:hmmm: the numbers don't line up for me as regards what they have up. On the freeway section from Morgan City to Raceland, the exit numbers go from 176 to 215? What could it possibly mean... unless it's an extension of I-10!
Quote from: eXfaktor on April 26, 2010, 06:08:59 PM
:hmmm: the numbers don't line up for me as regards what they have up. On the freeway section from Morgan City to Raceland, the exit numbers go from 176 to 215? What could it possibly mean... unless it's an extension of I-10!
Maybe it's US 90 numbering and not future I-49?
Quote from: US71 on April 26, 2010, 06:49:45 PM
Maybe it's US 90 numbering and not future I-49?
this.
Quote from: US71 on April 26, 2010, 06:49:45 PM
Maybe it's US 90 numbering and not future I-49?
So you're suggesting that it lines up with the mileages for US 90? Which makes sense, but doesn't explain why they're pushing the Future 49 designation so enthusiastically
They are using US 90 numbering right now; I'm guessing that this is a temporary fix until the entire corridor is finished, Then they will shift to a different system.
Anthony
Does bring up a dilemma, though....since US 90 dovetails away from the proposed I-49 South corridor in Lafayette before the proposed freeway hits the existing I-10/I-49 interchange, I wonder how in the heck will they number those exits??
Unless, they are planning to build the segment through Lafayette last after they either complete the Raceland/Boutte/New Orleans segment or, as some have noted, simply re-route I-49 along I-310 north of Raceland and just truncate the Boutte to Westbank Expressway segment?? Maybe they think that the proposed Lafayette Regional Expressway loop will be funded and completed by then, and they will simply combine that and the rest of "I-49 South" into "I-6", and simply extend the existing I-49 designation through Lafayette proper??
Of course, all that depends on the glacier pace of LaDOTD actually completing the darn highway...at this "one interchange every two years" pace they are currently going, they should have this project finished right around....oh, 2040. :pan: :pan: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Anthony
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 27, 2010, 01:26:23 PM
Of course, all that depends on the glacier pace of LaDOTD actually completing the darn highway...at this "one interchange every two years" pace they are currently going, they should have this project finished right around....oh, 2040. :pan: :pan: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Anthony
If oil would only jump back to $200 a barrel....
Quote from: osu-lsu on April 28, 2010, 01:36:57 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 27, 2010, 01:26:23 PM
Of course, all that depends on the glacier pace of LaDOTD actually completing the darn highway...
If oil would only jump back to $200 a barrel....
:confused: Why would that make I-49 happen faster?
I'm thinking he ment $20, but I could be wrong.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on April 28, 2010, 06:36:17 AM
I'm thinking he ment $20, but I could be wrong.
Hard to say. Oil production/drilling is big in and just off the coast of Louisiana. That's why I asked.
Quote from: mightyace on April 28, 2010, 01:51:32 AM
Quote from: osu-lsu on April 28, 2010, 01:36:57 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 27, 2010, 01:26:23 PM
Of course, all that depends on the glacier pace of LaDOTD actually completing the darn highway...
If oil would only jump back to $200 a barrel....
:confused: Why would that make I-49 happen faster?
Louisiana makes $$$ off of oil (when not leaking into the gulf). Louisiana had a budget surplus after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, not just from the hurricane recovery acts, but also because oil had jumped up to $140 a barrel by 2007/08.
When oil dropped back down to $40-$50 a barrel, that additional money disappeared.
As to I-49, additional revenues to the state causesd by an increase in the price of oil, could be diverted to the construction of I-49.
Quote from: osu-lsu on April 29, 2010, 12:48:58 AM
As to I-49, additional revenues to the state causesd by an increase in the price of oil, could be diverted to the construction of I-49.
Of course, a high increase in the price of oil for a long time would decrease the amount of road traffic and less need for I-49.
Quote from: mightyace on April 29, 2010, 01:49:01 AM
Quote from: osu-lsu on April 29, 2010, 12:48:58 AM
As to I-49, additional revenues to the state causesd by an increase in the price of oil, could be diverted to the construction of I-49.
Of course, a high increase in the price of oil for a long time would decrease the amount of road traffic and less need for I-49.
Not necessarily, I-49 is mainly needed because of evacuations concerns and oil port traffic. Other than that the highway is good enough like it is.
can they like just NOT call it I-49? Build the thing, that's all louisiana residents are asking, build SOMETHING major that addresses an issue, and this is one... that DOTD happens to be dragging feet on as usual
Quote from: eXfaktor on April 29, 2010, 04:51:46 PM
can they like just NOT call it I-49? Build the thing, that's all louisiana residents are asking, build SOMETHING major that addresses an issue, and this is one... that DOTD happens to be dragging feet on as usual
Probably get more Federal money if they call it an Interstate
I think the exit numbers were added later after the signs were installed. The font used for the numbers themselves are Series D instead of Series E modified. Also, the gore exit signs look like they were made for two-digit exit numbers but they used the narrow Series D so that the numbers could be squeezed in.
I suppose the numbers follow US 90's mileage because it is still not certain where I-49 will end in New Orleans, right?
Oh, it's certain. Right by the Superdome. The "southernmost leg" of I-49 has long been planned along the Westbank...
Why does I-49 have to extend south of I-10? Can't it be I-810?
Quote from: ausinterkid on May 17, 2010, 07:03:22 AM
Why does I-49 have to extend south of I-10? Can't it be I-810?
I suppose it would make the entire I-49 corridor more valuable if it ended in New Orleans instead of Lafayette, but it really looks weird that I-49 will be turning east and southeast at Lafayette. I like Option 1 that Froggie developed (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/other/la-shuffle.htm) for "shuffling" the interstate designations. This reroutes the interstates without creating any new 1di or 2di interstates (such as I-6) in an area that already has an intrastate I-12 and, for the time being, I-49.
I also wonder if I-49 will be signed East-West along the extension, or North-South? There were some Future I-49 corridor signs that were posted right beside the US 90 shield with both "shields" sharing the same "West" banner.
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 17, 2010, 08:28:03 AM
Quote from: ausinterkid on May 17, 2010, 07:03:22 AM
Why does I-49 have to extend south of I-10? Can't it be I-810?
I suppose it would make the entire I-49 corridor more valuable if it ended in New Orleans instead of Lafayette, but it really looks weird that I-49 will be turning east and southeast at Lafayette. I like Option 1 that Froggie developed (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/other/la-shuffle.htm) for "shuffling" the interstate designations. This reroutes the interstates without creating any new 1di or 2di interstates (such as I-6) in an area that already has an intrastate I-12 and, for the time being, I-49.
I also wonder if I-49 will be signed East-West along the extension, or North-South? There were some Future I-49 corridor signs that were posted right beside the US 90 shield with both "shields" sharing the same "West" banner.
First saw those future corridor signs in 1999. 11 years later, and Interstate 49 is nowhere near ready to be signed anywhere in the New Orleans area...
Are Future Corridor signs even worth touting in situations like this? Future I-785 signs have been around for awhile, as has a Future I-285 sign between Lexington and Winston-Salem. Neither appears on the horizon anytime soon.
Quote from: AARoads on May 17, 2010, 11:13:12 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 17, 2010, 08:28:03 AM
Quote from: ausinterkid on May 17, 2010, 07:03:22 AM
Why does I-49 have to extend south of I-10? Can't it be I-810?
I suppose it would make the entire I-49 corridor more valuable if it ended in New Orleans instead of Lafayette, but it really looks weird that I-49 will be turning east and southeast at Lafayette. I like Option 1 that Froggie developed (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/other/la-shuffle.htm) for "shuffling" the interstate designations. This reroutes the interstates without creating any new 1di or 2di interstates (such as I-6) in an area that already has an intrastate I-12 and, for the time being, I-49.
I also wonder if I-49 will be signed East-West along the extension, or North-South? There were some Future I-49 corridor signs that were posted right beside the US 90 shield with both "shields" sharing the same "West" banner.
First saw those future corridor signs in 1999. 11 years later, and Interstate 49 is nowhere near ready to be signed anywhere in the New Orleans area...
I don't think any of those signs have been replaced since then, either. Every one of the signs were faded when I drove through there. I think that is telling as to how long it may take to get I-49 to New Orleans.
I think they serve a purpose to let the general public know that eventually the road will be upgraded to an interstate, but like you said, it may not be for several years or even decades before it happens.
Maybe there should be another sign that says "Distant Future I-xx Corridor."
Quote from: AARoads on May 17, 2010, 11:13:12 AM
Are Future Corridor signs even worth touting in situations like this? Future I-785 signs have been around for awhile, as has a Future I-285 sign between Lexington and Winston-Salem. Neither appears on the horizon anytime soon.
Maybe. After all, some projects in Missouri that were supposed to wait another decade before construction started are now underway due to stimulus funds. A similar situation could develop on other corridors should an unexpected amount of funding suddenly come available.
QuoteFirst saw those future corridor signs in 1999.
As I recall, on a roadtrip we took together...
Quote...should an unexpected amount of funding suddenly come available.
Figure the odds. Unless and until Congress can get over themselves and find a major new source of transportation funding, any significant funding for new corridors such as this is going to take away scarce dollars from other needed transportation projects.
Well, Froggie, it isn't eactly a new corridor; it's been in the plans of the state for right around 40 years now...and they have to justify building all those interchanges and upgrades to US 90 further south.
I'd give it more than a fighting chance that we will see some funding...probably after the funding for I-49 north of Shreveport (and the proposed Inner City Connector segment through downtown Shreveport) is secured. Especially since the Baton Rouge metro loop appears to be on its last legs, and they've already funded much of the widenings of I-10 and I-12 in the Baton Rouge area.
Anthony
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 17, 2010, 08:28:03 AM
Quote from: ausinterkid on May 17, 2010, 07:03:22 AM
Why does I-49 have to extend south of I-10? Can't it be I-810?
I suppose it would make the entire I-49 corridor more valuable if it ended in New Orleans instead of Lafayette, but it really looks weird that I-49 will be turning east and southeast at Lafayette. I like Option 1 that Froggie developed (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/other/la-shuffle.htm) for "shuffling" the interstate designations. This reroutes the interstates without creating any new 1di or 2di interstates (such as I-6) in an area that already has an intrastate I-12 and, for the time being, I-49.
I also wonder if I-49 will be signed East-West along the extension, or North-South? There were some Future I-49 corridor signs that were posted right beside the US 90 shield with both "shields" sharing the same "West" banner.
Considering that they are still calling this "I-49 SOUTH", I'm guessing that it will be signed as north-south, the congruent parts of US 90 signed as per the usual, such as I-49 SOUTH/US 90 EAST. Milepost zero would probably switch from the current I-49/I-10 interchange to the I-10/Claiborne Ave/US 90 Business-Westbank Expressway interchange in New Orleans (or, if they decide to truncate the route and go along I-310, the I-10/I-310 interchange).
Anthony
:wow: omg it's froggie!
*fan boy bowing*
Maybe it's just me, but I don't really care that the road is going to sweep southeast and east from Lafayette and still be called 49. I want the number 49 because it IS a continuous part of the existing I-49... a road that will be like 1,000 miles long when it's all said and done. Nobody except a few roadgeeks care that the number is odd and it will have an east-west segment. Is this really a big deal? No. It's not like we're building an I-92 to travel between Las Vegas and Phoenix.
I-49 won't be signed for a minimum of 30 years anyway. It is written in stone that I-49 will be elevated for *35 MILES* from the present end of the Westbank Expressway to Raceland. So what this thread is debating is something that literally won't happen until 2040 at the earliest. Really guys? Really???
To be honest, I'll be happy if they can get the damn thing past Westwego. At least take it to the Huey, the 310 would be nice.
QuoteWell, Froggie, it isn't eactly a new corridor; it's been in the plans of the state for right around 40 years now...and they have to justify building all those interchanges and upgrades to US 90 further south.
It's still a new corridor in the sense that it's incomplete corridor, and a lot of new construction will be required to complete it.
The funding reality still stands...I don't see any increase in Federal funding unless and until the logjam in Congress clears. So unless the state wants to pony up its own dollars
(which, BTW, is how Mississippi completed their segment of Future I-22 light-years before Alabama), we're not going to see construction anytime soon (as lamsalfl notes).
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 17, 2010, 09:51:57 PM
Well, Froggie, it isn't eactly a new corridor; it's been in the plans of the state for right around 40 years now...and they have to justify building all those interchanges and upgrades to US 90 further south.
I'd give it more than a fighting chance that we will see some funding...probably after the funding for I-49 north of Shreveport (and the proposed Inner City Connector segment through downtown Shreveport) is secured. Especially since the Baton Rouge metro loop appears to be on its last legs, and they've already funded much of the widenings of I-10 and I-12 in the Baton Rouge area.
Anthony
Can we get a volunteer to visit the State Library or Hill Memorial Library (@ LSU) to look up the EIS for I-49? Just make you differentiate between the Shreveport to Lafeyette portion and the Lafayette to New Orleans portion (plenty of EIS on record via LSU Library database for both parts)
Until September of 2008, LaDOTD actually had posted online the EIS's and ROD's for all of the relevant segments of I-49 South, including the segment just south of Lafayette to LA 88, the Wax Lake-Berwick segment through Patterson/Bayou Vista and Berwick, and the Raceland-Westbank Expressway segment. Unfortunately, they disbanded the original I-49 South website, and now only the Raceland-WB EIS/ROD is available online. The ROD and Executive Summary for the I-49 segment through Lafayette is available online via the I-49 Connector website (http://www.i49connector.com).
I used to keep pdf folders containing all of the studies, but they got nuked when my hard drive crashed on me.
I'm sure that Hill Library @ LSU will have all the relevant studies; but you can also try the Louisiana Room of Dupre Library over at the University of Louisiana @ Lafayette campus.
Also, the State Library of Louisiana near downtown Baton Rouge next to the Capitol Building has a decent selection of plans as well.
Anthony
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 19, 2010, 09:57:03 PM
Until September of 2008, LaDOTD actually had posted online the EIS's and ROD's for all of the relevant segments of I-49 South, including the segment just south of Lafayette to LA 88, the Wax Lake-Berwick segment through Patterson/Bayou Vista and Berwick, and the Raceland-Westbank Expressway segment. Unfortunately, they disbanded the original I-49 South website, and now only the Raceland-WB EIS/ROD is available online. The ROD and Executive Summary for the I-49 segment through Lafayette is available online via the I-49 Connector website (http://www.i49connector.com).
I used to keep pdf folders containing all of the studies, but they got nuked when my hard drive crashed on me.
I'm sure that Hill Library @ LSU will have all the relevant studies; but you can also try the Louisiana Room of Dupre Library over at the University of Louisiana @ Lafayette campus.
Also, the State Library of Louisiana near downtown Louisiana next to the Capitol Building has a decent selection of plans as well.
Anthony
Having spent time at both the State Library and LSU, I'd recomend using the State Library. If one goes to Hill memorial, they have so many restrictions (no paper or pens allowed in the reading room, you have to fill out a request form so they can track down the material) that it becomes a hassle to use, where as the State Library you can locate the material on your own and take notes without being bothered.
Quote from: eXfaktor on May 17, 2010, 11:42:37 PM
:wow: omg it's froggie!
*fan boy bowing*
Holy crap, roadgeeks have fanboys now? Can I get fangirls instead? That'd be pretty awesome. How many posts until I'm eligible for fangirls?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2010, 01:41:44 PM
Holy crap, roadgeeks have fanboys now? Can I get fangirls instead? That'd be pretty awesome. How many posts until I'm eligible for fangirls?
17 trillion. At that point, your rank indicator will be "hyperspace wormhole connecting two points instantaneously".
Fangirls are ok, just keep them at arms length. Saying this from experience... it's a lot less fun than it could be
Then imagine all of the extra $$$ the state will have to spend changing all of the current exit numbers Lafayette-Shreveport after they finish the southern segment in order to correctly establish milepost zero at New Orleans.
Quote from: cjk374 on June 14, 2010, 01:00:46 PM
Then imagine all of the extra $$$ the state will have to spend changing all of the current exit numbers Lafayette-Shreveport after they finish the southern segment in order to correctly establish milepost zero at New Orleans.
This brings up a good argument I have with myself.
If we, as roadgeeks can figure out the exact exit numbers for roads like this, then why don't we just change the numbers ourselves if we're in such a hurry to get these Interstates up?
Quote from: cjk374 on June 14, 2010, 01:00:46 PM
Then imagine all of the extra $$$ the state will have to spend changing all of the current exit numbers Lafayette-Shreveport after they finish the southern segment in order to correctly establish milepost zero at New Orleans.
Actually, it's not nearly as bad. since they only have to change mileposts and exit tags.
Anthony
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 26, 2011, 03:00:01 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on June 14, 2010, 01:00:46 PM
Then imagine all of the extra $$$ the state will have to spend changing all of the current exit numbers Lafayette-Shreveport after they finish the southern segment in order to correctly establish milepost zero at New Orleans.
Actually, it's not nearly as bad. since they only have to change mileposts and exit tags.
Anthony
I know the numbers are small compared to the construction costs of upgrading US 90 to interstate grade, but think about it: :hmmm:
1) you have 206 milemarkers, times 2 (one for each side of the interstate)= 412 signs to replace. Not cheap.
2) exit tabs for all of the BGSs at all exits. You'll also be adding the "old exit xx" signs on top of that as well.
3) all of the gore signs...with "old exit xx" signs on top of those as well.
4) now think of all of the above happening to I-49 north of Shreveport should that stretch be finished first...even more sign changes. $$$$$
It would be cheaper to call the new interstate south of Lafayette I-6. :sombrero:
Quote from: cjk374 on March 27, 2011, 01:25:11 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 26, 2011, 03:00:01 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on June 14, 2010, 01:00:46 PM
Then imagine all of the extra $$$ the state will have to spend changing all of the current exit numbers Lafayette-Shreveport after they finish the southern segment in order to correctly establish milepost zero at New Orleans.
Actually, it's not nearly as bad. since they only have to change mileposts and exit tags.
Anthony
I know the numbers are small compared to the construction costs of upgrading US 90 to interstate grade, but think about it: :hmmm:
1) you have 206 milemarkers, times 2 (one for each side of the interstate)= 412 signs to replace. Not cheap.
2) exit tabs for all of the BGSs at all exits. You'll also be adding the "old exit xx" signs on top of that as well.
3) all of the gore signs...with "old exit xx" signs on top of those as well.
4) now think of all of the above happening to I-49 north of Shreveport should that stretch be finished first...even more sign changes. $$$$$
It would be cheaper to call the new interstate south of Lafayette I-6. :sombrero:
Correction: An eastern I-8.
Most of us agree on I-6 being in Texas somewhere.
QuoteMost of us agree on I-6 being in Texas somewhere.
Most of us...? Do tell, because I don't recall seeing a majority of the posters here commenting on a possible I-6 in Texas.
Where in TX is I-6 proposed?
In the fictional highways forum.
I've only ever seen southern 49 proposed as I-6. And I'm not sure that ever made it beyond a few roadgeeks.
Quote from: cjk374 on March 27, 2011, 10:39:49 PM
Where in TX is I-6 proposed?
Along the border with Mexico.
QuoteAlong the border with Mexico.
By whom or what? And again, where did this "most of us" come from?
Quote from: froggie on March 28, 2011, 04:57:03 PM
QuoteAlong the border with Mexico.
By whom or what? And again, where did this "most of us" come from?
The same folks that want a southern US 3 for Dale Ernhardt
Quote from: froggie on March 28, 2011, 04:57:03 PM
QuoteAlong the border with Mexico.
By whom or what? And again, where did this "most of us" come from?
Watson Bros., Adam. Remember them? It's on their list.
http://www.oocities.org/ultimateinterstatesystem/listofinterstates.html
Who the hell is Watson Bros.? Perhaps "Watson Bros Gun & Rifle Manufacturers"?
Quote from: NE2 on March 28, 2011, 06:58:04 PM
Who the hell is Watson Bros.? Perhaps "Watson Bros Gun & Rifle Manufacturers"?
<shrugs> I don't remember them.
I don't know how accurate they are, but here are some of the exits along US 90
215A LA1 Thibodaux, Lockport
215B LA 308 Raceland
210 LA 182 Houma
202 LA 24 Houma Thibodaux
200 LA 311
194 LA 20 Chacahoula
189 LA 20 Gibson
185 LA 662 to LA 182
The more I look at these, though, they look like Mileage to the LA-TX line instead of future I-49
Yes, I recall the Watson Brothers. But that's a HUGE stretch on your part to take that and get your "most of us" comment out of it.
NE2 was right...fictional highway.
personally, I'd renumber that stretch of US-90 to I-99.
or US-220.
Quote from: US71 on March 28, 2011, 10:29:41 PM
I don't know how accurate they are, but here are some of the exits along US 90
215A LA1 Thibodaux, Lockport
215B LA 308 Raceland
210 LA 182 Houma
202 LA 24 Houma Thibodaux
200 LA 311
194 LA 20 Chacahoula
189 LA 20 Gibson
185 LA 662 to LA 182
The more I look at these, though, they look like Mileage to the LA-TX line instead of future I-49
Those exit numbers use US 90 as a base.
Problem is, even if you manage to use I-6 or I-8, you will still have to change the exit numbers anyway, since US 90 won't directly connect to I-10 at the I-10/I-49 interchange (it branches off of the current Evangeline Thruway at Mudd Ave).
I'm sure that the costs are factored into the total amount for constructing the extension to begin with.
Anthony
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 29, 2011, 01:23:51 PM
Problem is, even if you manage to use I-6 or I-8, you will still have to change the exit numbers anyway, since US 90 won't directly connect to I-10 at the I-10/I-49 interchange (it branches off of the current Evangeline Thruway at Mudd Ave).
Also, if the infamous proposed I-10/Claiborne "boulevardization" in N.O. were to take place, you would have the possibility of having to move the current I-49/I-10 "milepost zero" to a different location, which could create another renumbering problem :hmm:.
Possible scenario:
I-10 above Claiborne torn down and "boulevardized";
I-610 changed to I-10;
Current I-10 from current western I-10/I-610 interchange to Claiborne re-designated as I-49 instead of an I-x10.
One of so many reasons why this "Claiborne Boulevard" concept is a horrible idea. Have I-49 start north by going due south...yeah, right.
Anthony
QuoteOne of so many reasons why this "Claiborne Boulevard" concept is a horrible idea.
Drifting off-topic here, but I don't think it's that horrible an idea. Certain infrastructure improvements would have to be made before it could happen, however.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 29, 2011, 01:42:54 PM
Also, if the infamous proposed I-10/Claiborne "boulevardization" in N.O. were to take place, you would have the possibility of having to move the current I-49/I-10 "milepost zero" to a different location, which could create another renumbering problem :hmm:.
Exit numbers can be fudged. Look at I-40 in Tennessee; they didn't renumber all the exits when it was moved onto I-240 in Memphis.
Quote from: NE2 on March 29, 2011, 02:28:09 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 29, 2011, 01:42:54 PM
Also, if the infamous proposed I-10/Claiborne "boulevardization" in N.O. were to take place, you would have the possibility of having to move the current I-49/I-10 "milepost zero" to a different location, which could create another renumbering problem :hmm:.
Exit numbers can be fudged. Look at I-40 in Tennessee; they didn't renumber all the exits when it was moved onto I-240 in Memphis.
Not only that, but the infamous "I-585" in South Carolina as well.
Quote from: kaothinterceptor on March 29, 2011, 03:32:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 29, 2011, 02:28:09 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 29, 2011, 01:42:54 PM
Also, if the infamous proposed I-10/Claiborne "boulevardization" in N.O. were to take place, you would have the possibility of having to move the current I-49/I-10 "milepost zero" to a different location, which could create another renumbering problem :hmm:.
Exit numbers can be fudged. Look at I-40 in Tennessee; they didn't renumber all the exits when it was moved onto I-240 in Memphis.
Not only that, but the infamous "I-585" in South Carolina as well.
And, the shorter current I-610 routing for the "new" I-10 would give LaDOTD the opportunity to make New Orleans a "double fudge" town.