Jump to content

Proposed I-410


brresident

Recommended Posts

^I've gotta say, an 80-100 mile loop strikes me as overly excessive as well. I know Baton Rouge is growing and already has horrible traffic, but a loop that big? That's bigger than loops in cities like Washington D.C., Atlanta, Baltimore, San Antonio, Indianapolis, and about the same size as Houston's outer loop. Is that really necessary?

Not to mention that a loop that expansive will only greatly add to the sprawl in Baton Rouge, which I don't think anyone wants to see. :dontknow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 414
  • Created
  • Last Reply

^I've gotta say, an 80-100 mile loop strikes me as overly excessive as well. I know Baton Rouge is growing and already has horrible traffic, but a loop that big? That's bigger than loops in cities like Washington D.C., Atlanta, Baltimore, San Antonio, Indianapolis, and about the same size as Houston's outer loop. Is that really necessary?

Not to mention that a loop that expansive will only greatly add to the sprawl in Baton Rouge, which I don't think anyone wants to see. :dontknow:

Agreed. Suck the proposed loop route in a little. Don't go as far south as the Sunshine bridge or as far north as Baker-Zachery. Keep the loop as close to Baton Rouge as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this

It's a compromise of sorts; a loop that only goes through already-developed areas. I think my entire plan could easily be accomplished for less than 2 billion, would minimize congestion, and would not overtly encourage sprawl. At the same time, I think it would bring new life into parts of blighted north Baton Rouge.

(I hope this link works)

I like some of your proposed routes and descriptions. I copied some of your descriptions for my map. I love your idea for an elevated Airline Highway Interstate i.e. Austin and the Choctaw interstate east to Denham Springs.

I think your proposal is very similar to mine minus the loop. In other words, it looks like we agree on the interstate expansion throughout the city but you don't like the actual loop portions.

I think your proposal misses the theoretical point of a loop, i.e. a route for traffic that is only passing through BR in order to avoid the heart of BR and thus alleviate traffic within the city.

From my perspective, this loop is basically free to the taxpayers (I'm sure there are minor expenses for studies, etc.). Would anyone disagree with that statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baton Rouge has a vicious sprawl problem IMO, and Livingston and Ascension are not helping that a bit. Simply because an area is in a floodplain does not limit development. 96% of Livingston Parish is in the 100-year floodplain - that hasn't inhibited development at all. It's only designated wetlands (very different from a floodplain) that are off-limits to development.

I see a loop as needlessly costly and you're right - it will definitely open up developable land in the north and west. That's just not always a good thing. That inhibits price appreciation in the city, gobbles up land, and requires expensive new infrastructure. Old news. And freeways tend to be a direct contributor to that problem.

Surely widening the existing freeways would help the traffic problem when accompanied by a serious campaign to widen and connect arterials. Additionally, think what 4 billion dollars (the cost of this ridiculously over-built loop) could do in mass-transit. High-speed trains, light rail, BRT - 4 billion would fund all of that.

I think I've used up my 2 cents now.

I have heard that theory before. It's a good concept, but it's outdated for cities like Baton Rouge, Houston, Austin, Atlanta, or any other new growing city.

People have spoken with their wallets across the world. They want their house, green space, and a nice yard. That dream happens to be more affordable in America where sprawl happens rapidly. And what do you care? If you don't agree with the money being spent on a loop, then don't use it...it's going to be a tollway. They bond it out and the users foot the bill. An elevated train or subway like you want will probably only be built in the inner city and be under utilized, then the taxpayers will have to foot the bill like in every other failed public transit system in this country.

I don't consider sprawl it to be a problem provided there is infrastructure to deal with it. The city just has to keep attracting the young, single proffesional counter the masses with children moving out to better places.

Newer American cities with massive public transportation infrastructure still have barely 1% of the population actually using it, yet takes 50% or more of the total budget. Spending 4 billion on public transportation that barely 1% of the population would use would be fraud. We can't get Americans out of their cars, and we can't stop Americans from seeking better quality of life in the suburbs. For blue collar folks, a decent house in the city will only get more and more expensive...oh, and BR schools suck, so you can add tuition cost to that, too.

If Baton Rouge wants to be one of the most progressive modern cities, replacing all signals with smart traffic lights would be a much more effective way of reducing traffic than public transportation, or they can try planning the city where most trips involve shorter car rides or a walk. I am curious to know how much gas is wasted by improperly timed traffic signals or broken signals.....

Baton Rouge can combat sprawl by giving the citizens the quality of life and safety they can get in the suburbs and the infrastructure that the suburbs can't give them....meaning, widening surface streets, putting all the traffic signals in sync, and reducing traffic while promoting city beautification. Stop caving into the big dollar developers and start looking after the homeowner...(case in point- the Burbank Wal Mart). Maybe offer some sort of planning that doesn't exist now in the city. Maybe when they decide to start paying the note on the house, they will be happy to live in Baton Rouge. Until then, the freeways need to be widened and the loop needs to be built. In that matter, Baton Rouge can take a page from Houston's playbook and be a powerhouse economy and growing rapidly in both the outskirts and inner cities, or it can stay like it is and watch the business move out to Houston.

I know that right now, if I had kids with my salary and worked in Baton Rouge that I wouldn't even consider purchasing in the city. You can get me into Zachary or Central maybe, but most likely it would be Livinston or Ascension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like some of your proposed routes and descriptions. I copied some of your descriptions for my map. I love your idea for an elevated Airline Highway Interstate i.e. Austin and the Choctaw interstate east to Denham Springs.

I think your proposal is very similar to mine minus the loop. In other words, it looks like we agree on the interstate expansion throughout the city but you don't like the actual loop portions.

I think your proposal misses the theoretical point of a loop, i.e. a route for traffic that is only passing through BR in order to avoid the heart of BR and thus alleviate traffic within the city.

From my perspective, this loop is basically free to the taxpayers (I'm sure there are minor expenses for studies, etc.). Would anyone disagree with that statement?

Agreed.

But what if we concentrate on upgrading those roads that get traffic around town to freeways (Choctaw/Florida, Airline, others) and leave the existing interstates for the thru traffic? Kinda flip the argument around - instead of building freeways for the thru traffic, build them for the in-town traffic and actually in town.

Basically, it seems BR needs more ways to get around town, and especially more bridges across the Amite, that bayou that divides EBR and Ascension, and of course the Mississippi. Better surface streets would really help the freeways out a lot. BR lacks road options - it's really a simple problem.

Problems like sprawl and car-dependency will be much harder to address, unfortunately, like Everywhere Else, USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard that theory before. It's a good concept, but it's outdated for cities like Baton Rouge, Houston, Austin, Atlanta, or any other new growing city.

People have spoken with their wallets across the world. They want their house, green space, and a nice yard. That dream happens to be more affordable in America where sprawl happens rapidly. And what do you care? If you don't agree with the money being spent on a loop, then don't use it...it's going to be a tollway. They bond it out and the users foot the bill. An elevated train or subway like you want will probably only be built in the inner city and be under utilized, then the taxpayers will have to foot the bill like in every other failed public transit system in this country.

I don't consider sprawl it to be a problem provided there is infrastructure to deal with it. The city just has to keep attracting the young, single proffesional counter the masses with children moving out to better places.

Newer American cities with massive public transportation infrastructure still have barely 1% of the population actually using it, yet takes 50% or more of the total budget. Spending 4 billion on public transportation that barely 1% of the population would use would be fraud. We can't get Americans out of their cars, and we can't stop Americans from seeking better quality of life in the suburbs. For blue collar folks, a decent house in the city will only get more and more expensive...oh, and BR schools suck, so you can add tuition cost to that, too.

If Baton Rouge wants to be one of the most progressive modern cities, replacing all signals with smart traffic lights would be a much more effective way of reducing traffic than public transportation, or they can try planning the city where most trips involve shorter car rides or a walk. I am curious to know how much gas is wasted by improperly timed traffic signals or broken signals.....

Baton Rouge can combat sprawl by giving the citizens the quality of life and safety they can get in the suburbs and the infrastructure that the suburbs can't give them....meaning, widening surface streets, putting all the traffic signals in sync, and reducing traffic while promoting city beautification. Stop caving into the big dollar developers and start looking after the homeowner...(case in point- the Burbank Wal Mart). Maybe offer some sort of planning that doesn't exist now in the city. Maybe when they decide to start paying the note on the house, they will be happy to live in Baton Rouge. Until then, the freeways need to be widened and the loop needs to be built. In that matter, Baton Rouge can take a page from Houston's playbook and be a powerhouse economy and growing rapidly in both the outskirts and inner cities, or it can stay like it is and watch the business move out to Houston.

I know that right now, if I had kids with my salary and worked in Baton Rouge that I wouldn't even consider purchasing in the city. You can get me into Zachary or Central maybe, but most likely it would be Livinston or Ascension.

Economically, Houston has it's act together. In regard to city planning, land use, and transportation, it's a disaster area.

Think how much further Houston could go if it were efficient, clustered, and made the best use of its space...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think drawing the nothern side of the loop through the The 190 bridge is shortsighted, because the northern perimeter of Baton Rouge extends further than the bridge. If you're making a 4 billion dollar, ten year investment, I think should expand the perimeter, to encompass future growth. We don't want it to be a blip like 190, that was a bypass at first but is now and parking lot. I think the baker/Zachary city limit should be the northern portion of the loop. This will also encourage economic development in that part of the parish. The 5 miles of 415 west sounds way to far out. I think maybe 2 miles at the most. As far as the south, I think it should pass on the Prarieville/ Gonzales border, and Cross the River right where Plaquemine lays on the other side.

I think there should be wide and tall to leave room for growth, but not be way out from the city like an outer Houston loop, or 285 in Atlanta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economically, Houston has it's act together. In regard to city planning, land use, and transportation, it's a disaster area.

Think how much further Houston could go if it were efficient, clustered, and made the best use of its space...

Yeah, but then higher density housing would be more expensive which would hinder economic growth which would hurt the city's quality of life by eliminating the upward mobility present there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think drawing the nothern side of the loop through the The 190 bridge is shortsighted, because the northern perimeter of Baton Rouge extends further than the bridge. If you're making a 4 billion dollar, ten year investment, I think should expand the perimeter, to encompass future growth. We don't want it to be a blip like 190, that was a bypass at first but is now and parking lot. I think the baker/Zachary city limit should be the northern portion of the loop. This will also encourage economic development in that part of the parish. The 5 miles of 415 west sounds way to far out. I think maybe 2 miles at the most. As far as the south, I think it should pass on the Prarieville/ Gonzales border, and Cross the River right where Plaquemine lays on the other side.

I think there should be wide and tall to leave room for growth, but not be way out from the city like an outer Houston loop, or 285 in Atlanta.

I think you are commenting on my proposed loop route here???

I am not any kind of a traffic planer, or engineer even, but I think having the northern loop run between Baker and Zachary is too far north. Based on what I have read, the main purpose of this or any loop is to create a route around the city that traffic that is only passing through the city can (and will) take in order to avoid the city. The only way passing through motorists will use this loop is if it results in shorter travel time and/or distance. In my opinion, the loop running as far north as between Baker and Zachary will result in such a lengthy northern loop that passing through motorists will never use it since it will increase, not decrease their travel time/distance. From strictly a "land boom" perspective, I would agree with you. Routing the loop through Baker-Zachary would be great. However, when balancing this with the "true" purpose of a loop (alleviate traffic), I think that is just too far north.

As a result, I think my proposed route, which runs through mostly undeveloped areas, will result in more of a decrease in traffic volume through the city while also opening up a huge land area for development.

When you say "The 5 miles of 415 west sounds way to far out. I think maybe 2 miles at the most." I assume you mean that after the northern loop crosses the Mississippi, you think it should turn south and meet up with I-10 quicker than what I propose. I would disagree for the same commuter time/distance factor.

From what I can tell, we largly agree on the route of the southern loop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The southern(connecting Ascension to WBR) section of the loop will probably not cut thru the 900 acre Bluff Swamp Wildlife Refuge that includes Spanish Lake/Alligator Bayou. So the loop in Ascension Parish would run no further than maybe a mile north of Hwy 74. They may decide to parallel Hwy.30-Nicholson (near Tanger/Cabela's/Lamar-Dixon Expo) thru the industrial corridor; then hook to the left(west) with new bridge between Plaquemine and Brusly??

In a year or so??Hwy. 415 in WBR is supposed to extend to La.1 with a "new" bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway....would they build another "new" bridge over the Intracoastal just a few miles away for the loop?? I have a hard time seeing them building two new bridges so close together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The southern(connecting Ascension to WBR) section of the loop will probably not cut thru the 900 acre Bluff Swamp Wildlife Refuge that includes Spanish Lake/Alligator Bayou. So the loop in Ascension Parish would run no further than maybe a mile north of Hwy 74. They may decide to parallel Hwy.30-Nicholson (near Tanger/Cabela's/Lamar-Dixon Expo) thru the industrial corridor; then hook to the left(west) with new bridge between Plaquemine and Brusly??

In a year or so??Hwy. 415 in WBR is supposed to extend to La.1 with a "new" bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway....would they build another "new" bridge over the Intracoastal just a few miles away for the loop?? I have a hard time seeing them building two new bridges so close together.

You make some good points.

I was trying to miss Bluff Swamp/Spanish lake with my route. However, I don't know how far south Bluff Swamp extends. It sounds like you are saying that the boundaries are further south than where my route is placed. If that is correct, then I agree with you. The route should (or at least will be) shifted a little south of where I proposed.

You make a good point that I had not considered in regard to the intercoastal bridge. I know I have seen a rendering on TV that had the southern loop crossing the Mississippi and basically turning due north to cross the intercoastal at 415. In reality, that is probably exactly what will happen. However, for the aforementioned commuter time/distance factor, I hope the southern loop more closely resembles what I have proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure you can see two bridges over Intracoastal.

One was already signed into law, and it isn't a limited access roadway. This new one will be limited access with toll boths and what not.

As far as the Mississippi River northern crossing: Airline get's at most moderate traffic over that bridge. Widening it enough for a shoulder would be more than sufficient for loop traffic and local traffic. If they use the 190 bridge I'd hope they wouldn't charge a toll just to cross...I mean, it's been there for like 80 years. The section of airline north of exxon is already limited access, so that's probablyl where they will put some of the northern leg.

A bridge over intracoastal is pocket money to what the bridge and approach over the Mississippi River will be. Put a toll booth there, definately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure you can see two bridges over Intracoastal.

One was already signed into law, and it isn't a limited access roadway. This new one will be limited access with toll boths and what not.

As far as the Mississippi River northern crossing: Airline get's at most moderate traffic over that bridge. Widening it enough for a shoulder would be more than sufficient for loop traffic and local traffic. If they use the 190 bridge I'd hope they wouldn't charge a toll just to cross...I mean, it's been there for like 80 years. The section of airline north of exxon is already limited access, so that's probablyl where they will put some of the northern leg.

A bridge over intracoastal is pocket money to what the bridge and approach over the Mississippi River will be. Put a toll booth there, definately.

My initial thoughts are that I hope they charge a toll for crossing both bridges over the Mississippi and ONLY over both bridges (i.e. at no other points on the loop). This would result in most of the tolls only being paid by drivers that are bypassing Baton Rouge. In other words, mostly non locals. Presumably this would allow locals to use the loop for their everyday commutes within the metro area without having to pay tolls. Kind of all the benifits of a toll road without most of the drawbacks. This would also help economic development along the new loop route.

FYI. For anyone who might be curious (I was), I used the google distance tool to find out some distances for my proposed loop. The total loop distance is 75.0 miles for the full beltway. The Northern Loop is 31.14 miles long. The 12-10 route through Baton Rouge that is the current alternative to the future Northern Loop is 31.36 miles (i.e. .2 miles longer).

My proposed Southern Loop is 27.83 miles. The I-10 route through Baton Rouge that is the current alternative to the future Southern Loop is 28.32 miles (i.e. .5 miles longer). This could be a big factor in getting drivers that are only passing through Baton Rouge to take the loop since mapquest and others will list the loop, and not I-10 or I-12 as the shortest distance to their destination. This is something that our interstate system allows, because of its current track, that cities like Houston don't: a shorter distance that non locals will actually use and thus help traffic within the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think ive said this already...im not sure...but a few of you keep saying it shouldn't come to baker/zachary...Why not what hurt can it do???

if u go to houston there is ton of interstate in sections where it's no delelopment..........Yet!!!!!!!!!!!

but the have the interstates there because they know eventually it's goin to be growth and they won't have to worry bout that when it comes.

yall thinking right now... present time...thats not the thing to do....u have to think future

i think people over look zachary...thats one of the fastest growing communities around

if u cut the interstate short and north baton rouge grows and surrounding parishes such as east fleciana, west fleciana , and st. helena all grow rapid like what is happening.......then your stuck wit a big traffic cluster again and u have to wait a few more years for funds and for more construction.....why not kill all the birds with one stone while u have the funds and time....that way u can use future money on other projects not things we knew was goin to happen just didn't wanna do it at that time....

and baton rouge...well the state of louisiana period.....we so behind everybody with our hwys because we plan for the moment not the future

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think ive said this already...im not sure...but a few of you keep saying it shouldn't come to baker/zachary...Why not what hurt can it do???

if u go to houston there is ton of interstate in sections where it's no delelopment..........Yet!!!!!!!!!!!

but the have the interstates there because they know eventually it's goin to be growth and they won't have to worry bout that when it comes.

Houston is an economic powerhouse, but their methods of land use and transportation planning are nauseating.

Not everyone sees suburban growth as good, ideal, or desirable. In fact, most urban planners see it as the government's job to reduce it and encourage sustainable development. Sprawl is not sustainable, and sprawl is encouraged by far-flung freeways that give people fast ways to get out of town. Houston is a decentralized, sprawling city that's about 4 times the size of what it should be and their economic windfalls are being eaten up by the exorbitant cost of constantly providing new infrastructure to suburban developments.

Read about sustainable development here, the mantra of UrbanPlanet.

The goal of this loop is to reduce traffic on the existing interstates, not bring "growth" to Baker, Zachary, or the Felicianas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think ive said this already...im not sure...but a few of you keep saying it shouldn't come to baker/zachary...Why not what hurt can it do???

if u go to houston there is ton of interstate in sections where it's no delelopment..........Yet!!!!!!!!!!!

but the have the interstates there because they know eventually it's goin to be growth and they won't have to worry bout that when it comes.

yall thinking right now... present time...thats not the thing to do....u have to think future

i think people over look zachary...thats one of the fastest growing communities around

As I pointed out above, I think there is in fact a lot of harm to building the loop as far north as Baker-Zachary. It will increase the total distance of the loop and result in a longer, not shorter travel distance for drivers passing through Baton Rouge. As a result, no one would use the loop and no one would get any advantage out of the loop.

I disagree with your premise that this would not be "building for the future". You (by 'you' I mean everyone) want the loop to be utilized to its maximum potential. If we build the loop and it is instantly used to its fullest capacity, then that is that many motorists that are not on I-10/12 congesting those areas. If we build the loop way out in Zachary-Baker and no one uses it until the "future" (20 or more years from now) then we are not helping the traffic situation in the best way we can. An example of building for the future would be widening an interstate from four lanes to eight lanes and skipping the intermediate six lane step. In contrast, building for the future is not building an interstate that will not be fully utilized until 20 or so years later.

However, I do agree with expanding infrastructure to allow for better connectivity between Baker-Zachery and Baton Rouge. That is why I proposed extending I-110 up along what I think is called Highway 19 through Baker and Zachary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I pointed out above, I think there is in fact a lot of harm to building the loop as far north as Baker-Zachary. It will increase the total distance of the loop and result in a longer, not shorter travel distance for drivers passing through Baton Rouge. As a result, no one would use the loop and no one would get any advantage out of the loop.

I disagree with your premise that this would not be "building for the future". You (by 'you' I mean everyone) want the loop to be utilized to its maximum potential. If we build the loop and it is instantly used to its fullest capacity, then that is that many motorists that are not on I-10/12 congesting those areas. If we build the loop way out in Zachary-Baker and no one uses it until the "future" (20 or more years from now) then we are not helping the traffic situation in the best way we can. An example of building for the future would be widening an interstate from four lanes to eight lanes and skipping the intermediate six lane step. In contrast, building for the future is not building an interstate that will not be fully utilized until 20 or so years later.

However, I do agree with expanding infrastructure to allow for better connectivity between Baker-Zachery and Baton Rouge. That is why I proposed extending I-110 up along what I think is called Highway 19 through Baker and Zachary.

i understand yall points but yall just looking at baton rouge comming from east to west

baker and zachary are still basically in city i don't consider them as areas like gonzales because they so close and u gotta realize that...yea it's alot comming from east to west...but what about the thousands people who are comming from mississippi into baton rouge for jobs...for example........most people leaving baton rouge for jackson miss, if they don't know they maps they would take i -10 to jackson......when u can save 1 hour up north baton touge and jumpin stright into mississippi. and thats goin 45 mph doin the 1 or 2 lane hwy .so it's a good bunch of mississippians and others who take this route......and like richy said they always building things in the southern part of baton rouge and it's all cluddered up and looking down on the northern part like it's nothing ..the north plays a big role to baton rouge just as anywhere else do..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the northern loop would be most utilized as through traffic (east-west) would use it when traffic backups are apparent in the city, which is most of the day on weekdays now. It's good that it is the top priority...but the southwestern portion should be next (West Baton Rouge to Prarieville) instead of the south eastern portion.

Another bonus is that this will give North Baton Rouge residents easier access to the interstate system, and it will probably spark retail development in the area. More jobs, more money, easier transportation, and more growth is exactly what North Baton Rouge needs. I sure hope the utilize the 190 bridge and part of Airline highway.

And yes, for parts of Mississippi, Baton Rouge is the closest major city. Notice that mall parking lots during christmas seasons are full of cars with Mississippi plates.

There is demand for another major retail center in East Baton Rouge near Zachary...which is why the Northern loop is such a good move right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rardy, all this sprawl that you talk about is exactly why I am in favor of that loop being built as close as possible to the city. We want it to open up more land for development but at the same time keeping control of the sprawl. I have always been amazed how BR managed to de-centralize everything, which is the reason Houston is as big as it is, they sprawl everywhere. Shoot, their sprawl even sprawls. LOL. BR is well on it's way for being just like Houston in the sprawl aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rardy, all this sprawl that you talk about is exactly why I am in favor of that loop being built as close as possible to the city. We want it to open up more land for development but at the same time keeping control of the sprawl. I have always been amazed how BR managed to de-centralize everything, which is the reason Houston is as big as it is, they sprawl everywhere. Shoot, their sprawl even sprawls. LOL. BR is well on it's way for being just like Houston in the sprawl aspect.

Oh yeah. That's why I think an elevated expressway down Airline would be the best solution, but the least likely if the Mayor's all giddy about a "land boom". Think what a land boom could do for Airline!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah. That's why I think an elevated expressway down Airline would be the best solution, but the least likely if the Mayor's all giddy about a "land boom". Think what a land boom could do for Airline!

That would just bring traffic right into a bottleneck...it's already bad from LA 415 in WBR clear to walker. They should try to get traffic around that whole section.

Traffic on I12 at airline is a mess most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True brresident...the "East-West" lines are Walker & Hwy. 415 for the loop to get around the bottleneck section...how far to the "North & South" seem to be the biggest concerns.

Astounding how long the I-12 bottlenecks are when they are backed up between the 10/12 split and Airline Hwy. Of course it's bad on I-10. I-10 needs to be 8-lanes to at least Siegen and six-lanes down to Hwy.22 or Tanger or where ever the southern loop is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.