Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
not so final after all. Further studies are then conducted, further comment
sought, and further hearings held, to prepare a further report, which may
indeed be final. It is not uncommon for some team members to have retired
by then, to be replaced by new ones.
In response to each local project, citizens groups and specialized stake-
holder groups arise to make their feelings known. In Cattaraugus County,
their concerns included protection of historic farmhouses, endangerment
of ecosystems, highway access for businesses, and the inevitable geographic
splits in communities that limited-access highways cause. In New York City,
topics of concern included traffic disruption during construction, construc-
tion noise, air pollution, dislocation of businesses, and remediation of the
polluted creek that the bridge spans.
In the New York City's Kosciuszko Bridge project, the state DoT project
team established two advisory committees. One consisted of local residents,
representatives of community groups, and elected officials. The other was
made up of technical representatives from agencies that would have to give
permits for the project. These included the U.S. Coast Guard, the Army Corps
of Engineers, the state Department of Environmental Conservation, and vari-
ous New York City agencies dealing with streets, parks, and the environment.
There were 150 meetings, some 35 for the community advisory group,
20 for the interagency group, and dozens of miscellaneous other open houses
and hearings. In response to public objections, the state DoT promised to
put a bikeway alongside the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, remediate a haz-
ardous waste site that happened to be nearby, and build boat launches on
the creek. Similarly, at the Route 219 Expressway in upstate New York, the
DoT responded to concerns by committing to improved aquatic and wet-
lands habitats near the selected alignment, restoration of a degraded stream,
establishment of wildlife viewing areas, and a shift of the road alignment
to save historic farmhouses.
In all, the basic design emerged from a long process of give and take.
As should be clear, design of the bridge and road has come to be barely
distinguishable from design meant for environmental adjustment. Structural
design, alignment, and environmental impacts had to be iteratively con-
sidered until the design report and EIS were complete and consistent with
each other.
To understand how stage three ends, let us recall that the federal legis-
lation called NEPA profoundly shapes this entire process, because it requires
agencies spending federal funds to certify that environmental impacts are
acceptable. For highway and bridge projects, federal funds run through the
Federal Highway Administration. The state DoT submits to the federal
agency the final EIS. If it is acceptable, the Federal Highway Administra-
tion issues a positive
record of decision.
This is the end of stage three.
