- 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: BR is possibly getting a new MS River Bridge
Posted on 5/21/18 at 12:52 pm to 50_Tiger
Posted on 5/21/18 at 12:52 pm to 50_Tiger
quote:
Someone still has to assume this risk. I am guessing the Federal Government will? Doesn't La have to match funds to a certain percentage?
there are bonds out there that qualify for federal insurance/backing. But generally most any government agency can qualify for a bond. Just have to show the financial projections showing it can be paid back. Now... the interest rate may vary, and may be slightly higher without a history of the agency.
0
Posted on 5/21/18 at 12:52 pm to fallguy_1978
Problem is that everybody wants it and knows it's needed but nobody wants it in their backyard or, for that matter, anywhere near their community.
Posted on 5/21/18 at 12:53 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
and he downvoted my P3 comment. I be he doesnt even know what P3 is.
?? I didn't downvote your comment. I actually didn't know and looked it up and gave you an upvote...
Posted on 5/21/18 at 12:53 pm to fallguy_1978
They need to come across the river right where the I12 meets I10 and loop it back to I10 somewhere west of Port Allen.
Posted on 5/21/18 at 12:56 pm to Sao
quote:
OK, trying to get my ducks in a row. Here is an example of how NTTA bailed out/worked with Texas as a private entity
The $3.2 billion that NTTA paid for the right to construct, operate and maintain the Sam Rayburn Tollway (formerly State Highway 121) is currently being used throughout the region to fund many municipal and non-tolled county transportation projects. Scarce gas tax funds that would have funded the road’s construction are in turn used elsewhere for other roadway projects.
I short, NTTA works in concert with the State and TxDOT to build infrastructure while allowing TxDOT to reallocate at the same time. In turn, NTTA has the rights to collect tolls but is solely responsible for maintenance, construction and collection enforcement. LA needs to look to NTTA for advice.
This public-private partnership is relatively new. Most of the older toll roads in TX were not built on that model.
As far as LA following that model... that would be great... but I don't know if private business would participate in the first couple of toll roads. My guess is the state would have to show some successes first.
Posted on 5/21/18 at 12:56 pm to 50_Tiger
quote:well good. I have a serial downvoter in this thread and i thought it was you since we were going back and forth.
?? I didn't downvote your comment. I actually didn't know and looked it up and gave you an upvote...
Posted on 5/21/18 at 12:57 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
well good. I have a serial downvoter in this thread and i thought it was you since we were going back and forth.
Nah, 50 is trying to turn over a new leaf and not just be a dick on TD.
Edit: (That downvote was not me
)This post was edited on 5/21/18 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 5/21/18 at 12:57 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:the I-10 bridge in Lake Chuck is going P3. and the new bridge crossing is being talked about going P3 as well.
As far as LA following that model... that would be great... but I don't know if private business would participate in the first couple of toll roads. My guess is the state would have to show some successes first.
Posted on 5/21/18 at 12:59 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
the I-10 bridge in Lake Chuck is going P3. and the new bridge crossing is being talked about going P3 as well.
What is P3?
Posted on 5/21/18 at 1:00 pm to link
quote:
the plan never included property taxes until this CARBD was formed.
I don't know why this is hard to understand.
they wrote the language creating the agency as widely as possible.
Just because property tax is "an option" doesn't mean it is "the option".
there is pretty much no chance that a property tax to fund this would ever pass.
Posted on 5/21/18 at 1:00 pm to fallguy_1978
they could make it 6 lanes wide on each side and it wouldnt matter, the issue isnt the bridge, its the choked roads leading to and from it that create the massive bottle neck even during periods of relatively "light" traffic.
widen the roads leading to and from it by an extra lane or two and fix the 20mph on ramp heading to and from the bridge from I-10/I-12 and you can say good by to the traffic jams "on the bridge"
widen the roads leading to and from it by an extra lane or two and fix the 20mph on ramp heading to and from the bridge from I-10/I-12 and you can say good by to the traffic jams "on the bridge"
Posted on 5/21/18 at 1:01 pm to Lsupimp
I think the cheapest, best option would be to divert I-10 traffic with a spur on the westbank similar to I-110 on the eastbank. Connect it to the hwy 190 bridge and expand and upgrade that bridge. Then build an elevated expressway from the bridge to I-12 like the one on the westbank in NO. Any thru traffic heading to MS,AL or FL as well as local Livingston and northshore traffic would take that option.
Posted on 5/21/18 at 1:05 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
the I-10 bridge in Lake Chuck is going P3. and the new bridge crossing is being talked about going P3 as well.
You have links on both of those? I'd love to read more about it. I know there has been rough discussion about that as an option, but I didn't know it was a done deal.
I also thought there was a federal prohibition on tolls on Interstate Highway main-lanes (which would make a P3 not make any sense).
Posted on 5/21/18 at 1:06 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
also thought there was a federal prohibition on tolls on Interstate Highway main-lanes (which would make a P3 not make any sense).
I know NTTA put Toll lanes on 114 here in Las Colinas all the way to DFW (Airport). I am guessing there's some sort of waiver? They essentially took away the third lane for this.
Posted on 5/21/18 at 1:09 pm to OleSkuleTgr
quote:
Connect it to the hwy 190 bridge and expand and upgrade that bridge.
I wonder what that cost would be compared to a new-location bridge.
quote:
Then build an elevated expressway from the bridge to I-12 like the one on the westbank in NO.
Where would you put this? Also the cost of putting an elevated expressway through that area would far exceed the savings in upgrading the bridge over a new one.
Posted on 5/21/18 at 1:09 pm to fallguy_1978
Everyone says they are for a toll bridge until the tolls go up, then they scream that they are getting screwed. The reality is that toll would end up being roughly $5-6 a car and more for trailers and semis. The days of the dollar toll are over because no one is going to buy the bonds for 30+ years. The end result is people just sit in traffic for free and the state defaults on the bonds for the toll. In 2007 the people of WBR and Addis and Plaquemine signed a petition to kill the potential bridge in favor of Sinclair sugar. No one will admit it, but over 1500 residents signed the petition and killed the bridge.
Posted on 5/21/18 at 1:10 pm to 50_Tiger
Isn't 114 a state highway?
They put managed/toll lanes on the Katy Freeway, but that was new lane construction. They did not take away any free lanes.
They put managed/toll lanes on the Katy Freeway, but that was new lane construction. They did not take away any free lanes.
Posted on 5/21/18 at 1:12 pm to winkchance
quote:
Everyone says they are for a toll bridge until the tolls go up, then they scream that they are getting screwed. The reality is that toll would end up being roughly $5-6 a car and more for trailers and semis. The days of the dollar toll are over because no one is going to buy the bonds for 30+ years. The end result is people just sit in traffic for free and the state defaults on the bonds for the toll
I think a lot of the semis would gladly pay $5 to save an hour. I just don't know how many of them are travelling I-10 vs I-12. I'd guess that a lot more go down 12.
Posted on 5/21/18 at 1:13 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Isn't 114 a state highway?
Yes, which is why I was confused because I remember folks saying this could not happen in many other road threads before this one.
As you take the bend around the Convention center it goes to a divided two lanes up to the 12 exchange (which is kinda jacked right now with construction anyway)
edit: Looking at old Google Maps it seems that portion was already 2 lanes and they just squeezed the toll lanes into the remaining portion.
This post was edited on 5/21/18 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 5/21/18 at 1:13 pm to oauron
quote:
No they aren't. Maybe you're against property taxes in principle and that's fine, but compared to the rest of the country, Louisiana property taxes are quite low.
you're fricking wrong. plain and simple. EBR =/= whole of Louisiana
Page 8 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News