New I-10 Bridge in Lake Charles

[longhorn]

https://www.i10lakecharles.com/

About time, driving next to a 18 wheeler on the present bridge with its narrow lanes and no shoulders will make one religious.

[bwana39]

This is badly needed. The issue is if they can build it within reason and not contaminate the groundwater in the process.

[Bobby5280]

Very badly overdue project. It is ridiculous a bridge replacement for that crossing has been put off this long. It should have been done 10-20 years ago.

I'm hoping whatever they build that I-10 will be at least 3 lanes in both directions as well as include inner and outer shoulders.

I-210 around the South side of Lake Charles isn't much better. The bridge across the ship channel is just as narrow (2x2 with no shoulders at all). The bridge just doesn't go nearly as high in the air, thanks to a draw bridge in the middle. A bunch of other exit bridges along I-210 are also badly outdated. They did update the I-210 exit for the L'Auberge and Golden Nugget Hotel-Casino resorts about five years ago. I guess that's a decent start.

[cenlaroads]

And apparently it will be a toll bridge, although they are referring to the toll as a "user fee":  http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=25419

I wonder how much through traffic will use the bridge, since the free alternative of I-210 adds only a few minutes to the trip.

[nolia_boi504]

Hopefully it'll tie into the various Texas toll tag systems.

Pixel 4

[bwana39]

And apparently it will be a toll bridge, although they are referring to the toll as a "user fee":  http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=25419

I wonder how much through traffic will use the bridge, since the free alternative of I-210 adds only a few minutes to the trip.

I-210 does only add about three miles. Capacity is still an issue. While the  I-210 bridge is not as steep, it isn't notably wider (56 ft versus 52 ft) 4 12-foot lanes with no shoulders versus 4-12 foot lanes with a 2' (useless) shoulder.  Tolls MIGHT increase the traffic on I-210, but the I-10 through traffic will still require two bridges. It might be like the HARDY Toll Road in Houston where in off peak times, the toll road has practically zero traffic, but in Peak times it is fairly busy. I-210 also routes through the business district of Lake Charles. There would be more reasons to use a toll bridge in this location than the truly redundant Hardy.
AND the I-210 bridge is only ten years newer than the I-10 bridge.


Louisiana could make a specialty rate for the tolls on the bridge for nearby residents if it saw fit.

Yes, it would be nice if Louisiana Bridges and Ferries took the TollTag and the other Texas alternatives.

[cenlaroads]

And apparently it will be a toll bridge, although they are referring to the toll as a "user fee":  http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=25419

I wonder how much through traffic will use the bridge, since the free alternative of I-210 adds only a few minutes to the trip.

I-210 does only add about three miles. Capacity is still an issue. While the  I-210 bridge is not as steep, it isn't notably wider (56 ft versus 52 ft) 4 12-foot lanes with no shoulders versus 4-12 foot lanes with a 2' (useless) shoulder.  Tolls MIGHT increase the traffic on I-210, but the I-10 through traffic will still require two bridges. It might be like the HARDY Toll Road in Houston where in off peak times, the toll road has practically zero traffic, but in Peak times it is fairly busy. I-210 also routes through the business district of Lake Charles. There would be more reasons to use a toll bridge in this location than the truly redundant Hardy.
AND the I-210 bridge is only ten years newer than the I-10 bridge.


Louisiana could make a specialty rate for the tolls on the bridge for nearby residents if it saw fit.

Yes, it would be nice if Louisiana Bridges and Ferries took the TollTag and the other Texas alternatives.

These are good points.  I'm guessing a toll bridge would receive slightly less overall traffic than the current bridge, but probably not that much.  I already use I-210 when passing through Lake Charles, but maybe that's just me.  The I-10 bridge is the only bridge I've been over that actually worries me.

The amount of the toll would also be a factor in traffic volumes, I suppose.  I'm sure that rush hour traffic would continue to use the I-10 bridge regardless.

[sprjus4]

I usually only pass through this area once or twice a year, usually just following I-10 straight through - I've never considered I-210 to be a viable alternative since it's longer and still an urban interstate. However, if this bridge replacement is constructed with a toll, I would definitely consider I-210 as an alternative.

[bwana39]

And apparently it will be a toll bridge, although they are referring to the toll as a "user fee":  http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=25419

I wonder how much through traffic will use the bridge, since the free alternative of I-210 adds only a few minutes to the trip.

I-210 does only add about three miles. Capacity is still an issue. While the  I-210 bridge is not as steep, it isn't notably wider (56 ft versus 52 ft) 4 12-foot lanes with no shoulders versus 4-12 foot lanes with a 2' (useless) shoulder.  Tolls MIGHT increase the traffic on I-210, but the I-10 through traffic will still require two bridges. It might be like the HARDY Toll Road in Houston where in off peak times, the toll road has practically zero traffic, but in Peak times it is fairly busy. I-210 also routes through the business district of Lake Charles. There would be more reasons to use a toll bridge in this location than the truly redundant Hardy.
AND the I-210 bridge is only ten years newer than the I-10 bridge.


Louisiana could make a specialty rate for the tolls on the bridge for nearby residents if it saw fit.

Yes, it would be nice if Louisiana Bridges and Ferries took the TollTag and the other Texas alternatives.

These are good points.  I'm guessing a toll bridge would receive slightly less overall traffic than the current bridge, but probably not that much.  I already use I-210 when passing through Lake Charles, but maybe that's just me.  The I-10 bridge is the only bridge I've been over that actually worries me.

The amount of the toll would also be a factor in traffic volumes, I suppose.  I'm sure that rush hour traffic would continue to use the I-10 bridge regardless.

Dynamic tolling can help this. When the traffic flow is low, the toll can be low (or even in some situations free) and when it gets higher the toll can go up.  It can be either determined by the monitored traffic flow or on a set schedule)

[longhorn]

And apparently it will be a toll bridge, although they are referring to the toll as a "user fee":  http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=25419

I wonder how much through traffic will use the bridge, since the free alternative of I-210 adds only a few minutes to the trip.

I-210 does only add about three miles. Capacity is still an issue. While the  I-210 bridge is not as steep, it isn't notably wider (56 ft versus 52 ft) 4 12-foot lanes with no shoulders versus 4-12 foot lanes with a 2' (useless) shoulder.  Tolls MIGHT increase the traffic on I-210, but the I-10 through traffic will still require two bridges. It might be like the HARDY Toll Road in Houston where in off peak times, the toll road has practically zero traffic, but in Peak times it is fairly busy. I-210 also routes through the business district of Lake Charles. There would be more reasons to use a toll bridge in this location than the truly redundant Hardy.
AND the I-210 bridge is only ten years newer than the I-10 bridge.


Louisiana could make a specialty rate for the tolls on the bridge for nearby residents if it saw fit.

Yes, it would be nice if Louisiana Bridges and Ferries took the TollTag and the other Texas alternatives.

Why the no shoulders on the 210 bridge? Was no one thinking when they designed it? How much cheaper was the bridge without shoulders? Cannot believe this. Never been on 210, never had a need too going through Lake Charles.  Once one exhales after holding their breathe on the I-10 bridge and survives the 90 degree curve east of Downtown (WHAT FREAKING INCOMPETENT ENGINEER DESIGNED THAT.........The same one who designed the same curve in Beaumont). The drive through Lake Charles is pretty uneventful.

[bwana39]

When the I-210 bridge was built in 1962, two foot outer shoulders and virtually no inside shoulders were the norm on bridges: Even on the interstates.
In the nineties / 2000's , Texas spent a boat load widening a majority of the ones from before the seventies. 

To consider the difference, by the old standards, A 2X2 bridge was around 56 feet wide. A modern bridge with the same number of traffic lanes is generally 80' to 84' wide (2 12' lanes in each direction, a 10' outside shoulder on each side, 6' inside shoulder which may include the width of crossover barrier. 

I agree that we need the wider bridges, but it comes somewhere in the realm of 45% premium in materials and space.  (Engineering and other support services would remain relatively the same. )

[sydneyclaridge]

And apparently it will be a toll bridge, although they are referring to the toll as a "user fee":  http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=25419

I wonder how much through traffic will use the bridge, since the free alternative of I-210 adds only a few minutes to the trip.

"Shunpiking" will definitely be an issue with a viable free alternative just to the south.  I would suspect that traffic counts on I-210, particularly for traffic passing through the Lake Charles area, would increase once tolls take effect on I-10 (and during construction as well).  The only way to prevent this effect would involve tolling the I-210 bridge in addition to the I-10 bridge, but even then LA-378 through Westlake and Moss Bluff, in conjunction with US-171 from Moss Bluff to I-10, is a potential shunpike for those dedicated enough to avoid tolls (albeit using surface streets).

Ideally the tolls would stay low enough to discourage shunpiking.

[bwana39]

And apparently it will be a toll bridge, although they are referring to the toll as a "user fee":  http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=25419

I wonder how much through traffic will use the bridge, since the free alternative of I-210 adds only a few minutes to the trip.

"Shunpiking" will definitely be an issue with a viable free alternative just to the south.  I would suspect that traffic counts on I-210, particularly for traffic passing through the Lake Charles area, would increase once tolls take effect on I-10 (and during construction as well).  The only way to prevent this effect would involve tolling the I-210 bridge in addition to the I-10 bridge, but even then LA-378 through Westlake and Moss Bluff, in conjunction with US-171 from Moss Bluff to I-10, is a potential shunpike for those dedicated enough to avoid tolls (albeit using surface streets).

Ideally the tolls would stay low enough to discourage shunpiking.

Like I said above,

Dynamic tolling can help this. When the traffic flow is low, the toll can be low (or even in some situations free) and when it gets higher the toll can go up.  It can be either determined by the monitored traffic flow or on a set schedule)

Yes there are people who will go to significant costs to avoid tolls. One of my kids would avoid tolls if the real cost of the detour were more. Many of us view the intangible time and ease of the route when we decide to avoid tolls.   While I might see some increased traffic on the avoidance routes, the number choosing the more direct route to save time and possibly traffic congestion would still remain high enough to justify the construction costs for the new bridge.

[sprjus4]

"Shunpiking" will definitely be an issue with a viable free alternative just to the south.  I would suspect that traffic counts on I-210, particularly for traffic passing through the Lake Charles area, would increase once tolls take effect on I-10 (and during construction as well).  The only way to prevent this effect would involve tolling the I-210 bridge in addition to the I-10 bridge, but even then LA-378 through Westlake and Moss Bluff, in conjunction with US-171 from Moss Bluff to I-10, is a potential shunpike for those dedicated enough to avoid tolls (albeit using surface streets).

The tolls would have to be high enough on both I-10 and I-210 to encourage enough motorists to drive 20 minutes out of the way to the point it becomes a problem. Obviously, there are some who will do it regardless, but it shouldn't be significant.

[hotdogPi]

"Shunpiking" will definitely be an issue with a viable free alternative just to the south.  I would suspect that traffic counts on I-210, particularly for traffic passing through the Lake Charles area, would increase once tolls take effect on I-10 (and during construction as well).  The only way to prevent this effect would involve tolling the I-210 bridge in addition to the I-10 bridge, but even then LA-378 through Westlake and Moss Bluff, in conjunction with US-171 from Moss Bluff to I-10, is a potential shunpike for those dedicated enough to avoid tolls (albeit using surface streets).

The tolls would have to be high enough on both I-10 and I-210 to encourage enough motorists to drive 20 minutes out of the way to the point it becomes a problem. Obviously, there are some who will do it regardless, but it shouldn't be significant.

Or anyone without a transponder, given the number of people who don't trust bill by mail or doesn't even realize it's an option.

[bwana39]

"Shunpiking" will definitely be an issue with a viable free alternative just to the south.  I would suspect that traffic counts on I-210, particularly for traffic passing through the Lake Charles area, would increase once tolls take effect on I-10 (and during construction as well).  The only way to prevent this effect would involve tolling the I-210 bridge in addition to the I-10 bridge, but even then LA-378 through Westlake and Moss Bluff, in conjunction with US-171 from Moss Bluff to I-10, is a potential shunpike for those dedicated enough to avoid tolls (albeit using surface streets).

The tolls would have to be high enough on both I-10 and I-210 to encourage enough motorists to drive 20 minutes out of the way to the point it becomes a problem. Obviously, there are some who will do it regardless, but it shouldn't be significant.

Or anyone without a transponder, given the number of people who don't trust bill by mail or doesn't even realize it's an option.

Houston (HCTRA) DOES NOT do bill by mail. All of the other Texas toll road agencies (including TXDOT) do. Not sure if LA does?  People from the Houston area KNOW that if they don't have an account and there are no toll booths to stay AWAY.

[sydneyclaridge]

"Shunpiking" will definitely be an issue with a viable free alternative just to the south.  I would suspect that traffic counts on I-210, particularly for traffic passing through the Lake Charles area, would increase once tolls take effect on I-10 (and during construction as well).  The only way to prevent this effect would involve tolling the I-210 bridge in addition to the I-10 bridge, but even then LA-378 through Westlake and Moss Bluff, in conjunction with US-171 from Moss Bluff to I-10, is a potential shunpike for those dedicated enough to avoid tolls (albeit using surface streets).

The tolls would have to be high enough on both I-10 and I-210 to encourage enough motorists to drive 20 minutes out of the way to the point it becomes a problem. Obviously, there are some who will do it regardless, but it shouldn't be significant.

I doubt the tolls would be significant enough to warrant such an out-of-the-way surface street shunpike.  But this demonstrates that there are essentially only three crossings from the west to east side of the Lake Charles metro area; this might not be too much of a problem considering that the metro area is small.  This I-10 project could add a fourth crossing (an eastern extension of Sulphur Avenue from Westlake across the Calcasieu River), but that is not included on all of the alternatives (and would likely be tolled as part of the I-10 project anyways).

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

it was built in 1962, two foot outer shoulders and virtually no inside shoulders were the norm on bridges then. Even on the interstates.
In the nineties / 2000's , Texas spent a boat load widening a majority of the ones from before the seventies. 

To consider the difference, by the old standards, A 2X2 bridge was around 56 feet wide. A modern bridge with the same number of traffic lanes is generally 80' to 84' wide (2 12' lanes in each direction, a 10' outside shoulder on each side, 6' inside shoulder which may include the width of crossover barrier. 

I agree that we need the wider bridges, but it comes somewhere in the realm of 45% premium in materials and space.  (Engineering and other support services would remain relatively the same. )

The bridge was opened as part of US 90 in 1952, so it predates the interstate system and interstate standards.

[bwana39]

it was built in 1962, two foot outer shoulders and virtually no inside shoulders were the norm on bridges then. Even on the interstates.
In the nineties / 2000's , Texas spent a boat load widening a majority of the ones from before the seventies. 

To consider the difference, by the old standards, A 2X2 bridge was around 56 feet wide. A modern bridge with the same number of traffic lanes is generally 80' to 84' wide (2 12' lanes in each direction, a 10' outside shoulder on each side, 6' inside shoulder which may include the width of crossover barrier. 

I agree that we need the wider bridges, but it comes somewhere in the realm of 45% premium in materials and space.  (Engineering and other support services would remain relatively the same. )

The bridge was opened as part of US 90 in 1952, so it predates the interstate system and interstate standards.

I guess I should have quoted the immediately previous comment I was replying to:
Yes the I-10 bridge was opened in 1952. I was discussing the width of the I-210 bridge and the fact that it is only 4 feet wider than the I-10 bridge.  (56 feet as opposed to the 52 feet width of the I-10 bridge. ) The point being that even up to (early sixties) code  Interstate highway bridges built for interstate use were not nearly as wide then as they are now.  The I-210 bridge WAS built to the Interstate standards in 1962.

[jbnv]

I saw something about the I-10 bridge on a copy of The Advocate this morning, but there's nothing about the project on the Advocate's homepage. Is there any movement on the project?

[jbnv]

As a TXTag holder, I too would like to see Texas tolling be an option for Louisiana toll roads. Frankly I don't know why Louisiana needs a separate tolling authority in the first place. The only toll roads we currently have are the Causeway and the Gateway to the Gulf. Just outsource that to TxTag and be done with it.

I doubt the tolls would be significant enough to warrant such an out-of-the-way surface street shunpike.  But this demonstrates that there are essentially only three crossings from the west to east side of the Lake Charles metro area; this might not be too much of a problem considering that the metro area is small.  This I-10 project could add a fourth crossing (an eastern extension of Sulphur Avenue from Westlake across the Calcasieu River), but that is not included on all of the alternatives (and would likely be tolled as part of the I-10 project anyways).

There's another option for people coming from the north: LA/TX 12 between I-10 and US 171.