re: WBRZ - Lawmakers to push toll route through Baton Rouge

quote:

---

I am simply advocating getting the best bang for the buck, which is probably a northern bypass.

---

I see far too much traffic on La 1 from the Interstate down through Plaq to go with a northern loop taking priority over a southern one, especially since North already has 190.

quote:

---

Tolls!? We don't need no stinking TOLLS!

Two things would greatly improve traffic in BR.

#1 - A loop (for christ's sake Lake Charles has one)

---

You dipshit. The Loop would be a toll facility.

ETA: Oops, I had no idea this thread was 7 pages. My b.

Roads in Houston get built fast and immediate , however, they ain't cheap to drive on. That's the trade off. LA could have the same thing but LA dems hate, and I mean HATE , fair taxes. And that's what a toll road is, a fair tax.

quote:

---

Golfer, your proposed new bridge crossing was one of the crossings in the BR Loop drawings. Personally, I always thought that proposed location was too north in the sense that it really wasn't "bypassing" the city. As the other poster stated, I just thought the southern bridge location (closer to White Castle/St. Gabriel) would better serve the purpose of the bypass and then provide better access to and from the plants, as well as to the casino, and would also provide a closer connecting point to I-10.

---

This is the same terrible frame of mind the politicians have. If it's too far south no one will want to use it because it'll be out of the way. The bridge and subsequent route has to be shorter or the same length as I-10 from point A to point B or it will be a waste of time for truckers.

One proposed route had the southern loop going across the Sunshine Bridge. I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

The bridge needs to cross well north of Plaquemine. Plaquemine shouldn't even be in this discussion.

Golfer's route nails it. It would be perfect. But he can propose the perfect route because he isn't a politician and doesn't have to worry about pissing off voters.

I wish BR could do something like San Antonio and double deck the interstate through town. That would be sweet.

Also the Washington Street exit should be closed. It serves no purpose when anyone that needs to use it can use the Highland/Nicholson exit just a half a mile earlier before the 10/110 merge.

Then extend that lane all the way through town so the 10/12 split can be split 3/3.

Adding a lane east and west on I-10 through town from 12 to 110 was proposed but the Perkins Road overpass businesses had a shite fit and NIMBYed.

quote:

---

topography

---

How so?

You're looking for a different word I'm sure.

quote:

---

moving interstate/commercial traffic off i10 in BR does a lot for traffic in the entire metro area.

---

It does a lot for traffic in BR, but going down I-10 towards AP won't change with a northern loop. The people on that route get nothing once they pass the 10/12 split.

The people headed west are fine until the loop comes back in. People in Watson and Walker get a sweet interstate that brings them to St Francisville. The group going into BR get a break, but most of the area that gets screwed doesn't use interstates. (Central, Watson, North Denham) they use the new central connection and Hooper.

quote:

---

This is the same terrible frame of mind the politicians have. If it's too far south no one will want to use it because it'll be out of the way.

---

Typical BR thinking. They want to use the loop, not divert traffic around the city. If no one from BR wants to use the loop then it will work, that means people bypassing BR will be the only ones using it.

quote:

---

The southern loop is for truck traffic and people bypassing the city. Truckers and people bypassing the city won't want to use the loop if it's too far south and is a much longer distance to travel than if you were to stay on I-10. It would serve no purpose.

---

How much longer is the northern bridge option vs. the southern bridge option?

Seems to me that construction on the northern bridge option where most of the "loop" would be on the eastbank would cause more headaches vs. the locals during the construction phase (which will certainly go on for years) vs. the southern loop bridge where the majority of the construction project would take plae in undeveloped areas.

quote:

---

The southern loop is for truck traffic and people bypassing the city.

---

This is a limited mindset. If a southern loop doesn't also look toward where expansion is going, the area will just find itself in the same position in another 20-30 years. That lack of foresight is why we are in the situation we are in now.

The population is moving south along I10 and East along I12. Brusly has exploded because of its proximity to the bridge but the infrastructure long ago was surpassed by the population moving there. While another bridge there would be great, it's a band-aid because it doesn't take future growth into account.

A bridge at St Gabe that connects to Pville and eventually to Denham would give access to a veritable shitload of expansion room on the eastern side of the river while opening the corresponding western side up to that same level of expansion potential. Such a bridge would be an even greater boon to Brusly as it would help draw traffic away making it a more desirable bedroom community.