Everytime I pass this sign I wonder how many tourist or thru-motorist have to wonder which U.S. 90 to take. Especially now that both panels say West 90 and I think Business is either to the side or under the 90.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Flouisiana001%2Fi-010_eb_exit_234a_07.jpg&hash=94a54d0575510c85fcc476a5b76b390b217c9331)
On U.S. 90 eastbound you get to a pull through for East U.S. 90 New Orleans for through lanes and the exit panel says East U.S. 90 Business New Orleans next right.
they could have at least changed the control cities.
furthermore, isn't BUS US 90 a higher-grade expressway than regular US 90? Or did I get confused the last time I was there due to poor signage? I could've sworn regular US-90 had more traffic lights than BUS US 90.
Yeah, U.S. 90 Bus. is basically waiting for I-49 to be connected. I think it's the highest grade expressway in the entire metro, except for maybe the new stretch of I-10 which is extremely rough to be new. The regular U.S. 90 probably has more traffic lights and turns than any street in the area.
so I didn't get utterly confused. They should call it BYPASS 90, in that case!
It's officially I-910. Just not signed.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 31, 2009, 07:04:33 PM
so I didn't get utterly confused. They should call it BYPASS 90, in that case!
Or they should switch the designations so the less-upgraded route is US 90 BUSINESS, but it'll be a moot point if/when I-49 comes to the area.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 31, 2009, 06:56:53 PM
furthermore, isn't BUS US 90 a higher-grade expressway than regular US 90? Or did I get confused the last time I was there due to poor signage? I could've sworn regular US-90 had more traffic lights than BUS US 90.
Yeah I've always thought that was ass-backwards.
My opinion is that all the completed segments of I-49 from NO to KC should be signed. The segments that aren't up to freeway standards should be signed "FUTURE" I-49. They should also put "TO I-49" signage along the sections of US 71 that parallel future segments of I-49 that haven't been built yet. That's the way they did it when they first started building the interstate system. If it was good enough for the 1960s and 1970s, then it's good enough for today.
there is no sensible reason why I-49 should be the number for an east-west freeway that runs entirely south of I-10. I-6 is a much more practical number, if we're still in the business of handing out under-three-digit numbers to Louisiana for their highways that are entirely inside their state. If we'd like to have a smarter policy, how about I-810?
Quote from: froggie on May 31, 2009, 08:21:31 PM
It should be noted that, although FHWA offered I-910 to Louisiana, I have yet to find where LaDOTD actually accepted the number. All of their recent route logs and shapefiles still list it as BUSINESS US 90.
Wow, I thought it was official.
The 'swoop' from Lafayette to New Orleans of I-49 should be labeled something else. Unlike I-25 in New Mexico that turns north on the southbound side, there isn't going to be an eventual destination SOUTH of New Orleans for I-49.
Or unless you want to do a MI-5, and put up a sign in Lafayette at I-10 and say "I-49 South Ends, I-49 East Begins". Although unconventional for the choice of number, it does all I-49 a continuous route although bidirectional.
Sykotyk
Quote from: Sykotyk on May 31, 2009, 11:21:11 PM
The 'swoop' from Lafayette to New Orleans of I-49 should be labeled something else. Unlike I-25 in New Mexico that turns north on the southbound side, there isn't going to be an eventual destination SOUTH of New Orleans for I-49.
Or unless you want to do a MI-5, and put up a sign in Lafayette at I-10 and say "I-49 South Ends, I-49 East Begins". Although unconventional for the choice of number, it does all I-49 a continuous route although bidirectional.
Sykotyk
Just make it either I-6 or even I-8. It may be going south, but if look at the whole freeway it does more east-west, which doesn't warrant it to be I-49.
...My avatar voices my opinion on the whole "I-49 South" issue. :banghead:
Anyway. As for I-910 not being signed, I believe that Louisiana couldn't be bothered to sign it, since (in their view) they'll have to change the shields in a couple of years from 910 to 49. In their eyes, better to just wait til they can hang the 49 shields.
(What none of them in Baton Rouge seem to realize is that things take forever to get built around here, so honestly, I don't see I-49 getting signed in New Orleans in my lifetime. They may as well hang the damn 910 shields.)
I-810, anyone?
Quote from: Hellfighter06 on June 01, 2009, 03:34:58 PM
Just make it either I-6 or even I-8. It may be going south, but if look at the whole freeway it does more east-west, which doesn't warrant it to be I-49.
True, but I-49 eventually will run to Kansas City some day.
Sykotyk
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 02, 2009, 04:59:33 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter06 on June 01, 2009, 03:34:58 PM
Just make it either I-6 or even I-8. It may be going south, but if look at the whole freeway it does more east-west, which doesn't warrant it to be I-49.
True, but I-49 eventually will run to Kansas City some day.
Sykotyk
Louisiana actually has another case of "two Interstates, one termini" in the common south end of I-59 and east end of I-12 at I-10 in Slidell. Not all of I-49 should have the I-6 number, just the portion south of I-10 in Lafayette, running east to NOLA. The rest of the north/south route between Lafayette and KC is just fine as I-49.
Noone calls it Bus 90 or US 90. That picture is giving you the option of going to "Claiborne Ave" or CONTINUING on the "Pontchartrain Expressway" all the way to "Da Bridge".
Quote from: lamsalfl on June 02, 2009, 11:51:30 PM
Noone calls it Bus 90 or US 90. That picture is giving you the option of going to "Claiborne Ave" or CONTINUING on the "Pontchartrain Expressway" all the way to "Da Bridge".
I wasn't referring to locals. If you are not from here and you don't know where you are going all you see is West 90 and West 90. I don't know too many people who aren't road geeks that actually even know what "business" means. If we started calling it by names it would be worse. How many tourists would know what "stay on the riverbound expressway to the bridge meant?" Somebody would probably end up in the East, if they knew which expressway they were on, thinking they were supposed to stay on the I-10. There is actually a handful of people who live in this city that fail the realize that they are no longer on the I-10 by the time they pass the Superdome.
Be real, the New Orleans highway system was not made for anyone who doesn't know where they are going.
Quote from: NOLANOLA504 on June 03, 2009, 12:19:35 AM
Be real, the New Orleans highway system was not made for anyone who doesn't know where they are going.
You think that is a problem only to NOLA? :)
Best solution is to reroute US 90 to follow the current business route, and renumber the current US 90 routing from Avondale to downtown NOLa as state highways. My suggestions would be a realigned and extended LA 48 for the Jefferson Highway/S Claiborne segment and an extension of LA 3152 along Clearview and across the HP Long Bridge through Bridge City.
The 90B route is the most optimal through alignment in any case.
In truth, most locals would likely not even notice since all these roads/bridges are referred to by their names in the local vernacular. Except for the Interstates, it would seem that route numbers are a nebulous concept to the typical, non-road enthusiast New Orleans area motorist.
Quote from: froggie on June 03, 2009, 06:31:17 AM
QuoteBe real, the New Orleans highway system was not made for anyone who doesn't know where they are going.
The same could be applied to directions period in New Orleans. One of the few places I've been where "West" actually means southeast...
Also see Ile de Montréal. (Capital letters don't get accent marks, for the anal linguists.)
I'm a roadgeek, and I'll have a hard time telling you the state road numbers in my own city. Actually, I know LA 39, 46, and 47. Other than that....
Signing state routes seem to be an option not a fact when dealing with cities in Louisiana*
*-Opinion based on driving in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Lake Charles
Quote from: lamsalfl on June 04, 2009, 02:46:39 AM
I'm a roadgeek, and I'll have a hard time telling you the state road numbers in my own city. Actually, I know LA 39, 46, and 47. Other than that....
Chalmette?
Quote from: Darkangel on June 01, 2009, 06:30:35 PM
...My avatar voices my opinion on the whole "I-49 South" issue. :banghead:
Anyway. As for I-910 not being signed, I believe that Louisiana couldn't be bothered to sign it, since (in their view) they'll have to change the shields in a couple of years from 910 to 49. In their eyes, better to just wait til they can hang the 49 shields.
(What none of them in Baton Rouge seem to realize is that things take forever to get built around here, so honestly, I don't see I-49 getting signed in New Orleans in my lifetime. They may as well hang the damn 910 shields.)
First off, they can't post those I-910 shields on the Westbank Expressway until they get to finishing elevating the WB all the way to US 90...due to Fed rules about an Interstate spur ending on a US or NHS system highway.
Secondly...renaming proposed I-49 South as I-6 would still create a bit of a problem with the section through Lafayette, which is still mostly N-S and also carries a segment of US 167 (which I-49 overlays between Lafayette and just north of Opelousas). Personally, I'd rather that they keep the I-49 designation for continunity's sake...unless the Lafayette Metro Expressway outer toll loop on the southern and western sides of Lafayette is also built. Then you can route I-6 through there and the rest of US 90 just south and east of Lafayette, and keep I-49 for the urban portion through Lafayette.
And third...given the money issues, and the fact that the locals are now seriously talking about truncating I-49 South to overlay I-310 and end just west of New Orleans, they might just have to revive those I-910 shields...if they ever get to completing the Westbank Expressway, that is.
Anthony
That's the first I've heard of that kind of rule about where an I-spur can end.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 04, 2009, 07:19:08 PM
First off, they can't post those I-910 shields on the Westbank Expressway until they get to finishing elevating the WB all the way to US 90...due to Fed rules about an Interstate spur ending on a US or NHS system highway.
Anthony
So where's the southern terminus for I-510 in East Orleans?
Quote from: froggie on June 05, 2009, 06:34:51 AM
They've had "logical termini" criteria for some time.
For how long? :-/
QuoteSo where's the southern terminus for I-510 in East Orleans?
North end of the bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway. Though I-510 was different in that it was CHARGABLE Interstate mileage (i.e. part of the originally, Federally funded Interstate system).
QuoteFor how long?
At least back to the '90s...probably longer.
Quote from: froggie on June 06, 2009, 09:58:24 AM
QuoteSo where's the southern terminus for I-510 in East Orleans?
North end of the bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway. Though I-510 was different in that it was CHARGABLE Interstate mileage (i.e. part of the originally, Federally funded Interstate system).
What do you mean by that? What's the difference between I-510 with I-910 or I-310, or even I-10 itself? :confused:
Quote from: froggie on June 05, 2009, 06:34:51 AM
They've had "logical termini" criteria for some time.
Both of AR I-540's termini are illogical (north end far more than south end.) So is I-26 west's. And none of the NC I-73/74 routing makes any sense. Not to mention I-69 MS's southern end. Seems their criteria are arbitrarily enforced.
QuoteWhat do you mean by that? What's the difference between I-510 with I-910 or I-310, or even I-10 itself?
Meaning it was designated, and FUNDED, as part of the 42,500 mile Interstate highway system. It's mileage that is "charged" against that maximum mileage limit. I-310 IIRC is also "chargable" Interstate, as it came about due to the cancellation of I-410 and the original I-310 (which itself came from the cancellation of I-420 in Monroe), so that cancelled mileage was applied to I-310 instead.
I-910 is considered "non-chargable Interstate" in that it wasn't built with Interstate highway funds, but was funded via other means and was requested to be added to the Interstate system as such (as I-49 of course).
QuoteBoth of AR I-540's termini are illogical (north end far more than south end.)
Not from FHWA's standpoint. Both US 62 (to the north) and US 71 (to the south) are on the National Highway System (NHS), and FHWA considers an intersecting NHS route to be a "logical terminus".
QuoteSo is I-26 west's.
It was logical back when it was I-181 (US 11W is on NHS). But remember that it was Congress, not FHWA, that mandated I-26 west of I-81.
QuoteAnd none of the NC I-73/74 routing makes any sense. Not to mention I-69 MS's southern end. Seems their criteria are arbitrarily enforced.
I-69, I-73, and I-74 are all cases of Congressional legislation designating the routes, and so segments are designated as Interstate as they are completed. Because it is Congressionally mandated, FHWA is forced to comply.
Quote from: froggie on June 11, 2009, 06:59:08 AM
I-69, I-73, and I-74 are all cases of Congressional legislation designating the routes, and so segments are designated as Interstate as they are completed. Because it is Congressionally mandated, FHWA is forced to comply.
The infamous I-99 in Pennsylvania and the I-376 extension there also fit into that category. :pan: :banghead:
Think about this expense I don't think anyone thought of--the state DOTD (Dept. of Total Destruction) :-D will have to renumber all existing exits on the current I-49, because the new milepost 0 will be in New Orleans instead of where it is now in Lafayette. This will cost lots of $$$ changing all of those signs and mileposts. :-o THIS is why they need to label the Lafayette-New Orleans stretch as I-6 IMHO.
Quote from: cjk374 on November 27, 2009, 05:31:17 PM
Think about this expense I don't think anyone thought of--the state DOTD (Dept. of Total Destruction) :-D will have to renumber all existing exits on the current I-49, because the new milepost 0 will be in New Orleans instead of where it is now in Lafayette. This will cost lots of $$$ changing all of those signs and mileposts. :-o THIS is why they need to label the Lafayette-New Orleans stretch as I-6 IMHO.
This is why I think NJDOT should just extend I-295 around to PA (or even as 895) rather than push I-195 around the same way once the I-95/I-276 connection is complete. There will be a lot of renumbering to do along I-195 as a result that could have been avoided.