News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

I49 in LA

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Grzrd

#175
Here is a Jan. 11 opinion piece from Louisiana State Treasurer John Neely Kennedy on how to fund I-49 South:
http://thehayride.com/2012/01/the-challenge-of-i-49-south/

Quote
... So where do we get the money to finish I-49 South? The state does not have it; nor could we borrow it, even if we wanted to, under our constitutional debt limit. The feds have their own budget problems, starting with $14 trillion of sovereign debt. That leaves one possibility: someone else.
That "someone else"  might be an infrastructure investment fund (IIF). An IIF raises funds from private investors to finance, design, build, operate and maintain a public project through a public-private partnership (PPP) in exchange for a return on the investment, usually 5 to 7 percent per year. A PPP is not a privatization; the government entity retains full control and ownership of the project ....
There is, of course, no free lunch. An IIF expects a return on its investment, which would require Louisiana to come up with a guaranteed income stream over the life of the PPP. A portion of the state's capital outlay budget could be dedicated to the project but it won't be enough. The only other option is tolls, which is typically how PPPs are funded.
Support for tolls or a PPP for I-49 South could be mixed, as some will see tolls as a tax increase, and others will worry about allowing a private entity to manage a government asset. These are legitimate concerns, and perhaps a vote of the people would be in order. Much support or opposition would likely depend on the actual terms of the PPP, which must be transparent. But I do know this: there are no easy answers to the question of how to make I-49 South a reality and get this vital project built sooner rather than much later or not at all.

EDIT:

Here is another link to the same opinion piece, but this publication has a model of the I-49 Connector through Lafayette: http://www.theind.com/news/9716-guest-editorial-public-private-route-for-i-49-south?tmpl=component&layout=default&page=



SECOND EDIT:

Here's a link to a video interview with Kennedy:
http://www.katc.com/news/proposal-to-pay-for-i-49/

Quote
We've been talking about this for 25 to 30 years and it's time to stop talking and start walking,"  and  "Let the people vote, if they believe I-49 South is important enough they will support the tolls.


bassoon1986

Quote from: Grzrd on January 11, 2012, 09:54:08 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 02:29:36 PM
Funding has been secured for Segments J and K, with construction on Segment J expected to begin in 2012 and Segment K in 2013:
http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1759
These two Segments are expected to be completed in 2016.
The July 7, 2011 press release linked above states that construction on Segment J could begin as early as Summer 2012.  I communicated with LaDOTD yesterday and the current estimate is that the letting will be in Fall 2012.  Maybe some clearing and grubbing by the New Year?

I was driving there at Christmas and no work had been started yet. LA 1/N Market St. is the dividing line right now. Huge amounts of trees cleared and dirtwork for ramps is being done on the east side of the highway but nothing just yet on the other side

Anthony_JK

Quote from: Grzrd on January 11, 2012, 09:52:18 PM
Here is a Jan. 11 opinion piece from Louisiana State Treasurer John Neely Kennedy on how to fund I-49 South:
http://thehayride.com/2012/01/the-challenge-of-i-49-south/

"... So where do we get the money to finish I-49 South? The state does not have it; nor could we borrow it, even if we wanted to, under our constitutional debt limit. The feds have their own budget problems, starting with $14 trillion of sovereign debt. That leaves one possibility: someone else.
That "someone else"  might be an infrastructure investment fund (IIF). An IIF raises funds from private investors to finance, design, build, operate and maintain a public project through a public-private partnership (PPP) in exchange for a return on the investment, usually 5 to 7 percent per year. A PPP is not a privatization; the government entity retains full control and ownership of the project ....
There is, of course, no free lunch. An IIF expects a return on its investment, which would require Louisiana to come up with a guaranteed income stream over the life of the PPP. A portion of the state's capital outlay budget could be dedicated to the project but it won't be enough. The only other option is tolls, which is typically how PPPs are funded.
Support for tolls or a PPP for I-49 South could be mixed, as some will see tolls as a tax increase, and others will worry about allowing a private entity to manage a government asset. These are legitimate concerns, and perhaps a vote of the people would be in order. Much support or opposition would likely depend on the actual terms of the PPP, which must be transparent. But I do know this: there are no easy answers to the question of how to make I-49 South a reality and get this vital project built sooner rather than much later or not at all."

EDIT:

Here is another link to the same opinion piece, but this publication has a model of the I-49 Connector through Lafayette: http://www.theind.com/news/9716-guest-editorial-public-private-route-for-i-49-south?tmpl=component&layout=default&page=

SECOND EDIT:

Here's a link to a video interview with Kennedy:
http://www.katc.com/news/proposal-to-pay-for-i-49/

"We've been talking about this for 25 to 30 years and it's time to stop talking and start walking,"  and  "Let the people vote, if they believe I-49 South is important enough they will support the tolls"

The real issues with a PPP, especially one funded through tolls, is that it will be perceived as a double tax, especially since most of US 90 between Lafayette and Raceland is already completed to Interstate freeway standards, and it will be a hard sell to get people to support converting that segment to tolls just to pay for the Lafayette segments.  Plus, it could revive some of the original opposition to the original I-49 Connector project that favored the "Teche Ridge" eastern bypass alternative through St. Martin Parish as a less expensive alternative.

There is a possibility that the Federal government could finally pass a long term transportation authorization bill that would increase funding for projects like I-49 South without the need for tolls. Or, by some miracle, the state could extend what's left of the TIMED funds and use that as a lever to help jump start funds for the rest of I-49 South. I'd rather go through those options before I commit a large chunk of state and federal funds to a PPP.


Anthony

Grzrd

#178
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 09:52:25 PM
Here's a link to LaDOTD's I-49 North Facebook page, on which 34 new photos were posted in November:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-49-North/173375266084410
In January, LaDOTD has posted twelve new aerial photos of I-49 North construction work.

Grzrd

Here is a video update report on I-49 North.  It includes a brief discussion of the I-49/ I-220 interchange by Project Engineer Greg Wall. It is a little over two minutes long.

codyg1985

^ Looks like they showed footage of an interstate in Atlanta when they started talking about the I-49/I-220 interchange. LOL
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

dariusb

Cool. Louisiana is really making a lot of progress! Will be glad when Arkansas finally completes those last few miles to the Louisiana state line.
It's a new day for a new beginning.

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on January 11, 2012, 09:54:08 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2011, 02:29:36 PM
Funding has been secured for Segments J and K, with construction on Segment J expected to begin in 2012 and Segment K in 2013:
http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1759
These two Segments are expected to be completed in 2016.
The July 7, 2011 press release linked above states that construction on Segment J could begin as early as Summer 2012.  I communicated with LaDOTD yesterday and the current estimate is that the letting will be in Fall 2012.

This video report has Joe Umeozulu of LaDOTD stating that the letting for Segment K will be in Fall 2012, too.  Another interesting part of the video report has a resident of the MLK neighborhood sort of expressing an anti-Overton Park concern about the lack of an exit ramp near a park:

Quote
One of the hot issues, an off-ramp to the Shreveport neighborhood.
"How are you coming and putting I-20 and ramps coming everywhere else, but you not going to have an off ramp coming to the Cooper road," said Virginia Evans.
"The reason it's in the northside because theres a park on the southside," answered Greg Wall. "And the federal mandate is we cannot go through a park so therefore they had to modify their design."

bassoon1986

Some of Shreveport's finest at that 49 meeting. Maybe she meant "I-220 and ramps and everything else?"  :crazy:

Grzrd

#184
Quote from: Grzrd on December 21, 2011, 03:49:05 PM
No surprise 2012 I-49 North early opening from LaDOTD; I emailed LaDOTD about a possible 2012 opening and they responded that pavement will be complete on the project in 2012 [I presume the email was referring to Segments A-D], but that it will not be open to traffic until 2013.  This info is consistent with prior information from LaDOTD, but a Segment B-D 2012 opening would have been nice.

In this article, Kent Rogers of NLCOG is quoted as as making some recent comments that could be interpeted as LaDOTD opening Segments B-D to traffic before Segments E-I are completed:

Quote
Kent Rogers of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, NLCOG, said sections A through D are complete, short of stripes and signage and determining the best route from U.S. Highway 71 until sections E through I are finished. Sections J and K, between Interstate 220 and state Highway 173, are still in the preliminary construction phase.
"Arkansas is doing dirt work and beginning construction"  at the state line, Rogers said. "It should be completed about the same time as the last segment at I-220 is here."

In this video report, Project Engineer Greg Wall talks about the current widening of LA 168 to safely accomodate traffic going from US 71 to I-49 Segment B until Arkansas completes its final segment to the state line around 2015.  He does not mention when the LA 168 widening is expected to be completed (US 71 and the southern end of Segment D have a direct connection).  Would LaDOTD open Segments B-D to traffic if the LA 168 widening is completed well before Segments E-I?

Maybe I'm injecting too much wishful thinking into the comments by Rogers...

Gordon

I got a question about AHTD having a priority for corridor 1. The latest job of building the six bridges on the 4.28 miles left says the contractor should finish this job in 325 working days. I know there is rainy days and weekends but another job could be let for paving maybe this fall because they have to haul the crushed rock in for a base before concreting the main lanes. they are saying 2015 before you can drive on it. the first contract for the first contract was let to proceed 9/21/2009 for grading and structures. That is say 5 years to do 4.28 miles to drive on. we will be all dead at that rate to finish it from Texarkana to Fort Smith. Something is wrong with our highway department.

Grzrd

#186
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 08, 2012, 09:25:15 AM
The best solution remains the best solution, IMO: end this nonsense that we can't fund transportation through gas taxes and public revenue...and then index the gas tax to inflation and use other ideas (such as an oil import fee) to fund real transportation projects. Save the tolls for the periphery projects.
Anthony
(above quote from "Atlanta's coming HOT lanes" thread on Southeast page)

Some like-minded sentiment in St. Landry Parish.  In this video report, former LaDOTD Engineer and current St. Landry Parish President Bill Fontenot opines that Louisiana needs to raise its gas tax to help fund I-49 South and other projects in the state:

Quote
Bill Fontenot is a former DOTD District Engineer and now, the St. Landry Parish President .... The top priority is completing an expensive I-49 .... The state coffers have been open for some time on the project, chipping away from St. Mary Parish up to Iberia Parish- eliminating nearly all stops on the way.
"They are trying to build an overpass for Ambassador Caffery extension and we're thinking while they're trying to do that one, it just makes sense to do ours as well," St. Martin Parish President Guy Cormier said.
Cormier feels his stretch of the highway is getting slighted. The section in Iberia Parish is nearly complete and the next portion covers Lafayette, skipping right over St. Martin Parish.
"Why not just finish it from Broussard all the way to St. Mary parish?" Cormier asked .... Completing I-49 would cost about $5-billion. That may likely take years to cover ....
"This state can do it," Fontenot said.
According to him, every parish can address some of their needs by increasing the state gas tax.
"It would add to the system." He says, "improve the system to a degree that people have not seen in many years."
The last time the state changed its gas tax was in 1984. The price per gallon then? $1.21.

Henry

Quote from: dariusb on February 02, 2012, 04:22:33 PM
Cool. Louisiana is really making a lot of progress! Will be glad when Arkansas finally completes those last few miles to the Louisiana state line.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 07, 2012, 12:24:07 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 21, 2011, 03:49:05 PM
No surprise 2012 I-49 North early opening from LaDOTD; I emailed LaDOTD about a possible 2012 opening and they responded that pavement will be complete on the project in 2012 [I presume the email was referring to Segments A-D], but that it will not be open to traffic until 2013.  This info is consistent with prior information from LaDOTD, but a Segment B-D 2012 opening would have been nice.

In this article, Kent Rogers of NLCOG is quoted as as making some recent comments that could be interpeted as LaDOTD opening Segments B-D to traffic before Segments E-I are completed:

Quote
Kent Rogers of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, NLCOG, said sections A through D are complete, short of stripes and signage and determining the best route from U.S. Highway 71 until sections E through I are finished. Sections J and K, between Interstate 220 and state Highway 173, are still in the preliminary construction phase.
"Arkansas is doing dirt work and beginning construction"  at the state line, Rogers said. "It should be completed about the same time as the last segment at I-220 is here."

In this video report, Project Engineer Greg Wall talks about the current widening of LA 168 to safely accomodate traffic going from US 71 to I-49 Segment B until Arkansas completes its final segment to the state line around 2015.  He does not mention when the LA 168 widening is expected to be completed (US 71 and the southern end of Segment D have a direct connection).  Would LaDOTD open Segments B-D to traffic if the LA 168 widening is completed well before Segments E-I?

Maybe I'm injecting too much wishful thinking into the comments by Rogers...
I think it's pretty nice that Louisiana is just as serious about building I-49 as Missouri is!
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Gordon


Gordon

Here is another article on I 49 South in LA. When Will They start putting up signs On U.S. 90 for I 49 because this Article says there is about 100 miles of the 156 that is interstate standard. http://www.katc.com/news/road-projects-advance-work-on-i-49-south/

Grzrd

Quote from: Gordon on February 22, 2012, 07:57:45 PM
Some good news about south I 49 construction. http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1904

This article has some additonal commentary from Governor Jindal and a local politician:

Quote
Jindal said if everything goes as planned, including funding, all but one segment of the project could be complete by 2017 .... The last portion to be complete in Iberia Parish will be the service roads up to Lafayette Parish. She said the route is the energy corridor and the seafood corridor, connecting all the important components in the area.

I assume Jindal's comment is in regard to the Iberia Parish section of I-49 South.  Here's a summary of the projects leading up to the last portion:

Quote
The most recent phase included 2.75 miles of frontage roads along U.S. 90 from Louisiana 83 to Darnall Road ....
Projects under way include:
- A $20 million project to widen U.S. 90 from four to six lanes from Pinhook Road to Broussard that will be completed by this summer.
- A $1.4 million project to construct service roads to connect Captain Cade Road to the interchange at U.S. 90 and Louisiana 88, which will be completed in the spring.
Projects to begin soon include:
- A $30 million project to construct an interchange on U.S. 90 at Louisiana 318 in St. Mary Parish. The environmental phase of this project will be completed in March. The project will be ready for construction in the next year.
- A $5 million project scheduled for the spring to construct frontage roads along U.S. 90 from Darnall Road to Louisiana 85.
- A $10 million-$15 million project to build a railroad crossing overpass between Louisiana 85 and 668. The project is in design phase and could go out for bid in fiscal year 2015.
- A $30 million-$50 million project that will construct an interchange at Ambassador Caffery and U.S. 90. The Department of Transportation and Development is scheduled to accept bids for construction in fiscal year 2016.


Grzrd

#191
Quote from: Grzrd on November 14, 2011, 08:20:49 PM
Here's a link to the Oct. 12, 2009 Times-Picayune article itself:
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/plans_for_interstate_49_corrid.html
Quote
The biggest challenge is upgrading and replacing a 36-mile segment of U.S. 90 from the West Bank Expressway to Raceland: now estimated to cost about $3.6 billion, a figure that will probably swell to $5.2 billion, said Department of Transportation and Development Secretary William Ankner." ....
The main obstacle to building the stretch from the West Bank Expressway to Raceland is that the roadway has to be elevated and built through marshy areas, Ankner said. Building a road at ground level will not suffice because the area floods, he said ...
Quote from: Gordon on February 23, 2012, 06:11:27 PM
When Will They start putting up signs On U.S. 90 for I 49 because this Article says there is about 100 miles of the 156 that is interstate standard. http://www.katc.com/news/road-projects-advance-work-on-i-49-south/

The West Bank Expressway could theoretically be signed as I-49 because it connects to I-10; however, that will not happen because the $3.6 billion segment to Raceland makes it very unlikely that the West Bank Expressway would be anything more than a short spur for a long, long time. The LaDOTD press release does indicate that a study is being conducted to see if the $3.6 billion amount can be reduced:

Quote
A $1 million study is currently underway to determine if the cost of the Ames Boulevard to Raceland project can be reduced.

On the northern (western) end, construction of the I-49 Connector through Lafayette is an estimated $1 billion to $1.4 billion barrier to I-49 signage:

Quote from: Grzrd on December 14, 2011, 08:26:43 AM
http://theadvocate.com/home/1558259-125/tolls-eyed-as-revenue-source.html
The toll-backed financing represents about half of the estimated $1 billion to $1.4 billion needed to complete I-49 through Lafayette, an estimate that depends on how far south the highway upgrade would go.
Much of that is for the elevated portion through the city of Lafayette .... The steep price tag has long been a roadblock for completing I-49 south ....

Unfortunately, I think it's going to be a while before you see I-49 signage south (east) of Lafayette.

Gordon

I would like to see I 49 South project be put back on the LaDOTD web site so you could see a map of the progress being made. I am not familiar with U.S. 90.

Grzrd

#193
Quote from: Gordon on February 23, 2012, 06:11:27 PM
Here is another article on I 49 South in LA. When Will They start putting up signs On U.S. 90 for I 49 because this Article says there is about 100 miles of the 156 that is interstate standard. http://www.katc.com/news/road-projects-advance-work-on-i-49-south/

I just took another look at the article Gordon linked.  Is that REALLY the color scheme for "Future I-49" shields in Louisiana, or is LaDOTD using Nike money for "combat" shields as an alternative financing source?

Quote from: Gordon on February 23, 2012, 07:53:27 PM
I would like to see I 49 South project be put back on the LaDOTD web site so you could see a map of the progress being made.

I agree. This map is from April, 2009, but it is still a pretty good representation of the status of I-49 South:


Anthony_JK

First off, they are NOT going to sign any portion of US 90 or the Westbank Expressway as I-49 until the entire roadway is completed...including the segment through Lafayette. They still have to connect it to existing I-49 in order to make it work...and that requires completing the I-49 Connector segment and the upgrade of US 90 through Lafayette Parish.

The WBX segment still has that "I-910" hidden designation, but until they complete the segment to US 90 and tie it into the Huey P. Long Bridge improvements, then that would have to wait as well.

It may be possible to cut some savings off the Raceland to Avondale/WBX segment by using the existing US 90 roadway and raising it on fill with some bridged segments within Barataria Bay and from Boutte/Mimosa Park to near Avondale. Or, they could just say "Screw it" and truncate the project at I-310 and just overlay the latter to meet I-10 west of NOLA. I'm sure that  that will go well with Nawlins folk, though. (As in....NOT.)

The L&D RR overpass between LA 88 and LA 668: Hmmmm.....my impression was that they were going to not build an overpass, but find some way to reroute the existing L&D spur to reach that sugar cane processing mill, then just raze and remove that hazardous grade crossing. I guess that they decided that an overpass would be simpler and more cost effective.

It's going to get real interesting when Bobby J and his pals attempt to sell the idea of tolls to pay for finishing I-49 South in Lafayette, especially when he's still building and upgrading sections of US 90 free of charge, and after he succeeded in building I-49 North for free. Maybe they should take the hint of Texas officials and invest in some of that Freight Shuttle business.

And...there's still the matter of upgrading US 90 between Wax Lake and Berwick, which will require an elevated section in Patterson. Will they toll that one, too??


Anthony


Anthony_JK

Quote from: Gordon on February 23, 2012, 06:11:27 PM
Here is another article on I 49 South in LA. When Will They start putting up signs On U.S. 90 for I 49 because this Article says there is about 100 miles of the 156 that is interstate standard. http://www.katc.com/news/road-projects-advance-work-on-i-49-south/

BTW....How fascinating that the local Lafayette TV station quotes an AP rewrite of an newspaper article...from the Baton Rouge Advocate. Yeah, they have a pretty good Acadiana bureau, but what does that say about the local Lafayette paper, the Daily Advertiser??  Not too bloody much, I figure.


Anthony

Gordon

I have been looking on Google earth and looks like from I 10 to Co. Hwy 728 is really congested. They will have buy a lot of homes and buseness to complete Interstate standards. As I understand to extend a designated Interstate you have to finish it from existing I 49 at I 10 towards New Orleans. That looks like a lot money and time.

lamsalfl

Quote from: Gordon on February 24, 2012, 09:25:40 PM
I have been looking on Google earth and looks like from I 10 to Co. Hwy 728 is really congested. They will have buy a lot of homes and buseness to complete Interstate standards. As I understand to extend a designated Interstate you have to finish it from existing I 49 at I 10 towards New Orleans. That looks like a lot money and time.

He said county... in Louisiana...  "(Co. Hwy 728)"  hahaha.  :)

Anthony_JK

And where the hell is this "County Hwy 728", anyway?? I suppose he meant Surrey St./University Ave. near the airport??

Actually, most of the real ROW takings will be within the median of the Evangeline Thruway couplet and in a six-block section in downtown where the proposed freeway diverges from the Thruway median near Simcoe St. to gently curve parallel to the BNSF/UP mainline (closest point will be at the Johnston St./US 167 interchange) before rejoining the Thruway median near 12th St. It won't be too bad, as far as Interstates through cities goes.

The Lafayette segment will be kind of expensive due to it having to be elevated through most of the city and because the interchanges just south of Lafayette (Verot School Road and LA 89/Southpark Rd) have to accomodate crossing over the parallel BNSF rail line and maintaining the one way access roads that would serve the local traffic (and be used for the local "shunpikers" should they decide to toll the mainlaines). Still, though, it won't hold a candle to the Raceland/Boutte/Avondale segments, which will probably cost 3X as much due to the mandat of keeping it fully elevated to prevent flooding.


Anthony

Grzrd

Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2012, 03:25:30 AM
Maybe they should take the hint of Texas officials and invest in some of that Freight Shuttle business.
Anthony

I recently emailed the person with a great deal of control over the Louisiana purse strings, Treasurer John N. Kennedy, about the Freight Shuttle.  Part of his response:

Quote
Thanks for your email.  I went to the web site you gave me about freight shuttles.  Very interesting.  I plan to speak with my colleagues at the Department of Transportation and Development about this idea.  If you have any updates on this subject, I would appreciate receiving them.

Since his reply, I have forwarded some info about the Texas RFP (including the I-35 proposal) to him.  At least he (a) responded, and (b) did not immediately dismiss the idea.  It will be interesting to see if LaDOTD takes a deep look at it.



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.