AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I49 in LA  (Read 482236 times)

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1324
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 10:21:28 AM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1250 on: November 29, 2017, 01:21:22 AM »

Goodness...Gannett has some horrible reporters who have never heard of proofreading.

Louisiana Department of Transportation AND DEVELOPMENT.

And...it's called the I-49 Inner City Connector (MIXED CAPS).

But on the story itself:

The 7 years is pretty much based on the EIS/ROD being completed by this time next year, followed by 3-5 years of engineering and design. Of course, given the inevitable lawsuit by the anti-ICC group Allendale Strong (who hosted the meeting, BTW) to force a reconsideration of the bypass route (LA 3132/I-220) over the shorter through pass route, that may be a bit optimistic.
Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:23:36 AM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1251 on: November 29, 2017, 06:13:37 AM »

Another issue with the proofreading: the text says I-49 goes to Canada when the map clearly shows I-29 being highlighted from KC northward.
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5842
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:43:23 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1252 on: November 29, 2017, 05:05:07 PM »

Another issue with the proofreading: the text says I-49 goes to Canada when the map clearly shows I-29 being highlighted from KC northward.

The consideration of I-49 and I-29 as one continuous corridor has been promoted by regional PR flacks attempting to lure business development to the I-49 corridor ever since the formal designation of the northern extension of that route 12 years ago.  Although the notion of signing it with a singular designation has been floated in this forum from time to time, the fact that 29 has been in existence for 60 years and 49 for 35 years -- and no formal request to renumber either route has been presented -- is a good indication that each number will be around in its present/planned form for the foreseeable future.
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1051
  • Location: Area Code 207
  • Last Login: Today at 11:36:49 AM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1253 on: December 04, 2017, 02:53:18 AM »

Even I-29 going all the way to Winnipeg would be a pretty neat trick.
(There used to be a Manitoba Route 29, but it got renumbered as part of MB75.)
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1750
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: August 19, 2019, 02:22:16 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1254 on: December 04, 2017, 12:51:53 PM »

Yeah, and MB-75 isn't even a freeway at all. It's just a regular 4-lane highway with at-grade intersections. The road is flanked by frontage roads nearly all the way from the North Dakota border to Winnipeg, which makes possible freeway upgrades easier. But upgrading still costs quite a bit of money.
Logged

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1280
  • Last Login: Today at 02:11:34 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1255 on: December 04, 2017, 12:55:07 PM »

I would see very little reason to upgrade it to a full freeway. Heck, many interstates in the United States really did not need to become a full freeway or anything above a "super-two" because of the lack of volume and lack of population density.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5842
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:43:23 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1256 on: December 04, 2017, 05:17:03 PM »

Yeah, and MB-75 isn't even a freeway at all. It's just a regular 4-lane highway with at-grade intersections. The road is flanked by frontage roads nearly all the way from the North Dakota border to Winnipeg, which makes possible freeway upgrades easier. But upgrading still costs quite a bit of money.

I would see very little reason to upgrade it to a full freeway. Heck, many interstates in the United States really did not need to become a full freeway or anything above a "super-two" because of the lack of volume and lack of population density.

Manitoba certainly hasn't been bitten by the "freeway bug", with only spot improvements in the Winnipeg area.  I-29 has extended to the border for about a half-century; if MB hasn't gotten around to upgrading it as of yet, it's doubtful it'll be prioritized in the foreseeable future.  Of the 3 Interstate crossings in western Canada, only the I-5/BC 99 crossing continues on as a full freeway -- and even that peters out once it hits central Vancouver!  We can lead our freeways to the border, but we can't make Canadians drink that particular Kool-Aid!
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 996
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 03:36:32 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1257 on: December 04, 2017, 05:34:51 PM »

I would see very little reason to upgrade it to a full freeway. Heck, many interstates in the United States really did not need to become a full freeway or anything above a "super-two" because of the lack of volume and lack of population density.
its nice to have things you donít need. I would rather have a country with more interstates than it needs than one that has less.
Logged

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1280
  • Last Login: Today at 02:11:34 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1258 on: December 04, 2017, 06:03:17 PM »

It's nice to be able to fully fund freeways without having to go through partisan reauthorization processes every few years.

It's nice to be able to fund freeways without having to incur further debt on our books (not withstanding the absurd debt levels shared by our DoD).

It's nice to be able to fund freeways based on the justification that four-lane highways with full access control is warranted on the premise that the road will have an AADT of less than 5,000.

It's nice to be able to be in a country swamped with debt that it can't finance improvements and maintenance on what it already has.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 996
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 03:36:32 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1259 on: December 04, 2017, 06:16:38 PM »

I stand by my original statement. Not going to go in circles here.
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8546
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 59
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 10:08:20 AM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1260 on: December 04, 2017, 11:15:19 PM »

I would see very little reason to upgrade it to a full freeway. Heck, many interstates in the United States really did not need to become a full freeway or anything above a "super-two" because of the lack of volume and lack of population density.
its nice to have things you donít need. I would rather have a country with more interstates than it needs than one that has less.

Illogical...and a waste of money. That's all I'm going to say lest I lose my temper.
Logged
a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -- Simon & Garfunkel

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 996
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 03:36:32 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1261 on: December 05, 2017, 10:54:03 AM »

I would see very little reason to upgrade it to a full freeway. Heck, many interstates in the United States really did not need to become a full freeway or anything above a "super-two" because of the lack of volume and lack of population density.
its nice to have things you donít need. I would rather have a country with more interstates than it needs than one that has less.

Illogical...and a waste of money. That's all I'm going to say lest I lose my temper.
Okay so why donít you be specific... Or will you loose your temper?
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1750
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: August 19, 2019, 02:22:16 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1262 on: December 05, 2017, 11:04:15 AM »

Which Interstate highways have traffic counts lower than 5,000 vehicles per day?
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2956
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: August 19, 2019, 07:27:09 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1263 on: December 05, 2017, 12:23:17 PM »

Which Interstate highways have traffic counts lower than 5,000 vehicles per day?
i-180 in iliinois
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13848
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: August 19, 2019, 08:55:56 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1264 on: December 05, 2017, 12:23:59 PM »

Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 996
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 03:36:32 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1265 on: December 05, 2017, 02:09:24 PM »

So whatís the proposal then? To take interstates that in some sections have over 200k cars a day and break them up in the rural areas that have less than 5k a day? Have a broken system? That sounds great! So letís hear a proposal from people of which sections of I-90 and I-10 should be broken up. Iím waiting to hear about other interstates too...
Logged

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 527
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 06:00:06 AM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1266 on: December 05, 2017, 03:28:06 PM »

You can have the safety improvements without the capacity. There's nothing wrong with a grade-separated super-2 with passing lanes if that will effectively move traffic given counts.
Logged

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1280
  • Last Login: Today at 02:11:34 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1267 on: December 05, 2017, 03:36:36 PM »

So whatís the proposal then? To take interstates that in some sections have over 200k cars a day and break them up in the rural areas that have less than 5k a day? Have a broken system? That sounds great! So letís hear a proposal from people of which sections of I-90 and I-10 should be broken up. Iím waiting to hear about other interstates too...

Eye roll, please. You missed my point and you missed subsequent comments. But yes, did I-95 in northern Maine need four-lane capacity when it was expanded? No. From a safety perspective, other tactics could have worked and would have been far cheaper to implement. It wouldn't have "completed" the system but that isn't the point. It moved traffic 30 years ago just as effectively as it does now even with the added capacity and expense - which it didn't need.

There are large chunks of I-15 in Montana that were two-lanes that even still does not totally warrant four-lane expansion from a traffic or safety standpoint.

You can have the safety improvements without the capacity. There's nothing wrong with a grade-separated super-2 with passing lanes if that will effectively move traffic given counts.

Bingo. See: I-93 through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 996
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 03:36:32 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1268 on: December 05, 2017, 04:03:58 PM »

Standards are standard for a reason. While I can agree there are certain roads out there that might have excess capacity where the funds used to build them could have gone to something better, having 4 lane interstates across the country is a good standard to have, IMO. I donít know what else to say here. We disgaree. Thankfully those in charge see the benefit too and build the interstates to a certain standard. Itís the same beef I have with the at grade intersections along I-40 in Texas. Though Texas is fixing this, I donít care how few cars use it, standards are standards and need be maintained.
Logged

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 527
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 06:00:06 AM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1269 on: December 05, 2017, 04:20:05 PM »

The standards are what they are largely because it was an effective way of bringing federal cash to often-neglected parts of the country. Now that the federal cash is no longer being thrown around in the same way it once was, expect to see "right-sizing" of rural reconstruction projects over the next few decades.
Logged

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1280
  • Last Login: Today at 02:11:34 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1270 on: December 05, 2017, 04:49:49 PM »

It's a reason why I-66 is no longer being pursued across West Virginia and Kentucky (and westward), because West Virginia's 65 MPH expressways with the occasional at-grades and interchanges are fine enough and because Kentucky's 55 MPH two- and four-lane highways and 65 MPH parkways are more than adequate. And why I-73 and I-74 is not being pursued in Ohio because the 55/60 MPH US 23 and OH 32 corridors are more than adequate, with upgrades long ago completed or programmed.

Just because we have interstates does not mean that everything needs to be an interstate, nor does everything need to be four-lane, 70 MPH, et. al.

We could go on all day with this but it's now off topic.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2956
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: August 19, 2019, 07:27:09 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1271 on: December 05, 2017, 06:29:49 PM »

So whatís the proposal then? To take interstates that in some sections have over 200k cars a day and break them up in the rural areas that have less than 5k a day? Have a broken system? That sounds great! So letís hear a proposal from people of which sections of I-90 and I-10 should be broken up. Iím waiting to hear about other interstates too...

Eye roll, please. You missed my point and you missed subsequent comments. But yes, did I-95 in northern Maine need four-lane capacity when it was expanded? No. From a safety perspective, other tactics could have worked and would have been far cheaper to implement. It wouldn't have "completed" the system but that isn't the point. It moved traffic 30 years ago just as effectively as it does now even with the added capacity and expense - which it didn't need.

There are large chunks of I-15 in Montana that were two-lanes that even still does not totally warrant four-lane expansion from a traffic or safety standpoint.

You can have the safety improvements without the capacity. There's nothing wrong with a grade-separated super-2 with passing lanes if that will effectively move traffic given counts.

Bingo. See: I-93 through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire.

i believe 93 is 2 lanes there due to geographic constraints, and the parkland
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13848
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: August 19, 2019, 08:55:56 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1272 on: December 05, 2017, 06:47:49 PM »

Whoosh. The point is that two lanes carry traffic just fine.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1280
  • Last Login: Today at 02:11:34 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1273 on: December 05, 2017, 09:50:12 PM »

So whatís the proposal then? To take interstates that in some sections have over 200k cars a day and break them up in the rural areas that have less than 5k a day? Have a broken system? That sounds great! So letís hear a proposal from people of which sections of I-90 and I-10 should be broken up. Iím waiting to hear about other interstates too...

Eye roll, please. You missed my point and you missed subsequent comments. But yes, did I-95 in northern Maine need four-lane capacity when it was expanded? No. From a safety perspective, other tactics could have worked and would have been far cheaper to implement. It wouldn't have "completed" the system but that isn't the point. It moved traffic 30 years ago just as effectively as it does now even with the added capacity and expense - which it didn't need.

There are large chunks of I-15 in Montana that were two-lanes that even still does not totally warrant four-lane expansion from a traffic or safety standpoint.

You can have the safety improvements without the capacity. There's nothing wrong with a grade-separated super-2 with passing lanes if that will effectively move traffic given counts.

Bingo. See: I-93 through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire.

i believe 93 is 2 lanes there due to geographic constraints, and the parkland

There is room for your lanes with 10' shoulders and a central barrier. I came across a bunch of articles on newspapers.com when I was looking up history of the area a while back and part of the reason it was built as two-lanes was to essentially complete the gap in I-93. Even though it's not signed as I-93 for just a few miles, it concerns almost no one - and carries traffic just fine.

Now, if we are talking about the West Virginia Turnpike, that was two lanes and worked well for some time before poor safety record, rising traffic levels, steep grades and tight curves - along with a tunnel, more than justified its expense in widening to four lanes.
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1051
  • Location: Area Code 207
  • Last Login: Today at 11:36:49 AM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1274 on: December 12, 2017, 03:25:37 AM »

Whoosh. The point is that two lanes carry traffic just fine.
The point is frozen.
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.