- 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: Today's Advocate headline, "I-10 widening garners little enthusiasm"
Posted on 8/31/15 at 10:17 pm to Monday
Posted on 8/31/15 at 10:17 pm to Monday
quote:
How about put a toll on the proposed bridge. I cross the river in both donaldsonville and br multiple times a week, and sometimes multiple times a day. I would gladly pay for a sunpass type service to bypass both of those bottlenecks. I've been taking river road home from Port Allen on the BR side the past few weeks because dealing with the cluster is ridiculous.
Agree with a toll on the proposed bridge, but why not start generating revenue on existing infrastructure right now? Someone else may know if this is legal or not.
I am in your boat as well. The Sunshine Bridge has been absurd the last two years while it has been one lane. Complete and utter BS for that project to take as long as it has.
2
Posted on 8/31/15 at 10:31 pm to MikeD
The article sounds like they interviewed a couple of business owners that may be mildly affected by construction access.
Maybe they should have interviewed a few of the tens of thousands that sit in traffic on the substandard system every day.
Build 8 lanes per side, a loop, a new bridge and whatever else it takes. Let my people go.
Maybe they should have interviewed a few of the tens of thousands that sit in traffic on the substandard system every day.
Build 8 lanes per side, a loop, a new bridge and whatever else it takes. Let my people go.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 10:36 pm to Hangit
If you went to the public hearing, you would see that a good number of businesses interviewed in the state see a benefit from the completion of the widening.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 10:38 pm to vl100butch
quote:
the simple solution is to put in a toll loop...they're all over Texas, the Capital Beltway in Virginia, new interstates in the Chicago area...
works pretty well...
Didn't work in Austin.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 10:43 pm to c on z
I no longer live there. I do remember that they kept the ability to handle traffic about 10 years behind the need.
Good for the business owners that stepped up to confirm the need and benefits. Maybe a little long term vision will prevail as opposed to business as usual.
Good for the business owners that stepped up to confirm the need and benefits. Maybe a little long term vision will prevail as opposed to business as usual.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 11:09 pm to TheCaterpillar
Add a southern bypass from Gross Tete south to either the Sunshine bridge or a new one tieing into Nicholson near Tanger. Make it a toll road and it'll pay for itself in no time.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 11:19 pm to doubleb
Baton Rouge keeps traffics
So I put another lane
So I put another lane
Posted on 9/1/15 at 12:57 am to Grassy1
quote:
Yeah, that makes much more sense than diverting the traffic around Baton Rouge via a southern bypass.
A bypass is needed, but there are lower costs projects that can be done to help in the meantime.
Widening Airline highway north of Florida (up to the old bridge) and removing some of the traffic lights and adding an elevated rail crossing at Choctaw would be a big help on it's own. Same with LA1 on the west side of the river and Airline south into Ascension.
Widening I-10 between College and downtown is another. Frankly, that's going to be needed with or without a bypass. It is decades past due.
It might also be time to start laying the groundwork for a rail system to connect the airport, downtown, LSU, and some of the suburbs to New Orleans. At least if there is a major problem on the freeway, it would still be possible to make it to class, work, or catch a flight.
This post was edited on 9/1/15 at 1:26 am
Posted on 9/2/15 at 7:44 am to biglego
quote:
tbh I don't know what closing the Wash exit would achieve.
then you don't drive the bridge in the afternoons
Posted on 9/2/15 at 8:35 am to Bard
quote:
Make Hwy 30 4 or 6-lanes up until it becomes Nicholson
That road is too busy as it is with the plants, wouldn't be a good idea to add bypass traffic to it
Posted on 9/2/15 at 8:38 am to Bard
quote:
Why this hasn't been done yet, I have no idea.
#blackexitsmatter
Posted on 9/2/15 at 8:39 am to doubleb
the same people that oppose this are same types of people who oppose a loop around BR. 
Posted on 9/2/15 at 8:45 am to 68wDoc68w
quote:
the same people that oppose this are same types of people who oppose a loop around BR
While some people oppose anything, most at the meeting were interested in having the state do something.
In the end we need to fix I-10 through the middle of town and we need to do that in conjunction with a new bridge, by-passes, a loop or whatever.
One or even two projects won't solve things, it might take several projects to improve on what we have now. Keep in mind is the folks at DOTD are thinking 15-20 years down the road and it takes a decade to get a project done from jump to completion.
Posted on 9/2/15 at 8:54 am to MikeD
quote:
Agree with a toll on the proposed bridge, but why not start generating revenue on existing infrastructure right now?
I do not trust LA politicians enough to pay a tax on existing infrastructure and expect those funds to be used as promised. They would very likely funnel those funds into social programs and pensions, and never build the infrastructure we need.
Let them put up tolls on new roads and bridges. I'd gladly pay to see progress.
Posted on 9/2/15 at 8:56 am to biglego
quote:you're exactly right. just closing the exit and nothing else is retarded and does nothing for traffic because that exit is a lane drop. the fix would be to extend that lane, in which case the exit could remain open anyway. there is no scenario where only the closing the exit makes any sense.
tbh I don't know what closing the Wash exit would achieve. Doesn't look like many cars use it, and everyone would still have to merge out of that lane.
Posted on 9/2/15 at 8:58 am to PhiTiger1764
quote:
AADT of over 100k,
Actually. ADT is closer to 100k. Which is worse.
This post was edited on 9/2/15 at 8:59 am
Posted on 9/2/15 at 9:12 am to doubleb
quote:and there ya go. even DOTD gets it, which makes our resident OT traffic experts look even dumber IMO
Per DOTD the exit can remain open and another lane added at the same time.
Posted on 9/2/15 at 9:26 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
#blackexitsmatter
Posted on 9/2/15 at 9:41 am to dewster
quote:
A bypass is needed, but there are lower costs projects that can be done to help in the meantime.
The big problem with this is that the state is in deep budgetary shite. Every $1 per barrel the price of oil drops, the state loses ~$12.5 million in revenue. The new budget was created with ~$61/barrel oil in mind (mainly so they could say the budget was "balanced"). The price is around $40/barrel (meaning that unless something crazy happens to cause the prices to spike, the state is already ~$250 million short on its current budget).
tk;dr - The state won't have the money for multiple projects like this for quite a while.
What this means is that we have to prioritize the projects. To me, the loop is far more important because it could do more than just address the Baton Rouge traffic, but traffic in other parts of the area as well (specifically LA 1 along Plaquemine through Brusly).
While widening the 110-12 corridor would help smooth things out, it would end up being a band-aid about like 10/12's widening to 6 lanes (should have been 8). Here we are just a couple of years out from those projects being finished in EBR and already we see traffic being slowed often, even at non-rush times.
In a nutshell, what widening that corridor will do is what has always been done: playing catch-up, being re-active to traffic problems about 10 years behind.
Putting up a loop would not only channel the traffic out, but putting it in the right place with well-placed arteries would help manage growth by channeling it along pre-determined routes. Going forward like this the state becomes pro-active in addressing traffic instead of woefully reactive.
Posted on 9/2/15 at 11:26 am to Bard
quote:
The big problem with this is that the state is in deep budgetary shite. Every $1 per barrel the price of oil drops, the state loses ~$12.5 million in revenue. The new budget was created with ~$61/barrel oil in mind (mainly so they could say the budget was "balanced"). The price is around $40/barrel (meaning that unless something crazy happens to cause the prices to spike, the state is already ~$250 million short on its current budget). tk;dr - The state won't have the money for multiple projects like this for quite a while. What this means is that we have to prioritize the projects. To me, the loop is far more important because it could do more than just address the Baton Rouge traffic, but traffic in other parts of the area as well (specifically LA 1 along Plaquemine through Brusly). While widening the 110-12 corridor would help smooth things out, it would end up being a band-aid about like 10/12's widening to 6 lanes (should have been 8). Here we are just a couple of years out from those projects being finished in EBR and already we see traffic being slowed often, even at non-rush times. In a nutshell, what widening that corridor will do is what has always been done: playing catch-up, being re-active to traffic problems about 10 years behind. Putting up a loop would not only channel the traffic out, but putting it in the right place with well-placed arteries would help manage growth by channeling it along pre-determined routes. Going forward like this the state becomes pro-active in addressing traffic instead of woefully reactive.
All that is good, but the facts are that even if a loop is constructed, in 15 years or so there will be 22% more congestion on the I-10 in BR than we have now. Think about that. A loop will not relieve the pressure on I-10.
The facts are right now we do not have the money; however, the process of planning, having hearings, drawing up plans to bid, etc. is a five year process. If we don't start now we will never have anything ready if we do get funding.
And you are correct, and DOTD says the same thing, the I-10 project alone isn't the solution. It is; however, part of the solution.
FWIW, they have already started the process for planning a new bridge. That is a big deal too. So would loops and or by-passes, but we all know what happened with Holden's loop ideas, the NIMBYs took it out in short order.
I believe a l tool loop or by-passes, plus a bridge (could be included in the loop) and the widening of I-10 should all move forward and the process started. That way when the day comes that the money is there, we can move forward.
Page 12 of 14
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News