Topic: Interstate 10 (LA to FL) (Read 23729 times)

Alex · « **on:** March 29, 2009, 11:05:25 AM »

Projects ongoing along the freeway including the six-laning and interchange upgrades in Tallahassee

Work at the Causeway Boulevard interchange in New Orleans

Work to upgrade the eastern terminal interchange with Interstate 95

Widening of Interstate 10 leading east from Interstate 12 in Baton Rouge.

Construction of a new interchange for Florida 23 / Branan Field-Chaffee Expressway in Jacksonville.

Work to replace the Lake Pontchartrain bridges is well underway.

Completed work includes the Interstate 110 interchange work in Pensacola

The new U.S. 190 Business interchange in Slidell.

Did I miss any?

Planned work includes

Building a new interchange at Baldwin County 68 for the Foley Beach Express.

Replacing the Wallace Tunnel with a new high-level bridge (if it ever happens).

Eight-laning of the Mobile Bayway (in conjunction with a new bridge over the Mobile River)

Others?

Work we'd like to see done:

Replacing of the four-lane shoulderless bridge over the Pearl River

Addition of signs for the Perdido River and a MS state line on the eastbound lanes from LA.

Upgrading of the Interstate 65 south end to replace left-hand shoulderless ramps.

Upgrading of the Alabama 59 folded-diamond interchange (the railroad is no longer next to AL-59 and the current interchange has no decel lanes).

Increase of the 55 mph speed limit within Pensacola along the six-lane section.

Any more ideas?

Chris · « **Reply #1 on:** March 29, 2009, 11:14:42 AM »

Quote

Work to replace the Lake Pontchartrain bridges is well underway.

Completed work includes the Interstate 110 interchange work in Pensacola

These two link to the same website

Alex · « **Reply #2 on:** March 29, 2009, 11:17:13 AM »

Copy Paste does not always work! It is fixed now.

74/171FAN · « **Reply #3 on:** March 29, 2009, 11:22:50 AM »

The I-10 at I-95 project has made a 35 mph curve on I-95 South through there. I remember it from being on a trip to Florida back in December.

Urban Prairie Schooner · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2009, 08:05:02 PM »

The latest New Orleans master plan calls for elimination of the elevated viaduct portion of I-10 along Claiborne Avenue:

http://www.neworleanscitybusiness.com/viewStory.cfm?recID=32968

Would be good from the standpoint of the surrounding neighborhood (which is poor and substantially run down), but then where do the cars go?

And then what happens to the I-10 designation? Presumably rerouted via I-610, with the dangling spur on the east end becoming an I-x10 spur (710, the only number left), and on the west end, extending I-910 along the Pontchartrain Expressway to the existing 10/610 split.

Alex · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2009, 10:22:03 PM »

That article has holes and inaccurate information. It talks about similar occurrences where elevated highways were torn down in favor or urban boulevards. It cites the Park Freeway demolition in Milwaukee (like every let us tear down a freeway proponent), then goes on to mention that the Embarcadero was torn down in 2002

It mentions that Portland, Seattle, Baltimore, and Buffalo have also done the same, but none of those cities have done that so far!

Back to the traffic issue, in 2001 almost 100,000 cars traveled Interstate 10 between Orleans Avenue and Louisiana 39. A four-lane at-grade boulevard will not accommodate such numbers. I agree that the adjoining neighborhood was dealt a dirty blow when the viaduct was built, but with current traffic congestion, where do you send all of that commuting traffic if not there?

UptownRoadGeek · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2009, 10:25:29 PM »

I would hate to see that happen and honestly I don't think it would be that good for the neighborhood. All of S. Claiborne (as well as most main streets in N.O.) already have wide tree-lined neutral grounds, so why haven't they seen a massive transformation? Also, I don't see the residents of Lakeview giving away their rebuilt homes so DOTD can reconfigure to 610 split to handle both JP and WB bound traffic.

by the way if they tore down the I-10 wouldn't the city have to repay the govt.?

Urban Prairie Schooner · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2009, 10:36:00 PM »

I agree, the article is skewed to present a substantially anti-freeway point of view. Comparing the elimination of freeway spurs such as the Embarcadero Fwy and the Park Fwy with a major trunkline Interstate freeway such as I-10 is disingenuous and misleading, but alas very typical of the journalism favored by stop-the-automobile-at-all-costs "conventional wisdom"-following urban planners and other "progressive" types.

And as was mentioned in the article's comments somewhere, building the freeway there in the first place was bad from the neighborhood perspective, but now that it's there and part of the established infrastructure, what would you do with the traffic demand that currently uses the freeway and depends on its presence for efficient movement through the city? What happens to folks who commute to the Westbank from Slidell and points east, or vice versa?

As you mention, far too much traffic uses the Claiborne elevated for it to function very effectively as an urban boulevard.

Where else would a freeway have been easily placed in that part of the city? The Claiborne median was the most cost effective location for a freeway through that part of New Orleans, as it was a ready made public right of way obtained without the costs of land acquisition and site clearance.

I can safely assume that the LaDOTD (not to mention NO area motorists) will not look favorably upon the removal of the freeway, and that this proposal is more a planning fantasy than anything else. "Progressive" thought hasn't quite taken root at the state government level in Louisiana as of yet.

A compromise might be to rebuild the freeway, Big Dig like, as a cut and cover tunnel under the Claiborne median, removing the elevated viaduct and reestablishing at least part of the tree lined median. But I would think this is probably next to impossible, due to engineering, topographical, and flooding considerations, not to mention the vast costs involved.

Revive 755 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:14:43 AM »

Quote from article:

Quote

But a freeway doesn’t necessarily allow vehicles to get from point A to point B faster than a boulevard, Diaz said.

Are these anti-freeway people even bothering to consider how much time sitting at one or more stoplights can add to a trip? It might take 3 to 4 minutes to drive non-stop, but that can easily reach 8 to 10+ minutes after having to sit through three or more uncoordinated lights with heavy traffic that requires more than one cycle to pass a light.

Potentially provocative comment follows:

I think most of New Orleans should be torn down anyway, especially the below sea level parts. How much are we going to spend fixing it after the next hurricane swamps it?

V'Ger · « **Reply #9 on:** March 31, 2009, 04:25:40 AM »

Anti-freeway people are my favorite because most THAT I'VE HEARD OF USE FREEWAYS TO GO PLACES.

Anthony_JK · « **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:15:49 PM »

I just fired off a comment to their website on that article.

Now, I'm generally beyond progressive (in fact, pretty damn left of center)...and even I see this plan is plain simple BS.

First off....do they think that all those 100.000 vehicles who use the Claiborne Elevated will simply disappear, or just transfer themselves to their prized light rail line??? This is NOLA, not Portland or Milwaukee.

Second....just FOUR lanes for their boulevard?? To handle that traffic, even with a light rail line included, you'll need at least six, and more than likely, eight lanes of traffic...and what would you do about the Canal St. intersection???

Third....I'm so sure that the LaDoTD and the FHWA will be more than happy to see THE principal thoroughfare in the Southern US be basically cut off from the CBD and the French Quarter of one of their major cities. Sure, they will.

Fourth: To say that elevated highways are inevitably hostile to community development is just plain hogwash. These folks should pay a visit to the Community Design Workshop at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and get a copy of the Blue Book they created for the Lafayette I-49 Connector freeway project..then tell me that the only solution to redevelop the Treme community is to tear down the Claiborne Elevated.

And fifth: Yes, you could say that simply extending proposed I-49 South along the west side of what was I-10 to I-610 could make the proposal to tear down the Claiborne Elevated a bit more feasible...but then, wouldn't you have to upgrade the former I-610 to handle the increased traffic?? What about the existing I-10/I-610 interchanges, or the "stub" from I-10 to Elysian Fields Ave..would the latter still be placed in the Interstate system, or would it be handed to the state for maintainence??

I'm all for increased public transportation and not opposed to expanding light rail per se...but NOT at the expense of major highway corridors. Far better to just rebuild I-10 where it is and use other means to upgrade the community rather than tearing down a major arterial...all for the sake of revenge for the past.

I know "progressive"...and this is decisively NOT progressive. It is the typical anti-auto lunacy dressed in racial politics.

Anthony

AZDude · « **Reply #11 on:** April 01, 2009, 03:05:11 AM »

How about eliminating the at-grade crossings that are still present on I-10? When I first read about them, I was picturing a regular crossing like you would find on expressways. But after driving through there (west of I-20) they hardly look like intersections at all. They were little dirt paths that were barely one lane wide. Maybe that could be ine reason why Texas didn't bother to build interchanges at these crossings.

But has anyone actually seen a car (or whatever vehicle) crossing at these intersections?

Revive 755 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 02, 2009, 03:35:16 PM »

Regarding the removal of part of I-10 in New Orleans, someone should look at how the existing gaps in urban freeways perform:

* I-380/US 218 corridor in Waterloo, IA: one of those at grades was on the state's list of high accident intersections. I don't think I would consider Waterloo a healthy city either, especially some of the areas east of the Cedar River.

* IA 27/IA 58 corridor in Cedar Falls, IA: I believe it has the nickname "Deadly 58."

* US 71/Bruce Watkins Drive in Kansas City, MO: Supposedly horribly congested, and would be on the waiting list to be fixed if the courts didn't mandate this design in the first place. See https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8832026755264748338&postID=1561809099087458338, and scroll 1/3 of the way down to the second MoDOT comment.

* I-27/US 87 corridor in Amarillo, TX: someone else will have to say how this one performs, as I haven't seen anything.

UptownRoadGeek · « **Reply #13 on:** April 02, 2009, 10:42:33 PM »

What NO interchange isn't "interesting" or just straight up crazy to say the least:-D? Froggie, could you share that PDF?

Alex · « **Reply #14 on:** May 14, 2009, 03:53:58 AM »

High mast lighting is going up at the Santa Rosa County 191 diamond interchange of Interstate 10. That is the only highway project mentioned for the freeway in all of northwest Florida on the current FDOT construction bulletin.

lamsalfl · « **Reply #15 on:** May 29, 2009, 09:03:47 PM »

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/new_interstate_10_interchange.html

Thought I'd pass this along.

Darkchylde · « **Reply #16 on:** May 30, 2009, 02:31:37 AM »

Expect it to be built when hell freezes over at this rate...

UptownRoadGeek · « **Reply #17 on:** May 31, 2009, 03:42:28 PM »

It'll be like LA-1088

lamsalfl · « **Reply #18 on:** June 12, 2009, 08:08:18 PM »

This time at Pecue Ave at I-10 in BR. Future Exit 164?

Stimulus money. http://www.dotd.louisiana.gov/press/DOTDs%20recommended%20surplus%20projects.pdf

Let's see this decade:

Exit 104 Louisiana Ave. in Lafayette
Exit 164 Pecue Ave. in Baton Rouge (proposed, stimulus money)
Exit 265 Fremaux Ave. in Slidell

I-12

Exit 12 Juban Road in Baton Rouge
Exit 60 Pinnacle Pkwy in Covington
Exit 67 LA 1088 (working on funding now)

Not to mention the Twinspan under construction, 3 miles of six-laning of I-12 from O'Neal Lane eastward, proposed I-12 widening in Slidell, widening of I-10 east of I-12 in Baton Rouge, and whatever else is going on up north.

lamsalfl · « **Reply #19 on:** June 12, 2009, 09:14:31 PM »

Quote from: Revive 755 on March 31, 2009, 01:14:43 AM

Quote from article:
I think most of New Orleans should be torn down anyway, especially the below sea level parts. How much are we going to spend fixing it after the next hurricane swamps it?

And when the next earthquake levels Los Angeles or San Francisco we'll tear them down too. /sarcasm. Why does Miami always get a free pass from hurricane conversation anyway? Who is to say another Andrew won't come slamming through?

Yeah let's tear down one of America's only culturally unique cities and thousands of historic buildings and landmarks.

You said "the part below sea level", but even that is ridiculous. Just to briefly entertain this ridiculous plan, how do you praytell tear down vast sections of a major city? Where are you going to put those people? How are you going to buy them out? If it weren't for the federal governments fuckups in the 60s "yeah these flimsy walls are safe!" and their negligence with their documented shortcuts, this shit wouldn't have happened.

New Orleans HAS TO EXIST because of a little thing called the Mississippi River. And no Charlie, Baton Rouge is not a viable place to 'move those people' because the river isn't deep enough up there to handle the facilities needed for the Port of New Orleans. I'm sure you're not aware that Port Fourchon in lower Lafourche Parish takes in 20% of our nation's foreign oil either. So before you go spitting out your ignorance that permeates the rest of the country including D.C., do some research. Yes, the New Orleans market can and has proven that we can still support an NFL and NBA team despite Katrina. It was great to see the national pundits have to swallow that too after recent successes. Why? Because New Orleans isn't like your Anytown USA city that calls Red Lobster "good seafood!" and Applebee's "fine dining". It's a city that is different from everywhere else, because the people here take pride in our world-class food, music, neighborhoods, festivals, being outside, and celebrating life.

So you can ..., and your endless ubiquitous suburbia. The rest of America makes me sick sometimes. Let's reverse the Louisiana Purchase. France, please buy us back!

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 12, 2009, 09:18:08 PM »

I note that the French Quarter managed to dust itself off and get back into business within a few months of Hurricane Katrina. The parts of town that are, as far as I know, still underwater to this day are ... not precisely historical landmarks.

lamsalfl · « **Reply #21 on:** June 12, 2009, 09:19:45 PM »

To add to the master list up top,

Another 10 miles of I-10 in Louisiana has completed six laning. This time it's jut west of I-210 to US 165 in Calcasieu Parish.

http://www.dotd.louisiana.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1030

lamsalfl · « **Reply #22 on:** June 12, 2009, 09:25:21 PM »

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 12, 2009, 09:18:08 PM

I note that the French Quarter managed to dust itself off and get back into business within a few months of Hurricane Katrina. The parts of town that are, as far as I know, still underwater to this day are ... not precisely historical landmarks.

The French Quarter and downtown area is well above sea level. Pumps weren't invented until about 1900 and the city was founded in 1718. You do the math. Take a look at aerial maps of LA south of New Orleans. Thousands of miles of canals dug by oil companies. Where's the accountability there? Where is the fed not caring about LA losing a football field of land every 45 minutes? I guess they don't care if those precious wetlands vanishes. Just let the storm surge in why don't you. Rebuilt the Everglades but...

Are you kidding me? Still underwater to this day? New Orleans was 100% dry 6 weeks after Katrina. You don't even know what you're talking about, so I won't continue on to list why some of those neighborhoods are historic.

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 12, 2009, 10:20:46 PM »

December, 2006. Okay, that's not literally underwater, but it certainly isn't historically and culturally significant either.

Alex · « **Reply #24 on:** June 12, 2009, 10:51:35 PM »

I have read the points above and I've had discussions about New Orleans and its resurgence with lamsalfl before. As a lifelong resident of the city, he does have personal insight into what is going on with the city and its recovery. There will always be some debate about the viability of the city and I would politely advise members to be conclusive in their facts before posting what could be a sensitive area.

News:

Author Topic: Interstate 10 (LA to FL) (Read 23729 times)