Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Anthony_JK]

I-11 at least connects to I-515/I-215 in Las Vegas. The upgraded sections of US 90 thus far don't connect with anything.

Better to wait until the Lafayette Connector and US 90 upgrades are more complete before starting to drop official I-49 shields.

[lamsalfl]

I would love to see I-49 shields up for the Westbank Expressway. 

[sparker]

I-11 at least connects to I-515/I-215 in Las Vegas. The upgraded sections of US 90 thus far don't connect with anything.

Better to wait until the Lafayette Connector and US 90 upgrades are more complete before starting to drop official I-49 shields.

I would love to see I-49 shields up for the Westbank Expressway. 

Unlikely that I-49 shields will be erected anywhere in the south/eastern section of the corridor until a freeway-to-freeway connection is made with I-310, which will at least provide a through all-freeway route into greater N.O. from Houma, Morgan City, and the other populated areas strung out along US 90. 

[Anthony_JK]

I-11 at least connects to I-515/I-215 in Las Vegas. The upgraded sections of US 90 thus far don't connect with anything.

Better to wait until the Lafayette Connector and US 90 upgrades are more complete before starting to drop official I-49 shields.

I would love to see I-49 shields up for the Westbank Expressway. 

Unlikely that I-49 shields will be erected anywhere in the south/eastern section of the corridor until a freeway-to-freeway connection is made with I-310, which will at least provide a through all-freeway route into greater N.O. from Houma, Morgan City, and the other populated areas strung out along US 90. 

The freeway section from downtown NOLA through the Westbank Expressway already carries a silent, hidden designation of "I-910"; it would not be difficult once that section is upgraded all the way to the US 90 interchange to decloak and redesignate as I-49.

The real trick would be the segment of US 90 between Raceland and just east of Boutte.  The original plans called for I-49 South to mostly bypass 90 to the south from just east of Raceland through the Barataria Basin to south of Des Allemands and Paradis, then crossing over to north of US 90 at Boutte to parallel the BNSF/UP rail line. New direct connections were scheduled to be built with I-310, and the existing concurrent section of I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended to terminate at US 90 west of Boutte at an at-grade T intersection. In 2004, however, LADOTD decided that a fully elevated freeway bypass was too expensive, and used a study to shift the ROW using portions of US 90; including upgrading the existing US 90 Bayou des Allemands bridge and cannibalizing a section of US 90 between Des Allemands and Paradis. Also, the I-49/I-310 interchange was switched to south of US 90 using a freeway extension of the existing I-310 south over US 90.

Essentially, unless LADOTD has a secret plan of truncating I-49 South by running it through I-310 to end at I-10 west of Kenner, eliminating the US 90 segment between Boutte and Gretna and killing the Westbank extension, that would rule out any I-49 shields on the completed Morgan City-Raceland segments.

It would still be possible to use Congressional legislation similar to what was done with the I-69 family in TX to redefine the I-49 South corridor and force-drop I-49 shields on the completed freeway segments (and "TEMP/FUTURE I-49" shields on the remaining segments). Before anything is done, however, they need to secure funding and establish the actual route, especially through Lafayette and the Raceland to Gretna segment.

[Bobby5280]

In the first couple decades of the Interstate highway system there were numerous disconnected segments already carrying Interstate highway markers. IMHO, there is enough substantial freeway along US-90 they could install I-49 markers without it blowing anyone's mind. I think the real reason why they don't install I-49 markers on the completed freeway segments is such an act would require LaDOT to actually finish the corridor. As long as I-49 is not marked between Lafayette and New Orleans they always have an "out" to cancel the project.

[Anthony_JK]

In the first couple decades of the Interstate highway system there were numerous disconnected segments already carrying Interstate highway markers. IMHO, there is enough substantial freeway along US-90 they could install I-49 markers without it blowing anyone's mind. I think the real reason why they don't install I-49 markers on the completed freeway segments is such an act would for LaDOT to actually finish the corridor. As long as I-49 is not marked between Lafayette and New Orleans they always have an "out" to cancel the project.

Ummm...I don't think that LADOTD has any plans to cancel I-49 South any time soon; it's marked as the #1 priority project in their 2030 Transportation Plan, and they are still deep into planning the main sections though Lafayette. The lack of current funding may have slowed momentum, but there is still as of now a solid commitment to finishing this project.

Because the last attempt to garner funding failed due to the state Legislature not passing any gas tax increases, the next chance for raising major revenue for transportation may not be until 2021. Until then, though, process will be slow to occur, but progress is ongoing nevertheless. The LA 318 interchange just opened, the Albertson's Parkway/LA 182 overpass/interchange is scheduled to open later this year; and plans are to begin design soon on the overpass of the L&DRR rail spur near Jeanerette.

It's up to the LA Legislature and LA's Congressional delegation to decide whether they want to push designating the finished portions of US 90 as I-49 now, or wait until funding is secured for the entire project.



Also...AFAIK there are still "Future I-49" signs along US 90 and the Westbank Expressway...so there's that.

[rickmastfan67]

And I bet LA doesn't want to renumber exits for I-49 if they post it just now south of I-10.

[UptownRoadGeek]

The real trick would be the segment of US 90 between Raceland and just east of Boutte.  The original plans called for I-49 South to mostly bypass 90 to the south from just east of Raceland through the Barataria Basin to south of Des Allemands and Paradis, then crossing over to north of US 90 at Boutte to parallel the BNSF/UP rail line. New direct connections were scheduled to be built with I-310, and the existing concurrent section of I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended to terminate at US 90 west of Boutte at an at-grade T intersection. In 2004, however, LADOTD decided that a fully elevated freeway bypass was too expensive, and used a study to shift the ROW using portions of US 90; including upgrading the existing US 90 Bayou des Allemands bridge and cannibalizing a section of US 90 between Des Allemands and Paradis. Also, the I-49/I-310 interchange was switched to south of US 90 using a freeway extension of the existing I-310 south over US 90.

Essentially, unless LADOTD has a secret plan of truncating I-49 South by running it through I-310 to end at I-10 west of Kenner, eliminating the US 90 segment between Boutte and Gretna and killing the Westbank extension, that would rule out any I-49 shields on the completed Morgan City-Raceland segments.

Last time I saw the plans (some time last year) I recall their being a Y-interchange planned for the current I-310/US90 intersection, though I could have been mistaken. I’ll go back and look at some point in time next week. I do know that there is an elaborate directional interchange planned at the current US90/US90B split in Westwego in terms of geometry.

UPDATE: I just took a look at the at the most recent transcad models and the direct connectors with I-310 at its current location is consistent in all of the provided alternatives.

[Interstate 69 Fan]

The real trick would be the segment of US 90 between Raceland and just east of Boutte.  The original plans called for I-49 South to mostly bypass 90 to the south from just east of Raceland through the Barataria Basin to south of Des Allemands and Paradis, then crossing over to north of US 90 at Boutte to parallel the BNSF/UP rail line. New direct connections were scheduled to be built with I-310, and the existing concurrent section of I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended to terminate at US 90 west of Boutte at an at-grade T intersection. In 2004, however, LADOTD decided that a fully elevated freeway bypass was too expensive, and used a study to shift the ROW using portions of US 90; including upgrading the existing US 90 Bayou des Allemands bridge and cannibalizing a section of US 90 between Des Allemands and Paradis. Also, the I-49/I-310 interchange was switched to south of US 90 using a freeway extension of the existing I-310 south over US 90.

Essentially, unless LADOTD has a secret plan of truncating I-49 South by running it through I-310 to end at I-10 west of Kenner, eliminating the US 90 segment between Boutte and Gretna and killing the Westbank extension, that would rule out any I-49 shields on the completed Morgan City-Raceland segments.

Last time I saw the plans (some time last year) I recall their being a Y-interchange planned for the current I-310/US90 intersection, though I could have been mistaken. I’ll go back and look at some point in time next week. I do know that there is an elaborate directional interchange planned at the current US90/US90B split in Westwego in terms of geometry.

UPDATE: I just took a look at the at the most recent transcad models and the direct connectors with I-310 at its current location is consistent in all of the provided alternatives.

Link?

[Anthony_JK]

The real trick would be the segment of US 90 between Raceland and just east of Boutte.  The original plans called for I-49 South to mostly bypass 90 to the south from just east of Raceland through the Barataria Basin to south of Des Allemands and Paradis, then crossing over to north of US 90 at Boutte to parallel the BNSF/UP rail line. New direct connections were scheduled to be built with I-310, and the existing concurrent section of I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended to terminate at US 90 west of Boutte at an at-grade T intersection. In 2004, however, LADOTD decided that a fully elevated freeway bypass was too expensive, and used a study to shift the ROW using portions of US 90; including upgrading the existing US 90 Bayou des Allemands bridge and cannibalizing a section of US 90 between Des Allemands and Paradis. Also, the I-49/I-310 interchange was switched to south of US 90 using a freeway extension of the existing I-310 south over US 90.

Essentially, unless LADOTD has a secret plan of truncating I-49 South by running it through I-310 to end at I-10 west of Kenner, eliminating the US 90 segment between Boutte and Gretna and killing the Westbank extension, that would rule out any I-49 shields on the completed Morgan City-Raceland segments.

Last time I saw the plans (some time last year) I recall their being a Y-interchange planned for the current I-310/US90 intersection, though I could have been mistaken. I’ll go back and look at some point in time next week. I do know that there is an elaborate directional interchange planned at the current US90/US90B split in Westwego in terms of geometry.

UPDATE: I just took a look at the at the most recent transcad models and the direct connectors with I-310 at its current location is consistent in all of the provided alternatives.

Recent models? Yeah, I'd like the linkage to that myself, too. I know they are redoing the Supplemental EIS for that segment of I-49 South, but there's nothing at the LADOTD site.

[Gordon]

So far the outlook for I49 in Louisiana for 2019 has the US 90 Railroad overpass SE of La 85 for bid in 2019 so money is tight in all States Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana and it is going to be a slow process until money is available.

[Anthony_JK]

The real trick would be the segment of US 90 between Raceland and just east of Boutte.  The original plans called for I-49 South to mostly bypass 90 to the south from just east of Raceland through the Barataria Basin to south of Des Allemands and Paradis, then crossing over to north of US 90 at Boutte to parallel the BNSF/UP rail line. New direct connections were scheduled to be built with I-310, and the existing concurrent section of I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended to terminate at US 90 west of Boutte at an at-grade T intersection. In 2004, however, LADOTD decided that a fully elevated freeway bypass was too expensive, and used a study to shift the ROW using portions of US 90; including upgrading the existing US 90 Bayou des Allemands bridge and cannibalizing a section of US 90 between Des Allemands and Paradis. Also, the I-49/I-310 interchange was switched to south of US 90 using a freeway extension of the existing I-310 south over US 90.

Essentially, unless LADOTD has a secret plan of truncating I-49 South by running it through I-310 to end at I-10 west of Kenner, eliminating the US 90 segment between Boutte and Gretna and killing the Westbank extension, that would rule out any I-49 shields on the completed Morgan City-Raceland segments.

Last time I saw the plans (some time last year) I recall their being a Y-interchange planned for the current I-310/US90 intersection, though I could have been mistaken. I’ll go back and look at some point in time next week. I do know that there is an elaborate directional interchange planned at the current US90/US90B split in Westwego in terms of geometry.

UPDATE: I just took a look at the at the most recent transcad models and the direct connectors with I-310 at its current location is consistent in all of the provided alternatives.

Recent models? Yeah, I'd like the linkage to that myself, too. I know they are redoing the Supplemental EIS for that segment of I-49 South, but there's nothing at the LADOTD site.

Since LADOTD has done no updates since the Supplemental EIS was announced in 2015, I'll give you what I have.


This is what the latest plans I saw were for the I-49S/US 90/I-310 interchange complex, based on the 2014 Refinement Study that reduced down the scope and format for the project. It shows how I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended southward to connect with proposed I-49 South.







By comparison, here is the originally planned connection between I-49S and I-310 per the 2008 EIS/ROD, which included direct connections between I-49 and I-310 independent of LA 3137, and ended LA 3137 at a T-intersection with US 90.






I'm wondering if URG's latest models he saw were any different than what was proposed in 2014.

Also...the flyover ramp shown in the 2014 model from US 90 eastbound to LA 3137/I-310 northbound is planned for construction as a separate standalone project under the interim program.

[Revive 755]

This is what the latest plans I saw were for the I-49S/US 90/I-310 interchange complex, based on the 2014 Refinement Study that reduced down the scope and format for the project. It shows how I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended southward to connect with proposed I-49 South.

Designed by the same person who did I-24 at I-57?

[mgk920]

I definitely like the newer version much more than the older one, far simpler.

 

Mike

[sparker]

This is what the latest plans I saw were for the I-49S/US 90/I-310 interchange complex, based on the 2014 Refinement Study that reduced down the scope and format for the project. It shows how I-310 and LA 3137 would be extended southward to connect with proposed I-49 South.

Designed by the same person who did I-24 at I-57?

I was thinking the I-86/I-390 interchange west of Bath, NY was a carbon copy of this design as well.

[Grzrd]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its September 20, 2018 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes and they provide a timeline under which we might see the issuance of a Record of Decision for the Inner City Connector (pp. 3-4/4 of pdf):

... Based on all this the general schedule for completion is as follows:
• Second Quarter 2018 – Submit Draft Cultural Resource Survey to DOTD review and
approval for submittal to SHPO.
• Third Quarter 2018 – finalize the technical studies
• Fourth Quarter 2018 – Submit Draft EIS for DOTD/FHWA review and begin
stakeholder briefings.
• First Quarter 2019 – finalize stakeholder briefings and receive approval from
DOTD/FHWA on Draft EIS
• Second Quarter 2019 – Release Draft EIS for public Review, Hold Public Hearing (no
less than 30 days after issuance of Draft EIS for public review), submit Draft Final EIS
for agency review
• Third Quarter 2019 – Approval of Final EIS and Issuance of a ROD (Record of
Decision.)

With a little bit of luck,we may see the ROD in about a year. Then, the inevitable lawsuits and simply figuring out how to pay for it.

[Anthony_JK]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its September 20, 2018 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes and they provide a timeline under which we might see the issuance of a Record of Decision for the Inner City Connector (pp. 3-4/4 of pdf):

... Based on all this the general schedule for completion is as follows:
• Second Quarter 2018 – Submit Draft Cultural Resource Survey to DOTD review and
approval for submittal to SHPO.
• Third Quarter 2018 – finalize the technical studies
• Fourth Quarter 2018 – Submit Draft EIS for DOTD/FHWA review and begin
stakeholder briefings.
• First Quarter 2019 – finalize stakeholder briefings and receive approval from
DOTD/FHWA on Draft EIS
• Second Quarter 2019 – Release Draft EIS for public Review, Hold Public Hearing (no
less than 30 days after issuance of Draft EIS for public review), submit Draft Final EIS
for agency review
• Third Quarter 2019 – Approval of Final EIS and Issuance of a ROD (Record of
Decision.)

With a little bit of luck,we may see the ROD in about a year. Then, the inevitable lawsuits and simply figuring out how to pay for it.

Given that schedule, we may see the ICC FEIS/ROD before we see the Lafayette Connector Final SEIS/SROD.

[Anthony_JK]

It's been a good long while since there's been an update on I-49 South, but yesterday one small but significant bump in the path of the upgrade began to be flattened.


LADOTD announced that they were taking requests for consultants to design and potentially construct the removal of the at-grade railroad crossing of US 90 just southeast of the LA 85 interchange in Iberia Parish, between New Iberia and Morgan City. The spur rail line, controlled by the Louisiana & Delta Railroad and which connects to the BNSF/UP mainline which parallels US 90, serves a sugar cane/molasses processing plant.


The original solution was to simply build an overpass of the mainline US 90 over the rail line, keeping the parallel frontage roads to cross at-grade. However, the state found that a cheaper solution was to truncate the rail line east of crossing US 90 while constructing a pipeline and pumping facility that would pass in a culvert below both the mainline US 90 and the frontage roads. The pipeline facility would be buried in a tunnel that would pass underneath the roadways; embankment would be needed to raise the height of US 90 and the frontage roads to allow proper clearance for the pipeline/tunnel/culvert facility and the surrounding conveyor/pumping/transfer facilities.


The RFQ filed yesterday by LADOTD seeks for firms to bid for the right to design and ultimately construct the project.


According to the Stage 0 report filed by LADOTD in 2014, the project would qualify for 100% Federal funding under the Removal of Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Hazards program.


The RFQ did not set any dates for actual construction, but given the length of the contract, I'd say that construction could probably begin by either late summer or early fall 2019, with completion probably by summer 2020.


More information, including pdf files of the original Stage 0 study and the RFQ advertisement, can be found here.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Has the railroad in question waived any objections they might have to severance of their line -- particularly if the facility they're serving is still in operation?   Unless that happens, this sort of action involves either hearings (involving USDOT) or even litigation.

[Anthony_JK]

^^^^^^^^
Has the railroad in question waived any objections they might have to severance of their line -- particularly if the facility they're serving is still in operation?   Unless that happens, this sort of action involves either hearings (involving USDOT) or even litigation.

I'm figuring that since the rail line isn't being totally abandoned, but just truncated to eliminate the US 90 crossing, and the pipeline/conveyance system built below US 90 would serve the sugar cane processing plant, then that wouldn't trigger such action. The track itself would be modified and upgraded to handle the transfer facilities.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Has the railroad in question waived any objections they might have to severance of their line -- particularly if the facility they're serving is still in operation?   Unless that happens, this sort of action involves either hearings (involving USDOT) or even litigation.

I'm figuring that since the rail line isn't being totally abandoned, but just truncated to eliminate the US 90 crossing, and the pipeline/conveyance system built below US 90 would serve the sugar cane processing plant, then that wouldn't trigger such action. The track itself would be modified and upgraded to handle the transfer facilities.

Makes sense.  But since that transfer facility would most likely be a lot closer to the BNSF-owned main trunk freight line from N.O. to Lafayette (possibly directly adjacent), it's equally likely that BNSF simply made a financial arrangement with the local line to take over their hauling contract with the sugar producer -- a "buyout" of sorts.  Probably work out well for the short line regional RR -- less track to maintain (including the US 90 crossing signals) for either a chunk of cash or a series of payouts. 

[Anthony_JK]

^^^^^^^^
Has the railroad in question waived any objections they might have to severance of their line -- particularly if the facility they're serving is still in operation?   Unless that happens, this sort of action involves either hearings (involving USDOT) or even litigation.

I'm figuring that since the rail line isn't being totally abandoned, but just truncated to eliminate the US 90 crossing, and the pipeline/conveyance system built below US 90 would serve the sugar cane processing plant, then that wouldn't trigger such action. The track itself would be modified and upgraded to handle the transfer facilities.

Makes sense.  But since that transfer facility would most likely be a lot closer to the BNSF-owned main trunk freight line from N.O. to Lafayette (possibly directly adjacent), it's equally likely that BNSF simply made a financial arrangement with the local line to take over their hauling contract with the sugar producer -- a "buyout" of sorts.  Probably work out well for the short line regional RR -- less track to maintain (including the US 90 crossing signals) for either a chunk of cash or a series of payouts. 

Actually, it wouldn't be even that close to the BNSF mainline; the L&DRR (Louisiana & Delta) is the short line that actually owns and operates the rail line, and its connection to the BNSF/UP main is pretty far away...about one mile.

I would tender a guess that L&DRR would have the main contract with the facility over the short line to the plant, with BNSF as a subsidiary over the main line connection. In any case, since it's only a small portion of the total length of the line through and west of US 90 that would be truncated and replaced with the conveyance/tunnel/pipeline connection that US 90 and the frontage roads would be elevated over, the costs to the facility would be significantly less than if the whole line had to be abandoned. Also, building the pipeline connection and eliminating the at-grade rail crossing would not only save the plant a huge storage tank full of insurance liability fees from potential auto-train collisions, but would improve the overall operations of the plant. Simply put, a win-win for everyone.

[Gordon]

I noticed that Job # H.013265 Scheduled in July 2019, US 90 Railroad Se of La 85, Bridge overpass was estimated to cost 10-15 million and now that has raised to 20-30 million. Is that because they will do the frontage roads also?

[Anthony_JK]

I noticed that Job # H.013265 Scheduled in July 2019, US 90 Railroad Se of La 85, Bridge overpass was estimated to cost 10-15 million and now that has raised to 20-30 million. Is that because they will do the frontage roads also?

It may be that the original bidded cost reflected the concept of only an overpass bridging the rail line with the frontage roads crossing at grade; and the new costs reflect the revision of the conveyor/pipeline/storage system facility combined with a truncated rail line, along with embankment and culvert crossing of the facility by both the US 90 mainline and the frontage roads.

[Gordon]

https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/article_754f2f50-313b-11e9-abbf-cba22dbd3810.html                                                                     Here is an article on the Lafayette connector that expects a federal Record of Decision on the I-49 Lafayette Connector and final document by 2021.