I49 in LA

Started by rte66man, July 14, 2010, 06:52:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Grzrd

In regard to the I-49 Inner City Connector (not to be confused with the I-49 Port connector), Providence Engineering has been issued a limited Notice to Proceed for the environmental study, with a full notice aniticipated shortly:

http://www.nlcog.org/Meetings/FY_2020/MPO/June_19_2020/June_19_2020_MPO_Minutes.pdf


mvak36

Quote from: Grzrd on August 06, 2020, 03:59:29 PM
In regard to the I-49 Inner City Connector (not to be confused with the I-49 Port connector), Providence Engineering has been issued a limited Notice to Proceed for the environmental study, with a full notice aniticipated shortly:

http://www.nlcog.org/Meetings/FY_2020/MPO/June_19_2020/June_19_2020_MPO_Minutes.pdf

Welcome back. It seems like it's been a while since I've seen your posts. Hope all is well.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

Grzrd

Thanks. I just took some time off from posting. All is well.

roadman65

Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Anthony_JK

Quote from: Grzrd on August 06, 2020, 03:59:29 PM
In regard to the I-49 Inner City Connector (not to be confused with the I-49 Port connector), Providence Engineering has been issued a limited Notice to Proceed for the environmental study, with a full notice aniticipated shortly:

http://www.nlcog.org/Meetings/FY_2020/MPO/June_19_2020/June_19_2020_MPO_Minutes.pdf

Ummm....there is NO "I-49 port connector", as far as I know. There is the I-49 Lafayette Connector that would extend I-49 through the heart of Lafayette, and there is the rest of I-49 South that would give improved access to the ports of South Louisiana (Port of South Louisiana, Morgan City, Port Fourchon). Or, are you talking about the Inner Loop extension of LA 3132 to LA 1 and proposed I-69?

Anthony_JK

Oh, and welcome back from me as well, Grzz....it has been a while.

Grzrd

NLCOG refers to the I-69 frontage road as the I-49 Port Connector. It sort of makes sense. And, thanks for the welcome back, Anthony.

Gordon

LaDOTD has pulled the railroad project in Iberia parish From their projects scheduled but added the Ambassador Caffery interchange in Lafayette for 10/13/21. I guess they can't make up their mind about the railroad job cause that is the second time it has been pulled off schedule.

Plutonic Panda

I looked 7 pages back and searched and couldn't find a dedicated thread which I feel will eventually be needed for this project.

Anyways, Buttigieg announced his opposition to a freeway project(surprise) but it wasn't for climate change reasons. It was due to the apparent fact the I-49 Shreveport connector project goes through a black area. Regardless how I feel about that, I do think this project should proceed and less getting too political, I only wonder if that kills this project...

QuoteState Senator Barrow Peacock is optimistic about the future of the I-49 Inner City Connector, despite negative comments from Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg about new federal highways going through "Black and brown neighborhoods."

"I disagree with that," says Peacock, referring to the Buttigieg statement that many previous projects "reinforce racial and economic inequality, "Shreveport, Bossier is for the Inner City Connector. The African-American Chamber of Commerce if for the Inner City Connector. We need economic prosperity. You need a growing tax base, The Inner City Connector will produce (more than) $800 million in economic activity for northwest Louisiana and our state."



Read More: Why I-49 Connector Will Bring Money, Jobs to Shreveport | https://710keel.com/sen-peacock-why-i-49-connector-will-bring-money-jobs-to-shreveport-video/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

silverback1065

not to get too political but i really don't understand why he's the transportation secretary. i feel like he has no experience with transportation and has no idea what he's actually doing.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: silverback1065 on March 03, 2021, 06:18:12 PM
not to get too political but i really don't understand why he's the transportation secretary. i feel like he has no experience with transportation and has no idea what he's actually doing.
I don't disagree. I'm happy to see increased emphasis on rail and alternative transportation but not happy how anti car he is coming across and the subtle wording they use.

Hot Rod Hootenanny

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 03, 2021, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 03, 2021, 06:18:12 PM
not to get too political but i really don't understand why he's the transportation secretary. i feel like he has no experience with transportation and has no idea what he's actually doing.
I don't disagree. I'm happy to see increased emphasis on rail and alternative transportation but not happy how anti car he is coming across and the subtle wording they use.
Maybe we should have kept the last corrupt Transportation Secretary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/us/politics/elaine-chao-inspector-general-report.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on March 03, 2021, 10:38:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 03, 2021, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 03, 2021, 06:18:12 PM
not to get too political but i really don't understand why he's the transportation secretary. i feel like he has no experience with transportation and has no idea what he's actually doing.
I don't disagree. I'm happy to see increased emphasis on rail and alternative transportation but not happy how anti car he is coming across and the subtle wording they use.
Maybe we should have kept the last corrupt Transportation Secretary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/us/politics/elaine-chao-inspector-general-report.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
I never was overly impressed with Chao but admittedly I've only been recently following the transportation secretaries over the last two terms. So I honestly wouldn't know any better. I was highly disappointed in Trumps infrastructure moves overall. I'm more hopeful with the current administration but I worry about large, much needed freeway projects.

sparker

Buttigieg is what I'd term a "quasi-urbanist"; functionally unable to implement activist-favored programs in an old-line city like South Bend.  But IMO he'll soon realize that the country's a lot more than its urban cores and that appropriate transportation methods for rural/outlying areas may not resemble those in densely-packed areas.  Additionally, paying attention to those regions that didn't vote for your party -- and considering realistic facility expansion that's appropriate for the economic well-being of areas like the Plains states -- including commercially viable road corridors -- will most likely be politically necessary to advance a wide range of facility options, such as transit in urban areas and roadway upgrades -- and some subsidies for freight rail -- in rural zones like the swath of states from TX to ND.  And what would demonstrate real bipartisanship besides funding both the new Hudson River tunnels on the Northeast (rail) Corridor and the Port-to-Plains/I-27 corridor? -- as well as the completion of I-49.

abqtraveler

Quote from: silverback1065 on March 03, 2021, 06:18:12 PM
not to get too political but i really don't understand why he's the transportation secretary. i feel like he has no experience with transportation and has no idea what he's actually doing.
It was Biden returning the favor for Buttigieg dropping out of the 2020 presidential race. As the saying goes, "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

TXtoNJ

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 04, 2021, 07:42:14 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 03, 2021, 06:18:12 PM
not to get too political but i really don't understand why he's the transportation secretary. i feel like he has no experience with transportation and has no idea what he's actually doing.
It was Biden returning the favor for Buttigieg dropping out of the 2020 presidential race. As the saying goes, "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."

Yep it's a political plum.

Rothman



Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2021, 03:49:59 AM
Buttigieg is what I'd term a "quasi-urbanist"; functionally unable to implement activist-favored programs in an old-line city like South Bend.  But IMO he'll soon realize that the country's a lot more than its urban cores and that appropriate transportation methods for rural/outlying areas may not resemble those in densely-packed areas.  Additionally, paying attention to those regions that didn't vote for your party -- and considering realistic facility expansion that's appropriate for the economic well-being of areas like the Plains states -- including commercially viable road corridors -- will most likely be politically necessary to advance a wide range of facility options, such as transit in urban areas and roadway upgrades -- and some subsidies for freight rail -- in rural zones like the swath of states from TX to ND.  And what would demonstrate real bipartisanship besides funding both the new Hudson River tunnels on the Northeast (rail) Corridor and the Port-to-Plains/I-27 corridor? -- as well as the completion of I-49.

I think you're reading too much into what the Secretary of Transportation actually does. 
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: Grzrd on August 07, 2020, 10:43:00 AM
NLCOG refers to the I-69 frontage road as the I-49 Port Connector. It sort of makes sense. And, thanks for the welcome back, Anthony.

Ahhh, I see. I stand corrected.

sparker

Quote from: Rothman on March 04, 2021, 05:06:50 PM


Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2021, 03:49:59 AM
Buttigieg is what I'd term a "quasi-urbanist"; functionally unable to implement activist-favored programs in an old-line city like South Bend.  But IMO he'll soon realize that the country's a lot more than its urban cores and that appropriate transportation methods for rural/outlying areas may not resemble those in densely-packed areas.  Additionally, paying attention to those regions that didn't vote for your party -- and considering realistic facility expansion that's appropriate for the economic well-being of areas like the Plains states -- including commercially viable road corridors -- will most likely be politically necessary to advance a wide range of facility options, such as transit in urban areas and roadway upgrades -- and some subsidies for freight rail -- in rural zones like the swath of states from TX to ND.  And what would demonstrate real bipartisanship besides funding both the new Hudson River tunnels on the Northeast (rail) Corridor and the Port-to-Plains/I-27 corridor? -- as well as the completion of I-49.

I think you're reading too much into what the Secretary of Transportation actually does. 

What the secretary actually does is essentially serve as the spokesman for USDOT; like most cabinet-level departments, the "grunt" work is normatively done by the lifers situated just below the level of political appointments.  But the secretaries over the last couple of administrations have been quite a varied lot, from Pena (under Obama),who took a decidedly urbanist view of things (again, a former mayor [Denver]).  DOT secretaries under Democratic administrations have tended to be more visible and vocal than under Republicans; the last secretary, Mrs. Mitch McConnell/Elaine Chao, kept a decidedly low profile; not surprising, since R administrations tend to skew away from visible public expenditures not in the realm of security.  But now that a nationally quasi-known figure occupies the secretary's seat, it's likely that Pete B. will, at times, use his visibility as a "bully pulpit".  Of course, what he actually can accomplish is largely dependent upon congressional whim and preferences, since that is where funding is actually addressed.  And with razor-thin majorities in both houses, ambitious plans that favor/benefit one segment of the population (urban core dwellers as an example) without similar attention being paid to the outlying areas might encounter opposition -- or at least disinterest from many congressional delegations (including D representatives from swing Midwest/western districts).  So while that bully pulpit might swing urban more often than not, it had better consider rural needs alongside the more citified concepts, including freight movement "out in the sticks" between metro areas.     

Plutonic Panda

The way I've heard Pete's role in new articles it makes it seem as if he has a lot of sway in what is ultimately proposed and influenced among the country.

Scott5114

Quote from: sparker on March 09, 2021, 06:57:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 04, 2021, 05:06:50 PM


Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2021, 03:49:59 AM
Buttigieg is what I'd term a "quasi-urbanist"; functionally unable to implement activist-favored programs in an old-line city like South Bend.  But IMO he'll soon realize that the country's a lot more than its urban cores and that appropriate transportation methods for rural/outlying areas may not resemble those in densely-packed areas.  Additionally, paying attention to those regions that didn't vote for your party -- and considering realistic facility expansion that's appropriate for the economic well-being of areas like the Plains states -- including commercially viable road corridors -- will most likely be politically necessary to advance a wide range of facility options, such as transit in urban areas and roadway upgrades -- and some subsidies for freight rail -- in rural zones like the swath of states from TX to ND.  And what would demonstrate real bipartisanship besides funding both the new Hudson River tunnels on the Northeast (rail) Corridor and the Port-to-Plains/I-27 corridor? -- as well as the completion of I-49.

I think you're reading too much into what the Secretary of Transportation actually does. 

What the secretary actually does is essentially serve as the spokesman for USDOT; like most cabinet-level departments, the "grunt" work is normatively done by the lifers situated just below the level of political appointments.  But the secretaries over the last couple of administrations have been quite a varied lot, from Pena (under Obama),who took a decidedly urbanist view of things (again, a former mayor [Denver]).

Federico Peña was transportation secretary under Bill Clinton, not Obama. Obama's transportation secretaries were Ray LaHood (a Republican congressman from Illinois) and Anthony Foxx (mayor of Charlotte NC).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Rothman

Quote from: sparker on March 09, 2021, 06:57:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 04, 2021, 05:06:50 PM


Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2021, 03:49:59 AM
Buttigieg is what I'd term a "quasi-urbanist"; functionally unable to implement activist-favored programs in an old-line city like South Bend.  But IMO he'll soon realize that the country's a lot more than its urban cores and that appropriate transportation methods for rural/outlying areas may not resemble those in densely-packed areas.  Additionally, paying attention to those regions that didn't vote for your party -- and considering realistic facility expansion that's appropriate for the economic well-being of areas like the Plains states -- including commercially viable road corridors -- will most likely be politically necessary to advance a wide range of facility options, such as transit in urban areas and roadway upgrades -- and some subsidies for freight rail -- in rural zones like the swath of states from TX to ND.  And what would demonstrate real bipartisanship besides funding both the new Hudson River tunnels on the Northeast (rail) Corridor and the Port-to-Plains/I-27 corridor? -- as well as the completion of I-49.

I think you're reading too much into what the Secretary of Transportation actually does. 

What the secretary actually does is essentially serve as the spokesman for USDOT; like most cabinet-level departments, the "grunt" work is normatively done by the lifers situated just below the level of political appointments.  But the secretaries over the last couple of administrations have been quite a varied lot, from Pena (under Obama),who took a decidedly urbanist view of things (again, a former mayor [Denver]).  DOT secretaries under Democratic administrations have tended to be more visible and vocal than under Republicans; the last secretary, Mrs. Mitch McConnell/Elaine Chao, kept a decidedly low profile; not surprising, since R administrations tend to skew away from visible public expenditures not in the realm of security.  But now that a nationally quasi-known figure occupies the secretary's seat, it's likely that Pete B. will, at times, use his visibility as a "bully pulpit".  Of course, what he actually can accomplish is largely dependent upon congressional whim and preferences, since that is where funding is actually addressed.  And with razor-thin majorities in both houses, ambitious plans that favor/benefit one segment of the population (urban core dwellers as an example) without similar attention being paid to the outlying areas might encounter opposition -- or at least disinterest from many congressional delegations (including D representatives from swing Midwest/western districts).  So while that bully pulpit might swing urban more often than not, it had better consider rural needs alongside the more citified concepts, including freight movement "out in the sticks" between metro areas.     
The idea that the Secretary's opinions actually affect use of the majority of federal funds is pretty unfounded.  Secretaries of Transportation have come and gone, while NY gets its appropriations one way or another.

Grant programs, which are a sliver of overall federal funding are where you see the most influence.  In the last administration, the President's influence was more noticeable than the Secretary's when it came to what projects were funded.  Otherwise, such programs just seem to fund the same old hodgepodge of projects on a state's or municipality's "partially-funded list."
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.


Anthony_JK

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 11, 2021, 01:56:53 PM
https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/battle-to-build-i-49-inner-city-connector-heating-up-in-2021/article_09ce8b6c-6a3d-11eb-a5bc-63fd21ec77c9.html

A "business boulevard", huh?

So, Allendale activists are once again trying to divert I-49 through the Inner Loop and I-220 West, I see.

Straight through Cross Lake, which is Shreveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water.

Requiring costly adjustments to both the Inner Loop and I-220.

And, creating a "business boulevard" that will get choked down with traffic anyway, because people going north on I-49 will still choose the most direct path, and the resulting noise and delay from a surface facility will do more damage to Allendale than an elevated freeway with CSS features will.

They need to learn from Lafayette and the I-49 Lafayette Connector process.

And also, Buttigieg will find out real quick if he attempts to oppose this: Louisiana isn't Bloomington.

silverback1065

why not bypass the city using 220 and 3132? does it really need to barrel through the city proper?



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.