1.3 Project Purpose ...... 10 2. Sherman Minton Bridge and Public Perception ...... 11 2.1 Emergency Temporary Closure - Public Experience ...... 12 2.2 Emergency Temporary Closure - Contributing Factors ...... 13 2.3 What Is Different Now ...... 13 2.4 Existing Traffic Conditions ...... 16 3. Proposed Action and Maintenance of Traffic (MOT)...... 19 3.1 Project Study area and Timeline...... 19 3.2 Proposed Action ...... 19 3.3 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Options ...... 22 4. CIA and EJ Methodologies...... 25 4.1 Regulatory Framework ...... 26 4.2 CIA Methodology ...... 26 4.3 EJ Analysis Methodology...... 27 4.3.1 Determining the Presence of EJ Populations and Establishing EJ Areas of Concern ...... 28 4.3.2 Environmental Justice Outreach Plan...... 31 4.3.3 Determining the Applicability of “Disproportionally High and Adverse Effects” ...... 32 5 Public Involvement Effort and EJ Outreach ...... 33 5.1 Public Outreach Efforts ...... 33 5.2 General Public Involvement Feedback...... 34 5.3 EJ outreach Feedback ...... 36

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 2 6 Community Profiles ...... 37 6.1 General Population and Demographic Characteristics ...... 38 6.2 Floyd County, IN ...... 46 6.2.1 New Albany ...... 46 6.3 Clark County, IN...... 47 6.3.1 Clarksville, IN ...... 47 6.3.2 Jeffersonville, IN...... 48 6.4 Louisville and Jefferson County, KY ...... 50 6.5 EJ-Specific Demographics In Project Study Area...... 53 7. CIA and EJ Impacts ...... 59 7.1 Traffic, Diversions, congestion, and Travel Time ...... 60 7.1.1 Systemwide Traffic and Diversions ...... 62 7.1.2 Systemwide Congestion...... 68 7.1.2 Local Streets ...... 79 7.1.2.1 Local Access to the Interstate ...... 79 7.1.2.2 Local Congestion ...... 83 7.1.3 Trip Travel Distance and Time...... 87 7.1.4 Traffic, Diversions, Congestion, and Travel Time Findings ...... 88 7.2 Transit and Rideshare ...... 89 7.2.1 Effects on TARC Routes ...... 89 7.2.2 Effects on TARC Riders ...... 95 7.2.3 Transit and Rideshare Summary...... 96 7.3 Economic Impacts ...... 97 7.3.1 Total User Costs for Through-Trips and Local Trips by MOT Duration...... 97 7.3.2 Comparison of Local Trip Costs for Non-EJ and EJ Populations ...... 98 7.3.3 Economic Impacts to Local Businesses ...... 100 7.3.4 Economic Impacts - Summary...... 101 7.4 Social Impacts ...... 103 7.4.1 Access and Mobility ...... 103 7.4.2 Community Cohesion ...... 104 7.4.3 Quality of Life ...... 105 7.4.3.1 Air Quality...... 105 7.4.3.2 Noise Impacts...... 107 7.4.4 Special Populations ...... 110 7.4.5 Social Impacts Summary ...... 110 7.5 Safety factors ...... 111 7.5.1 Safety Factors Summary ...... 112 7.6 EJ Findings and MOT Recommendations ...... 113

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 3 7.6.1 Environmental Justice Findings ...... 113 7.6.2 Overall MOT Option Recommendations ...... 116 7.6.3 Preferred Alternative Recommended MOT...... 117 8. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures...... 119 9. References ...... 121

List of Tables Table 1: Sherman Minton Renewal Project – Individual Project Elements ...... 2 Table 2: Existing Condition of SMB and Approaches (2017 INDOT Bridge Assessment Report; excerpt) .. 6 Table 3 – Ohio River Bridge Crossings in the Louisville area ...... 16 Table 4 – Potential Project Durations by MOT ...... 21 Table 5: Regional and Project Study Area Demographic Data ...... 39 Table 6: Indiana - EJ Populations and Vehicle Ownership in Affected Communities, by Census Tract.....54 Table 7: Kentucky-EJ Populations and Vehicle Ownership in Affected Communities, by Census Tract....55 Table 8: Average Daily Traffic Diverted from Sherman Minton Bridge ...... 64 Table 9: Comparison of Non-EJ to EJ Tolled River Crossings (AM Peak Period) ...... 65 Table 10: Non-EJ to EJ Percent Change: Tolled Crossings (AM Peak Period)...... 66 Table 11: Non-EJ to EJ Percent Change: Non-Tolled Crossings (AM Peak Period) ...... 67 Table 12 - MOT Options Ramp Access Impact Summary (Indiana side of SMB) ...... 80 Table 13 - MOT Options Ramp Access Impact Summary (Kentucky side of SMB)...... 80 Table 14: Estimated Peak Hour Traffic on Selected Local Street Network...... 86 Table 15: Non-EJ and EJ Populations (AM Peak Period) - Average Trip Length ...... 87 Table 16: Non-EJ and EJ Populations (AM Peak Period) - Average Trip Travel Time...... 88 Table 17: TARC Ridership by Major Route Type and Ohio River Crossing...... 90 Table 18: Percent of SMB Traffic Diversion by MOT Option ...... 97 Table 19 - Additional Driver User Costs ...... 97 Table 20: Economic Impact of MOT Duration by Trip Type and Diversion Route ...... 98 Table 21: AM Peak Non-EJ and EJ Trip - Average User Cost ...... 99 Table 22: AM Peak Non-EJ and EJ Trip - Average Toll Cost ...... 99 Table 23: Relative Sound Changes – Downtown New Albany ...... 109 Table 24: Relative Sound Changes – Eastern New Albany ...... 109 Table 25: Safety Factors by MOT Option ...... 111 Table 26: Summary of Potential Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects ...... 115

List of Exhibits Figure 1: Project Location Map...... 1 Figure 2: Project Elements and Locations ...... 3 Figure 3: Photo from 2019 Inspection...... 5 Figure 4: Bridge Components - Steel Tied-Arch Spans...... 7

iii

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 4 Figure 5: Bridge Components as viewed from the Lower Deck ...... 9 Figure 6: 2011 FHWA Bridge Closure Detour...... 11 Figure 7: 2011 Emergency Closure Photos ...... 13 Figure 8: 2011 vs. 2019 Transportation Network ...... 14 Figure 9: Existing Congestion Locations ...... 17 Figure 10: Origins of Existing AM (dark blue) and PM (light blue) SMB Traffic...... 18 Figure 11: SMRP Study Area ...... 20 Figure 12: Overview of MOT Options...... 24 Figure 13: Communities of Comparison (COCs) ...... 29 Figure 14: Affected Community (AC) Census Tracks ...... 30 Figure 15: Affected Community Census Tracks - Environmental Justice (EJ) ...... 31 Figure 16: Percentages of Minority Populations in Project Study Area ...... 41 Figure 17: Percentages of Low-Income Populations in Project Study Area ...... 41 Figure 18: Percentages of LEP Populations in Project Study Area ...... 43 Figure 19: Percentages of Children (>5-years) in Project Study Area ...... 44 Figure 20: Percentages of Elderly (>65-years) in Project Study Area ...... 45 Figure 21: SMRP Neighborhoods ...... 52 Figure 22: EJ Affected Communities ...... 56 Figure 23: Percent Working Outside State of Residence...... 61 Figure 24: Existing (Base) Congestion Locations ...... 69 Figure 25: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 1 ...... 70 Figure 26: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 2 ...... 71 Figure 27: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 3, Phase 1 ...... 72 Figure 28: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 3, Phase 2 ...... 73 Figure 29: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 4, Phase 1 ...... 74 Figure 30: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 4, Phase 2 ...... 75 Figure 31: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 5 ...... 76 Figure 32: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 6, Phase 1 ...... 77 Figure 33: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 6, Phase 2 ...... 78 Figure 34: MOT Options - Ramp Locations ...... 81 Figure 35: MOT Options - Ramp Closures ...... 82 Figure 36: Local Street Traffic Screenlines ...... 85 Figure 37: TARC Routes - Indiana ...... 91 Figure 38: TARC Routes - Kentucky ...... 92 Figure 39: Access to Community Clusters via TARC ...... 93 Figure 40: Sensitivity to Sound Level Differences ...... 108

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 5 This page is intentionally blank.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 6 ES. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Sherman Minton Bridge (SMB) is one of two Interstate crossings of the Ohio River in the Louisville metro area. The SMB carries approximately 90,000 vehicles per day on I-64 over the Ohio River between the City of New Albany, Indiana and the area of West Louisville in Kentucky and is a critical part of the existing Interstate System facilitating daily regional traffic. The SMB is currently the sole non-tolled Interstate bridge serving the area. Other Ohio River crossings in the region include the US 31 Clark Memorial Bridge (Clark/2nd St.; non-tolled) in downtown Louisville, the I-65 Kennedy and Lincoln Bridges (Kennedy/Lincoln; tolled) and the IN SR 265/KY 841 Lewis and Clark Bridges (Lewis & Clark; tolled) east of Louisville (Figure ES-1). The Project logical termini are the system to system I-64/I-264 interchange to the south in Kentucky and the I-64/I-265 interchange to the north in Indiana and have independent utility with the surrounding interstate network.

The Sherman Minton Renewal Project (SMRP), hereinafter referred to as “the Project”, is the rehabilitation of the SMB and the approach bridges in Indiana and Kentucky on both sides of the Ohio River. The Project includes current needed maintenance activities along I-64 from I-265 in Southern Indiana to the I-264 interchange in Kentucky (Figure ES-2). The Project is located in Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Development Agency (KIPDA) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Project is a joint effort between the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC). INDOT is leading the Project in close collaboration with key staff from KYTC.

Figure ES-1: Project Location Map

Page 6

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 7 Figure ES-2: Project Elements Locations

ES.1 Purpose and Need Purpose - The purpose of the Project is to address the deterioration of structural elements of the Sherman Minton Bridge, the associated Indiana and Kentucky approaches, and select associated side streets with the goal of extending the service life of the I-64 Interstate crossing over the Ohio River by up to 30 years.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 8 Need - The need for the project is evidenced by increasingly frequency of planned and urgent bridge maintenance/closures to ensure the safety of the traveling public due to the deteriorating structural condition of the existing Sherman Minton Bridge over the Ohio River, the deteriorating associated Indiana and Kentucky approaches, and deteriorating pavement of select associated side streets (Table ES-1). Structural elements deficiencies are identified in the October 18, 2017 INDOT Bridge Assessment Report:

Table ES-1 Sherman Minton Renewal Project – Individual Project Elements Des. No. Bridge No. Description Work Type 1702255 I64-123-04691 D Sherman Minton Bridge Bridge Deck Replacement and Structural Repairs 1702260 056B00161N KY Approach Bridge Deck Replacement 1702254 056B00161N KY Approach Bridge Painting 1592187 I64-123-04691 D Sherman Minton Bridge Bridge Painting 1702257 I64-123-02294 I-64 WB over SR 111/Main Street, RR (IN Bridge Deck Overlay CWBL Approach WB) 1702258 I64-123-02294 CEBL I-64 EB over SR 111/Main Street Bridge Deck Overlay (IN Approach EB) 1702259 I64-123-02294 JCEB I-64 EB over Southern RR Bridge Deck Overlay (IN Approach EB) 1701215 n/a Old SR 62 (Elm St.) from NB I-64 exit ramp to State St.; HMA Overlay, Preventative Spring St. from W 5th St. to State St.; W 4th St. at Spring Maintenance, ADA curb St.; W 5th St. from SB I-64 exit ramp to SR 111/Main St. ramps 1900579 I64-123-04690 BEBL I-64 EB over Market Street 0.11 W of SR 111. Bridge Painting Des. Nos. 1702255 & 1592187 (Bridge No. I64-123-04691 D; Sherman Minton Bridge):

• Bridge Decks – Approximately 60 years old and were part of the original construction, the bridge decks have internal and external cracking observed at the underside of deck joints. Spalling was identified on limited areas on the upper deck, along the piers, abutments, copings and curbs. High amount of Chloride exposure primarily from road salts was identified at the level of the reinforcing steel; 2018 INDOT Deck Condition Assessment confirmed the presence of chlorides as the primary deterioration mechanism. Corrosion identified on reinforcement steel leads to a weakening of the bridge deck and localized spalling and delamination of the concrete. This corrosion eventually leads to potholes.

• Arch and Truss Members - Members exhibit areas of paint failure throughout the structure, leaving steal elements unprotected. If left unchecked, members will continue to deterioration causing widespread deterioration and section loss. The widespread deterioration and section loss cause concern for the structures overall load carrying capacity. • Cable Hangers – are comprised of many individual wires bundled together in one cable, with a minimum of 130 individual wires in each cable. These Cable Hangers and the connectors exhibit surface corrosion due to inadequate protection from natural elements. In addition, one cable was observed to be swelling due to internal corrosion. Most cables exhibit 1 to 3 displaced wires

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 9 along the length; and several cables connections exhibit moderate to heavy corrosion or pack rust of the connecting elements. • Floorbeam Frames – Carry all the load/weight from the deck out to the supporting hanger cables. Significant widespread paint failure was observed. The paint failure has left the frames vulnerable to corrosion. Corrosion varies from surface corrosion to heavy section loss with some areas approaching 50% of the original thickness. This heavy reduction in the size due to corrosion that results in a reduction of the overall load carrying capacity of individual members decreases. • Steel Stringer – In place to support the deck between the floor beam frames. Widespread paint failure was observed. The paint failure has left the Steel Stringers vulnerable to corrosion. Corrosion varies from surface corrosion to heavy section loss. Cracking is observed in some stringer ends as a result of section loss due to corrosion and out of plane distortion. Continued deterioration can lead to restricting loads crossing the bridge as conditions worsen.

• Substructure (concrete piers and foundations) – Support of the overlying substructure elements. Limited concrete cracking was identified along the piers and abutments. Some spalling was identified on limited areas along the piers, and abutments.

Des. Nos. 1702254 & 1702260 (Bridge #056B00161N; KY Approach) • Bridge Deck and Superstructure elements – Evidence of internal and external cracking and corrosion was identified. Minor amounts of section loss were present. • Substructure – Concrete cracking along the abutments and some spalling has been identified. • Paint – Major deterioration of paint was evident giving the structure a poor condition rating. The paint failure has allowed exposure to the super structure elements, which increases corrosion on the superstructure.

Des. No. 1702257 (Bridge #I64-123-02294 CWBL; I-64 WB over SR 111/Main St., RR IN Approach WB) • Bridge Deck and Superstructure elements – Evidence of minor internal and external cracking and corrosion. • Substructure - Minor spalling has been identified.

Des. Nos. 1702258 (Bridge #I64-123-02294 CEBL; I-64 EB over SR 111/Main St., RR IN Approach EB) • Bridge Deck and Superstructure elements – Evidence of internal and external cracking and corrosion identified. Minor amounts of section loss were present. • Substructure – Minor cracking along the abutments.

Des. Nos. 1702259 (Bridge #I64-123-02294 JCEB; I-64 EB over SR 111/Main St., RR IN Approach EB) • Bridge Deck and Superstructure elements – Evidence of external cracking and corrosion identified. Minor amounts of section loss were present. • Substructure – Minor cracking along the abutments.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 10 Des. Nos. 1900579 (Bridge #I64-123-04690 BEBL; I-64 EB over Market Street 0.11 W of SR 111.) Paint – minor deterioration of paint was evident. The paint failure has allowed exposure to the super structure elements, which could lead to an increase of corrosion on the superstructure.

Des. Nos. 1701215 (Old SR 62 [Elm Street] from I-64 Exit Ramp to State Street) • Elm, Spring, and 5th Streets - Due to the increase in closures of the Sherman Minton Bridge for past and future maintenance repairs, traffic has been and is anticipated to frequently detour onto Spring Street and Elm Street of New Albany, Indiana. Pavement deterioration and non- compliant American Disability Association (ADA) standard curb ramps are identified along Elm, Spring, and 5th Streets.

ES.2 Public Perception Since the opening of the SMB in 1962, ongoing repair and maintenance work has been performed seven times, the most notable of which was an emergency closure in 2011. On September 9, 2011, a comprehensive I-64 SMB inspection identified critical defects that necessitated Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ immediate, emergency closure of the bridge. Because of the urgency of the situation, the bridge closure was announced and implemented on the same day, without prior notice, during Friday afternoon rush hour, leaving thousands of drivers stuck in traffic for hours.

The resulting congestion, uncertainty, and lengthy travel delays that ensued, not just that day but for the five months that followed, left a lasting impression for many individuals, communities, and businesses. Understandably, those in the area are concerned about the SMRP and tolls associated with new and improved river crossings that were not present in 2011.

ES.3 Existing Traffic Conditions The SMB is currently the only non-tolled Interstate bridge serving the area. Other Ohio River crossings in the region include the US 31 Clark Memorial Bridge (non-tolled) in downtown Louisville, the I-65 Kennedy and Lincoln Bridges (tolled), and the SR 265 Lewis and Clark Bridge (tolled), east of Louisville.

Existing (or “Base” inputs for a model) traffic conditions were developed using a travel demand model (TDM) based on the KIPDA regional model reflect the roadway network changes since the 2011 Emergency Closure. The “Base Condition” inputs were only used to represent the existing conditions and to serve as a benchmark for which options can be assessed:

• Over 200,000 vehicles cross the Ohio River in the Louisville area; the SMB carries an evenly split, two-way daily volume of 90,000 vehicles with heavy truck use of about 11%. • The use of the SMB is dominated by trips originating on the Indiana side. The AM peak-hour volumes on the bridge are dominated by the eastbound (EB) movement from Indiana to Kentucky by a 2.5:1 margin. The PM peak-hour volumes are dominated by the return trip westbound (WB) to Indiana by a 2:1 margin.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 11 • In addition, the Clark Memorial Bridge operates at full capacity during peak morning and evening commutes, while ample, additional capacity is available on nearby tolled bridges (Lincoln/Kennedy and Lewis & Clark). • Under current conditions, there is congestion during peak-hour traffic in the network, but not usually on the SMB itself (Figure ES-3). Figure ES-3: Existing Congestion Locations

ES.4 Proposed Action and Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Options The rehabilitation of the Sherman Minton Bridge (and associated approaches) constitute the Proposed Action. Project elements include bridge deck replacements and bridge deck overlays, structural repairs, replacement lighting, drainage components, bridge painting, Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) overlay and ADA ramp reconstruction, and ramp frictionalization.

If not implemented, an increase in closures and/or lane restrictions will be required to accomplish bridge inspections and repairs, thus causing additional inconvenience to the traveling public and additional cost later. The bridge could eventually deteriorate to the point of requiring more frequent bridge inspections, unplanned repairs, or ultimately permanent closure. This is neither prudent nor viable; the adverse ramifications of this scenario would extend far beyond the temporary impacts at the local, regional, and cross-state level.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 12 To ensure maximum mobility for the traveling public and make best use of the required MOT for the rehabilitation work on SMB, the Project will also include: • Deck overlay work on I-64 westbound and eastbound over SR 111/Main Street and I-64 eastbound over Southern Railroad and painting of the I-64 EB bridge over Market Street

• Surface street work on West 4th Street, West 5th Street, West Spring Street and West Elm Street near the I-64 ramps in New Albany, Indiana Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) with temporary construction access, closures (ramps, lanes, bridge decks, transitions, and short-term/night) will be required for the Project. Traffic will be reduced within construction zones and/or diverted along detour routes with proper signage. Temporary construction access will be provided for the work on both sides of the river during construction. It is assumed that the SMRP will be conducted with a combination of one or more MOT options to expedite completion of portions of the construction work and as part of INDOT’s Design Build/Best Value (DBBV) procurement and Design Build Teams Six MOT options were considered for maintaining traffic on I-64 during construction (Figure ES-4):

MOT 1 – Two lanes open, both decks (existing EB-eastbound and WB-westbound decks) One (1) EB and one (1) WB lane will be closed for construction. Two (2) EB and two (2) WB travel lanes will remain open but will shift location on the bridge during each of the three to four (3-4) construction phases; existing access ramps will remain open. MOT 2 – One lane open, both decks (EB and WB decks) Two (2) EB and two (2) WB lanes will be closed for construction. One (1) EB and one (1) WB travel lanes will remain open but will shift location on the bridge during two (2) construction phases; existing access ramps will remain open. A temporary Kentucky crossover lane for to I- 64 WB merge with I-264 will be required. MOT 3 – Alternating three one-way lanes (AM-EB / PM-WB) open on one deck One (1) bridge deck with three (3) lanes will be closed for construction during two (2) construction phases. The remaining bridge deck will be open with all three (3) travel lanes open in one direction only (EB 1AM to Noon), all travel will be closed during a 1-hour transition before reopening for travel in the opposite direction (WB 1PM to Midnight) Access ramp closures and a Kentucky crossover for I-64 WB merge with I-264 will be required. MOT 4 – Reversible center lane (AM-EB / PM-WB) and one-way EB/WB lanes open on one deck One (1) bridge deck with three (3) lanes will be closed for construction during two (2) construction phases. The remaining bridge deck will be open with one (1) EB and one (1) WB travel lanes, and movable barrier system that will change a (1) center lane from one-way EB (Midnight to Noon) to the opposite direction one-way WB (Noon to Midnight) each day. Access ramp closures and a Kentucky crossover for I-64 WB merge with I-264 will be required.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 13 MOT 5 – Full Duration Closure of all six lanes and both decks Both bridge decks, all six (6) lanes, and associated access ramps will be closed for construction; all traffic will be diverted to detour routes. MOT 6 – One Direction/Phase three one-way lanes (WB-Phase 1/EB-Phase 2) open on one deck One (1) bridge deck with three (3) lanes will be closed for construction during two (2) construction phases. During Phase 1, the remaining bridge deck will be open with all three (3) travel lanes open for only EB flow and all WB traffic will be diverted to detour routes. In Phase 2, the remaining bridge deck will be open with all three (3) travel lanes open for only WB flow and all EB traffic will be diverted to detour routes. Access ramp closures would be required. Figure ES-4: Overview of MOT Options

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 14 ES.5 Project Study Area and Timeline

The Project Study Area was developed based upon existing roadway network, anticipated temporary detour routes, and inclusion of communities immediately adjacent to the existing network for proximity impacts. Key environmental constraints were identified early in the project development process. The Project Study Area is generally bounded by I-65 on the east and I-64/I-264 on the west, including two distinct areas divided by the Ohio River: an Indiana side and a Kentucky side (Figure ES-5). Figure ES-5: SMRP Study Area

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 15 The MOT options will pose a temporary inconvenience to traveling motorists; however, no significant delays are anticipated, and all inconveniences will cease upon project completion. The relative duration of construction to complete the bridge rehabilitation and associated project improvements range from 1.5 years to 3+ years; anticipated to begin in 2021.

ES.6 CIA and EJ Methodologies A Community Impact Assessment (CIA) is a tool for identifying and understanding how potential transportation projects will impact communities along the project path. Preparation of this CIA follows FHWA, INDOT, and KYTC requirements and guidance for inclusion in the INDOT CE/EA Form, Part III (Environmental Impacts)1. The topics addressed in this CIA reflect the community issues and concerns relative to this Project. In general, the steps in the CIA process are as follows:

1. Define the Proposed Action(s), establish the Study Area boundary, and identify the area of review 2. Develop a comprehensive public outreach program to inform and to receive input from the public 3. Develop profiles of communities within the Study Area based on demographic data from the US Census and American Community Surveys (ACS), as well as local and regional Comprehensive Plans, and other applicable sources. 4. Analyze potential impacts of the Proposed Action and associated MOT Options relative to communities, services, and facilities. 5. Identify potential solutions to adverse impacts through avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement. 6. Document findings in a formal CIA, describing the affected environment, the potential impacts, and the potential avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement options.

Environmental Justice (EJ) refers to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, national origin, or educational level with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Under FHWA Order 6640.23A, FHWA and recipients of funding from FHWA (i.e., INDOT and KYTC), are responsible for ensuring their programs, policies, and activities do not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority or low-income populations.

As recipients of USDOT funding, the KIPDA (MPO) must also comply with EJ requirements for their Metropolitan Transportation Plans, Transportation Improvement Projects, and other transportation planning activities. The EJ analysis conducted for this Project is similar to the methodology presented in KIPDA’s EJ document (incorporated by reference) report. In general, the steps in the EJ analysis process are as follows:

1 INDOT. INDOT Categorical Exclusion Manual, 2013 (last updated May 2017). “Chapter IV.C.7 Section G – Community Impacts”. Page 77. Accessed on 9/10/18 at https://www.in.gov/indot/files/ES_2013CEManual.pdf. 15

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 16 1. Determine the presence of EJ populations and establish EJ affected communities (ACs). 2. Develop and implement an EJ outreach plan. 3. Identify EJ community characteristics. 4. Analyze potential impacts of the Proposed Action and associated MOT Options relative to EJ populations. 5. Determine the applicability of “Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects” to EJ populations. 6. Identify potential solutions to adverse impacts through avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement. 7. Document findings.

The Project’s communities of comparison (COCs) consist of Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana and Jefferson County in Kentucky. COCs are broken into smaller, more manageable units based on Census Tracts (CTs; or as affected communities [ACs] by INDOT). Project ACs includes all of the CTs located in the Project Study Area with demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 five-year estimates.

When compared to the larger COC totals, ACs that are more than 50 percent minority or low-income are automatically considered EJ populations. For all other ACs, an EJ population exists if the low-income population or minority population is 25 percent higher than the corresponding COC population. Within the Project Study Area, the KIPDA EJ ACs were updated, where necessary, based on 2013-2017 ACS five- year estimates and the applicability of the EJ threshold criteria was confirmed for each AC.

Project Area COC and EJ AC demographic data were incorporated into a Travel Demand Model (TDM) for insights to likely detour routes, travel time changes, changes in travel costs, and roadways likely to experience increased congestion. The TDM utilized both EJ and Non-EJ Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs; as determined by KIPDA) based on whether or not the zone was within an EJ community. The model outputs were categorized by the trip origin as either:

• EJ Trip – those trips originating from within a Study Area EJ TAZ or a

• Non-EJ Trip – those trips originating outside of a Study Area EJ TAZ.

Potential EJ impacts are detected by locating minority populations and low-income populations in and near the project area, calculating their percentage in the area relative to a reference population (i.e. Project COCs, and determining whether there will be adverse impacts to them. For this project, disparities between non-EJ and EJ populations were examined comparing existing data with implementation of the proposed MOT Options. Potential disparities between non-EJ and EJ populations were analyzed for temporary changes in traffic diversions, congestion, average AM peak trip (length, time, cost, and tolls), transit, social access and mobility, and economic impacts.

EJ impacts were then evaluated per FHWA Order 6640.23A (5)(g) that defines a “Disproportionately High and Adverse Effect on Minority and Low-Income Populations” as “an adverse effect that (1) is

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 17 predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population; or (2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the nonminority population and/or non-low- income population.”

ES.7 Public Involvement Effort and EJ Outreach Public involvement, while key to the overall success of any transportation project, is an essential element of the CIA and EJ processes. Public involvement provides an opportunity for the full spectrum of public participation, from individuals, organizations, business interests, neighborhoods, and communities, to local, state, and federal officials. All participants are afforded an opportunity to provide input on project- related concerns, alternatives, and solutions.

To understand and assess potential impacts to citizens, businesses, and Environmental Justice populations within the Project Study Area, a robust public involvement program was carried out during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) phase and included such elements as:

• Public Involvement Plan (PIP), Project Website (http://shermanmintonrenewal.com), Facebook Page, and Twitter account; • Community Advisory Committee (CAC), Environmental Justice Technical Advisory Committees (EJ TACs), Public Official Briefings, and Small Group Stakeholder Meetings; • Public Open House/Information Meetings, comment cards, survey, and formal Public Hearings.

Applicable information gathered throughout the public involvement effort has been incorporated into the CIA and the EJ Analysis, for example: • The Sherman Minton Bridge is identified as the key element of community cohesion between the cities of New Albany and west Louisville; these communities and their collective economy are linked by the bridge. • The 2011 emergency closure of the Sherman Minton Bridge serves as a benchmark for regional commuters, local residents, local businesses, public officials, and municipalities for relative project concerns and impacts. There is little to no support for full closure of the bridge due to congestion impacts and impacts to local businesses, whereas, two lanes open on both decks is the most desired option. • There is broad community support for rehabilitating the bridge with project duration is of less concern than the impacts of construction required MOT. The temporary impact of traffic diversion is a concern regionally and locally including: the need to consider emergency services; added congestion on the regional network and local streets, travel time, and costs; and particularly user costs from having to pay tolls due to vehicles being diverted from the Sherman Minton Bridge.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 18 • Impacts to public transportation to offset mobility impacts have been identified as a community concern. EJ populations are particularly sensitive to potential mobility impacts, cross-river community cohesion, air quality impacts and heavy trucks diverting through EJ neighborhoods.

ES.8 Community Profiles and Demographics In 2017, more than 955,000 people lived in Clark and Floyd (Indiana) and Jefferson (Kentucky) counties (U.S. Census, 2018). The area’s population is expected to increase by 18% in Clark, 7% in Floyd, and 25% in Jefferson county by 2040 (Louisville Metro, 2019c; IU, 2019; Ruther, 2016). A wide variety of community resources are present within the Project Study Area and overall metropolitan Kentuckiana region. The bridge crossings over the Ohio River are vital components that keeps this bi-state region cohesive and community-oriented.

Based upon community profiles developed for the Project Study Area and surrounding jurisdictions, those on the Indiana side of the Ohio River Area are more likely to experience greater temporary impacts:

• Indiana – Floyd and Clark counties, cities of New Albany and Jeffersonville, and Town of Clarksville o 40% and 60% of those residing in Floyd and Clark counties in the Project Study Area commute out of state to Kentucky, with an even larger percentage of residents in New Albany and Clarksville doing so (up to 80%). o Indiana residents have a greater reliance on the SMB, with a 2.5:1 ratio of Indiana to Kentucky residents crossing the Ohio River for jobs. o Silver Creek limits the New Albany network to three east-west crossings (I-265, Blackiston Mill Road, and Spring Street/Providence Way and Spring Street/Brown Station Way). This is likely to increase potential congestion on local routes as travelers find alternate crossings into Louisville.

• Kentucky – Jefferson County and the City of Louisville o About 20% of Kentucky residents commute to Indiana. o I-64 provides a high-capacity Interstate connection directly along the river between the SMB to the west and the downtown bridges to the east. o West Louisville has a classic arterial grid roadway network that allows for efficient travel options between these bridges. This network currently has excess capacity that could accommodate a temporary increase in traffic volumes.

Demographic data evaluations demonstrate limited English proficiency (LEP), children (<5-years old), and elderly (>65-years old) populations and did not warrant special attention. While the consistently higher percentage of minority and/or low-income populations within the Project Study Area than the overall jurisdictions, warrant special attention to potential project-related impacts (Figure ES-6): • Clark County - 8 Census Tract; 5 are minority, 4 are low income, and 4 are both

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 19 • Floyd County - 13 Census Tracts; 4 are minority, 8 are low income, and 4 are both • Jefferson County - 38 Census Tracts; 29 are minority, 35 are low-income, and 29 are both • Percentage of households without a vehicle are higher within Project Study Area Census Tracts than for Census Tracts for Clark and Floyd (Indiana) and Jefferson (Kentucky) counties as a whole.

These demographics are supported by observational data such as the presence of public housing, other subsidized housing, senior-living communities, municipal redevelopment efforts, and community resources aimed at EJ communities. Community facilities and services will also experience similar temporary impacts; however, significant disruptions and loss of service is not anticipated.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 20 Figure ES-6: Affected Community Census Tracks - Environmental Justice (EJ)

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 21 The public transit system serving the Project Study Area is operated by the Transit Authority of River City (TARC). TARC representatives have indicated that while all MOT options would have some effect on their operations, additional coordination would allow for service adjustments to ensure continued served for their ridership. • In Indiana, increased congestion on the local roadway network and at the river crossings under any of the MOT options could affect headways for TARC Routes 71, 72, 82, and 65X. Route 71 would be most affected because, in a single complete trip, this route crosses the Ohio River twice: once on the SMB and once on the Clark Memorial Bridge which, in the Base case, is already at capacity. If TARC is unable to provide alternative and timely routes for these riders, the impact to riders needing to cross the river could be significant. • In Kentucky, because of Louisville Metro area’s robust roadway network, TARC riders on routes that do not cross the river are not anticipated to experience travel time delays under any of the MOT Options in the Louisville Metro area.

ES.9 CIA and EJ Impacts Temporary MOT options translate to community and EJ impacts through increased traffic on local roads; increased traffic noise for communities adjacent to detour routes; changes in accessibility to businesses, jobs, schools, community facilities, goods, and services; and potential loss of business revenue as a result of changes. The following evaluation factors were used in the CIA and EJ evaluations: • Traffic Impacts o Diversions – Average Daily Traffic (ADT) vehicles diverted from the Sherman Minton Bridge and percentage change (total vehicles and EJ area origin passenger vehicles). o Congestion - under capacity, near capacity, or at capacity conditions based on estimated peak hour traffic at any of the four selected local street network locations. o Change in average AM Peak trip length (miles) and time (minutes) for Non-EJ (total vehicles) and EJ (passenger vehicles by origin area). • Transit impacts o Potential for a TARC route change (low to high) o Travel time delay for a TARC route change (minimal to 3 times existing) • Economic impacts o Relative construction duration (years) o Change in average AM Peak trip user cost and toll cost ($ Non-EJ total vehicles and $ EJ passenger vehicles by origin area) o Temporary disruption for local businesses (low to high) • Social impacts o Local access (ramp closures) and cross-river connectivity (maintained, reduced, or closed)

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 22 The existing condition (defined as the “Base” inputs used in the TDM) for relative comparisons to MOT options for the Sherman Minton Bridge with all three lanes open on both the eastbound (EB) and westbound (WB) bridge decks:

• Traffic – 90,000 ADT with no diversions, congestion (under capacity), average trip length (miles - 20.3 non-EJ; 12.7 EJ miles) and trip time (minutes - 35 non-EJ; 26.9 EJ).

• Transit impacts – disruption of TARC routes (none); increase in rider travel time (none)

• Economic impacts – duration (0 years), average AM Peak trip user cost ($19.07 Non-EJ; $11.84 EJ) and toll cost ($1.06 Non-EJ; $.019 EJ)

EJ impacts were evaluated per FHWA Order 6640.23A (5)(g) that defines a “Disproportionately High and Adverse Effect on Minority and Low-Income Populations” as “an adverse effect that (1) is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population; or (2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the nonminority population and/or non-low-income population.”

• All of the MOT options have some degree of EJ impacts, based upon diversion to toll facilities and increased network user costs

• Disproportionately high and adverse effects to EJ populations vary by MOT option (yes/no)

The CIA and EJ evaluations results are summarized below; select summaries are shown on Tables ES2, ES- 3, ES5, and ES-4:

MOT 1 – Two lanes open, both decks (EB and WB)

• Traffic impacts – 7,400 ADT diversions (8% total; 19% EJ), congestion (under capacity), change in trip length (miles – 0.2 non-EJ; 0.2 EJ) and trip time (minutes – 0.9 non-EJ; 0.9 EJ).

• Transit impacts – disruption of TARC routes (few); increase in rider travel time (low)

• Economic impacts – duration (3+ years), change in average AM Peak trip user cost ($0.52 Non-EJ; $0.41 EJ) and toll cost ($0.20 Non-EJ; $0.14 EJ)

• Social impacts - access closures (none) and cross-river connectivity (maintained)

• EJ impacts - disproportionately high and adverse effects (no)

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 23 MOT 2 – One lane open, both decks (EB and WB)

• Traffic impacts – 33,400 ADT diversions (37% total; 21% EJ), congestion (near capacity), change in trip length (miles – 0.1 non-EJ; 0.2 EJ) and trip time (minutes – 2.0 non-EJ; 2.6 EJ).

• Transit impacts – disruption of TARC routes (few); increase in rider travel time (moderate)

• Economic impacts – duration (2 years), change in average AM Peak trip user cost ($1.37 Non-EJ; $1.18 EJ) and toll cost ($0.59 Non-EJ; $0.35 EJ)

• Social impacts - access ramps (3 closures) and cross-river cohesion (maintained)

• EJ impacts - disproportionately high and adverse effects (no)

MOT 3 – Alternating three one-way lanes (AM-EB / PM-WB) open on one deck

• Traffic impacts – 40,600 diversions (45% total; 28% EJ), congestion (under capacity), change in trip length (miles – 0.2 non-EJ; 0.8 EJ) and trip time (minutes – 0.3 non-EJ; 3.2 EJ).

• Transit impacts – disruption of TARC routes (high); increase in rider travel time (high)

• Economic impacts – duration (2.5 years), change in average AM Peak trip user cost ($0.57 Non-EJ; $01.32 EJ) and toll cost ($0.41 Non-EJ; $0.07 EJ)

• Social impacts - access ramps (4 closures) and cross-river cohesion (reduced)

• EJ impacts - disproportionately high and adverse effects (yes)

MOT 4 – Reversible center lane (AM-EB / PM-WB) and one-way EB/WB lanes open on one deck

• Traffic impacts – 19,700 diversions (22% total; 26% EJ), congestion (under capacity), change in trip length (miles – 0.1 non-EJ; 0.1 EJ) and trip time (minutes – 1.0 non-EJ; 2.0 EJ).

• Transit impacts – disruption of TARC routes (none); increase in rider travel time (none)

• Economic impacts – duration (2.5 years), change in average AM Peak trip user cost ($0.68 Non-EJ; $0.88 EJ) and toll cost ($0.29 Non-EJ; $0.20 EJ)

• Social impacts - access ramps (5 closures) and cross-river cohesion (maintained)

• EJ impacts - disproportionately high and adverse effects (no)

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 24 MOT 5 – Full Closure* of all six lanes and both decks

• Traffic impacts – 90,000 diversions (100% total; 18% EJ), congestion (at capacity), change in trip length (miles – 1.1 non-EJ; 1.3 EJ) and trip time (minutes – 3.3 non-EJ; 6.0 EJ).

• Transit impacts – disruption of TARC routes (none); increase in rider travel time (none)

• Economic impacts – duration (1.5 years*), change in average AM Peak trip user cost ($2.77 Non- EJ; $2.98 EJ) and toll cost ($1.24 Non-EJ; $0.72 EJ)

• Social impacts - access ramps (4 closures) and cross-river cohesion (closed)

• EJ impacts - disproportionately high and adverse effects (yes, based on 1.5 years duration*)

MOT 6 – One Direction/Phase three one-way lanes (WB-Phase 1/EB-Phase 2) open on one deck

• Traffic impacts – 46,600 ADT diversions (52% total; 21% EJ), congestion (at capacity), change in trip length (miles – 0.5 non-EJ; 0.6 EJ) and trip time (minutes – 1.7 non-EJ; 3.2 EJ).

• Transit impacts – disruption of TARC routes (none); increase in rider travel time (none)

• Economic impacts – duration (2.5 years), change in average AM Peak trip user cost ($1.43 Non-EJ; $1.56 EJ) and toll cost ($0.64 Non-EJ; $0.36 EJ)

• Social impacts - access ramps (3 closures) and cross-river cohesion (reduced)

• EJ impacts - disproportionately high and adverse effects (yes)

All six MOT options would have minimal and temporary changes for the remaining evaluation criteria:

• Quality of Life Factors (Air Quality and Noise Impacts)

• Safety Factors for the overall traveling public and local communities (driver expectancy o Emergency incident response access o Work zone safety.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 25 Table ES-2: Average Daily Traffic Diverted from Sherman Minton Bridge

Base MOT 1 MOT 2 MOT 3* MOT 4 MOT 5 MOT 6 OHIO RIVER CROSSING Condition ADT ADT % ADT % ADT % ADT % ADT % ADT %

Total remaining vehicles using Sherman Minton Bridge 90,000 82,600 92% 56,600 63% 49,400 55% 70,300 78% 0 0% 43,400 48% I-64 (US 150) ; Non-To lled

Total diverted vehicles to other 0 7,400 8% 33,400 37% 40,600 45% 19,700 22% 90,000 100% 46,600 52% Ohio River crossings (bridges) Diverted vehicles to other Ohio River crossings - separated by Bridge Clark Memorial / 2nd St. Bridge US Route 31 0 700 9% 4,200 13% 7,310 18% 3,350 17% 11,700 13% 6,520 14% - Non-To lled ** Kennedy / Lincoln Bridges Interstate I-65 0 5,700 77% 23,600 71% 27,610 68% 13,590 69% 64,800 72% 33,550 72% - To lled Lewis & Clark Bridge Interstate I-265 0 1,000 14% 5,600 16% 5,680 14% 2,760 14% 13,500 15% 6,520 14% (IN SR 265 / KY 814) - To lled Diverted vehicles to other Ohio River crossings - separated by Environmental Justice (EJ) Passenger Vehicles ***

EJ – Total Diverted Vehicles 0 1,400 19% 7,000 21% 11,500 28% 5,200 26% 16,400 18% 9,600 21%

EJ – Diverted to Toll Bridges 0 700 50% 2,700 39% 900 8% 1,800 35% 7,100 43% 3,100 32%

Note: ATD – Average Daily Traffic; some differences due to rounding * Does not account for twice a day 90-minute closures for direction change; some differences due to rounding ** Because Clark Memorial Bridge is at capacity, nearly equivalent amount of traffic also shifts from Clark/2nd St. Bridge to Kennedy/Lincoln bridges *** Based upon daily passenger vehicle trips originating from within designated EJ portions (KIPDA) of the Study Area

Page 25

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 26 Table ES-3: Non-EJ and EJ Populations (AM Peak Period) - Average Trip Length and Time Non-EJ Trips EJ Trips Difference between in Non- MOT - Average Change Change EJ to EJ Trip Length Average Trip Average Trip Mileage # Miles % Mileage # Miles % # Miles Change in % Base Condition 20.3 0.0 -- 12.7 0.0 -- 7.6 37.4% MOT 1 20.1 -0.2 -1.0% 12.5 -0.2 -1.6% 7.6 -0.4% MOT 2 20.4 0.1 0.5% 12.5 -0.2 -1.6% 7.9 -1.3% MOT 3* 20.5 0.2 1.0% 13.5 0.8 6.3% 7.0 3.3% MOT 4 20.2 -0.1 -0.5% 12.8 0.1 0.8% 7.4 0.8% MOT 5 21.4 1.1 5.4% 14.0 1.3 10.2% 7.4 2.9% MOT 6** 20.8 0.5 2.5% 13.3 0.6 4.7% 7.5 1.4% Non-EJ Trips EJ Trips Difference between MOT - Average Average Trip Change Average Trip Change Non-EJ to EJ Trip Time Travel Time # Minutes % Travel Time # Minutes % # Minutes Change in % Base Condition 35.0 0.0 -- 26.9 0.0 -- 8.1 23.1% MOT 1 35.9 0.9 2.6% 27.8 0.9 3.3% 8.1 0.6% MOT 2 37.0 2.0 5.6% 29.5 2.6 9.7% 7.5 2.9% MOT 3* 35.3 0.3 0.8% 30.1 3.2 11.9% 5.2 8.4% MOT 4 36.0 1.0 2.8% 28.9 2.0 7.4% 7.1 3.4% MOT 5 38.3 3.3 9.2% 32.9 6.0 22.3% 5.4 9.0% MOT 6** 36.7 1.7 4.4% 30.1 3.2 11.9% 6.6 5.2% Source: SMRP TDM outputs in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT; some differences due to rounding Notes: Non-EJ Trip – those trips originating outside of a Study Area EJ TAZ EJ Trip – those trips originating from within a Study Area EJ TAZ *MOT 3 - AM Peak does not account closed reverse direction or twice a day 90-minute closures for AM/PM direction change ** MOT 6 - AM Peak does not account for closed reverse direction during each construction phase

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 27 Table ES-4: AM Peak Non-EJ and EJ Trip - Average User Cost and Toll Cost Non-EJ Trips EJ Trips Difference between MOT - Average Change Change Non-EJ to EJ User Cost Average Trip Average Trip Cost $ $ % Cost $ $ % $ Change in % Base Condition $19.07 - -- $11.84 - -- $7.23 37.9% MOT 1 $19.59 $0.52 2.7% $12.25 $0.41 3.5% $7.34 0.4% MOT 2 $20.44 $1.37 7.2% $13.02 $1.18 10.0% $7.42 1.6% MOT 3* $19.64 $0.57 3.0% $13.16 $1.32 11.1% $6.48 4.9% MOT 4 $19.75 $0.68 3.6% $12.72 $0.88 7.4% $7.03 2.3% MOT 5 $21.84 $2.77 14.5% $14.82 $2.98 25.2% $7.02 5.8% MOT 6** $20.50 $1.43 7.5% $13.40 $1.56 13.2% $7.10 3.3% Non-EJ Trips EJ Trips Difference between MOT - Average Change Change Non-EJ to EJ Toll Cost Average Toll Average Toll Cost $ $ $ Cost $ $ % $ Change in % Base Condition $1.06 - - $0.19 - - $0.87 82.1% MOT 1 $1.26 $0.20 19% $0.33 $0.14 73% $0.93 8.3% MOT 2 $1.65 $0.59 56% $0.54 $0.35 185% $1.11 14.8% MOT 3* $1.47 $0.41 38% $0.26 $0.07 39% $1.21 -0.2% MOT 4 $1.35 $0.29 27% $0.39 $0.20 105% $0.96 11.0% MOT 5 $2.30 $1.24 118% $0.91 $0.72 376% $1.39 21.6% MOT 6** $1.70 $0.64 61% $0.55 $0.36 192% $1.15 14.4% Source: SMRP TDM outputs in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT; some differences due to rounding Notes: Non-EJ Trip – those trips originating outside of a Study Area EJ TAZ EJ Trip – those trips originating from within a Study Area EJ TAZ User Cost – based cost per mile, travel time, and if there are toll costs for the TDM trips *MOT – AM Peak does not account closed reverse direction or twice a day 90-minute closures for AM/PM direction change ** MOT 6 – AM Peak does not account for closed reverse direction during construction phase

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 28 Table ES-5: Summary of Potential Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects MOT MOT MOT MOT MOT MOT TEMPORARY 1 2 3 4 5 6 IMPACT SUB-CATEGORY Disp. Disp. Disp. Disp. Disp. Disp. CATEGORY Adv. Adv. Adv. Adv. Adv. Adv. High High High High High High Diversions x

Access and Congestion x x Traffic Travel Distance

Travel Time

Transit TARC Riders* x x x x x x

Diversion to Tolls x x x x x x User Costs - Network x x x x x x Economic User Costs - Local x x x Local Businesses** x x x x Access, Mobility, Cohesion x x x x x Social Quality of Life - Air and Noise

Overall Potential No No Yes No Yes Yes Disp. High – potentially “Disproportionately High” for EJ populations within the Study Area Adv. – potentially “Adverse” for EJ populations within the Study Area Overall – potentially “Disproportionately High” and “Adverse” for EJ populations within the Study Area *Applies primarily to cross-river riders on TARC Route 71 ** Applies primarily to businesses in downtown New Albany

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 29 ES.10 CIA/EJ Findings and MOT Recommendations While local communities, services and facilities, and EJ populations located near the SMB could experience adverse temporary effects, they would also benefit from the long-term benefits of the completed Project and anticipated greater certainty for cross-river connectivity, an extended 30 years SMB lifespan, and removal of temporary measures upon completion.

Based upon the CIA and EJ evaluations, the local EJ populations in the Project Study Area would be adversely affected in all six MOT options for diversion to tolled facilities and increased network user costs. EJ populations within the Project Study Area are not disproportionately more reliant on the existing SMB nor would these populations be disproportionately affected by having to use an alternative river crossing with 75% of the EJ Trips did not cross the river (via a passenger vehicle using the SMB). Similarly, regardless of MOT Option, the increased use of tolled river crossings for EJ Trips would be less than that of Non-EJ Trips.

MOT 1 – Two lanes open, both decks (existing EB-eastbound and WB-westbound decks) • MOT 1 is the closest to existing conditions and driver expectations; the most public support; the least amount of diverted traffic volume, trip length, travel time, user cost, and congestion; would cause the fewest disruptions to network and local access, cross-river connectivity and cohesion, local communities and services; and the lowest impacts for EJ populations. • MOT 1 has the longest duration and the narrowest construction zone which could hinder movement of equipment and materials. • MOT 1 did not appear to have undue temporary impacts on local EJ populations, while aspects of the remaining MOTs have the potential to meet either “Disproportionately High” and/or additional “Adverse Effects” to EJ populations for the Proposed Action. Therefore, it is recommended that the MOT 1 option serves as the primary condition, but in combination with limited use of MOT 2 and MOT 5 options.

MOT 2 – One lane open, both decks (EB and WB decks) MOT 2 has the fewer/lower temporary changes for access, east/west crossings, diverted traffic, travel time, estimated project cost, user cost, driver expectation, community impacts, and a shorter duration. However, MOT 2 has increased congestion within EJ communities. Therefore, it is recommended that use of the MOT 2 option be limited to low-traffic conditions (such as overnight or weekends). MOT 5 – Temporary Closure of all six lanes and both decks MOT 5 has the most/highest temporary changes from existing conditions for access, east/west crossings, diverted traffic, travel time, congestion, user cost, driver expectation, community and

Page 29

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 30 EJ impacts, and little to no public support. However, MOT 5 also has the shortest duration, lowest estimated project cost and complete separation of the work zone from the traveling public. Therefore, it is recommended that use of the MOT 5 option only as required for project constructability considerations and be for infrequent and short periods (such as 3-day weekends or non-consecutive weeks). MOT 3, MOT 4, and MOT 6 – Single-deck with daily, peak-hour, or phase based one-way lanes

The one-direction river crossing MOTs have less public support; similar high temporary changes from existing conditions for access, east/west crossings, diverted traffic, travel time, congestion, user cost, driver expectation, community and EJ impacts; have the highest uncertainty for driver expectation and commerce. Therefore, the single-deck options were not carried forward.

Avoidance and Minimization Measures

• No property acquisitions or new Right-of-Way (ROW) • No relocations or setback buffers

• No increase in capacity (no added travel or access ramp lanes) • Rehabilitation of existing structures only • Temporary added ramp lanes • Combining individual MOT options to reduce impacts and meet constructability requirements

MOT for the Preferred Alternative

Based upon the preceding CIA and EJ evaluations of the individual MOT options considered (MOT 1 to MOT 6), the preferred alternative recommended MOT consists primarily the MOT 1 option conditions with modifications to include an additional construction phase and with allowances for limited overnight lane and access reductions (reduced MOT 2 conditions) and bridge closure as warranted (infrequent and short-term MOT 5 conditions):

• Open access ramps and two (2) eastbound travel lanes and two (2) westbound travel lanes that shift between both decks during four (4) construction phases

• 180 overnight (10 PM to 4 AM) and reduction to one (1) eastbound travel lane and one (1) westbound travel lane

• Temporary bridge closure and associated access ramps for three (3) 9-days construction phase transitions and three (3) 3-day weekends per construction year

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 31 1. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Sherman Minton Bridge (SMB) is one of two Interstate crossings of the Ohio River in the Louisville metro area. The SMB carries approximately 90,000 vehicles per day on I-64 over the Ohio River between the City of New Albany, Indiana and the area of West Louisville in Kentucky and is a critical part of the existing Interstate System facilitating daily regional traffic. The SMB is currently the sole non-tolled Interstate bridge serving the area. Other Ohio River crossings in the region include the US 31 Clark Memorial Bridge (Clark/2nd St.; non-tolled) in downtown Louisville, the I-65 Kennedy and Lincoln Bridges (Kennedy/Lincoln; tolled) and the IN SR 265/KY 841 Lewis and Clark Bridges (Lewis & Clark; tolled) east of Louisville (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Project Location Map

Page 1

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 32 The Sherman Minton Renewal Project (SMRP), hereinafter referred to as “the Project”, is the rehabilitation of the SMB and the approach bridges in Indiana and Kentucky. The Project includes coordination of needed maintenance activities along I-64 from I-265 in Southern Indiana to the I-264 interchange in Kentucky. The Project may include bridge deck replacements and bridge deck overlays, structural repairs, replacement lighting, drainage components, HMA overlay with ADA ramps reconstruction, and ramp frictionalization. The goal of the Project is to extend the service life of the bridges by up to 30 years. The Project is a joint effort between the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC). INDOT is leading the Project in close collaboration with key staff from KYTC.

The Project will require construction zones with temporary lane/ramp closures and potentially temporary detours for full closures during construction. To make maximum use of these temporary restrictions and to fully evaluate the maintenance of traffic to ensure maximum mobility for the traveling public, the Project will include deck overlay work on I-64 westbound and eastbound over SR 111/Main Street and I- 64 eastbound over Southern Railroad, along with painting of the I-64 EB bridge over Market Street. Some surface street work will also occur as part of this project, including Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) overlay, preventative maintenance, and ADA curb ramp work on West 4th Street, West 5th Street, West Spring Street and West Elm Street near the I-64 ramps in New Albany, IN. The Project logical termini are the system to system I-64/I-264 interchange to the south in Kentucky and the I-64/I-265 interchange to the north in Indiana and have independent utility with the surrounding interstate network.

Table 1 provides additional details for the proposed improvements anticipated to be completed as part of the Project. Figure 2 depicts the geographic location of the various individual elements of the Project. Table 1: Sherman Minton Renewal Project – Individual Project Elements Des. No. Bridge No. Description Work Type 1702255 I64-123- Sherman Minton Bridge Bridge Deck Replacement and 04691 D Structural Repairs 1702260 056B00161N KY Approach Bridge Deck Replacement 1702254 056B00161N KY Approach Bridge Painting 1592187 I64-123- Sherman Minton Bridge Bridge Painting 04691 D 1702257 I64-123- I-64 WB over SR 111/Main Street, RR (IN Approach Bridge Deck Overlay 02294 CWBL WB) 1702258 I64-123- I-64 EB over SR 111/Main Street Bridge Deck Overlay 02294 CEBL (IN Approach EB) 1702259 I64-123- I-64 EB over Southern RR Bridge Deck Overlay 02294 JCEB (IN Approach EB) 1701215 n/a Old SR 62 (Elm St.) from NB I-64 exit ramp to State St.; HMA Overlay, Preventative Spring St. from W 5th St. to State St.; W 4th St. at Spring St.; Maintenance, ADA curb W 5th St. from SB I-64 exit ramp to SR 111/Main St. ramps 1900579 I64-123- I-64 EB over Market Street 0.11 W of SR 111. Bridge Painting 04690 BEBL

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 33

Figure 2: Project Elements and Locations

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 34

Since the 2011 Sherman Minton Bridge emergency closure, several bridge repair projects have been performed to extend the life of the bridge and the three adjoining Indiana approach bridges. In 2013, bridge deck expansion, joint replacement and steel repairs were performed.

An unplanned urgent repair project was required in 2017 to strengthen steel floor system elements due to corrosion and section loss. Section loss refers to a reduction in the size of a particular component due to corrosion that results in a reduction of the load carrying capacity of the component. In 2018 another unplanned urgent repair project occurred to repair holes and deterioration identified in the bridge decks. Because of the age and condition of the structures the frequency of unplanned repairs necessary to keep the bridge safely in service is increasing.

Replacement of the existing SMB would have new environmental impacts; expanded evaluation, justification, and permitting requirements; require new Right of Way (ROW) and potential relocations; a longer time-frame to address deteriorating conditions, and significantly higher financial costs. SMB replacement was not carried forward in the Project scope. The Sherman Minton Bridge is the most heavily travelled crossing of the Ohio River in Louisville, and as such, many people are affected by these frequent repairs and associated lane closures required to perform repairs. A portion of the traffic that uses this bridge is commercial and lane closures can cause delays due to queuing at the bridge or detouring around the bridge.

1.2 PROJECT NEED The need for the Project stems from the deteriorating structural condition of the existing Sherman Minton Bridge over the Ohio River and the Indiana and Kentucky approach bridges (Figure 3). Deficiencies noted in the 2017 INDOT Bridge Assessment Report include the following Table 2; refer to Figure 4 and Figure 5 for the identification of some of the structural components of the bridge.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 35

Figure 3: Photo from 2019 Inspection

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 36

Table 2: Existing Condition of SMB and Approaches (2017 INDOT Bridge Assessment Report; excerpt)

Condition Rating Bridge Component Good Fair Poor (Inspection Date) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I64-123-04691 D Deck Sherman Minton Superstructure Bridge (2017) Substructure Paint I64-123-02294 Deck CWBL I-64 WB Superstructure over SR 111/Main St., RR IN Approach Substructure WB (2017) Paint I64-123-02294 CEBL Deck I-64 EB over SR 111 Superstructure /Main Street IN Substructure Approach EB (2017) Paint I64-123-02294 JCEB Deck I-64 EB over Superstructure Southern RR IN Substructure Approach EB (2017) Paint 056B00161N Deck KY Approach (2017) Superstructure Substructure Paint 9-7 Excellent to Good condition with none to some minor problems noted. 6-5 Satisfactory to fair condition, all primary structural elements found but minor deterioration, section loss is present 4-1 Poor to “imminent” failure condition, Advanced to Major deterioration to primary structure elements, Fatigue cracks may be present, or scour could be damaging to support. 0 Failed condition the bridge is out-of-service. Source: INDOT and KYTC Bridge Inspection Reports; table excerpts.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 37

Figure 4: Bridge Components - Steel Tied-Arch Spans

Substructure (concrete piers and foundations) • Limited concrete cracking was identified along the piers and abutments.

• Some spalling was identified on limited areas along the piers, and abutments

Superstructure (the portion of the bridges above the top of the concrete piers) • Arch and Truss Members: o The arch and truss members are the main structural elements which together support the entire span from pier to pier. In general, these members currently exhibit areas of paint failure throughout the structure leaving steel elements unprotected. If left unchecked, these members will continue to deteriorate causing further widespread deterioration and section loss. As the remaining steel section decreases through the corrosion process, the overall load carrying capacity of individual members decreases, which can result in the need to restore capacity through a localized repair. The 2017 INDOT Bridge Assessment Report concluded: Members exhibit areas of paint failure throughout the structure, particularly in the splash zone with minor to moderate section loss observed

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 38

• Cable Hangers:

o The hanger cables are the primary means of support for the floorbeam frames, stringers, deck and allow proper support in transfer of loads to the arch members. The cables are comprised of many individual wires bundled together in one cable, with a minimum of 130 individual wires in each cable. As these hanger cables and connections deteriorate due to inadequate protection from corrosion, they will either need to be retrofit or replaced. The 2017 INDOT Bridge Assessment Report concluded: Surface corrosion is commonly identified on the cables. In addition, one cable was observed to be swelling due to internal corrosion. Most cables exhibit 1 to 3 displaced wires along the length Several cables connections exhibit moderate to heavy corrosion or pack rust of the connecting elements • Bridge Decks: The bridge decks are approximately 60 years old and were part of the original construction. The bridge decks are currently listed in fair condition but are continuing to deteriorate and require more frequent repairs. The cracking observed in the bridge decks and overlays allows chlorides (road salts) to more easily penetrate the concrete deck to the level of the reinforcing steel. Corrosion of the reinforcement steel leads to a weakening of the bridge deck and localized spalling and delamination of the concrete. This corrosion eventually leads to potholes. A 2018 INDOT Deck Condition Assessment study confirmed the presence of chlorides as the primary deterioration mechanism. Patching deteriorated portions of the bridge deck as was performed in 2018 can provide a short-term solution and improve rideability, however it is common for deterioration to continue to spread. Ultimately, as the condition deteriorates replacement of the bridge deck becomes the most cost-effective solution. The 2017 INDOT Bridge Assessment Report concluded: Cracking internally and externally were observed at the underside of deck joints. Typical for all bridges. Spalling was identified on limited areas on the upper deck, along the piers, abutments, copings and curbs Chloride exposure primarily from road salts identified at the level of the reinforcing steel

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 39

Figure 5: Bridge Components as viewed from the Lower Deck

• Floorbeam Frames: o The floorbeam frames provide support for the stringers which in turn support the bridge deck. The floorbeam frames carry all the load from the deck out to the supporting hanger cables. Failure of the coating system is significant as this is the only means of protection from corrosion and section loss. As the remaining steel section decreases through the corrosion process, the overall load carrying capacity of individual members decreases, which can result in the need to restore capacity through a localized repair. The 2017 INDOT Bridge Assessment Report concluded: Widespread paint failure was observed, corrosion varies from surface corrosion to heavy section loss, in some areas approaching 50% of the original thickness • Steel Stringers: o Steel stringers are used to support the deck between the floorbeam frames. Like the other structural steel members, loss of section results in a decrease in load carrying capacity. This can lead to restricting loads crossing the bridge as conditions worsen. The 2017 INDOT Bridge Assessment Report concluded:

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 40

Widespread paint failure was observed, corrosion varies from surface corrosion to heavy section loss, in some areas approaching 50% of the original thickness Cracking is observed in some stringer ends as a result of section loss due to corrosion and out of plane distortion

To ensure the safety of the traveling public, more frequent bridge inspections and repair projects are projected to be required if the proposed Project is not completed within approximately five years. These inspections represent an increase in maintenance costs for INDOT and KYTC and potential service interruptions for the traveling public.

The Project is needed because of increasingly frequent planned and urgent bridge maintenance/closures for the safety of the traveling public; the deterioration of SMB elements and approach bridges (IN and KY) identified in the INDOT Bridge Assessment Report (dated October 18, 2017); and to meet the projected five-year timeframe for cleaning, repair, and protection (painting) of steel components and replacement bridge deck to preserve (and improve) the bridge service life.

1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of the Project is to extend the functional life the Sherman Minton Bridge and the associated Indiana and Kentucky approach bridges with the goal of extending the service life of this Interstate crossing of the Ohio River by up to 30 years.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 41

2. SHERMAN MINTON BRIDGE AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION

Since the opening of the SMB in 1962, ongoing repair and maintenance work has been performed seven times, the most notable of which was an emergency closure in 2011. On September 9, 2011, a comprehensive I-64 SMB inspection identified critical defects that necessitated Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ immediate, emergency closure of the bridge. Bridge inspectors discovered cracks in a critical load- carrying element of the bridge; the failure of which could have resulted in the collapse of the entire bridge if not immediately addressed. Based on the severity of the cracks, Indiana and Kentucky transportation officials and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) concurred with the indefinite closure to ensure public safety. Because of the urgency of the situation, the bridge closure was announced and implemented that day.

On October 27, 2011, FHWA formally announced in the Federal Register the temporary closure of the SMB due to safety considerations. FHWA’s announcement included recommended reroutes, as shown in Figure 6 and included below. Figure 6: 2011 FHWA Bridge Closure Detour The closure of the I-64 Sherman-Minton Bridge has affected traffic throughout the Louisville and Southern Indiana region. The closed bridge carried an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count of 80,000 vehicles. The I-65 Kennedy Bridge has an ADT of 130,000 vehicles. The additional traffic on I-65 due to the Sherman-Minton Bridge closure has increased delays in crossing over the Ohio River. The 2010 FHWA Freight Performance Measures Initiatives report ranked the I-65 at I-64/I-71 interchange as the nineteenth worst out of 250 national freight congestion locations. The Indiana and Kentucky State transportation officials have implemented official detours via the Interstate network. Traffic on eastbound I-64 in Indiana is detoured via I-265 eastbound and I-65 southbound. The traffic on I-65 southbound continues south to cross the Ohio River on the I-65 Kennedy Bridge to access downtown Louisville or rejoin I-64. Motorists also have the option to use the US 31 Clark Memorial Bridge, locally known as the Second Street Bridge, to cross the Ohio River into downtown Louisville. Traffic on westbound I-64 in Kentucky is detoured, via I-264 (or I-265) northbound to I-71 westbound to I-65 northbound. The traffic on I-65 northbound crosses the Ohio River on the Kennedy Bridge and continues north to I-265 westbound to rejoin I-64. To reduce Interstate ramp merging delays, some ramps in the area have been closed. The KYTC closed the ramp from I-64 westbound to I-65 northbound. The INDOT closed the ramp from I-265 westbound to I-65 southbound. Additionally, INDOT has increased the number of lanes on key ramps to lessen bottlenecks on the ramp systems. The I-64 eastbound to I-265 eastbound ramp, the I-265 westbound to I-64 westbound ramp, and the I-265

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 42

eastbound to I-65 southbound ramp were widened from one to two lanes. To improve the peak period traffic flow into downtown Louisville during the morning, one lane of the four lane US-31 Clark Memorial Bridge is being used as a reversible lane. This measure allows for three lane openings into Louisville during the peak period in the morning.

The INDOT and the KYTC have coordinated plans with local governments on both sides of the Ohio River. The INDOT and the KYTC met with local transportation officials and police agencies immediately after the closure to prepare for the anticipated overflow of traffic from the official detour route on the Interstates to the local network. Such coordination is continuing as changes are being made to improve travel in the area. Police agencies in the region are also assisting.

The INDOT is warning motorists of the closure and delays via electronic message boards in Indianapolis, Evansville, and throughout southern Indiana. The KYTC is warning motorists of the closure and delays in Lexington and throughout southern Kentucky. The Illinois Department of Transportation is using such boards to notify drivers of the closure near the junction of I-57 and I-64. Additionally, the INDOT has contacted regional Traffic Management Centers in Cincinnati and St. Louis regarding the I-64 closure. All Louisville area electronic message boards are being used to notify drivers of the closure, detours, and delay notices. To assist in facilitating interstate commerce, the INDOT and the KYTC are coordinating with local trucking associations to minimize freight traffic disruptions. The Indiana Department of the Revenue and the INDOT have suspended all oversize permits routed on I-64 and are redirecting permitted loads to cross the Ohio River at the following locations: Evansville US 41 Bridge, Rockport US 231 Bridge, and Lawrenceburg I-275 Bridge.

The KYTC is currently directing oversize and overweight permitted loads to avoid all of the Louisville bridges and seek alternate routes. Interested parties may apply for such permits to cross the Ohio River at the following locations: Henderson US 41 Bridge, Paducah I-24 Bridge, Owensboro US 231 Bridge, and Northern KY I-275 Bridge.

Commercial motor vehicles of the dimensions and configurations described in 23 CFR 658.13 (/selectcitation/2016/07/30/23-CFR-658.13) and 658.15 which serve the affected area may use the alternate routes listed above. Vehicles servicing the businesses bordering the impacted area will still be able to do so by also using the alternate routes noted above and local signage to circulate around the restricted area.2 2.1 EMERGENCY TEMPORARY CLOSURE - PUBLIC EXPERIENCE Because of the urgency of the situation, the bridge closure was announced and implemented on the same day, without prior notice, during Friday afternoon rush hour, leaving thousands of drivers stuck in traffic for hours (Figure 7).

The resulting congestion, uncertainty, and lengthy travel delays that ensued, not just that day but for the five months that followed, left a lasting impression for many individuals, communities, and businesses. Police were called in to help with traffic issues created by the diversions. Local businesses in New Albany

2 “Emergency Temporary Closure of the I-64 Sherman-Minton Bridge Over the Ohio River Between Indiana and Kentucky (FHWA Notice).” Federal Register 76:208 (October 27, 2011) pgs. 6675 - 66777. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2011-27785. 12

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 43

and Louisville were impacted because cross-river customers stopped making previously convenient trips. The daily lives and schedules of those working across the river were altered to accommodate up to four additional hours of commuting time. Figure 7: 2011 Emergency Closure Photos

The 2011 Emergency Temporary Closure was dubbed “Shermageddon™” and became a part of the local vernacular. On February 17, 2012, the SMB was re-opened to traffic, following a five-month closure. Understandably, those in the area are concerned about the SMRP. These concerns are further exacerbated by tolls associated with new and improved river crossings that were not present during the 2011 SMB closure.

2.2 EMERGENCY TEMPORARY CLOSURE - CONTRIBUTING FACTORS In 2011, when the Sherman Minton Bridge was abruptly closed, only three bridge crossings over the Ohio River existed in the Greater Louisville and New Albany region (Figure 8):

• The Sherman Minton Bridge, which carried approximately 80,000 vehicles per day; • The I-65 John F. Kennedy Memorial Bridge, which carried both northbound and southbound traffic at the time, with approximately 130,000 vehicles per day; and • The US 31 Clark Memorial Bridge (also known as Second Street Bridge), which carried approximately 26,000 vehicles per day.

2.3 WHAT IS DIFFERENT NOW Today, the area’s transportation network is far different than it was in 2011 (Figure 8). Completed in 2016, the Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project increased cross-river mobility by improving safety, reducing traffic congestion, connecting highways, and stimulating the economy of the Louisville- Southern Indiana region.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 44

Figure 8: 2011 vs. 2019 Transportation Network

The resulting changes to the transportation network include: construction of two new bridges, rehabilitation of one bridge, an interchange reconfiguration, implementation of tolls, and associated construction planning, preparation, and dissemination of real-time information.

With the construction of two new bridges, an additional nine travel lanes of capacity have been added to the transportation network; this more than doubled the area’s river crossing capacity:

• A new I-65 bridge (Abraham Lincoln Bridge) was constructed adjacent to the existing I-65 John F. Kennedy Memorial Bridge. The six-lane Lincoln Bridge is dedicated to northbound travel. Improvements to the existing Kennedy Bridge were also made, providing six lanes of dedicated southbound travel.

• Eight miles to the east, the new SR 265/KY 841 Lewis & Clark Bridge (also referred to as the East End Bridge) provides two lanes each for northbound and southbound travel with a total of four new travel lanes. • In conjunction with construction of these new bridges was the reconstruction and reconfiguration of “Spaghetti Junction”, the I-64, I-65, and I-71 interchange in Louisville, Kentucky.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 45

• As a means of funding these improvements, the Louisville and Southern Indiana Bridges Authority and the Kentucky Public Transportation Infrastructure Authority approved a financing plan that included tolling for the I-65 Lincoln/Kennedy Bridges and the SR 265/KY 841 Bridge. Tolling on these three bridges began on December 30, 2016. • Two bridges remain untolled in the area: the I-64 SMB and the US 31 Clark Memorial Bridge (i.e., Second Street Bridge). With the opening of the new bridges and implementation of the corresponding tolls in 2016, there has been increased traffic on the untolled bridges. During peak morning and evening commute times, the Clark Memorial Bridge operates at full capacity while ample, additional capacity is available on the tolled bridges. In addition to changes in the transportation network, there are several other factors that make the SMRP Proposed Action different from the 2011 SMB closure: o First, the SMRP Proposed Action is not an emergency response. INDOT and KYTC are taking comprehensive steps to ensure the best possible and least disruptive MOT Option(s) are implemented. o At the local, regional, state, and federal levels, there is time to discuss and implement vetted traffic reroutes. o Reroute notifications, signing, and restrictions on local roads, if any, will be in place prior to construction and rehabilitation efforts. o The Transit Authority of River City (TARC) will have the opportunity to work with communities before construction activities begin, to ensure public transportation needs are addressed. This could include adjusting bus routes based on planned reroutes and construction schedules. If necessary, TARC can add buses to shorten trip durations as a way of compensating for travel time delays. o MOT minimization and mitigation commitments identified through this study will be incorporated into the applicable construction and MOT efforts. o Lastly, real-time traffic information is now available via social media and traffic applications to aid travelers in making informed choices to minimize travel time delays.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 46

2.4 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing (or “Base” inputs for a model) traffic conditions were developed using a travel demand model (TDM) based on the Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Development Agency (KIPDA) regional model reflect the roadway network changes since the 2011 Emergency Closure. Full details on the development of TDM and analyses are documented in the SMRP Traffic Analysis Technical Report prepared for this Project.

The TDM was developed to assess the effects of various options for managing traffic during the proposed SMRP construction by modifying the accepted roadway traffic network to reflect the potential lane closures, ramp closures, directional restrictions and capacity reductions. The “Base Condition” inputs were only used to represent the existing conditions and to serve as a benchmark for which options can be assessed.

Over 200,000 vehicles cross the Ohio River in the Louisville area; the SMB carries an evenly split, two-way daily volume of 90,000 vehicles with heavy truck use of about 11% (Table 3). The use of the SMB is dominated by trips originating on the Indiana side. The AM peak-hour volumes on the bridge are dominated by the eastbound (EB) movement from Indiana to Kentucky by a 2.5:1 margin. The PM peak- hour volumes are dominated by the return trip westbound (WB) to Indiana by a 2:1 margin. In addition, the Clark Memorial Bridge operates at full capacity during peak morning and evening commutes, while ample, additional capacity is available on nearby tolled bridges (Lincoln/Kennedy and Lewis & Clark). Under current conditions, there is congestion during peak-hour traffic in the local network, but not usually on the SMB itself (Figure 9). Table 3 – Ohio River Bridge Crossings in the Louisville area

2018 TRUCK BRIDGE CROSSING AADT* %

I-64, Sherman Minton 90,000 11% US 31, Clark 44,800 4% I-65, Kennedy/Lincoln 64,200 24% IN - SR 265, Lewis & 21,200 17% Clark TOTAL 220,200 14% Source: KIPDA and 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT * AADT - Average Annual Daily Traffic

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 47

Figure 9: Existing Congestion Locations

Origin-Destination data was used to determine where drivers come from to cross the SMB. During the AM peak hour, approximately 35 percent of traffic crossing the SMB on EB I-64 comes from I-64 to the west, 10 percent from either I-65 to the north or IN 265 to the east, 25 percent from on-ramps to westbound I-265 between I-65 and I-64, and 30 percent from the Spring Street entrance in New Albany. During the PM peak hour, approximately 20 percent of traffic crossing the Sherman Minton Bridge on WB I-64 comes from northbound I-264, 30 percent from on-ramps to westbound I-64 between I-65 and I-264, 30 percent from the east via I-71 or I-64, and 20 percent via northbound I-65. These patterns are illustrated in Figure 10.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 48

Figure 10: Origins of Existing AM (dark blue) and PM (light blue) SMB Traffic

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 49

3. PROPOSED ACTION AND MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (MOT)

This section provides a summary of six Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) options considered for maintaining traffic on I-64 during the rehabilitation of the Sherman Minton Bridge and associated works surrounding the bridge. Full details on the development of MOT options and analyses are documented in the SMRP MOT Options Analysis Technical Report (2020 SMRP MOT) and the SMRP Traffic Analysis Technical Report (2020 SMRP Traffic) prepared for this Project. The above referenced Technical Reports document how the MOT options were assessed based on several key criteria, including required design criteria, constructability and worker safety, traffic safety and mobility in the work zone, traffic and economic impacts to surrounding communities, and overall construction duration and cost. Preliminary engineering analysis for SMRP includes the analysis of differing MOT scenarios, ranging from peak-hour lane closures to full bridge closures. The Technical Reports identify changes in travel route choices due to the MOT scenarios, including possible diversions on the regional highway network and through local communities with possible associated impacts. The temporary MOT options are considered temporary, ranging from two to three years to complete the bridge rehabilitation and associated project improvements. The SMRP is anticipated to begin in 2021. It is assumed that the entire Project will not be conducted under one assumed MOT option. Rather, as part of INDOT’s Design Build/Best Value (DBBV) procurement, Design Build Teams may choose to further optimize and refine the construction sequence by considering combinations of the options to expedite completion of portions of the construction work.

3.1 PROJECT STUDY AREA AND TIMELINE The Project Study Area was developed based upon existing roadway network, anticipated temporary detour routes, and inclusion of communities immediately adjacent to the existing network for proximity impacts. Key environmental constraints were identified early in the project development process and are shown on Figure 11. The SMRP is evaluating relative construction durations ranging from 1.5 year to 3+ year temporary condition as part of rehabilitation of the SMB, scheduled to begin in 2021.

3.2 PROPOSED ACTION As part of the needed rehabilitation of the SMB and associated approaches (Section 1), the MOT for this Project will require temporary construction access, closures (ramps, lanes, bridge decks, MOT transitions, and short-term/night) for the work on SMB and associated approaches portion of I-64, on both the Indiana and Kentucky sides of the Ohio River. The traffic will divert to a detour route with proper signage. The proposed detour route will utilize I-265 to I-65. Temporary construction access will be provided for the work on both sides of the river during construction.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 50

Figure 11: SMRP Study Area

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 51

The closure will pose a temporary inconvenience to traveling motorists; however, no significant delays are anticipated, and all inconveniences will cease upon project completion. The SMRP is evaluating range from 1.5 year to 3+ year temporary condition for rehabilitation of the SMB, scheduled to begin in 2021.

The Rehabilitation Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative) undertaking is the same for all six (6) Maintenance of Traffic Options (MOT 1 to MOT 6) and meets the Purpose and Need for the SMRP. The MOT descriptions and analysis in the following sections focus on key factors that differentiate between MOT options; not factors common to all six of the MOT options.

Table 4 presents potential Project durations for each MOT based upon estimated relative construction duration, if the MOT option was utilized solely to complete the Project. The estimate assumes a cost- effective approach is taken to construction and uses an average of approximately 6-work days/week for the project duration. There remain opportunities to further accelerate the work if properly incentivized, however these durations should be considered for comparative evaluation of user costs and other schedule/duration related impacts.

Table 4 – Potential Project Durations by MOT

RELATIVE CONSTRUCTION DURATION (YEARS) CRITERIA Base MOT 1 MOT 2 MOT 3 MOT 4 MOT 5 MOT 6 Overall Project NA 3+ 2 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.5

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 52

3.3 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (MOT) OPTIONS This section describes MOT and associated temporary changes in travel route choices during construction including traffic diversions on the regional highway network and through local communities. The performance and operation of six (6) MOT options (MOT 1 to MOT 6) were considered, ranging from lane closures to full bridge closures.

Figure 12 illustrates the features of the six MOT Options under consideration.

MOT 1 – Two lanes open, both decks (existing EB-eastbound and WB-westbound decks)

• Consists of three phases; travel lanes shift for each phase • 1 Lane closure for both EB and WB during all phases • 2 Lanes maintained for both EB and WB during all phases • Maintains east/west river crossing • No access changes required • Traffic lanes adjacent to construction work zone MOT 2 – One lane open, both decks (EB and WB decks)

• Consists of two phases; travel lanes shift for each phase • 2 Lane closure for both EB and WB during all phases • 1 Lane maintained for both EB and WB during all phases • Kentucky crossover for I-64 WB merge with I-264 • Maintains east/west river crossing • No access changes required • Traffic lanes adjacent to construction work zone MOT 3 – Alternating three one-way lanes (AM-EB / PM-WB) open on one deck

• Consists of two phases; Phase 1 - upper deck closed / Phase 2 - lower deck closed • AM (midnight to noon) - 3 EB lanes open; WB closed; during all phases • PM (midnight to noon) - 3 EB lanes closed; WB open; during all phases • Two estimated 90-minute closures per day to switch directions (AM/EB - PM/WB) and gates at each end • Kentucky crossover for I-64 WB merge with I-264 • Limits east/west river crossing • Access changes required; detour route: I-265 to I-65 • Traffic lanes separated from construction work zone

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 53

MOT 4 – Reversible center lane (AM-EB / PM-WB) and one-way EB/WB lanes open on one deck • Maintains east/west river crossing • Consists of two phases; Phase 1 - lower deck closed / Phase 2 - upper deck closed • Traffic lanes separated from construction work zone • AM (midnight to noon) - 2 EB lanes and 1 WB lane open during all phases • PM (midnight to noon) - 1 EB lanes and 2 WB lad open during all phases • Minimal center lane transition with moveable barrier • Access changes required • Kentucky crossover for I-64 WB merge with I-264 MOT 5 – Full Duration Closure of all six lanes and both decks

• Closes east/west river crossing • Consists of one phase • Access changes required • Detour route: I-265 to I-65 • Concurrent access ramp modifications MOT 6 – One Direction/Phase three one-way lanes (WB-Phase 1/EB-Phase 2) open on one deck • Limits east/west river crossing • Consists of two phases; Phase 1-lower deck closed / Phase 2-upper deck closed • Separate construction work zone • Access changes required; detour route: I-265 to I-65

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 54

Figure 12: Overview of MOT Options

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 55

4. CIA AND EJ METHODOLOGIES

FHWA states that, “Transportation investments have major influences on society, with significant economic and social consequences. However, these impacts have not always received the attention they deserve. The community impact assessment process alerts affected communities and residents, as well as transportation planners and decision makers, to the likely consequences of a transportation action. It ensures that human values and concerns receive proper attention during planning and project development.” 3 A Community Impact Assessment (CIA) is a tool for identifying and understanding how potential transportation projects will impact communities along the project path. 4 A CIA focuses on the issues that affect the community and the quality of life of its residents, including: public and transportation safety; mobility and access; community cohesion; displacement of people, businesses, and farms; employment effects; tax and property value losses; noise; access to public facilities and services; aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of man-made and natural resources; and effects on community growth.5 The goal of a CIA is to identify community concerns early so that they may be considered throughout the project decision-making process; from planning through project development, implementation, operation and maintenance. Effective public involvement is essential to obtaining information about the community, developing alternatives, and developing mitigation plans.

Environmental Justice means the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, national origin, or educational level with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires every Federal agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” For the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), fair treatment means that no population, due to policy or economic disempowerment, is forced to bear a disproportionate burden of the negative human health and environmental impacts, including social and economic effects, resulting from Federally-funded transportation decisions, programs, and policies made, implemented, and enforced at the Federal, State, local or tribal level. 6 The goal of the USDOT’s EJ strategy is to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of a federally funded action on minority populations and low-income populations. Carrying out this EJ goal

3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation – 2018 Update. Page 1. 4 INDOT. INDOT Procedural Manual for Preparing Environmental Documents, 2008 Version. “Section II.B.3 Social, Community, and Economic Impacts”, pages 60 - 75. Accessed on 9/10/18 at https://www.in.gov/indot/files/Procedural_Manual_for_Preparing_Environmental_Studies_2008.pdf. 5 Ibid, page 60. 6 U.S. Department of Transportation. Environmental Justice Strategy (November 15, 2016). Accessed on 11/07/19 at https://www.transportation.gov/transportation-policy/environmental-justice/environmental-justice-strategy 25

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 56

begins with early and continual recognition of these populations, reaching out to make their concerns and ideas part of the transportation decision-making process.

4.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Several Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and policies address Community Impacts Assessments and Environmental Justice, including:

• The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321-4335) and codified at 40 CFR 1508 • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes (42 USC 2000d et seq.) • Executive Order (EO) 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. • Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (1970, referred to as the “Uniform Act,”) as amended in 1987 • EO 13166 on Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (2000) • EO 13045 on Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 CFR 198850) 4.2 CIA METHODOLOGY Preparation of this CIA follows FHWA, INDOT, and KYTC requirements and guidance for inclusion in the INDOT CE/EA Form, Part III (Environmental Impacts)7. The INDOT Procedural Manual states that a CIA is not typically performed for a CE 8. However, because of the unique temporary impact circumstances of this Project, a CIA was conducted for this CE-4. The unique circumstances include the presence of EJ populations. In addition, while considered temporary, construction activities for the Proposed Action could last two to three years, depending on the MOT Option. The topics addressed in this CIA reflect the community issues and concerns relative to this Project.

In general, the steps in the CIA process are as follows:

7. Define the Proposed Action(s), establish the Study Area boundary, and identify the area of review (i.e., define the communities affected by the Proposed Action) 8. Develop a comprehensive public outreach program to both inform and to receive input from the public

7 INDOT. INDOT Categorical Exclusion Manual, 2013 (last updated May 2017). “Chapter IV.C.7 Section G – Community Impacts”. Page 77. Accessed on 9/10/18 at https://www.in.gov/indot/files/ES_2013CEManual.pdf. 8 INDOT. Procedural Manual for Preparing Environmental Documents, page 61. 26

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 57

9. Develop profiles of communities within the Study Area based on demographic data from the US Census and American Community Surveys (ACS), as well as local and regional Comprehensive Plans, and other applicable sources. 10. Analyze potential impacts of the Proposed Action and associated MOT Options relative to communities, services, and facilities. 11. Identify potential solutions to adverse impacts through avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement. 12. Document findings in a formal CIA, describing the affected environment, the potential impacts, and the potential avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement options.

4.3 EJ ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Under FHWA Order 6640.23A, FHWA and recipients of funding from FHWA (i.e., INDOT and KYTC), are responsible for ensuring their programs, policies, and activities do not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. Per INDOT guidance 9, an Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis is required for any project that has two or more relocations or 0.5 acre of additional permanent right-of-way (ROW). While no ROW or relocations are required for the Proposed Action, the duration of construction activities and temporary detours associated with rehabilitation of the Sherman Minton Bridge could affect minority and low-income populations. Therefore, INDOT included an EJ analysis as part of the Project’s CE-4 process.

As recipients of USDOT funding, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) must also comply with EJ requirements for their Metropolitan Transportation Plans, Transportation Improvement Projects, and other transportation planning activities. The KIPDA is the MPO for the Project area and includes Clark and Floyd counties in Indiana and Jefferson County in Kentucky. KIPDA’s EJ policies and compliance efforts are documented in its Environmental Justice Resource Document10. The EJ analysis conducted for this Project is similar to the methodology presented in KIPDA’s EJ document. Therefore, the KIPDA EJ document is incorporated by reference in this technical report.

In general, the steps in the EJ analysis process are as follows:

8. Determine the presence of EJ populations and establish EJ affected communities (ACs). 9. Develop and implement an EJ outreach plan. 10. Identify EJ community characteristics.

9 Indiana Department of Transportation – Environmental Services. Categorical Exclusion Manual. “Chapter IV.C.7.d. Environmental Justice”. October 2013. Pages 80-81. 10 Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency. Environmental Justice Resource Document. October 2, 2018 (Draft). Available at http://kipda.org/files/PDF/Transportation_Division/Environmental_Justice/Environmental_Justice_Resource_Do cument.pdf 27

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 58

11. Analyze potential impacts of the Proposed Action and associated MOT Options relative to EJ populations. 12. Determine the applicability of “Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects” to EJ populations. 13. Identify potential solutions to adverse impacts through avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement. 14. Document findings.

4.3.1 Determining the Presence of EJ Populations and Establishing EJ Areas of Concern The first step in the EJ analysis is to determine whether EJ populations are present within a project’s reference population (e.g., county, city, town). For INDOT, the reference population is called the community of comparison (COC). For this Project, the COCs are Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana and Jefferson County in Kentucky (Figure 13).

COCs are then broken into smaller, more manageable units based on Census Tracts (CTs). For INDOT, CTs are referred to as affected communities (ACs) For the SMRP, the ACs includes all of the CTs that are located in the Project Study Area. (Figure 14). Demographic data at the COC and AC levels come from the U.S. Census Bureau and its more frequently updated American Community Survey (ACS). CT data were obtained from the 2013-2017 ACS five-year estimates.

In accordance with INDOT’s EJ guidance, AC population data, when compared to the larger COC totals, establishes whether EJ populations are present. INDOT’s thresholds for determining the absence or presence of EJ populations are as follows:

• ACs that are more than 50 percent minority or low-income are automatically considered EJ populations. • For all other ACs, an EJ population exists if the low-income population or minority population is 25 percent higher than the corresponding COC population.

Within the Project Study Area, the EJ ACs previously identified by KIPDA were updated, where necessary, based on 2013-2017 ACS five-year estimates and the applicability of the EJ threshold criteria was confirmed for each AC (Figure 15).

Once the EJ ACs within the Project Study Area were identified, the demographic data were incorporated into a Travel Demand Model (TDM) for insights to likely detour routes, travel time changes, changes in travel costs, and roadways likely to experience increased congestion. The TDM utilized both EJ and Non- EJ Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs; as determined by KIPDA) based on whether or not the zone was within an EJ community. The model outputs were categorized by the trip origin: • EJ Trip – those trips originating from within a Study Area EJ TAZ • Non-EJ Trip – those trips originating outside of a Study Area EJ TAZ.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 59

Figure 13: Communities of Comparison (COCs)

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 60

Figure 14: Affected Community (AC) Census Tracks

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 61

Figure 15: Affected Community Census Tracks - Environmental Justice (EJ)

4.3.2 Environmental Justice Outreach Plan As stated in FHWA’s Environmental Justice Reference Guide, FHWA strives “to ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. By

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 62

involving the public early and affording opportunities to provide input throughout, practitioners can build trust within communities and make informed decisions that benefit constituents. Building relationships with local groups and community leaders can improve the effectiveness and inclusiveness of participation. 11” To that end, the public involvement effort for this Project included establishing an EJ Community Outreach Group made up of individuals representing EJ community services and foundations, neighborhoods, schools, businesses, places of worship, and local elected officials.

4.3.3 Determining the Applicability of “Disproportionally High and Adverse Effects” FHWA Order 6640.23A (5)(g) defines a “Disproportionately High and Adverse Effect on Minority and Low- Income Populations” as “an adverse effect that: (1) is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population; or (2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the nonminority population and/or non-low-income population.” In accordance with INDOT guidance12, potential EJ impacts are detected by locating minority populations and low-income populations in and near the project area, calculating their percentage in the area relative to a reference population, and determining whether there will be adverse impacts to them.

For this project, disparities between non-EJ and EJ populations were examined comparing existing data with implementation of the proposed MOT Options. Potential disparities between non-EJ and EJ populations were analyzed for changes in Traffic, Diversions, Travel Time, and Travel Costs, Safety, Transit and Rideshare, Social Impacts, Business and Economic Impacts.

Since the Proposed Action consists of temporary MOT Options and does not require additional right-of- way or relocations, the effects on Land Use Impacts, Right-of-Way and Relocations are not applicable.

11 U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration. Environmental Justice Reference Guide. “Public Involvement”. April 1, 2015. Page 32. 12 Indiana Department of Transportation – Environmental Services. Categorical Exclusion Manual. “Chapter IV.C.7.d. Environmental Justice”. October 2013. Page 81. 32

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 63 5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EFFORT AND EJ OUTREACH

Public involvement, while key to the overall success of any transportation project, is an essential element of the CIA and EJ processes. Public involvement provides an opportunity for the full spectrum of public participation, from individuals, organizations, business interests, neighborhoods, and communities, to local, state, and federal officials. All participants are afforded an opportunity to provide input on project- related concerns, alternatives, and solutions. A comprehensive public involvement program was developed for this project. Applicable information gathered throughout the public involvement effort has been incorporated into the CIA and the EJ Analysis.

5.1 PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS To understand and assess potential impacts to citizens, businesses, and Environmental Justice populations within the Project Study Area, a robust public involvement program was carried out during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) phase of the SMRP. The SMRP developed a targeted Public Involvement Plan (PIP) that identified various communication and outreach tools to facilitate project communication, outreach, and engagement for the project. General project communication and outreach were supported by a Project website, social media, traditional media outlets, fact sheets, use of comment cards, newsletters, and a feedback survey. Specific efforts are listed below.

• Project Website – via http://shermanmintonrenewal.com, was designed to constantly update the public on project developments, upcoming events, answered questions, and public feedback. To date, the website has accumulated over visitors.

• Social Media – via the Sherman Minton Facebook Page and Twitter account, @ShermanRenewal, over Engagements and impressions have been recorded. Local media has coveredapproximately 120 project-related stories.

• Comment Cards – for the Project were handed out at outreach events. To date, 172 public comments have been received via the website or competed comment cards.

• Project Survey – was developed and posted on the website in July 2019 to elicit feedback on the potential MOT Options. To date, there have been approximately 2,761 survey participants.

• Community Advisory Committee (CAC) – established to facilitate communication about regional economic and community considerations in both the New Albany area and in west Louisville. The CAC is comprised of business, community, and municipal representatives from both sides of the

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 64 river (greater New Albany area and Louisville). To date, tplanned CAC meetings project have been held. • Environmental Justice Technical Advisory Committee (EJ TAC) – Due to the distinct characteristics of New Albany and west Louisville, two separate EJ TACs were developed to facilitate communication and outreach to these specific populations. To date,ursets of the planned EJ TAC meetings have been held.

• Small Group Public Official Briefings – were opportunities for elected officials and their operational constituencies (e.g., police, fire, emergency responders, traffic management staff) to provide the project team with feedback on important public service considerations. To date, two rounds of public officials’ briefings (prior to Public Open Houses) have been conducted.

• Public Open House/Information M eetings – facilitated general communication with the broader public, both formally through presentations and more informally through individual conversations with project team members at information stations. To date, two rounds of Public Open Houses have been held in New Albany and West Louisville. Public comments from the Open Houses were facilitated through the project website and comments cards.

• Small Group Stakeholder Meetings – allowed technical interaction between the project team and key stakeholder groups to focus on specific concerns or constituencies. To date, individual meetings/briefings have been held with One Southern Indiana (OSI), Develop New Albany, Greater Louisville Inc (GLI), TARC, emergency service providers, and the West Jefferson County Community Task Force.

• ra noeen –

5.2 GENERAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FEEDBACK

Feedback from the Public Involvement effort was extensive. A summary of the overall key concerns and recommendations is provided below: • There is broad community support for rehabilitating the bridge to ensure long-term use.

• The duration of construction is less of a concern than the impact of construction. Over 80% of the survey respondents prefer a longer construction period and fewer impacts on their daily travel. The other 20 % of survey respondents prefer a shorter construction period even with more impacts on daily travel.

• The 2011 emergency closure of the Sherman Minton Bridge serves as a benchmark for regional commuters, local residents, local businesses, public officials, and municipalities for relative project concerns and impacts. There is little to no support for full closure of the bridge due to

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 65 congestion impacts and impacts to local businesses. Full closure of the bridge for the duration of construction (MOT Option 5) is the least preferred of all alternatives; whereas, two lanes open on both decks (MOT Option 1), is the most desired alternative.

• The Sherman Minton Bridge is identified as the key element of community cohesion between the cities of New Albany and west Louisville; these communities and their collective economy are linked by the bridge. Cross-river mobility is an essential component of community cohesion for peak and non-peak traffic movements. Residents in west Louisville are highly dependent on businesses in New Albany, particularly for shopping and medical services.

• The impact of traffic diversion associated with bridge construction is a concern regionally and locally; added congestion on the regional network and local streets, travel time, and costs associated with diversion have all been identified through public outreach efforts. Local communities are concerned about heavy trucks diverting through neighborhoods. The question has been posed about whether heavy trucks can be prohibited from using local streets during construction.

• The vast majority of submitted comments request consideration of adding bicycle and pedestrian facilities (lanes, etc.) to the bridge for non-motorized cross-river mobility.

• The remaining submitted comments mostly express concerns about full closure of the bridge or the potential impacts of paying tolls due to being diverted from the Sherman Minton Bridge.

• A large portion of comments centered on bridge closure concerns due to the cost that would be incurred for individuals to pay a toll. Participants expressed concerns about how the cost of tolls during construction would impact their households (job, housing, healthcare, etc.) especially those with multiple members incurring tolling costs.

• Generally, most CAC comments focused on potential economic impacts associated with diversions, congestion, cross-river mobility, and access. All users of the Sherman Minton Bridge are concerned about increased travel time and costs because it is currently the only non-tolled interstate bridge in the greater Louisville area.

• Generally, the Small Group Public Official briefings reflected concerns regarding traffic and congestion management, potential impacts to businesses, the need to consider emergency services during the process and the desire to retain cross-river mobility during construction with the least amount of impact to the community.

• Local businesses are highly dependent on access and cross-river mobility. This is particularly true for businesses in New Albany. Other comments referenced the potential impact on local businesses in downtown New Albany.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 66 • Impacts to TARC service or expansion of TARC service to offset mobility impacts have been identified as a community concern and a potential mitigation opportunity.

5.3 EJ OUTREACH FEEDBACK Feedback from the EJ Outreach effort reflected the general public comments but with some additional key concerns and recommendations:

• Costs and impacts of limiting cross-river mobility due to diversion with bi-directional cross-river access during peak and non-peak hours cited as important EJ considerations.

• Potential impacts to TARC as well as heavy trucks diverting through EJ neighborhoods.

• The impact of congestion air quality impacts associated with congestion on EJ populations was identified as a concern.

• EJ populations are particularly sensitive to potential mobility impacts.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 67 6 COMMUNITY PROFILES

The community profiles presented in this chapter focus only on the portions of each jurisdiction located in the Project Study Area. However, to understand the communities, it is important to understand the demographic characteristics of the county and state within which each community is located. The Project Study Area includes portions of Floyd and Clark counties, IN, as well as Jefferson County, KY (Figure 11). The cities of New Albany and Jeffersonville, and the Town of Clarksville are in the Indiana portion of the Project Study Area. The City of Louisville is in the Kentucky portion. KIPDA is an association of local governments in a nine-county region of southern Indiana and north-central Kentucky, including Floyd, Clark, and Jefferson counties. KIPDA serves as the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), providing regional planning for transportation, community and economic development, and social services. Regional demographic information, along with planning decisions and guidance, can be found on KIPDA’s website (http://www.kipda.org/).

Within a day’s drive, two-thirds of the U.S. population can be reached from the KIPDA region via three interstate highways: I-64, I-65, and I-71. At a more local level, One Southern Indiana (1si)13 states that “Southern Indiana is culturally and geographically more similar to the South than it is to the rest of the State of Indiana. . . In particular, Southern Indiana is part of the Greater Louisville, Kentucky metropolitan area (total population 1.2 million). The bridges that connect Indiana and Kentucky’s interstate system connect the metropolitan area’s residents. Many people living in the area work, attend, school and enjoy activities on both sides of the Ohio River. . .”14 With their dense, suburban communities and abundance of parks, New Albany, Clarksville, and Jeffersonville are considered suburbs of the Louisville metropolitan area. Like its neighbors across the Ohio River, the Louisville metro area has numerous parks, along with multiple dense suburban areas, cultural activities, shopping, and dining opportunities. Communities on both sides of the river offer neighborly, small town settings where residents, businesses, and community organizations work together at both local and regional levels.

The Transit Authority of River City (TARC) is the public transit system serving the Project Study Area. TARC provides fixed-route and paratransit services, as well as specialized services including LouLift and LouExplore. The program offers ride-matching services and offers an emergency ride home to registered users (Every Commute Counts, 2019). Every Commute Counts is toll-free (Riverlink, 2019).

Large areas of minority and/or low-income populations are present within the Project Study Area relative to the overall metropolitan Kentuckiana region; a reflection of past formal and informal segregation and redlining policies. Across the U.S., racial inequalities in household income continue to persist, even though

13 One Southern Indiana (1si) is the Lead Economic Development Organization (LEDO) and Chamber of Commerce for Clark and Floyd Counties. 1si focuses its efforts on creating commerce between Southern Indiana and the Louisville Metro areas. Accessed on 11/11/19 at https://1si.org/about-us/. 14 Ibid.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 68 the margins of disparity are on the decline15. Poverty creates many obstacles: lack of access to reliable and affordable transportation that limits work and housing options; difficulty finding affordable and stable housing; the inability to participate in educational advancement opportunities; and the opportunity to raise a family in a safe and healthy living environment. The bridges in the region are a vital component that made and keeps this bi-state region a cohesive and community-oriented region.

6.1 GENERAL POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS In 2017, more than 955,000 people lived in Clark, Floyd, and Jefferson counties (U.S. Census, 2018). The area’s population is expected to increase by 2040, especially in Jefferson (15%) and Clark (18%) counties (Louisville Metro, 2019c; IU, 2019; Ruther, 2016). Population increases are projected at 7% in Floyd County (IU, 2019).

In addition to examining population growth trends, demographic data provides information on persons protected from discrimination via Acts, Executive Orders, and statutes. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, and national origin. Specifically, 42 USC 2000d states that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The use of the word “person” is important as the protections afforded under Title VI apply to anyone, regardless of whether the individual is lawfully present in the United States or a citizen of a State within the United States. Other nondiscrimination statutes that afford legal protection include: Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice (EJ) which protects minority and/or low-income persons; Executive Order 13166 Limited-English Proficiency (LEP) which protects non-English speaking persons; the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 which prohibits discrimination based on sex, and The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibiting discrimination based on age. Demographic data was examined to determine the presence of such persons in the Project Area and sets the stage for compliance requirements.

Table 5 provides an overview of population demographics for the Project Study Area compared to the same data at the county and state level. Figure 16 through Figure 20 show the geographic distribution of the percentages of minority, low-income, LEP, child, and elderly populations in the study area.

15 Rakesh Kochhar and Anthony Cilluffpo for the Pew Research Center. Factank: News in the Numbers. “Key findings on the rise in income inequality within America’s racial and ethnic groups. Page 1. Accessed on 11/14/19 at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/12/key-findings-on-the-rise-in-income-inequality-within- americas-racial-and-ethnic-groups/. 38

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 69 Table 5: Regional and Project Study Area Demographic Data

INDIANA KENTUCKY DEMOGRAPHIC Clark Co. Floyd Co. Jefferson CATEGORY Clark Project Floyd Project Jefferson Project Indiana Kentucky County Study County Study County Study Area Area Area

Total Population1,2 6,614,418 114,893 25,200 76,481 36,675 4,424,376 764,378 100,237

# 1,333,835 18,506 5,461 8,984 5,905 659,903 240,397 67,616 Minority % 20% 16% 22% 12% 16% 15% 31% 67%

# 933,540 10,981 3,606 8,104 6,275 783,586 112,275 35,050 Low- Income % 15% 10% 15% 11% 18% 18% 15% 38%

# 200,426 1,905 814 840 421 91,813 29,627 1,648 LEP % 3% 2% 4% 1% 1% 2% 4% 2%

# 1,577,855 26,348 4,548 17,679 7,677 1,012,592 172,442 23,681 Children 5 Years % 24% 23% 18% 23% 21% 23% 23% 24%

# 968,568 16,698 4,419 11,346 5,700 672,706 114,227 10,613 Elderly 65 Years % 15% 14% 18% 15% 16% 15% 15% 11%

1 U.S. Census, 2018 2 Total population may vary for individual demographic categories, impacting percentages.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 70 • The presence of large groups of minority and low-income populations will require additional consideration for potential project impacts:

o Minority - As illustrated in Figure 16, the proportion of minority populations in the Clark County and Floyd County portions of the Project Study Area (22% and 16%, respectively) is higher than those in the counties as a whole (16% and 12%, respectively). In Kentucky, the proportion of minority populations in the Project Study Area (67%) are more than twice that of Jefferson County (31%), which is more than twice the proportion in the state as a whole (15%).

o Low-Income - Figure 17 shows the proportion of low-income populations in the Clark County and Floyd County portions of the Project Study Area (15% and 18%, respectively) is higher than those in the counties as a whole (10% and 11%, respectively). In Kentucky, the proportion of low-income populations in the Project Study Area (38%) is more than twice that of Jefferson County (15%), which is more than twice the proportion in the state as a whole (18%).

• As the demographic data demonstrate, the limited presence of LEP, children, and elderly populations does not warrant special attention to potential project-related impacts:

o Limited English proficiency (LEP) - The proportion of the population with limited English proficiency (LEP) is roughly consistent among the Project Study Area, states, and counties (Figure 18). The primary language spoken by the LEP populations varies. Spanish is the primary language spoken by LEP populations in all jurisdictions except for the Kentucky portion of the Project Study Area, where the primary language spoken is “Other language” (i.e., not Spanish, another Indo-European language, or an Asian language).

o Children - Figure 19 indicates that the percentage of children (<5-years old) in the Clark and Floyd county portions of the Project Study Area (16% and 18%, respectively) is lower than either county as a whole (23%). Within Jefferson County, the Project Study Area (24%) is similar to the county in its entirety (23%).

o Elderly - The trends are relatively the same for the elderly (>65-years old) population with Clark and Floyd county Project Study Areas reflecting 18% and 16%, as compared to their respective county 14% and 15% as shown on Figure 20. The proportion of the population over 65 is slightly lower in the Kentucky portion of the Project Study Area (11%) and higher in the Clark County portion (18%) than in the other geographic areas (14-16%).

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 71 Figure 16: Percentages of Minority Populations in Project Study Area

SMRP Study Area

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 72

Figure 17: Percentages of Low-Income Populations in Project Study Area

SMRPSMRP Study Area Area

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 73

Figure 18: Percentages of LEP Populations in Project Study Area

SMRP Study Area

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 74

Figure 19: Percentages of Children (>5-years) in Project Study Area

SMRP Study Area

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 75

Figure 20: Percentages of Elderly (>65-years) in Project Study Area

SMRP Study Area

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 76 6.2 FLOYD COUNTY, IN Floyd County, Indiana is along the Ohio River, across from Louisville, Kentucky. The portion of Floyd County within the Project Study Area is under the jurisdiction of the City of New Albany.

6.2.1 New Albany Located along the Ohio River, the City of New Albany is the county seat for Floyd County. Historically, New Albany was a manufacturing town for a variety of goods including ships, glass, and wood products. In recent years, Downtown New Albany has experienced a resurgence of activity and become a destination for shopping, dining, and entertainment (City of New Albany, 2017).

The New Albany portion of the study area has a range of land uses. In general, development in New Albany started near the Ohio River and moved northward over time. Most of the structures in the Project Study Area were built prior to 1964, with the oldest structures generally near the river (City of New Albany 2017). Most of the industrial operations are also located near the riverfront and along the railroad. The industrial operations near the riverfront tend to be older and are likely to be redeveloped into mixed- use neighborhoods in the future. Open space and parks are present along the Ohio River and other streams or tucked into residential communities. Commercial operations are primarily concentrated in Downtown or along major roads (e.g., State Street, Charlestown Road). Most of the remaining land is residential in nature, with higher density development near Downtown and along major roads (City of New Albany, 2017).

A variety of community resources are present in New Albany. Recreational resources include city parks, a Veteran memorial, Ohio River Greenway, Loop Island Wetlands, Floyd County 4-H Fairground, Griffin Recreational Center, Cherry Valley Golf Course, Ohio River Scenic Byway, Indiana’s Historic Pathway South Spur, Culbertson Mansion Indiana State Museum and Historic Site, Daughters of the American Revolution Scribner House, Carnegie Center for Art and History, Floyd County YMCA, Brown-Starks Neighborhood Place, and Division Street School Museum. Schools include public and private schools (elementary, middle, and high schools), Floyd County Head Start, Purdue Polytechnic – New Albany, and daycare facilities. Other community resources include Floyd County Historical Society, City of New Albany Wastewater Treatment Plant, clubhouses, Arts Alliance of Southern Indiana, cemeteries, Laborers’ International Union office, Baptist Health Floyd Hospital, Southern Indiana Rehabilitation Hospital, New Albany Floyd County Animal Shelter, fire department, courthouses, police department, library, post office, employment center, health department, housing authority offices, fire station, other municipal and county offices, Army National Guard Recruiter, and churches.

The Sherman Minton Bridge and I-64 Exit 123 (Spring Street) provide direct access to the Downtown New Albany area. While the bridge is an interstate facility, it serves as a local connection between New Albany and Louisville. Many small businesses in the Downtown area depend on visitors from outside the Downtown area to support its growing shopping, dining, and entertainment businesses. The bridge and I-64 provide access to homes, employers, and other community resources in the vicinity. Approximately

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 77

23% of New Albany residents work in the city and approximately 25% work in the Louisville area. 16 New Albany contains single-family and multi-family housing. Hartford Heat Treat, Globe LLC, Fed Ex, Padgett Inc., and other employers are located close to Exit 123. The Downtown Waterfront Park, River Stage, Scribner Middle School, Floyd County Head Start, Silver Heights Camp, Billy Herman and Anderson Park fields, other parks, museums, historical resources, Ohio River Greenway, cemeteries, and golf courses are all accessed via Exit 123.

6.3 CLARK COUNTY, IN Clark County is in southern Indiana, east of Floyd County, and across the Ohio River from Louisville, Kentucky. The county was formed in 1801 and named for General George Rogers Clark, an early settler and co-leader of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The Project Study Area in Clark County includes portions of Clarksville and Jeffersonville, as well as several areas under the jurisdiction of Clark County. The first area is located between Irving Drive and I-65 and includes the Sportsdome Speedway, single-family residences, businesses, and small industrial operations. The other areas are located along Silver Creek and include residential, institutional, agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses. Based on expansion plans, these unincorporated areas are included in the Clarksville discussion below.

Almost 70% of people who live in Clark County work in Clark County. The largest employers in Clark County include Amazon, Clark Memorial Hospital, Greater Clark School System, American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 1438, and the U.S. Census Bureau (River Hills EDD & RPC, and The Polis Center, 2015).

6.3.1 Clarksville, IN The Town of Clarksville is in southwestern Clark County. It is bordered by the Ohio River to the south, New Albany to the west, and Jeffersonville to the east. Within the Project Study Area, Clarksville is connected to New Albany via bridges over Silver Creek on the Ohio River Greenway, East Spring Street/Old Indiana 62/Ohio River Scenic Byway/Indiana’s Historic Pathways-South Spur/Browns Station Way, Providence Way, Blackiston Mill Road, and I-265.

Historically, industrial operations in the southeastern and southwestern portions of Clarksville provided jobs to residents. Some industrial operations remain in the southwest, but the largest industrial operations (Colgate Palmolive Company and Marathon Petroleum Oil Terminal) have closed, leaving these areas open for redevelopment. Currently, Clarksville serves as a regional hub for retail sales and other commercial services (Town of Clarksville, 2015). Most of these commercial operations are concentrated in the vicinity of Veterans Parkway and Lewis and Clark Parkway at I-65. Residential, open space, and institutional uses cover the remaining area (Appendix C). Approximately 12% of Clarksville residents also work in Clarksville with the majority of residents commuting to the Louisville area (22%) and Jeffersonville

16 U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, https://onthemap.ces.census.gov. Accessed 11/12/19.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 78

(15%) to work. 17 The largest employment sectors in Clarksville are retail and other service industries (Town of Clarksville, 2015).

In general, Clarksville developed from south to north. The majority of the neighborhoods in the Project Study Area was built prior to 1975 (Town of Clarksville, 2015). Approximately 60% of the housing units in the Town of Clarksville are detached, single-family houses. Several apartment complexes are present near I-65 and in the vicinity of the commercial center.

Recreational community resources in the Clarksville area include parks, landmarks, trails, and other entertainment venues. The Falls of the Ohio State Park is located on the Ohio River and includes Falls of the Ohio Interpretive Center, Falls of the Ohio National Wildlife Conservation Area, Falls of the Ohio National Natural Landmark, and the George Rogers Clark Homesite. Adjacent to the state park is Ashland Park to the east, as well as Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Park and the proposed West Riverfront Park to the west (Woolpert, Inc., 2011). Colgate Park, Ohio River Greenway, Clarksville Heritage Trail, Clarksville Levee Trail, Ohio River Scenic Byway, Indiana’s Historic Pathway South Spur, and Clarksville Little Theater are also located near the riverfront. In the northern portion of the Study Area is Lapping Park, which includes Endris Lodge, Clarksville Softball Complex, and the Wooded View Golf Course. Other recreational resources in the Project Study Area include Cedar Park, Parkwood Park, Gaskell Park, Ray Lawrence Park, Beechwood Park, Clarksville Little League Ballpark, Gateway Park, Moore Park, Clarksville Community Center, and Sportsdome Speedway.

Several schools are in the Project Study Area. Public schools include Clarksville Elementary School, Parkwood Elementary School, Clarksville Middle School, Renaissance Academy, and Clarksville Senior High School. Private schools include PJ’s College of Cosmetology, Our Lady of Providence High School, and St. Anthony of Padua Catholic School. The Goodwill Foundation operates The Children’s Learning Center. Preschools and daycare facilities are also located in the Study Area.

Other community resources in the Clarksville include clubhouses, union halls, municipal offices and services, state offices, county offices, and churches.

6.3.2 Jeffersonville, IN Jeffersonville, called Jeff, is the county seat of Clark County. Historically, Jeffersonville was a military outpost and transportation hub that grew into a manufacturing economy and a major shipbuilding center (INDOT, 2012). Currently, about 14% of the workforce in Jeffersonville is employed by manufacturing of various goods including boats, cabinets, and electronics (MKSK et al., 2015; INDOT, 2017). The largest employment sector in Jeffersonville is the educational services and healthcare and social assistance industry, which is supported by Clark Memorial Hospital in the Project Study Area. Only a small portion of Jeffersonville is within the Project Study Area. Overall, approximately 22% of Jeffersonville residents work

17 Ibid.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 79

in Jeffersonville. The majority of the remaining workforce works in the Louisville area (22%), New Albany (8%), and Clarksville (7%). 18

The southern portion of the Project Study Area in Jeffersonville contains part of the Old Jeffersonville Historic District and the Arts and Cultural District (City of Jeffersonville, 2017). This area is a mixture of commercial operations (mostly small businesses) and residential development that serves as a destination for people from outside the area with parks, museums, small retail shops, and restaurants. Artwork is visible on buildings and other fixtures in the Arts and Cultural District. Pedestrian and multiuse facilities are present in many places. Foot and bicycle traffic can access the area from Louisville by the Big Four Bridge and from the Clarksville and the rest of the Old Jeffersonville Historic District by the Ohio River Greenway.

North of 10th Street is the medical district, where most of the businesses are related to healthcare, and the Claysburg neighborhood, which is a historically African-American neighborhood and the most racially diverse area in Jeffersonville (INDOT, 2012; City of Jeffersonville, 2017). The northern part of the study area is a mixture of residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial uses. This area has a high level of pedestrian activity and bus ridership (City of Jeffersonville, 2017). Additional information about land use in Jeffersonville is located in Appendix C.

Housing stock in the Project Study Area portion of Jeffersonville is composed of single- and multi-family housing, with the most valuable housing stock located in the historic district near the Ohio River. Apartment complexes range from new, for-profit luxury housing to affordable apartments. Jeffersonville Housing Authority owns and operates Northtown Terrace apartments and Greenwood apartments. Sherwood Heights Mobile Home Park is in the study area. Claysburg II Tower apartments provide affordable housing for seniors and people with disabilities. New Hope Services, Inc., runs Willow Trace and M. Fine on Spring apartments, which are affordable, senior living communities.

Recent redevelopment activities in Jeffersonville have focused on developing the Arts and Cultural District, the Big Four Bridge and Big Four Station, and redevelopment of properties near Court Street (City of Jeffersonville, 2017). The opening of the Big Four Bridge and Big Four Station has been an economic boon to Jeffersonville and Louisville, as well as a vital community link between the two cities.

Recreational community resources in Jeffersonville include Lansden Park, Big Four Station, Big Four Pedestrian Bridge, Colston Memorial Park, River Stage, Van Dyke Park, Picasso Pointe, Ohio River Greenway, Jeffersonville Arts Center, Southern Indiana Visitor Center, Ken Ellis Senior Center, Vintage Fire Museum, and the Clark County Museum. Spring Hill Elementary is the only school in the Project Study Area. Several social services and health-related resources are in the area, including Williams Emergency Shelter run by Haven House Services, Community Kitchen, New Hope Services Offices, Hoosier Hills AIDS

18 Ibid. 49

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 80 Coalition office, Clark Memorial Hospital, county health department, municipal offices, county offices, and churches.

6.4 LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY Louisville was founded in 1778 and chartered in 1780. In 2003, the governments of Jefferson County and Louisville were consolidated to form the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government – also known as Louisville Metro. Louisville started as an agrarian and transportation-based society with industrial, agri- industrial, and manufacturing operations rising in importance in the late 1800s through the 1900s. Louisville was founded as a navigational port for river traffic avoiding the Falls of the Ohio. By 1896, Louisville was home to the world’s largest tobacco market. Growth was concentrated along the river until suburban flight started with the Great Flood in 1937, increasing sprawl to the east and south.

The Ohio River is a major economic driver in the region. Before the Louisville and Portland Canal and the Lock and Dam were built, the Falls of the Ohio formed a barrier to the transport of passengers and goods along the Ohio River. If heading north on the river, passengers and goods had to be transported around the falls on land, which grew Louisville’s early economy (Bennett and Gatz, 2008). Since the canal, lock, and dam were constructed, the river and its ports have provided the means to transport goods out of the area and have led to business and industrial development.

After the Civil War and the construction of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad (L&N Railroad), manufacturing operations in Louisville exploded, producing metal goods, paper, wood products, and agricultural-based goods (e.g., meat, cigarettes, jeans, whiskey). Manufacturing continued into the 1900s with the growth of chemical manufacturing in Rubbertown and the addition of plants owned by International Harvester, General Electric, and Ford Motor Company. In 1970, the first cigarette factory closed, signaling the beginning of a decline in Louisville’s manufacturing economy (Bennett and Gatz, 2008).

Since the 1990s, the Louisville economy has expanded to include life sciences, health enterprises and services, and logistics (Bennett and Gatz, 2008). Currently, the top employers are UPS, Ford, Humana, and Norton Healthcare (New Localism Advisors, 2019). Much of the Project Study Area is located in a federally designated Opportunity Zone. Planners anticipate that the professional, health care and social assistance, transportation and warehousing, and hospitality/tourism sectors will experience future growth in Louisville (Louisville Metro, 2019c). Approximately 70% of Louisville Metro residents work in the Louisville Metro area. 19

19 Ibid. 50

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 81 The Project Study Area contains 4 neighborhoods in Indiana (New Albany South/North and Clarksville North/South) and 22 neighborhoods in Kentucky (Algonquin, Butchertown, California, Chickasaw, Downtown/Central Business District, East Market District/New Louisville (NuLu), Limerick, Merriwether, Old Louisville, Park Duvalle, Park Hill, Parkland, Phoenix Hill, Portland, Rubbertown, Russell, Shawnee, Shelby Park, Smoketown, South Louisville, St. Joseph, and University; Figure 21). Appendix C contains additional details about land use and community resources in each neighborhood including a brief description of each neighborhood, lists any neighborhood plans that apply, and points to the corresponding map that provides additional information about features in the neighborhood.

Many of the neighborhoods are undergoing neighborhood redevelopment. In 1996, the housing authority received a Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) IV grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to replace two public housing complexes with a mixed-income community consisting of 1,100 housing units – 613 rental units, 363 subsidized rentals, and 450 private homes (Clark, 2013). HOPE VI is a federal program that offers grants to eradicate severely distressed public housing facilities through revitalization in three general areas: physical improvements, management improvements, and social and community services to address resident needs. 20 Similar HOPE IV projects have been completed or are underway at public housing complexes in Phoenix Hill, Smoketown, Downtown, and Russell. In other areas, neighborhood revitalization is underway courtesy of private developers and non-profit organizations. For example, private developers and non-profits are also making inroads to improve Shelby Park structure by structure. New Directions Housing Corporation has bought, refurbished, and resold houses, some below market value, to improve housing opportunities in Shelby Park. Access Ventures, Inc, invests in real estate among other things to stimulate economic development in the neighborhood (Marshall, 2019).

The interchanges closest to the Sherman Minton Bridge are I-264 Exit 1 (Bank Street) and I-64 Exit 3 (Northwestern Parkway/22nd Street). The interchange at Exit 1 connects I-264 with Bank Street in the Shawnee and Portland neighborhoods. In Shawnee, nearby resources include residential housing, Shawnee Boys & Girls Club, E. Leland Taylor Park, Shawnee Golf Course, and churches. In Portland, nearby resources include the Kroger grocery store, industrial operations (e.g., BASF Corporation, Mobile Mechanics Operation), Norfolk Southern rail hub, cemeteries, schools, parks and community centers, residential housing, neighborhood-level commercial operations (e.g., T-Mobile, Family Dollar), first responders, and churches. The interchange at Exit 3 connects I-64 to Northwestern Parkway and 22nd Street in the Portland neighborhood. Resources in the area include regional employers (e.g., the Lock and Dam, Miller Pipeline), residential housing, neighborhood-level commercial operations (e.g., Circle K, KG’s Body Shop), restaurants, schools, museums, non-profits, parks and community centers, first responders, and churches.

20 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: HOPE VI – Public and Indian Housing. Accessed on 11/12/19 at https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/hope6. 51

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 82 Figure 21: SMRP Neighborhoods

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 83

6.5 EJ-SPECIFIC DEMOGRAPHICS IN PROJECT STUDY AREA Based on the EJ analysis methodology provided in Section 4.3 and the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013-2017 American Community Survey five-year estimates (U.S. Census, 2018), EJ populations are present in Census Tracts in the Project Study Area. An affected community (AC) is considered EJ if, at the Census-Tract level, the population is more than 50% minority or low-income, or if the low-income or minority population is 125% of its respective county (Clark and Floyd counties in Indiana and Jefferson County in Kentucky).

For the Travel Demand Model, Census Tracts within the Project Study Area were evaluated to determine if the criteria for minority populations and low-Income populations were met. Tables 6 and 7, and Figure 22 show the Project Study Area Census Tracts that meet the EJ criteria. A summary by county is provided as follows:

• Clark County consists of 8 Census Tract where 5 are minority, 4 are low income, and 4 are both;

• Floyd County consists of 13 Census Tracts where 4 are minority, 8 are low income, and 4 are both;

• Jefferson County consists of 38 Census Tracts where 29 are minority, 35 are low-income, and 29 are both.

Table 4 and Table 5 include the percentage of households lacking a vehicle, which can be an indicator of the presence of low-income populations. In Indiana, the percentage of households without a vehicle is substantially higher (more than three times) in Census Tracts 704 (20.2%), 705 (20.6%), and 708.1 (26.6%) than in Clark and Floyd Counties as a whole (5.9%). In Kentucky, about one third of the households in the Project Study Area do not have a vehicle versus 5.9% for Jefferson County as a whole. These tracts are located in the western portion of Jefferson County. The Shawnee and Portland neighborhoods are within these two tracts.

These demographics are supported by observational data and studies in the Project Study Area, which includes portions of New Albany in Floyd County, as well as portions of the Shawnee, Portland, Russell, and Chickasaw neighborhoods in Louisville. Observational data include the presence of public housing, other subsidized housing, senior-living communities, municipal redevelopment efforts, and community resources aimed at EJ communities.

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 84

Table 6: Indiana - EJ Populations and Vehicle Ownership in Affected Communities, by Census Tract

Clark County AC Census Tracts Clark & Floyd County Indiana Data COC (Average) 501 502 503.03 504.01 504.04 505.01 505.03 505.04

Minority Population EJ Analysis Number Non-White/Minority 13,745 387 1,596 526 288 695 95 1,011 596 Percent Non-White/Minority (%) 14.4% 31.7% 39.5% 21.1% 10.3% 16.1% 5.6% 19.5% 19.9% 125 Percent of COC (%) 18.0% AC > 125% COC ? Potential Minority EJ Population? -- Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Low-Income Population EJ Analysis Percent Low-Income (%) 10.1% 12.2% 27.9% 14.3% 10.4% 7.5% 9.9% 13.8% 22.5% 125 Percent of COC (%) 12.7% AC > 125% COC ? Potential Low-Income EJ Population? -- No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Households with No Vehicle Households with No Vehicle 5.9% 15.4% 16.0% 7.9% 10.6% 4.0% 4.1% 9.2% 15.2%

Clark & Floyd Floyd County AC Census Tracts Indiana Data County COC (Average) 702 703.01 703.02 704 705 706 707 708.01 708.02 709.01 709.02 710.05 712

Minority Population EJ Analysis Number Non-White/Minority 13,745 435 144 406 398 697 115 849 532 849 825 218 682 36 Percent Non-White/Minority (%) 14.4% 26.1% 5.0% 11.7% 17.2% 24.9% 4.6% 33.4% 15.8% 19.2% 14.7% 13.0% 12.1% 1.6%

125 Percent of COC (%) 18.0%

Potential Minority EJ Population? -- Yes No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No

Low-Income Population EJ Analysis Percent Low-Income (%) 10.1% 31.4% 5.7% 14.8% 27.6% 21.2% 6.4% 27.4% 34.2% 19.3% 10.1% 26.5% 3.0% 5.3% 125 Percent of COC (%) 12.7% Potential Low-Income EJ Population? -- Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No

Households with No Vehicle Households with No Vehicle 5.9% 8.3% 2.0% 6.4% 20.2% 20.6% 3.1% 10.2% 26.6% 6.4% 3.7% 11.9% 1.8% 0.5% Source: U.S. Census, 2018 N/A* - Not applicable; there are no residents listed within the Project Study Area portion of Census Tract 74.

Page 54

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 85

Table 7: Kentucky-EJ Populations and Vehicle Ownership in Affected Communities, by Census Tract

Jefferson Jefferson County Kentucky Data County COC 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 21 23 24 Minority Population EJ Analysis Number Non-White/Minority 240,397 954 1,186 3,873 1,633 2,423 2,273 1,949 2,754 2,879 3,071 2,664 2,799 2,294 2,164 1,260 953 1,239 5,411 Percent Non-White/Minority (%) 31.5% 35.0% 48.5% 79.6% 97.3% 90.3% 98.8% 97.6% 90.5% 96.0% 98.4% 99.6% 98.3% 88.3% 96.7% 98.4% 37.7% 49.2% 97.4% 125 Percent of COC (%) 39.3% AC > 125% COC ? Potential Minority EJ Population? N/A No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Low-Income Population EJ Analysis Percent Low-Income (%) 15.0% 40.7% 37.2% 31.5% 30.8% 38.6% 18.2% 32.6% 29.5% 24.8% 28.8% 22.2% 37.0% 30.1% 27.0% 45.0% 51.2% 46.7% 37.4% 125 Percent of COC (%) 18.8% AC > 125% COC ? Potential Low-Income EJ Population? -- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Households with No Vehicle Households with No Vehicle 8.1% 37.2% 29.3% 15.7% 31.5% 31.4% 16.0% 28.0% 22.1% 27.9% 32.8% 20.7% 25.6% 23.2% 31.5% 34.1% 37.8% 34.8% 37.6%

Jefferson Jefferson County Kentucky Data County COC 27 28 30 35 36 37 49 50 51 52 53 59 62 65 66 71 74 127.01 Minority Population EJ Analysis Number Non-White/Minority 240,397 2,099 1,662 3,142 2,436 2,960 1,042 1,926 1,109 1,108 1,213 750 3,038 1,477 1,988 370 993 2,042 N/A* Percent Non-White/Minority (%) 31.5% 83.4% 84.0% 91.7% 46.4% 55.7% 58.2% 48.9% 56.2% 37.9% 36.3% 24.6% 61.3% 71.5% 60.0% 19.8% 22.1% 61.2% 125 Percent of COC (%) 39.3% Potential Minority EJ Population? N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No N/A* Yes Low-Income Population EJ Analysis Percent Low-Income (%) 15.0% 54.5% 41.6% 82.8% 59.2% 33.9% 28.4% 45.8% 29.6% 38.9% 32.8% 39.6% 41.6% 36.3% 48.3% 36.5% 26.8% N/A* 24.4% 125 Percent of COC (%) 18.8% Potential Low-Income EJ Population? -- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A* Yes Households with No Vehicle Households with No Vehicle 8.1% 47.7% 27.6% 69.8% 30.5% 21.9% 53.3% 53.3% 51.4% 59.0% 25.1% 25.6% 48.2% 15.7% 34.0% 19.6% 14.8% N/A* 13.3% Source: U.S. Census, 2018 N/A* - Not applicable; there are no residents listed within the Project Study Area portion of Census Tract 74.

Page 55

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 86

Figure 22: EJ Affected Communities

Page 56

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 87

Public housing offered throughout the Project Area and has been addressed as part of the overall EJ evaluations.

• The New Albany Housing Authority has 1,014 housing units (MHC, 2018), including the units at Riverview Towers, Riverview Terrace, Riverside Terrace, Valley View Court, Beechwood Terrace, Crystal Court, Parkview Terrace, Vance Court, Broadmeade Terrace, Parkview Tower, and Mark Elrod Tower. The Louisville Metro Housing Authority, in conjunction with HUD grants and local businesses and non-profit organizations, oversees low-income housing and services at multiple locations, including the Russell Choice Neighborhoods (Beecher Terrace Public Housing Development), Sheppard Square HOPE VI Revitalization in the Smoketown neighborhood, and the Liberty Green / Clarksdale HOPE VI Revitalization in the Phoenix Hill neighborhood.

• The New Directions Housing Corporation is a non-profit housing corporation operating in Jefferson, Floyd, and Clark counties. The corporation offers affordable housing, neighborhood redevelopment, and home ownership programs. New Directions Housing Corporation offers affordable or subsidized housing at St. Edward Court Apartments in New Albany; at apartments at 3431 Northwestern Parkway and 800 North 34th Street in Portland; multiple subsidized apartment complexes of varying sizes in the Shawnee; and the apartments at 3716, 4028, and 4540 West Broadway in Chickasaw (New Directions Housing Corporation, 2019).

• Other entities also provide subsidized or affordable housing in New Albany. Community Reinvestment Foundation provides affordable housing in the Valley Ridge Apartments. Muir Manor and Brookview Glen are affordable housing facilities for seniors. Other senior-living communities include: Villages at Historic Silvercrest in New Albany, St. Cecilia Senior Apartments in Portland, and Flaget Apartments in Shawnee.

• Louisville and Jefferson County Landbank Authority owns property throughout Louisville (Appendix C). This municipal authority acquires, manages, and sells distressed and vacant properties for redevelopment.

In addition to housing, the Project Study Area also includes EJ related resources, studies, and factors:

• Community service and non-profit organizations target EJ or Title VI populations Non-profit charities in New Albany include Horseshoe Foundation Headquarters, Adaptive on Main, Lifespan Resources, Floyd County Token Club, St. Elizabeth Catholic Charities headquarters, Floyd County Family Health Center, Salvation Army, Interfaith Community Council, Hope Southern Indiana, Habitat for Humanity, and Home of the Innocents. In Shawnee, community resources include Northwest Neighborhood Place, Shawnee Boys and Girls Club, Fuller Center for Housing of Louisville, Shawnee Learning Center, Shawnee People’s Garden, and VOA Recovery Center. Russell’s resources include Oak & Acorn Intergenerational Center, Russell Community Garden,

Page 57

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 88

Senior Nutrition Centers, and West Market Family Health Center. Portland has Love City, Neighborhood House Community Center, Kentucky Recovery Resource Center, and Maryhurst Renewal.

• Studies have been conducted to examine poverty levels and neighborhood stability in the region. A 2017 report (Henderick et al., 2017) found that in the Northwest Core Market Area, which includes all of the Shawnee, Portland, and Russell neighborhoods, had the third highest concentration (23%) of its housing stock subsidized through public housing, Section 8 vouchers, and low-income housing tax credits. About 27% of the population in this market area is considered low-income with limited access to a grocery store. In the Northwest Core, 14% of the properties were vacant or abandoned, similar to the percentage of vacant and abandoned properties in the West Core (directly to the south), but about 10% higher than the next highest market area. The neighborhood with the highest percentage (20%) of vacant and abandoned properties is Russell.

• Involuntary displacement (e.g., eviction, foreclosure) can be a concern for low-income populations. Involuntary displacements can lead to declines in neighborhood stability and residential well-being (Kinahan et al., 2018). The 2016 eviction rates in the Kentucky portion of the Study Area were among the highest in Louisville, ranging from 6.4% to 15.4% of rentals. Foreclosure rates for the same area in 2017 were more than 9.1% (Kinahan et al., 2018).

• Historically, much of the EJ area in Louisville was impacted by “redlining,” a practice of rating neighborhoods based mostly on socioeconomic and racial demographics. Banks used maps showing the ratings to determine where to issue mortgages, making it more difficult to get a mortgage and own a home in poorer communities with more minorities. Although no longer in practice, redlining has left a legacy in EJ neighborhoods in which higher levels of poverty, vacant properties, and mortgage denial rates remain (Marshall, 2017; Poe, 2019).

While local communities, services and facilities located near the SMB could experience adverse temporary effects, they would also benefit from anticipated greater certainty for cross-river connectivity, extended SMB lifespan, and removal of temporary measures following Project completion.

Page 58

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 89

7. CIA AND EJ IMPACTS

Extensive evaluations of the MOT Options and associated traffic analysis were conducted for the SMRP; the respective technical reports are incorporated by reference (SMRP MOT Options Analysis Technical Report and the SMRP Traffic Analysis Technical Report).

As a rehabilitation/resurfacing/maintenance project, impacts associated with the Proposed Action are considered temporary, lasting from 1.5 to 3+ years, depending on the MOT Option. Given the elements of the Proposed Action, the primary impacts would be traffic-related: temporary diversion routes and congestion due to bridge lane closures, travel time delays, and additional travel costs.

These temporary traffic-related impacts translate to community impacts through: increased traffic on local roads; increased traffic noise for communities adjacent to detour routes; changes in accessibility to businesses, jobs, schools, community facilities, goods, and services; and potential loss of business revenue as a result of changes in access to businesses. However, the long-term benefits of the completed Project would outweigh the Proposed Action’s temporary impacts.

The benefits of the Proposed Action, regardless of MOT Option, include:

• Extending the service life of the Sherman Minton Bridge, as well as the associated Indiana and Kentucky approach bridges, for another 30 years;

• Ensuring a safe river crossing for local, regional, and interstate travelers;

• Maintaining the region’s existing transportation network and river crossing capacity; and

• Maintaining existing social and economic connections to neighborhoods, community services and facilities, businesses, and jobs.

In a worst-case scenario, if the Proposed Action were not implemented, the Sherman Minton Bridge would eventually deteriorate to the point of requiring more frequent bridge inspections, unplanned repairs, or ultimately permanent closure. An increase in closures and/or lane restrictions will be required to accomplish bridge inspections and repairs, thus causing additional inconvenience to the traveling public and additional cost later. This option is neither prudent nor viable; the adverse ramifications of this scenario would extend far beyond the temporary impacts of any MOT Option at the local, regional, and cross-state level.

Page 59

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 90

The impact analysis that follows provides a comparison of the six MOT Options under consideration. The existing condition (defined as the “Base” inputs used in the TDM) provides current data against which the six MOT Options are compared. This technical report is based, in large part, on the data presented in the two, previously referenced SMRP technical reports analyzing MOT Options and Traffic Impacts. The data from these reports have been applied to how communities and EJ populations may be affected under each MOT Option. Potential community and EJ impacts are grouped into the following categories:

• Traffic, Diversions, congestion, and Travel Time • Transit and Rideshare • Economic Impacts • Social Impacts • Safety

Impacts to EJ communities are addressed within each of these categories, rather than as a separate EJ topic. Specific conclusions and findings are included within each category and summarized in Section 7.6.

7.1 TRAFFIC, DIVERSIONS, CONGESTION, AND TRAVEL TIME As a temporary construction project, the greatest impacts the Proposed Action would have on communities and EJ populations in the Project Study Area would be related to traffic congestion and route diversions. By understanding the potential traffic and travel-related impacts, better insights are possible relative to community and EJ impacts.

The Project Study Area is generally bounded by I-65 on the east and I-64/I-264 on the west, including two distinct areas divided by the Ohio River: the Kentucky side and the Indiana side. Each side of the Ohio River has its own unique travel needs and roadway network. Louisville is the largest trip generator in the region relative to employment and commerce. In support of this, Figure 23 illustrates that, on average, between 40% and 60% of those residing in Floyd and Clark counties in the Project Study Area commute out of state to Kentucky, with an even larger percentage of residents in New Albany and Clarksville doing so (up to 80%). Conversely, between 0% and 20% of Kentucky residents commute to Indiana.

Not surprisingly, local use of the SMB is dominated by those residing on the Indiana side. The morning (AM) period traffic volumes on the bridge are dominated by the eastbound (EB) movement from Indiana to Kentucky by a 2.5:1 margin. The evening (PM) period traffic volumes are dominated by the return trip to Indiana by a 2:1 margin. This reflects a greater reliance on the SMB by Floyd County and Indiana residents and more affected by capacity limitations on the bridge. This is not to say that there aren’t dependencies and effects on Kentucky residents, but it is more apparent with Indiana residents.

The SMB is currently the only non-tolled Interstate bridge serving the area. Other Ohio River crossings in the region include the US 31 Clark Memorial Bridge (non-tolled) in downtown Louisville, the I-65 Kennedy and Lincoln Bridges (tolled), and the SR 265 Lewis and Clark Bridge (tolled), east of Louisville (Section 1). Page 60

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 91

Figure 23: Percent Working Outside State of Residence

Source: EPA EJSCREEN Tool. 2012 – 2016 ACS Data. Accessed on 10/20/19 at: https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/comparemapper.html

The roadway networks are unique on either side of the Ohio River. On the Kentucky side, I-64 provides a high-capacity Interstate connection directly along the river between the SMB to the west and the downtown bridges to the east. In addition, West Louisville has a classic arterial grid roadway network that allows for efficient travel options between these bridges. This network currently has excess capacity that could accommodate an increase in traffic volumes.

The Indiana side has a different roadway network. Because Silver Creek bisects the Indiana portion of the

Project Study Area, the network is limited to three east-west crossings.

• I-265: While I-265 provides an Interstate connection between the I-64 and I-65 corridors, it does so at the northern limits of the Project Study Area. It does not provide a riverside Interstate connection between the I-64 and I-65 bridges the way the Kentucky roadway network does.

Page 61

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 92

• Blackiston Mill Road: This local road is approximately one mile south of I-265 and Charlestown Road, at the northern limits of the Project Study Area. This crossing primarily serves local traffic and, like I-265, does not provide a riverside Interstate connection.

• Spring Street/Providence Way and Spring Street/Brown Station Way: Spring Street provides direct access to I-64 at the SMB and is routed through downtown New Albany. From New Albany, Spring Street is a low-capacity, two-lane arterial street to approximately one-half mile east of Silver Creek. Here, Spring Street splits to the north as Providence Way and to the south as Brown Station Way. From the crossing of Silver Creek eastward, Spring Street / Brown Station Way is a four-lane arterial to its connection with I-65. In 2017, New Albany made changes to its downtown roadway network to calm east-west traffic. Between State Street and Vincennes Street, east-west streets were converted from one-way to two-way and lower speed limits were posted.

7.1.1 Systemwide Traffic and Diversions Any MOT Option will likely have a greater impact to those on the Indiana side of the Ohio River than those on the Kentucky side. This is attributable to several factors. On the Indiana side, the east-west roadway network is limited by Silver Creek, which creates a constrained transportation network within the Project Study Area. Of the three east-west options to cross Silver Creek, Spring Street/Brown Station Way is the most convenient to access alternative crossings of the Ohio River. Both the I-265 and Blackiston crossings of Silver Creek are farther north and not as conveniently located to SMB travelers. In addition, Indiana residents have a greater reliance on the SMB compared to Kentucky residents regarding crossing the river to access jobs. The ratio of Indiana to Kentucky residents crossing the Ohio River for jobs is 2.5:1. On the Kentucky side, MOT Options will have less impact on systemwide and local roadway networks because of this reduced river crossing demand and because of Louisville’s unconstrained roadway network. By contrast, depending on the MOT Option, the existing constrained roadway network in New Albany is more likely to experience congestion on local routes as travelers find alternate crossings into Louisville.

• Overall Diversions - Table 8 provides the anticipated, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes that would temporarily be diverted to the US 31 Clark Memorial Bridge, the I-65 Kennedy/Lincoln Bridges, and the IN SR 265/KY 841 Lewis and Clark Bridge (Lewis & Clark). With an increasing number of lane closures comes a corresponding willingness for drivers to travel farther and pay tolls to avoid congestion and delays.

For example, MOT 1 (with only one lane closed to EB and WB travel) shows the least percentage (8%) of drivers altering travel patterns. Conversely, MOT 5 (with full closure of all lanes) shows that of the 100% diverted from the SMB, the I-65 toll bridges become the primary choice (72%), despite the toll costs. For travelers whose destination is outside the Project Study Area, the trend is to travel I-265 to the north via the Lewis & Clark (East End) Bridge.

Page 62

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 93

• EJ Diversions - Once the EJ ACs within the Project Study Area were identified, the demographic data were incorporated into a Travel Demand Model (TDM) for insights to likely detour routes, travel time changes, changes in travel costs, and roadways likely to experience increased congestion. The TDM utilized “Non-EJ” and “EJ” Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs; as determined by KIPDA) based on whether or not the zone was within an EJ community (Section 3). The model categorized by the trip origin as follows:

o Non-EJ Trip – those trips originating outside of a Study Area EJ TAZ.

o EJ Trip – those trips originating from within a Study Area EJ TAZ

Tables 9 provides a comparison of Non-EJ Trip and EJ Trip tolled bridge crossings, while Tables 10 and 11 provide present change in Non-EJ Trip to EJ Trip for tolled and non-tolled crossings versus the Base Condition.

Given that the Clark Memorial Bridge (non-tolled) is already at capacity during peak traffic periods, it’s not surprising that travelers with expendable income (i.e., Non-EJ) would divert to a tolled route with excess capacity to minimize travel time delays. Those lacking expendable income would be less likely to choose a tolled crossing. Instead, such travelers would likely pay with time, rather than money, by enduring congestion delays at the Clark Memorial Bridge. As congestion and travel times increase with the numbers of lane closures, so too do the percentages of tolled crossings for both Non-EJ and EJ trips.

For EJ Trips, tolled river crossings currently account for only 7% of total EJ Trip river crossings compared to 40% of total river crossings for Non-EJ Trips (Table 8). This disparity is likely attributable to several factors among low-income communities. First, low-income communities typically lack expendable income to afford potentially faster and/or more convenient tolled routes. Second, low-income communities are less likely to own vehicles; thus, they lack the opportunity to choose a tolled over non-tolled route. TARC provides public transportation options with EJ populations accounting for approximately 50% of TARC’s ridership.

The SMRP TDM (2020 Traffic report) showed that approximately 25% of trips (for passenger vehicles – excludes truck, transit, and bike/pedestrian) the Project Study Area crossing the Ohio River start within an EJ TAZ. This means 75% of EJ trips (passenger vehicles) remain within their respective state of residence. AM Peak Non-EJ to EJ Trips increased from 1% to 23% from Base Condition for Non-Tolled crossing and 1% to 3% for Tolled Crossing. This reflects the general trend for EJ Trips diverting to Non- tolled facilities versus Non-EJ Trips that divert more to Tolled facilities. MOT 1 has the fewest EJ Trip diversions while MOT 5 and 6 have the highest, reflecting the limited available capacity on the non-tolled Clark/2nd St. Bridge.

Page 63

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 94

Table 8: Average Daily Traffic Diverted from Sherman Minton Bridge

Base MOT 1 MOT 2 MOT 3* MOT 4 MOT 5 MOT 6 OHIO RIVER CROSSING Condition ADT ADT % ADT % ADT % ADT % ADT % ADT %

Total remaining vehicles using Sherman Minton Bridge 90,000 82,600 92% 56,600 63% 49,400 55% 70,300 78% 0 0% 43,400 48% I-64 (US 150) ; Non-To lled

Total diverted vehicles to other 0 7,400 8% 33,400 37% 40,600 45% 19,700 22% 90,000 100% 46,600 52% Ohio River crossings (bridges) Diverted vehicles to other Ohio River crossings - separated by Bridge Clark Memorial / 2nd St. Bridge US Route 31 0 700 9% 4,200 13% 7,310 18% 3,350 17% 11,700 13% 6,520 14% - Non-To lled** Kennedy / Lincoln Bridges Interstate I-65 0 5,700 77% 23,600 71% 27,610 68% 13,590 69% 64,800 72% 33,550 72% - To lled Lewis & Clark Bridge Interstate I-265 0 1,000 14% 5,600 16% 5,680 14% 2,760 14% 13,500 15% 6,520 14% (IN SR 265 / KY 814) - To lled Diverted vehicles to other Ohio River crossings - separated by Environmental Justice (EJ) Passenger Vehicles ***

EJ – Total Diverted Vehicles 0 1,400 19% 7,000 21% 11,500 28% 5,200 26% 16,400 18% 9,600 21%

EJ – Diverted to Toll Bridges 0 700 50% 2,700 39% 900 8% 1,800 35% 7,100 43% 3,100 32%

Page 64

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 95

Table 9: Comparison of Non-EJ to EJ Tolled River Crossings (AM Peak Period)

Non-EJ Trips EJ Trips Change in EJ/Non- MOT % % Increase EJ Percentages Option % Crossings Increase % Overall % Crossings % Overall Over Base vs. Base Condition Tolled Over Base Change Tolled Change Case Case Base 40% - - 7% - - 0% Condition MOT 1 47% 7% 18% 12% 5% 71% 2%

MOT 2 62% 22% 55% 20% 13% 186% 9%

MOT 3 55% 15% 38% 10% 3% 43% 12%

MOT 4 50% 27% 68% 15% 8% 114% 19%

MOT 5 86% 46% 115% 34% 27% 386% 19%

MOT 6 64% 24% 60% 21% 14% 200% 10% Source: SMRP TDM outputs included in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT; some differences due to rounding Notes: Non-EJ Trip – those trips originating outside of a Study Area EJ TAZ EJ Trip – those trips originating from within a Study Area EJ TAZ * MOT 3 - AM Peak does not account closed reverse direction or twice a day 90-minute closures for AM/PM direction change ** MOT 6 - AM Peak does not account closed reverse direction during each construction phase

Page 65

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 96

Table 10: Non-EJ to EJ Percent Change: Tolled Crossings (AM Peak Period)

NON-TOLLED CROSSINGS % of AM Peak MOT Non-EJ EJ Combined (Non-EJ + EJ) Crossings versus Option AM Peak Reduction AM Peak Reduction AM Peak Reduction Base Condition Crossings #%Crossings #%Crossings #%Non-EJ % EJ % Base 18,740 - 60% 4,310 - 93% 23,050 81% 19% Condition MOT 1 16,430 -2,310 -12% 4,080 -240 -6% 20,510 -2,540 -12% -1% 1% MOT 2 11,860 -6,880 -37% 3,710 -610 -14% 15,570 -7,480 -48% -5% 5% MOT 3* 14,010 -4,730 -25% 4,190 -120 -3% 18,200 -4,850 -27% -4% 4% MOT 4 15,400 -3,340 -18% 3,970 -340 -8% 19,370 -3,680 -19% -2% 2% MOT 5 4,250 -14,490 -77% 3,070 -1,240 -29% 7,320 -15,730 -215% -23% 23% MOT 6** 11,240 -7,500 -40% 3,680 -630 -15% 14,920 -8,130 -54% -6% 6% Source: SMRP TDM outputs included in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT; some differences due to rounding Notes: Non-EJ Trip – those trips originating outside of a Study Area EJ TAZ EJ Trip – those trips originating from within a Study Area EJ TAZ * MOT 3 - AM Peak does not account closed reverse direction or twice a day 90-minute closures for AM/PM direction change

Page 66

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 97

Table 11: Non-EJ to EJ Percent Change: Non-Tolled Crossings (AM Peak Period)

TOLLED CROSSINGS % of AM Peak MOT Non-EJ EJ Combined (Non-EJ + EJ) Crossings versus Option AM Peak Increase AM Peak Increase AM Peak Increase Base Condition Crossings #%Crossings #%Crossings #%Non-EJ EJ Base 12,320 - - 330 - - 12,650 12,650 0% 97% 3% Condition MOT 1 14,630 2,310 19% 570 240 73% 15,200 2,550 17% -1% 1% MOT 2 19,200 6,880 56% 940 610 185% 20,140 7,490 37% -2% 2% MOT 3* 17,050 4,730 38% 460 130 39% 17,510 4,860 28% 0% 0% MOT 4 15,660 3,340 27% 680 350 106% 16,340 3,690 23% -2% 2% MOT 5 26,810 14,490 118% 1,580 1,250 379% 28,390 15,740 55% -3% 3% MOT 6** 19,820 7,500 61% 970 640 194% 20,790 8,140 39% -2% 2% Source: SMRP TDM outputs included in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT; some differences due to rounding Notes: Non-EJ Trip – those trips originating outside of a Study Area EJ TAZ EJ Trip – those trips originating from within a Study Area EJ TAZ * MOT 3 - AM Peak does not account closed reverse direction or twice a day 90-minute closures for AM/PM direction change ** MOT 6 - AM Peak does not account closed reverse direction during each construction phase

Page 67

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 98

7.1.2 Systemwide Congestion The peak-hour volumes were compared to a threshold of 1,900 vehicles per hour in the Highway Capacity Manual. This threshold was chosen to identify segments that are most likely to reach capacity and become a bottleneck in the roadway network. Figure 23 through Figure 32 illustrate, by MOT Option, the anticipated locations for congestion as a result of travel diversions and anticipated temporary detour routes during peak AM and PM periods. The MOT options that cause the most traffic diversions (MOT 5 and MOT 6) are most likely to generate congestion elsewhere on the roadway network.

As shown in Figure 24, the existing roadway network already experiences bottlenecks on a regular basis at several locations: • EB I-64 at US-150 (AM) • WB I-265 to WB I-64 (PM) • EB I-64 south of I-71 (PM) • WB I-64 at WB I-264 (PM) • Clark Memorial Bridge (AM & PM)

Potential bottleneck segments for the MOT options are shown in Figures 25 to 33; Common locations show potential for additional congestion under several MOT options: • Sherman Minton Bridge (under partial closure scenarios) • EB I-265 to SB I-65 • NB I-65 to WB I-265 • WB I-265 to WB I-64 • EB I-64 to EB I-265

Additionally, the figures highlight potential congestion locations that are unique to the individual MOT options. Local street segments along Spring Street in New Albany appear below and will be discussed in more detail in a subsequent section.

Page 68

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 99

Figure 24: Existing (Base) Congestion Locations

Page 69

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 100

Figure 25: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 1

Page 70

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 101

Figure 26: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 2

Page 71

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 102

Figure 27: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 3, Phase 1

Page 72

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 103

Figure 28: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 3, Phase 2

Page 73

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 104

Figure 29: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 4, Phase 1

Page 74

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 105

Figure 30: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 4, Phase 2

Page 75

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 106

Figure 31: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 5

Page 76

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 107

Figure 32: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 6, Phase 1

Page 77

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 108

Figure 33: Potential Congestion & Detour Routes: MOT Option 6, Phase 2

Page 78

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 109

7.1.2 Local Streets 7.1.2.1 Local Access to the Interstate MOT 1 and MOT 2 options retain existing local access to I-64, while MOT 3, 4, 5, and 6 close local access based on construction phases. Table 12 depicts the interchange and ramp access impacts immediately north of the SMB at New Albany for each MOT option, while Table 13 describes the I-64/I-264 interchange ramp access impacts to the south of the SMB.

Figures 34 and 35 illustrates the location of temporary ramp closures associated with each MOT Option. Temporary ramp closures are necessary to prevent wrong-way traffic on I-64 during construction activities. These figures show the locations of EJ communities, as well as KIPDA’s21 high density cluster areas for community facilities and services, medical services and providers, shopping and dining, and employment.

21 KIPDA Online Resource Center. Accessed 11/06/19 at https://kipda.maps.arcgis.com.

Page 79

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 110

Table 12 - MOT Options Ramp Access Impact Summary (Indiana side of SMB)

Indiana Access Points

MOT A B C D Option I-64 EB to Spring St. Spring Street I-64 WB to Elm

Construct. Phase Spring St. Exit Entrance to I-64 WB Entrance to I-64 EB Street 1 Open Open Open Open MOT 1 2 Open Open Open Open 3 Open Open Open Open 1 Open Open Open Open MOT 2 2 Open Open Open Open AM: Closed AM: Closed 1 Open Closed PM: Open PM: Open MOT 3 AM: Open 2 Open Open Closed PM: Closed 1 Open Open Closed Open MOT 4 2 Open Open Open Closed MOT 5 1 Open Open Closed Closed 1 Open Open Closed Open MOT 6 1 Open Open Open Closed

Table 13 - MOT Options Ramp Access Impact Summary (Kentucky side of SMB)

Kentucky Access Points

MOT E F G H I J Option I-264 NB to I-64 EB to I-64 WB to I-264 NB to I-264 SB to Bank Street to

Construct. Phase I-64 WB I-264 SB I-264 SB I-64 EB Bank Street I-264 NB 1 Open Open Open Open Open Open MOT 1 2 Open Open Open Open Open Open 3 Open Open Open Open Open Open 1 Open Open Open Open Open Open MOT 2 2 Open Open Open Open Open Open AM: Open* AM: Closed AM: Closed 1 Closed Open Open MOT 3 PM: Open PM: Open PM: Open 1 Open Closed Open Open Open Open 1 Open* Closed Closed Open Closed Open MOT 4 2 Open Open Open Open Open Open MOT 5 1 Closed Closed Open Open Open Open 1 Open Open Open Open Open Open MOT6 2 Closed Open Open Open Open Open

Page 80

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 111

Figure 34: MOT Options - Ramp Locations

Page 81

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 112

Figure 35: MOT Options - Ramp Closures

Page 82

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 113

7.1.2.2 Local Congestion Individuals and communities expressed concern for how the local street network would be affected by congestion caused by traffic diverted from the SMB. The TDM was used to identify local streets most affected by traffic diversion. To estimate congestion from diverted trips, the per-lane through-volumes were established for the TDM’s local street network with 1,080 vehicles per hour per lane being the peak- hour capacity of local streets. Based on guidance from the Highway Capacity Manual22, the relationship between traffic diversions, lane capacity, and congestion established projected traffic volume thresholds for Low, Medium, and High impacts on local streets.

Figure 36 shows the four screenlines used to identify streets with the highest peak-hour traffic volumes and the likelihood of congestion. Table 14 provides the estimated peak hour volumes for the selected screenline streets and shows where Medium and High congestion impacts are anticipated.

East-west diversion from the I-64 SMB to the downtown bridges through local communities was observed across New Albany and Clarksville on the east-west Spring Street/Brown Station Way corridor in Indiana and, to a much lesser extent, on local streets in West Louisville, Kentucky. The TDMs are generally less sensitive in predicting trips on local streets, therefore, screenlines were used to pick up patterns across multiple parallel/competing routes. Model output from the Base condition was compared with output from each MOT option to find the change in traffic due to each MOT option.

• Oak/Elm/Spring/Market/Main Streets at State Street - Downtown New Albany is an EJ community with a traditional grid street network. The downtown street network was extensively modified in 2017 to convert one-way street pairs to two-way streets in order to lower traffic speeds. This section of the east-west corridor between I-64 and the downtown bridges is made up of several east-west streets on which the traffic is distributed. To assess potential congestion impacts to the downtown area, a screenline was examined just east of State Street, across Oak Street, Elm Street, Spring Street, Market Street, Main Street, and Water Street (Figure 36). The highest peak-hour traffic volumes would be on Spring Street (WB) and Elm Street (EB) (Table 14). Only WB Spring Street in the PM peak hour shows a high likelihood of congestion MOT 6 and a moderate likelihood in MOT 5. This is due to the available set of parallel routes in downtown New Albany that helps distribute increased traffic volumes from trip diversions. In addition, this section of Spring Street is on the western edge of the east-west corridor. As the SMB’s diverted traffic moves from west (near the SMB) to east (to an alternate bridge crossing), traffic volumes steadily increase; much like a snowball increasing in size as it moves along its path, picking up diverted traffic as it moves eastward to an available bridge crossing. • New Albany: East – Spring/Elm/Market Streets at Silver Street - Eastern New Albany at Silver Street is on the eastern edge of an EJ community. This section of the east-west corridor between

22 Transportation Research Board – National Research Council. Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis. Accessed on 11/28/19 at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/175169.aspx. Page 83

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 114

I-64 and the downtown bridges narrows down to three local streets (Elm, Spring, and Market) before narrowing to Brown Station Way to the east. Spring Street is the primary route of the three. The screenline used for this area is just west of Silver Street, across Elm Street, Spring Street, and Market Street (Figure 36). Of these streets, Spring Street would have the greatest estimated peak hour traffic volumes and likelihood of congestion (Table 14). It is important to note that in the Base case, westbound traffic on Spring Street during the PM peak hour is already higher than the corresponding PM eastbound traffic. Therefore, any substantial increase in traffic volumes puts the local street over capacity. This should be taken into consideration when assessing projected capacity on westbound Spring Street in the PM for the MOT Options. Though five of the MOT Options show westbound PM traffic increasing, only MOT 2, MOT 5, and MOT 6 show conditions substantially worse than the Base conditions. For the other directions and time periods, MOT 5 and MOT 6 show eastbound AM traffic near or above capacity. MOT 5 and MOT 6 are most likely to have new congestion in multiple directions. MOT 2 is likely to have new congestion in at least one direction. MOT 1, MOT 3, and MOT 4 are least likely to show new congestion beyond what already appears for the Base case in the westbound PM direction. • Clarksville: Brown Station Way @ Randolph Street - The east-west corridor between I-64 and the downtown bridges is carried by Brown Station Way through Clarksville. Brown Station Way is a higher capacity arterial with two lanes in each direction and few intersections with cross streets. This area of Clarksville is not an EJ community. A screenline across Brown Station Way was examined just east of Randolph Street (Figure 36). Because capacity is determined on a per-lane basis and Brown Station Way is two lanes in each direction, the estimated peak hour volumes presented in Table 14 are per lane volumes. The estimated traffic volumes show that Brown Station Way operates well below capacity in the Base case. This existing, available capacity allows Brown Station Way to absorb even the highest case of diverted traffic (MOT 5 and MOT 6) while still remaining below capacity. Brown Station Way is expected to operate efficiently under any of the MOT Options. • West Louisville: 22nd Street - West Louisville, like the majority of the Project Study Area in Kentucky, is an EJ community. The potential for traffic diversions through the community was evaluated. The street network in West Louisville is an arterial grid that generally operates under capacity. The main north-south corridors are 22nd Street and 9th Street. To its north, the main east- west arterials in West Louisville are Portland Street and Bank Street. To the south, the main east- west arterials include Main Street, Market Street, Muhammad Ali Boulevard, Chestnut Street, and Broadway. In the Base case, these arterials operate under capacity, meaning there is ample capacity to efficiently move additional traffic. A screenline just west of 22nd Street was examined to gauge changes in east-west travel patterns (Figure 36). Because hourly traffic counts are not available, it is not possible to provide the actual traffic volumes. However, the TDM was used to

Page 84

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 115 predict the anticipated change in peak hour volumes for each of the MOT Options. While 22nd Street has multiple lanes, the estimated net change is based on the number of vehicles per lane (Table 14). The minimal increases in per-lane peak-hour traffic onto an already under capacity network is not likely to cause noteworthy congestion in West Louisville. Even the highest increase in MOT 4 would only be on the order of about one additional vehicle per minute. In addition, if cross-river trips from Kentucky to Indiana must divert from the SMB to the downtown bridges to the east, I- 64 along the Kentucky side of the river can carry most of this diverted traffic. Figure 36: Local Street Traffic Screenlines

Page 85

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 116

Table 14: Estimated Peak Hour Traffic on Selected Local Street Network

New Albany - Downtown New Albany - East Westbound: Eastbound: Westbound: Eastbound: MOT Spring Street Elm Street MOT Spring Street Spring Street Option Option AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Base Base 650 730 270 490 540 710 430 580 Condition Condition MOT 1 550 740 280 380 MOT 1 470 750 470 470 MOT 2 410 740 330 200 MOT 2 450 930 720 420 MOT 3 740 470 170 560 MOT 3 810 710 480 850 MOT 4 540 650 280 400 MOT 4 520 780 580 540 MOT 5 450 950 500 250 MOT 5 740 1,210 1,080 710 MOT 6 740 1,100 570 560 MOT 6 810 1,240 1,100 850

Clarksville - Brown Station Way West Louisville - 22nd Street Westbound: Eastbound: Westbound: Eastbound: MOT Brown Station Brown Station MOT Brown Station Brown Station Option Way Way Option Way Way AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Base Base 190 420 340 210 - - - - Condition Condition* MOT 1 190 560 440 200 MOT 1 10 30 -10 20 MOT 2 190 760 680 250 MOT 2 20 10 -20 10 MOT 3 450 580 480 560 MOT 3 30 40 20 10 MOT 4 230 640 560 330 MOT 4 40 70 10 50 MOT 5 460 900 880 540 MOT 5 30 20 -10 0 MOT 6 450 900 880 550 MOT 6 20 40 20 10 *Base AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes not available Where: Low Under Capacity Less than 917 Vehicles Medium Near Capacity Between 918 and 1,025 Vehicles High At Capacity More than 1,026 Vehicles Source: SMRP TDM outputs included in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT

Page 86

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 117

7.1.3 Trip Travel Distance and Time As previously discussed, the dominant travel pattern in the Project Study Area is based on home to work trips, with up to 80% of those residing on the Indiana side of the area traveling to Kentucky for work in the AM and reversing the pattern in the PM. Tables 15 and 16 provide comparisons between Non-EJ and EJ trips for average trip distance by MOT and average trip time by MOT, respectively.

Regardless of MOT Option, there is little change in trip distance for Non-EJ and EJ Trips. Likewise, the difference in miles traveled per trip for EJ compared to Non-EJ Trips remains relatively the same as the Base condition, with EJ Trips approximately seven to eight miles shorter than Non-EJ Trips. Changes in the average trip travel times for Non-EJ versus EJ Trips, by MOT, are similar. Non-EJ Trips experience an increase in travel time between one and three minutes whereas EJ travelers experience increases between one and 6 minutes. MOT 5 would have the greatest effect on increases in trip time for Non-EJ (3-minute increase) and EJ (6-minute increase) Trips. Overall, trip travel times for EJ Trips remain consistently below those of Non-EJ Trips, regardless of MOT Option and the difference between Non-EJ to EJ trips remain close to the Base Condition.

Table 15: Non-EJ and EJ Populations (AM Peak Period) - Average Trip Length Non-EJ Trips EJ Trips Difference between in MOT Average Change Average Change Non-EJ to EJ Option Trip Trip Change in # Miles % # Miles % # Miles Mileage Mileage % Base 20.3 0.0 -- 12.7 0.0 -- 7.6 37.4% Condition MOT 1 20.1 -0.2 -1.0% 12.5 -0.2 -1.6% 7.6 -0.4% MOT 2 20.4 0.1 0.5% 12.5 -0.2 -1.6% 7.9 -1.3% MOT 3* 20.5 0.2 1.0% 13.5 0.8 6.3% 7.0 3.3% MOT 4 20.2 -0.1 -0.5% 12.8 0.1 0.8% 7.4 0.8% MOT 5 21.4 1.1 5.4% 14.0 1.3 10.2% 7.4 2.9% MOT 6** 20.8 0.5 2.5% 13.3 0.6 4.7% 7.5 1.4% Source: SMRP TDM outputs in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT; some differences due to rounding Notes: Non-EJ Trip – those trips originating outside of a Study Area EJ TAZ EJ Trip – those trips originating from within a Study Area EJ TAZ * MOT 3 - AM Peak does not account closed reverse direction or twice a day 90-minute closures for AM/PM direction change ** MOT 6 - AM Peak does not account for closed reverse direction during each construction phase

Page 87

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 118

Table 16: Non-EJ and EJ Populations (AM Peak Period) - Average Trip Travel Time Non-EJ Trips EJ Trips Difference between MOT Average Change Average Change Non-EJ to EJ Option Trip Travel # Trip Travel # # Change % % Time Minutes Time Minutes Minutes in % Base 35.0 0.0 -- 26.9 0.0 -- 8.1 23.1% Condition MOT 1 35.9 0.9 2.6% 27.8 0.9 3.3% 8.1 0.6% MOT 2 37.0 2.0 5.6% 29.5 2.6 9.7% 7.5 2.9% MOT 3* 35.3 0.3 0.8% 30.1 3.2 11.9% 5.2 8.4% MOT 4 36.0 1.0 2.8% 28.9 2.0 7.4% 7.1 3.4% MOT 5 38.3 3.3 9.2% 32.9 6.0 22.3% 5.4 9.0% MOT 6** 36.7 1.7 4.4% 30.1 3.2 11.9% 6.6 5.2% Source: SMRP TDM outputs in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT; some differences due to rounding Notes: Non-EJ Trip – those trips originating outside of a Study Area EJ TAZ EJ Trip – those trips originating from within a Study Area EJ TAZ * MOT 3 - AM Peak does not account closed reverse direction or twice a day 90-minute closures for AM/PM direction change ** MOT 6 - AM Peak does not account for closed reverse direction during each construction phase

7.1.4 Traffic, Diversions, Congestion, and Travel Time Findings Based upon the discussions above, the traveling public and local EJ communities will experience some level of temporarily effects on traffic, diversions, congestion, and travel time by the 6 MOT options:

• MOT 1 would have the fewest network and local disruptions and least diverted traffic but has the longest duration. • MOT 2 retains local access and shortens the duration but increases network and local congestion with fewer SMB lanes. • MOT 3 reduces local access, closes the SMB twice a day, eliminates the reverse direction, and increases both network and local congestion • MOT 4 reduces local access but has lower traffic diversions and network congestion • MOT 5 and MOT 6 would be the most disruptive and have the highest diverted traffic but shorter durations.

Page 88

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 119

7.2 TRANSIT AND RIDESHARE The Transit Authority of River City (TARC) is the public transit system serving the Project Study Area. TARC provides fixed-route and paratransit services, as well as specialized services including LouLift and LouExplore. LouLift is a free, all-electric bus service with circular routes near downtown, including museums, NuLu, and Churchill Downs. LouExplore provides group transportation to qualified non-profits (TARC, 2019). KIDPA offers the “Every Commute Counts” program to encourage commuters to find an alternative to solo commutes. Alternatives include biking, vanpool, transit, and carpool. The program offers ride-matching services and offers an emergency ride home to registered users (Every Commute Counts, 2019). Every Commute Counts is toll-free (Riverlink, 2019).

TARC currently operates 43 routes with 228 active fleet buses that serve and connect five counties and the cities of Louisville and Portland in Kentucky, and Jeffersonville, Clarksville, and New Albany in Indiana. System-wide, TARC provides services to over 41,000 riders per day. About half of the annual ridership occurs on Route 4 (Fourth Street), Route 18 (Preston-Dixie Highway), Route 19 (Muhammad Ali), and Route 23 (Broadway), all of which are within the Louisville Metro area (HDR, 2018). In general, TARC’s circular routes allow for up to 33 riders at one time, whereas TARC’s 40-foot buses allow for up to 54 riders on regular routes and 44 riders on express routes. Route headways (travel times) vary, with the maximum allowable headway on trunk routes being 30 minutes from start to finish, including stops.23 Figure 37 and Figure 38 show TARC routes within the Project Study Area for Indiana and Kentucky, respectively. Figure 39 shows TARC routes and the access provided to medical, shopping, and employment areas, as well as EJ communities.

TARC’s circulator, fixed, and express bus routes serve approximately 99% of all TARC riders. Of those, fixed routes account for 86% of weekday ridership and 90% of TARC’s total annual ridership (Table 17).

7.2.1 Effects on TARC Routes TARC buses would experience the same levels of congestion as other travelers, where the degree of congestion, travel-time delays, and diversions depend on the MOT Option and route location. On the Kentucky side of the Project Study Area, TARC provides an extensive number of routes and robust coverage. Most Louisville Metro residents can reach a bus route by walking fewer than 10 minutes, regardless of location. Likewise, EJ communities in West Louisville and downtown Louisville have access to TARC services that provide access to employment, shopping, and medical clusters. TARC routes entirely within the Louisville Metro area would not likely experience delays from congestion and traffic diversions, given the area’s robust roadway network, excess roadway capacity, and absence of river crossings.

23 Transit Authority of River City (TARC). TITLE VI Program Update. January 2017. Page 89

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 120

Table 17: TARC Ridership by Major Route Type and Ohio River Crossing

TARC Ridership by Major Route Type TARC RIDERSHIP TRIPS MAJOR ROUTE TYPE Annual Trips Weekday Average Trips # % of Total # % of Total RIDERSHIP 11,260,577 100% 39,009 100% Circulator 1,019,451 9% 4,799 12% Fixed (Local) 10,087,832 90% 33,608 86% Express 153,294 1% 602 2% Source: TARC Ridership Totals FY 2018 -July 2017 through June 2018.

TARC River Crossing Ridership Compared to Total TARC Ridership TARC ROUTES CROSSING OHIO RIVER ROUTE NAME & ROUTE TYPE Annual Trips Weekday Average Trips # % of Total # % of Total TOTAL RIDERSHIP 11,260,577 4% 39,009 4% Route 71: Fixed - Local 272,897 2% 884 2%

Route 72: Fixed - Local 169,653 2% 513 1% Route 65X: Express - Weekday 6,120 0.05% 25 0.06%

Source: TARC Ridership Totals FY 2018 -July 2017 through June 2018.

Page 90

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 121

Figure 37: TARC Routes - Indiana

Page 91

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 122

Figure 38: TARC Routes - Kentucky

Page 92

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 123

Figure 39: Access to Community Clusters via TARC

In Indiana, TARC coverage is less comprehensive and limited to four routes operating in the Project Study Area: Route 71 (Jeffersonville-Louisville-IUS), Route 72 (Clarksville), Route 82 (New Albany-Clarksville- Jeffersonville Crosstown), and Route 65X (Sellersburg Express). Congestion delays on the Indiana side, as well at the Ohio River crossings, may make maintaining designated headways difficult; a problem exacerbated by the nature of public transportation, with its frequent stops for passenger pick-up and drop-off and TARC routes operating on roads identified as potential diversion routes (e.g., State Street, Elm Street, Spring Street, Brown Station Way). In addition, three of the four TARC routes operating in Indiana cross the Ohio River. TARC routes that cross the river are more susceptible to diversions and travel time delays. The potential effects of the MOT Options on the following four routes:

• TARC Route 71 Jeffersonville-Louisville-IUS (Fixed - Local Route; SMB and Clark/2nd St. Bridges) TARC Route 71, at its easternmost point within the Project Study Area, starts in west Jeffersonville, in a westerly direction, to the Clark Memorial Bridge (2nd Street Bridge). After crossing the Ohio River into downtown Louisville, TARC Route 71 parallels the river along local streets, accesses I-64 via North 22nd Street, then crosses the Ohio River via the SMB to New Albany. TARC Route 71 then exits I-64 into downtown New Albany via the Spring Street Exit where it connects to State Street, Pearl Street, and Grant Line Road. The route continues northward,

Page 93

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 124

crossing I-265 to the Indiana University Southeast (ISU) campus where the route then reverses direction, backtracking its path through Louisville to Jeffersonville.

TARC Route 71 would be most affected because, in a single complete trip, this route crosses the Ohio River twice: once on the SMB and once on the Clark Memorial Bridge which, in the Base case, is already at capacity. Congestion on the local roadway network and at the river crossings could affect headways for this route under any MOT Option. Travel time delays under MOT 1, MOT 2, or MOT 4 would not likely be substantial enough for TARC to consider route diversion. Instead, adjustments in headways may be necessary. MOT 3 and MOT 6, that close one direction of travel on the SMB either daily or by construction phase, would necessitate route diversion during the periods when the available travel direction across the SMB is opposite to the direction of travel for Route 71. MOT 5, with its full closure of SMB, would necessitate development of an alternate route and river crossing. Maintaining headways would be difficult due to travel delays anticipated along Elm and Spring Streets and at the Clark Memorial Bridge. Use of the Kennedy/Lincoln bridges may be necessary under MOT 5.

• TARC Route 72 Clarksville (Fixed - Local Route; Clark/2nd St. Bridge) This route connects Clarksville to downtown Louisville via the Clark Memorial Bridge (2nd Street Bridge). Starting in Clarksville just west of I-65, this route is southbound along routes that include Veterans Parkway, Greentree Boulevard, and Eastern Boulevard, to its crossing of the Ohio River via the Clark Memorial Bridge. In downtown Louisville, TARC Route 72 continues southward on South 2nd Street where the route uses local streets (West Jefferson and West Liberty Streets) to reverse its direction at South 9th, returning to Clarksville via the Clark Memorial Bridge.

TARC Route 72 crosses the Ohio River on the Clark Memorial Bridge which, in the Base case, is already at capacity. Increased congestion at this river crossing as a result of diversions could affect headways for this route under any MOT Option. Travel time delays under MOT 1 or MOT 2 would not likely be substantial enough for TARC to consider route diversion. Instead, adjustments in headways may be necessary. The remaining MOT Options may increase congestion at the river crossing substantial enough to warrant TARC’s consideration of the adjacent Kennedy/Lincoln bridges.

• TARC Route 82 New Albany-Clarksville-Jeffersonville Crosstown (Fixed - Local Route) This route provides an east/west connection between northern New Albany, downtown New Albany, and Clarksville. Like TARC Route 72, this route begins in Clarkesville just west of I-65. In a southwest direction, the route follows Veterans Parkway to Greentree Boulevard. The route then connects to Lewis and Clark Boulevard westward through Clark County where it crosses Silver Creek and enters New Albany/Floyd County on Spring Street. In downtown New Albany, TARC Route 82 turns to the northwest on State Street where it continues just west of I-265 where it reverses its direction, returning to Clarksville. Page 94

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 125

Of the four TARC routes, TARC Route 82 would be the least affected by the MOT Options because it does not cross the Ohio River. However, depending on the MOT Option, increased congestion on local roads could affect headway times. Congestion under MOT 1 or MOT 3 would likely be minimal. PM congestion on Spring Street would be likely under MOT 2. AM and PM congestion on Spring and Elm Streets would cause travel time delays under MOT 5 and MOT 6. It may be necessary for TARC to adjust headways to account for congested periods along its routes.

• TARC Route 65X Sellersburg Express (Express Route; Clark/2nd St. and I-65 Kennedy Bridges) This route operates Monday through Friday, providing an express connection between IVY Tech Community College (Ivy Tech) in Sellersburg, IN to downtown Louisville, primarily along I-65. TARC Route 65X begin at Ivy Tech, to the north of and outside the Project Study Area. From there, the route is southbound along I-65, the Project Study Area’s easternmost boundary. As an express route, no additional stops are provided until after crossing the Clark Memorial Bridge into downtown Louisville. Here, the route follows local roads, makes up to four stops, then turns north to cross the river via the I-65 Lincoln Bridge. Once across the river, the only stop is at Ivy Tech in Sellersburg, where the route originated.

On its southbound route, TARC Route 65X crosses the Ohio River on the Clark Memorial Bridge which, in the Base case, is already at capacity. Increased congestion at this river crossing as a result of diversions could affect headways for this route under any MOT Option. Travel time delays under MOT 1 or MOT 2 would not likely be substantial enough for TARC to consider route diversion. Instead, adjustments in headways may be necessary. The remaining MOT Options may increase congestion at the river crossing substantial enough to warrant TARC’s consideration of the adjacent I-65 Kennedy Bridge for its southbound river crossing. This would require TARC’s minor adjustments to the location and timing of the existing four stops in downtown Louisville.

7.2.2 Effects on TARC Riders TARC’s most recent ridership survey reveals the typical TARC rider is a weekly rider (89%) of a local route (91%) traveling to work or school (83%). 24, 25 Most riders are less than 10 minutes from the bus stop and, on average, spend 32 minutes on a typical trip. One out of every two riders typically changes buses to reach their destination. 26 Total ridership miles and hours are relatively equal between Non-EJ and EJ riders: up to 54% of TARC ridership is minority, up to 34% is below the poverty threshold (low-income), and up to 47% overall have household incomes below $20,000. 27 In the same ridership survey, TARC riders were asked to rate how easy it would be for them to find another means of transportation if TARC were

24 IQS Research for TARC. General Onboard Riders: Ridership and Impact Analysis. February 2017. Page 4. 25 Personal communications with Ms. Aida Copic, TARC Director of Planning. August 29, 2019. 26 IQS Research for TARC. General Onboard Riders: Ridership and Impact Analysis. February 2017. Page 4. 27 Ibid. Page 12.

Page 95

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 126

not available, and to then identify other methods of transportation they would use. Nearly three-quarters of the respondents (73%) stated they do not own a car, and over half of the respondents (56%) stated it would be highly difficult to find alternative transportation. 28

As previously noted, almost half of TARC’s ridership occurs within the Louisville Metro area on four routes that do not cross the Ohio River. Because of Louisville Metro area’s robust roadway network, TARC riders on routes that do not cross the river are not anticipated to experience travel time delays under any of the MOT Options in the Louisville Metro area.

For TARC riders needing to cross the river, travel time delays and/or routes could warrant TARC’s consideration of additional buses, additional routes, and/or using the Kennedy/Lincoln bridges to ensure riders get to their destinations in a timely manner. Of the river crossing routes, riders on TARC Route 71 would be most affected by the Project. Travel time delays under MOT 1 or MOT 2 would not likely be substantial enough to inconvenience TARC riders. However, MOT 3, MOT 4, and MOT 6, with their various combinations of daily, alternating, directional deck and lane closures, would pose a considerable obstacle for riders during the periods when the available travel direction across the SMB is opposite to the direction of travel for Route 71. MOT 5, with its full closure of SMB, could leave riders with up to a tripling of their travel time. For example, a trip between downtown New Albany and the Portland community currently takes approximately 15 minutes on TARC Route 71. Under MOT 5, travel between these two areas would increase to around 90 minutes as riders must take TARC Route 71 in the opposite direction to cross the Clark Memorial Bridge, as well as transfer to TARC Route 82, to complete their trip. With 73% of TARC riders not owning a car and almost 50% having limited incomes, finding alternative means of transportation across the river would be exceptionally difficult. If TARC is unable to provide alternative and timely routes for these riders, the impact to riders needing to cross the river could be significant.

TARC representatives have indicated that while all MOT options would have some effect on their operations, additional coordination would allow for service adjustments to ensure continued served for their ridership.

7.2.3 Transit and Rideshare Summary Based upon the discussions above, Transit and Rideshare users and local EJ communities will experience some level of temporarily effects by the 6 MOT options:

• MOT 1 would have the fewest transit disruptions but has the longest duration. • MOT 2 retains transit routes and shortens duration but increases transit travel times. • MOT 4 reduces local access but retains routes and has lower transit travel times. • MOT 3, MOT 5 and MOT 6 would be the most disruptive, impacts routes, and have the highest transit times.

28 Ibid. Page 12. Page 96

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 127

7.3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS

7.3.1 Total User Costs for Through-Trips and Local Trips by MOT Duration As previously noted, approximately 50% of trips across the SMB are considered through trips, as opposed to local trips starting and stopping in the Project Study Area. The cost of local and through trip diversions, by MOT Option, was based on the number of trips assumed to be diverted over the duration of the MOT Option, the net increase in length of travel distance between the detour and non-detour distances, as well as the additional toll costs for trips diverted to the toll bridges. For each MOT option, Table 18 provides the percent of traffic assumed to be diverted, Table 19 provides the additional driver user costs; and Table 20 provides the overall economic Impact for both local and through trips. Table 18: Percent of SMB Traffic Diversion by MOT Option % SMB TRAFFIC MOT DETOURED BASIS FOR DETOUR OPTION Local and Through Trips

MOT 1 33% Both SMB decks open with single EB and WB lane closed.

MOT 2 66% Both SMB decks open with two EB and WB lanes closed, as well as I-64 reduced to a single lane at the bridge approaches. MOT 3 50% * One SMB deck closed and one deck open. Open deck has three reversible lanes all EB or WB travel based on AM or PM. One SMB deck closed and one deck open. Open deck has two lanes MOT 4 33% open for one direction and one lane open for opposite direction based on AM or PM. MOT 5 100% * Full closure of SMB.

MOT 6 50% * One SMB deck closed and one deck open. Open deck has three lanes open for one travel direction with no reverse travel. * 100% for one direction and 0% in the reverse direction. Table 19 - Additional Driver User Costs ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO DRIVERS (All Vehicles over duration of Project) CRITERIA Base MOT 1 MOT 2 MOT 3 MOT 4 MOT 5 MOT 6 Additional User Costs per Trip NA $0.02 $0.09 $0.10 $0.06 $0.26 $0.14 Trips per Day (million trips) 2.453 2.453 2.453 2.453 2.453 2.453 2.453 Duration of MOT Option (years) NA 3 2 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 Total Additional Driver User NA $41.06 $121.47 $165.71 $95.58 $251.06 $218.04 Costs (million)

Overall River Crossing Trip Cost NA Low Medium Medium Low High High Source: SMRP TDM outputs in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT; some differences due to rounding

Page 97

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 128

Table 20: Economic Impact of MOT Duration by Trip Type and Diversion Route

MOT and Duration of Diversion TRIP DIVERSION TRIP TYPE ROUTE MOT 1 MOT 2 MOT 3* MOT 4 MOT 5 MOT 6 3 Years 2 Years 2.5 Years 2.5 Years 1.5 Years 2.5 Years Via Brown Station Local Trip User $2,922 $3,897 $3,652 $2,435 $4,389 $3,652 Costs Way $ millions Via I-265 to I-65 $4,219 $5,616 $5,268 $3,516 $6,320 $5,268 Subtotal of Local Trip Diversion Costs $7,141 $9,513 $8,920 $5,951 $10,709 $8,920

Through Trip User Via I-64 to I-64 $5,284 $7,035 $6,599 $4,403 $7,922 $6,599 Costs $ millions Via I-64 to I-65 $4,861 $6,482 $6,087 $4,050 $7,296 $6,087 Subtotal of Through Trip Diversion Costs $10,144 $13,518 $12,686 $8,454 $15,218 $12,686

Sum of Trip Diversion Costs $17,285 $23,030 $21,606 $14,404 $25,927 $21,606 Overall Economic Impact Low Medium Medium Low High High To Local / Through Trips Source: SMRP TDM outputs in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT; some differences due to rounding User Cost – based cost per mile, travel time, and if there are toll costs for the TDM trips

7.3.2 Comparison of Local Trip Costs for Non-EJ and EJ Populations Based on the 2020 SMRP Traffic report, Table 21 and Table 22 provide comparisons between Non-EJ and EJ trips for average trip user costs by MOT and average trip toll costs by MOT, respectively. For both Non- EJ and EJ travelers, MOT 1 would have the least increase in trip costs whereas MOT 5 would have the greatest. Regardless of MOT Option, EJ trips would continue to be less costly than their Non-EJ counterparts. This can be explained by the shorter trip distances for EJ travelers versus Non-EJ travelers (Section 7.1, Tables 15 and 16). In addition, regardless of the dollar value and percentage increase in trip costs, EJ costs remain between $6 and $7 less than Non-EJ trip costs under all MOT Options.

The average cost of a tolled crossing shows different results for Non-EJ and EJ trips. Non-EJ travelers are the primary users of bridges in the Project Study Area, making up 75% of all bridge users and likely the majority of toll crossing users. EJ travelers account of 25% of all river crossings; likely via the Sherman Minton Bridge or the Clark Memorial Bridge, both of which are non-tolled. For both Non-EJ and EJ travelers, MOT 1 would result in the least increase: $0.20 for Non-EJ and $0.33 for EJ. MOT 5 would result in the greatest increase: $1.24 for Non-EJ and $0.72 for EJ. The difference between Non-EJ to EJ trip user costs remain close to the Base Condition.

Page 98

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 129

Table 21: AM Peak Non-EJ and EJ Trip - Average User Cost Non-EJ Trips EJ Trips Difference between MOT Change Change Non-EJ to EJ Average Average Option Change in Trip Cost $ $ % Trip Cost $ $ % $ % Base $19.07 - -- $11.84 - -- $7.23 37.9% Condition MOT 1 $19.59 $0.52 2.7% $12.25 $0.41 3.5% $7.34 0.4% MOT 2 $20.44 $1.37 7.2% $13.02 $1.18 10.0% $7.42 1.6% MOT 3* $19.64 $0.57 3.0% $13.16 $1.32 11.1% $6.48 4.9% MOT 4 $19.75 $0.68 3.6% $12.72 $0.88 7.4% $7.03 2.3% MOT 5 $21.84 $2.77 14.5% $14.82 $2.98 25.2% $7.02 5.8% MOT 6** $20.50 $1.43 7.5% $13.40 $1.56 13.2% $7.10 3.3% Source: SMRP TDM outputs in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT; some differences due to rounding Notes: Non-EJ Trip – those trips originating outside of a Study Area EJ TAZ EJ Trip – those trips originating from within a Study Area EJ TAZ User Cost – based cost per mile, travel time, and if there are toll costs for the TDM trips * MOT – AM Peak does not account closed reverse direction or twice a day 90-minute closures for AM/PM direction change ** MOT 6 – AM Peak does not account for closed reverse direction during construction phase Table 22: AM Peak Non-EJ and EJ Trip - Average Toll Cost

Non-EJ Trips EJ Trips Difference between MOT Change Change Non-EJ to EJ Average Average Option Change in Toll Cost $ $ $ Toll Cost $ $ % $ % Base $1.06 - - $0.19 - - $0.87 82.1% Condition MOT 1 $1.26 $0.20 19% $0.33 $0.14 73% $0.93 8.3% MOT 2 $1.65 $0.59 56% $0.54 $0.35 185% $1.11 14.8% MOT 3* $1.47 $0.41 38% $0.26 $0.07 39% $1.21 -0.2% MOT 4 $1.35 $0.29 27% $0.39 $0.20 105% $0.96 11.0% MOT 5 $2.30 $1.24 118% $0.91 $0.72 376% $1.39 21.6% MOT 6** $1.70 $0.64 61% $0.55 $0.36 192% $1.15 14.4% Source: SMRP TDM outputs in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT; some differences due to rounding Notes: Non-EJ Trip – those trips originating outside of a Study Area EJ TAZ EJ Trip – those trips originating from within a Study Area EJ TAZ User Cost – based cost per mile, travel time, and if there are toll costs for the TDM trips * MOT – AM Peak does not account closed reverse direction or twice a day 90-minute closures for AM/PM direction change ** MOT 6 – AM Peak does not account for closed reverse direction during construction phase Page 99

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 130

Looking at the worst-case scenario, MOT 5 would create the greatest percentage increase in toll costs for EJ travelers (376%) compared to Non-EJ (118%). However, the actual dollar value of that increase would be a $0.72 increase per trip for EJ and $1.24 for Non-EJ, with EJ trip toll costs remaining below that of Non-EJ travelers. Comparing the overall difference in trip toll costs, EJ trip toll costs would be between $0.93 (74%) and $1.39 (60%) less per trip than Non-EJ.

The difference between Non-EJ and EJ trip average user cost versus the Base Condition values are from 0% to 2% reflecting both the relatively low differences between EJ and Non-EL Trips and that MOT 1, MOT 2, and MOT 4 have a lower effect on EJ User costs. Conversely, when only the AM Peak Toll Trips are compared, the relative differences are more pronounced range for 0% to 26%; the lack of change for MOT 3 is related to only including the AM Peak into Kentucky and not the closed reverse direction.

7.3.3 Economic Impacts to Local Businesses Throughout the public outreach effort, local business owners voiced concern that SMB lane, deck, and ramp closures and travel diversions could have a serious impact on the viability of individual businesses and business communities overall. Many business owners in the Project Study Area experienced first-hand the economic hardships encountered during the temporary, emergency closure of the SMB in 2011 (see Section 3). Work zones associated with any of the MOT Options could affect accessibility to local businesses, thus adversely impacting local commerce. Potential negative impacts that concern business owners include:

• Customer access and parking difficulties, resulting in a loss of customers; • Delivery access and parking difficulties, resulting in inability to receive/distribute goods in a timely manner; • Congestion and traffic pattern changes that make business location access too problematic, such as too long a trip or too expensive a route (tolls); • Customers finding temporary or permanent alternatives; and • Adverse impacts on full time and part time employment, either due to employee difficulty accessing business or due to employee lay-offs from declining sales.

Any one or a combination of these negative impacts could result in a decline in gross sales revenue and net profits, threatening the viability of the business or businesses affected.

On the positive side of local business impacts, the Project could provide construction employment opportunities for those within the Project Study Area. Construction projects typically have a substantial multiplier effect in the local economy. Regardless of MOT Option, construction employment opportunities are likely for those in the area. Project-related expenditures will likely be made in the area as well, including materials, products, and services purchased to support the Project. Project-related workers will then spend income on local goods and services. In addition, travel diversions can result in travelers finding previously unknown goods and services, shopping, and dining opportunities that would have otherwise Page 100

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 131

gone undiscovered. While business establishments adjacent to the SMB may be adversely affected by access limitations, other business establishments along the diversion routes could experience a temporary boom.

Businesses closest to the SMB that rely heavily on cross-river patronage will likely experience a decline in business, the degree to which is dependent on the MOT Option. MOT 1 would have the least effect on local businesses; the most SMB lanes would remain open, all I-64 ramps would remain open, travel time delays would be minimal, additional traffic on local roads would be minimal, and travel diversions would be minimal. Conversely, MOT 5 would likely have the greatest adverse effect on local businesses; full SMB lane and ramp closure would result in the diversion of all SMB traffic, local diversion routes would have more traffic, and customers would likely make more convenient choices for goods and services, shopping, and dining opportunities. While the decline in business and revenue could be a hardship for some local businesses, the Project-related impacts are considered temporary.

7.3.4 Economic Impacts - Summary Based on the information presented in this section, while the Project will have a temporary effect to interstate through trips, local community trips, and local businesses, MOT options with the fewer diversions have lower economic impacts (MOT 1 and MOT 4). Conversely, MOT 2 and MOT 3 reduce SMB travel to the point of increased user costs, and MOT 5 and MOT 6 essentially closes the SMB in one or more directions. MOT 3, 5, and 6 disrupt commerce by eliminate two-way SMB commerce and induce longer diversions. Local businesses closest to the SMB that rely heavily on cross-river patronage would be the most effected.

• MOT 1 and MOT 4 have lower economic impacts with fewer diversions and congestion. • MOT 2 and MOT 3 have increased economic impacts due to reduced use of SMB and local access. • MOT 5 and MOT 6 would have the highest economic costs albeit for a shorter duration.

Page 101

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 132

This page is intentionally blank.

Page 102

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 133

7.4 SOCIAL IMPACTS Social impacts are project-related changes to important features communities identify as critical to their quality of life and the ways in which their quality of life is enhanced or diminished. Social impacts can include changes to access and mobility; community cohesion; air quality and noise levels; and displacement of homes or businesses. 29 Equally important are potential changes to minority and low- income (EJ) populations, as well as special populations ((LEP, children, and the elderly).

As detailed in Section 5, a robust Public Involvement Plan (PIP) and EJ Outreach effort were conducted throughout the course of the Project. Social impact categories of concern were developed based on input provided by the general public, local officials, resource agencies, businesses, schools, non-profit organizations, the CAC, two EJ TACs, and multiple small stakeholder groups. Four social impact categories of concern emerged from public comments: • Access and Mobility • Community Cohesion • Quality of Life • Special Populations

7.4.1 Access and Mobility As detailed in Section 5, one of the most frequently voiced concerns was how the various MOT Options would change an individual’s access and mobility within the area. In other words:

• How will I get to and from work and how long will it take me? • How will I get to family and friends; community facilities, services, and activities; shopping and dining; schools and daycare; places of worship; and medical and professional facilities and services?

Answers to these questions depend, in large part, on whether the trip involves a crossing of the Ohio River. Overall, access and mobility to employment, shopping, and medical clusters would remain relatively unchanged for local trips within the Louisville Metro area that don’t require crossing the Ohio River. This would be the case under any of the MOT Options for private vehicles and TARC riders. The same would hold true for local trips accessing such clusters in Clarksville and Jeffersonville.

In New Albany, Under MOT 1 or MOT 2, local would remain relatively unchanged compared to the Base case. Travel diversions would not be necessary as the SMB and associated ramps would be open for both

29 Because the Proposed Action is considered temporary, involving maintenance and rehabilitation of existing roadways, ramps, and structures, the following categories are not evaluated: visual environment and aesthetics, crime, property values, population changes, social and cultural changes, land use changes, land use plan compatibility, displacements and relocations, and barrier effects from noise walls, fencing, or other physical intrusions. Page 103

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 134

MOT Options. However, MOT 2 would cause congestion in eastern New Albany, on westbound Spring Street, during the evening peak hour. While a traveler’s mobility (travel time) may be slightly encumbered during this period, the delays would be minor. Overall, employment, shopping, and medical clusters in downtown New Albany, as well as along Spring Street and Grant Line Road, would remain easily accessible for private vehicles and TARC riders. Under the remaining MOT Options, accessibility to and travel within downtown New Albany could experience greater travel time delays or accessibility obstacles due to the alternating I-64 Spring Street ramp closures (MOT 3, MOT 4, MOT 6) or full closure (MOT 5; Section 7.1).

For trips involving cross-river travel, SMB lane and ramp closures, travel diversions, and associated travel time delays could create minor to substantial obstacles to community mobility and access, depending on MOT Option and the use of private versus public transportation. MOT 1 and MOT 2 would have the least effect on cross-river travel: employment, shopping, medical clusters, and schools would remain accessible via the same routes as the Base case and only minor travel time delays would be likely via private vehicle or via TARC routes. Under the remaining MOT Options, accessibility to and travel between the Indiana and Kentucky sides of the Project Study Area would be a greater challenge as a result of travel diversions and congestion on the Clark Memorial Bridge. This would be the case for travel via private vehicle or via TARC routes (Section 7.3).

As stated in the Section 7.3, MOT 5 would have the greatest effect on cross-river travel via TARC Route 71. The majority of TARC riders are considered EJ populations. The SMB closure could create accessibility and mobility obstacles for these populations because they lack alternative means to access employment, shopping, medical clusters, and schools on the opposite side of the river from which they live.

7.4.2 Community Cohesion At its most basic level, community cohesion refers to a place where those living, working, and playing experience a sense of common belonging based on one or many factors. These factors can include similar interests, values, goals, and objectives; proximity; and similar cultural, educational, religious, and ethnic affiliations. These interests and similarities serve as the glue that binds individuals to their communities. The more positive and frequent the interactions among community members, the greater the degree to which they know and care for each other. The direct value of community cohesion is reflected by the importance people place on living in a safe and friendly neighborhood or community30.

Community cohesion impacts from transportation projects can range from adverse to beneficial, including: splitting neighborhoods, isolating a portion of a neighborhood, isolating an ethnic group;

30 Todd Litman for the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Community Cohesion as a Transport Planning Objective. November 27, 2018. Accessed on 11/19/19 at https://www.vtpi.org/cohesion.pdf. Page 3.

Page 104

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 135

separating residents from community facilities; or reuniting once divided neighborhoods. FHWA states that estimating changes in community cohesion relies heavily on public discussion and involvement. 31

While increased congestion on local roads can separate communities and isolate individuals, the predicted areas of congestion for the MOT Options do not appear to be high enough to warrant that effect. The greatest increases in congestion would occur along Interstate routes, outside of communities. Of the communities in the Project Study Area, the downtown New Albany area could experience the greatest degree of disruption from congestion and changes in access (Spring Street ramp closure). MOT 5 and MOT 6 would likely cause the greatest disruption, altering the ease with which individuals come and go across the river to downtown New Albany.

Aside from localized areas of congestion, neither Clarksville nor Jeffersonville communities are anticipated to experience adverse impacts to community cohesion. These communities are somewhat removed from the SMB, have direct access to alternate river crossings, and would not likely be inclined to change travel patterns as a result of the Project. Communities in downtown Louisville are not likely to feel isolated by any MOT Option. Depending on the MOT Option, West Louisville residents may feel isolated from their New Albany neighbors. Input from residents indicated a general pattern of travel from West Louisville to New Albany for shopping and dining; these options would be limited under MOT 5.

Community cohesion within EJ populations may be most affected by the Project. Specifically, Under MOT 5, it may be difficult for EJ populations in New Albany and West Louisville to maintain contact with each other. As noted in Section 7.3, Transit and Ridership, EJ populations make up the largest percentage of TARC’s ridership. If TARC is unable to accommodate trips between these two communities, MOT 5 could be perceived as separating these two communities. However, such separations would be temporary and thus not considered to be a disproportionately high and adverse impact to these EJ populations.

7.4.3 Quality of Life 7.4.3.1 Air Quality The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the general public expressed concerns about the impact traffic diversions through local communities, particularly EJ communities, would have on air quality during the Project’s construction period. For transportation projects, air quality concerns fall into three categories: the MPO’s regional air quality conformity requirements and project-specific NEPA requirements for both permanent and temporary (construction) impacts.

MPO and Air Quality Conformity The Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA) serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Louisville/Jefferson County KY-IN urbanized area. As the MPO, KIPDA is

31 USDOT FHWA. Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation. 2018 Update. Accessed on 11/19/19 at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/cia/quick_reference/ciaguide_053118.pdf. Page 105

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 136

responsible for the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) that includes all federally funded surface transportation projects within the MPO Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). The current MTP, Horizon 2035 (http://www.kipda.org/Transportation/MPO/LRP.aspx), provides a vision of the regional transportation network and the projects considered for funding to fulfill its transportation plans, goals, and objectives. KIPDA also manages the four-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the fiscal programming document of the MTP that assigns funding to regional projects.

Recently, most of the KIPDA region (Clark and Floyd counties in Indiana and Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham counties in Kentucky) was designated as being in nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This area, known as the Louisville KY-IN 2015 8-hour Ozone nonattainment area, is subject to the requirements of air quality conformity. KIPDA is the agency responsible for fulfilling the federal air quality conformity requirements associated with the MTP.

To support a conformity determination for an MTP update or amendment, KIPDA must prepare a conformity analysis to show that expected emissions of Ozone precursors are less than the limits (budgets) established for the area when it was in attainment of the 1997 8-hour Ozone standard (there are currently no budgets for the 2015 8-hour Ozone standard, therefore the 1997 budgets are the only applicable budgets). The use of the 1997 budgets also supports a conformity determination for the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard, which is necessary per February 16, 2018 D.C. Circuit Court decision in South Coast Air Quality Management District versus USEPA. The KIPDA region meets the NAAQS for all other regulated pollutants.

Because the Project is in the Louisville, KY-IN nonattainment area, a transportation project-level conformity determination under the Clean Air Act (CAA) is required. The Project is included in the KIPDA region’s long-range transportation plan, Horizon 2035. Because the Project is primarily a rehabilitation (reconstruction) project, it is classified as exempt (see 40 CFR 93.126) and does not need to be explicitly modeled as part of the region’s air quality conformity analysis. In addition, the Project is included in KIPDA’s FY 2018 - FY 2021 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), adopted July 27, 2017, as well as subsequent TIP addendums.

In summary, the Project is included in a current and conforming transportation plan and TIP. Further, because the SMRP is not within a CO or Particulate Matter (PM) maintenance or nonattainment area, a hotspot analysis is not required. Thus, the transportation conformity requirements under the CAA have been met, confirming the Project will not create air quality impacts in violation of the CAA’s NAAQS.

NEPA and Air Quality Analyses Air quality considerations under NEPA have been considered. The Project is not within a Carbon Monoxide (CO) maintenance area and is classified as exempt (pursuant to Section 93.126, Table 2) because it is a safety or maintenance project that will correct, improve, or eliminate a hazardous location or feature. The Project will address structural deficiencies and safety/geometric issues without adding additional

Page 106

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 137

capacity. As a temporary action, the Project will not result in permanent changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, basic project location, or any other factor that would cause a meaningful increase in mobile source air toxic (MSAT) impacts when compared to the existing (Base) condition. Moreover, EPA regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSAT emissions to decline significantly over the next several decades. Based on regulations now in effect, an analysis of national trends with EPA’s MOVES2014 model forecasts a combined reduction of over 90 percent in the total annual emissions rate for the priority MSATs from 2010 to 2050, while vehicle-miles of travel are projected to increase by over 45 percent.32 This will both reduce the background level of MSATs, as well as the possibility of even minor MSAT emissions from the Project.

Air quality impacts from construction emissions are short-term and temporary in nature. Emissions may be produced in the construction of this project from heavy equipment and vehicle travel to and from the Project’s construction sites, as well as from fugitive sources. Based on available information, temporary construction activities are not expected to generate high enough emissions during the anticipated construction duration to result in a new exceedance of the NAAQS for these pollutants.

Based on the above air quality guidance, requirements, and exemptions, the Project is not anticipated to result in a new exceedance of the CO NAAQS, it will generate minimal air quality impacts for CAA criteria pollutants, and has not been linked with any special mobile source air toxic (MSAT) concerns.

7.4.3.2 Noise Impacts During the public outreach effort, individuals and communities expressed concern about the potential for noise impacts from diverted traffic during construction activities. In accordance with FHWA 33 and INDOT34 noise policies and guidance, the Project is classified as a Type III project. A Type III project is a Federal or Federal-aid highway project that does not meet the classifications of a Type I (new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes either the horizonal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through-traffic lanes) or Type II (noise abatement on an existing highway) project. Type III projects do not require a noise analysis and a highway agency is not required to complete a noise analysis or consider abatement measures. 35

While a noise analysis is not required for the project, a general review of potential noise impacts was conducted to address the public’s concerns. The limitations of this review include several factors. While the travel demand model can predict overall traffic volume diversions, the model cannot accurately

32 FHWA. Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. October 12, 2016. 33 FHWA Noise Regulation 23 CFR 772 and Techniques for Reviewing Noise Analyses and Associated Noise Reports (FHWA-HEP-18-067). June 1, 2018. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/resources/reviewing_noise_analysis/. 34 INDOT. Traffic Noise Analysis Procedure. 2017. https://www.in.gov/indot/files/2017%20INDOT%20Noise%20Policy.pdf 35 FHWA, Ibid. Page 107

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 138

anticipate fleet mix diversions (percent trucks), vehicular speeds, and most importantly, individual operator preferences for an alternate route in the regional and local road system. Without this level of detail, differences among MOT Options are difficult to differentiate from the model results. Finally, obtaining predictable future sound levels is difficult when the Project and traffic diversions are considered temporary. Nonetheless, by oversimplifying the traffic changes and hypothesizing that the speed and fleet mix variables would remain unchanged or similar, it is possible to make a highly generalized, broad- brush assessment of how the sound level environment may change.

Figure 40: Sensitivity to Sound Level Differences Three local streets were examined as representative of the relative changes in local street volumes for MOT Options in New Albany: downtown Spring Street and Elm Street, as well as Spring Street in eastern New Albany.

These local streets are within EJ communities. Because of Louisville’s robust roadway network, traffic reroutes in the area are not anticipated to create congestion that would result in substantial increases in sound levels. Table 23 and Table 24 show the relative changes in AM and PM peak hour local street volumes for each MOT option in the New Albany downtown and eastern New Albany areas.

To understand the findings, Figure 40 illustrates a person’s sensitivity to sound level changes. Generally, a change of approximately 3 decibels (dBA) is perceptible to a person with normal hearing, a change less than 3 dBA is not perceptible, and a change of 4 or 5 dBA is more noticeable. Again, these dBA thresholds reflect the levels at which an individual with normal hearing can perceive changes in sound

Page 108

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 139

Table 23: Relative Sound Changes – Downtown New Albany Spring Street Elm Street General Sound General Sound MOT Peak Hour Peak Hour Level Change* Level Change* Option Traffic/Lane (WB) Traffic/Lane (EB) (dBA) (dBA) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

Base Condition 650 730 - - 270 490 - -

MOT 1 550 740 0 0 280 380 0 -2 MOT 2 410 740 -2 0 330 200 1 -2 MOT 3 740 470 1 -2 170 560 -2 1 MOT 4 540 650 0 0 280 400 0 -1 MOT 5 450 950 -1 1 500 250 4 -2 MOT 6 740 1,100 1 2 570 560 5 1 *Decibel Levels (dBA) are rounded to the nearest whole number. Table 24: Relative Sound Changes – Eastern New Albany Spring Street MOT Peak Hour Traffic/Lane General Sound Level Option (WB+EB) Change* (dBA) AM PM AM PM Base Condition 970 1,290 - - MOT 1 940 1,220 0 0 MOT 2 1,170 1,350 1 0 MOT 3 1,290 1,560 1 1 MOT 4 1,100 1,320 1 0 MOT 5 1,820 1,920 4 2 MOT 6 1,910 2,090 5 2 *Decibel Levels (dBA) are rounded to the nearest whole number.

On Spring Street in downtown New Albany, none of the MOT Options would increase AM or PM peak hour traffic volumes to the point of sound changes being audible. The sound level changes at this location are either just below the sound level change perception levels for most people. On Elm Street in downtown New Albany, the same would be true, with the exceptions of MOT 5 and MOT 6 in the AM peak hour. Compared to the Base case, the increase in traffic volumes on Elm Street would be noticeable during the morning peak hour for either MOT Option. The section of Elm Street where the increase in sound would be audible is typical of an urban downtown business district. Both sides of Elm Street are lined by: a multi- story hotel; single and multi-story office buildings with adjacent parking lots; on-street parking; restaurants; a nursing home/rehabilitation facility; a new high-density, multi-story apartment complex; and, to the east of downtown a mix of single-family homes and businesses. Given the urban context of the area, this increase in sound levels is not anticipated to be adverse for Non-EJ or EJ residents.

Page 109

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 140

In eastern New Albany, the sound level changes on Spring Street would be similar to those of Elm Street in downtown New Albany. Traffic volumes on Spring Street would increase in the AM peak hour under MOT 5 or MOT 6. The section of Spring Street where the increase in sound would be audible is typical of where urban and suburban uses meet. At its easternmost end, Spring Street is lined by tightly clustered, single-family residences with sidewalks and no on-street parking. Moving to the west, Spring Street transitions to a cluster of restaurant and retail businesses, banks, gas stations then transitions back to single-family residences with professional offices, churches, and retail interspersed along the street. Given the urban/suburban context of the area, this increase in sound levels is not anticipated to be adverse for Non-EJ or EJ residents.

7.4.4 Special Populations Chapter 6.1, Table 5 provided Census counts of LEP, children, and elderly as special populations., As the demographic data within the Project Study Area demonstrate, the limited presence of LEP, children, and elderly populations does not warrant special attention to potential project-related impacts:

• LEP ranges from 1% in Floyd County to 4% in Clark County. • Children ranges from 18% in Clark County to 24% in Jefferson County • Elderly ranges from 11% in Jefferson County to 18% in Clark County

7.4.5 Social Impacts Summary Based on the information presented above, while the Project will have a temporary effect to access and mobility, community cohesion, quality of life for local communities, services and facilities located near the SMB, MOTs that maintain two-way travel over the SMB and reduced congestions have lower social impacts:

• MOT 1 is the least disruptive but has the longest durations • MOT 2, and MOT 4 are less disruptive by maintaining continuous travel on SMB in both directions and with offsetting local access closures versus lower congestion. • MOT 3 and MOT 6 reduces community access, mobility and cohesion by eliminating continuous two-way travel on the SMB. • MOT 5 completely disrupts cross-river mobility and cohesion, albeit for a shorter duration.

Page 110

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 141

7.5 SAFETY FACTORS The safety evaluations associated with each MOT Option are based on three safety factors: • Driver Expectancy (user safety) - Driver expectancy relates to a driver's readiness to respond to situations, features, and information in predictable and successful ways. Driver expectancy influences driver speed and accuracy: the more predictable the feature, the less chance of errors.

• Work Zone Safety - Work zone safety relates to the clearances and constraints under which construction activities are performed, including the distance and location of adjacent traffic. Adequate area to perform construction tasks influences worker safety and construction duration: the more area available with fewer constraints within the work zone, the less exposure for mistakes and incidents. • Incident Response (EMS) Impact - Meetings were held to reach out to emergency management service (EMS) representatives to gain insight on the impact MOT options would have on incident response operations. A major concern is with MOT options having only one lane in one direction across the bridge. Driver expectancy, work zone safety, and incident response were analyzed based on the lane configurations and geometrics the user will navigate and construction workers encounter for each MOT Option. Table 25 provides a summary of the degree of safety risks relating to both safety categories.

Table 25: Safety Factors by MOT Option

EFFECT SAFETY FACTORS Base MOT 1 MOT 2 MOT 3 MOT 4 MOT 5 MOT 6 Driver Expectancy Impact - low medium high medium low medium Incident Response (EMS) - low high medium low low medium Impact Work Zone Safety Risks - high high medium medium low medium Source: SMRP TDM outputs included in the 2020 SMRP Traffic and MOT

MOT 1 and MOT 2 will require part-width construction on each bridge deck during each phase of construction, placing traffic immediately adjacent to the work zone. These part-width construction options restrict the work area with phasing widths that are very tight, creating limitations for equipment for lifting and placing materials. In addition, MOT 1 and MOT 2 will require lane closures and lane shifts during construction. As a result, safety concerns for those in the MOT 1 or MOT 2 work zones would be high. In contrast, MOT 1 or MOT 2 would maintain traffic patterns that are consistent for drivers, making for a more predictable flow of traffic without alternating lane assignments to account for peak hour traffic volumes.

Page 111

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 142

MOT 3, MOT 4 and MOT 6 will require full closure of one bridge deck during each phase of construction. These alternating deck closure options generate a larger, non-restrictive work area and eliminate traffic immediately adjacent to the work zone. However, when construction is performed on the upper bridge deck, traffic would be operating below the work zone during that phase of construction, increasing the potential for exposure to falling debris on the traffic below the work zone. Safety shielding and other falling debris precautions would be required. Driver expectancy would be moderately affected by MOT 4 which retains both river crossing directions while MOT 4 requires alternating traffic flow patterns and lane assignments and no reverse direction. Because MOT 6 would maintain the existing traffic patterns on the deck that is open to traffic, but requires a detour for the deck under construction, driver expectations would be relatively maintained.

MOT 5 will require full bridge closure to optimize the working clearances and eliminate traffic adjacent or under the work zone. While this full bridge closure would require all traffic to detour and place added traffic volumes on adjacent routes, driver expectancy of the remaining roadway network would be little changed.

MOT 1 provides the most access for incident response while MOT 2 would be problematic for responders to access an incident in that lane due to the width restrictions. MOT 4 retains both directions and the lower-profile movable barrier provides more access for incident response. It should be also noted that cross-river emergency response via the SMB will be affected during the MOT options where one or more directions of travel are closed. This includes MOT 3 (one direction at a time and closed during two-90- minute periods for shifting barriers) and MOT 6 (one direction per construction phase). All emergency response agencies agreed that the full closure, MOT 5, was the best scenario for them. However, they understand the motorists and businesses in general may see this option as the least favorable.

7.5.1 Safety Factors Summary Based on the discussion above, each MOT option provides for safe driver expectancy, EMS access, and work zone safety for the overall traveling public and local communities.

Page 112

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 143

7.6 EJ FINDINGS AND MOT RECOMMENDATIONS

7.6.1 Environmental Justice Findings Potential impacts of the Proposed Action and associated MOT Options were included in the above section relative to EJ populations. The applicability of potential “Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects” to EJ populations are as follows:

• Traffic, Diversions, Congestion, and Travel Time - Based upon the Section 7.1 evaluations, EJ populations within the Project Study Area are not disproportionately more reliant on the existing SMB nor would these populations be disproportionately affected by having to use an alternative river crossing with 75% of the EJ Trips did not cross the river (via a passenger vehicle using the SMB). Similarly, regardless of MOT Option, the increased use of tolled river crossings for EJ Trips would be less than that of Non-EJ Trips. With the exception of MOT 5, the ratio of Non-EJ Trips to EJ Trips of tolled and non-tolled crossings remains relatively similar.

While the local EJ populations in the Project Study Area would be adversely affected in all six MOT options for diversion to tolled facilities, MOT 2, MOT 5, and MOT 6 had additional adverse impacts for congestion in EJ communities. Only MOT 5 and MOT 6 options had potentially disproportionately high impacts as a result of being diverted to a different river crossing within the systemwide network.

• Transit and Rideshare - Based upon the Section 7.2 evaluations, given that approximately half of TARC ridership is minority and/or low-income and given that most TARC riders do not have alternative means of transportation, TARC Route 71 riders could experience a disproportionately high and adverse effect under MOT 3, MOT 5, or MOT 6.

• Economic Impacts - Based on the discussion in Section 7.3, both positive and negative temporary economic impacts are possible with each of the six MOT options that would affect both non-EJ and EJ populations. There are potentially adverse impacts for EJ populations for all six MOT options based on user diversion costs, while potentially adverse impacts for local user costs and local businesses increase with greater diversions and temporarily closure of local access ramps in the EJ designated portions of New Albany. MOT 1 has continuous two-way SMB travel lanes, open local ramps, and low total diversions and congestion but the longest duration. MOT 2 and 4 - continuous two-way SMB travel lanes but offsetting diversion and congestion versus closed local ramps. MOT 3 disrupts continuous two-way SMB travel with daily 90-minoute transition closures, and closure of the non-peak direction. Both MOT 5 and MOT essentially close the SMB for local EJ populations and have increased adverse impacts; however only MOT 5 has potentially disproportionately high impacts.

Page 113

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 144

• Social Impacts - Based on the discussion in Section 7.4, adverse social impacts are possible with each of the six MOT options that would affect both non-EJ and EJ populations (special populations don’t apply). There are potentially adverse impacts for EJ populations for MOT 3, MOT 4, MOT 5, and MOT 6 with reduced local access and additional loss of community cohesion for MOT 3, MOT 5, and MOT 6 due to the loss of continuous two-way travel on the SMB. However only MOT 5 has potentially disproportionately high impacts due to loss of EJ access and mobility during a full duration complete bridge closure.

• Safety - Based upon the Section 7.5 evaluations, each MOT option provides for safe driver expectancy, EMS access, and work zone safety for both Non-EJ and EJ populations.

Overall, MOT 1, MOT 2, MOT 4 do not appear to have undue temporary impacts on local EJ populations, while aspects of MOT 3, MOT 6, and especially MOT 5 may have the potential to meet “Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects” (Table 26).

Page 114

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 145

Table 26: Summary of Potential Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects

MOT MOT MOT MOT MOT MOT TEMPORARY 1 2 3 4 5 6 IMPACT SUB-CATEGORY Disp. Disp. Disp. Disp. Disp. Disp. CATEGORY Adv. Adv. Adv. Adv. Adv. Adv. High High High High High High

Diversions x Access and Congestion x x Traffic Travel Distance

Travel Time

Transit TARC Riders* x x x x x x

Diversion to Tolls x x x x x x User Costs - Network x x x x x x Economic User Costs x x x - Local Local Businesses** x x x x Access, Mobility, and Cohesion x x x x x Social Quality of Life

- Air and Noise

Overall Potential No No Yes No Yes Yes Disp. High – potentially “Disproportionately High” for EJ populations within the Study Area Adv. – potentially “Adverse” for EJ populations within the Study Area Overall – potentially “Disproportionately High” and “Adverse” for EJ populations within the Study Area * Applies primarily to cross-river riders on TARC Route 71 ** Applies primarily to businesses in downtown New Albany

Page 115

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 146

7.6.2 Overall MOT Option Recommendations Based upon the above Section 7 evaluations (and associated constructability, financial, duration, and public response factors), the six MOT Options were divided by overall recommendation. Potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for consideration are in the following Section 8.

• MOT 1 – Two lanes open, both decks (existing EB-eastbound and WB-westbound decks)

MOT 1 is the closest to existing conditions and driver expectations; the most public support; the least amount of diverted traffic volume, trip length, travel time, user cost, and congestion; would cause the fewest disruptions to network and local access, cross- river connectivity and cohesion, local communities and services; and the lowest impacts for EJ populations. However, MOT 1 has the longest duration and the narrowest construction zone which could hinder movement of equipment and materials. Therefore, it is recommended that the MOT 1 option serves as the primary condition, but in combination with limited use of MOT 2 and MOT 5 options.

• MOT 2 – One lane open, both decks (EB and WB decks)

MOT 2 has the fewer/lower temporary changes for access, east/west crossings, diverted traffic, travel time, estimated project cost, user cost, driver expectation, community impacts, and a shorter duration. However, MOT 2 has increased congestion within EJ communities. Therefore, it is recommended that use of the MOT 2 option be limited to low-traffic conditions (such as overnight or weekends).

• MOT 5 – Temporary Closure of all six lanes and both decks

MOT 5 has the most/highest temporary changes from existing conditions for access, east/west crossings, diverted traffic, travel time, congestion, user cost, driver expectation, community and EJ impacts, and little to no public support. However, MOT 5 also has the shortest duration, lowest estimated project cost and complete separation of the work zone from the traveling public. Therefore, it is recommended that use of the MOT 5 option only as required for project constructability considerations and be for infrequent and short periods (such as 3-day weekends or non-consecutive weeks).

• MOT 3, MOT 4, and MOT 6 – Single-deck with daily, peak-hour, or phase based one-way lanes

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 147

7.6.3 Preferred Alternative Recommended MOT Based upon the preceding CIA and EJ evaluations of the individual MOT options considered (MOT 1 to MOT 6), the preferred alternative recommended MOT consists primarily the MOT 1 option conditions with modifications to include an additional construction phase and with allowances for limited overnight lane and access reductions (reduced MOT 2 option conditions) and bridge closure as warranted (infrequent and short-term MOT 5 option conditions): • Open access ramps and two (2) eastbound travel lanes and two (2) westbound travel lanes that shift between both decks during four (4) construction phases • 180 overnight (10 PM to 4 AM) access ramp closures and reduction to one (1) eastbound travel lane and one (1) westbound travel lane • Temporary bridge closure and associated access ramps for three (3) 9-days construction phase transitions and three (3) 3-day weekends per construction year

Page 117

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 148

This page is intentionally blank.

Page 118

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 149

8. AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The following section includes examples of potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for consideration:

• Avoidance measures are limited, given the nature of the Project: o No property acquisitions or new Right-of-Way (ROW) o No relocations or setback buffers o No increase in capacity (no added travel or access ramp lanes) o Rehabilitation of existing structures

• Minimization and Mitigation measures may be implemented at the federal, state, and local level for all or a combination of the preferred MOT options, depending on policy, financial, constructability, and public response considerations: o No toll mitigation is anticipated o Temporary interstate network capacity increases at key locations to reduce the effects of diverted traffic, for example: Added travel lanes Added ramp lanes Extended merge lanes Designated truck lanes

• Coordination with local officials regarding potential policy and operational adjustments to local streets in downtown New Albany, that could include: o Signal timing o Limiting left turns during peak hour o Temporary conversion of street parking to travel lanes

• Development of Project specific communication measures and public outreach such as: o Advance communication through-out construction o Construction activity schedules o Interactive website o Additional cameras on the bridge during construction o Realtime notification for incident and emergency management

• Intelligent transportation system (ITS) enhancements

Page 119

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 150

• Additional traffic operation and safety measures: o Signage for lane shift, merging, and work zone areas o Traffic monitoring cameras o Real-time information and alternate recommendations

• Public transportation (TARC) coordination and outreach: o Encourage use of public transit o Route and operations adjustments to maintain service

• Considerations regarding heavy truck traffic: o Official truck detour and/or complete prohibition of heave trucks on the bridge during construction to improve traffic operations through the work zone o Local municipal action(s) regarding truck restrictions to reduce/prohibit/discourage heavy truck diversions on the local street network.

• Modification of construction duration for MOT 5: o Demonstration of constructability benefits o Avoid and minimize potential “disproportionately high and adverse impacts” to environmental justice populations o Duration considerations: Overnight Weekends Two-weeks 1-month Other?

• Traffic management plans (both motorized and non-motorized traffic) prepared by the contractor in conjunction with local municipalities.

o Demonstrate how safe access will be provided

o Identify closure times and locations

o Specify notification and approval process

INDOT and KYTC will continue public outreach in areas of construction to advise local officials, transit and community representatives, businesses, and the traveling public of planned activities throughout the Project and the return of SMB to full service.

Page 120

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 151

9. REFERENCES

AECOM. 2009. Park Hill Industrial Corridor Implementation Strategy. Prepared for Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, KY.

AIA Communities by Design. 2018. Strengthening Jeffersonville’s Civic Spine. Prepared for the City of Jeffersonville, IN.

Bennett, E. and C. Gatz. 2008. A Restoring Prosperity Case Study – Louisville, Kentucky. Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates, Inc. 2007a. Clark County Comprehensive Plan. Prepared for Clark County, Jeffersonville, IN.

Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates, Inc. 2007b. Zoning Ordinance of Clark County, Indiana. Prepared for Clark County, Jeffersonville, IN.

Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates, Inc. 2012a. Clark County Transportation Plan. Final Report. Prepared for Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency, Louisville, KY, and Clark County, Jeffersonville, IN.

Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates, Inc. 2012b. Existing and Future Conditions Assessment for the Clark County Thoroughfare Plan. Prepared for Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency, Louisville, KY, and Clark County, Jeffersonville, IN.

Booker Design Collaborative and Urban 1 LLC. 2017. Parkland Neighborhood Plan. Prepared for Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, KY.

Center for Neighborhoods. 2007a. Portland Neighborhood Plan. Prepared for Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, KY.

Center for Neighborhoods. 2007b. SoBro Neighborhood Plan. Prepared for Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, KY.

City of Jeffersonville. 2017. Spring Street Master Plan – Riverside Drive to Eastern Boulevard. Jeffersonville, IN.

City of Jeffersonville. 2019. Zoning Ordinance. Jeffersonville, IN.

City of Louisville. 2002. Louisville Downtown Development Plan. Louisville, KY.

City of New Albany. 2017. City of New Albany and Unincorporated Two Mile Fringe Area Comprehensive Plan, Year 2036. New Albany, IN. Page 121

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 152

City Properties Group, AU Associates, Inc., and Sabak, Wilson, and Lingo, Inc. 2012. PD Development Plan – The Edge at Liberty Green. Prepared for Louisville Metro Housing Authority, Louisville, KY.

Clark, J. 2013. Hope for People or Hope for Cities?: HOPE VI at Liberty Green. Electronic Theses and Dissertations 12-2013. University of Louisville, KY.

Clark County. 1954. A Master Plan for Clark County, Indiana. Jeffersonville, IN.

ENTRAN, PLC. 2007. Inner-City Grid Transportation Study. Final Report. Prepared for the City of New Albany, IN.

Floyd County. 2005. Cornerstone 2005: A Vision for the Future. New Albany, IN.

Floyd County. 2017. Vision Floyd County – 2017 Comprehensive Plan Update. New Albany, IN.

Gresham Smith. 2019. California $ Victory Park Neighborhood Plan. Prepared for Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, Louisville, KY.

Gresham Smith and Partners. 2002. Smoketown/Shelby Park Neighborhood Plan Update. Prepared for Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, Louisville, KY.

Gresham Smith and Partners. 2013. Shawnee Neighborhood Plan. Prepared for Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, Louisville, KY.

INDOT (Indiana Department of Transportation). 2012. Old Jeffersonville Historic Preservation Plan. Indianapolis, IN.

KFTC (Kentuckians for the Commonwealth). 2014. Vision Smoketown Survey Report. Louisville, KY.

Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District and Louisville Water Company. 2003. Butchertown Preservation District. Map. Louisville, NC.

Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission. 1982a. A Strategy Plan of Guided Growth and Redevelopment for the California Neighborhood. Louisville, KY.

Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission. 1982b. Shawnee Neighborhood Plan. Louisville, KY.

Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission. 1983. Parkland Neighborhood Plan. Louisville, KY.

Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission. 1985. Needs Assessment for the Chickasaw Neighborhood. Louisville, KY.

Louisville Distilled. 2019. Neighborhoods. Online information. Available at: http://louisvilledistilled.com/neighborhoods/ (Accessed September 2019).

Page 122

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 153

Louisville Metro (Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government). 2005. Neighborhood Snapshot: St. Joseph Area Neighborhood. Louisville, KY.

Louisville Metro (Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government). 2009. Downtown Development Review Overlay – Downtown Character and Goals. Louisville, KY

Louisville Metro (Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government). 2012. Vision Louisville – Vision Public Report Phase 1. Louisville, KY.

Louisville Metro (Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government). 2013. Shawnee Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area. Louisville, KY.

Louisville Metro (Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government). 2016. Russell Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area. Develop Louisville, Louisville, KY.

Louisville Metro (Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government). 2018. Downtown Overlay Districts. Louisville, KY.

Louisville Metro (Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government). 2019a. Historic Preservation, Landmarks and Overlay Districts. Online information. Available at: https://louisvilleky.gov/government/planning-design/historic-preservation-landmarks-and-overlay- districts (Accessed October 2019).

Louisville Metro (Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government). 2019b. Plan 2040 – A Comprehensive Plan for Louisville Metro. Louisville, KY.

Louisville Metro Housing Authority. 2019a. Housing. Online information. Louisville, KY. Available at: http://www.lmha1.org/housing/index.php (Accessed September 2019).

Louisville Metro Housing Authority. 2019b. Vision Russell Transformation Plan. Prepared for Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, Louisville, KY.

Marshall, A. 2019. Shelby Park real estate is “on fire.” Is that a good thing? Louisville Magazine: June 18, 2019.

MKSK. 2013. Downtown Louisville Master Plan. Prepared for Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, Louisville, KY.

MKSK. 2016. South Clarksville Redevelopment Plan. Prepared for the Town of Clarksville, IN.

MKSK, Greenstreet LTD, and Butler, Fairman & Seufert. 2018. 10th Street Strategic Investment Plan. Prepared for the City of Jeffersonville, IN.

Page 123

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 154

New Directions Housing Corporation. 2011. Neighborhoods of Choice – Shelby and Smoketown – Quality of Life Action Plan. Louisville, KY.

New Directions Housing Corporation. 2019. Subsidized Apartments. Online information. Louisville, KY. Available at: https://www.ndhc.org/subsidized-apartments (Accessed September 2019).

O’Connor, P. 1989. A place in time – the story of Louisville’s neighborhoods – Limerick. The Courier Journal 1989.

Old Louisville/Limerick Neighborhood Task Force, City of Louisville, and Louisville Community Design Center. 2000. Amendments to the Old Louisville/Limerick Neighborhood Plans. Final Report. Prepared for the City of Louisville, KY.

Page, S., B. Lobel, S. Chen, A. DiCaro, and T. Shoham. 2010. Rubbertown Corridor Economic Development Strategy. Prepared for Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, Louisville, KY.

Park DuValle Property Owners Association. 2019. Park DuValle POA. Online information. Available at: http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/Park_DuValle_POA/info (Accessed September 2019).

RATIO Architects, Inc. 2008a. Butchertown Neighborhood Plan. Prepared for Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, Louisville, KY.

RATIO Architects, Inc. 2011. SoBro Planned Development District. Prepared for Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, Louisville, KY.

RATIO Architects, Inc. 2012. Butchertown Historic Preservation Plan. Prepared for Ohio River Bridges Project, Louisville, KY.

River Hills EDD & RPC, and The Polis Center. 2015. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan – Clark County, Indiana. Updated. Prepared for Clark County, Jeffersonville, IN.

Strand Associates, Inc. 2007. Floyd County Thoroughfare Plan. Prepared for Floyd County, New Albany, IN.

Taylor Siefker Williams Design Group. 2015. 2035 Comprehensive Plan – Jeffersonville, Indiana. Prepared for City of Jeffersonville, IN.

Town of Clarksville. 2015. 2015 Comprehensive Plan. Clarksville, IN.

Town of Clarksville. 2018. South Clarksville Mixed-Use Zoning Update. Clarksville, IN.

Town of Clarksville. 2019a. Current Projects. Online information. Available at: https://www.townofclarksville.com/current-projects/ (Accessed October 2019).

Town of Clarksville. 2019b. The Town of Clarksville Zoning Ordinance. Clarksville, IN. Page 124

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 155 University of Louisville. 1993. University of Louisville 1993 Long Range Development Plan. Louisville, KY.

University of Louisville. 2012. Claysburg Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. Louisville, KY.

University of Louisville. 2017. A Document to Inform the Smoketown Neighborhood Plan. Louisville, KY.

University of Louisville. 2018. Visioning a Greenspace Network with Smoketown Youth. Louisville, KY.

VS Engineering, Inc. 2018. AADA Transition Plan. Prepared for the City of New Albany, IN.

Woolpert, Inc. 2011. West Riverfront Master Plan. Prepared for the Town of Clarksville, IN.

Page 125

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 156 This page is intentionally blank.

Page 126

Des. No. 1702255 Appendix I: Community Impact Assessment I 157