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

Atchafalaya Basin I-10 Bridge New Speed Enforcement

Started by bwana39, July 08, 2022, 04:13:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bwana39

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 11, 2022, 04:20:34 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 10, 2022, 01:33:24 PM
Quote from: seicerIs the existing bridge in that bad of condition that it needs replacement?

Bridges like that have only so long a life span. The Atchafalaya Basin bridges opened in 1973, almost 50 years ago. I strongly doubt if those bridges are going to last another 50 years.

It's also worth mentioning I-10 is being widened from the I-49 interchange to the Atchafalaya Basin bridges.

Maybe not 50 years, but if the inspection reports are true, the viaducts do still have a ways to go before they need to be replaced.

Remember that it took a 25+ foot storm surge from Hurricane Katrina to topple the I-10 span across Lake Ponchatrain near Slidell, which prompted its immediate replacement with the greatly improved model.

When the time does come to replace it, they should do what they did for the I-10 span: build an entirely new and widened viaduct just to the south of the existing one (3 lanes in either direction, with Interstate-grade shoulders on both sides and "crossunders" for emergencies) with new structures for the Whiskey Bay and main Atchafalaya River channel high-rises. Retain portions of the existing viaduct as piers for fishermen and tourists wanting to soak up the environment. Upgrading the Butte la Rose rest area would be a good thing, too.

This sounds great BUT: Do you realize how many acres of protected wetland that would require to be repurposed?
From a pure highway ideology, that is indeed a great idea. This would probably work great over open water. This is NOT open water. It might work OK over unremarkable ground. This stretch of road is over neither. It is swamp / wetland. I want to believe that in the EIS process, that removal of any significant amount of cypress swamp and or marsh is prohibitive.  You might get to widen the ROW a little, but a new stretch as wide or wider than the current one is a non-starter.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.


Rothman

Quote from: bwana39 on August 15, 2022, 11:37:36 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 11, 2022, 04:20:34 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 10, 2022, 01:33:24 PM
Quote from: seicerIs the existing bridge in that bad of condition that it needs replacement?

Bridges like that have only so long a life span. The Atchafalaya Basin bridges opened in 1973, almost 50 years ago. I strongly doubt if those bridges are going to last another 50 years.

It's also worth mentioning I-10 is being widened from the I-49 interchange to the Atchafalaya Basin bridges.

Maybe not 50 years, but if the inspection reports are true, the viaducts do still have a ways to go before they need to be replaced.

Remember that it took a 25+ foot storm surge from Hurricane Katrina to topple the I-10 span across Lake Ponchatrain near Slidell, which prompted its immediate replacement with the greatly improved model.

When the time does come to replace it, they should do what they did for the I-10 span: build an entirely new and widened viaduct just to the south of the existing one (3 lanes in either direction, with Interstate-grade shoulders on both sides and "crossunders" for emergencies) with new structures for the Whiskey Bay and main Atchafalaya River channel high-rises. Retain portions of the existing viaduct as piers for fishermen and tourists wanting to soak up the environment. Upgrading the Butte la Rose rest area would be a good thing, too.

This sounds great BUT: Do you realize how many acres of protected wetland that would require to be repurposed?
From a pure highway ideology, that is indeed a great idea. This would probably work great over open water. This is NOT open water. It might work OK over unremarkable ground. This stretch of road is over neither. It is swamp / wetland. I want to believe that in the EIS process, that removal of any significant amount of cypress swamp and or marsh is prohibitive.  You might get to widen the ROW a little, but a new stretch as wide or wider than the current one is a non-starter.
Nah.  The EIS process has some common sense built into it when considering alternatives.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

ethanhopkin14

Widening the right-of-way through the Atchafalaya Swamp is 100% a no-go, so now we have to think of how we will improve/widen the bridges in the current space provided.  Slap a lane on the existing structure?

plain

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2022, 10:22:33 AM
Widening the right-of-way through the Atchafalaya Swamp is 100% a no-go, so now we have to think of how we will improve/widen the bridges in the current space provided.  Slap a lane on the existing structure?

There's a discussion in the I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway thread that breaks down why that's not a good idea either.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25493.msg2586893#msg2586893

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25493.msg2586959#msg2586959
Newark born, Richmond bred

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: plain on August 16, 2022, 11:17:08 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2022, 10:22:33 AM
Widening the right-of-way through the Atchafalaya Swamp is 100% a no-go, so now we have to think of how we will improve/widen the bridges in the current space provided.  Slap a lane on the existing structure?

There's a discussion in the I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway thread that breaks down why that's not a good idea either.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25493.msg2586893#msg2586893

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25493.msg2586959#msg2586959

I was being sarcastic.  That's why I said in jest "Slap a lane" instead of a more proper "expand the current bridge with a new deck on the outsides of the two existing structures." 

I guess I am trying to get across, you can't expand the right-of-way.  You cant loose the canal between them.  You can't "slap a lane" on them, so you're only options are to right now, replace one bridge by turning one bridge to a two lane interstate while you completely rebuild an 18+ mile bridge (which will take who knows how many years), then do the same to the other one, or do all of that, but wait until I-49 is completed between Lafayette and New Orleans and use that as a detour route for traffic crossing through Louisiana in hopes it minimizes the amount of traffic jams caused by initially having a two laned interstate. 

Rothman

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2022, 12:00:33 PM
Quote from: plain on August 16, 2022, 11:17:08 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2022, 10:22:33 AM
Widening the right-of-way through the Atchafalaya Swamp is 100% a no-go, so now we have to think of how we will improve/widen the bridges in the current space provided.  Slap a lane on the existing structure?

There's a discussion in the I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway thread that breaks down why that's not a good idea either.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25493.msg2586893#msg2586893

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25493.msg2586959#msg2586959

I was being sarcastic.  That's why I said in jest "Slap a lane" instead of a more proper "expand the current bridge with a new deck on the outsides of the two existing structures." 

I guess I am trying to get across, you can't expand the right-of-way.  You cant loose the canal between them.  You can't "slap a lane" on them, so you're only options are to right now, replace one bridge by turning one bridge to a two lane interstate while you completely rebuild an 18+ mile bridge (which will take who knows how many years), then do the same to the other one, or do all of that, but wait until I-49 is completed between Lafayette and New Orleans and use that as a detour route for traffic crossing through Louisiana in hopes it minimizes the amount of traffic jams caused by initially having a two laned interstate.
The EIS process takes into account the effects of alternatives.  To say any alternative is totally off the table before state and federal agencies sit down and discuss initial plans is inappropriately presumptuous.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

bwana39

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2022, 12:00:33 PM
Quote from: plain on August 16, 2022, 11:17:08 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2022, 10:22:33 AM
Widening the right-of-way through the Atchafalaya Swamp is 100% a no-go, so now we have to think of how we will improve/widen the bridges in the current space provided.  Slap a lane on the existing structure?

There's a discussion in the I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway thread that breaks down why that's not a good idea either.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25493.msg2586893#msg2586893

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25493.msg2586959#msg2586959

I was being sarcastic.  That's why I said in jest "Slap a lane" instead of a more proper "expand the current bridge with a new deck on the outsides of the two existing structures." 

I guess I am trying to get across, you can't expand the right-of-way.  You cant loose the canal between them.  You can't "slap a lane" on them, so you're only options are to right now, replace one bridge by turning one bridge to a two lane interstate while you completely rebuild an 18+ mile bridge (which will take who knows how many years), then do the same to the other one, or do all of that, but wait until I-49 is completed between Lafayette and New Orleans and use that as a detour route for traffic crossing through Louisiana in hopes it minimizes the amount of traffic jams caused by initially having a two laned interstate.

Hear! Hear!

Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

longhorn

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2022, 12:00:33 PM
Quote from: plain on August 16, 2022, 11:17:08 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2022, 10:22:33 AM
Widening the right-of-way through the Atchafalaya Swamp is 100% a no-go, so now we have to think of how we will improve/widen the bridges in the current space provided.  Slap a lane on the existing structure?

There's a discussion in the I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway thread that breaks down why that's not a good idea either.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25493.msg2586893#msg2586893

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25493.msg2586959#msg2586959

I was being sarcastic.  That's why I said in jest "Slap a lane" instead of a more proper "expand the current bridge with a new deck on the outsides of the two existing structures." 

I guess I am trying to get across, you can't expand the right-of-way.  You cant loose the canal between them.  You can't "slap a lane" on them, so you're only options are to right now, replace one bridge by turning one bridge to a two lane interstate while you completely rebuild an 18+ mile bridge (which will take who knows how many years), then do the same to the other one, or do all of that, but wait until I-49 is completed between Lafayette and New Orleans and use that as a detour route for traffic crossing through Louisiana in hopes it minimizes the amount of traffic jams caused by initially having a two laned interstate. 

Why can't you loose the canal in between the bridges

bwana39

Quote from: longhorn on August 17, 2022, 04:33:11 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2022, 12:00:33 PM
Quote from: plain on August 16, 2022, 11:17:08 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2022, 10:22:33 AM
Widening the right-of-way through the Atchafalaya Swamp is 100% a no-go, so now we have to think of how we will improve/widen the bridges in the current space provided.  Slap a lane on the existing structure?

There's a discussion in the I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway thread that breaks down why that's not a good idea either.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25493.msg2586893#msg2586893

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25493.msg2586959#msg2586959

I was being sarcastic.  That's why I said in jest "Slap a lane" instead of a more proper "expand the current bridge with a new deck on the outsides of the two existing structures." 

I guess I am trying to get across, you can't expand the right-of-way.  You cant loose the canal between them.  You can't "slap a lane" on them, so you're only options are to right now, replace one bridge by turning one bridge to a two lane interstate while you completely rebuild an 18+ mile bridge (which will take who knows how many years), then do the same to the other one, or do all of that, but wait until I-49 is completed between Lafayette and New Orleans and use that as a detour route for traffic crossing through Louisiana in hopes it minimizes the amount of traffic jams caused by initially having a two laned interstate. 

Why can't you loose the canal in between the bridges

The canal between the current bridges was used to float barges to build the existing bridges. Seemingly there would still need to be barges to build a replacement. Losing it would need an alternative process to place the cranes.  There is a video further up this string that explains how it was done.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

skluth


ethanhopkin14

Quote from: skluth on August 17, 2022, 06:03:03 PM
Actually, you can just slap a lane onto an existing bridge. It's not easy, but it can be done.

Yes, it can be done.  When I-35 was widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes between Austin and San Antonio, most of the bridges ion San Marcos and New Braunfels were not rebuilt and are still the same old bridge with a lane slapped on it.  Granted they are bridges over intersections and are a few hundred feet long at most.  A world of difference from an 18+ mile bridge. 

skluth

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2022, 11:46:27 AM
Quote from: skluth on August 17, 2022, 06:03:03 PM
Actually, you can just slap a lane onto an existing bridge. It's not easy, but it can be done.

Yes, it can be done.  When I-35 was widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes between Austin and San Antonio, most of the bridges ion San Marcos and New Braunfels were not rebuilt and are still the same old bridge with a lane slapped on it.  Granted they are bridges over intersections and are a few hundred feet long at most.  A world of difference from an 18+ mile bridge.

The I-35 expansion was also far easier than the PSB, a four-lane half-mile bridge over one of the busiest waterways on the continent, so hardly a fair comparison either. Yes, doing this to I-10 is another level of difficulty. But that doesn't make it impossible and it may be the best solution given the difficulties others have presented.

They'd probably have to shut down one side to slap on additional width for the first phase but if they widen it enough to temporarily hold four lanes with minimal shoulders so the other side can be three lanes plus shoulders the highway could then be three lanes with decent shoulders each way and either side could temporarily hold four lanes in a pinch.

bwana39

Quote from: skluth on August 17, 2022, 06:03:03 PM
Actually, you can just slap a lane onto an existing bridge. It's not easy, but it can be done.

I agree it CAN be done. The issue more is the existing bridge(s) in a condition that makes sense to add on to. It obviously less expensive to add an add on as opposed to build a complete new bridge. That said, my guess is adding these is a bad fit.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Bobby5280

Quote from: ethanhopkin14When I-35 was widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes between Austin and San Antonio, most of the bridges ion San Marcos and New Braunfels were not rebuilt and are still the same old bridge with a lane slapped on it.

That might be true for some I-35 bridges in San Marcos, but it's certainly not the case for New Braunfels. In New Braunfels I-35 was just a 2x2 lanes configuration with old, skinny shoulders in the 1990's but then widened to 4x4 lanes with modern shoulders. I-35 was effectively re-built through there. San Marcos got a more modest upgrade from 2x2 to 3x3. Still, some of the I-35 bridges in San Marcos did get fully replaced in that widening project. Today I-35 thru San Marcos needs to be built wider. The entire stretch of I-35 between Austin and San Antonio will need a minimum of 4x4 lanes. Any original bridges still left from the old 2x2 configuration will have to go.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 18, 2022, 02:09:31 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14When I-35 was widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes between Austin and San Antonio, most of the bridges ion San Marcos and New Braunfels were not rebuilt and are still the same old bridge with a lane slapped on it.

That might be true for some I-35 bridges in San Marcos, but it's certainly not the case for New Braunfels. In New Braunfels I-35 was just a 2x2 lanes configuration with old, skinny shoulders in the 1990's but then widened to 4x4 lanes with modern shoulders. I-35 was effectively re-built through there. San Marcos got a more modest upgrade from 2x2 to 3x3. Still, some of the I-35 bridges in San Marcos did get fully replaced in that widening project. Today I-35 thru San Marcos needs to be built wider. The entire stretch of I-35 between Austin and San Antonio will need a minimum of 4x4 lanes. Any original bridges still left from the old 2x2 configuration will have to go.

Yes, that was true for most of New Braunfels, but the north intersection of BL-35 and I-35 was a winding on the existing bridge.  I remember watching them expand it and wondering why they were adding to the old bridge while they were demolishing all the rest of the bridges. 

bwana39

Quote from: bwana39 on July 10, 2022, 09:53:02 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 10, 2022, 04:34:07 AM
Hopefully the state government will come through and make speed enforcement through automated means illegal. This entire Via needs to be replaced and widened to three lanes each way.

They JUST made it legal and only for the Atchafalaya Bridge.



I was wrong. They also are doing it in school zones!
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Urban Prairie Schooner

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 18, 2022, 02:09:31 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14When I-35 was widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes between Austin and San Antonio, most of the bridges ion San Marcos and New Braunfels were not rebuilt and are still the same old bridge with a lane slapped on it.

That might be true for some I-35 bridges in San Marcos, but it's certainly not the case for New Braunfels. In New Braunfels I-35 was just a 2x2 lanes configuration with old, skinny shoulders in the 1990's but then widened to 4x4 lanes with modern shoulders. I-35 was effectively re-built through there. San Marcos got a more modest upgrade from 2x2 to 3x3. Still, some of the I-35 bridges in San Marcos did get fully replaced in that widening project. Today I-35 thru San Marcos needs to be built wider. The entire stretch of I-35 between Austin and San Antonio will need a minimum of 4x4 lanes. Any original bridges still left from the old 2x2 configuration will have to go.

Perhaps DOTD is thinking that any additional widening of the Basin bridges will simply involve adding an inside lane, if the new additions to the west end of the bridge are any clue. This is related to the widening of I-10 to 6 lanes in the Henderson area.

bwana39

Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on November 27, 2022, 01:50:09 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 18, 2022, 02:09:31 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14When I-35 was widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes between Austin and San Antonio, most of the bridges ion San Marcos and New Braunfels were not rebuilt and are still the same old bridge with a lane slapped on it.

That might be true for some I-35 bridges in San Marcos, but it's certainly not the case for New Braunfels. In New Braunfels I-35 was just a 2x2 lanes configuration with old, skinny shoulders in the 1990's but then widened to 4x4 lanes with modern shoulders. I-35 was effectively re-built through there. San Marcos got a more modest upgrade from 2x2 to 3x3. Still, some of the I-35 bridges in San Marcos did get fully replaced in that widening project. Today I-35 thru San Marcos needs to be built wider. The entire stretch of I-35 between Austin and San Antonio will need a minimum of 4x4 lanes. Any original bridges still left from the old 2x2 configuration will have to go.

Perhaps DOTD is thinking that any additional widening of the Basin bridges will simply involve adding an inside lane, if the new additions to the west end of the bridge are any clue. This is related to the widening of I-10 to 6 lanes in the Henderson area.

I don't think in any realm that adding an extra lane to these 50 year old bridges is a viable solution. They are rated at a 6 out of 9 in condition. While they may be here for decades to come, just adding a new lane to each carriageway really is just just patching a problem, not really fixing them.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

seicer

Age isn't the only factor in determining when a bridge needs replacing. They can remain serviceable until maintenance exceeds replacement value (generally). We have a bridge over the Ohio River that will remain in service for 150 years - far surpassing its newer twin that will be torn down in the coming decade.



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.