Jump to content


-- CLICK HERE to buy advertising space for this spot! --

Why haven't you registered yet?

Registration is quick, easy and completely FREE! Click the Create Account button located at the top-right to sign-up and receive additional benefits that existing members are already receiving!

Photo
- - - - -

Perkins Road Overpass Corridor


  • Please log in to reply
209 replies to this topic

#81 buckett5425

buckett5425

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts
  • Location:Baton Rouge

Posted 03 January 2012 - 09:51 PM

NIMBYism at its best. This is a long over due project.. They will make 300k+people a day suffer for only a couple of business'.


Wait just a second. So because 300K people decided to move to Livingston and Ascension Parishes and commute to downtown over the past 20 years these people have to suffer?

Adding a 4th lane here won't resolve the traffic back ups because there are too many exit and entrance ramps and those ramps themselves are too short forcing cars to cut into traffic. These problems will remain even with a 4th lane. It is traffic entering and exiting the interstate that causes the backups, but in an urban situation as it is, there is a need for that many exits and will always be a high demand for them. I don't see the cost of adding a 4th lane as benefiting traffic nor worth destroying one of Baton Rouge's original walkable communities.

 

#82 itsjustme3

itsjustme3

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,291 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 10:11 PM

Wait just a second. So because 300K people decided to move to Livingston and Ascension Parishes and commute to downtown over the past 20 years these people have to suffer?


Sorry to bust your "suburbia sucks" rant, but you're kidding yourself if you think this is the fault of Ascension and Livingston residents. Baton Rouge has two interstates running through it and only one way to get over the miss river. It's not Ascension or Livingston residents fault that the state and federal government hasn't kept up with the population boom. 

Adding a 4th lane here won't resolve the traffic back ups because there are too many exit and entrance ramps and those ramps themselves are too short forcing cars to cut into traffic. 


Another lane will help. Doing nothing, like they chose to do 10 years ago, is the reason the area is so congested now.


I don't see the cost of adding a 4th lane as benefiting traffic nor worth destroying one of Baton Rouge's original walkable communities.


Walkable communities? Nobody is saying you can't walk. Walk as much as you want. Just don't expect to own a business under a congested interstate and expect not to have to see construction. 

Edited by itsjustme2, 03 January 2012 - 10:13 PM.


#83 Antrell Williams

Antrell Williams

    Burg

  • Moderators
  • 1,985 posts
  • Location:Baton Rouge & Houston

Posted 03 January 2012 - 10:28 PM

It's not Port Allens fault that I-10 backs up badly at LA 1, its not Livingston or Ascensions fault, they did what they are supposed to do, attract people to their parishes. It is the faulty processes that we call the city-parish government who has lagged behind on keeping up with growth.
Adding a 4th lane with no other improvements will be a waste of money and time because it wouldn't fix jack sh*t. You have to incorporate innovative solutions to keep people coming on the interstate from having to merge into traffic causing back ups in the right lanes, you have to have more than 50ft after you get on the interstate before you see "EXIT ONLY" and are forced to squeeze your way into a 5mph traffic orgy on I-10.

It's ignorant to own a business or live under one of the countries most congested interstate sections and not expect to see construction. It's like living just outside the city limits and get angry when the city wants to annex your neighborhood.

Edited by Antrell Williams, 03 January 2012 - 10:34 PM.


#84 buckett5425

buckett5425

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts
  • Location:Baton Rouge

Posted 03 January 2012 - 10:28 PM

Sorry to bust your "suburbia sucks" rant, but you're kidding yourself if you think this is the fault of Ascension and Livingston residents. Baton Rouge has two interstates running through it and only one way to get over the miss river. It's not Ascension or Livingston residents fault that the state and federal government hasn't kept up with the population boom.



Another lane will help. Doing nothing, like they chose to do 10 years ago, is the reason the area is so congested now.




Walkable communities? Nobody is saying you can't walk. Walk as much as you want. Just don't expect to own a business under a congested interstate and expect not to have to see construction.


I am going to build the new loop through your house because I want to get to work faster. Doesn't that sound silly? Thats because it is and that's exactly how I read that story.

I drive that stretch of road almost 4 times a day. It's not THAT bad at rush hour. I just find it humorous that we build these huge freeways for peak traffic and they sit nearly empty for the other 20 hours of the day. Sounds wasteful to me, like a Walmart parking lot, who's capacity was designed for ONE day of the year, Christmas Eve, and sits empty and unused the rest the rest of the year.

There are better solutions to resolving the traffic issue, isn't that what FUTURE BR was all about?

#85 itsjustme3

itsjustme3

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,291 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 10:51 PM

I am going to build the new loop through your house because I want to get to work faster. Doesn't that sound silly? Thats because it is and that's exactly how I read that story.


What does the loop have to do with a few ignorant business owners who thought it was a good idea to open up a shop under a busy, old interstate?

I drive that stretch of road almost 4 times a day. It's not THAT bad at rush hour. I just find it humorous that we build these huge freeways for peak traffic and they sit nearly empty for the other 20 hours of the day. Sounds wasteful to me, like a Walmart parking lot, who's capacity was designed for ONE day of the year, Christmas Eve, and sits empty and unused the rest the rest of the year.


So now this is walmarts fault? And to suggest that walmart parking lots are empty except for Christmas eve is just laughable. Like it or not but to keep up with population increases means updating the freeway infrastructure. 

#86 Antrell Williams

Antrell Williams

    Burg

  • Moderators
  • 1,985 posts
  • Location:Baton Rouge & Houston

Posted 03 January 2012 - 11:03 PM

I am going to build the new loop through your house because I want to get to work faster. Doesn't that sound silly? Thats because it is and that's exactly how I read that story.

I drive that stretch of road almost 4 times a day. It's not THAT bad at rush hour. I just find it humorous that we build these huge freeways for peak traffic and they sit nearly empty for the other 20 hours of the day. Sounds wasteful to me, like a Walmart parking lot, who's capacity was designed for ONE day of the year, Christmas Eve, and sits empty and unused the rest the rest of the year.

There are better solutions to resolving the traffic issue, isn't that what FUTURE BR was all about?

The welfare of 50,000 is more important than the welfare of 20, sorry to sound so blunt and cold but it's true either way you slice it. There are better ways to decrease traffic times, one being public transportation, but wait this is Baton Rouge, another is surface street connectivity, but wait someone lives there, we can't impose on them....

#87 buckett5425

buckett5425

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts
  • Location:Baton Rouge

Posted 04 January 2012 - 12:00 AM

The welfare of 50,000 is more important than the welfare of 20, sorry to sound so blunt and cold but it's true either way you slice it. There are better ways to decrease traffic times, one being public transportation, but wait this is Baton Rouge, another is surface street connectivity, but wait someone lives there, we can't impose on them....


The welfare of 20, this is a way bigger issue than that? This is about a community, not 20 business owners. This is one of the few communities in Baton Rouge that actually has a soul to it. Its been transformed in the last 5 years. Destroying this diamond in the rough will simply make the case easier to replace it with more soulless strip malls. Seigen Market Place and other places like it will never have the charm of this neighborhood and commercial strip has. I am amazed that y'all would suggest other wise.

We can look back to our recent history to see the trouble freeways have caused. Do y'all remember all the beautiful homes along East Boulevard, no, me either because interstate 110 sits in their place. What about victory park? Y'all are proposing the same destructive development methods that I know in other threads you have opposed, the destruction of neighborhoods by freeways! Why should this case be any different, because its going to reduce your travel time by 5 minutes?

I recommend y'all visit some of the bars, restaurants, and shops along this strip.

#88 itsjustme3

itsjustme3

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,291 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 12:26 AM

The welfare of 20, this is a way bigger issue than that? This is about a community, not 20 business owners. This is one of the few communities in Baton Rouge that actually has a soul to it.


To say that this neighborhood is more important than any other and it should be allowed to hold back a improved interstate is just silly.
  • all2neat likes this

#89 Antrell Williams

Antrell Williams

    Burg

  • Moderators
  • 1,985 posts
  • Location:Baton Rouge & Houston

Posted 04 January 2012 - 12:27 AM

The welfare of 20, this is a way bigger issue than that? This is about a community, not 20 business owners. This is one of the few communities in Baton Rouge that actually has a soul to it. Its been transformed in the last 5 years. Destroying this diamond in the rough will simply make the case easier to replace it with more soulless strip malls. Seigen Market Place and other places like it will never have the charm of this neighborhood and commercial strip has. I am amazed that y'all would suggest other wise.

We can look back to our recent history to see the trouble freeways have caused. Do y'all remember all the beautiful homes along East Boulevard, no, me either because interstate 110 sits in their place. What about victory park? Y'all are proposing the same destructive development methods that I know in other threads you have opposed, the destruction of neighborhoods by freeways! Why should this case be any different, because its going to reduce your travel time by 5 minutes?

I recommend y'all visit some of the bars, restaurants, and shops along this strip.

When will Baton Rouge adopt the mentality of a city and not a small town and the amenities that come along with it? Not before they widen that stretch. What would it destroy? It's already there.
I'm the last person to say lets run rapid destroying our few established neighborhoods but if no businesses or homes will be hurt then what's the problem? Traffic will get worse and worse and our PT is only getting worse as CATS goes in debt and our state declines money for a commuter rail. What's your solution? Either way it goes it would need to be widened, HOV lanes added, or rail added.


Things that stay the same never get any better.

To say that this neighborhood is more important than any other and it should be allowed to hold back a improved interstate is just silly.

Aren't you against the loop? If so, your stance confuses me.

#90 itsjustme3

itsjustme3

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,291 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 12:31 AM

Aren't you against the loop? If so, your stance confuses me.


I'm against the current plan for the loop because it is too large. The version I saw had it into Iberville in the west and out near Sorento in the south. That's too large and wouldn't decrease traffic because it would take just as long as traveling on the I-10 now. Not to mention it would be a toll road.

#91 Antrell Williams

Antrell Williams

    Burg

  • Moderators
  • 1,985 posts
  • Location:Baton Rouge & Houston

Posted 04 January 2012 - 12:48 AM

I'm against the current plan for the loop because it is too large. The version I saw had it into Iberville in the west and out near Sorento in the south. That's too large and wouldn't decrease traffic because it would take just as long as traveling on the I-10 now. Not to mention it would be a toll road.

I remember that now and feel exactly the same.

#92 all2neat

all2neat

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts
  • Location:Prairieville, LA, USA

Posted 04 January 2012 - 04:04 PM

Wait just a second. So because 300K people decided to move to Livingston and Ascension Parishes and commute to downtown over the past 20 years these people have to suffer?

Adding a 4th lane here won't resolve the traffic back ups because there are too many exit and entrance ramps and those ramps themselves are too short forcing cars to cut into traffic. These problems will remain even with a 4th lane. It is traffic entering and exiting the interstate that causes the backups, but in an urban situation as it is, there is a need for that many exits and will always be a high demand for them. I don't see the cost of adding a 4th lane as benefiting traffic nor worth destroying one of Baton Rouge's original walkable communities. This has nothing to do with LP or AP.


The 300k number is a rough estimate of the daily traffic count on I10 at that point. And no, adding a 4th lane won't solve the issue, but I bet adding a 5th one will. LIke it or not, I10 and I12 need to be widened, and they need to add more than one lane. I'm all for smart growth, however we also have to fix the current issue we have and the loop as proposed isn't the answer. The design of the cities road infrastructure almost us to widen the interstate because without the interstate being efficient the rest of the surface streets can't be efficient. It's surely not perfect, and not the design I would implement should i ever get to design a city from scratch but we do have to live within what we have and improve our policies going forward.

#93 all2neat

all2neat

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts
  • Location:Prairieville, LA, USA

Posted 05 January 2012 - 08:36 AM

I am going to build the new loop through your house because I want to get to work faster. Doesn't that sound silly? Thats because it is and that's exactly how I read that story.

I drive that stretch of road almost 4 times a day. It's not THAT bad at rush hour. I just find it humorous that we build these huge freeways for peak traffic and they sit nearly empty for the other 20 hours of the day. Sounds wasteful to me, like a Walmart parking lot, who's capacity was designed for ONE day of the year, Christmas Eve, and sits empty and unused the rest the rest of the year.

There are better solutions to resolving the traffic issue, isn't that what FUTURE BR was all about?


actually, if you are going to build it right through my house then I say thank you! You did me a favor. I'd rather sell out and choose what I live next to then be the neighbor who is one lot over too many to get bought out and see my view change to a freeway.

#94 itsjustme3

itsjustme3

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,291 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 10:50 AM

If the mayor said "Since Ascension and Livingston don't want the loop, let's make the loop only inside E Baton Rouge". Does anyone think EBR voters would approve?

#95 Antrell Williams

Antrell Williams

    Burg

  • Moderators
  • 1,985 posts
  • Location:Baton Rouge & Houston

Posted 05 January 2012 - 11:21 AM

If the mayor said "Since Ascension and Livingston don't want the loop, let's make the loop only inside E Baton Rouge". Does anyone think EBR voters would approve?

I think it would be MUCH less opposition. I feel like the Green Light Plan has the citizens feeling positive about road infrastructure and improving it. I know I sure appreciate the projects currently under construction and the ones already completed.
Although being completely in EBR wouldn't work best, it would have to at least take over the LA 1 corridor and the 190 bridge (with it being rebuilt). Also crossing back over somewhere near SBR/Acsension line.

#96 itsjustme3

itsjustme3

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,291 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 01:24 PM

I think it would be MUCH less opposition. I feel like the Green Light Plan has the citizens feeling positive about road infrastructure and improving it. I know I sure appreciate the projects currently under construction and the ones already completed.
Although being completely in EBR wouldn't work best, it would have to at least take over the LA 1 corridor and the 190 bridge (with it being rebuilt). Also crossing back over somewhere near SBR/Acsension line.


Comparing the greenlight plan to building a interstate through neighborhoods is like apple and oranges. Holden likes to scold the other parishes but the loop would hurt those parishes worse.

#97 Antrell Williams

Antrell Williams

    Burg

  • Moderators
  • 1,985 posts
  • Location:Baton Rouge & Houston

Posted 05 January 2012 - 01:34 PM

Comparing the greenlight plan to building a interstate through neighborhoods is like apple and oranges. Holden likes to scold the other parishes but the loop would hurt those parishes worse.

I don't see how Kip wants to scold those parishes by bringing more traffic and indirectly more commerce to the area. It's not like these parishes are dense and there are neighborhoods everywhere either.
Lots of people say Kip has a grudge against Livingston and Ascension but I haven't seen anything to make me think that, what has he done?

#98 cajun

cajun

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,721 posts
  • Location:Atlanta

Posted 07 January 2012 - 09:48 AM

Stop bickering. There is a way to do it without removing any businesses in the Perkins area....it just involves shutting down and removing the under-utilized Perkins road on-ramp.

Everyone knows that this is needed- especially if we have to make due without a loop. The route between the 10/110 and 10/12 split is critical for this entire region.

Edited by cajun, 07 January 2012 - 09:50 AM.


#99 cajun

cajun

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,721 posts
  • Location:Atlanta

Posted 07 January 2012 - 09:51 AM

If the mayor said "Since Ascension and Livingston don't want the loop, let's make the loop only inside E Baton Rouge". Does anyone think EBR voters would approve?



I would support it, but I have no idea where you could possibly fit that route.


I'm also no longer an EBR voter.

Edited by cajun, 07 January 2012 - 09:52 AM.


#100 buckett5425

buckett5425

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts
  • Location:Baton Rouge

Posted 07 January 2012 - 11:46 AM

I guess we all have to agree to disagree. But honestly, I drive this stretch of road at least 4 times a day, and two of those times are at rush hour. Its rarely a problem and if it is, its accident related. The real issue stems from the 110-10 merger.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users