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

[US 89]

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.

Why don't you pay for all the industry along the Mississippi to move to the Atchafalaya first? A sudden switch would likely cripple the nation's economy.

For that matter, Baton Rouge basically will have no reason to exist anymore. Probably a good idea to move the capital over to Lafayette while you're at it.

[Bobby5280]

Why don't you pay for all the industry along the Mississippi to move to the Atchafalaya first? A sudden switch would likely cripple the nation's economy.

Everyone knows a great deal of existing business and industry relies on the Mississippi River flowing along its current and very artificially controlled path. New Orleans gets much of its drink-able water from the Mississippi River (via a complicated purification process at the Algiers plant).

All of those things depend 100% on maintaining a status quo situation: holding back Gulf of Mexico salt waters and keeping New Orleans on dry land. Both of those desires cannot be fulfilled without deliberate and increasingly costly action. Just hoping and praying isn't going to do squat. Both may be losing propositions in the long term regardless of what anyone does.

The wetlands areas in Southern Louisiana were literally built by the Mississippi River system. The river would over-flow its banks periodically or even make complete changes to its path. The process deposited silt and soil in new areas. Fresh water would push out the salt water as well as build up underground aquifers which helped push land upward. Trees and other plant life grew, helping hold that land in place. That natural process was interrupted decades ago when people decided to corral the Mississippi River with levees.

The ocean is steadily eating away at wetlands. Saltwater intrusion kills the plant life. The root systems helping hold the fragile soil in place disappear. The city of New Orleans is basically in a sinking bathtub. Ground water was depleted by multiple factors. One now-closed power plant deserves a significant amount of blame. The effect of urban development on that kind of land is another factor. Even the process of pumping out flood waters ironically sped up the process of subsidence.

The lands in Southern Louisiana are increasingly fragile. The process of New Orleans sinking and the process of wetlands erosion is relatively slow. But major hurricane strikes and associated storm surges will dramatically speed up the process. As the amount of wetlands between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico continues to shrink it will allow hurricanes to do even more damage as they make landfall.

Basically all of those industries that depend on the Mississippi River had better be developing game plans for relocation. Because Mother Nature will force them to move eventually.

[triplemultiplex]

The thing about the delta switch is we have the ability to control the speed with which we make that transition.  This isn't an all or nothing proposition.  We could quite reasonably engineer the Old River Structure into a facility that incrementally allows more and more water to take the shorter path to the Gulf while at the same time still allow for shipping.  Spend the next century slowly transitioning the Mississippi into the Atchafalaya basin thus allowing plenty of time for existing facilities below the Old River Structure to age out and move locations to the new channel.

And even when complete, it's not like the existing channel will go bone dry.  Just look around southern Louisiana at all the different bayous and smaller river courses; they are all Mississippi River distributaries, many of which are quite navigable by barges.  It is completely reasonable to maintain a navigable river channel up through Baton Rouge even with the majority of the river going toward Morgan City.  Just think about it like 'flipping' the flow as it exists now.  Most water currently is channeled toward New Orleans while some is allowed go into the Atchafalaya.  In the future that would be reversed.

Naturally, this has long term consequences for GNO due to the loss of replentative sediment.  But really it's not much different from the status quo where most of that sediment is getting dumped off the edge of the continental shelf rather than spreading out to keep the coastal wetlands out of the sea thanks to our network of levees.  Over time, humans will migrate their activity toward the new Atchafalaya outlet growing a place like Morgan City, perhaps even Lafayette, into the next New Orleans.

Eventually nature will take it upon itself to do the delta switch itself.  In the not too distant future, a major hurricane will park itself over the lower basin ala Hurricane Harvey in a year where the waters of the Mississippi are already high and the river will violently and suddenly blast through an enormous section of levee somewhere upstream from Baton Rouge and forge its new path to the Gulf.  At that point, it will likely no longer be tenable to force the river back into its original path once this future flood event is done carving it's new channel.  Much better to use our technology to soften that transition and salvage people's livelihoods.

[Bobby5280]

One important factor could force a lot of people and businesses out of the New Orleans area: insurance costs.

The vulnerability of property to floods, unstable soil and the occasional hurricane could eventually lead to insurance companies refusing to cover properties in that region.

The thing about the delta switch is we have the ability to control the speed with which we make that transition.  This isn't an all or nothing proposition.  We could quite reasonably engineer the Old River Structure into a facility that incrementally allows more and more water to take the shorter path to the Gulf while at the same time still allow for shipping.

The Army Corps of Engineers should have built in smarter methods for controlling the flow of the Mississippi River -such as allowing periodic spill-over into wetlands to replentish fresh water supply. Unfortunately there is quite a tug of war with interests who demand to keep the Mississippi River navigable at all costs.

From time to time they have to dredge the river channel, keeping it deep enough to prevent barges and ships from running aground. The extreme drought in the west has been affecting the Mississippi River. One dredging project was completed recently to deepen the channel from 45' to 50' from the mouth of the Mississippi River up to New Orleans. They're using a lot of the mud and silt from the dredging process to try to restore eroded wet lands. But that effort can only serve as a stop gap measure as the ocean makes water more brackish or just completely salty farther and farther into the swamp land.

[Mileage Mike]

False 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. 

I see this claim often. I didn't see in the article any mention of vehicle taxes, parking fees, vehicle registration fees, or parking/speeding/traffic citation revenues factored in with what the roads generate. While I do agree that the federal gas tax desperately needs to be raised and pegged to inflation going forward, it's pretty misleading how these articles exclude those fees because they go into the general funds of a state but at the same time use the fact that road maintenance/construction dips into those same funds as evidence of "roads not funding themselves". The funds that those things provide to the general state funds should be added in for any honest conversation on what generates revenue since if a person isn't driving then they won't be paying any of those taxes or fees. For example: if a state is pulling $2 billion a year into their general funds from those fees and the roads pulled $2 billion from the general fund then the roads effectively funded themselves. In fact, in many places such funds generated by people driving on roads are used to help subsidize transit. So it's quite possible that the case is more of revenue generated by roads being used to fund other things, to include alternative modes of transportation moreso than the roads not funding themselves.

[rlb2024]

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.

Not sure what you mean by "restorative".  Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.  (Yes, that's billions with a B.)  And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever.  And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.

[Rothman]

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.

Not sure what you mean by "restorative".  Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.  (Yes, that's billions with a B.)  And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever.  And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.

We are in the realm of hyperbole now.

[rlb2024]

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.

Not sure what you mean by "restorative".  Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.  (Yes, that's billions with a B.)  And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever.  And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.

We are in the realm of hyperbole now.

Just observations from living and working in -- and traveling across -- south Louisiana for the past 40 or so years.

[Rothman]

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.

Not sure what you mean by "restorative".  Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.  (Yes, that's billions with a B.)  And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever.  And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.

We are in the realm of hyperbole now.

Just observations from living and working in -- and traveling across -- south Louisiana for the past 40 or so years.

Yeah, just living in a place does not make you an expert on facility costs or on how the Federal Government would react to a massive relocation effort.

Hence, hyperbole.

[brad2971]

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.

Take it from this Denver resident: RTD's A Line to DIA is one of the better transit improvements to happen to any city west of the Mississippi. And it would NEVER have been constructed if the sales pitch was principally around the fallacy that it can be a traffic reliever. Frankly, New Orleans would see a significantly better tourism mix if it built a light-rail to the airport, though completing the "last mile" to the new terminal is going to be quite the chore if the flyovers to that new terminal are any indicator.

And as for tearing down the Claiborne viaduct: That depends upon how Louisiana and New Orleans feel about the current I-10's perception of handling cross-country traffic. LADOTD could, and should, relocate I-10 onto I-12, then extend I-610 on both ends from Baton Rouge to I-10/I-59. After that, treat that I-10 "spur" and GNO Bridge/Westbank expressway as I-910 or an extension of upcoming I-49.

[rlb2024]

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.

Not sure what you mean by "restorative".  Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.  (Yes, that's billions with a B.)  And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever.  And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.

We are in the realm of hyperbole now.

Just observations from living and working in -- and traveling across -- south Louisiana for the past 40 or so years.

Yeah, just living in a place does not make you an expert on facility costs or on how the Federal Government would react to a massive relocation effort.

Hence, hyperbole.

Never claimed to be an "expert" , but spending 30-plus years as a process control systems engineer at the nation's largest crude oil storage network, with storage facilities in south Louisiana and southeast Texas – and having worked on upgrade and expansion plans as part of my career – gives me a little insight as to how it works and what is required.

[froggie]

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. 

I see this claim often. I didn't see in the article any mention of vehicle taxes, parking fees, vehicle registration fees, or parking/speeding/traffic citation revenues factored in with what the roads generate. While I do agree that the federal gas tax desperately needs to be raised and pegged to inflation going forward, it's pretty misleading how these articles exclude those fees because they go into the general funds of a state but at the same time use the fact that road maintenance/construction dips into those same funds as evidence of "roads not funding themselves". The funds that those things provide to the general state funds should be added in for any honest conversation on what generates revenue since if a person isn't driving then they won't be paying any of those taxes or fees. For example: if a state is pulling $2 billion a year into their general funds from those fees and the roads pulled $2 billion from the general fund then the roads effectively funded themselves. In fact, in many places such funds generated by people driving on roads are used to help subsidize transit. So it's quite possible that the case is more of revenue generated by roads being used to fund other things, to include alternative modes of transportation moreso than the roads not funding themselves.

As with most things, "your local mileage may vary", but there are two flaws in your own argument.  First is a specific example from your neighbor state to the north...a considerable chunk of VDOT's road construction budget comes from a 0.5% general sales tax.  Second, and I think Bobby alluded to this upthread, but the #1 source of road funding at the county and local level is the property tax.  Neither of these taxes have to do with roads, but are being used for roads in part because road-specific taxes are not enough.

[Rothman]

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.

Not sure what you mean by "restorative".  Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.  (Yes, that's billions with a B.)  And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever.  And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.

We are in the realm of hyperbole now.

Just observations from living and working in -- and traveling across -- south Louisiana for the past 40 or so years.

Yeah, just living in a place does not make you an expert on facility costs or on how the Federal Government would react to a massive relocation effort.

Hence, hyperbole.

Never claimed to be an "expert" , but spending 30-plus years as a process control systems engineer at the nation's largest crude oil storage network, with storage facilities in south Louisiana and southeast Texas – and having worked on upgrade and expansion plans as part of my career – gives me a little insight as to how it works and what is required.

Then the only question, like others have pointed out in the thread, is whether it would be better to relocate before the next huge disaster hits LA or wait until those facilities are wiped out by such to do so.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

Realistically, the yawning gap of human capital, with attendant exodus to other states, will make New Orleans untenable as a settlement long before any natural deltaic erosion processes can play out to their conclusion.

[bwana39]

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.

Not sure what you mean by "restorative".  Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.  (Yes, that's billions with a B.)  And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever.  And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.

We are in the realm of hyperbole now.

Just observations from living and working in -- and traveling across -- south Louisiana for the past 40 or so years.

Yeah, just living in a place does not make you an expert on facility costs or on how the Federal Government would react to a massive relocation effort.

Hence, hyperbole.

Never claimed to be an "expert" , but spending 30-plus years as a process control systems engineer at the nation's largest crude oil storage network, with storage facilities in south Louisiana and southeast Texas – and having worked on upgrade and expansion plans as part of my career – gives me a little insight as to how it works and what is required.

Then the only question, like others have pointed out in the thread, is whether it would be better to relocate before the next huge disaster hits LA or wait until those facilities are wiped out by such to do so.

Yes. It would be similar to abandoning L.A. and San Francisco preemptively before "the big one"

[Bobby5280]

Seismologists have no idea when the next "big one" level earthquake will hit the L.A. or Bay Area regions. The same goes for Mount Rainier and when it eventually blows its stack, possibly sending a boiling lahar rocketing into the Seattle-Tacoma metro. Those are sudden events that could happen next week or next century.

The situation in New Orleans and the rest of the delta country in Louisiana is a slowly worsening crisis, not a sharp single event like an earthquake. The deterioration process will continue without dramatic intervention. Mother Nature will steadily force more and more businesses and residents in the threatened areas to GTFO.

[lamsalfl]

LADOTD could, and should, relocate I-10 onto I-12, then extend I-610 on both ends from Baton Rouge to I-10/I-59. After that, treat that I-10 "spur" and GNO Bridge/Westbank expressway as I-910 or an extension of upcoming I-49.

What a waste of money.

[Bobby5280]

I-10 should continue running through New Orleans while New Orleans is still there. If anything would be re-numbered as a 3-digit Interstate it should be I-12. That road functions as a bypass/relief route. Major Interstates are supposed to go TO major destinations, not avoid them. Whether anyone likes the Crescent City or not it is still a major destination.

[brad2971]

LADOTD could, and should, relocate I-10 onto I-12, then extend I-610 on both ends from Baton Rouge to I-10/I-59. After that, treat that I-10 "spur" and GNO Bridge/Westbank expressway as I-910 or an extension of upcoming I-49.

What a waste of money.

Other than the re-signing of the Interstates in question (and those signs can be done in-house at LADOTD's sign shops), where's the waste of money?

[brad2971]

I-10 should continue running through New Orleans while New Orleans is still there. If anything would be re-numbered as a 3-digit Interstate it should be I-12. That road functions as a bypass/relief route. Major Interstates are supposed to go TO major destinations, not avoid them. Whether anyone likes the Crescent City or not it is still a major destination.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to explain why I-5 in the Central Valley does NOT go through major cities like Fresno, Modesto, and Bakersfield. Also keep in mind that, at the very least, Fresno was a major city when I-5 was built.

[Bobby5280]

There have been previous discussion threads about why I-5 didn't go thru those cities. The short version is: 1. people in those central valley cities thought CA-99 was good enough and 2. they didn't want a bunch of existing property taken for an I-5 route.

Also, I-5 does go TO the centers of Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle and Tacoma.

[skluth]

I-10 should continue running through New Orleans while New Orleans is still there. If anything would be re-numbered as a 3-digit Interstate it should be I-12. That road functions as a bypass/relief route. Major Interstates are supposed to go TO major destinations, not avoid them. Whether anyone likes the Crescent City or not it is still a major destination.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to explain why I-5 in the Central Valley does NOT go through major cities like Fresno, Modesto, and Bakersfield. Also keep in mind that, at the very least, Fresno was a major city when I-5 was built.

Someone who posts here almost daily already has

[sprjus4]

My understanding was basically that then US-99 was already largely being built out to freeway / four lane divided highway throughout, and it was decided to use 90% interstate funding to gain a second corridor since CA-99 was already being converted into largely freeway.

[The Ghostbuster]

Getting back to Louisiana (and New Orleans, in general), I don't know how long The Big Easy has until it needs to be permanently abandoned. I do know that until that day comes, it should maintain its existing freeway system, and that would include retaining the existing Interstate 10 Claiborne Avenue viaduct.

[triplemultiplex]

Snarky reason to keep the viaduct: people will need it the next time the city floods so they have a dry place to wait for rescue.
Katrina is going to happen again, eventually.