News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

NOLA gets grant to study possible teardown of I-10 over Claiborne

Started by brownpelican, October 21, 2010, 08:30:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bobby5280

Quote from: RothmanLet the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.

Yeah, they should have allowed that many decades ago. But that would have meant letting the Mississippi River potentially overtake the Atchafalaya River and flow through Morgan City rather than Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Business interests didn't want any of that happening. Not allowing the Mississippi to flow naturally will come at the cost of New Orleans and other delta towns eventually becoming unliveable. It's not going to take but maybe a couple or so more Katrina-level disasters to leave New Orleans flooded permanently.

Quote from: skluthFalse equivalency. Except for toll roads, there is not one single street or highway that makes money anywhere.

The streets and highways are there to help businesses and individuals make money. Two-thirds of the nation's commerce is delivered via roads. Cut off a major highway and it will cost businesses a lot of money. In 2002 a 580 foot long section of the I-40 bridge at Webber Falls, OK collapsed after being hit by a barge. 14 people died and 11 others were injured in vehicles that fell into the Arkansas River. It took only 2 months to replace the damaged bridge span when such a project would normally take six months or more. Having I-40 open was that important.

Also, toll roads or "free roads" have to be funded somehow. Fuel taxes take care of a lot of the "free" highways. Various kinds of taxes go in to funding city streets.

Quote from: skluthIdeally, every decent-sized municipality should have both roads and transit. I get really annoyed by people who think it should be only roads or only transit as transportation needs are not a one size fits all.

Like highways, mass transit has to be funded somehow. And it's only going to be there where enough of a pressing need is present. We have a bus system in Lawton. But it doesn't run 24/7. Ridership numbers are nowhere near high enough to justify the expense. The basic level of service that is provided has to be supplemented with a great deal of government funding to offset what would be huge losses.

Mass transit rail is far more expensive than a bus system. Potential ridership has to be of a certain level to make the system worth building at all. That's why there's not much of it in cities the size of Oklahoma City or Tulsa. The Greater New Orleans area is hardly any more populous than Oklahoma City. The only reason why it still has pro football and basketball teams is because of tourism, the oil industry and being able to draw people from other cities in the region like Baton Rouge or Gulfport-Biloxi. When I was a kid living in the New Orleans area I remembered a lot of big name music acts (such as Van Halen) booking concerts in Baton Rouge rather than New Orleans.

Unlike a spread-out city like Oklahoma City where there is plenty of room to build a light rail network New Orleans is for the most part jam packed. Engineers would have a hard time just finding enough space to build support pylons for an elevated rail line, much less clear out enough space to run anything at grade. Any concept of a subway in New Orleans would be insane.

New Orleans does have the old street car network, but that thing is more for tourists. It will (slowly) shuttle you around Downtown, Mid-City and along St Charles Avenue. It will do you no good if you're a commuter from the North side of the city, Metairie, Kenner or any of the cities on the West Bank. Oklahoma City has a street car system in its downtown area. It too is made mostly for tourists.

Quote from: skluthAny talk of expanding the Claiborne Viaduct is a non-starter. It won't happen and all the Robert Moses's of the world aren't going to change that.

I don't think anyone has been saying the Claiborne Viaduct should be expanded in size/capacity. Most are saying it should not be removed.


Rothman

Quote from: codyg1985 on December 28, 2022, 02:47:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.

If that were to happen, then the Mississippi River would take the path of the Atchafalaya River, which would leave New Orleans high and dry without use of its ports.
Wah.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

bwana39

The funding this discusses is not just to see if the Claiborne Elevated needs removed. That is one of the possibilities. Other possibilities would be to make it subterranean, make it larger, or do nothing.

There are lots of ways to look at what the goal of a survey is, but in the end, even a glaring report that says that from some (usually misguided or very partisan) minority opinion that something stupid needs done can and often is completely disregarded. Minority opinions need to be heard. More often than not when it comes to existing roads and freeways they can only cause modifications to help appease the perceived needs, but even in situations where the demands or proposals are macabre, it still needs to be part of the discourse.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

skluth

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2022, 03:03:04 PM
Quote from: skluthFalse equivalency. Except for toll roads, there is not one single street or highway that makes money anywhere.

The streets and highways are there to help businesses and individuals make money. Two-thirds of the nation's commerce is delivered via roads. Cut off a major highway and it will cost businesses a lot of money. In 2002 a 580 foot long section of the I-40 bridge at Webber Falls, OK collapsed after being hit by a barge. 14 people died and 11 others were injured in vehicles that fell into the Arkansas River. It took only 2 months to replace the damaged bridge span when such a project would normally take six months or more. Having I-40 open was that important.

Also, toll roads or "free roads" have to be funded somehow. Fuel taxes take care of a lot of the "free" highways. Various kinds of taxes go in to funding city streets. Transit allows those without vehicles and one-vehicle families to get to jobs and shopping centers in communities to make and consume all those products being moved about by trucks (and rail).

Fuel taxes only cover part of the cost of highways. So even those who don't use highways are paying for highways. I'm not arguing I-40 isn't important. It most certainly is as are the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis and Frigo Bridge in Green Bay. But so is a tunnel to get workers from NJ to Manhattan because the current one is falling apart yet that didn't stop Gov Christie from stopping the funding of its replacement. 

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: skluthIdeally, every decent-sized municipality should have both roads and transit. I get really annoyed by people who think it should be only roads or only transit as transportation needs are not a one size fits all.

Like highways, mass transit has to be funded somehow. And it's only going to be there where enough of a pressing need is present. We have a bus system in Lawton. But it doesn't run 24/7. Ridership numbers are nowhere near high enough to justify the expense. The basic level of service that is provided has to be supplemented with a great deal of government funding to offset what would be huge losses.
I wouldn't expect Lawton to have a 24/7 bus system. I wouldn't even expect it to have one that runs on Sundays. It's not that big. Lawson metro is 11% the size of New Orleans. (130K vs 1.27M)

Quote from: Bobby5280
Mass transit rail is far more expensive than a bus system. Potential ridership has to be of a certain level to make the system worth building at all. That's why there's not much of it in cities the size of Oklahoma City or Tulsa. The Greater New Orleans area is hardly any more populous than Oklahoma City. The only reason why it still has pro football and basketball teams is because of tourism, the oil industry and being able to draw people from other cities in the region like Baton Rouge or Gulfport-Biloxi. When I was a kid living in the New Orleans area I remembered a lot of big name music acts (such as Van Halen) booking concerts in Baton Rouge rather than New Orleans.

Unlike a spread-out city like Oklahoma City where there is plenty of room to build a light rail network New Orleans is for the most part jam packed. Engineers would have a hard time just finding enough space to build support pylons for an elevated rail line, much less clear out enough space to run anything at grade. Any concept of a subway in New Orleans would be insane.

New Orleans does have the old street car network, but that thing is more for tourists. It will (slowly) shuttle you around Downtown, Mid-City and along St Charles Avenue. It will do you no good if you're a commuter from the North side of the city, Metairie, Kenner or any of the cities on the West Bank. Oklahoma City has a street car system in its downtown area. It too is made mostly for tourists.
Apples to oranges. New Orleans is a far more densely populated city than OKC or Tulsa. The St Charles streetcar is more for the locals than the tourists and while it is popular with tourists it's not the SF cable cars which are more a tourist draw than transportation option. Light rail could possibly be run to Metairie and the airport using the Earhart Expressway corridor but I don't think the streetcar network itself should be expanded beyond the NO city limits. Completely agree a subway system in NO would be insane.
Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: skluthAny talk of expanding the Claiborne Viaduct is a non-starter. It won't happen and all the Robert Moses's of the world aren't going to change that.

I don't think anyone has been saying the Claiborne Viaduct should be expanded in size/capacity. Most are saying it should not be removed.
Expanded in size/capacity is how I interpreted this comment below. Maybe upgrade can mean something other than expanded size and capacity, but that's the usual definition here.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 12, 2010, 12:38:42 PM
Just spend the money and upgrade the Claiborne Elevated, and use CSS design and traditional neighborhood grants to revive the community.

I agree with your long term assessment of New Orleans. It is sinking, ocean levels are rising, the wetlands and barrier islands protecting the city are disappearing, and it's only a question of how many Katrina-like storms it takes before the government refuses to bail the city out. I give it a century at most before it's abandoned but I'll be long dead by the time it happens.

Bobby5280

Quote from: skluthFuel taxes only cover part of the cost of highways. So even those who don't use highways are paying for highways.

Fuel taxes cover much of the cost of "free" highways. But, yeah, there are funding short falls because politics. Federal "omnibus" bills end up covering some of the difference. A state like Oklahoma refuses to raise its gasoline taxes (and then only finally does so in an attempt to get poorly paid teachers to stop leaving the state in droves). People here in Oklahoma constantly bitch about paying tolls on our turnpikes. They never compare our toll rates with those in neighboring states or the even higher tolls back East. They conveniently ignore the details in a scenario where 600+ miles of turnpikes are made "free" and made the responsibility for ODOT to maintain. Oklahoma residents would see one hell of a giant hike in gasoline taxes. That's what removing those toll gates would do.

I don't agree with the over-simplified notion of "not one single street or highway that makes money anywhere." Outside gasoline taxes, streets and highways help generate a great deal of money for our economy by keeping things moving.

Quote from: skluthI wouldn't expect Lawton to have a 24/7 bus system. I wouldn't even expect it to have one that runs on Sundays. It's not that big. Lawson metro is 11% the size of New Orleans. (130K vs 1.27M)

Shouldn't the same kinds of criteria apply to cities regarding mass transit rail? Shouldn't a city need to be above certain population levels (among other factors) for a rail system to be justified? Mass transit rail projects are notorious for becoming cost boondoggles. BTW, I don't agree with the stunt Chris Christie pulled regarding those deteriorating rail tunnels under the Hudson River. OTOH, some of the proponents didn't seem to care how many billions of dollars the projects would eat. The aging passenger rail network in the NYC region is a lose-lose situation.

Quote from: skluthApples to oranges. New Orleans is a far more densely populated city than OKC or Tulsa.

The Greater New Orleans area has 1,270,530 people; city limits population is 383,997. Oklahoma City has 1,441,695 people in its metro and 681,054 in the city limits. OKC is actually more populous than New Orleans in both respects. In terms of population density, New Orleans has around 2200 per square mile and OKC is half that, around 1100 per square mile. So, technically, New Orleans is more dense. But as I said earlier: if someone really intended to build a real light rail network in GNO where would they build it? There's hardly any space available.

We also have to factor in demographics. If it weren't for the tourism industry New Orleans would be really screwed. There is quite a bit of poverty in GNO. Cities that do build light rail networks try to position a greater balance of service in the nicer, more affluent areas of town (unless those "nicer" neighborhoods block it from being built).

IMHO, the OKC metro needs to get solidly above the 2 million level with its metro population before a light rail service could be feasible. Even then it would have to start out with some humble beginnings, like maybe a single North-South line starting in Edmond that goes thru downtown and down thru Moore and Norman. Then it would have to branch out from there, such as a spur to the airport.

MikieTimT

Quote from: codyg1985 on December 28, 2022, 02:47:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.

If that were to happen, then the Mississippi River would take the path of the Atchafalaya River, which would leave New Orleans high and dry without use of its ports.

And all of the industrial and cargo transloading infrastructure all the way up past Baton Rouge too.  I don't think that many folks are aware of how many billions of dollars worth of international trade per year happen transloading from barges to ocean-going vessels and vice versa in that stretch of river, nor how many hundreds of billions of dollars worth of facilities would have to make the move to Morgan City to continue that trade.  Morgan City itself would require a levee system comparable to New Orleans with additional uncontrolled flow from the Mississippi River as the Atchafalaya River would certainly swell significantly from increased normal and flood flows.

TXtoNJ


Bobby5280

Quote from: MikieTimTI don't think that many folks are aware of how many billions of dollars worth of international trade per year happen transloading from barges to ocean-going vessels and vice versa in that stretch of river, nor how many hundreds of billions of dollars worth of facilities would have to make the move to Morgan City to continue that trade.

The businesses that depend on the Mississippi River to keep running thru Baton Rouge and New Orleans had better start planning for the future. The cycle of wetlands erosion that was started by damming up the river is not going to stop. The process of subsidence (sinking land) in New Orleans and elsewhere across the delta is not going to stop either.

The government spent a ridiculous amount of money to force the Red River and Mississippi River down unnatural paths. The government is going to end up on the hook for far more money trying to keep sinking parts of Louisiana connected to dry land. I think it's only matter of time before places like Grand Isle and Venice get cut off from the highway system and only reach-able via ferry. At some point they'll get confronted with the situation being a lost cause. Spending on more bridges and land fill after that will just be throwing good money after bad.

MoiraPrime

The only thing I want to throw in this thread is the weird idea that public transit needs to "make money".

The ugly viaduct through the city doesn't "make money" and probably costs the same, if not more, than any public transit replacement would.. but the highway through the city center also decreases the quality of life of the communities it runs through, and cuts neighborhoods in half with a loud redundant eyesore. City centers should be for people, not cars.

Bobby5280

Any commuter rail system that would be built in New Orleans would have to be built mostly on ugly elevated viaducts. You might be able to build some segments of light rail lines at grade in parts of suburbs on the Westbank. New Orleans proper, Metairie and Kenner don't have the ground space for it.

New Orleans is a major tourism destination and tourism is one of the main industries that keeps the Crescent City financially afloat. The tourists come into the city by car or by plane. Removing a big chunk of I-10 out of New Orleans would make it dramatically more difficult for visitors to reach the downtown districts. There are no efficient surface arterials to use; it's all stop light hell in a very obsolete, densely packed street grid. Tearing down the Claiborne Viaduct could make a seriously negative dent in tourism traffic and result in job losses.

Rothman

I don't think tearing down the viaduct would affect tourism in New Orleans.  I'd bet fear of New Orleans' crime rate dampens it more than anything already and even then, crowds still come.  People will still find a way to get to the French Quarter.  It's just too big of a draw.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

skluth

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2023, 10:59:14 AM
Any commuter rail system that would be built in New Orleans would have to be built mostly on ugly elevated viaducts. You might be able to build some segments of light rail lines at grade in parts of suburbs on the Westbank. New Orleans proper, Metairie and Kenner don't have the ground space for it.

New Orleans is a major tourism destination and tourism is one of the main industries that keeps the Crescent City financially afloat. The tourists come into the city by car or by plane. Removing a big chunk of I-10 out of New Orleans would make it dramatically more difficult for visitors to reach the downtown districts. There are no efficient surface arterials to use; it's all stop light hell in a very obsolete, densely packed street grid. Tearing down the Claiborne Viaduct could make a seriously negative dent in tourism traffic and result in job losses.

When your argument starts with tourists will need to drive slightly further when they've already driven an hour or more to get to New Orleans, you've already lost the argument. Freeways into the city shouldn't be mainly serving tourists who are only visiting for a few days. And many of them are flying in, so a light rail from the airport into the city would work just as well and there's an excellent chance tourists would take one into the city if one was available. And few tourists are visiting the neighborhoods around the viaduct; they're visiting the French Quarter, the Garden District, and the Superdome during major events.

I created a fantasy expanded streetcar system for New Orleans to show that it could be done. The pink lines are the current system which is more extensive and more useful than many nonlocals think. It includes a grade-separated light rail line between the airport and Union Station, then runs as a tram along surface streets for about 1.5 miles to St Louis Cathedral/ Jackson Square. I've also reimagined Claiborne along its entire route through the city as a multi-lane boulevard with streetcar service, either down the middle like the St Charles line or along the adjacent parallel roads. This includes removing the viaduct west of Elysian Fields. Streetcars could also be built in the western suburbs to the light rail stations so those residents could easily get into the central part of the city without driving. They could also park at the suburban stations, saving them the cost and hassle of driving into the city. There is also a possibility of extending the light rail east of New Orleans to Slidell and beyond, but I don't know how much commuter traffic comes from that direction or from which cities.

There is more than enough room along the existing I-610 to add a lane each way and possibly both a regular and HOV lane each way. Another lane each way could probably be added to I-10 from the west end of I-610 to the Superdome. That should accommodate any displaced traffic from the Claiborne Viaduct and should be part of the package so its a win/win for most people.

Yes, all this costs money. So would rebuilding the viaduct. That's the cost for neglecting non-road infrastructure since the 1950s. A streetcar may not be profitable, but it will still make more money that the freeway network unless the freeways are converted to toll roads.

MoiraPrime

Honestly all the space in many parts of Metairie and Kenner that's being reclaimed from canals to prevent accidents could be prime streetcar or guided busway space. When I last lived in Kenner, they were in the process of covering up Esplanade Canal because people kept driving off into it. All that new space that's just grass would be a neat place to introduce some kind of transit, although I'm aware that some of the finer details could get kinda messy.

The Ghostbuster

Maybe the Louisiana DOT should initiate a study on reconstructing the Interstate 10 Claibourne Viaduct instead of tearing it down. I know the viaduct is an eyesore (and they probably shouldn't have sacrificed all those trees to construct it), although it is my impression that the viaduct is a needed connection to New Orleans' freeway system (on the other hand, I could be wrong about that).

Bobby5280

Quote from: skluthWhen your argument starts with tourists will need to drive slightly further when they've already driven an hour or more to get to New Orleans, you've already lost the argument.

People don't like the inconvenience of having to park on the edge of a city and take mass transit in to the urban center unless there are major advantages in doing so. In NYC it works because it is a costly PITA to drive a vehicle into Manhattan. New Orleans is different.

In the Crescent City visitors who know the city and are arriving by vehicle will be bound and determined to drive all the way to their downtown destinations and park there. The idea of parking a few miles out and riding some street car the rest of the way might seem acceptable if you don't know the city's reputation. The neighborhoods surrounding the French Quarter and Downtown can be pretty damned dangerous. Hauling a suit case on a light rail train or street car passing thru the 'hood ain't my idea of a good time.

The fact also remains that the Claiborne Viaduct is THE primary outlet for traffic heading East out of downtown. I repeat: there are no surface arterial streets that are an acceptable back-up. Add to that the problem both I-10 interchanges with I-610 do not have complete movements. If you're taking WB I-10 to get to EB I-610 you have to leave I-10 for Florida Blvd, drive a few blocks and then pick up I-610 from Canal Blvd.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.

You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: skluth on January 02, 2023, 12:02:10 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2023, 10:59:14 AM
Any commuter rail system that would be built in New Orleans would have to be built mostly on ugly elevated viaducts. You might be able to build some segments of light rail lines at grade in parts of suburbs on the Westbank. New Orleans proper, Metairie and Kenner don't have the ground space for it.

New Orleans is a major tourism destination and tourism is one of the main industries that keeps the Crescent City financially afloat. The tourists come into the city by car or by plane. Removing a big chunk of I-10 out of New Orleans would make it dramatically more difficult for visitors to reach the downtown districts. There are no efficient surface arterials to use; it's all stop light hell in a very obsolete, densely packed street grid. Tearing down the Claiborne Viaduct could make a seriously negative dent in tourism traffic and result in job losses.

When your argument starts with tourists will need to drive slightly further when they've already driven an hour or more to get to New Orleans, you've already lost the argument. [...]

When your argument starts with the myopic idea that streetcars can adequately replace the Claiborne Elevated because only tourists use it to access the French Quarter and the Superdome, then your argument is even more lost.

NOLA could use an expanded light rail system, including more streetcars, but there is no way in HELL that streetcars can replace the traffic levels of the Claiborne Elevated. Aside from the rep of the neighborhoods that Bobby pointed out, you really think that people will park their cars in Algiers or NOLA East or Little Woods and then roll on streetcars across the High Rise just so Treme can get gentrified? Yeah, don't think so.

Bobby5280

Quote from: Anthony_JKYou want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.

There is going to be more utter chaos farther down the river in the decades ahead as New Orleans continues to sink. At some point that city is going to be a lost cause. They're not going to be able to hold back both the river and the ocean forever.

Likewise, corridors like LA-1 and LA-23 are going to be harder to keep dry as all that swamp erosion continues. From a car window those roads don't look like the view of driving the Overseas Highway to Key West. But they're not far from becoming just that if not worse.

I don't think it's realistic to expect the Army Corps of Engineers to demolish all the levees they built to force the Mississippi, Red and Atchafalaya rivers to flow a certain way. But they should have developed a smarter plan when they first built those levees and locks. They literally cut off the process that allowed the creation of that delta land and swamps. Now the ocean is just slowly creeping in to reclaim the property.

skluth

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 01:02:41 PM
Quote from: skluth on January 02, 2023, 12:02:10 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2023, 10:59:14 AM
Any commuter rail system that would be built in New Orleans would have to be built mostly on ugly elevated viaducts. You might be able to build some segments of light rail lines at grade in parts of suburbs on the Westbank. New Orleans proper, Metairie and Kenner don't have the ground space for it.

New Orleans is a major tourism destination and tourism is one of the main industries that keeps the Crescent City financially afloat. The tourists come into the city by car or by plane. Removing a big chunk of I-10 out of New Orleans would make it dramatically more difficult for visitors to reach the downtown districts. There are no efficient surface arterials to use; it's all stop light hell in a very obsolete, densely packed street grid. Tearing down the Claiborne Viaduct could make a seriously negative dent in tourism traffic and result in job losses.

When your argument starts with tourists will need to drive slightly further when they've already driven an hour or more to get to New Orleans, you've already lost the argument. [...]

When your argument starts with the myopic idea that streetcars can adequately replace the Claiborne Elevated because only tourists use it to access the French Quarter and the Superdome, then your argument is even more lost.

NOLA could use an expanded light rail system, including more streetcars, but there is no way in HELL that streetcars can replace the traffic levels of the Claiborne Elevated. Aside from the rep of the neighborhoods that Bobby pointed out, you really think that people will park their cars in Algiers or NOLA East or Little Woods and then roll on streetcars across the High Rise just so Treme can get gentrified? Yeah, don't think so.

That wasn't my argument. It was Bobby's argument that the viaduct is important to the tourist industry and that's why it needs to stay. My argument is an expanded I-610 and west leg of I-10 to downtown along with a streetcar on a revisualized Claiborne can replace the Claiborne viaduct for almost all users. Yes, people are going to continue to drive into the city. In fact, they can still easily get downtown via the remaining viaduct to Elysian Fields then south of Elysian Fields to their destination downtown.  The city has no obligation to make it as easy as possible for nonresidents to drive to the French Quarter at the expense of its residents.

Most cities have neighborhoods that get gentrified. It's not an excuse to keep an eyesore. If Treme gets gentrified like Faubourg Marigny (something that won't happen quickly, if at all), there are still a number of other New Orleans neighborhoods that are nearly abandoned; it's not like New Orleans is lacking empty space post-Katrina. I still don't give New Orleans more than a century before it's abandoned due to land subsidence and continued hurricane destruction regardless of any sea level rise as any funds to mitigate coastal flooding will be apportioned to more powerful economic cities like NYC and Miami.

Rothman

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.

You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it.  Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

longhorn

Removing the elevated structure would cause chaos traffic wise in that area. I have family that live in that area, went to a funeral next to the viaduct. Bringing that traffic down to the surface streets would cause noise pollution and a traffic jams. Just to get some Fed money, its a stupid ideal.

Bobby5280

Quote from: skluthIt was Bobby's argument that the viaduct is important to the tourist industry and that's why it needs to stay.

The Claiborne viaduct is important to everyone living in the New Orleans metro area in addition to the tourists who visit.

I lived in the New Orleans area during some of my teenage years, Gretna and Belle Chasse to be specific. If my family had to drive anywhere East of New Orleans (such as the beaches at Gulfport & Biloxi) we first had to cross the Greater New Orleans Bridge and then take Eastbound I-10 at the interchange next to the Superdome. The only alternative is taking a ferry across to Chalmette and going thru stoplight hell along Paris Road to reach I-510. Taking the bridge across to reach I-10 by the Superdome was a lot faster.

Out of major cities in the US, the level of super highway coverage in New Orleans is downright minimal already. Yet you're arguing that one of the few freeway segments New Orleans has needs to be removed. Have you actually ever driven around in New Orleans before? They started building the Westbank Expressway back in like 1981. 40+ years later: it's only partially finished.

Quote from: skluthMost cities have neighborhoods that get gentrified. It's not an excuse to keep an eyesore.

Some spots of New Orleans are getting gentrified, locations that are above sea level in particular (such as the Bywater neighborhood). Hurricane Katrina and the government foot-dragging that followed forced 100,000 black people to leave the area. That opened the door for a lot of public housing units to be replaced with mixed use condos. New Orleans still has a majority black population though. New Orleans also still has a pretty high crime rate.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect tourists to park miles away from downtown and try hauling their luggage on a street car or light rail train to reach their hotel. It's just a great opportunity to get mugged. And even if the street car ride was perfectly safe it would still be a giant pain in the ass. It sucks having to haul anything at all on a damned mass transit train.

I had to carry a portfolio case and container of painting/drawing supplies on the city bus, Staten Island Ferry and NYC Subway commuting to college classes. I hated it. The conditions were crowded. Other people were bumping into or stumbling over that big flat case. And the case was like a giant air-foil wanting to dislocate my shoulder from the high winds channeling out of Broadway by the ferry terminal. That thing wasn't as bad as trying to haul a suitcase around.

bigdave

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.

You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.

The Old River Control Structure is built to regulate the flow into the Atchafalaya River. It almost failed in 1973.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_River_Control_Structure

David

rlb2024

Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2023, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.

You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it.  Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
There are a whole bunch of chemical plants and refineries along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that depend on the river for transportation, cooling water, etc.  These plants provide critical products and supplies  for the rest of the country.  Plus New Orleans and many other cities along the river in the area get their drinking water from the Mississippi.

Allowing the flow to reroute down the Atchafalaya would be catastrophic.

Rothman



Quote from: rlb2024 on January 05, 2023, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2023, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.

You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it.  Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
There are a whole bunch of chemical plants and refineries along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that depend on the river for transportation, cooling water, etc.  These plants provide critical products and supplies  for the rest of the country.  Plus New Orleans and many other cities along the river in the area get their drinking water from the Mississippi.

Allowing the flow to reroute down the Atchafalaya would be catastrophic.

If by "catastrophic," you mean "restorative," I agree.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



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.