Road Rants!

[cajun]

Has anyone seen the proposals for the I-10 widening between the 10/12 split and LA415?   

They actually look really good.  The braided ramps for Dalrymple looks like a great solution although I'm not sure why a service road is needed east bound between the I-10/I-110 split and the Dalrymple exit.   I like the directional ramp for LA415 on the west side and the minimum 4 lanes in both directions between the splits.   The additional outside lane on westbound on the other side of the bridge is nice, also the 6 lane wide cross section between LA1 and LA415 will help.  They also mapped out sound walls and aesthetic improvements where the freeway goes through old south Baton Rouge and between the LSU lakes and Acadian.  

I don't think the flyover for College is really worth doing....but on the bright side, it does not look like much, if any additional right of way is needed around the overpass district.   They have some solutions that seem to be fairly simple but will help the project go above and beyond the impact of a simple widening.     

Overall, the proposals look above average for an urban freeway.   It won't solve all of Baton Rouge's traffic problems for the next 30 years, but it will be a MASSIVE step in the right direction.   They expect that even after several decades of growth, their solution will still offer better traffic flow than it does today under current conditions.

http://i10br.com/

 

I honestly don't think Baton Rouge has a choice.  Loop or not.  Mass transit or not.  It does not change the fact that the choke point that is I-10 between I-12 and I-110 has been obsolete for 40 years and needs to see an expansion of capacity.  It is at the point today where it is holding back economic development in addition to being a safety and convenience issue. 

If they can do what they think they can for traffic, but also add aesthetically pleasing sound walls and tree plantings, this could really be a nice project.

[cajun]

Hopefully they can have green sound walls and dark-pole lighting.  They have an opportunity to really do it right, especially between Washington and Dalrymple and  E. Lakeshore and Christian.

Houston/Southwest Freeway example:

Seattle/Bainbridge example:

Freeway in Istanbul:

Sound tube in Australia (could be ideal for the section over the "overpass" district or the elevated section over Louise).

 

For reference.....the below photo serves as a great example of the bare minimum with respect to sound wall and visual aesthetics.   It might be all there is room for in some spots.

[richyb83]

Thanks for posting this Cajun...Looks promising .....that College Drive flyover is interesting

Nice video...saw it a while back....Yeah that choke point just is not going to cut it...to easy to cripple the fragile Interstate system...unfortunately popular topic here

While they are it...they need to expand the  I-12 westbound Fly-over going back to I-10 eastbound...that really gets clogged up in the morning rush....a 1-lane fly-over simply is not going to cut it!

That sound tube looks pretty cool....& like how the SW Freeway in Houston cuts into the ground...BR has nothing like that....sound walls over elevated road way as easy to pull off??

[cajun]

Louisiana Takes First Step Toward P3 to Enhance I-10 Capital Corridor

http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/Announcement.aspx?key=13067

BATON ROUGE, La.— Delivering on Governor Edwards' commitment to pursue innovative solutions for transportation in Louisiana, DOTD announced the issuance of a Request for Information (RFI) to accelerate major enhancements to the I-10 Capital Corridor through a Public-Private Partnership (P3). In the 2016 Regular Session, the Administration worked with the legislature to change state law through Act 519, allowing DOTD to solicit P3s. Responses to the RFI will be utilized by the State in developing a potential solicitation for the corridor enhancements. 

In the transportation industry, P3s generally consist of a private investor providing the necessary capital for construction in exchange for long-term financial contributions from a public entity. This is the first time Louisiana has formally considered pursuing alternative financing for transportation, as current funding levels severely limit the State's ability to dedicate revenue to critical capacity projects. 

"This is a first step in positioning the State to leverage private sector resources in delivering major enhancements to the I-10 Capital Corridor," said Governor Edwards. "We aren't likely to have the revenue needed to make a P3 work for the entire corridor today, but we will be ready to advance such a partnership if the legislature acts in a meaningful way to fund transportation during the upcoming Regular Session. That is my commitment to the people of Louisiana."

----------

I'm not familiar with public financing schemes like this.  Maybe someone can provide insight.  

What is confusing is that the state already issues bonds to finance projects.    These government bonds are funded by private investors that want a low risk, tax-free growth...so I'm curious as to what the difference is here between this setup and the one proposed by JBE.   The state pays the bond holders back with tax revenue over a period of time.   This investment vehicle already exists.  The Green Light Plan and the Baton Rouge sewer improvement plan was financed this way.   The original LA-1 construction was financed this way 100 years ago.   Most of our war machines in WW2 were financed this way.

In addition to that, we also have private/public partnerships with some infrastructure like toll roads or commuter trains.    I-10 is not a tolled highway, so there's not really any way to capture revenue from vehicles passing through...so I don't see why a private investor would want to partner with the state on this.   

Is JBE trying to finance $300-$400 million of improvements by issuing bonds backed from the state's general fund?   I'm not sure how that will work with Louisiana's constitution unless there was a dedicated stream of funding (such as a gas tax).   Otherwise, could the legislature potentially just decide to fund something else instead of paying off the debt in the future?