I49 in LA

[jbnv]

From Lafayette I-10 is definitely a faster and shorter route to New Orleans. BUT! If you're heading to some destinations along the West Bank across from New Orleans (Gretna, Belle Chasse, etc) then I-49 South could act as a convenient bypass to New Orleans traffic.

Depends on where in Lafayette you're starting. Most of Lafayette is south of I-10. The fastest-growing parts of metro Lafayette are well-south of I-10 and along the Future I-49 corridor. With a complete I-49 and assuming no change in the flow of traffic through Baton Rouge, I-49 South and I-310 open up some viable scenarios, including access to MSY and downtown New Orleans via the Westbank Expressway.

[Anthony_JK]

From Lafayette I-10 is definitely a faster and shorter route to New Orleans. BUT! If you're heading to some destinations along the West Bank across from New Orleans (Gretna, Belle Chasse, etc) then I-49 South could act as a convenient bypass to New Orleans traffic.

Depends on where in Lafayette you're starting. Most of Lafayette is south of I-10. The fastest-growing parts of metro Lafayette are well-south of I-10 and along the Future I-49 corridor. With a complete I-49 and assuming no change in the flow of traffic through Baton Rouge, I-49 South and I-310 open up some viable scenarios, including access to MSY and downtown New Orleans via the Westbank Expressway.

A south I-10 bypass of Baton Rouge from west of Port Allen to near Gonzales would instantly relieve the bottleneck through BTR enough to make I-10 more effective. A completed I-49 South would be a bonus.

Now, add the southwest perimeter of the Lafayette Regional Expressway proposed toll road bypass loop between west of Scott and south of Broussard, and I-49 South all of a sudden becomes much more viable as both a bypass of BTR and a means of avoiding the mess of crossing the Atchafalaya Basin Swamp. Heck, you might even want to reroute I-10 there, and make current I-10 through Lafayette to BTR an extension of I-12!

[jbnv]

A south I-10 bypass of Baton Rouge from west of Port Allen to near Gonzales would instantly relieve the bottleneck through BTR enough to make I-10 more effective.

Or make better use of what we already have: the LA 1-3127 corridor from Port Allen to Boutte. If the whole stretch were expressway and bypassed the major towns on its route, it could serve as a relief route for southbound traffic when Baton Rouge is congested. (And for numbering, extend US 63 through Pineville, Marksville, and Port Allen to Boutte.)

[Henry]

Perhaps the ICC is the better way to go, especially if there's almost no opposition to it, and looping it onto I-220 and LA 3132 would be more expensive anyway. I say Shreveport should go for that.

[The Ghostbuster]

What is the opposition level to building the ICC through Shreveport, anyway?

[Anthony_JK]

What is the opposition level to building the ICC through Shreveport, anyway?

Mostly, it's coming from the neighborhood of Allendale where the ICC will go through, developers of the housing project that will be razed by the ROW, and New Urbanists who are opposed to "throughpass" freeways in general and would rather either boulevards or rail serving downtowns, with bypasses serving through traffic.

Most of the business sector of Shreveport and the neighborhoods other than Allendale overwhelmingly support the ICC.

[The Ghostbuster]

New Urbanists? I dislike new urbanism. They should be forced to live in the developments they support, and nowhere else.

[aboges26]

New Urbanists? I dislike new urbanism. They should be forced to live in the developments they support, and nowhere else.

Generally they do, but they think everybody should live like them because it's better for the environment.  Rail access and bypasses are good and fine, but radial freeways that get people in and out of the city center where rail does not serve has severely fallen out of fashion these days.

[I-39]

It seems there is more opposition to the Lafayette connector than the Shreveport one, so I'd say finish the latter first since it's only 3 or so miles of new freeway.

[NE2]

Fuck the planet.

[Anthony_JK]

It seems there is more opposition to the Lafayette connector than the Shreveport one, so I'd say finish the latter first since it's only 3 or so miles of new freeway.

Not so much. The Lafayette Connector's main issues are resolving how to clean up a former railyard site that has been found to potentially contaminate Lafayette's drinking water supply; and adding some enhancements that the locals want to mitigate the footprint of the freeway. There is still some opposition to the corridor in general from the Sierra Club who still would prefer Teche Ridge Bypass, but the bulk of the locals want the Connector, but with enhancements.

Swepco Park is a much bigger potential roadblock for the Shreveport ICC if it's not resolved than any issue for the Lafayette Connector.  Plus, the Lafayette Connector is the most vital piece in completing I-49 South; there is no Inner Loop/I-220 bypass as a fallback.

[ARMOURERERIC]

Does anyone have a diagram of 220/49/at full build out with the ICC.

[Henry]

Does anyone have a diagram of 220/49/at full build out with the ICC.

Yes, I'd love to see that too!

[aboges26]

Does anyone have a diagram of 220/49/at full build out with the ICC.

Yes, I'd love to see that too!

Google Image search "Shreveport ICC map", and you will be able to see others relatively quickly, but this was one of the best results:

[Bobby5280]

Generally they do, but they think everybody should live like them because it's better for the environment.  Rail access and bypasses are good and fine, but radial freeways that get people in and out of the city center where rail does not serve has severely fallen out of fashion these days.

The "fashion" really depends on the region of the nation where the road would be built. Rapidly growing cities like Dallas, Austin and Houston are expanding super highways and building new ones.

New Urbanists think American cities need to be laid out like certain European cities, with freeways confined to the perimeter. The problem is they don't understand the cores of those cities were created hundreds of years ago, centuries before the automobile was invented. Lots of streets in these historic city cores are only big enough for one lane. When you look at a city like London it's very easy to understand why a route like M-1 dead ends where it does. They built the highway as far as they could. If there was space available they would have extended the road closer to the city center. Most big American cities have super highways running in or near city centers because it was much easier to build those roads and most of the buildings that had to be cleared to make way for the highway were not historically significant. Many American buildings, be they homes or businesses, are very temporary in nature. Very few are built to last centuries even these high priced McMansions.

New Urbanists have a very romanticized view of mass transit that is not grounded in reality. They only see the positive sides to it and think there are no negative aspects.

I lived in New York City for 5 years, 4 years on Staten Island and the last year in Brooklyn. To commute back and forth from home to college and work in Manhattan I took the bus, Staten Island Ferry and subway. You could get just about anywhere in NYC using the bus or train. Commuter rail and bus services could take you to destinations out on Long Island, New Jersey, Upstate NY and even parts of Connecticut.

Downsides: the mass transit commute process was a monumental time suck. I lost 3 hours every day in my commute just going from Staten Island to Manhattan. Taking a car was much faster, even during rush hour. Waiting at a bus stop or on a subway platform puts you out in the weather. New Urbanists only see a sunny, warm view of this. They don't think about driving rain, snow and ice cold North winds blasting. You can carry only so much when you're riding the bus or train. I carried a big portfolio case and box of art supplies on my commute. That was a giant pain in the ass on a crowded bus or train. Need groceries? You can carry only so many bags of food on a bus or train, and you're going to travel only so far which limits your choice. Anyone with money was driving, using a car service or at least taking a cab.

Bus lines aren't the cheapest thing to operate. Here in Lawton the LATS service only runs limited hours. It needs grants and subsidies to stay in the black. Light rail lines and subways are ridiculously expensive to build. Those also often need government subsidies for their operation.

[jbnv]

I commute 45-60 minutes per way each day to work and ride-share on the side. I have a hard time believing that busses and rail are realistic parts of the solution for Baton Rouge (where I work) and Lafayette. (They work very well in New Orleans because New Orleans has a culture of tight neighborhoods and an established light-rail system. BR and Lafayette have neither.) I personally see how ride-sharing is making transportation more affordable and practical for lower-income workers and racial/ethnic minorities. And the biggest time-suck in my commute is waiting in traffic due to insufficient throughput.

[Anthony_JK]

I commute 45-60 minutes per way each day to work and ride-share on the side. I have a hard time believing that busses and rail are realistic parts of the solution for Baton Rouge (where I work) and Lafayette. (They work very well in New Orleans because New Orleans has a culture of tight neighborhoods and an established light-rail system. BR and Lafayette have neither.) I personally see how ride-sharing is making transportation more affordable and practical for lower-income workers and racial/ethnic minorities. And the biggest time-suck in my commute is waiting in traffic due to insufficient throughput.

I can't speak for Baton Rouge, but Lafayette does have a decent and relatively cheap bus system (LTS), supplemented by a "Night Owl" service for evening/hours. ULL also has its own free bus service for students who use Cajun Field for parking during classes.

Light rail for Lafayette? Fuggettabotit. There is no thourghfare in Lafayette wide enough to be converted for light rail usage, other than maybe Johnston Street from the ULL campus to Mall of Acadiana....and you can probably sense what the reaction from regular users of that arterial or the businesses there would be to that proposal. Also, the current BNSF/UP freight rail line cuts right through Lafayette in a way that makes any light rail connection to the northern or eastern portions of Lafayette impossible.

If the BNSF line was moved to bypass Lafayette to the west, or somehow BNSF train traffic was transferred to the UP line that goes through Opelousas to Livonia to meet the main UP line that goes through Grosse Tete/Addis/Plaquemine (with the existing BNSF line reduced to serving Amtrak's Sunset Limited), then maybe a light rail network could become a bit more feasible.

There was a time when there was hope that the abandoned Southern Pacific line between Lafayette and Opelousas could be made into a commuter rail line, and there was even a proposal to make a trail out of the abandoned ROW. That fell through due to resistance from landowners who wanted their property back.

Either way it goes, most commuting will continue to be by auto. New Urbanism simply won't play here.

[Bobby5280]

Light rail lines are just too expensive for any modest sized cities. They only work in really large cities, and even those lines get help from taxpayers.

I have a feeling mass transit systems in the US will suffer a big drop in ridership in the years ahead. It's only a matter of time until self-driving cars become widely available. All the big auto companies as well as Google and Apple are working on it. It is "disruptive" level technology. The technology has the potential to revolutionize long distance car travel. Self-driving vehicles may cause radical changes to happen in many other areas of business and leisure. The technology will put more emphasis on improving the nation's highways. New automobile technology will also contribute to increased ride sharing and use of car services like Uber and Lyft.

[jbnv]

In the short-term, ridesharing will become the de-facto mode of transportation for a lot of people, particularly blue-collar workers and low-wage service personnel, especially in sprawling cities like Baton Rouge. If Uber and Lyft can figure out how to pair up long-distance commuters with people on their way, it could even become a viable alternative for the suburban commuter. Ride-sharing is handling the problem of on-demand time-sensitive transportation that public transportation has never been able to satisfy.

I've never had a passenger tell me, "This ridesharing thing is okay, but I'm going to stick with the bus."

[compdude787]

Light rail lines are just too expensive for any modest sized cities. They only work in really large cities, and even those lines get help from taxpayers.

I have a feeling mass transit systems in the US will suffer a big drop in ridership in the years ahead. It's only a matter of time until self-driving cars become widely available. All the big auto companies as well as Google and Apple are working on it. It is "disruptive" level technology. The technology has the potential to revolutionize long distance car travel. Self-driving vehicles may cause radical changes to happen in many other areas of business and leisure. The technology will put more emphasis on improving the nation's highways. New automobile technology will also contribute to increased ride sharing and use of car services like Uber and Lyft.

Totally agree with you. I have long thought that self-driving cars would cause a major decrease in the ridership of mass transit. But granted, parking is still going to be an issue in city centers, (parking is VERY expensive in Downtown Seattle) and avoiding paying for parking is really the only compelling reason for anyone to use public transit if they work in a downtown area. Even so, people could just use self-driving Uber cars.

[silverback1065]

These self driving cars are going to cost a shitload, not going to see many people buying one, especially since car ownership is approaching the 10 yr mark on average now.  I wouldn't worry about it any time soon. 

[Plutonic Panda]

I think autonomous cars are going to change car ownership as well. I'm not sure how many people grasp the level of change that is coming with autonomous cars.

A lot of people will be put out of work but to be fair the work that the cars are going to replace are low level jobs. I get that some people might do it to make money on the side but this could create more skilled jobs for coding. I honestly don't know too much about this aspect.

Taxi drivers, rideshare drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, shuttle drivers, delivery drivers, etc.

[bugo]

If and when driverless cars take over, I suspect there will be no more private ownership, at least for the proles. They will probably operate like taxicabs. A person will be able to have a car meet them at home at 7:30, drop them off at work at 8, meet them at work at 5 and drive them home. After the car drops a person off it will automatically drive to another person who needs a car ride. I am glad I won't live to see it.

[silverback1065]

No one in the tech industry is talking about it (jobs it will kill) and politicians don't understand.  Also I think you all misunderstand how fast this will happen, again, the cost alone is going to keep this in premium territory, look at electric cars.  Also, I think car insurance companies will be severely hurt (no one shedding a tear for them).  I think all of what you're saying is true, just not any time soon.  It's honestly frustrating how no one cares about this that matters, if you look at state by state, what is the most common job, a truck driver is usually it, or a driving job in general.  What the hell are we going to do for these people when they lose their jobs?  I have no idea, and I wish people in power would figure that out too. 

[Bobby5280]

Self-driving cars will cost quite a premium in the beginning. The technology will not stay ridiculously expensive for long. Just look at all the advances in computer technology. Back in the early 1990's it was a big deal for a super computer to pass the barrier of 1 trillion floating point operations in one second. Today an okay PC graphics accelerator can do a teraflop. The highest end workstation graphics boards from nVidia ($4000 to $6000 range) can surpass 20 teraflops. Many of us have smart phones and tablets that can do a lot more than a high end computer from 10 years ago.

Many new cars are ridiculously expensive for other reasons, mainly because enough people are still willing to pay a stupid amount of money for a new vehicle. I'd like a new pickup truck. But I'm not going to blow $60,000 for one. That douche-bag pricing "strategy" is the main thing that's going to kill vehicle ownership, not the cost of self driving technology. The auto industry is starting to run into a rough patch over this stuff. The used car industry is in trouble for all the games it has played jerking people around on the sub-prime loans racket. I think the auto manufacturers are looking at the self-driving tech angle as more than just some new market to exploit. It could be something that may pull their asses out of the fire.