Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[froggie]

Looks like US 167 and LA 182 have been rerouted around Lafayette.

Evangeline Thruway south of I-10 no longer carries US 167, but does carry LA 182. I only went as far as Kaliste Saloom Rd., but I expect that LA 182 now stays on Evangeline Thruway all the way to the interchange in Broussard.

As for US 167, it apparently now comes down LA 3184 to Bertrand Dr., then follows LA 3025 along College Dr. to Johnston St., where it resumes its historic alignment.

Clearly Louisiana is reducing its mileage in Lafayette. That's not surprising, and neither is the DOTD level of competence being shown. The new US 167 alignment doesn't make sense when Amb. Caffery Parkway (which isn't a LA highway between Bertrand Dr. and Johnston St.) shunts the alignment by multiple miles. Nobody going to Abbeville from I-10 is going to use the new US 167 alignment.

Also, what is the rationale for rerouting US 167, and not rerouting US 90 off the useless alignment on Cameron St.? DOTD could eliminate the "to US 90" business for the Evangeline Thruway by rerouting US 90 onto I-10 at, say, LA 93 in Scott or Amb. Caffery Pkwy.

At any rate, this will give Lafayette a rare interstate-US-LA triplex, which I don't think exists anywhere else in Louisiana.

Unfortunately I didn't get pictures when I was in Lafayette on Friday. Maybe Anthony_JK can grab some for us?

So the reroutes have finally been signed.  I wonder if this has been submitted to AASHTO....

Per a recent post in another thread, yes something was submitted and approved back in the spring.  But we don't have the details of WHAT was submitted yet.

[jbnv]

I agree about the level of DOTD competence displayed with regard to routing. Bertrand/College should be swapped for Ambassador Caffery north of Johnston Street. That would place all of Caffery under state control and create a logical Lafayette half-bypass.

There is a logic in that Bertrand Drive is already a state route and Ambassador Caffery is not a state route between Bertrand Drive and Johnston St. So the US 167 reroute follows road that's already under the state's purview and doesn't add any mileage to the state's plate.

It's lazy logic, the sort of minimalist quality that we tend to get in Louisiana. Only DOTD sees any sense in Ambassador Caffery not carrying LA 3073 all the way to LA 3814.

[bwana39]

I agree about the level of DOTD competence displayed with regard to routing. Bertrand/College should be swapped for Ambassador Caffery north of Johnston Street. That would place all of Caffery under state control and create a logical Lafayette half-bypass.

There is a logic in that Bertrand Drive is already a state route and Ambassador Caffery is not a state route between Bertrand Drive and Johnston St. So the US 167 reroute follows road that's already under the state's purview and doesn't add any mileage to the state's plate.

It's lazy logic, the sort of minimalist quality that we tend to get in Louisiana. Only DOTD sees any sense in Ambassador Caffery not carrying LA 3073 all the way to LA 3814.

You seem to see this as transportation. It is just the way LADOTD and the local communities negotiate and trade highway maintenance / construction  back and forth. Sometimes they will exchange lane miles from a newly refurbished stretch to one that is barely open almost as soon as DOTD has finished the upgrade. This is primarily done when DOTD has extra money, but that is not the only time they do it.

[jbnv]

I agree about the level of DOTD competence displayed with regard to routing. Bertrand/College should be swapped for Ambassador Caffery north of Johnston Street. That would place all of Caffery under state control and create a logical Lafayette half-bypass.

There is a logic in that Bertrand Drive is already a state route and Ambassador Caffery is not a state route between Bertrand Drive and Johnston St. So the US 167 reroute follows road that's already under the state's purview and doesn't add any mileage to the state's plate.

It's lazy logic, the sort of minimalist quality that we tend to get in Louisiana. Only DOTD sees any sense in Ambassador Caffery not carrying LA 3073 all the way to LA 3814.

You seem to see this as transportation. It is just the way LADOTD and the local communities negotiate and trade highway maintenance / construction  back and forth. Sometimes they will exchange lane miles from a newly refurbished stretch to one that is barely open almost as soon as DOTD has finished the upgrade. This is primarily done when DOTD has extra money, but that is not the only time they do it.

Why wouldn't I see this as transportation? If there's no navigational aspect to it, then it doesn't need to be signed. There's no compelling reason for the BGS for Evangeline Thruway to have "LA 182" on it unless LA 182 has navigational value. "Evangeline Thruway" should actually be on the sign because the name "Evangeline Thruway" has navigational value. LA 182 doesn't have any navigational value within the city of Lafayette.

I think this is a fair criticism of DOTD. I've lived in Tangipahoa Parish for almost 10 years. You could put a gun to my head and force me to tell you the street names of US 190, US 51 and US 51 BUS. And I expect I would fail that test. Because none of the interstate interchanges with these roads have the street names on the BGSes. Just "Hammond." I'm old enough to remember when the LA 182 exit from I-10 read "Lafayette / Carencro" instead of "N University Avenue."