- 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: Pecue/I-10 interchange
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:10 pm to Jim Rockford
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:10 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
I was told to me that by law only Louisiana companies can bid on these projects and there are no Louisiana companies big enough to do it in one swing. So they get parceled out. Don't know if true but it's what I was told.
No that’s not accurate. As long as the company is licensed in Louisiana and has the bonding capacity they can bid on it. Especially since it has federal dollars attached.
Austin Bridge and Road were the contractors on the Obama shovel ready lane additions from the 10/12 split to I think Siegan and got booted because they couldn’t man the job. They gobbled up a bunch of that shovel ready work.
James took it over and the smartest thing they did was immediately sub the bridge work to Boh Brothers. Boh Brothers can build a bridge and James knew it would move the project faster.
And speaking of how long it’s been planned the federal funds were originally released to East Baton Rouge Parish in the late 90’s or so with matching State Funds however typical Baton Rouge-the council and mayor refused to come up with the local match money so Richard Baker the congressman who secured the Federal funds simply went to Livingston Parish and offered it to them if they matched and that’s how Juban Road intersection at I-12 was built. That one had been on the drawing boards since the 70’s as has Pecue Lane and Livingston jumped in it. And that opened that whole portion of the parish.
1
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:14 pm to Yaboylsu63
quote:
I know some of our friends over in Woodridge are concerned about the Rieger connection bringing over the shite heads from siegen and that methadone clinic
I’m not putting up with that shite.
I will pelt them with paintballs if they are hanging around the neighborhood.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:14 pm to SixthAndBarone
so a food safety and interstate guru you are. you start some shite with some people. not starting shite with you but that is a long time for that construction.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 10:55 pm to Martini
quote:
Austin Bridge and Road were the contractors on the Obama shovel ready lane additions from the 10/12 split to I think Siegan and got booted because they couldn’t man the job. They gobbled up a bunch of that shovel ready work.
I'm pretty sure Austin Bridge elected to leave the project to go work on the Circuit of the Americas F1 track at the time.
They were getting hammered by weather and if I had to guess they had enough of the long term phased approach of the project.
I can only suspect the F1 track folks were much better (and more lucrative) customers.
Posted on 4/28/25 at 8:44 am to AndyCBR
They got booted.
Not sure how an $86m road contract in Louisiana would be considered not lucrative. I mean-it’s Louisiana with federal government funding. That’s jackpot.
And a contractor like that doesn’t just elect to leave a job of that size, allow its bonding company finish the project and get itself banned from bidding work in a whole state.
LINK
Plus- size wise they would be capable of handling both F1 and the I-10 or should have been. And also-that track was privately funded and had its own problems during its construction so I’m not so certain that would be considered more lucrative. At least with government funding you have a better chance of getting paid than in the private market. I get that’s it’s in their home state but nevertheless projects go belly up even in Texas. I know. I’ve been in litigation to prove it.
From what I remember Obama had the shovel ready projects that came out all over the country at just about the same time with the stimulus money and they grabbed a lot of those projects, including a pretty large one in Oklahoma as well. And they left quite a bit of money on the table.
Not sure how an $86m road contract in Louisiana would be considered not lucrative. I mean-it’s Louisiana with federal government funding. That’s jackpot.
And a contractor like that doesn’t just elect to leave a job of that size, allow its bonding company finish the project and get itself banned from bidding work in a whole state.
LINK
Plus- size wise they would be capable of handling both F1 and the I-10 or should have been. And also-that track was privately funded and had its own problems during its construction so I’m not so certain that would be considered more lucrative. At least with government funding you have a better chance of getting paid than in the private market. I get that’s it’s in their home state but nevertheless projects go belly up even in Texas. I know. I’ve been in litigation to prove it.
From what I remember Obama had the shovel ready projects that came out all over the country at just about the same time with the stimulus money and they grabbed a lot of those projects, including a pretty large one in Oklahoma as well. And they left quite a bit of money on the table.
Posted on 4/28/25 at 7:08 pm to Martini
quote:
They got booted.
Tomato, Tomatoe...
There was better work elsewhere that a company of their size could direct their considerable resources to that was immensely more profitable.
Simple.
I would have made the same choice if running a company of that size.
Posted on 4/28/25 at 7:38 pm to AndyCBR
Well I’m guessing you aren’t running a company that size and I’m glad you never ran mine if that’s how you see it.
That is not even a reasonable answer on a message board like this much less an answer that would sell well in the C Suite.
So your strategic approach is let a state and federally funded $84m project get in the weeds and pretend it’s to your advantage because you assume you have more profitable contracts elsewhere? In 2010 when the world was trying to come out of a meltdown. And a company that had revenues probably between 1 and 2 billion at the time. Eating 8% is one thing. Doing it willingly is fricking stupid.
That project after litigation with the state, bonding company and everyone else involved in addition to the premium put on the cost by the new contractors that certainly was piled onto the value is a hundred million dollar loss give or take 10%.
You don’t happily make that decision based on “more lucrative work elsewhere.” No one makes that decision based on that and if they do they are out the door shortly.
This is a company about the size of Turner. Can you take the hit? Sure. Do you last if you are the one that created it? No. Do you do it with a shrug and a tomato tomatoe attitude? Good lord I hope not.
If you are ever put in that position I hope I don’t have any chips in the pot betting on you.
That is not even a reasonable answer on a message board like this much less an answer that would sell well in the C Suite.
So your strategic approach is let a state and federally funded $84m project get in the weeds and pretend it’s to your advantage because you assume you have more profitable contracts elsewhere? In 2010 when the world was trying to come out of a meltdown. And a company that had revenues probably between 1 and 2 billion at the time. Eating 8% is one thing. Doing it willingly is fricking stupid.
That project after litigation with the state, bonding company and everyone else involved in addition to the premium put on the cost by the new contractors that certainly was piled onto the value is a hundred million dollar loss give or take 10%.
You don’t happily make that decision based on “more lucrative work elsewhere.” No one makes that decision based on that and if they do they are out the door shortly.
This is a company about the size of Turner. Can you take the hit? Sure. Do you last if you are the one that created it? No. Do you do it with a shrug and a tomato tomatoe attitude? Good lord I hope not.
If you are ever put in that position I hope I don’t have any chips in the pot betting on you.
Posted on 4/28/25 at 8:05 pm to Martini
quote:
Well I’m guessing you aren’t running a company that size and I’m glad you never ran mine if that’s how you see it.
That is not even a reasonable answer on a message board like this much less an answer that would sell well in the C Suite.
So your strategic approach is let a state and federally funded $84m project get in the weeds and pretend it’s to your advantage because you assume you have more profitable contracts elsewhere? In 2010 when the world was trying to come out of a meltdown. And a company that had revenues probably between 1 and 2 billion at the time. Eating 8% is one thing. Doing it willingly is fricking stupid.
That project after litigation with the state, bonding company and everyone else involved in addition to the premium put on the cost by the new contractors that certainly was piled onto the value is a hundred million dollar loss give or take 10%.
You don’t happily make that decision based on “more lucrative work elsewhere.” No one makes that decision based on that and if they do they are out the door shortly.
This is a company about the size of Turner. Can you take the hit? Sure. Do you last if you are the one that created it? No. Do you do it with a shrug and a tomato tomatoe attitude? Good lord I hope not.
If you are ever put in that position I hope I don’t have any chips in the pot betting on you.
Don't get all butthurt just because a huge construction company found a better deal than road construction in LA.
It's always business, never personal.
Your loyalty to the state of LA is admirable but I can assure you the decision Austin made, or forced LADOTD to make, was in their best interests.
You pretend to be someone "in the know" but if I had to guess you're an underling in the process.
I'll put Austin's stock price against the success of LADOTD in their ventures any time.
This post was edited on 4/28/25 at 8:14 pm
Posted on 4/28/25 at 8:17 pm to foj1981
So is there going to be a great new Trader Joe’s ar Whole Foods going there?
Posted on 4/28/25 at 8:27 pm to Maillard
quote:
so a food safety and interstate guru you are. you start some shite with some people. not starting shite with you but that is a long time for that construction.
I said it was a long time. Then I stated facts as to what the construction entails. How is that “starting shite”? As another poster mentioned, it was funded in stages which is why I believe it’s taking so long.
But the facts must be mentioned:
(1) Removing an interstate overpass
(2) building 2 two-lane interstate overpasses
(3) building 2 two-lane bridges over the bayou
(4) removing a road
(5) building a new 4-lane road
(6) building up the land for exit ramps
(7) building exit ramps
(8) I believe they had to move utilities as well but not sure
AND…. On top of all that, they are keeping the road open the entire time.
Should it take this long? No, but don’t act like it should have been completed in 7 months.
Posted on 4/28/25 at 8:55 pm to AndyCBR
Well if that is the case Andy why bid on the projects over here in the first place?
What does always business, not personal even mean? Am I discussing this with Michael Corleone?
Or perhaps Fredo?
Your explanation is not even remotely believable for anyone in business.
Butthurt? Well…using that in a discussion just confirmed your actual distance from the C suites.
And your guess would be wrong.
What does always business, not personal even mean? Am I discussing this with Michael Corleone?
Or perhaps Fredo?
Your explanation is not even remotely believable for anyone in business.
Butthurt? Well…using that in a discussion just confirmed your actual distance from the C suites.
And your guess would be wrong.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News