http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/10/city_hall_gets_2_million_to_st.html (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/10/city_hall_gets_2_million_to_st.html)
City Hall gets $2 million to study Claiborne Avenue, possible teardown of elevated I-10
Michelle Krupa, The Times-Picayune
Mayor Mitch Landrieu created a buzz this summer when he told urban planners who were meeting in New Orleans that he's willing to consider tearing down the elevated stretch of Interstate 10 through downtown New Orleans.
"It could be a game-changer. It could reconnect two of the city's most historic neighborhoods," Landrieu told a gathering of the Urban Land Institute, an industry think tank that has played a key role in city planning since Hurricane Katrina.
"I'm not saying I'm for it, " he said. "I'm just saying it's worth thinking about."
The Landrieu administration stepped up its stake in the controversial concept today when it accepted a $2 million planning grant that will finance a comprehensive study of the Claiborne Avenue corridor, according to City Hall news release.
The city's grant proposal, submitted in cooperation with about three dozen community groups, focuses on areas between Napoleon and Elysian Fields avenues, including the portion under the elevated I-10, and those that run through Hollygrove and the Lower 9th Ward.
"The future of New Orleans lies in improving our quality of life," the mayor said in a prepared statement. "This grant will guide strategic integrated investments in housing, transportation and land-use planning to realize the full potential in neighborhoods along the Claiborne Corridor.
"Further, the grant will give us the opportunity to evaluate the future of the Claiborne/elevated I-10 expressway," he said.
The money will come from the federal departments of transportation and housing and urban development.
Construction in the 1960s of the elevated interstate, particularly the stretch that towers over North Claiborne Avenue, has been blamed for cleaving a wide swath of once-thriving residential and commercial communities and forcing scores of businesses owned by African-American entrepreneurs to shut down.
Amid looming maintenance expenses and a new national focus on urban renewal, experts have suggested removing the Claiborne Expressway from the Pontchartrain Expressway to Elysian Fields Avenue. Traffic would be diverted on surface streets or along Interstate 610.
The proposal is part of New Orleans' new master plan, a dense document designed to spell out planning priorities for the next two decades.
For reference, we've had past discussions on the concept of deconstructing I-10 along Claiborne....one from a couple months ago in the Louisiana thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=79.msg69125#msg69125), and another from early 2009 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=651.msg15827#msg15827).
Let me guess; John Norquist is going to come down and give them a ton of money, and the City will tell everybody it'll work.
:-P :pan: :banghead:
And then Bobby Jindal and the masses of folk on the Westbank and those who rely on the Claiborne Elevated for their commute will respond and shut him down.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: BAD, BAD IDEA.
If you're going to do that, you might as well reroute I-10 down I-1-12, downgrade the Westbank Expressway back down to expressway standards, and just dump I-49 South. Unless, the people of Treme and those who are backing this monstrosity realy do want their surface streets chocked to death by all that traffic from downtown.
Just spend the money and upgrade the Claiborne Elevated, and use CSS design and traditional neighborhood grants to revive the community.
I'd love to see Norquist come to Alexandria or Shreveport and make the claim that I-49 through these communities needs to be ripped down due to "developmemt" He wouldn't get past the first paragreph.
Anthony
Anthony: as was discussed ad-nauseum in the other threads, this is possible. But some other just-as-big transportation projects would have to be done first.
The only people mainly in support of this idea are developers, urban planners, and transplants.
Reviving this old thread because tearing down the Claiborne is still being discussed and I think keeping the thread together is better than two separate threads. This article (https://thelensnola.org/2022/08/19/the-claiborne-expressway-david-waggonner-on-new-orleans-hulking-mess/) shows many still want the Claiborne Expressway gone. I personally think it will be torn down when it comes up for a complete rebuild because the neighborhood won't allow anything else. This discussion is from the Central States discussion of tearing down the I-244 through the Greenwood neighborhood in Tulsa (which I am opposed to because it's part of a larger highway).
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 15, 2022, 12:34:51 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 14, 2022, 11:57:34 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 13, 2022, 02:35:10 PM
More of this stupid talk: https://www.route-fifty.com/infrastructure/2022/12/reconnecting-communities-billion-dollars-highway-removal-tulsa-new-orleans/380802/
Even worse is I-10 through New Orleans. That freeway is extremely important and needs to be rebuilt.
I-244 through Tulsa is part of a larger through routing from the Sand Springs Expressway to the Crosstown Expressway and acts much like US 75/I-345 in Dallas. The entire corridor should have been built a bit further north originally but now that the entire system is built its removal would be a huge and costly mistake.
OTOH, I-10 through New Orleans is redundant, destroyed and continues to negatively affect a neighborhood, and won't be rebuilt because the cost to rebuild it is less than its removal. It's a cost v benefits and the few benefits are vastly outweighed by the cost, both economically and the city environment. Only the few who whine that it adds a few minutes to their commute think it's important. Everything between Elysian Fields and the Superdome could be removed. It won't fix Iberville and Treme but it will make it better for the locals (though they'll whine about the inevitable gentrification). But that discussion belongs in Mid-South, not here.
"Redundant", MY ASS.
The Claiborne Elevated is the ONLY direct freeway connection between downtown New Orleans, the French Quarter, the Superdome, and the Medical Center district, and New Orleans East. It also serves as the primary connection from New Orleans East to the Westbank Expressway via the Crescent City Connection.
To remove it and divert traffic up the Ponchatrain Expressway to I-610 would not only NOT service the major traffic that serves that area from NOLA East, but it would add additional problems to the surface level Claiborne Avenue, especially if proponents of the freeway teardown propose to keep it at a 4-lane boulevard.
In addition, there are many residents of Treme who oppose any teardown because of fears that any redevelopment will be exploited by business and real estate developers to remove current residences of that community in the name of "urban renewal".
No, DO NOT TEAR DOWN the Claiborne Elevated. Instead, do as what is being done with the I-49 Lafayette Connector and incorporate CSS and neighborhood integration into any rebuild. THAT makes more sense than putting 144K VPD of traffic onto to a 4-lane boulevard and already pressed city streets.
(If you want to move this to Mid-South, mods, that would be fine with me.)
And, I oppose tearing down I-244 in Tulsa for the same reason. Major critical freeway arterials should not be removed just for the feelz of New Urbanists and the myopic desire to restore the past.
There's a lot more room to build a freeway through Lafayette, I-49 through Lafayette is a lot less destructive environmentally than a bypass and it looks like working with the local residents has resulted in a good compromise (https://lafayetteconnector.com/). I'm fine with I-49 through Lafayette.
OTOH, the Claiborne Expressway is an eyesore that divides a neighborhood and mostly serves people just passing through. You are apparently one of them. There is no good way to incorporate a new elevated highway for a rebuild; a tunnel would be a disaster should another Katrina happen and there is no other place to put it. Traffic can continue to get to the Superdome via the Pontchartrain Expressway so you're statement that it's the
only way is an absolute lie. It will take drivers a few more minutes to get there. That's all.
Claiming the locals are against its removal is bullfeathers. Yes, some are concerned about the possibility of gentrification, but they'll still take the removal of the highway and fight the gentrification when that happens.
Totally disagree.
You can simply redeck the existing viaduct structure as is and reinforce the existing supports to extend the life of the structures.
To say that it's "bullfeathers" that there is opposition to tearing it down is itself bullfeathers. The original plan to remove the Claiborne Elevated got some opposition from Treme residents who complained that the real motive of the proponents was to redevelop the neighborhood for gentrification and removal of its current residents. And, of course, there is strong opposition from business interests and residents of New Orleans East and others who rely on the structure for direct access to Downtown destinations from NOLA east and northeast.
The only way that a teardown would be even feasible would be if there was a way to connect the Westbank Expressway at Algiers to cross the Mississippi River near Chalmette and connect with I-510/LA 47 to create a semi-loop bypass; that would allow for an alternative route that could provide access to NOLA East without stressing current I-10.
Other than that, however. a rebuild is far better than simply removing it and bringing on chaos with 120K VPD being transferred onto a 4-lane boulevard and forced to endure already burdened city streets.
Keep the Claiborne Elevated, but use CSS and neighborhood input to better incorporate it into community development.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 15, 2022, 08:48:33 PM
The only way that a teardown would be even feasible would be if there was a way to connect the Westbank Expressway at Algiers to cross the Mississippi River near Chalmette and connect with I-510/LA 47 to create a semi-loop bypass; that would allow for an alternative route that could provide access to NOLA East without stressing current I-10.
Disagree, as I believe you and I argued 12 years ago. I believe a Claiborne removal is feasible WITHOUT a Mississippi River crossing, but it would require a total rebuild of 610, including the 10/610 interchanges on either side, as well as some improvements to existing 10 between Lakewood and the Superdome.
The junction of I-10 and the Westbank Expressway by the Superdome and Smoothie King Center arena is a major vehicle traffic hub. Removing the elevated I-10 structure East of the Superdome up to I-610 would dramatically worsen surface street traffic issues.
Removal of the 1-10 Claiborne Viaduct would be more feasible if New Orleans' surface street network was not such a badly outdated design.
The surface street grid in New Orleans is tightly packed, almost like that of an old European city. There is literally nothing in terms of filtering to limit local neighborhood access to the main surface arterial streets -kind of like what you see in newer American cities and affluent suburbs. In New Orleans the freeways are the only roads that have any kind of express functions. All the other streets are pure stoplight hell.
This problem is compounded by New Orleans not having much in the way of mass transit options. The famous street car line covers only a limited part of downtown and Canal Street going Northwest. The city bus system is the only other option. No one gets a thrill riding a city bus. If there was money to build a new light rail network across the Greater New Orleans area I'm not sure where the lines could be built since all the developed areas in the city are densely developed. Such a thing would likely have to be built mostly on elevated structures down the middle of freeways or main surface streets.
If the Claiborne Viaduct was removed they would not only have to do serious improvements to I-610, but they would also have to improve I-10 from the West split with I-610 down to the Superdome. It doesn't look like there is any room to spare for widening either I-610 or that West half of the I-10 triangle.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 18, 2022, 03:49:04 PM
The junction of I-10 and the Westbank Expressway by the Superdome and Smoothie King Center arena is a major vehicle traffic hub. Removing the elevated I-10 structure East of the Superdome up to I-610 would dramatically worsen surface street traffic issues.
Removal of the 1-10 Claiborne Viaduct would be more feasible if New Orleans' surface street network was not such a badly outdated design.
The surface street grid in New Orleans is tightly packed, almost like that of an old European city. There is literally nothing in terms of filtering to limit local neighborhood access to the main surface arterial streets -kind of like what you see in newer American cities and affluent suburbs. In New Orleans the freeways are the only roads that have any kind of express functions. All the other streets are pure stoplight hell.
This problem is compounded by New Orleans not having much in the way of mass transit options. The famous street car line covers only a limited part of downtown and Canal Street going Northwest. The city bus system is the only other option. No one gets a thrill riding a city bus. If there was money to build a new light rail network across the Greater New Orleans area I'm not sure where the lines could be built since all the developed areas in the city are densely developed. Such a thing would likely have to be built mostly on elevated structures down the middle of freeways or main surface streets.
If the Claiborne Viaduct was removed they would not only have to do serious improvements to I-610, but they would also have to improve I-10 from the West split with I-610 down to the Superdome. It doesn't look like there is any room to spare for widening either I-610 or that West half of the I-10 triangle.
The arguments you've presented are exactly why the viaduct needs to go. New Orleans is built like an Old World city. Most Old World cities work just fine without a freeway cutting through the heart of the city. Europeans build bypasses around most cities with usually only spurs going near the city's core. With less traffic, the current streetcar network could be built into the French Quarter rather than encircling it and that streetcar could even be built down a rebuilt Claiborne. The Claiborne ROW is at least 160 feet wide, not including sidewalks. Octavia St in San Francisco is only 133 feet wide (https://westernite.org/awards/bestpaper/2010-Olea.pdf); there is more than enough room for a new design (https://www.sfmta.com/projects/octavia-boulevard-enhancement-program) with a through four-lane boulevard down the center with trams running down the parallel access streets and still have room for parking. In fact, it's basically the same size (actually a few feet wider) than Boulder Highway in Las Vegas which is also being redesigned (https://www.rtcsnv.com/boulderhighway/).
I agree the current I-610 would also need to be rebuilt, but it's almost 50 years old (originally completed in late 70s) so it's not like a complete rebuild wouldn't happen anyway. There's also room for an eight lane freeway along the entire corridor. I'm less sure I-10 from I-610 to the Superdome would need to be expanded but the I-10 Claiborne interchange wouldn't need to be a spaghetti-like nightmare like it currently is.
Quote from: skluthThe arguments you've presented are exactly why the viaduct needs to go. New Orleans is built like an Old World city. Most Old World cities work just fine without a freeway cutting through the heart of the city.
Take a good look at virtually any old European city. Virtually ALL of them are heavily criss-crossed by passenger rail lines, subways, light rail lines, etc. Multiple large railroad stations are found in the middle of city centers easily within walking distance.
New Orleans has none of that.
New Orleans is an old American city, but unlike other old major cities in the US (such as NYC, Boston or Philadelphia) not a lot of passenger rail infrastructure was built in New Orleans. Most of the commerce was coming in and out of the city via river boats on the Mississippi. Many old European cities saw their fastest growth during the 1800's and the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those cities were fleshed out with railroads in mind. Most
newer American cities have been built around the automobile.
Removing the I-10 Claiborne Viaduct will do literally nothing to improve traffic movement in New Orleans. The removal will only make getting around the GNO area more difficult. That badly outdated surface street grid is still going to be badly outdated with or without the elevated freeway.
I honestly don't know how anyone can even begin to untangle the mess that is that surface street grid in New Orleans, especially without pissing off entire neighborhoods of people. Usually modern street layouts with filtering designs get built in brand new subdivisions.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 19, 2022, 03:23:14 PM
I honestly don't know how anyone can even begin to untangle the mess that is that surface street grid in New Orleans, especially without pissing off entire neighborhoods of people. Usually modern street layouts with filtering designs get built in brand new subdivisions.
I actually find the surface streets of New Orleans to flow quite well outside of rush hour, notwithstanding the potholes and street people one encounters. Because of the street grid, there are many potential routes that one can take to a destination. Also New Orleans is not San Francisco or New York - the population is not that dense.
However, I agree that the surface street system is not optimal for through traffic. Very few 18th-19th century street grids fill that role well.
If the Claiborne Viaduct/I-10 East is torn down, will there also be money for a rebuild/expansion of I-610 as well as an expansion of the Ponchartrain Expressway/I-10 West to accommodate the additional traffic? I get the sense that they will just tear down the Claiborne Viaduct without any improvements done elsewhere.
If they did any expansion to I-610 or the Western half of the I-10 "V" they wouldn't be able to do much. It looks like there might be enough space to expand I-610 from its current 3x3 lanes configuration to 4x4 or even 5x5. It would be a tight squeeze just adding another lane in each direction to I-10 without removing any existing property (or relocating graves in Metairie Cemetery).
heres my two cents, ill be making references to the book "gridlock" by randal o'toole in this one, so to those who not read the book, i suggest y'all do so:
many transit oriented cities lose money on their mass transit and most rail lines outside of new york city and other million+ population cities often leave rail lines to rot
that being said, what new orleans needs to do is look at optimizing traffic light synchronization and having superblocks in downtown which are 1 way only roads throughout the downtown core. this is all PRE DESTRUCTION OF THE VIADUCT! optimizing the bus routes as well should also be done with rapid bus to outer sections of the city. increasing walkability, bikeability and general safety should also be done prior to doing any destruction of a freeway.
i looked up new orleans population. https://www.city-data.com/city/New-Orleans-Louisiana.html its not even big enough for any rail whatsoever, nor is it dense enough for such options. rail lines require the use of higher density areas to make money, no city should build light rail just because they can.
that being said, nobody should be considering anything else till the aforementioned needs are met and the problems are fixed, then they can consider removing the freeway, but they should only remove the freeway if they plan on redirecting I-10 onto I-610 at the very least, otherwise you'd do what phoenix arizona did for a decade before finally finishing I-10 through arizona in the 80s, this is because phoenix arizona had a serious moment of bad press and the arterial road in the early 80s had problems with I-10 through traffic being dumped onto phoenixes streets.
i doubt new orleans wants that to happen, but local pressure, assuming they succeed, will show how ignorant some people are.
if new orleans wants to become the next 1970s phoenix, thats their problem, they should at least do a EIS before doing so, assuming they are only doing the freeway removal based on what the public wants, not whatever the EIS says to do.
I've read the book. In fact, I have owned a copy of the book since it first came out in 2010. A lot of the things said in the book mirror my own views about transportation.
That means I-610 becomes I-10. :)
I certainly agree with the idea that New Orleans needs to improve its surface street grid before doing any removal of the I-10 Claiborne Viaduct. Improving that street grid would be easier said than done.
There is already a lot of (narrow) one-way streets in the downtown neighborhoods (French Quarter, Iberville, Treme, etc). The problem is there are lots of these streets in a tightly packed grid with no access controls at all. An already narrow street is made even more so by lots of cars parked along the curbside. Concepts like "road diets" aren't going to work there.
The key thing about making "super blocks" is by selectively cutting off access of certain side streets to the main surface arterials, such as Tulane Ave, Canal Street, Galvez and Esplanade. Right now just about every street, no matter how big or small, goes straight thru the grid uninterrupted. Such urban planning is very outdated, even with things like one-way streets.
I can't think of any cities in the US where city planners have gone into old neighborhoods and re-vamped the surface street grid designs to more modern layouts. I think the planners are just taking the easy way out and doing nothing. They don't want to deal with potential controversy that could flare from turning somebody's thru street into a dead end.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2022, 09:38:44 PM
I certainly agree with the idea that New Orleans needs to improve its surface street grid before doing any removal of the I-10 Claiborne Viaduct. Improving that street grid would be easier said than done.
There is already a lot of (narrow) one-way streets in the downtown neighborhoods (French Quarter, Iberville, Treme, etc). The problem is there are lots of these streets in a tightly packed grid with no access controls at all. An already narrow street is made even more so by lots of cars parked along the curbside. Concepts like "road diets" aren't going to work there.
The key thing about making "super blocks" is by selectively cutting off access of certain side streets to the main surface arterials, such as Tulane Ave, Canal Street, Galvez and Esplanade. Right now just about every street, no matter how big or small, goes straight thru the grid uninterrupted. Such urban planning is very outdated, even with things like one-way streets.
I can't think of any cities in the US where city planners have gone into old neighborhoods and re-vamped the surface street grid designs to more modern layouts. I think the planners are just taking the easy way out and doing nothing. They don't want to deal with potential controversy that could flare from turning somebody's thru street into a dead end.
improving the surface street grid should be a priority tho, otherwise the EIS would simply state that they ain't gonna do shit till the surface street grid is done first. i doubt anyone wants famous streets to suddenly stop somewhere but if current leadership is willing to do nothing to improve the surface streets and not explain their positions better then famous streets in new orleans might just get cut and you'd have bigger problems.
Would the grid even be eligible for federal dollars and trigger NEPA, or would its functional classes, such as Local, be ineligible?
Makes me wonder what LA's state environmental process would be (NY = SEQR) for non-federal-aid projects.
As far as environmental efforts go I think the state's main focus with New Orleans is keeping it from getting overwhelmed by the Mississippi River and Gulf waters. Much of the city is sinking (some portions rapidly; up to 1.5 inches per year). Lots of money is getting poured into beefing up the levee system.
Ironically, those levees are one of the reasons why so many wetland areas in coastal Louisiana are being eroded away by the Gulf. The bottled up rivers can't overrun their banks to flush out the intruding salt water and deposit new soil. Combine that with all the pumping of ground water for commercial and residential use. That's why New Orleans is sinking.
The surface street system in New Orleans is a cluttered rat's nest. My guess is the state just doesn't want to mess with it. Maybe they think the city is a lost cause. Why spend many billions of dollars trying to re-vamp the infrastructure there if chances are good much of the city could be underwater by 2100?
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
Quote from: civilengineeringnerd on December 27, 2022, 05:24:08 PM
heres my two cents, ill be making references to the book "gridlock" by randal o'toole in this one, so to those who not read the book, i suggest y'all do so:
many transit oriented cities lose money on their mass transit and most rail lines outside of new york city and other million+ population cities often leave rail lines to rot
False equivalency. Except for toll roads, there is not one single street or highway that makes money anywhere. The idea of building infrastructure, whether roads or transit, is to enhance the existing transportation infrastructure. Both lead to increased mobility and better access to jobs. Ideally, every decent-sized municipality should have both roads and transit. I get really annoyed by people who think it should be only roads or only transit as transportation needs are not a one size fits all.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 19, 2022, 03:23:14 PM
Quote from: skluthThe arguments you've presented are exactly why the viaduct needs to go. New Orleans is built like an Old World city. Most Old World cities work just fine without a freeway cutting through the heart of the city.
Take a good look at virtually any old European city. Virtually ALL of them are heavily criss-crossed by passenger rail lines, subways, light rail lines, etc. Multiple large railroad stations are found in the middle of city centers easily within walking distance.
New Orleans has none of that.
New Orleans is an old American city, but unlike other old major cities in the US (such as NYC, Boston or Philadelphia) not a lot of passenger rail infrastructure was built in New Orleans. Most of the commerce was coming in and out of the city via river boats on the Mississippi. Many old European cities saw their fastest growth during the 1800's and the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those cities were fleshed out with railroads in mind. Most newer American cities have been built around the automobile.
Removing the I-10 Claiborne Viaduct will do literally nothing to improve traffic movement in New Orleans. The removal will only make getting around the GNO area more difficult. That badly outdated surface street grid is still going to be badly outdated with or without the elevated freeway.
I honestly don't know how anyone can even begin to untangle the mess that is that surface street grid in New Orleans, especially without pissing off entire neighborhoods of people. Usually modern street layouts with filtering designs get built in brand new subdivisions.
It will take work. New Orleans, like many cities, has not expanded their transit infrastructure like they have their other infrastructure. Yet people are surprised that more people don't use transit more. The Claiborne Viaduct is redundant infrastructure that reduces the quality of life along its entire length. Most people would be better served with a redesigned Claiborne surface boulevard with transit and a widened I-610. I don't believe it works without both.
NOLA does have some decent streetcars. The St Charles streetcar even runs 24/7 and is heavily used. A Claiborne streetcar could run from Carrollton to Elysian Fields. Another could run from there down Elysian Fields to the river and then connect to the line ending at the French Market Station. It'll cost some money but that's the cost of decades of neglect to building new transit.
Any talk of expanding the Claiborne Viaduct is a non-starter. It won't happen and all the Robert Moses's of the world aren't going to change that.
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
If that were to happen, then the Mississippi River would take the path of the Atchafalaya River, which would leave New Orleans high and dry without use of its ports.
Quote from: RothmanLet the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
Yeah, they should have allowed that many decades ago. But that would have meant letting the Mississippi River potentially overtake the Atchafalaya River and flow through Morgan City rather than Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Business interests didn't want any of that happening. Not allowing the Mississippi to flow naturally will come at the cost of New Orleans and other delta towns eventually becoming unliveable. It's not going to take but maybe a couple or so more Katrina-level disasters to leave New Orleans flooded permanently.
Quote from: skluthFalse equivalency. Except for toll roads, there is not one single street or highway that makes money anywhere.
The streets and highways are there to help businesses and individuals make money. Two-thirds of the nation's commerce is delivered via roads. Cut off a major highway and it will cost businesses a lot of money. In 2002 a 580 foot long section of the I-40 bridge at Webber Falls, OK collapsed after being hit by a barge. 14 people died and 11 others were injured in vehicles that fell into the Arkansas River. It took only 2 months to replace the damaged bridge span when such a project would normally take six months or more. Having I-40 open was that important.
Also, toll roads or "free roads" have to be funded somehow. Fuel taxes take care of a lot of the "free" highways. Various kinds of taxes go in to funding city streets.
Quote from: skluthIdeally, every decent-sized municipality should have both roads and transit. I get really annoyed by people who think it should be only roads or only transit as transportation needs are not a one size fits all.
Like highways, mass transit has to be funded somehow. And it's only going to be there where enough of a pressing need is present. We have a bus system in Lawton. But it doesn't run 24/7. Ridership numbers are nowhere near high enough to justify the expense. The basic level of service that is provided has to be supplemented with a great deal of government funding to offset what would be huge losses.
Mass transit rail is far more expensive than a bus system. Potential ridership has to be of a certain level to make the system worth building at all. That's why there's not much of it in cities the size of Oklahoma City or Tulsa. The Greater New Orleans area is hardly any more populous than Oklahoma City. The only reason why it still has pro football and basketball teams is because of tourism, the oil industry and being able to draw people from other cities in the region like Baton Rouge or Gulfport-Biloxi. When I was a kid living in the New Orleans area I remembered a lot of big name music acts (such as Van Halen) booking concerts in Baton Rouge rather than New Orleans.
Unlike a spread-out city like Oklahoma City where there is plenty of room to build a light rail network New Orleans is for the most part jam packed. Engineers would have a hard time just finding enough space to build support pylons for an elevated rail line, much less clear out enough space to run anything at grade. Any concept of a subway in New Orleans would be insane.
New Orleans does have the old street car network, but that thing is more for tourists. It will (slowly) shuttle you around Downtown, Mid-City and along St Charles Avenue. It will do you no good if you're a commuter from the North side of the city, Metairie, Kenner or any of the cities on the West Bank. Oklahoma City has a street car system in its downtown area. It too is made mostly for tourists.
Quote from: skluthAny talk of expanding the Claiborne Viaduct is a non-starter. It won't happen and all the Robert Moses's of the world aren't going to change that.
I don't think anyone has been saying the Claiborne Viaduct should be expanded in size/capacity. Most are saying it should not be removed.
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 28, 2022, 02:47:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
If that were to happen, then the Mississippi River would take the path of the Atchafalaya River, which would leave New Orleans high and dry without use of its ports.
Wah.
The funding this discusses is not just to see if the Claiborne Elevated needs removed. That is one of the possibilities. Other possibilities would be to make it subterranean, make it larger, or do nothing.
There are lots of ways to look at what the goal of a survey is, but in the end, even a glaring report that says that from some (usually misguided or very partisan) minority opinion that something stupid needs done can and often is completely disregarded. Minority opinions need to be heard. More often than not when it comes to existing roads and freeways they can only cause modifications to help appease the perceived needs, but even in situations where the demands or proposals are macabre, it still needs to be part of the discourse.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2022, 03:03:04 PM
Quote from: skluthFalse equivalency. Except for toll roads, there is not one single street or highway that makes money anywhere.
The streets and highways are there to help businesses and individuals make money. Two-thirds of the nation's commerce is delivered via roads. Cut off a major highway and it will cost businesses a lot of money. In 2002 a 580 foot long section of the I-40 bridge at Webber Falls, OK collapsed after being hit by a barge. 14 people died and 11 others were injured in vehicles that fell into the Arkansas River. It took only 2 months to replace the damaged bridge span when such a project would normally take six months or more. Having I-40 open was that important.
Also, toll roads or "free roads" have to be funded somehow. Fuel taxes take care of a lot of the "free" highways. Various kinds of taxes go in to funding city streets. Transit allows those without vehicles and one-vehicle families to get to jobs and shopping centers in communities to make and consume all those products being moved about by trucks (and rail).
Fuel taxes only cover part of the cost of highways. So even those who don't use highways are paying for highways. I'm not arguing I-40 isn't important. It most certainly is as are the
I-35W bridge in Minneapolis and
Frigo Bridge in Green Bay. But so is a tunnel to get workers from NJ to Manhattan because
the current one is falling apart yet that didn't stop Gov Christie from stopping the funding of its replacement.
Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: skluthIdeally, every decent-sized municipality should have both roads and transit. I get really annoyed by people who think it should be only roads or only transit as transportation needs are not a one size fits all.
Like highways, mass transit has to be funded somehow. And it's only going to be there where enough of a pressing need is present. We have a bus system in Lawton. But it doesn't run 24/7. Ridership numbers are nowhere near high enough to justify the expense. The basic level of service that is provided has to be supplemented with a great deal of government funding to offset what would be huge losses.
I wouldn't expect Lawton to have a 24/7 bus system. I wouldn't even expect it to have one that runs on Sundays. It's not that big.
Lawson metro is 11% the size of
New Orleans. (130K vs 1.27M)
Quote from: Bobby5280
Mass transit rail is far more expensive than a bus system. Potential ridership has to be of a certain level to make the system worth building at all. That's why there's not much of it in cities the size of Oklahoma City or Tulsa. The Greater New Orleans area is hardly any more populous than Oklahoma City. The only reason why it still has pro football and basketball teams is because of tourism, the oil industry and being able to draw people from other cities in the region like Baton Rouge or Gulfport-Biloxi. When I was a kid living in the New Orleans area I remembered a lot of big name music acts (such as Van Halen) booking concerts in Baton Rouge rather than New Orleans.
Unlike a spread-out city like Oklahoma City where there is plenty of room to build a light rail network New Orleans is for the most part jam packed. Engineers would have a hard time just finding enough space to build support pylons for an elevated rail line, much less clear out enough space to run anything at grade. Any concept of a subway in New Orleans would be insane.
New Orleans does have the old street car network, but that thing is more for tourists. It will (slowly) shuttle you around Downtown, Mid-City and along St Charles Avenue. It will do you no good if you're a commuter from the North side of the city, Metairie, Kenner or any of the cities on the West Bank. Oklahoma City has a street car system in its downtown area. It too is made mostly for tourists.
Apples to oranges. New Orleans is a far more densely populated city than OKC or Tulsa. The St Charles streetcar is more for the locals than the tourists and while it is popular with tourists it's not the SF cable cars which are more a tourist draw than transportation option. Light rail could possibly be run to Metairie and the airport using the Earhart Expressway corridor but I don't think the streetcar network itself should be expanded beyond the NO city limits. Completely agree a subway system in NO would be insane.
Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: skluthAny talk of expanding the Claiborne Viaduct is a non-starter. It won't happen and all the Robert Moses's of the world aren't going to change that.
I don't think anyone has been saying the Claiborne Viaduct should be expanded in size/capacity. Most are saying it should not be removed.
Expanded in size/capacity is how I interpreted this comment below. Maybe upgrade can mean something other than expanded size and capacity, but that's the usual definition here.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 12, 2010, 12:38:42 PM
Just spend the money and upgrade the Claiborne Elevated, and use CSS design and traditional neighborhood grants to revive the community.
I agree with your long term assessment of New Orleans. It is sinking, ocean levels are rising, the wetlands and barrier islands protecting the city are disappearing, and it's only a question of how many Katrina-like storms it takes before the government refuses to bail the city out. I give it a century at most before it's abandoned but I'll be long dead by the time it happens.
Quote from: skluthFuel taxes only cover part of the cost of highways. So even those who don't use highways are paying for highways.
Fuel taxes cover much of the cost of "free" highways. But, yeah, there are funding short falls because
politics. Federal "omnibus" bills end up covering some of the difference. A state like Oklahoma refuses to raise its gasoline taxes (and then only finally does so in an attempt to get poorly paid teachers to stop leaving the state in droves). People here in Oklahoma constantly bitch about paying tolls on our turnpikes. They never compare our toll rates with those in neighboring states or the even higher tolls back East. They conveniently ignore the details in a scenario where 600+ miles of turnpikes are made "free"
and made the responsibility for ODOT to maintain. Oklahoma residents would see one hell of a giant hike in gasoline taxes. That's what removing those toll gates would do.
I don't agree with the over-simplified notion of "not one single street or highway that makes money anywhere." Outside gasoline taxes, streets and highways help generate a great deal of money for our economy by keeping things moving.
Quote from: skluthI wouldn't expect Lawton to have a 24/7 bus system. I wouldn't even expect it to have one that runs on Sundays. It's not that big. Lawson metro is 11% the size of New Orleans. (130K vs 1.27M)
Shouldn't the same kinds of criteria apply to cities regarding mass transit rail? Shouldn't a city need to be above certain population levels (among other factors) for a rail system to be justified? Mass transit rail projects are notorious for becoming cost boondoggles. BTW, I don't agree with the stunt Chris Christie pulled regarding those deteriorating rail tunnels under the Hudson River. OTOH, some of the proponents didn't seem to care how many billions of dollars the projects would eat. The aging passenger rail network in the NYC region is a lose-lose situation.
Quote from: skluthApples to oranges. New Orleans is a far more densely populated city than OKC or Tulsa.
The Greater New Orleans area has 1,270,530 people; city limits population is 383,997. Oklahoma City has 1,441,695 people in its metro and 681,054 in the city limits. OKC is actually more populous than New Orleans in both respects. In terms of population density, New Orleans has around 2200 per square mile and OKC is half that, around 1100 per square mile. So, technically, New Orleans is more dense. But as I said earlier: if someone really intended to build a real light rail network in GNO where would they build it? There's hardly any space available.
We also have to factor in demographics. If it weren't for the tourism industry New Orleans would be really screwed. There is quite a bit of poverty in GNO. Cities that do build light rail networks try to position a greater balance of service in the
nicer, more affluent areas of town (unless those "nicer" neighborhoods block it from being built).
IMHO, the OKC metro needs to get solidly above the 2 million level with its metro population before a light rail service could be feasible. Even then it would have to start out with some humble beginnings, like maybe a single North-South line starting in Edmond that goes thru downtown and down thru Moore and Norman. Then it would have to branch out from there, such as a spur to the airport.
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 28, 2022, 02:47:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
If that were to happen, then the Mississippi River would take the path of the Atchafalaya River, which would leave New Orleans high and dry without use of its ports.
And all of the industrial and cargo transloading infrastructure all the way up past Baton Rouge too. I don't think that many folks are aware of how many billions of dollars worth of international trade per year happen transloading from barges to ocean-going vessels and vice versa in that stretch of river, nor how many hundreds of billions of dollars worth of facilities would have to make the move to Morgan City to continue that trade. Morgan City itself would require a levee system comparable to New Orleans with additional uncontrolled flow from the Mississippi River as the Atchafalaya River would certainly swell significantly from increased normal and flood flows.
Funding = political will
Quote from: MikieTimTI don't think that many folks are aware of how many billions of dollars worth of international trade per year happen transloading from barges to ocean-going vessels and vice versa in that stretch of river, nor how many hundreds of billions of dollars worth of facilities would have to make the move to Morgan City to continue that trade.
The businesses that depend on the Mississippi River to keep running thru Baton Rouge and New Orleans had better start planning for the future. The cycle of wetlands erosion that was started by damming up the river is not going to stop. The process of subsidence (sinking land) in New Orleans and elsewhere across the delta is not going to stop either.
The government spent a ridiculous amount of money to force the Red River and Mississippi River down unnatural paths. The government is going to end up on the hook for far more money trying to keep sinking parts of Louisiana connected to dry land. I think it's only matter of time before places like Grand Isle and Venice get cut off from the highway system and only reach-able via ferry. At some point they'll get confronted with the situation being a lost cause. Spending on more bridges and land fill after that will just be throwing good money after bad.
The only thing I want to throw in this thread is the weird idea that public transit needs to "make money".
The ugly viaduct through the city doesn't "make money" and probably costs the same, if not more, than any public transit replacement would.. but the highway through the city center also decreases the quality of life of the communities it runs through, and cuts neighborhoods in half with a loud redundant eyesore. City centers should be for people, not cars.
Any commuter rail system that would be built in New Orleans would have to be built mostly on ugly elevated viaducts. You might be able to build some segments of light rail lines at grade in parts of suburbs on the Westbank. New Orleans proper, Metairie and Kenner don't have the ground space for it.
New Orleans is a major tourism destination and tourism is one of the main industries that keeps the Crescent City financially afloat. The tourists come into the city by car or by plane. Removing a big chunk of I-10 out of New Orleans would make it dramatically more difficult for visitors to reach the downtown districts. There are no efficient surface arterials to use; it's all stop light hell in a very obsolete, densely packed street grid. Tearing down the Claiborne Viaduct could make a seriously negative dent in tourism traffic and result in job losses.
I don't think tearing down the viaduct would affect tourism in New Orleans. I'd bet fear of New Orleans' crime rate dampens it more than anything already and even then, crowds still come. People will still find a way to get to the French Quarter. It's just too big of a draw.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2023, 10:59:14 AM
Any commuter rail system that would be built in New Orleans would have to be built mostly on ugly elevated viaducts. You might be able to build some segments of light rail lines at grade in parts of suburbs on the Westbank. New Orleans proper, Metairie and Kenner don't have the ground space for it.
New Orleans is a major tourism destination and tourism is one of the main industries that keeps the Crescent City financially afloat. The tourists come into the city by car or by plane. Removing a big chunk of I-10 out of New Orleans would make it dramatically more difficult for visitors to reach the downtown districts. There are no efficient surface arterials to use; it's all stop light hell in a very obsolete, densely packed street grid. Tearing down the Claiborne Viaduct could make a seriously negative dent in tourism traffic and result in job losses.
When your argument starts with tourists will need to drive slightly further when they've already driven an hour or more to get to New Orleans, you've already lost the argument. Freeways into the city shouldn't be mainly serving tourists who are only visiting for a few days. And many of them are flying in, so a light rail from the airport into the city would work just as well and there's an excellent chance tourists would take one into the city if one was available. And few tourists are visiting the neighborhoods around the viaduct; they're visiting the French Quarter, the Garden District, and the Superdome during major events.
I created a fantasy expanded streetcar system for New Orleans (https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1jWkGuMyQTEiz36cg6ZRQVXEv5i983dE&usp=sharing) to show that it could be done. The pink lines are the current system which is more extensive and more useful than many nonlocals think. It includes a grade-separated light rail line between the airport and Union Station, then runs as a tram along surface streets for about 1.5 miles to St Louis Cathedral/ Jackson Square. I've also reimagined Claiborne along its entire route through the city as a multi-lane boulevard with streetcar service, either down the middle like the St Charles line or along the adjacent parallel roads. This includes removing the viaduct west of Elysian Fields. Streetcars could also be built in the western suburbs to the light rail stations so those residents could easily get into the central part of the city without driving. They could also park at the suburban stations, saving them the cost and hassle of driving into the city. There is also a possibility of extending the light rail east of New Orleans to Slidell and beyond, but I don't know how much commuter traffic comes from that direction or from which cities.
There is more than enough room along the existing I-610 to add a lane each way and possibly both a regular and HOV lane each way. Another lane each way could probably be added to I-10 from the west end of I-610 to the Superdome. That should accommodate any displaced traffic from the Claiborne Viaduct and should be part of the package so its a win/win for most people.
Yes, all this costs money. So would rebuilding the viaduct. That's the cost for neglecting non-road infrastructure since the 1950s. A streetcar may not be profitable, but it will still make more money that the freeway network unless the freeways are converted to toll roads.
Honestly all the space in many parts of Metairie and Kenner that's being reclaimed from canals to prevent accidents could be prime streetcar or guided busway space. When I last lived in Kenner, they were in the process of covering up Esplanade Canal because people kept driving off into it. All that new space that's just grass would be a neat place to introduce some kind of transit, although I'm aware that some of the finer details could get kinda messy.
Maybe the Louisiana DOT should initiate a study on reconstructing the Interstate 10 Claibourne Viaduct instead of tearing it down. I know the viaduct is an eyesore (and they probably shouldn't have sacrificed all those trees to construct it), although it is my impression that the viaduct is a needed connection to New Orleans' freeway system (on the other hand, I could be wrong about that).
Quote from: skluthWhen your argument starts with tourists will need to drive slightly further when they've already driven an hour or more to get to New Orleans, you've already lost the argument.
People don't like the inconvenience of having to park on the edge of a city and take mass transit in to the urban center unless there are major advantages in doing so. In NYC it works because it is a costly PITA to drive a vehicle into Manhattan. New Orleans is different.
In the Crescent City visitors
who know the city and are arriving by vehicle will be bound and determined to drive all the way to their downtown destinations and park there. The idea of parking a few miles out and riding some street car the rest of the way might seem acceptable
if you don't know the city's reputation. The neighborhoods surrounding the French Quarter and Downtown can be pretty damned dangerous. Hauling a suit case on a light rail train or street car passing thru
the 'hood ain't my idea of a good time.
The fact also remains that the Claiborne Viaduct is THE primary outlet for traffic heading East out of downtown. I repeat: there are no surface arterial streets that are an acceptable back-up. Add to that the problem both I-10 interchanges with I-610 do not have complete movements. If you're taking WB I-10 to get to EB I-610 you have to leave I-10 for Florida Blvd, drive a few blocks and then pick up I-610 from Canal Blvd.
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
Quote from: skluth on January 02, 2023, 12:02:10 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2023, 10:59:14 AM
Any commuter rail system that would be built in New Orleans would have to be built mostly on ugly elevated viaducts. You might be able to build some segments of light rail lines at grade in parts of suburbs on the Westbank. New Orleans proper, Metairie and Kenner don't have the ground space for it.
New Orleans is a major tourism destination and tourism is one of the main industries that keeps the Crescent City financially afloat. The tourists come into the city by car or by plane. Removing a big chunk of I-10 out of New Orleans would make it dramatically more difficult for visitors to reach the downtown districts. There are no efficient surface arterials to use; it's all stop light hell in a very obsolete, densely packed street grid. Tearing down the Claiborne Viaduct could make a seriously negative dent in tourism traffic and result in job losses.
When your argument starts with tourists will need to drive slightly further when they've already driven an hour or more to get to New Orleans, you've already lost the argument. [...]
When
your argument starts with the myopic idea that streetcars can adequately replace the Claiborne Elevated because only tourists use it to access the French Quarter and the Superdome, then your argument is even more lost.
NOLA could use an expanded light rail system, including more streetcars, but there is no way in HELL that streetcars can replace the traffic levels of the Claiborne Elevated. Aside from the rep of the neighborhoods that Bobby pointed out, you really think that people will park their cars in Algiers or NOLA East or Little Woods and then roll on streetcars across the High Rise just so Treme can get gentrified? Yeah, don't think so.
Quote from: Anthony_JKYou want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
There is going to be
more utter chaos farther down the river in the decades ahead as New Orleans continues to sink. At some point that city is going to be a lost cause. They're not going to be able to hold back both the river and the ocean forever.
Likewise, corridors like LA-1 and LA-23 are going to be harder to keep dry as all that swamp erosion continues. From a car window those roads don't look like the view of driving the Overseas Highway to Key West. But they're not far from becoming just that
if not worse.
I don't think it's realistic to expect the Army Corps of Engineers to demolish all the levees they built to force the Mississippi, Red and Atchafalaya rivers to flow a certain way. But they should have developed a smarter plan when they first built those levees and locks. They literally cut off the process that allowed the creation of that delta land and swamps. Now the ocean is just slowly creeping in to reclaim the property.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 01:02:41 PM
Quote from: skluth on January 02, 2023, 12:02:10 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2023, 10:59:14 AM
Any commuter rail system that would be built in New Orleans would have to be built mostly on ugly elevated viaducts. You might be able to build some segments of light rail lines at grade in parts of suburbs on the Westbank. New Orleans proper, Metairie and Kenner don't have the ground space for it.
New Orleans is a major tourism destination and tourism is one of the main industries that keeps the Crescent City financially afloat. The tourists come into the city by car or by plane. Removing a big chunk of I-10 out of New Orleans would make it dramatically more difficult for visitors to reach the downtown districts. There are no efficient surface arterials to use; it's all stop light hell in a very obsolete, densely packed street grid. Tearing down the Claiborne Viaduct could make a seriously negative dent in tourism traffic and result in job losses.
When your argument starts with tourists will need to drive slightly further when they've already driven an hour or more to get to New Orleans, you've already lost the argument. [...]
When your argument starts with the myopic idea that streetcars can adequately replace the Claiborne Elevated because only tourists use it to access the French Quarter and the Superdome, then your argument is even more lost.
NOLA could use an expanded light rail system, including more streetcars, but there is no way in HELL that streetcars can replace the traffic levels of the Claiborne Elevated. Aside from the rep of the neighborhoods that Bobby pointed out, you really think that people will park their cars in Algiers or NOLA East or Little Woods and then roll on streetcars across the High Rise just so Treme can get gentrified? Yeah, don't think so.
That wasn't my argument. It was Bobby's argument that the viaduct is important to the tourist industry and that's why it needs to stay. My argument is an expanded I-610 and west leg of I-10 to downtown
along with a streetcar on a revisualized Claiborne can replace the Claiborne viaduct for almost all users. Yes, people are going to continue to drive into the city. In fact, they can still easily get downtown via the remaining viaduct to Elysian Fields then south of Elysian Fields to their destination downtown. The city has no obligation to make it as easy as possible for nonresidents to drive to the French Quarter at the expense of its residents.
Most cities have neighborhoods that get gentrified. It's not an excuse to keep an eyesore. If Treme gets gentrified like Faubourg Marigny (something that won't happen quickly, if at all), there are still a number of other New Orleans neighborhoods that are nearly abandoned; it's not like New Orleans is lacking empty space post-Katrina. I still don't give New Orleans more than a century before it's abandoned due to land subsidence and continued hurricane destruction regardless of any sea level rise as any funds to mitigate coastal flooding will be apportioned to more powerful economic cities like NYC and Miami.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it. Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
Removing the elevated structure would cause chaos traffic wise in that area. I have family that live in that area, went to a funeral next to the viaduct. Bringing that traffic down to the surface streets would cause noise pollution and a traffic jams. Just to get some Fed money, its a stupid ideal.
Quote from: skluthIt was Bobby's argument that the viaduct is important to the tourist industry and that's why it needs to stay.
The Claiborne viaduct is important to everyone living in the New Orleans metro area
in addition to the tourists who visit.I lived in the New Orleans area during some of my teenage years, Gretna and Belle Chasse to be specific. If my family had to drive anywhere East of New Orleans (such as the beaches at Gulfport & Biloxi) we first had to cross the Greater New Orleans Bridge and then take Eastbound I-10 at the interchange next to the Superdome. The only alternative is taking a ferry across to Chalmette and going thru stoplight hell along Paris Road to reach I-510. Taking the bridge across to reach I-10 by the Superdome was a lot faster.
Out of major cities in the US, the level of super highway coverage in New Orleans is downright minimal already.
Yet you're arguing that one of the few freeway segments New Orleans has needs to be removed. Have you actually ever driven around in New Orleans before? They started building the Westbank Expressway back in like 1981. 40+ years later: it's only partially finished.
Quote from: skluthMost cities have neighborhoods that get gentrified. It's not an excuse to keep an eyesore.
Some spots of New Orleans are getting gentrified, locations that are above sea level in particular (such as the Bywater neighborhood). Hurricane Katrina and the government foot-dragging that followed forced 100,000 black people to leave the area. That opened the door for a lot of public housing units to be replaced with mixed use condos. New Orleans still has a majority black population though. New Orleans also still has a pretty high crime rate.
I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect tourists to park miles away from downtown and try hauling their luggage on a street car or light rail train to reach their hotel. It's just a great opportunity to get mugged. And even if the street car ride was perfectly safe it would still be a giant pain in the ass. It sucks having to haul anything at all on a damned mass transit train.
I had to carry a portfolio case and container of painting/drawing supplies on the city bus, Staten Island Ferry and NYC Subway commuting to college classes. I hated it. The conditions were crowded. Other people were bumping into or stumbling over that big flat case. And the case was like a giant air-foil wanting to dislocate my shoulder from the high winds channeling out of Broadway by the ferry terminal. That thing wasn't as bad as trying to haul a suitcase around.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The Old River Control Structure is built to regulate the flow into the Atchafalaya River. It almost failed in 1973.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_River_Control_Structure
David
Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2023, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it. Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
There are a whole bunch of chemical plants and refineries along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that depend on the river for transportation, cooling water, etc. These plants provide critical products and supplies for the rest of the country. Plus New Orleans and many other cities along the river in the area get their drinking water from the Mississippi.
Allowing the flow to reroute down the Atchafalaya would be catastrophic.
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 05, 2023, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2023, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it. Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
There are a whole bunch of chemical plants and refineries along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that depend on the river for transportation, cooling water, etc. These plants provide critical products and supplies for the rest of the country. Plus New Orleans and many other cities along the river in the area get their drinking water from the Mississippi.
Allowing the flow to reroute down the Atchafalaya would be catastrophic.
If by "catastrophic," you mean "restorative," I agree.
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2023, 10:55:46 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 05, 2023, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2023, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it. Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
There are a whole bunch of chemical plants and refineries along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that depend on the river for transportation, cooling water, etc. These plants provide critical products and supplies for the rest of the country. Plus New Orleans and many other cities along the river in the area get their drinking water from the Mississippi.
Allowing the flow to reroute down the Atchafalaya would be catastrophic.
If by "catastrophic," you mean "restorative," I agree.
Why don't you pay for all the industry along the Mississippi to move to the Atchafalaya first? A sudden switch would likely cripple the nation's economy.
For that matter, Baton Rouge basically will have no reason to exist anymore. Probably a good idea to move the capital over to Lafayette while you're at it.
Quote from: US 89Why don't you pay for all the industry along the Mississippi to move to the Atchafalaya first? A sudden switch would likely cripple the nation's economy.
Everyone knows a great deal of existing business and industry relies on the Mississippi River flowing along its current
and very artificially controlled path. New Orleans gets much of its drink-able water from the Mississippi River (via a complicated purification process at the Algiers plant).
All of those things depend 100% on maintaining a status quo situation:
holding back Gulf of Mexico salt waters and keeping New Orleans on dry land. Both of those desires cannot be fulfilled without deliberate and increasingly costly action. Just hoping and praying isn't going to do squat. Both may be losing propositions in the long term regardless of what anyone does.
The wetlands areas in Southern Louisiana were literally built by the Mississippi River system. The river would over-flow its banks periodically or even make complete changes to its path. The process deposited silt and soil in new areas. Fresh water would push out the salt water as well as build up underground aquifers
which helped push land upward. Trees and other plant life grew, helping hold that land in place.
That natural process was interrupted decades ago when people decided to corral the Mississippi River with levees.The ocean is steadily eating away at wetlands. Saltwater intrusion kills the plant life. The root systems helping hold the fragile soil in place disappear. The city of New Orleans is basically in a sinking bathtub. Ground water was depleted by multiple factors. One now-closed power plant deserves a significant amount of blame. The effect of urban development on that kind of land is another factor. Even the process of pumping out flood waters ironically sped up the process of subsidence.
The lands in Southern Louisiana are increasingly fragile. The process of New Orleans sinking and the process of wetlands erosion is relatively slow. But major hurricane strikes and associated storm surges will dramatically speed up the process. As the amount of wetlands between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico continues to shrink it will allow hurricanes to do even more damage as they make landfall.
Basically all of those industries that depend on the Mississippi River had better be developing game plans for relocation. Because Mother Nature will force them to move eventually.
The thing about the delta switch is we have the ability to control the speed with which we make that transition. This isn't an all or nothing proposition. We could quite reasonably engineer the Old River Structure into a facility that incrementally allows more and more water to take the shorter path to the Gulf while at the same time still allow for shipping. Spend the next century slowly transitioning the Mississippi into the Atchafalaya basin thus allowing plenty of time for existing facilities below the Old River Structure to age out and move locations to the new channel.
And even when complete, it's not like the existing channel will go bone dry. Just look around southern Louisiana at all the different bayous and smaller river courses; they are all Mississippi River distributaries, many of which are quite navigable by barges. It is completely reasonable to maintain a navigable river channel up through Baton Rouge even with the majority of the river going toward Morgan City. Just think about it like 'flipping' the flow as it exists now. Most water currently is channeled toward New Orleans while some is allowed go into the Atchafalaya. In the future that would be reversed.
Naturally, this has long term consequences for GNO due to the loss of replentative sediment. But really it's not much different from the status quo where most of that sediment is getting dumped off the edge of the continental shelf rather than spreading out to keep the coastal wetlands out of the sea thanks to our network of levees. Over time, humans will migrate their activity toward the new Atchafalaya outlet growing a place like Morgan City, perhaps even Lafayette, into the next New Orleans.
Eventually nature will take it upon itself to do the delta switch itself. In the not too distant future, a major hurricane will park itself over the lower basin ala Hurricane Harvey in a year where the waters of the Mississippi are already high and the river will violently and suddenly blast through an enormous section of levee somewhere upstream from Baton Rouge and forge its new path to the Gulf. At that point, it will likely no longer be tenable to force the river back into its original path once this future flood event is done carving it's new channel. Much better to use our technology to soften that transition and salvage people's livelihoods.
One important factor could force a lot of people and businesses out of the New Orleans area:
insurance costs.The vulnerability of property to floods, unstable soil and the occasional hurricane could eventually lead to insurance companies refusing to cover properties in that region.
Quote from: triplemultiplexThe thing about the delta switch is we have the ability to control the speed with which we make that transition. This isn't an all or nothing proposition. We could quite reasonably engineer the Old River Structure into a facility that incrementally allows more and more water to take the shorter path to the Gulf while at the same time still allow for shipping.
The Army Corps of Engineers should have built in smarter methods for controlling the flow of the Mississippi River -such as allowing periodic spill-over into wetlands to replentish fresh water supply. Unfortunately there is quite a tug of war with interests who demand to keep the Mississippi River navigable at all costs.
From time to time they have to dredge the river channel, keeping it deep enough to prevent barges and ships from running aground. The extreme drought in the west has been affecting the Mississippi River. One dredging project was completed recently to deepen the channel from 45' to 50' from the mouth of the Mississippi River up to New Orleans. They're using a lot of the mud and silt from the dredging process to try to restore eroded wet lands. But that effort can only serve as a stop gap measure as the ocean makes water more brackish or just completely salty farther and farther into the swamp land.
Quote from: skluth on December 29, 2022, 02:31:50 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2022, 03:03:04 PM
Quote from: skluthFalse equivalency. Except for toll roads, there is not one single street or highway that makes money anywhere.
The streets and highways are there to help businesses and individuals make money. Two-thirds of the nation's commerce is delivered via roads. Cut off a major highway and it will cost businesses a lot of money. In 2002 a 580 foot long section of the I-40 bridge at Webber Falls, OK collapsed after being hit by a barge. 14 people died and 11 others were injured in vehicles that fell into the Arkansas River. It took only 2 months to replace the damaged bridge span when such a project would normally take six months or more. Having I-40 open was that important.
Also, toll roads or "free roads" have to be funded somehow. Fuel taxes take care of a lot of the "free" highways. Various kinds of taxes go in to funding city streets. Transit allows those without vehicles and one-vehicle families to get to jobs and shopping centers in communities to make and consume all those products being moved about by trucks (and rail).
Fuel taxes only cover part of the cost of highways. So even those who don't use highways are paying for highways. I'm not arguing I-40 isn't important. It most certainly is as are the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis and Frigo Bridge in Green Bay. But so is a tunnel to get workers from NJ to Manhattan because the current one is falling apart yet that didn't stop Gov Christie from stopping the funding of its replacement.
I see this claim often. I didn't see in the article any mention of vehicle taxes, parking fees, vehicle registration fees, or parking/speeding/traffic citation revenues factored in with what the roads generate. While I do agree that the federal gas tax desperately needs to be raised and pegged to inflation going forward, it's pretty misleading how these articles exclude those fees because they go into the general funds of a state but at the same time use the fact that road maintenance/construction dips into those same funds as evidence of "roads not funding themselves". The funds that those things provide to the general state funds should be added in for any honest conversation on what generates revenue since if a person isn't driving then they won't be paying any of those taxes or fees. For example: if a state is pulling $2 billion a year into their general funds from those fees and the roads pulled $2 billion from the general fund then the roads effectively funded themselves. In fact, in many places such funds generated by people driving on roads are used to help subsidize transit. So it's quite possible that the case is more of revenue generated by roads being used to fund other things, to include alternative modes of transportation moreso than the roads not funding themselves.
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2023, 10:55:46 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 05, 2023, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2023, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it. Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
There are a whole bunch of chemical plants and refineries along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that depend on the river for transportation, cooling water, etc. These plants provide critical products and supplies for the rest of the country. Plus New Orleans and many other cities along the river in the area get their drinking water from the Mississippi.
Allowing the flow to reroute down the Atchafalaya would be catastrophic.
If by "catastrophic," you mean "restorative," I agree.
Not sure what you mean by "restorative". Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. (Yes, that's billions with a B.) And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever. And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 06, 2023, 08:25:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2023, 10:55:46 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 05, 2023, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2023, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it. Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
There are a whole bunch of chemical plants and refineries along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that depend on the river for transportation, cooling water, etc. These plants provide critical products and supplies for the rest of the country. Plus New Orleans and many other cities along the river in the area get their drinking water from the Mississippi.
Allowing the flow to reroute down the Atchafalaya would be catastrophic.
If by "catastrophic," you mean "restorative," I agree.
Not sure what you mean by "restorative". Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. (Yes, that's billions with a B.) And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever. And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.
We are in the realm of hyperbole now.
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2023, 09:06:51 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 06, 2023, 08:25:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2023, 10:55:46 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 05, 2023, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2023, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it. Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
There are a whole bunch of chemical plants and refineries along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that depend on the river for transportation, cooling water, etc. These plants provide critical products and supplies for the rest of the country. Plus New Orleans and many other cities along the river in the area get their drinking water from the Mississippi.
Allowing the flow to reroute down the Atchafalaya would be catastrophic.
If by "catastrophic," you mean "restorative," I agree.
Not sure what you mean by "restorative". Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. (Yes, that's billions with a B.) And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever. And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.
We are in the realm of hyperbole now.
Just observations from living and working in -- and traveling across -- south Louisiana for the past 40 or so years.
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 06, 2023, 09:38:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2023, 09:06:51 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 06, 2023, 08:25:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2023, 10:55:46 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 05, 2023, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2023, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it. Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
There are a whole bunch of chemical plants and refineries along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that depend on the river for transportation, cooling water, etc. These plants provide critical products and supplies for the rest of the country. Plus New Orleans and many other cities along the river in the area get their drinking water from the Mississippi.
Allowing the flow to reroute down the Atchafalaya would be catastrophic.
If by "catastrophic," you mean "restorative," I agree.
Not sure what you mean by "restorative". Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. (Yes, that's billions with a B.) And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever. And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.
We are in the realm of hyperbole now.
Just observations from living and working in -- and traveling across -- south Louisiana for the past 40 or so years.
Yeah, just living in a place does not make you an expert on facility costs or on how the Federal Government would react to a massive relocation effort.
Hence, hyperbole.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 01:02:41 PM
Quote from: skluth on January 02, 2023, 12:02:10 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2023, 10:59:14 AM
Any commuter rail system that would be built in New Orleans would have to be built mostly on ugly elevated viaducts. You might be able to build some segments of light rail lines at grade in parts of suburbs on the Westbank. New Orleans proper, Metairie and Kenner don't have the ground space for it.
New Orleans is a major tourism destination and tourism is one of the main industries that keeps the Crescent City financially afloat. The tourists come into the city by car or by plane. Removing a big chunk of I-10 out of New Orleans would make it dramatically more difficult for visitors to reach the downtown districts. There are no efficient surface arterials to use; it's all stop light hell in a very obsolete, densely packed street grid. Tearing down the Claiborne Viaduct could make a seriously negative dent in tourism traffic and result in job losses.
When your argument starts with tourists will need to drive slightly further when they've already driven an hour or more to get to New Orleans, you've already lost the argument. [...]
When your argument starts with the myopic idea that streetcars can adequately replace the Claiborne Elevated because only tourists use it to access the French Quarter and the Superdome, then your argument is even more lost.
NOLA could use an expanded light rail system, including more streetcars, but there is no way in HELL that streetcars can replace the traffic levels of the Claiborne Elevated. Aside from the rep of the neighborhoods that Bobby pointed out, you really think that people will park their cars in Algiers or NOLA East or Little Woods and then roll on streetcars across the High Rise just so Treme can get gentrified? Yeah, don't think so.
Take it from this Denver resident: RTD's A Line to DIA is one of the better transit improvements to happen to any city west of the Mississippi. And it would NEVER have been constructed if the sales pitch was principally around the fallacy that it can be a traffic reliever. Frankly, New Orleans would see a significantly better tourism mix if it built a light-rail to the airport, though completing the "last mile" to the new terminal is going to be quite the chore if the flyovers to that new terminal are any indicator.
And as for tearing down the Claiborne viaduct: That depends upon how Louisiana and New Orleans feel about the current I-10's perception of handling cross-country traffic. LADOTD could, and should, relocate I-10 onto I-12, then extend I-610 on both ends from Baton Rouge to I-10/I-59. After that, treat that I-10 "spur" and GNO Bridge/Westbank expressway as I-910 or an extension of upcoming I-49.
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2023, 10:16:10 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 06, 2023, 09:38:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2023, 09:06:51 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 06, 2023, 08:25:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2023, 10:55:46 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 05, 2023, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2023, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it. Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
There are a whole bunch of chemical plants and refineries along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that depend on the river for transportation, cooling water, etc. These plants provide critical products and supplies for the rest of the country. Plus New Orleans and many other cities along the river in the area get their drinking water from the Mississippi.
Allowing the flow to reroute down the Atchafalaya would be catastrophic.
If by "catastrophic," you mean "restorative," I agree.
Not sure what you mean by "restorative". Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. (Yes, that's billions with a B.) And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever. And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.
We are in the realm of hyperbole now.
Just observations from living and working in -- and traveling across -- south Louisiana for the past 40 or so years.
Yeah, just living in a place does not make you an expert on facility costs or on how the Federal Government would react to a massive relocation effort.
Hence, hyperbole.
Never claimed to be an "expert" , but spending 30-plus years as a process control systems engineer at the nation's largest crude oil storage network, with storage facilities in south Louisiana and southeast Texas – and having worked on upgrade and expansion plans as part of my career – gives me a little insight as to how it works and what is required.
Quote from: Mileage Mike on January 06, 2023, 08:17:23 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 29, 2022, 02:31:50 PM
Fuel taxes only cover part of the cost of highways. (https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/) So even those who don't use highways are paying for highways. I'm not arguing I-40 isn't important. It most certainly is as are the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/rebuild/pdfs/economic-impacts-from-deed.pdf) and Frigo Bridge (https://www.wearegreenbay.com/news/leo-frigo-bridge-repair-final-report/) in Green Bay. But so is a tunnel to get workers from NJ to Manhattan because the current one is falling apart (https://rpa.org/latest/lab/the-crumbling-hudson-river-tunnels) yet that didn't stop Gov Christie from stopping the funding of its replacement.
I see this claim often. I didn't see in the article any mention of vehicle taxes, parking fees, vehicle registration fees, or parking/speeding/traffic citation revenues factored in with what the roads generate. While I do agree that the federal gas tax desperately needs to be raised and pegged to inflation going forward, it's pretty misleading how these articles exclude those fees because they go into the general funds of a state but at the same time use the fact that road maintenance/construction dips into those same funds as evidence of "roads not funding themselves". The funds that those things provide to the general state funds should be added in for any honest conversation on what generates revenue since if a person isn't driving then they won't be paying any of those taxes or fees. For example: if a state is pulling $2 billion a year into their general funds from those fees and the roads pulled $2 billion from the general fund then the roads effectively funded themselves. In fact, in many places such funds generated by people driving on roads are used to help subsidize transit. So it's quite possible that the case is more of revenue generated by roads being used to fund other things, to include alternative modes of transportation moreso than the roads not funding themselves.
As with most things, "your local mileage may vary", but there are two flaws in your own argument. First is a specific example from your neighbor state to the north...a considerable chunk of VDOT's road construction budget comes from a 0.5% general sales tax. Second, and I think Bobby alluded to this upthread, but the #1 source of road funding at the county and local level is the property tax. Neither of these taxes have to do with roads, but are being used for roads in part because road-specific taxes are not enough.
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 07, 2023, 09:12:42 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2023, 10:16:10 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 06, 2023, 09:38:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2023, 09:06:51 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 06, 2023, 08:25:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2023, 10:55:46 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 05, 2023, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2023, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it. Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
There are a whole bunch of chemical plants and refineries along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that depend on the river for transportation, cooling water, etc. These plants provide critical products and supplies for the rest of the country. Plus New Orleans and many other cities along the river in the area get their drinking water from the Mississippi.
Allowing the flow to reroute down the Atchafalaya would be catastrophic.
If by "catastrophic," you mean "restorative," I agree.
Not sure what you mean by "restorative". Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. (Yes, that's billions with a B.) And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever. And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.
We are in the realm of hyperbole now.
Just observations from living and working in -- and traveling across -- south Louisiana for the past 40 or so years.
Yeah, just living in a place does not make you an expert on facility costs or on how the Federal Government would react to a massive relocation effort.
Hence, hyperbole.
Never claimed to be an "expert" , but spending 30-plus years as a process control systems engineer at the nation's largest crude oil storage network, with storage facilities in south Louisiana and southeast Texas – and having worked on upgrade and expansion plans as part of my career – gives me a little insight as to how it works and what is required.
Then the only question, like others have pointed out in the thread, is whether it would be better to relocate before the next huge disaster hits LA or wait until those facilities are wiped out by such to do so.
Realistically, the yawning gap of human capital, with attendant exodus to other states, will make New Orleans untenable as a settlement long before any natural deltaic erosion processes can play out to their conclusion.
Quote from: Rothman on January 07, 2023, 11:16:02 AM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 07, 2023, 09:12:42 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2023, 10:16:10 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 06, 2023, 09:38:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2023, 09:06:51 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 06, 2023, 08:25:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2023, 10:55:46 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 05, 2023, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2023, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 03, 2023, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Let the Mississippi flow the way it wants to.
You want to pay for the costs of land-locking Baton Rouge and New Orleans? Or, evacuating the entirety of Morgan City/Patterson/Amelia? Or, flooding the entire length of the Atchafalaya Basin? Because if we allow the Mississippi to reroute itself along the Atchafalaya, there will be utter chaos.
The cost will be worth it. Otherwise, we're stuck spending gazillions keeping the status quo.
There are a whole bunch of chemical plants and refineries along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that depend on the river for transportation, cooling water, etc. These plants provide critical products and supplies for the rest of the country. Plus New Orleans and many other cities along the river in the area get their drinking water from the Mississippi.
Allowing the flow to reroute down the Atchafalaya would be catastrophic.
If by "catastrophic," you mean "restorative," I agree.
Not sure what you mean by "restorative". Relocating those plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. (Yes, that's billions with a B.) And given the current state of affairs in DC, it is extremely unlikely that the required permits to build the replacement facilities would be issued for a number of years -- if ever. And you would have the same issues along the Atchafalaya as you do along the Mississippi -- lots of levees (and enhancement to current levees) would be required to protect infrastructure that is not currently designed for that amount of flow.
We are in the realm of hyperbole now.
Just observations from living and working in -- and traveling across -- south Louisiana for the past 40 or so years.
Yeah, just living in a place does not make you an expert on facility costs or on how the Federal Government would react to a massive relocation effort.
Hence, hyperbole.
Never claimed to be an "expert" , but spending 30-plus years as a process control systems engineer at the nation's largest crude oil storage network, with storage facilities in south Louisiana and southeast Texas – and having worked on upgrade and expansion plans as part of my career – gives me a little insight as to how it works and what is required.
Then the only question, like others have pointed out in the thread, is whether it would be better to relocate before the next huge disaster hits LA or wait until those facilities are wiped out by such to do so.
Yes. It would be similar to abandoning L.A. and San Francisco preemptively before "the big one"
Seismologists have no idea when the next "big one" level earthquake will hit the L.A. or Bay Area regions. The same goes for Mount Rainier and when it eventually blows its stack, possibly sending a boiling lahar rocketing into the Seattle-Tacoma metro. Those are sudden events that could happen next week or next century.
The situation in New Orleans and the rest of the delta country in Louisiana is a slowly worsening crisis, not a sharp single event like an earthquake. The deterioration process will continue without dramatic intervention. Mother Nature will steadily force more and more businesses and residents in the threatened areas to GTFO.
QuoteLADOTD could, and should, relocate I-10 onto I-12, then extend I-610 on both ends from Baton Rouge to I-10/I-59. After that, treat that I-10 "spur" and GNO Bridge/Westbank expressway as I-910 or an extension of upcoming I-49.
What a waste of money.
I-10 should continue running through New Orleans while New Orleans is still there. If anything would be re-numbered as a 3-digit Interstate it should be I-12. That road functions as a bypass/relief route. Major Interstates are supposed to go TO major destinations, not avoid them. Whether anyone likes the Crescent City or not it is still a major destination.
Quote from: lamsalfl on January 13, 2023, 01:29:49 AM
QuoteLADOTD could, and should, relocate I-10 onto I-12, then extend I-610 on both ends from Baton Rouge to I-10/I-59. After that, treat that I-10 "spur" and GNO Bridge/Westbank expressway as I-910 or an extension of upcoming I-49.
What a waste of money.
Other than the re-signing of the Interstates in question (and those signs can be done in-house at LADOTD's sign shops), where's the waste of money?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 13, 2023, 11:42:25 AM
I-10 should continue running through New Orleans while New Orleans is still there. If anything would be re-numbered as a 3-digit Interstate it should be I-12. That road functions as a bypass/relief route. Major Interstates are supposed to go TO major destinations, not avoid them. Whether anyone likes the Crescent City or not it is still a major destination.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to explain why I-5 in the Central Valley does NOT go through major cities like Fresno, Modesto, and Bakersfield. Also keep in mind that, at the very least, Fresno was a major city when I-5 was built.
There have been previous discussion threads about why I-5 didn't go thru those cities. The short version is: 1. people in those central valley cities thought CA-99 was good enough and 2. they didn't want a bunch of existing property taken for an I-5 route.
Also, I-5 does go TO the centers of Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle and Tacoma.
Quote from: brad2971 on January 13, 2023, 12:23:35 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 13, 2023, 11:42:25 AM
I-10 should continue running through New Orleans while New Orleans is still there. If anything would be re-numbered as a 3-digit Interstate it should be I-12. That road functions as a bypass/relief route. Major Interstates are supposed to go TO major destinations, not avoid them. Whether anyone likes the Crescent City or not it is still a major destination.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to explain why I-5 in the Central Valley does NOT go through major cities like Fresno, Modesto, and Bakersfield. Also keep in mind that, at the very least, Fresno was a major city when I-5 was built.
Someone who posts here almost daily already has (http://www.gribblenation.org/2019/12/interstate-5-west-side-freeway.html)
My understanding was basically that then US-99 was already largely being built out to freeway / four lane divided highway throughout, and it was decided to use 90% interstate funding to gain a second corridor since CA-99 was already being converted into largely freeway.
Getting back to Louisiana (and New Orleans, in general), I don't know how long The Big Easy has until it needs to be permanently abandoned. I do know that until that day comes, it should maintain its existing freeway system, and that would include retaining the existing Interstate 10 Claiborne Avenue viaduct.
Snarky reason to keep the viaduct: people will need it the next time the city floods so they have a dry place to wait for rescue.
Katrina is going to happen again, eventually.
Quote from: MoiraPrime on January 02, 2023, 07:13:56 AM
The only thing I want to throw in this thread is the weird idea that public transit needs to "make money".
The ugly viaduct through the city doesn't "make money" and probably costs the same, if not more, than any public transit replacement would.. but the highway through the city center also decreases the quality of life of the communities it runs through, and cuts neighborhoods in half with a loud redundant eyesore. City centers should be for people, not cars.
ridership should be part of the justification process, because in cities like NYC, and chicago, the justification for their transit systems was already there but due to many factors, like lack of keeping the fare rates up, among others, you have problems with keeping up with the maintence for the rail transit in those cities. that maintence is only gonna get higher and higher the longer its put off, but city officials and the state governments are reluctant to do anything for those cities' public transit, especially the rail transit.
updating and upgrading the lines themselves costs a lot of money, and replacing rail tunnels/bridges costs loads more.
city centers are a outdated practice IMHO because for whatever reason city planners think that everyone will commute to the city centers and downtowns for jobs and such, which is no longer the case and hasn't been for 150 years, but because they can't keep the past in the past, and allow mixed use zoning everywhere, not just for whenever they want a damn transit line to be built, they have the traffic gridlock, the downtown gridlock, and all of that, and they promote development in the downtown instead of literally everywhere, its a weird problem.
many cities and towns have that problem where they think a downtown should be there, when in reality theres jobs everywhere in a given area, shops and residential too, and theres no "city center", "central business district" or "downtown" anymore when most jobs are gonna be outside of the downtown.
its a dumb relic of the 19th and 20th century that just refuses to die in city planning.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 09, 2023, 03:02:13 PM
Seismologists have no idea when the next "big one" level earthquake will hit the L.A. or Bay Area regions. The same goes for Mount Rainier and when it eventually blows its stack, possibly sending a boiling lahar rocketing into the Seattle-Tacoma metro. Those are sudden events that could happen next week or next century.
The situation in New Orleans and the rest of the delta country in Louisiana is a slowly worsening crisis, not a sharp single event like an earthquake. The deterioration process will continue without dramatic intervention. Mother Nature will steadily force more and more businesses and residents in the threatened areas to GTFO.
so is everyone here forgetting or doesn't know about the new madrid fault zone, which btw, i do live within 200 miles of?
that thing erupts and you'd have major economic damage in at least 4 states, if not more. from Kentucky and Missouri to Arkansas and Mississippi, maybe even as far north as Illinois and Iowa and as far south as Louisiana and the NOLA area. the mississippi river is also included and the fault zone also runs underneath the mississippi for a bit. it would be far worse than whatever economic damage a major hurricane bigger and stronger than katrina would ever do to NOLA and baton rouge or whatever "the big one" would do to california. the new madrid major series of earthquakes between 1811-1812, did a lot of damage to the area, and some earthquakes went as far as boston mass!
if anyone wants to do a proper comparison between a earthquake and a hurricane, better start with the new madrid. i honestly don't know why anyone automatically goes to the california "big one" that will only seriously affect one state, when new madrid literally has the capability to affect multiple states, and dozens of metro areas and if it goes off further south, near memphis tn, you better hurry to high ground in NOLA because those leeves are most likely not earthquake proof one bit, and you might as well be kissing NOLA goodbye.
Quote from: civilengineeringnerdso is everyone here forgetting or doesn't know about the new madrid fault zone, which btw, i do live within 200 miles of?
One potential natural disaster threat does not cancel out others. The US has a multitude of possible threats, all of which can inflict countless billions of worth of property damage and kill many thousands of people. The New Madrid fault zone is a very serious threat. The Cascadia Subduction Zone off the Pacific Northwest coast has been overdue for a severe (9.0+) earthquake; that would unleash a devastating tsunami along with the violent 3 minute+ temblor. That subduction zone is different from the more well known San Andreas fault. No one knows if/when Mount Rainer will blow its stack. If the super volcano under Yellowstone National Park ever blows up it could potentially kill millions of people and plunge the world into a "nuclear winter" type climate for many years.
Those are naturally occurring events. Big things we can't control or predict; all we can do is prepare in whatever way is practical and/or possible.
The situation in New Orleans (sinking land, ocean water eating the coast line) is a man-made disaster. It is a slow-rolling problem very few people want to make any attempt to solve. People want to keep the status quo in place and not make any changes. So, eventually, the city of New Orleans will sink enough that it gets flooded permanently. The occasional hurricane strike will speed up the process from time to time.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 13, 2023, 04:15:27 PM
Those are naturally occurring events. Big things we can't control or predict; all we can do is prepare in whatever way is practical and/or possible.
And sometimes even those are barely planned for. The Wasatch Fault in Utah is overdue for a 7.0+ earthquake, which would be devastating for the Salt Lake City metro. Unlike with California, that threat wasn't really known until the past few decades, and still isn't as well studied or understood, so a lot of infrastructure isn't seismically sound. You don't want to know how many unreinforced masonry buildings are in that valley.
With New Orleans, the flooding and sinking threat is well known and well understood.
Retrofitting the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake for seismic events is part of the massive ongoing renovation project, despite some legends about the old foundation's inverted arches and whatnot already providing such to an extent.
It looks like the biggest immediate threat to Salt Lake City is the very real possibility of the Great Salt Lake drying up and turning into a source of toxic dust clouds laced with arsenic, antimony, heavy metals, etc. A bunch of this stuff is covered up with a hard crust of earth in already dried areas of the lake. But as the wind erodes that crust a lot of the really nasty toxins will get exposed and swept into the air.
Quote from: US 89With New Orleans, the flooding and sinking threat is well known and well understood.
It is true the reasons why New Orleans is slowly sinking are well known. The same goes for the eroding coastline. Yet the problem is being largely ignored.
The situation is kind of similar to the shit-show going on out West with all the states fighting over Colorado River water. IMHO, lawmakers in California are being ignorant dicks with how they're approaching the situation -basically expecting AZ, NV, UT, CO and NM to make all the sacrifices. And that's all while CA has other sources of water besides the Colorado River. It could be entertaining on a macabre level seeing what happens if Lake Mead and Lake Powell drop to dead pool levels. California lawmakers keep whipping out some piece of paper written in the 1800's as a trump card, but how much is that going to be worth if the damned river runs dry?