An interesting turn of events yesterday...
The background of all this is a story done by Claire Taylor in Friday's Lafayette Daily Advertiser where she details the possible impact of the Connector freeway on a former railyard site that has been the subject of possible hazardous waste contamination.
http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2016/01/29/does--49-connector-pose-environmental-risks/78804634/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=The former rail yard property is located on the east side of what is now the BNSF/UP rail line bordered by
Sixth Street, Chestnut Street, and Johnston Street Johnston Street, the southbound Evangeline Thruway, the current railroad ROW, and Taft Street, and is now split between abandoned open space and a group of warehouse facilities.
The main risks are that the pilings that would be drilled for the elevated sections of the Connector between Johnston St. and where the freeway would rejoin the Evangeline Thruway near Taft Street could penetrate the clay layer protecting the aquifier water table, potentially contaminating the water supply for the city.
The 2003 Record of Decision did take into account that potential, calling for more detailed tests and a possible mitigation plan for cleaning up the site and reducing the risk of contamination. However, that has not abetted the concerns of residents, and it is the prime issue for those who are opposed to the freeway's current alignment and pushing for an alternative bypass like the Teche Ridge alternative through St. Martin Parish.
Indeed, today, some people decided that they didn't wait to wait for LADOTD to take action...they've acted on their own with their own lawsuit to force Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF, along with other owners of the property included, to immediately pay for a full cleanup of the property.
The story -- also in the Advertiser -- can be found here:
http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2016/02/01/breaking-lawsuit-filed-over--49-lafayette-connector/79638738/It should be noted that LADOTD is not a party to or a defendant in this suit, nor are any of the plaintiffs openly challenging the Connector corridor; their focus is rather on getting the accused parties to pay for remediation immediately. The suit does not seek to change the alignment of the corridor (the misleading headline nothwithstanding).
Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with this action...if cleaning up the former rail yard site accelerates the construction of the Connector, than I'm all for it.
BTW....the Advertiser does have a limit on free viewings of their articles before their paywall kicks in, so be forewarned.