News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Louisiana

Started by Alex, January 20, 2009, 12:43:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mightyace

^^^

What was the idea behind those funky, overly complex circular ramps in the bottom picture?  :confused: :confused:
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!


UptownRoadGeek

#101
Quote from: mightyace on February 03, 2010, 12:03:43 AM
^^^

What was the idea behind those funky, overly complex circular ramps in the bottom picture?  :confused: :confused:

The original Florida bridge was recently replaced with the blue bridge.  The newer Florida bridge would run parallel to and above the new Florida bridge, so to connect it with both the blue bridge and the main street leading to the I-10 would require the circular ramps.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29.98095,-90.023062&spn=0.005706,0.015407&t=h&z=17


froggie

Quote-The final phase of the Earhart Blvd, a part of DOTD's TimedLA program, has begun in NOLA.

Any word on that occasionally-mentioned proposal for a set of ramps to tie the east end of the Earhart Expressway into Airline?


QuoteLaDOTD "geauxs wider"

Now if only they'd do something about the stretch of I-10 between I-110 and I-12...


QuoteThe South Louisiana Submerged Roads program

Got a 404 error trying to pull this one up.


QuoteI just wish the Almonaster Ave and Florida Ave bridges were still on table.

Wasn't the Florida Ave bridge part of TIMED?  What happened to that?

UptownRoadGeek

Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2010, 10:50:23 AM
Any word on that occasionally-mentioned proposal for a set of ramps to tie the east end of the Earhart Expressway into Airline?

Right before Katrina they were talking about elevating it above the railroad ROW and taking it all the way out to 310.  After Katrina, like the Almonastor bridge, it was never mentioned again and all info was removed from the dotd website.


Quote
Now if only they'd do something about the stretch of I-10 between I-110 and I-12...

I would love to see that.  It would be a pain in the a** for BR during construction, even though it would be worth it.


Quote
Got a 404 error trying to pull this one up.

It's a State program to rebuild roads that were submerged by Katrina.  Both the City and State have gotten their projects underway and almost every street in New Orleans is under construction if not dug up completely.


Quote
Wasn't the Florida Ave bridge part of TIMED?  What happened to that?

The plan for the Florida Ave hi-rise would have connected the upper 9th ward with Chalmette directly, allowing those from "da Parish" to bypass the Lower 9 all together.  It would have kept going over the Intracoastal and some marshland out to Paris Road, while the blue raising bridge would be convenient for Upper 9 to Lower 9 and railroad traffic.  After Katrina, they determined it wasn't need as much anymore and put the project on hold.

Hot Rod Hootenanny

Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2010, 10:50:23 AM
QuoteLaDOTD "geauxs wider"

Now if only they'd do something about the stretch of I-10 between I-110 and I-12...


I know I've heard, since Katrina, that widening that section of I-10 was back on the table, but that might have been during the Blanco Adminastration.  Widening I-10 & I-12 from the split to the exurbs (re: Livingston & Asension Parishes) have taken immediate presidence along with the (renewed) ongoing debates about the BR bypass(es).
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

Hot Rod Hootenanny

The yearly "oh woe is us" from Louisiana DOTD and hang wringing from the politicians over funding highway construction in Louisiana.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/95238579.html?showAll=y&c=y

Despite a gaping backlog and bumpy rides, state highway improvements are a virtual nonissue during the 2010 legislative session.
The chief culprit? Highways and other services face a $3 billion drop in state revenue during the next two years.
"We are looking for the light at the end of the tunnel,"  said Sherri LeBas, interim secretary for the state Department of Transportation and Development.
Most of this year's highway legislative debates have involved issues like driving with cell phones, driver's license rules and speed limits.
Louisiana's backlog of road and bridge needs stands at $12.6 billion...

Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

Hot Rod Hootenanny

#106
In my efforts to keep our adult and well educated moderators working I submit the following:
New Orleans mayor Mitch Landeau has broached the subject of taking out I-10 from Pontchartrain to Elysian Fields
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/07/mitch_landrieu_willing_to_disc.html
I could have sworn we've had discussions about the removal of I-10 in New Orleans on here before, but I'll be damned if I can find the thread.  :hmmm:
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

Alex

Quote from: osu-lsu on July 15, 2010, 07:36:59 PM
In my efforts to keep our kiddie moderators working I submit the following:
New Orleans mayor Mitch Landeau has broached the subject of taking out I-10 from Pontachtrain to Elsysian Fields
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/07/mitch_landrieu_willing_to_disc.html
I could have swore we've had discussions about the removal of I-10 in New Orleans on here before, but I'll be damned if I can find the thread.  :hmmm:

Indeed it was discussed here the last time a blurb came out about tearing down the I-10 viaduct.

codyg1985

Quote from: osu-lsu on July 15, 2010, 07:36:59 PM
In my efforts to keep our adult and well educated moderators working I submit the following:
New Orleans mayor Mitch Landeau has broached the subject of taking out I-10 from Pontchartrain to Elysian Fields
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/07/mitch_landrieu_willing_to_disc.html
I could have sworn we've had discussions about the removal of I-10 in New Orleans on here before, but I'll be damned if I can find the thread.  :hmmm:

At least the mayor is willing to have an open dialog about it, but I sincerely hope he doesn't seriously consider it. The traffic that comes with the Claiborne Expressway isn't going to magically disappear if it's torn down.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

lamsalfl

I hope its torn down.  It really is awful. 

froggie

I agree with the awfulness bit.

Though I think the freeway should remain for redundancy purposes, I can feasibly see the viaduct being torn down.  However, there are three prerequisites before any teardown should be undertaken:

- Reconstruct the two I-10/I-610 interchanges so that I-10 on either end ties seamlessly into I-610, with 3 through lanes in each direction.  While most of I-610 is 6 lanes, it narrows down to 4 lanes on each end.

- Add the "missing movements" at the western I-10/610 interchange.  Specifically, a high-capacity ramp from WB 10 to EB 610.  Also, a higher capacity ramp than the existing loop from WB 610 to EB 10.  Both of these ramps would require additional right-of-way and thus would not be cheap or popular in the local neighborhood.

- Some sort of rail transit (whether LRT or commuter rail) from the east side of New Orleans into downtown.

With those three items in place, I think the viaduct could come down.  As long as it's replaced by a "high capacity boulevard" (I'm thinking something similar to Roosevelt Blvd in northeast Philly), with local lanes for local access and "through lanes" for longer-distance travelers, that will thus still serve as an alternative route in case now-610 jams up.

UptownRoadGeek

The thing is, those who want it torn down want to replace it with a pedestrian friendly parkway that "promotes an urban city life environment".
I think that it's a stupid idea honestly. I say just rebuild it.

lamsalfl

I'd rather see it in a trench.  Why not?  We've got other tunnels in the area.

UptownRoadGeek

Quote from: lamsalfl on July 19, 2010, 01:57:01 AM
I'd rather see it in a trench.  Why not?  We've got other tunnels in the area.

The tunnels we have leak badly on a regular basis and it's nothing for a hard summer rain to overwhelm a pumping station.

Hot Rod Hootenanny

More from the Times Picayune about the possibility of tearing down Claiborne.  This time with more anyalsis and photos.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/07/claiborne_avenue_expressway_de.html
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

UptownRoadGeek

Quote from: osu-lsu on July 22, 2010, 12:14:48 PM
More from the Times Picayune about the possibility of tearing down Claiborne.  This time with more anyalsis and photos.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/07/claiborne_avenue_expressway_de.html
:ded:

lamsalfl

Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on July 19, 2010, 02:09:53 AM
The tunnels we have leak badly on a regular basis and it's nothing for a hard summer rain to overwhelm a pumping station.

Yeah and when were those built?  The Huey Long era?  I'm sure today's technology is improved.  Boston, NYC, Mobile, Norfolk, etc. all have tunnels and those cities are coastal as well.  Claiborne Ave. is at sea level... not above it, not below it.  Midcity is 2-8 feet below, while the French Quarter is 10 feet above (thanks to the natural river levees).

lamsalfl

On that article that came out today... I'm a roadgeek, a conservative, not a greenie-weenie envirowacko, and I still say tear it down.  I can't imagine how good reconnecting the street grid would be.  As it stands now, you've got two exits... 2!!... to get to the Quarter.

UptownRoadGeek

Quote from: lamsalfl on July 22, 2010, 06:14:16 PM
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on July 19, 2010, 02:09:53 AM
The tunnels we have leak badly on a regular basis and it's nothing for a hard summer rain to overwhelm a pumping station.

Yeah and when were those built?  The Huey Long era?  I'm sure today's technology is improved.  Boston, NYC, Mobile, Norfolk, etc. all have tunnels and those cities are coastal as well.  Claiborne Ave. is at sea level... not above it, not below it.  Midcity is 2-8 feet below, while the French Quarter is 10 feet above (thanks to the natural river levees).

...and those cities are built on solid ground too, not silt. You dig a hole deep enough in this area and you can shift foundations of anything in a given radius.

I have a couple of issues.

What do we do with the traffic presently there? It's not going to just disappear as they suggest.

Truck traffic to the port has only increased in the last 2 or 3 years. So say we direct trucks and other traffic to the I-610. Now we have to widened or at least rebuild that. The 610 Split is going to need work and ROW (Lakeview will love this :paranoid:). Now we have extra traffic mixed in with Metairie traffic. Can we widen the Pontchartrain? Now you have railroads and a major multi-level interchange involved as well as access to 2 major streets.

They say "San Francisco, Milwaukee, (insert city here), etc. did it. New Orleans is always behind...". No city that I know of has removed the main freeway through town. Instead, they've removed freeways that weren't really necessary in the first place.

The say it will revitalize the 5th ward, 6th ward, 7th ward, Treme, etc. Claiborne stretches from Jefferson Parish to St. Benard Parish, only 2 miles of it is under an expressway. Why is the rest of it dead? The neighborhood was dying long before the I-10 came. Why will this 2 mile stretch magically be fixed with this removal?

They say it disconnects the neighborhoods. In order to accommodate traffic, you would end up with a 6 to 8 lane suburban style blvd vs an intimate pedestrian friendly surface street. The neighborhood will be just as disconnected and there will still be traffic noise.

How do we even begin to oversee this type project. Do we fix I-10 West and I-610 first? Do we just tear it down and go from there? What?

What are the true pros and cons of tearing this thing down?


I say rebuild. Anything else is just not.... 

----------------------------------------
BTW the street grid is still connected underneath the I-10. Every cross street passes underneath.



Revive 755

#119
Looking through the article, the report strikes me as very biased:

* Reducing air pollution?  I though traffic queued up at stoplights tended to do the opposite.

* Improved access to the French Quarter?  I take it people in Louisiana don't know how to use the current one-way outer roads for I-10 (or are there missing ramps I haven't found yet?)

* The report was a local architecture firm and Smart Mobility Inc -  I'd be more willing to accept some statement if it was done by a major consulting firm like HNTB or CH2M Hill.  The name for the Vermont group alone makes them seem suspect, but here's their website for judgment:
http://www.smartmobility.com/index.html

* I-610 reduces the need for a Crescent City Connection to I-10 east of NO route?  Love to see a traffic flow map actually prove this.

* The wording in the article makes the travel times seem unrealistic.  At 30 mph, 2.2 miles would take 4 minutes 24 seconds non-stop.  With "delays at frequent traffic lights" that time will likely increase by at least a minute, maybe more.  The given minimum travel time in the article of 2 minutes is either plainly wrong or they expect a lot of speeders on the boulevard, negating any supposed pedestrian friendliness.

* Anyone know the truck volumes for previously removed freeways?  The previously removed ones don't seem like candidates for high truck volumes.

* Wasn't there already an issue of building damage in NO from truck traffic using surface streets instead of the unbuilt I-310 route?  If so, how would remove the Claiborne be any different?

EDIT:  Found a copy of the report online:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34724768/I-10-Removal-and-Claiborne-Alternatives-New-Orleans

Commentary
* Page 12:  Where's the US 90/maybe someday I-49 corridor on that role and function map?

* Page 13:  Again, where's consideration of US 90 traffic, or any consideration of traffic crossing the Mississippi?

* Page 14:  Should be a more detailed capacity/Level Of Service analysis, not just say some streets handled higher volumes in the past, so they can again.  How well did those streets handle those volumes?

* Page 15:  "Most of the traffic using the Claiborne Expressway is coming from South Claiborne or from the Pontchartrain Expressway south of I‐10."  So the Westbank corridor doesn't have through traffic?

* Page 18:  "Public transit options would be improved by expressway removal"   More along the lines of forcing people to use transit, not simply improving bus service or building a parallel light rail line.  Having mass transit and a freeway is not mutually exclusive as this report seems to indicate.

* Page 18:  Same problem with mutually exclusivity with pedestrians bicycles.  If there is so much excess capacity around, put a bike lane on the Clariborne outer roads using one of the current lanes.

* Page 21:  Galvez Street extension proposal:  Sure to be costly with railroads involved.  And what about displacements for the connection to Earhart Blvd?

* Appendix:  Where are the counts proving no significant traffic increase on adjoining routes for the Central Freeway in San Francisco if most stuck to cars?  I want to see proof that the counts looked at a wide area, not a small area surrounding the former freeway.  I think a Seattle document looking at this case had slightly different conclusions.

* Appendix:  Again with the West Side Highway traffic counts it seems only a small area including only Manhattan was looked at.  Was the any analysis of traffic possibly diverting to I-278 or somewhere in Jersey?

* The appendixes in general are extremely lacking.  I want more numbers for traffic volumes and land values.

UptownRoadGeek

This is what happens when urban planners try to play engineer. Pretty doesn't necessarily equal functional.
I'm looking at this traffic circle, these intersections, and all of these weave points like WTH.

Alps

Quote from: Revive 755 on July 22, 2010, 10:13:16 PM

* Appendix:  Again with the West Side Highway traffic counts it seems only a small area including only Manhattan was looked at.  Was the any analysis of traffic possibly diverting to I-278 or somewhere in Jersey?


Actually, that traffic has gone one of three places:
1) Stayed on what's now West St., which is why NYC converted it into a high-level boulevard with well-timed signals.
2) Crossed over to FDR Drive, which is why there are frequent traffic jams there (especially at the Triboro Interchange, where it goes down to two lanes each way).
3) Uses the signal progression on the one-way numbered streets.

When you have a lot of high-function parallel roads doing the job, it's easy to remove an expressway.  That's almost never the case.

brownpelican

I say keep the I-10 elevated. It's the best direct route for folks from the eastern part of the city, Slidell, Mississippi, Alabama and points east to access downtown, South Claiborne Avenue and the Westbank. It makes NO sense to divert all that traffic to I-610 and the Pontchartrain. If folks in Treme wanted to revitalize their neighborhood, they would have done so already and have done their best to keep the neighborhood from deteriorating in the first place to where it is.

brownpelican

#123
Look what's been popping up in my part of the parish: New b&w highway signs with bigger fonts for the numbers.



This one was taken on Neal Road near LA 445 in Tangipahoa Parish. Similar signs were installed at LA 16 and LA 450 in Washington Parish and were being installed at LA 16 and LA 25 near Franklinton today.

UptownRoadGeek

^I saw the first one in New Orleans 3 or 4 months ago.



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.