I49 in LA

[vtk]

Considering it will likely be signed as I-49, I think Louisiana should sign I-49 as EAST/WEST like Michigan did with I-69

Nope...North/South is adequate, since most of I-49 is N/S, and New Orleans is south of Lafayette. The only double back comes between Morgan City and NOLA.

New Orleans is south of Lafayette the same way Port Huron is north of Lansing. I agree with PC73.

[Anthony_JK]

Latitudal wise, NOLA is still south of Lafayette.

Plus, since the majority of the proposed I-49 will go northwest/southeast, it is still very much appropriate to sign I-49 as N/S.

Now, on the sections where it overlays US 90, you could still cosign US 90 with it as E/W to satisfy cardinal direction.

[NE2]

It's not confusing enough having US 90 Biz west go east out of downtown NO. Now it'll be I-49 north, turned 270 degrees from its proper direction.

[vtk]

I'm actually to some degree willing to give a pass to routes twisted around an urban core.  It's the intercity directions that matter more to me.

[apjung]

I think I-49 should be signed E/W from New Orleans to the Atchafalaya River.

[Brandon]

Latitudal wise, NOLA is still south of Lafayette.

Plus, since the majority of the proposed I-49 will go northwest/southeast, it is still very much appropriate to sign I-49 as N/S.

Now, on the sections where it overlays US 90, you could still cosign US 90 with it as E/W to satisfy cardinal direction.

I think I-49 should be signed E/W from New Orleans to the Atchafalaya River.

I-69 in Michigan does switch directions (N-S to E-W), but other interstates do not.

Thinking of which, it does seem like I-44 in Wichita Falls, Texas.  Normally an East-West route, it reverses direction there.  Does anyone know how it is signed?

[bassoon1986]

I-44 is signed E-W in Wichita Falls in GSV

[Henry]

Considering it will likely be signed as I-49, I think Louisiana should sign I-49 as EAST/WEST like Michigan did with I-69

Nope...North/South is adequate, since most of I-49 is N/S, and New Orleans is south of Lafayette. The only double back comes between Morgan City and NOLA.

Not to mention the curve back that will be way bigger than that of I-64 at its eastern end!

[Bobby5280]

I-44 is indeed signed East & West for all of its length between Oklahoma City & Wichita Falls, even though that section is more North & South (especially the stretch between Lawton & Wichita Falls).

I'm not sure how the directional signing of I-49 between New Orleans and Lafayette should be handled, at least the part between Morgan City and Gretna where I-49 South is really going East and Northeast.  It might be better to just drop the directional North/South signs and use control cities or destination points instead as the highway gets into the Westbank side of New Orleans.

On the Westbank Expressway, I-49 South could be signed using an I-49 shield and "Downtown New Orleans" on green panels. I'm not sure what control cities or points would make the most sense on the "North" direction for the Westbank expressway. It could be local points like Harvey or Westwego. I remember Raceland being a control city on US-90 since the intersection with LA-1 is there. It could be Amelia or Morgan City since those are literally the most southern points on I-49 South. Lafayette might work just as well.

Regardless of what happens, control cities are going to be a very important part of signs on I-49 where the road isn't moving North & South. Too many motorists may end up confused and lost otherwise.

[J N Winkler]

Putting the cat among the pigeons:  N-WEST and S-EAST (old Ohio DOT standard).

[UptownRoadGeek]

I-6 

[lamsalfl]

This is all so stupid.  I-49 should be signed E/W between NOLA and Lafayette.  IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL! 

[Anthony_JK]

This is all so stupid.  I-49 should be signed E/W between NOLA and Lafayette.  IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL! 

Actually, it IS a big deal, because you can't sign I-49 South between Lafayette and NOLA from W to E. Milepost 0 for I-49 currently is the current I-49/I-10 interchange in Lafayette. You can't have the same interstate being signed in BOTH directions (north to Opelousas/Alexandria/Shreveport/Texarkana/etc., east to New Iberia/Morgan City/Boutte/Gretna/NOLA.

The only way you could possibly sign it W/E would be to use US 90's mileposts. But, what would you do with the I-49 Connector segment in Lafayette that doesn't use US 90??

Far better to just keep it as I-49 for continuity sake.

Now, if the Lafayette Metro Expressway loop was built from I-10 west of Scott to meet US 90 just S or Broussard, then you'd have a real case for an I-6 or a rerouted I-10, and you could keep what remains of I-49 South as a shorter extension. But, that's not happening any time soon.

[NE2]

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31

Regardless of whether a mainline route originates within a State or crosses into a State from another State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point for interchange numbering.

It doesn't say that numbering must increase from west to east and south to north on every segment, only as a whole within the state.

[PColumbus73]

This is all so stupid.  I-49 should be signed E/W between NOLA and Lafayette.  IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL! 

Actually, it IS a big deal, because you can't sign I-49 South between Lafayette and NOLA from W to E. Milepost 0 for I-49 currently is the current I-49/I-10 interchange in Lafayette. You can't have the same interstate being signed in BOTH directions (north to Opelousas/Alexandria/Shreveport/Texarkana/etc., east to New Iberia/Morgan City/Boutte/Gretna/NOLA.

The only way you could possibly sign it W/E would be to use US 90's mileposts. But, what would you do with the I-49 Connector segment in Lafayette that doesn't use US 90??

Far better to just keep it as I-49 for continuity sake.

Now, if the Lafayette Metro Expressway loop was built from I-10 west of Scott to meet US 90 just S or Broussard, then you'd have a real case for an I-6 or a rerouted I-10, and you could keep what remains of I-49 South as a shorter extension. But, that's not happening any time soon.

Michigan has done it with I-69. I-49 would have to renumber its exits anyway when the south portion is constructed, I wasn't talking about using different exit number schemes, just signing 49 East and West from Lafayette to New Orleans. It can be kept signed N/S, but omit the direction signs if it's cosigned along I-10 and/or US 90.

[Anthony_JK]

Michigan has done it with I-69. I-49 would have to renumber its exits anyway when the south portion is constructed, I wasn't talking about using different exit number schemes, just signing 49 East and West from Lafayette to New Orleans. It can be kept signed N/S, but omit the direction signs if it's cosigned along I-10 and/or US 90.

The problem here is that numbering is usally done from west to east and south to north, but if you sign I-49 South that way, you'd be going the exact opposite of what is recommended. I-69 between Indy and Port Huron runs generally SW to NE, so that goes with the traditional flow of signage. US 90 between Lafayette and NOLA is signed in exactly the opposite direction (NW to SE) as how I-49 South would go (SE to NW).

I do think that a proper solution would be to retain the N/S directional signage, but also  keep US 90 E/W signage, as in "NORTH I-49/WEST US 90" and "SOUTH I-49/EAST US 90". Cosigning both on the concurrent sections would relieve any confusion of direction.

[NE2]

The problem here is that numbering is usally done from west to east and south to north, but if you sign I-49 South that way, you'd be going the exact opposite of what is recommended.

Not true - see the MUTCD section I quoted.

[Anthony_JK]

The problem here is that numbering is usally done from west to east and south to north, but if you sign I-49 South that way, you'd be going the exact opposite of what is recommended.

Not true - see the MUTCD section I quoted.

Let's try this again.

I-49 from Lafayette northward is signed S to N.

If you are going to extend I-49 southward and southeastward along US 90 from Lafayette to NOLA, you still have the majority of I-49 going N-S.

Milepost signage always goes S to N and W to E. (Or, along diagonal routes, NW to SE or SW to NE.)

Resetting Milepost 0 for I-49 at the I-10/Ponchatrain Expressway interchange in NO would somewhat violate that principle, but only for that short section from NOLA to around Raceland/Houma. From there onward, I-49 would comply all the way through LA (and further N ultimately to Texarkana, NWAR, and Kansas City).

I fail to see how a small segment of US 90 violating the N/S principle running concurrent w/ future I-49 South is such a big deal in the overall scheme.

If you are that heated up about it, then just redesignate I-49 South as I-6 and be done with it. Or, build the LMX, reroute I-6 through there, and keep a shorter I-49 extension that doesn't violate the standard.

[UptownRoadGeek]

I'm confused just from trying to keep up, but.... Since the New Orleans CBD will still be the southern terminus of the route regardless of how convoluted it is or how many times it loops around it self, what is the issue? In the grand scheme of things it will still be numbered from S to N. I agree with the part about leaving 90 cosigned however.

[NE2]

Milepost signage always goes S to N and W to E. (Or, along diagonal routes, NW to SE or SW to NE.)

No it goat. Per the MUTCD, you look at the entire route within the state and pick the southernmost or westernmost point to begin at. In the case of I-49, mile 0 would be at New Orleans even if it's signed east-west there.

[Grzrd]

The November 2013 I-49 Inner City Connector Newsletter has been posted.  It indicates that official approval to include the study of a fifth build alternative was received in October 2013 and it discusses the upcoming process:

During the public involvement process the No-Build Alternative was suggested as the solution by a large number of individuals, as it utilizes LA 3132 from its interchange with I-49 as the connector. It was determined that upgrades would be necessary to consider LA 3132 a viable connector. As a result, a new build alternative, Build Alternative 5, has been added to the study. The area surrounding Build Alternative 5 will be known as the NEPA-derived study area since it falls outside the original project study area ....
Due to the addition of Build Alternative 5, a third round of Community Input Meetings has been added. This round will consist of five meetings and is anticipated to be held early in 2014. These meetings will incorporate all affected communities and will be held once the appropriate studies have been conducted on Build Alternative 5.

Here is a map showing the new study area:



Will they choose to Loop It? Time will tell .......

edit

An interesting aspect of this process is that, as previously discussed in this post, LaDOTD already intends for LA 3132 to "ultimately" be an interstate grade connection for I-69, I-49 and I-20.  It will be interesting to see if that ultimate intent will be a factor in the Alternative 5 analysis (of course, it is by no means a given that the southern extension of LA 3132 will ever be built).  A LOT of moving pieces .....

[lamsalfl]

Mile 0 in downtown New Orleans, whereas Mile 150 is around Lafayette, and mile 400 around the Arkansas State Line.   Everything from NO to Laf is signed E/W, and (Laf) I-10 to ARK is signed N/S.  Done.  The little rulebook will get thrown out as has been done in other parts of the country like I-69.  It's not that difficult and excruciating. 

[Anthony_JK]

Mile 0 in downtown New Orleans, whereas Mile 150 is around Lafayette, and mile 400 around the Arkansas State Line.   Everything from NO to Laf is signed E/W, and (Laf) I-10 to ARK is signed N/S.  Done.  The little rulebook will get thrown out as has been done in other parts of the country like I-69.  It's not that difficult and excruciating. 

Again, if you sign I-49 South from Milepost 0 (NOLA) to Milepost 143 (I-10/I-49 interchange in Lafayette) you'd be going WEST, in direct OPPOSITE to how mileposts would be signed usually (ascending from W to E).

It's not particularly a big deal anyway, as long as the thing gets built.

[tdindy88]

I apologize if this had been brought up, just looking at this conversation, but this seems no different from say I-75 is South Florida crossing the Everglades with mile markers and exit numbers going up as the highway heads west. It's been a few years since I was on the highway and I don't remember whether or not it is marked N/S or E/W but if Florida can do it, why not Louisiana?

[UptownRoadGeek]

I apologize if this had been brought up, just looking at this conversation, but this seems no different from say I-75 is South Florida crossing the Everglades with mile markers and exit numbers going up as the highway heads west. It's been a few years since I was on the highway and I don't remember whether or not it is marked N/S or E/W but if Florida can do it, why not Louisiana?

Exactly, I-75 goes counts up heading west and westbound is signed as "North". I have no idea why people are really going back and forth over what direction a 60 mile stretch of a 300 mile highway should be signed.