- 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: Final three routes for new bridge released.
Posted on 5/27/22 at 10:44 am to Puck82
Posted on 5/27/22 at 10:44 am to Puck82
quote:
Only seems like 1 option. No way they run it through shintech
That was my first thought as well. Two of the routes cut right between Shintech SPP-1/2 and SPP-3.
Shintech doesn’t own all of that property, but they own enough that I’m surprised this is even an option. They would need to put the road up high enough to go over the pipe bridge connecting the Shintech plants.
0
Posted on 5/27/22 at 10:46 am to PhiTiger1764
quote:
Not true. The traffic between the bridge and split is drastically higher than east of the split and west of the bridge.
Wow, the congestion is higher before the split? No way.
quote:
. You don’t need to carry 5-6 lanes down 10 or 12.
You know what it's called when traffic condenses from 5 lanes down to 3?
TIL BR traffic only happens between the 10/12 split and the river
This post was edited on 5/27/22 at 10:47 am
Posted on 5/27/22 at 10:55 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
You know what it's called when traffic condenses from 5 lanes down to 3?
I do not.. please enlighten me.
But before you answer I do want to make you aware that that’s not really the situation, as it would be 5 lanes then it splits to 10 and 12 for 3 lanes in each direction.
I don’t know why you are arguing against me on this. Adding lanes increases capacity and would fix the traffic problem. ROW acquisition costs are the only problem here. I don’t understand how you can argue that adding lanes wouldn’t fix the problem.
This post was edited on 5/27/22 at 11:03 am
Posted on 5/27/22 at 10:58 am to Slippy
all iberville, as they should be
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:05 am to PhiTiger1764
quote:
I am not.. please enlighten me.
Can't decide if this is sarcastic, because based on your posts, you really might not know.
quote:
But before you answer I do want to make you aware that that’s not really the situation, as it would be 5 lanes then it splits to 10 and 12 for 3 lanes in each direction.
I10 goes from 5 lanes to 3, that's a funnel. I12 having 3 lanes after the split is irrelevant to the funnel on the route of I10.
quote:
I don’t know why you are arguing against me on this.
Because a loop using this bridge will be exponentially better for BR traffic by keeping pass through traffic out of BR.
quote:
Adding lanes increases capacity and would fix the traffic problem
How? Putting 100 lanes in that 4 mile stretch will not fix the overall problems.
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:08 am to Slippy
As someone from St. Gabriel, this sucks. And these locations will do little to help the current congestion.
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:20 am to KamaCausey_LSU
If we are being honest there is no reasonable solution to most of the current BR intra-metro area traffic issues that doesn't involve buying, then tearing down 100s, if not 1000s of acres of currently developed land (or building over wetlands, good luck with that) to expand roads.
This bridge site will (hopefully) redirect some of the traffic that doesn't need to go through BR which is the main point of a loop anyway.
This bridge site will (hopefully) redirect some of the traffic that doesn't need to go through BR which is the main point of a loop anyway.
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:25 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
That undoubtedly is being planned as well. but there aren't many "easy" paths.
West side connector will be a lot easier than the east side.
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:29 am to PhiTiger1764
quote:
Do you even see where that purple line is drawn? Like how is that remotely practical.
The first thing everyone does is to look for why a certain route can't go somewhere then piss and moan because we don't have a bridge nor loop. We don't first define need by where it should go for best utility then move from there, we first define need by where we don't want the route to go. That's the problem entirely.
Thanks for proving my point.
This post was edited on 5/27/22 at 11:35 am
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:32 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
I10 goes from 5 lanes to 3, that's a funnel. I12 having 3 lanes after the split is irrelevant to the funnel on the route of I10.
You say this with such conviction.
It’s only irrelevant if all of the traffic from i10 stays on i10. Is that the case or does some veer on to i12? I can’t believe you really think this..
quote:
Because a loop using this bridge will be exponentially better for BR traffic by keeping pass through traffic out of BR.
This is your opinion. I disagree with it, but that’s fine. Maybe you are right though.
quote:
How? Putting 100 lanes in that 4 mile stretch will not fix the overall problems.
I’ve answered this multiple times and this is the last time: adding lanes increases capacity.
To fix an overcapacity problem, you have 2 options:
1. Increase the capacity or
2. Reduce the number of vehicles on the roadway.
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:34 am to PhiTiger1764
quote:
You say this with such conviction.
It’s only irrelevant if all of the traffic from i10 stays on i10. Is that the case or does some veer on to i12? I can’t believe you really think this..
I say it with conviction because it's a fricking funnel
quote:
This is your opinion. I disagree with it, but that’s fine. Maybe you are right though.
It's a mathematical certainty.
quote:
I’ve answered this multiple times and this is the last time: adding lanes increases capacity.
... for one small stretch. Your logic in this thread is comically bad.
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:34 am to Slippy
This state is run by fricking retards....
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:34 am to tigerinthebueche
quote:
what could be easier than running a road right thru the middle of the Bluebonnet swamp?
If only we had a way to drain a swamp, too bad no one has ever done that before.
Or maybe a flyover? Too bad that hasn't been invented yet either.
quote:
I'm sure no one from the COE to a private citizen would oppose that route.
The COE goes back and forth on how close they think trees should grow to a levee. At that level it's mainly just bureaucrats. As for private citizens... someone somewhere will piss and moan regardless of where a bridge or loop goes. Using that as a criteria means never doing anything at all.
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:35 am to Slippy
Audubon bridge the sequel
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:36 am to Bard
quote:
Thanks for proving my point.
I don’t know what you want me to tell you. You can’t just draw a random purple line on a map, resulting in what would be a $100 billion dollar absolutely fricking stupid route, then shout about NIMBYs.
That’s not how you fix problems.
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:36 am to Slippy
quote:
And remember that I-10 is being widened to three lanes all the way from the bridge to Acadian.
That’s great and all but the bridge E/B will still funnel down to one lane prior to that.
CLOSE THE WASHINGTON STREET EXIT!!!!
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:39 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
... for one small stretch. Your logic in this thread is comically bad.
For the stretch that is overcapacity! You don’t need 6 lanes in Springfield or Grammercy. It has to stop somewhere.
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:40 am to PhiTiger1764
Shawn Wilson just confirmed on his twitter that, yes, the intent is to ultimately connect with I-10 on both sides of the river. The options for actually crossing the river are limited, however.
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:40 am to PhiTiger1764
quote:
For the stretch that is overcapacity
That's not the only traffic in the area, you fricking dunce.
quote:
It has to stop somewhere.
Yea, outside of Baton Rouge.
Posted on 5/27/22 at 11:41 am to SPEEDY
quote:
That’s great and all but the bridge E/B will still funnel down to one lane prior to that.
CLOSE THE WASHINGTON STREET EXIT!!!!
You don't understand. That is being done. I-10 will be 3 lanes all the way from the bridge. No more funnel. Project is funded. Estimated completion 2027.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News