Print

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

[Anthony_JK]

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.

2x3 means 3 lanes in both directions, to avoid all confusion.   

[Henry]

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.

2x3 means 3 lanes in both directions, to avoid all confusion.   

The preferred term would be 3-3.

[MCRoads]

As a thought exercise, how would they even attempt to reconstruct the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge? Since it is in a wetland, just building new bridges off to the side is almost certainly off the table. My thoughts would be that it is done in multiple stages.

- The high-level sections over the Atchafalaya River and Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel would go first, as this would probably be the most disruptive part of the entire project, to both vehicular and marine traffic.. They could probably build a twin span across the river, and demolish and replace the existing span.
- the long, low-lying sections could be rebuilt by building a section of the new bridge just wide enough for 2 lanes of traffic, then demolishing the existing span and adding to the new bridge. This would definitely have to be done in stages, as having 2 10 foot lanes with no shoulders on a bridge for 5-10 miles is not an option.

[abqtraveler]

As a thought exercise, how would they even attempt to reconstruct the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge? Since it is in a wetland, just building new bridges off to the side is almost certainly off the table. My thoughts would be that it is done in multiple stages.

- The high-level sections over the Atchafalaya River and Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel would go first, as this would probably be the most disruptive part of the entire project, to both vehicular and marine traffic.. They could probably build a twin span across the river, and demolish and replace the existing span.
- the long, low-lying sections could be rebuilt by building a section of the new bridge just wide enough for 2 lanes of traffic, then demolishing the existing span and adding to the new bridge. This would definitely have to be done in stages, as having 2 10 foot lanes with no shoulders on a bridge for 5-10 miles is not an option.

I would think for most of it, they could build the new bridge in the space between the existing bridges, but for the sections over the Atchafalaya River and the Whiskey Bay channel, they would need to take a different approach as the space between the two roadways narrows to allow for a single structure over said waterways. There, the new bridge sections would have to be built either 1) to one side of the existing structures, building one half, then demolishing the existing bridges and completing the second half; or 2) they build parts of the new structure outside of the existing bridges, then demolish the existing bridges and complete the middle portion of the new spans.

[MCRoads]

As a thought exercise, how would they even attempt to reconstruct the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge? Since it is in a wetland, just building new bridges off to the side is almost certainly off the table. My thoughts would be that it is done in multiple stages.

- The high-level sections over the Atchafalaya River and Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel would go first, as this would probably be the most disruptive part of the entire project, to both vehicular and marine traffic.. They could probably build a twin span across the river, and demolish and replace the existing span.
- the long, low-lying sections could be rebuilt by building a section of the new bridge just wide enough for 2 lanes of traffic, then demolishing the existing span and adding to the new bridge. This would definitely have to be done in stages, as having 2 10 foot lanes with no shoulders on a bridge for 5-10 miles is not an option.

I would think for most of it, they could build the new bridge in the space between the existing bridges, but for the sections over the Atchafalaya River and the Whiskey Bay channel, they would need to take a different approach as the space between the two roadways narrows to allow for a single structure over said waterways. There, the new bridge sections would have to be built either 1) to one side of the existing structures, building one half, then demolishing the existing bridges and completing the second half; or 2) they build parts of the new structure outside of the existing bridges, then demolish the existing bridges and complete the middle portion of the new spans.

That space in the middle seems to be there for a reason, though I cannot find any info on it. That’s why I said that the new structures should probably be built as close to the original as possible, and using the same footprint.

Edit to add: it is a construction waterway. It allowed barges to build the bridges. My assumption is that it will still need to exist to allow reconstruction, otherwise they will have to close down one or both of the existing bridges to build the bridge in the center.

Here is the pretty cool video I got that from:

[Bobby5280]

That space in the middle seems to be there for a reason, though I cannot find any info on it.

The median between the bridges is used as a boat channel. There are boat ramps under I-10 exits 121 & 127. The median channel connects to at least a couple or so bayous cutting through the swamp.

The median between the bridges is fairly wide, about 120'. Obviously replacement bridges would have to be built one at a time, either within the existing median or the outboard side of the existing bridge. A mix of both approaches would probably be used for a complete replacement to arrive at a similar footprint. At any rate, those bridges are at least 40 or more years old. They're not going to last forever. So whether LA DOT plans on replacing them within the near future or within the next 20 or so years they had better start coming up with a plan at the very least.

[triplemultiplex]

Just wait for a hurricane to destroy them, then build new bridges.  Worked for I-10 across the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain.

[MCRoads]

Just wait for a hurricane to destroy them, then build new bridges.  Worked for I-10 across the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain.

Yes, but they didn’t have to ship parts 400 miles…

[Bobby5280]

It would have to take something like a really severe Category 5 hurricane coming ashore near Morgan City to have any shot at destroying the I-10 bridges over the Atchafalaya Swamp.

One key thing to remember: it wasn't wind that took out the I-10 bridge to the South of Slidell. It was storm surge (combined with certain design aspects of the bridges which contributed to lower elevation spans getting dislodged by the surge). A giant dome of water is way more destructive than wind. The I-10 bridges over the Atchafalaya are too far inland to get topped by storm surge. Plus there are millions of trees between that portion of I-10 and the coast to blunt the energy of a storm surge. The I-10 bridges over by Slidell were far more exposed to the forces of Hurricane Katrina.

[triplemultiplex]

Thought it was pretty obvious by my use of emoji that I was being facetious.
If ya'll could have heard me say that sentence, I think it would have landed, but text is so sterilizing.

[sernum]

I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face . Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?

[Plutonic Panda]

Build the ICC. Best solution.

[MCRoads]

I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face . Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?

That was literally one of the proposed alternatives, and it was thrown out because it would involve reconstructing the cross lake bridge… which they should probably do, but they aren’t going to.

[BlueOutback7]

Although I’ve never been to Shreveport, the ICC is ultimately the ideal setup. Besides, that would put too much traffic on the I-220/LA 3132 corridor. If the loop it idea were to happen, you would also have to renumber the stub I-49 as something like I-149 for instance. I’m very surprised that the folks down there are on board. If this were done in Philly for example, it would cause a ruckus among the locals.

[sernum]

I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face . Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?

That was literally one of the proposed alternatives, and it was thrown out because it would involve reconstructing the cross lake bridge… which they should probably do, but they aren’t going to.

it was? thats news to me, the alternatives ive seen only go up to 5 and the 5th one is the only "loop it" option ive seen and it uses both parts of the loop, any link?

[Anthony_JK]

I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face . Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?

Ummm....The Loop It Alternative would do just that, only further reroute I-49 over LA 3132 (Inner Loop), which is freeway but not Interstate standard.  Only difference would be that you would still have to add an additional lane to the Cross Lake section, and simply replace reworking the I-20/I220 West interchange for reworking the I-49/Inner Loop interchange. No real difference.

Incidentially enough, the official "detour" route LADOTD uses for through I-49 traffic is to use I-220 southwest to I-20 east going southbound (and I-20 west to I-220 northeast going northbound).

Why not just build the dang ICC and cut out the middleman? Straight shots are still better than indirect, and it's still less expensive.

[Anthony_JK]

I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face . Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?

That was literally one of the proposed alternatives, and it was thrown out because it would involve reconstructing the cross lake bridge… which they should probably do, but they aren’t going to.

Upgrading the Cross Lake section is assumed under the Loop It Alternative (Alt. 5). The ICC would eliminate (at least for the forseeable future) the need to widen I-220 through there, since a favorable straight through route would exist.

[Anthony_JK]

Although I’ve never been to Shreveport, the ICC is ultimately the ideal setup. Besides, that would put too much traffic on the I-220/LA 3132 corridor. If the loop it idea were to happen, you would also have to renumber the stub I-49 as something like I-149 for instance. I’m very surprised that the folks down there are on board. If this were done in Philly for example, it would cause a ruckus among the locals.

The only real opposition to the ICC comes from some residents of Allendale, the usual New Urbanist/no freeway folks, and Transportation Sec Buttigeg, who has swallowed up the New Urbanism Kool-Aid whole. Most officials in Shreveport support the ICC.



You could make a good case for upgrading the Inner Loop to Interstate standards, since it's more than useful as a bypass for DFW-to-NOLA travelers.

[Plutonic Panda]

The inner loop needs to be upgraded no matter what. But in terms of having a high profile regional corridor the ICC needs to be built to serve I-49.

[triplemultiplex]

I'll beat this dead horse again.  The western loop is what exists right now.  GPS navigation is going to route you that way.  The traffic that is there today is not going to substantially increase if I-49 shields go up.  I do not see the criticality of the ICC from a system perspective.  This is not a hill I'd be willing to die on when a serviceable alternative already exists.  Especially when Louisiana is trying to punch a much more useful urban freeway through another mid-sized city at this time.

[Anthony_JK]

I'll beat this dead horse again.  The western loop is what exists right now.  GPS navigation is going to route you that way.  The traffic that is there today is not going to substantially increase if I-49 shields go up.  I do not see the criticality of the ICC from a system perspective.  This is not a hill I'd be willing to die on when a serviceable alternative already exists.  Especially when Louisiana is trying to punch a much more useful urban freeway through another mid-sized city at this time.

Except, the Inner Loop is not quite so serviceable; because in order for it to be suitable for rerouting I-49 through it, it will require reconstructing the Cross Lake bridge on I-220, removing a sharp curve, eliminating a local service interchange (Linwood Avenue, too close to the I-49/LA 3132 south system interchange), and modifying the latter interchange to shift the through traffic over to the Inner Loop. Not to mention, most of the traffic on current I-49 is NOT destined to bypass the city center, but directly access it; throwing I-49 over to the Inner Loop does absolutely nothing for that traffic.

And, it's not as if the ICC is going to completely bisect Allendale, either: only the small northeast portion of that neighborhood is going to be affected by the proposed central alignment. Most of the area between Pete Harris Drive and Allen Avenue where the bulk of the ICC is going is pretty much abandoned, save for that church, and north of SWEPO Park it's mostly wetlands and forest from there to I-220. And, since it will be mostly elevated, there should be no issues of accessing the small portion that would be separated.

Once again, regardless of what exists, the best route is the most direct.

Also, Louisiana is capable of multitasking; building out and funding the I-49 Lafayette Connector should have no impact on Shreveport's project, since Lafayette is further ahead in the process (CSS + Preliminary Design + SEIS/106).

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ this

[Bobby5280]

A completed ICC would also help improve business and residential development in the downtown Shreveport area.

[bwana39]

A completed ICC would also help improve business and residential development in the downtown Shreveport area.

20 years ago there were still shotgun shacks inside Common Street (the divider for downtown / Allendale.)

It would help develop Allendale itself. If they would build the freeway (mostly) between Allen Avenue and Pete Harris and change  those two streets into Texas-style frontage roads, economic development might actually happen. Yes, much of it would be fast food and light commercial retail, but that is a dramatic improvement over the current slumlike conditions along that path.

They are building apartments between Pete Harris and downtown and seemingly looking eagerly toward the building of the ICC.

[bwana39]

where the bulk of the ICC is going is pretty much abandoned, save for that church,

If I am not mistaken, the church is actually empty too.