- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How many of you baws went to the public meeting last night about the new bridge?
Posted on 4/26/22 at 1:17 pm to T
Posted on 4/26/22 at 1:17 pm to T
quote:
They're perfectly viable if someone at DOTD has the balls to stand up to the NIMBYs. Their attitude is why we're in this mess in the first place.
You’re not putting a major highway through the middle of CCLA.
He must be on an early happy hour.
0
Posted on 4/26/22 at 1:22 pm to mikelbr
I think a by pass through Iberville east through ascension is the best play too.
Posted on 4/26/22 at 1:37 pm to doubleb
quote:
I think a by pass through Iberville east through ascension is the best play too.
Yea the bridge location in a bend is apparently the issue. That's a no-no.
Along with elevating much of the road.
Posted on 4/26/22 at 1:39 pm to mikelbr
quote:
Yea the bridge location in a bend is apparently the issue. That's a no-no.
Along with elevating much of the road.
As it is now some of the bridge connecting roads on the various plans have to be elevated.
Posted on 4/26/22 at 1:43 pm to Slippy
Putting that bridge at Bluebonnet is so collosally retarded that only DOTD would think it's a great idea
Posted on 4/26/22 at 2:27 pm to lostinbr
quote:
There are 112,000 vehicles crossing the I-10 bridge every day, but only 50,000 vehicles per day on I-10 between the Lobdell and Grosse Tete exits. In other words, more than half of the vehicles crossing the bridge are entering and exiting the interstate in Port Allen. Only about 25% of the eastbound traffic from the bridge continues to I-12. There is no silver bullet that magically cuts I-10 bridge traffic in half.
quote:
This idea that we need to get freight traffic off of the main interstate route to make way for commuters is a huge part of the reason Baton Rouge traffic is so fricked up in the first place - the entire mentality is backwards. The city has become WAY too reliant on the interstate for local traffic.
I understand everything you are saying. BR has poor surface street planning going years back, and it doesn't help we keep shifting where we want to live. It's not like the city just grows, we move and abandon areas after having developed the infrastructure for their use. The interstate was the famous fallback during the Tom Ed McHugh years.
If the numbers give evidence to primarily localized use of bridges, that's not to be ignored. Realistically, though, that should be the under the domain of the existing "New Bridge" as it is centered more closely to the local traffic flows. The bridge we are to build should be part of bypass around the city, not the other way around. You don't ideally take cross country interstate traffic (like what I-10 generates) through high local traffic areas. That should go around the city.
The existing Horace Wilkinson bridge is over used and some new route with poor access probably won't solve the existing issue, but will create new developments and traffic issues of its own.
Posted on 4/26/22 at 2:34 pm to Slippy
quote:
"We live in University Club," said Sally Daly. "It is going to impact us. Somebody is going to be mad."
Literal pearl clutching.
quote:
Judy Eits said she is bothered that the bridge may be constructed too far south
She has a point. If it is too far south, It will be a big diversion from I-10 and then you'll have to use a lot of chewed up backroads to get back to the interstate.
Posted on 4/26/22 at 3:22 pm to doubleb
quote:
Actually the reason we are in such a mess is they built I-10 right through the middle of downtown BR, through University Lake, backyards all along the route
What they did in Baton Rouge was no different than anywhere else.
quote:
and finally to the split where they continued to cut through neighborhoods until they crossed Airline Hwy.
Not quite. The majority of the land along the route from the split to Airline was vacant.
1963 map of the area
1953 map of the area
The only neighborhood it went through was the burgeoning one just south of BRCC (and you can see by the 1953 map that there likely wasn't much out there for the construction to disrupt).
While there was some population out there, growth followed the interstate. Interstates are like the field in Field of Dreams in that if you build it, they (population) will come.
The problem for Baton Rouge traffic comes from a combination of abandoning the grid pattern downtown for more one-entrance neighborhoods as you move farther away from downtown, the utter lack of frontage roads paralleling the interstate and the massive resistance to any roadway expansions (see: the I-10/110 interchange were I-10 gets down to a single lane, Lee, Sherwood north of Old Hammond, Florida east of Airline, the funneling effect of 10/12 going west toward 110 for just roadway expansions, this doesn't even cover things like putting in overpasses to address busy intersections like Old Hammond/Airline or Florida/Sherwood).
Posted on 4/26/22 at 3:35 pm to T
quote:
You’re not putting a major highway through the middle of CCLA.
The route is a rough estimate, but that attitude is part of the problem. It doesn't have to go through "the middle", it doesn't even have to skirt CCLA, but as long as pretty much anyone can piss and moan about their "special area" and get it exempted the problem will continue.
We need a loop and whether it's a flyover going between the Mall and Pecue or south of the manicured lawns of the CCLA crowd, traffic problems are going to have to go somewhere in that area to have any real impact.
Will it go anywhere near there? Most likely not. It doesn't take away from that general area being the area to put a loop though.
This post was edited on 4/26/22 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 4/26/22 at 3:47 pm to Bard
quote:
that attitude is part of the problem.
Apparently you don’t know who you’re talking to. No one is putting any sort of road through or around the elegant homes of CCLA. Let the peons in U Club deal with the noise and congestion. They have to get up early anyway since they have to work. The worker bees won’t have a choice. The elite in CCLA do. And if you know what’s
Good for you, you’ll tone down you’re attitude about shared sacrifices when mentioning the elites, sonny.
Posted on 4/26/22 at 4:12 pm to Bard
quote:
The yellow line is about where I would like to see the loop go with the current option.
quote:
The route is a rough estimate, but that attitude is part of the problem. It doesn't have to go through "the middle", it doesn't even have to skirt CCLA, but as long as pretty much anyone can piss and moan about their "special area" and get it exempted the problem will continue.
You said this is about where you would like to see the loop go and provided a map that showed a line cutting through the big development at Bluebonnet & LA-30, the Preserve at Harveston, U-Club & CCLA.
Maybe a part of the problem is people like you putting no thought at all into a proposal then get upset when people think it’s a terrible idea.
Posted on 4/26/22 at 5:01 pm to Bard
quote:Along 12
Not quite. The majority of the land along the route from the split to Airline was vacant.
Vacant land but a lot was in someone’s backyard. Starting at the split; Bocage, and Jefferson Place. Then that subdivision west of Essen where you enter next to that bank was cut in two. You use to could get in directly ftom Jefferdon Hwy. Further east another small subdivision that you get into next to the archives was impacted. Then it impacted two neighborhoods south and north along Drusilla Lane.
Along 10
10 is right behind Inniswald subdivision. Moving West it touches the subdivision next to the Shaw Building. It was severely impacted. Then from Valley Park westward it cut through seversl more neighborhoods. Valley Park, Walnut Hills, Southdowns, the Lake, and on downtown.
The entire design was a complete debacle. They tried to snake through BR instead of building service roads. That saved money and left a mess. Too many ramps in BR proper and few crossovers dedicated solely for local traffic. The few we have like Essen, Dalrymple and Cedarcrest aren’t four lanes or they aren’t through streets or both.
Posted on 4/26/22 at 5:05 pm to Bard
quote:
The route is a rough estimate, but that attitude is part of the problem. It doesn't have to go through "the middle", it doesn't even have to skirt CCLA, but as long as pretty much anyone can piss and moan about their "special area" and get it exempted the problem will continue.
CCL extends from Manchac to Highland. South is Ascension Parish. Then there are subdivisions and retail areas east and west of CCL.
The time to build a loop to Livingston entirely in EBR has passed.
Posted on 4/26/22 at 5:06 pm to Slippy
Welcome to South Louisiana where we only build roads and bridges that turn into bottlenecks.
Posted on 4/26/22 at 5:55 pm to tigerinthebueche
They are estimating that it would cost 1.6 billion dollars if inflation stays at 2% yearly through 2030 
Yea this is a pointless study for a bridge that will never be built.
And what a dumb idea. Spend 1.6 billion dollars on something that in the best case would reduce I-10 traffic by 6%? Yea let’s spend that money on something that would actually benefit the city and it’s inhabitants.
This is the problem with these National spending bills that earmark money for certain things.
Yea this is a pointless study for a bridge that will never be built.
And what a dumb idea. Spend 1.6 billion dollars on something that in the best case would reduce I-10 traffic by 6%? Yea let’s spend that money on something that would actually benefit the city and it’s inhabitants.
This is the problem with these National spending bills that earmark money for certain things.
Posted on 4/26/22 at 10:06 pm to GetBackToWork
quote:
If the numbers give evidence to primarily localized use of bridges, that's not to be ignored. Realistically, though, that should be the under the domain of the existing "New Bridge" as it is centered more closely to the local traffic flows.
It’s centered close to the local traffic flows because right now the local traffic can only cross the I-10 bridge.
I was going to start spouting off data from the traffic model results but this post would have been 10 pages long. At the end of the day, this is what it looks like to me based on the model results:
The absolute best case scenario for a bridge south of Baton Rouge, once you factor in the origin/destination points and their relative proximity to that bridge and the existing I-10 bridge, is that something like 40% of current traffic on the I-10 bridge gets diverted to the new bridge. In reality, it’s probably more like ~25% of current I-10 bridge traffic once you factor in specific routes, tolls, and impact less overall congestion on the existing bridge (which disincentivizes usage of the new bridge).
Meanwhile, the absolute best case scenario for a north loop is also about 40% of the current bridge traffic (the 25% that continues to I-12 plus a portion of the local traffic). The reality, again, is less.. maybe 25% without accounting for tolls.
And this is where you get to the real problem facing a north loop. It has to be a full loop if you want to realistically divert freight traffic to I-12. A full loop is going to cost considerably more than the bridge being proposed to the south. At the same time, though, it needs to be a tollway to get it funded. If we can’t find a south bridge without tolls we damned sure can’t find a north loop without them. But if you turn it into a tollway, the freight traffic is much less likely to utilize it. It’s a catch 22.
This, combined with the fact that a loop is pretty much by definition going to add mileage from point A to point B on the other side, is also why most loops are primarily intended for commuter traffic in the first place.
Posted on 4/26/22 at 10:45 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
Just doing an interstate quality road from Gross Pointe to the 3127 corridor would make huge gains.
NOLA traffic from the west has no need to cross the river before Sunshine, Gramercy, Hale Boggs or Huey P.
1 road gets you 4 bridges. Idiots at DOTD have no clu
Grosse Tete interstate quality to 3127, make 3127 interstate quality all the way to 310 would be cheaper than a new bridge. Finish I 49 to 310 and hook 310 up to West Bank Expressway .
And add some lanes I 10 Port Allen to Laffy
Will never finish on time
Posted on 4/26/22 at 11:17 pm to Slippy
I’m more interesting in the passenger train they plan to have from BR to NOLA. In theory it would be pretty cool to have one from downtown BR all the way out to Hammond.
quote:Nobody that lives in BR is elite
The worker bees won’t have a choice. The elite in CCLA do. And if you know what’s Good for you, you’ll tone down you’re attitude about shared sacrifices when mentioning the elites, sonny.
This post was edited on 4/26/22 at 11:33 pm
Posted on 4/27/22 at 9:23 am to lostinbr
quote:
I was going to start spouting off data from the traffic model results but this post would have been 10 pages long.
If you have the time to type it, I would be very interested in seeing this.
I find it very hard to believe that the still remaining routes E-11-IV, F-12-IV, F-13-IV, and F-14-V, would have higher average daily traffic than the now eliminated C-7-IV route. I realize that's the conclusion that the slide that you linked to earlier states, but I am skeptical that whatever underlying data they used is correct. Admittedly I haven't done a deep dive into the traffic analysis, but I suspect the underlying data is either incorrect or based on faulty assumptions.
Posted on 4/27/22 at 10:50 am to T
quote:
You said this is about where you would like to see the loop go and provided a map that showed a line cutting through the big development at Bluebonnet & LA-30, the Preserve at Harveston, U-Club & CCLA.
Maybe a part of the problem is people like you putting no thought at all into a proposal then get upset when people think it’s a terrible idea.
Thanks for proving my point. This is a prime example of "we need to do something, but not that because it might inconvenience someone... or that... or that..." while providing not an equal nor better alternative. This is because you see "not inconveniencing certain people" as a mandatory part of any solution.
There comes a point where you have to pick what's more important, solving a problem or not inconveniencing people. You've chosen the latter and that exact mindset is why we have the traffic issues we have.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News