I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge....DEAD??

[Anthony_JK]

A major setback occurred today in the development of replacing the I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge in Lake Charles.


Turns out, the Louisiana legislative committee that regulates funding for transportation projects rejected by majority vote the plan offered by LADOTD which would have partially funded the project with revenue from tolls placed on the new bridge.


It was mostly trucking interests that convinced the majority to reject the contract proposal, since truckers would probably bear the brunt of the tolls; but there was very strong public opposition in general to tolling expressed all during the design and environmental approval process.


It looks now as if LADOTD will have to either come up with more non-toll revenue to fund the bridge, or steal from other projects, or delay construction until they can secure the funds.


The story, courtesy of the Acadiana Advocate:


Plan to build a new Lake Charles I-10 bridge may be dead. Here's why lawmakers rejected it.

[sprjus4]

I feel like this is one of those things the federal government should pick up the tab for... It's on a major east-west interstate highway, it shouldn't even be a question. Especially a project of this scale.

It's sad our country is in a state where this has to be negotiated for years, if not decades, back and forth just to figure out a funding and tolling plan.

[Rothman]

I feel like this is one of those things the federal government should pick up the tab for... It's on a major east-west interstate highway, it shouldn't even be a question. Especially a project of this scale.

It's sad our country is in a state where this has to be negotiated for years, if not decades, back and forth just to figure out a funding and tolling plan.

See the $800m in federal and state and federal cash mentioned.  I'd bet that's federal funds and the state match (90/10).

I wonder if there are any truly 100% FHWA funded megaprojects.  States or authorities usually have to kick in something.

[kalvado]

I feel like this is one of those things the federal government should pick up the tab for... It's on a major east-west interstate highway, it shouldn't even be a question. Especially a project of this scale.

It's sad our country is in a state where this has to be negotiated for years, if not decades, back and forth just to figure out a funding and tolling plan.

See the $800m in federal and state and federal cash mentioned.  I'd bet that's federal funds and the state match (90/10).

I wonder if there are any truly 100% FHWA funded megaprojects.  States or authorities usually have to kick in something.

Is tolling of mostly federally funded projects allowed? Tappan Zee did get a loan from federal government only, for example. And arguably it's another pretty important one

[Rothman]

I feel like this is one of those things the federal government should pick up the tab for... It's on a major east-west interstate highway, it shouldn't even be a question. Especially a project of this scale.

It's sad our country is in a state where this has to be negotiated for years, if not decades, back and forth just to figure out a funding and tolling plan.

See the $800m in federal and state and federal cash mentioned.  I'd bet that's federal funds and the state match (90/10).

I wonder if there are any truly 100% FHWA funded megaprojects.  States or authorities usually have to kick in something.

Is tolling of mostly federally funded projects allowed? Tappan Zee did get a loan from federal government only, for example. And arguably it's another pretty important one

PPPs allowed it, for better or for worse (spoiler: for worse).

[bwana39]

I think DEAD is a little bit reactionary . The reality is this is the most pressing highway need in Louisiana in the next ten years. It will be built one way or another. The trucking interests realize this. If they felt there was no other way to get it built they would be on board for the tolls. LA-1 south of Baton Rouge would not have been built without the tolls. Louisiana voters decidedly voted to remove the tolls from the Crescent City Connection bridges around ten years ago. They will figure out how to fund it one way or another It may delay other projects as the funds are reallocated, but it will almost surely be built before the mid-2030's.

For what it is worth. Louisiana's share of this bridge will only be 20%. But the other 80% (the federal funds) will obviously be spent somewhere in LA. So it is 100% funds controlled by the state of Louisiana.

[adamh87]

It will eventually be built one way or another. We need this bridge more than anything else in the state, honestly.

Unless a hurricane comes in and destroys it, or a collapse results in deaths and lawsuits. Whatever is easier for DOTD.

[Strider]

Is it possible to force the truckers to use I-210 to bypass the Calcasieu River bridge or does the I-210 bridge have the same issue as the I-10 bridge?

[Bobby5280]

The I-210 bridge is pretty much just as narrow. 4 lanes. No shoulders.

[Anthony_JK]

I think DEAD is a little bit reactionary . The reality is this is the most pressing highway need in Louisiana in the next ten years. It will be built one way or another. The trucking interests realize this. If they felt there was no other way to get it built they would be on board for the tolls. LA-1 south of Baton Rouge would not have been built without the tolls. Louisiana voters decidedly voted to remove the tolls from the Crescent City Connection bridges around ten years ago. They will figure out how to fund it one way or another It may delay other projects as the funds are reallocated, but it will almost surely be built before the mid-2030's.

For what it is worth. Louisiana's share of this bridge will only be 20%. But the other 80% (the federal funds) will obviously be spent somewhere in LA. So it is 100% funds controlled by the state of Louisiana.

Yeah, I didn't mean to put it so extreme as it was permanently dead; the Advocate article's title seemed to overdo that impression.

I could see why truckers were raising all Hell about the $12.50 tolls; not all haulers are corporations, and that's a pretty big chunk of your revenue, especially when considering that the toll for cars would be as low as 50 cents, AND local traffic would have been exempt from paying those tolls. And, there was plenty of opposition to tolling voiced during the public meetings and Public Hearing; the majority opinion was that if this improvement was as important as it was, it should be funded "free" with Federal funds rather than tolls.

That's why it was a bit surprising that it was a Republican-dominated committee that rejected the final bid for the P3 partnership; normally, our conservatives here tend to want to push costs onto users and I really thought they would favor the toll agreement just to get the bridge done sooner. Guess not, or those truckers got some major pull.

(Nothing ideological here; maybe it's just like in Texas, we're getting a backlash against using tolling for funding projects.)

BTW, with recent developments (like, say, our new US House Speaker being from Louisiana), there may be a push to get more Fed funds to build this bridge toll free; or, our Legislature will finally wise up and go with another dedicated tax to fund whatever megaprojects they missed with the TIMED package last go-round. (Imagine if I-49 South had been on there and not the Audubon Bridge.)

[jlam]

I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge ... IS ... dead.

[jeffandnicole]

I think DEAD is a little bit reactionary . The reality is this is the most pressing highway need in Louisiana in the next ten years. It will be built one way or another. The trucking interests realize this. If they felt there was no other way to get it built they would be on board for the tolls. LA-1 south of Baton Rouge would not have been built without the tolls. Louisiana voters decidedly voted to remove the tolls from the Crescent City Connection bridges around ten years ago. They will figure out how to fund it one way or another It may delay other projects as the funds are reallocated, but it will almost surely be built before the mid-2030's.

For what it is worth. Louisiana's share of this bridge will only be 20%. But the other 80% (the federal funds) will obviously be spent somewhere in LA. So it is 100% funds controlled by the state of Louisiana.

Yeah, I didn't mean to put it so extreme as it was permanently dead; the Advocate article's title seemed to overdo that impression.

I could see why truckers were raising all Hell about the $12.50 tolls; not all haulers are corporations, and that's a pretty big chunk of your revenue, especially when considering that the toll for cars would be as low as 50 cents, AND local traffic would have been exempt from paying those tolls. And, there was plenty of opposition to tolling voiced during the public meetings and Public Hearing; the majority opinion was that if this improvement was as important as it was, it should be funded "free" with Federal funds rather than tolls.

That's why it was a bit surprising that it was a Republican-dominated committee that rejected the final bid for the P3 partnership; normally, our conservatives here tend to want to push costs onto users and I really thought they would favor the toll agreement just to get the bridge done sooner. Guess not, or those truckers got some major pull.

(Nothing ideological here; maybe it's just like in Texas, we're getting a backlash against using tolling for funding projects.)

BTW, with recent developments (like, say, our new US House Speaker being from Louisiana), there may be a push to get more Fed funds to build this bridge toll free; or, our Legislature will finally wise up and go with another dedicated tax to fund whatever megaprojects they missed with the TIMED package last go-round. (Imagine if I-49 South had been on there and not the Audubon Bridge.)

$12.50, eh?

(Truckers in the northeast snicker as they often pay $15 - $20 minimum.) 

And you probably don't want to know what they pay in the NYC region, or the travels they need to do to get around those tolls.

[Bobby5280]

That's why it was a bit surprising that it was a Republican-dominated committee that rejected the final bid for the P3 partnership; normally, our conservatives here tend to want to push costs onto users and I really thought they would favor the toll agreement just to get the bridge done sooner. Guess not, or those truckers got some major pull.

Reagan style pro-business Republicans might have favored a toll arrangement rather than using tax dollars. Those aren't the kind of Republicans dominating that party anymore. Now it's performative "populism," driven by divas who say a lot of outrageous things to draw the attention of TV cameras. Media whores basically. That's the logic behind those guys being anti-toll now. It's another populist move.

Of course this isn't an either-or choice between paying for a bridge with tolls or gasoline tax revenue. Can't risk "going to the left" for choosing to pay for a bridge with gasoline tax revenue, or (gasp) even risk hiking gasoline taxes to pay for increased road building costs. It's better to just do nothing, spend nothing and wait til some disaster happens.

[kalvado]

That's why it was a bit surprising that it was a Republican-dominated committee that rejected the final bid for the P3 partnership; normally, our conservatives here tend to want to push costs onto users and I really thought they would favor the toll agreement just to get the bridge done sooner. Guess not, or those truckers got some major pull.

Reagan style pro-business Republicans might have favored a toll arrangement rather than using tax dollars. Those aren't the kind of Republicans dominating that party anymore. Now it's performative "populism," driven by divas who say a lot of outrageous things to draw the attention of TV cameras. Media whores basically. That's the logic behind those guys being anti-toll now. It's another populist move.

Of course this isn't an either-or choice between paying for a bridge with tolls or gasoline tax revenue. Can't risk "going to the left" for choosing to pay for a bridge with gasoline tax revenue, or (gasp) even risk hiking gasoline taxes to pay for increased road building costs. It's better to just do nothing, spend nothing and wait til some disaster happens.

Given multibillion cost of major bridges and minimal amount of tax they generate (if not reduce by creating shorter routes!) IMHO tolling those bridges isn't too bad of an idea.
Question is where threshold for such toll should be. I certainly don't want an overpass at my I-xx exit to become tolled specifically; but tolling that bridge that is the  bottleneck for commute.. Especially if those  funds are going to be spent on adding an extra lane! 

[Anthony_JK]

That's why it was a bit surprising that it was a Republican-dominated committee that rejected the final bid for the P3 partnership; normally, our conservatives here tend to want to push costs onto users and I really thought they would favor the toll agreement just to get the bridge done sooner. Guess not, or those truckers got some major pull.

I don't know.....our

That's why it was a bit surprising that it was a Republican-dominated committee that rejected the final bid for the P3 partnership; normally, our conservatives here tend to want to push costs onto users and I really thought they would favor the toll agreement just to get the bridge done sooner. Guess not, or those truckers got some major pull.

Reagan style pro-business Republicans might have favored a toll arrangement rather than using tax dollars. Those aren't the kind of Republicans dominating that party anymore. Now it's performative "populism," driven by divas who say a lot of outrageous things to draw the attention of TV cameras. Media whores basically. That's the logic behind those guys being anti-toll now. It's another populist move.

Of course this isn't an either-or choice between paying for a bridge with tolls or gasoline tax revenue. Can't risk "going to the left" for choosing to pay for a bridge with gasoline tax revenue, or (gasp) even risk hiking gasoline taxes to pay for increased road building costs. It's better to just do nothing, spend nothing and wait til some disaster happens.

I don't know....our Looooziana conservatives tend to be about as "populist" as across the South goes; I still remember the huge backlash to the Trans-Texas Corridor grabs that were initially proposed for I-69 and I-14 in the aughts, and how that crashed and burned to a cinder after plenty of corporate Repubs raised pure hell over the ROW seizures and the huge dependency on tolls.

I'm not really against tolling the Calcasieu bridge, especially if it's done through AET via GeauxPass and discounts are allowed for those in Westlake and LCH who would be some of the biggest users of it. I'm just kind of surprised that the truckers raised that much Hell over the tolls, and were so able to twist some....body parts to get the P3 shut down. (Plenty of Lake Charles locals didn't particularly like the tolls, either, and were pushing hard for more public funding, but they probably would have taken the loss for the upgrade of the bridge.

There's no doubt in my mind that that bridge will get replaced sooner than later; it's one barge tap away from going full Old Tampa Skyway Bridge, and it's a major 2x2 PITA bottleneck for I-10 traffic between 2 3x3 segments (once Cooney Creek to the Sabine River Bridge is completed).

[Bobby5280]

I don't know....our Looooziana conservatives tend to be about as "populist" as across the South goes; I still remember the huge backlash to the Trans-Texas Corridor grabs that were initially proposed for I-69 and I-14 in the aughts, and how that crashed and burned to a cinder after plenty of corporate Repubs raised pure hell over the ROW seizures and the huge dependency on tolls.

The transition of the GOP from a more business-minded conservative into the media-controlled, populist one it is today was already well underway when the Trans Texas Corridors were proposed in 2001. 24 hour cable TV channels were already digging their hooks deep into the process back then. The 9-11 tragedy help the cable news channels refine and perfect their approach at dispensing outrage.

The Trans Texas Corridor idea didn't fail right away. It took a few years worth of public outrage cycles to kill it.

[Rothman]

I don't know....our Looooziana conservatives tend to be about as "populist" as across the South goes; I still remember the huge backlash to the Trans-Texas Corridor grabs that were initially proposed for I-69 and I-14 in the aughts, and how that crashed and burned to a cinder after plenty of corporate Repubs raised pure hell over the ROW seizures and the huge dependency on tolls.

The transition of the GOP from a more business-minded conservative into the media-controlled, populist one it is today was already well underway when the Trans Texas Corridors were proposed in 2001. 24 hour cable TV channels were already digging their hooks deep into the process back then. The 9-11 tragedy help the cable news channels refine and perfect their approach at dispensing outrage.

The Trans Texas Corridor idea didn't fail right away. It took a few years worth of public outrage cycles to kill it.

The GOP rhetoric has been strong on the forum as of late...

[Anthony_JK]

Found this related article from the Lake Charles American Press on the Senate Joint Transportation Committee rejecting the P3 proposal for the I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge replacement:

https://www.americanpress.com/2023/10/24/breaking-p3-proposal-for-i-10-bridge-replacement-shot-down/

Apparently, the Lake Charles delegation to the state Legislature balked big time about the escalating cost of the project, and especially about the imposition of tolls; some even implied that they were snookered into supporting the project just before learning about a proposal that would have kept but renovated the existing bridge for as low as $200-$300 million, rather than the $1-2 billion cost of the replacement.

They are still negotiating the final terms of the P3, though; I'm guessing the Legislature and incoming Governor Taylor will have plenty to say on this.

[Bobby5280]

Gonna be munching the popcorn while they figure out that one. Those OLD and LONG bridges over swamp land are not going to be cheap or easy to replace.

[Plutonic Panda]

Louisiana is seriously gonna have to come up with an ambitious proposal to ramp up their road funding.

[Bobby5280]

Louisiana has very big problems regarding I-10 -in more locations than just Lake Charles. The Calcasieu River Bridge really does need to be replaced (and replaced with a higher capacity roadway, either 3x3 or 4x4 lanes). What's going to suck is when they finally get around to replacing that bridge the thru traffic on I-10 may be forced to use I-210. I don't see them building a new bridge parallel to the existing one, not unless they intend to wipe out North Beach park or demolish all the businesses on the other side of I-10 to make room for bridge approaches.

The Israel LaFleur Bridge (I-210) in Lake Charles is hardly any better than Calcasieu River Bridge. If I-10 traffic is routed there it could result in a serious bottleneck.

Meanwhile the old and long I-10 bridges crossing the Atchafalaya Swamp and Maurepas Swamp aren't getting any better with age either.

Way back when those I-10 projects were built the tax levels across the country were quite a bit higher. In the decades since many politicians have doled out tax cut candy to individuals and businesses and still rail about wasteful spending so they can justify handing out even more tax cut candy. It's also worth mentioning the process to build a new highway bridge 50 years ago was much faster (and thus less expensive) than it is today.

Something has to give. Unfortunately the kind of "lawmakers" us fools in the general public choose to elect have no real leadership skills. They're cowards. They're not willing to tell voters the simple truth that things like freeway bridges over ship channels cost a shit-ton of money to build and maintain. The money has to come from somewhere. If no one want to pay for it then maybe they just need to tear it down. US-190 can become the new primary East-West route across Louisiana.

[kalvado]

Louisiana has very big problems regarding I-10 -in more locations than just Lake Charles. The Calcasieu River Bridge really does need to be replaced (and replaced with a higher capacity roadway, either 3x3 or 4x4 lanes). What's going to suck is when they finally get around to replacing that bridge the thru traffic on I-10 may be forced to use I-210. I don't see them building a new bridge parallel to the existing one, not unless they intend to wipe out North Beach park or demolish all the businesses on the other side of I-10 to make room for bridge approaches.

The Israel LaFleur Bridge (I-210) in Lake Charles is hardly any better than Calcasieu River Bridge. If I-10 traffic is routed there it could result in a serious bottleneck.

Meanwhile the old and long I-10 bridges crossing the Atchafalaya Swamp and Maurepas Swamp aren't getting any better with age either.

Way back when those I-10 projects were built the tax levels across the country were quite a bit higher. In the decades since many politicians have doled out tax cut candy to individuals and businesses and still rail about wasteful spending so they can justify handing out even more tax cut candy. It's also worth mentioning the process to build a new highway bridge 50 years ago was much faster (and thus less expensive) than it is today.

Something has to give. Unfortunately the kind of "lawmakers" us fools in the general public choose to elect have no real leadership skills. They're cowards. They're not willing to tell voters the simple truth that things like freeway bridges over ship channels cost a shit-ton of money to build and maintain. The money has to come from somewhere. If no one want to pay for it then maybe they just need to tear it down. US-190 can become the new primary East-West route across Louisiana.

My strong impression is that existing infrastructure is not affordable with current level of GDP and construction pricing. That goes way beyond a few bridges. Basically once existing stuff is worn out, game is mostly over. If nothing changes.

[Bobby5280]

One of the fundamental problems is we have a government that is essentially a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers. Attorneys are the very thing cooking up all the red tape that chokes every government agency. Why do they do that? It gets them more legal business! Job security. More money.

Whenever a new highway project is announced it's literally ringing the dinner bell for law firms. America has more lawyers per capita than any other nation.

I'm not saying we should just do away with attorneys. Government agencies need to be held in check as well. But we need some kind of sensible balance. America looks laughably pathetic compared to the rest of the world in its ability to build out big infrastructure projects anymore. We can't build a road or train tunnel anymore without the effort costing billions of dollars and decades to complete. It's shameful.

[MaxConcrete]

My strong impression is that existing infrastructure is not affordable with current level of GDP and construction pricing. That goes way beyond a few bridges. Basically once existing stuff is worn out, game is mostly over. If nothing changes.

This is a good observation which is corroborated by real-world data.

I've seen a "rule of thumb" that heavy construction costs increase at twice the rate of overall CPI inflation in the economy. I once did an analysis for a long period for the Texas highway cost index for around 2000 to 2015, and this turned out to be nearly exactly correct for the period, with CPI inflation at 2% and Texas highway construction inflation at 4%. In fact, I believe TxDOT uses 4% inflation for planning purposes.

With compounding over long time horizons, this inflation difference becomes dramatic. For example, suppose we go back to 1964 and apply this rule for 60 years. For $100
2% inflation: $328
4% inflation: $1052
This means that a project today costs 3.2 times as much as it did in the 1960s, when most highway infrastructure was originally built. In reality, I think costs are even higher than the highway cost index indicates due to other costs like lengthy environmental studies, mitigation and larger bureaucracies.

As time goes on, major infrastructure becomes increasingly unaffordable, and at a certain point it can no longer be done with available resources. That point has probably been reached in many places. For example, if the Calcasieu bridge cost only 1/3.2 = 31% as much as the present estimate, it would be much easier to achieve (and would probably already be done).

The situation is much worse for public transit infrastructure, where costs have escalated to be beyond ridiculous. For example, Houston opened a section of surface light rail in 2004 which cost $44 million per mile. In 2015, the cost for extensions was around $150 per mile. Austin is proceeding with surface light rail and most recent estimate I've seen in $459 to $490 million per mile, which includes a new bridge over Lake Lady Bird. A planned tunnel in Austin was canceled when the estimated cost escalated to $1 billion per mile. Tunnels are another subject where cost has escalated out of control.

Many high-wealth but high cost places like New York City and California will struggle just to maintain what they have. High wealth and moderate cost areas like Texas will continue to be able to build infrastructure, but increased costs will limit what can be done. (The Texas highway cost index is up 58% since June 2021.) Low wealth areas with large needs like Louisiana will face a reckoning, as mentioned by kalvado, and may not be able to maintain what they have without substantial financial help.

[Bobby5280]

I worry the entire country will face a reckoning in the not very distant future. Infrastructure isn't the only industry where cost inflation has been way out of hand with the "Core CPI" figure. Cost inflation in Health Care, Higher Education and (lately) Housing has been ridiculous. I worry the current housing bubble is getting a lot worse than the one in the mid 2000's. This shit is just not sustainable.

We're in the early stages of what could be a slow-rolling disaster in generation demographics. Simply put: America is well on its way to having too many elderly people and not enough working age taxpayers to both staff and sustain so many systems we take for granted. China is getting into deep shit over this very situation. America has various industries that have been price gouging the public for a long time. I think their gravy train will come to a screeching halt within the next 10-20 years. A shrinking work force won't be able to afford massive tax hikes and price hikes to cover those costs.

America's railroad industry has been "decommissioning" tens of thousands of miles worth of existing track for decades. They're still ripping out more old track than they are laying down new rail lines. We might start seeing that with our highways.