Print

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

[jbnv]

https://www.ksla.com/2021/11/12/mayor-perkins-attend-signing-infrastructure-bill-white-house/

The Shreveport mayor has his eyes on some of the infrastructure money.

The projects seem to be The ICC, LA-3132 to the port, the I-49 port connector (future I-69?), Jimmie Davis Bridge replacement,

These are the start. The port bridge and the port to I-20 section of I-69

I'd bet money that Perkins's eyes are also on the governor's office.

He needs to pick what he wants very carefully. The ICC alone takes up 10-15% of the funds. Add anything else from his wish list and we're talking about 25+% going to the Shreveport-Bossier area alone. I-49 South has been dragging along for three decades, and I-10/12 carries tons of interstate traffic while also serving a clear majority of the state's population. He's going to make very few fans in south Louisiana by asking for a large part of the pie just for Shreveport-Bossier.

If I were Perkins, I'd present an actual plan for the infrastructure funds: Rally for I-49 complete from Arkansas to New Orleans. Acknowledge the needs of the I-10/12 corridor but also make a case for I-20 as a transnational corridor. And suggest an allocation of funds that either completes the big projects or gets them going in a way that they can be completed.

[bwana39]

https://www.ksla.com/2021/11/12/mayor-perkins-attend-signing-infrastructure-bill-white-house/

The Shreveport mayor has his eyes on some of the infrastructure money.

The projects seem to be The ICC, LA-3132 to the port, the I-49 port connector (future I-69?), Jimmie Davis Bridge replacement,

These are the start. The port bridge and the port to I-20 section of I-69

I'd bet money that Perkins's eyes are also on the governor's office.

He needs to pick what he wants very carefully. The ICC alone takes up 10-15% of the funds. Add anything else from his wish list and we're talking about 25+% going to the Shreveport-Bossier area alone. I-49 South has been dragging along for three decades, and I-10/12 carries tons of interstate traffic while also serving a clear majority of the state's population. He's going to make very few fans in south Louisiana by asking for a large part of the pie just for Shreveport-Bossier.

If I were Perkins, I'd present an actual plan for the infrastructure funds: Rally for I-49 complete from Arkansas to New Orleans. Acknowledge the needs of the I-10/12 corridor but also make a case for I-20 as a transnational corridor. And suggest an allocation of funds that either completes the big projects or gets them going in a way that they can be completed.

Actually when you break it down, this single less than 5-mile stretch would take up nearly 20% of the transportation / bridge funding part.
Part of the problem is the expense of the construction. I think I mean engineering and quality control.

This said, I cannot figure out how it is supposed to cost $600M in the first case. 100M per mile in Houston would be deemed excessive.

The total ROW cost should be less than twenty million. Market value for all of the property in a 500' ROW would be less than this. You could buy every building east of Allen Avenue and keep it in line with this. The Renaissance at Allendale apartments are worth more than the rest of it combined. It should just run to the east of them or run each direction on either side (I know that is not feasible, but it is meeting Spite with spite or spitting in the face of opportunists.)

[Anthony_JK]

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

[bwana39]

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

Still, over 100M per mile?

[The Ghostbuster]

When/if the Interstate 49 ICC is constructed, will it have any interchanges between Interstate 20 and Interstate 220? I would imagine there would be at least one interchange constructed, maybe at Ford St./LA 173 or at N. Hearne Ave./LA 3094.

[bwana39]

When/if the Interstate 49 ICC is constructed, will it have any interchanges between Interstate 20 and Interstate 220? I would imagine there would be at least one interchange constructed, maybe at Ford St./LA 173 or at N. Hearne Ave./LA 3094.

The plan is an intersection at Milam and another at either Ford / Caddo (same street) or Hearne.  Originally it was Hearne then the local community wanted FORD. With the Amazon distribution center, it seems Hearne may be back on the list.

[CoolAngrybirdsrio4]

There is a clear path from I-20 to Garden Street for a possible freeway (whether its one or both side) as indicated by how empty the area is south of LA 173 (Caddo Street). However, north of Garden Street, there would have to be some displacements or what not to connect to I-220.

[sprjus4]

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

Wouldn’t I-10 be a higher priority than I-49? Far more traffic and immediate impact for such projects.

Unless you’re specifically referring to Lafayette only.

[Bobby5280]

The issues with I-10 are too enormous for Louisiana to handle without a great deal of federal funding and a lot of contractors. Those long, elevated bridges over swamp land between Lafayette, Baton Rouge and New Orleans need to be completely replaced with new bridges in at least a 3x3 lanes configuration. There's no telling what that will cost. My guess is $2-$5 billion. That might be seriously low-balling it. The I-10 bridges projects may be very disruptive to traffic. I don't think they're projects that anyone can afford allowing to take multiple years to complete.

If LA DOT has to do more of the heavy lifting they're going to stick with smaller, more do-able projects. The ICC in Shreveport, the I-49 project in Lafayette, the West Bank Expressway and I-49 South projects can all be done in phases and spot upgrades even down to one intersection at a time.

[sprjus4]

^ It’s a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

[jbnv]

If LA DOT has to do more of the heavy lifting they're going to stick with smaller, more do-able projects. The ICC in Shreveport, the I-49 project in Lafayette, the West Bank Expressway and I-49 South projects can all be done in phases and spot upgrades even down to one intersection at a time.

Also, we have statewide elections in two years. People who want to make their political careers have a major incentive to get the ball rolling on shovel-ready projects. Unfortunately for the ICC, I don't think it is shovel-ready enough to make the cut.

Bobby makes a very good point about I-10. If we spend the $6 billion wisely and demonstrate that we are putting it to good use, then we can go to Congress and ask for billions for I-10.

[Anthony_JK]

The Calcasieu River Bridge segment in Lake Charles is a high priority, for LADOTD; it's just still in the engineering and environmental state.

Upgrading the Atchafalaya Basin viaduct segment of I-10 would be prohibitively expensive; that's way down the line of priorities.

They will be working on I-10 in Baton Rouge soon; the funding is established and letting will be forthcoming as soon as the design work is completed.

They still have to resolve the Allendale matter (and overcome the possible lawsuits) before the ICC will be built, so that's a bit down the line, too.

At least, I-49 South through Lafayette is being staged so that portions can be built while design work is completed on the Connector segment. The next section south of Lafayette which will start construction soon will be the Ambassador Caffery Parkway interchange with US 90 and the associated one-way frontage road system. The Verot School Road interchange just south of the Connector is also nearing completion of the design stage, awaiting funding for construction.

[silverback1065]

^ It’s a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

isn't that why 210 exists? 

[sprjus4]

^ It’s a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

isn't that why 210 exists? 

I-210 is not a viable through traffic bypass. (unless a major incident, of course) It’s a local beltway route.

The vast majority of through traffic is sticking with I-10 all other times.

[silverback1065]

^ It’s a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

isn't that why 210 exists? 

I-210 is not a viable through traffic bypass. (unless a major incident, of course) It’s a local beltway route.

The vast majority of through traffic is sticking with I-10 all other times.

It's signed as the bypass though...

[sprjus4]

^ It’s a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

isn't that why 210 exists? 

I-210 is not a viable through traffic bypass. (unless a major incident, of course) It’s a local beltway route.

The vast majority of through traffic is sticking with I-10 all other times.

It's signed as the bypass though...

Yet very little traffic actually uses it as such.

It’s a longer route, and is still an urban 60 mph interstate highway, no different than I-10.

[Bobby5280]

The I-210 Israel LaFleur Bridge over the Calcasieu River isn't any better either. It's just 2x2 lanes with no shoulders. Bridges on a lot of the other I-210 exits are badly outdated as well.

Upgrading the Atchafalaya Basin viaduct segment of I-10 would be prohibitively expensive; that's way down the line of priorities.

The federal government really needs to start planning for that ASAP. The I-10 viaducts over the Atchafalaya Basin between Lafayette and Baton Route as well as the I-10 (and I-55) viaducts over the Maurepas Swamp just West of New Orleans are all pretty old. I remember traveling over those things when I was just a kid in the early 1980's. That's roughly 40 years ago. I don't think those bridges were brand new back then either. Those bridges do not have an indefinite life span. Their limited capacity acts as a bottleneck, especially the viaduct over the Atchafalaya Basin. Long distance I-10 traffic can use I-12 to bypass New Orleans and those viaducts over the Maurepas Swamp. That traffic has little alternative crossing the Atchafalaya. US-190 runs parallel to the North, but provides more of the same: long bridges with limited capacity spanning over swamp land.

[Anthony_JK]

^ It’s a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

isn't that why 210 exists? 

The main reasons why the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is being replaced/upgraded is because: it is nearly 60 years old; it's effectively reached the end of its lifespan; it almost managed to make the "structurally deficient" list; the steep gradients don't meet modern Interstate standards; and it's only 2x2 with no shoulders. The replacement would allow for continuous 2x3 with proper shoulders, a more forgiving grade, a possible grade separated interchange with Sampson Street in Westlake (or a second local crossing of the Calcasieu River between LCH and Westlake), and would fit in with the general push for 2x3 from the Texas state line/Sabine River Bridge to US 165 at Iowa.

I-210 is somewhat useful as an LCH bypass, but mostly it's used for easier access to McNeese State University and for the casinos off the bank of the "new" Calcasieu Lake (I-210) bridge.

I wonder when they dedicated the I-210 bridge to Isiah LaFleur? Before recently, everyone just referred it as "the new bridge."

[Anthony_JK]

The I-210 Israel LaFleur Bridge over the Calcasieu River isn't any better either. It's just 2x2 lanes with no shoulders. Bridges on a lot of the other I-210 exits are badly outdated as well.

Upgrading the Atchafalaya Basin viaduct segment of I-10 would be prohibitively expensive; that's way down the line of priorities.

The federal government really needs to start planning for that ASAP. The I-10 viaducts over the Atchafalaya Basin between Lafayette and Baton Route as well as the I-10 (and I-55) viaducts over the Maurepas Swamp just West of New Orleans are all pretty old. I remember traveling over those things when I was just a kid in the early 1980's. That's roughly 40 years ago. I don't think those bridges were brand new back then either. Those bridges do not have an indefinite life span. Their limited capacity acts as a bottleneck, especially the viaduct over the Atchafalaya Basin. Long distance I-10 traffic can use I-12 to bypass New Orleans and those viaducts over the Maurepas Swamp. That traffic has little alternative crossing the Atchafalaya. US-190 runs parallel to the North, but provides more of the same: long bridges with limited capacity spanning over swamp land.

The states set the priorities for transportation these days, and although down the line Louisiana will have to confront the end-of-life cycle of all their elevated-above-swampland highway sections; that's well down the road. As of right now, the aforementioned roadways are doing all right, other than for fog events and the weekly pileups that closes down the I-10 Atchafalaya and Bonnet Carre segments for chunks.

[sprjus4]

The replacement would allow for continuous 2x3 with proper shoulders...

...would fit in with the general push for 2x3 from the Texas state line/Sabine River Bridge to US 165 at Iowa.

Wouldn't it be a consistent 3x3 section, with a minimum of three lanes and full left and right shoulders in each direction throughout?

[silverback1065]

geeze, after looking at that article LA has a lot of issues with their road quality. Indiana was here a few years ago.

[Anthony_JK]

The replacement would allow for continuous 2x3 with proper shoulders...

...would fit in with the general push for 2x3 from the Texas state line/Sabine River Bridge to US 165 at Iowa.

Wouldn't it be a consistent 3x3 section, with a minimum of three lanes and full left and right shoulders in each direction throughout?

I would assume so, since it would be built to full Interstate standards....although LA tends to favor narrower right shoulders.

[Bobby5280]

IMHO, it would be ridiculously idiotic for anyone to build a new Calcasieu River Bridge with anything less than 3 lanes in BOTH directions. A new bridge is going to be pretty expensive to build anyway. Why waste money on one with one direction being bottle-necked to 2 lanes? Any planners suggesting a 2x3 configuration should have their heads examined. That's a pretty busy section of I-10 after all.

[CtrlAltDel]

IMHO, it would be ridiculously idiotic for anyone to build a new Calcasieu River Bridge with anything less than 3 lanes in BOTH directions. A new bridge is going to be pretty expensive to build anyway. Why waste money on one with one direction being bottle-necked to 2 lanes? Any planners suggesting a 2x3 configuration should have their heads examined. That's a pretty busy section of I-10 after all.

Is this just a question of phrasing, for lack of a better word? When I see a "2×3" configuration, I think two sets of three lanes, for six lanes overall, since that's what 2 × 3 means in arithmetic.

[Plutonic Panda]

Interesting. I always 2x3 meant 2 lanes in one direction and 3 lanes the other direction.