Baton Rouge Transportation

[cajun]

On 2/14/2021 at 12:52 PM, Antrell Williams said:

I had to find a way to respond to this while keeping all the text visible somehow lol.

My morning commute luckily didn't involve I-10, I never particularly noticed a significant amount of cars swerving over to get to College Dr. causing enough traffic to warrant this project.

I do believe in induced demand though. So the idea of expanding I-10 to anything beyond 10 lanes is definitely not my idea to alleviate traffic in that stretch. I've never heard anyone quite say that the default state is gridlock, but that the default state is "widen everything and it'll work."

I'd argue that the state isn't widening it to meet traffic demand but public pressure. Or a mix of both. This project, once complete, likely won't change commute time for most people.There's alot of evidence out there that supports induced demand theory, is there anywhere that shows that *only* widening has had a positive effect on traffic flow over an extended period? How do they compare to Boston's central artery, Seattle's burying of their waterfront freeways, etc.

I feel like the massive political capital and time and resources and money would be better spent on other projects supporting I-10 and our current arteries. Not saying that I-10 should never be addressed but I'm severely against a 10 lane freeway cutting through urban Baton Rouge.

You mention that we should be adding density yet you seem to correlate that to more commuter traffic. If true, do you not think that more density would encourage more people in the area to drive or walk or bike there as opposed to driving to a further destination? People who visited (former) Chelsea's under the overpass all seemed to be from the neighborhood or close by. Same with Duvic's. Places like Perkins Rowe seem to have a far worse impact on traffic from my perspective.

Houston has a 26 lane Katy freeway that is bumper to bumper, even in non-peak hours as I've been stuck in traffic on weekend nights, way out near Katy or Memorial. Upgrading LA 1 to a freeway from Port Allen down to I-310 seems like a more complete idea. You can remove much of the traffic from I-10, and it can function as a loop as well as improving infrastructure for the industry on the west bank. I think the idea that we need to increase capacity as much as possible for the bridges is a wrong one. The reason is that we have almost no population on the west bank. If we can move much of that traffic commuting via I-10, to using surface roads or transit, you open up capacity for a percentage of people who can't use either of those means.

Also, in my opinion, one of the main reasons why the Baton Rouge region has such terrible traffic is having to rely on I-10 as an intracity mode of transportation. It should be used for cross town trips or commuting. Not to go from Target to Pluckers.

Is there a reason why mass transit was never mentioned in your reply? I see that as being a major major part of traffic alleviation for the region.


Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
 

As I said...you can't induce demand that's already there.   The one time when it's appropriate to widen a freeway is to meet current demand.   The study that everyone notes about this indicates that clearly.  

Louisiana is at no risk for inducing demand.  They never build anything with the future in mind...highways included. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by cajun

[Antrell Williams]

As I said...you can't induce demand that's already there.   The one time when it's appropriate to widen a freeway is to meet current demand.   The study that everyone notes about this indicates that clearly.  
Louisiana is at no risk for inducing demand.  They never build anything with the future in mind...highways included.  [emoji38]

Induced demand isn't about building for the future. It's about the unintended consequences of widening a road. If Airline is made into more of a controlled-access freeway, you will see induced demand as that investment will encourage development along the improved route, thus increasing demand for people to drive on that road.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[cajun]

On 2/21/2021 at 11:22 AM, Antrell Williams said:

Induced demand isn't about building for the future. It's about the unintended consequences of widening a road. If Airline is made into more of a controlled-access freeway, you will see induced demand as that investment will encourage development along the improved route, thus increasing demand for people to drive on that road.

 

I understand that it's about adding capacity/efficiency to a highway.   But is absolutely linked to the relationship between existing and anticipated demand for design capacity.   Widening I-10 though the city of Baton Rouge, like many urban freeway expansions, are textbook cases when additional capacity SHOULD be added.      Proactively widening suburban freeways or highways anticipating growth in those areas is exactly what we shouldn't be doing unless it' provides total system value (such as linking one congested highway to an alternative route).    It's a bad idea to widen a highway without demand for it unless the goal is to generate economic growth in the area - because it almost certainly will induce demand for lane capacity.

The reason there's less risk for induced demand in Baton Rouge is because the traffic counts on that stretch of I-10 through Baton Rouge  is already far higher than it was ever designed to handle.  It's been that way for nearly 20 years.     The demand was already induced - likely accelerated when they widened outlying freeways like I-12 years back.  The demand is here.   We are being reactive by widening it now, not proactive....thus far less likely to induce additional demand.   In fact, from what I've read months back when they started talking about widening I10 was that the expected traffic counts for 2030 (the year the project will be complete) will be right at or slightly beyond what is optimal for an 8 lane freeway even if they elect not to widen the highway at all.    

[Antrell Williams]

I understand that it's about adding capacity/efficiency to a highway.   But is absolutely linked to the relationship between existing and anticipated demand for design capacity.   Widening I-10 though the city of Baton Rouge, like many urban freeway expansions, are textbook cases when additional capacity SHOULD be added.      Proactively widening suburban freeways or highways anticipating growth in those areas is exactly what we shouldn't be doing unless it' provides total system value (such as linking one congested highway to an alternative route).    It's a bad idea to widen a highway without demand for it unless the goal is to generate economic growth in the area - because it almost certainly will induce demand for lane capacity.
The reason there's less risk for induced demand in Baton Rouge is because the traffic counts on that stretch of I-10 through Baton Rouge  is already far higher than it was ever designed to handle.  It's been that way for nearly 20 years.     The demand was already induced - likely accelerated when they widened outlying freeways like I-12 years back.  The demand is here.   We are being reactive by widening it now, not proactive....thus far less likely to induce additional demand.   In fact, from what I've read months back when they started talking about widening I10 was that the expected traffic counts for 2030 (the year the project will be complete) will be right at or slightly beyond what is optimal for an 8 lane freeway even if they elect not to widen the highway at all.    

You don't predict more people to move to Dutchtown or areas further down I-10 when its widened? Some of the reasons why people don't, is the commute to BR. If they see a large widening project, I would predict developers and homebuyers to react accordingly.
Plus I forgot about the current widening between Highland and Hwy 73 (or is it going to Hwy 30?).

I-10 west in Houston is 26 lanes wide and is definitely at capacity. Would you suggest adding more lanes there? And if not, in your opinion, what's the difference between either scenario?

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[cajun]

On 2/28/2021 at 9:45 PM, Antrell Williams said:

You don't predict more people to move to Dutchtown or areas further down I-10 when its widened? Some of the reasons why people don't, is the commute to BR. If they see a large widening project, I would predict developers and homebuyers to react accordingly.
Plus I forgot about the current widening between Highland and Hwy 73 (or is it going to Hwy 30?).

I-10 west in Houston is 26 lanes wide and is definitely at capacity. Would you suggest adding more lanes there? And if not, in your opinion, what's the difference between either scenario?

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
 

Of course I did.   That's an entirely different project from an urban freeway widening of a stretch of highway that is already beyond the designed capacity.  

Widening an adequate highway from a city into a suburban area is (in a vacuum) the wrong place to do it if you are building ahead of demand.   That runs the risk of actually inducing demand for traffic.  

[Antrell Williams]

Of course I did.   That's an entirely different project from an urban freeway widening of a stretch of highway that is already beyond the designed capacity.  
Widening an adequate highway from a city into a suburban area is (in a vacuum) the wrong place to do it if you are building ahead of demand.   That runs the risk of actually inducing demand for traffic.  

Well that section of I-10 in Houston isn't really going into the more rural suburbs like the new project in Ascension is. It's pretty similar to the current section we're talking about over Perkins Rd. I'd be really uneasy about a 10 year long project to widen that stretch to 10 lanes and then have to watch my future children want to widen it to 14 or 16.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[cajun]

On 3/5/2021 at 10:16 AM, Antrell Williams said:

Well that section of I-10 in Houston isn't really going into the more rural suburbs like the new project in Ascension is. It's pretty similar to the current section we're talking about over Perkins Rd. I'd be really uneasy about a 10 year long project to widen that stretch to 10 lanes and then have to watch my future children want to widen it to 14 or 16.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
 

Don't think there will be any effort to widen that highway beyond 10 lanes given that the MR bridge deck itself is only 6 lanes wide and the viaduct itself will be at the far range of the existing right of way.   They are actually acquiring a lot of land already just to do this and add the exit around Terrace and Dalrymple, and it's not a painless process to do it.   

It's only going to be 8 when they are complete (maybe by 2030 LOL), but they will have the width to re-stripe to 10 if they needed to in a pinch, although they'd be forgoing a lot of shoulder in some spots.   IMO they should at least include a reversible commuter lane down the center in the current design.   8 is too little, too late.    They are also fixing some alignment issues that should have never existed at the I-110 interchange and a laundry list of lighting/barrier shortcomings on the whole stretch.

I know the new bridge is a long ways off, but I sincerely think we'll see a new one built in the Plaquemine or Brusly area before we see I-10 widened to 12 or more lanes through the city of Baton Rouge.    

Edited March 7, 2021 by cajun

[Antrell Williams]

Don't think there will be any effort to widen that highway beyond 10 lanes given that the MR bridge deck itself is only 6 lanes wide and the viaduct itself will be at the far range of the existing right of way.   They are actually acquiring a lot of land already just to do this and add the exit around Terrace and Dalrymple, and it's not a painless process to do it.   
It's only going to be 8 when they are complete (maybe by 2030 LOL), but they will have the width to re-stripe to 10 if they needed to in a pinch, although they'd be forgoing a lot of shoulder in some spots.   IMO they should at least include a reversible commuter lane down the center in the current design.   8 is too little, too late.    They are also fixing some alignment issues that should have never existed at the I-110 interchange and a laundry list of lighting/barrier shortcomings on the whole stretch.
I know the new bridge is a long ways off, but I sincerely think we'll see a new one built in the Plaquemine or Brusly area before we see I-10 widened to 12 or more lanes through the city of Baton Rouge.    

I didn't take into consideration the bridge deck. How are they going to fix the I-110 interchange? I see that they've begun or finished construction on the Terrace Ace exit ramp via Google but are they going to add capacity to the WB I-10 flyover? Or is the interchange part of the whole project. I might've missed that. I kind of agree with the reversible HOV lane.

Well I also agree that we will see another bridge before we see another widening of this stretch through the city but I have little faith it even breaks ground this decade or half of the next. Doesnt it usually take years to plan the actual bridge once a site is selected?
I'd still like to see Hwy 30, south of its interchange with the new bridge, to be a controlled acces highway all the way to I-10.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[cajun]

17 hours ago, Antrell Williams said:

I didn't take into consideration the bridge deck. How are they going to fix the I-110 interchange? I see that they've begun or finished construction on the Terrace Ace exit ramp via Google but are they going to add capacity to the WB I-10 flyover? Or is the interchange part of the whole project. I might've missed that. I kind of agree with the reversible HOV lane.

Well I also agree that we will see another bridge before we see another widening of this stretch through the city but I have little faith it even breaks ground this decade or half of the next. Doesnt it usually take years to plan the actual bridge once a site is selected?
I'd still like to see Hwy 30, south of its interchange with the new bridge, to be a controlled acces highway all the way to I-10.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
 

I posted the link to the layouts a few  pages back.   They are changing the radius of the curve and adding a significant shoulder (20' or more) to the outside and a 12' shoulder to the inside .   They are also adding sound walls, LED lighting, stronger barriers, and a better banking to handle trucks at highway speed.  

IMO the real positive change will be the combination of the new off ramp for Terrance/Washington on the left hand side being present and the fact that both I-10 eastbound lanes will be continuous through the city.   Traffic won't have to merge into I-110 traffic like they do now, and traffic that exits from I-110 to Washington or Dalrymple can do so before the split.   I-10 traffic that exits at Dalrymple will do so around the current Washington street exit and take the service road (Braddock), which should IMO be a candidate for some commercial/service related redevelopment on the eastbound side of the highway.   

Yeah....the pain that we are going through to expropriate those properties alongside the highway for this widening won't happen again.    The deck of I-10 won't be widened again in the next 50 years after this, if ever.    LADOTD won't go through this frustrating process again, and they are going to make sure the deck has enough width to accommodate an additional lane if they absolutely have to - but it will cost some shoulder space in some spots.   

I'm putting the chances of a new bridge in the Plaquemine area at 10% in 15 years., but 50% in 25, and closer to 70% in 50 years.   

0% chance I-10 gets widened through Baton Rouge after this project within the next 50 years.   

Edited March 8, 2021 by cajun

[cajun]

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_17633bb6-785b-11eb-b9f4-3703348ae8d3.html

 

Quote

 

Another Mississippi River bridge? It faces hurdles, but here's why this time might be different

 

Talks around building a new Mississippi River bridge are still in a holding pattern as preliminary engineering work on its location and practicality continues — work necessary to get federal funding needed to help pay for the estimated $1 billion endeavor. 

"We lost a little momentum due to [the pandemic] but it's still moving forward," said state Sen. Rick Ward, R-Port Allen. "And I know it's frustrating for the public to hear how long we have to sift through this, but even if we had the money in the bank this study would still have to happen."

But Ward and others involved say the way this project is structured could help it avoid the fate of previous attempts to build a new bridge over the river, which fell apart upon facing political pushback. 

Building a new Mississippi River bridge has become a unicorn project local leaders and the public think would greatly alleviate the traffic woes ailing the Interstate-10 bridge, which sees about 150,000 cars and track cross it daily.  Gridlock on the bridge has become somewhat of a daily occurrence, tipped off by so much as the slightest fender bender.   

Ward has been pushing for a new bridge at the state Legislature. That includes creating the Capital Area Road and Bridge District two years ago, tasked with overseeing much of the project. 

The district includes two appointees at the state level and each of the parish presidents from Iberville, Ascension, Livingston, East and West Baton Rouge parishes -- roughly the same group that oversaw the now defunct loop project. 

That project died after three of the then five parish presidents on a special board pulled out in April 2011, following vocal opposition from constituents in their respective parishes over possible route locations and economic feasibility. 

Ward says that won't happen with the new bridge, since the 7-member bridge district functions more like a board — a majority vote advances any measure instead of unanimous decisions.

"If something would have to go to the vote of the people in those regions, then each parish would have to vote in favor of something," Ward said. "The only scenario that would happen is if they wanted to impose a millage or fees to pay for it, but I don't foresee that happening."

How the state will pay for a new bridge remains to be seen. Discussions have included public-private partnerships, toll roads and hiking the state's gas tax.

 

I hope they are including CN and UP rail roads in these chats.   They might be interested in helping fund a bridge that included a rail crossing (CN on the east side, UP on the west side) similar to the Huey Long bridges in Jefferson and Baton Rouge.

I'm generally anti-tax, but I'd happy vote for a gas/diesel tax of up to $0.05/gallon to actually fund some of this.    And it may come to the 5 parish metro area establishing a transportation authority that can include taxes on the ballot in those parishes.   Things like a new bridge over the Mississippi River, improving Airline Highway, new bridges over the Comite River, and helping (eventually) to fix some of the transportation problems with scope and impacts beyond a single parish might require a regional body like this.    EBR, WBR, Ascension, and Livingston for starters.   Maybe eventually add Pointe Coupee, Ibberville, and West Feliciana into the mix.    Way down the line, the area might want a regional rail system.   This is how they'd have to do it.

Edited March 8, 2021 by cajun

[Antrell Williams]

I posted the link to the layouts a few  pages back.   They are changing the radius of the curve and adding a significant shoulder (20' or more) to the outside and a 12' shoulder to the inside .   They are also adding sound walls, LED lighting, stronger barriers, and a better banking to handle trucks at highway speed.  
IMO the real positive change will be the combination of the new off ramp for Terrance/Washington on the left hand side being present and the fact that both I-10 eastbound lanes will be continuous through the city.   Traffic won't have to merge into I-110 traffic like they do now, and traffic that exits from I-110 to Washington or Dalrymple can do so before the split.   I-10 traffic that exits at Dalrymple will do so around the current Washington street exit and take the service road (Braddock), which should IMO be a candidate for some commercial/service related redevelopment on the eastbound side of the highway.   
Yeah....the pain that we are going through to expropriate those properties alongside the highway for this widening won't happen again.    The deck of I-10 won't be widened again in the next 50 years after this, if ever.    LADOTD won't go through this frustrating process again, and they are going to make sure the deck has enough width to accommodate an additional lane if they absolutely have to - but it will cost some shoulder space in some spots.   
I'm putting the chances of a new bridge in the Plaquemine area at 10% in 15 years., but 50% in 25, and closer to 70% in 50 years.   [emoji38]
0% chance I-10 gets widened through Baton Rouge after this project within the next 50 years.   

I found them on the web, scrolling through posts sucks when on my phone.

I really like the roundabouts at Dalrymple, Washington, and Terrace, the proposed improvements for pedestrians for the Nairn St bridge, the removal of the Perkins Rd ramp, the new sidewalks, and the new entrance ramp for eastbound traffic via Dalrymple.

I'm still concerned about westbound traffic crossing the Mississippi though, it's still a two lane flyover, and when I was taking that journey downtown every morning, traffic never really got stuck in the I-110 lanes. So it's good that they will be separate now but the bottleneck is still there. Similar to this is the eastbound traffic coming from the westbank, having an extra lane isn't going to relieve that congestion.

I'd say I fully support this project, as yall know I love infrastructure, but I still have no faith in reduction in traffic during peak hours. Non-peak hours have a bleak outlook as well (imo).

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[cajun]

Why aren't sidewalks, cross walks, and lighting included in the Airline Highway widening plan?   

MAJOR oversight IMO.  

 

All of those employers on Airline that are actually on bus routes.....but no sidewalks or bus stop platforms (or bus aprons).    Pretty big omission IMO.   What do you guys think?

Edited March 24, 2021 by cajun

[richyb83]

Agreed ...cant seem to find a plan for sidewalks for Airline Hwy widening ;sure seems needed. Yet there are plans for sidewalks on So.Sherwood Forest Blvd & Essen Lane i do believe.

[cajun]

Notice anything interesting in this Amtrak map of "planned new services"? 

 

 

 

Yep...that's a Baton Rouge-New Orleans rail link.   I only wish they were planning to move beyond Baton Rouge to Shreveport and Dallas.

Edited April 1, 2021 by cajun

[Antrell Williams]

Notice anything interesting in this Amtrak map of "planned new services"? 
 

 
 
Yep...that's a Baton Rouge-New Orleans rail link.   I only wish they were planning to move beyond Baton Rouge to Shreveport and Dallas.

I wonder if they plan on using existing infrastructure. And where would our station be? I've always wanted the LASM to be returned to its former glory.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[richyb83]

NICE MAP!  Yep Baton Rouge just a spur;  Is the RR Bridge @Hwy 190 old bridge up to Amtrack Standards?

Think it would be KC Southern R.R.   The Station would likely go at Government Street near Red Stick Social/Electric Depot ...pass thru the Mall of La/Medical corridor

Scroll Down

https://buildbatonrouge.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BR_railstationplan_compressed.pdf

9 hours ago, Antrell Williams said:

I wonder if they plan on using existing infrastructure. And where would our station be? I've always wanted the LASM to be returned to its former glory.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
 

On 4/1/2021 at 11:10 AM, cajun said:

Notice anything interesting in this Amtrak map of "planned new services"? 

 

 

 

Yep...that's a Baton Rouge-New Orleans rail link.   I only wish they were planning to move beyond Baton Rouge to Shreveport and Dallas.

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by richyb83

[Antrell Williams]

NICE MAP!  Yep Baton Rouge just a spur;  Is the RR Bridge @Hwy 190 old bridge up to Amtrack Standards?
Think it would be KC Southern R.R.   The Station would likely go at Government Street near Red Stick Social/Electric Depot ...pass thru the Mall of La/Medical corridor
Scroll Down
https://buildbatonrouge.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BR_railstationplan_compressed.pdf


 

Thanks for the link. I'd never seen it before. I'm going to delve into it more in depth when I get home.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[cajun]

There are a flurry of articles about this in The Advocate, Business Report, etc.   Looks like if the bill passes, Amtrak is going to start setting up service.  Louisiana would get about $250 million in funding to upgrade the tracks, although the details aren't really clear yet.   

They will have to replace the old KCS bridge over the spillway though - to the tune of about $65 million.

[Antrell Williams]

There are a flurry of articles about this in The Advocate, Business Report, etc.   Looks like if the bill passes, Amtrak is going to start setting up service.  Louisiana would get about $250 million in funding to upgrade the tracks, although the details aren't really clear yet.   
They will have to replace the old KCS bridge over the spillway though - to the tune of about $65 million.

Thats been done, or close to it as of my last trip home in March.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[cajun]

On 4/9/2021 at 1:52 PM, Antrell Williams said:

Thats been done, or close to it as of my last trip home in March.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
 

The other set of tracks.   There are two.   

[Antrell Williams]

The other set of tracks.   There are two.   

The bridge looks to be single track and doesn't split into a double track until it crosses under I-310. Why would they build two bridges even if it was double tracked the whole way?

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[cajun]

8 hours ago, Antrell Williams said:

The bridge looks to be single track and doesn't split into a double track until it crosses under I-310. Why would they build two bridges even if it was double tracked the whole way?

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
 

No I mean there's two separate lines fairly close to each other, but not directly adjacent.   They just rebuilt the bridge for one of them.   The other one is still the old wooden setup.    I think this new Amtrak line is going to have to use the one that needs to be replaced.

[richyb83]

Typical Gridlock on I-10

[Mr. Burnham]

On 4/1/2021 at 11:10 AM, cajun said:

Yep...that's a Baton Rouge-New Orleans rail link.   I only wish they were planning to move beyond Baton Rouge to Shreveport and Dallas.

It would be ideal if they would have the Houston line terminate in Baton Rouge and build a new line to connect Baton Rouge to Mobile rather than Mobile to NOLA. Doing so would add more traffic to the BR-NOLA line and turn the city into a larger rail hub. Would definitely open the door to further expansion to Shreveport/Dallas or maybe even Little Rock. 

[cajun]

I just heard that LA DOTD is asking for $140 million in federal stimulus funding to widen I-10 between Highway 73 and Highway 22 in Ascension Parish (Prarieville to Sorrento), 4 additional miles of I-12 widening in St. Tammany Parish, and some improvements to I-20 near Shreveport as part of the initial $1.6 billion tranche of the $3.2 billion that will be allocated to Louisiana.     Meaning that those projects are "shovel ready" and are likely to get started by 2022 and be completed by the end of 2024.     I'm not sure if they'll actually widen I-10 that much in Ascension in this round, but it's one of LA DOTD's asks.     If they do go through with it, they will likely start with the section between 73 and 30 and work their way east towards Sorrento with future projects.

All of those projects will cost only slightly more than the current I-12 widening in Covington since that project involves a widened bridge (already underway) over a river without closing down existing lanes.

Then the state gets the second half of the $3.2 billion in federal dollars ---- meaning another $1.6 billion in stimulus that they have to SPEND by 2024 per federal law.    So it will be a lot of smaller projects that can be completed quickly - like widening stretches of highway on level, flat land (like I-12 in Livingston or I-10 in Lafayette), enhancing larger projects that are already underway (like widening I-10 in BR) or adding turn lanes or street lights to various state or local roads.    No word yet on what will get funded for that, but I sincerely hope that we are ready to start pouring concrete with the new Lake Charles or Plaquemine bridges by 2024.   The second round of stimulus will likely be more focused towards highways, bridges, and sewers than the initial round since there (hopefully) won't be a need to throw $400 million at replenishing the state's unemployment insurance fund by then.   The fund was depleted when businesses were forced to suspend operations during the pandemic.

Edited May 11, 2021 by cajun