Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm (sort of) a proponent of the northern bypass, but as of right now I don't think the southern bypass is necessary, especially not the portion that would be between I-10 and I-12 in Northern Ascension/Southern Livingston. I also don't think the Northern bypass should cross the river near the Old Bridge.
However, my position could change depending on the effects the widening of the Panama Canal will have on port operations downriver from BR. If it seems like truck traffic coming out of NOLA on I-10 towards BR and Houston will increase significantly, I would probably support a southern bypass.
I'm (sort of) a proponent of the northern bypass, but as of right now I don't think the southern bypass is necessary, especially not the portion that would be between I-10 and I-12 in Northern Ascension/Southern Livingston. I also don't think the Northern bypass should cross the river near the Old Bridge.
However, my position could change depending on the effects the widening of the Panama Canal will have on port operations downriver from BR. If it seems like truck traffic coming out of NOLA on I-10 towards BR and Houston will increase significantly, I would probably support a southern bypass.
I think the portion between 10 and 12 is needed. A full loop wouldn't be bad because the city is so badly connected. Being able to go north/south on the east side is needed. Hopefully the port and city, as well as the state respond well to the Panama Canal project.
I think the portion between 10 and 12 is needed. A full loop wouldn't be bad because the city is so badly connected. Being able to go north/south on the east side is needed. Hopefully the port and city, as well as the state respond well to the Panama Canal project.
I respectfully disagree. One of the primary objectives of the loop is to get thru-traffic out of the middle of town. Think about the directions the majority of the thru-traffic is travelling. Compared to the other traffic patterns, relatively little thru-traffic that enters the city on WB I-10 will leave the city on EB I-12. Likewise, very little of the thru-traffic that enters the city on WB I-12 will exit the city on EB I-10. A loop portion between I-10 and I-12 would primarily serve these vehicles, which are small in number compared to those traveling other routes. It's just the section that would have the least volume, and I'm looking at this from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. Sure, a complete loop would be nice, but if this section isn't entirely necessary, it shouldn't be built.
On the other hand, a tremendous amount of thru-traffic enters on EB I-10 and leaves on EB I-12, and the reverse. A northern loop would be good for these drivers, and would likely take away a large amount of congestion on the route they currently cut through town.
I think if the downriver port operations see significant increases in shipping, the portion of the southern loop that would go from I-10 to I-10 and cross the river would eventually be needed to accomodate a significant increase in truck traffic on that path. But again, little of it coming up towards BR on I-10 WB would be bound for I-12 east, because traffic leaving the New Orleans area bound for points North or East will have exited the NOLA area on I-55 north or I-10 east. Most of what would be coming thru BR would be bound for points West.
I'm hoping this doesn't sound too confusing and rambling. Forgive me if it does.
Also, while I'm speaking of traffic patterns, don't anyone be surprised when they make I-12 a part of I-10. Not sure what I-10 in New Orleans and below Baton Rouge would be re-designated as (probably Interstate 6), but I'm sure it will happen sooner or later as the powers that be try harder and harder to make New Orleans a backwater town.
I respectfully disagree. One of the primary objectives of the loop is to get thru-traffic out of the middle of town. Think about the directions the majority of the thru-traffic is travelling. Compared to the other traffic patterns, relatively little thru-traffic that enters the city on WB I-10 will leave the city on EB I-12. Likewise, very little of the thru-traffic that enters the city on WB I-12 will exit the city on EB I-10. A loop portion between I-10 and I-12 would primarily serve these vehicles, which are small in number compared to those traveling other routes. It's just the section that would have the least volume, and I'm looking at this from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. Sure, a complete loop would be nice, but if this section isn't entirely necessary, it shouldn't be built.
On the other hand, a tremendous amount of thru-traffic enters on EB I-10 and leaves on EB I-12, and the reverse. A northern loop would be good for these drivers, and would likely take away a large amount of congestion on the route they currently cut through town.
I think if the downriver port operations see significant increases in shipping, the portion of the southern loop that would go from I-10 to I-10 and cross the river would eventually be needed to accomodate a significant increase in truck traffic on that path. But again, little of it coming up towards BR on I-10 WB would be bound for I-12 east, because traffic leaving the New Orleans area bound for points North or East will have exited the NOLA area on I-55 north or I-10 east. Most of what would be coming thru BR would be bound for points West.
I'm hoping this doesn't sound too confusing and rambling. Forgive me if it does.
I agree but I still see the south loop being helpful if engineered right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroBTR
Also, while I'm speaking of traffic patterns, don't anyone be surprised when they make I-12 a part of I-10. Not sure what I-10 in New Orleans and below Baton Rouge would be re-designated as (probably Interstate 6), but I'm sure it will happen sooner or later as the powers that be try harder and harder to make New Orleans a backwater town.
I heard about that. I don't remember it being I-6 though. Doesn't follow the naming rules at all. I-12 should have 3 digits and the new I-10 would have 3 as well.
I agree but I still see the south loop being helpful if engineered right.
I heard about that. I don't remember it being I-6 though. Doesn't follow the naming rules at all. I-12 should have 3 digits and the new I-10 would have 3 as well.
Not necessarily. Three digits are for spurs, like I-110, or loops like I-210, right? I-12 (and I-49 for the time being) are considered intrastate interstates.
Anywho, I-4 is already taken for an intrastate interstate in South Florida, and I-8 is taken by a Calfornia/Arizona interstate highway (south of I-10 for them, but technically north of us). That would leave 6 if they decided to make the portion of I-10 that swoops below the lake an intrastate interstate like I-12 is now. I don't know what else they would be able to call it.
Not necessarily. Three digits are for spurs, like I-110, or loops like I-210, right? I-12 (and I-49 for the time being) are considered intrastate interstates.
Anywho, I-4 is already taken for an intrastate interstate in South Florida, and I-8 is taken by a Calfornia/Arizona interstate highway (south of I-10 for them, but technically north of us). That would leave 6 if they decided to make the portion of I-10 that swoops below the lake an intrastate interstate like I-12 is now. I don't know what else they would be able to call it.
Three digits are for spurs and loops that are contained within a state. In my opinion, I-12 should be used for another designation; I-49 was supposed to go hundreds of miles across state lines, it was a major interstate in planning.
Single and double digit numbering should only be major interstates. I think it should be a three digit number like I-910 or even Jean Lafitte or Huey P. Long Expressway.
If I-12 stands, I-610 in New Orleans will designated I-10 and the current I-10 will be I-49. The Claiborne bridge should be demolished.
Just a random question, was the I-55 terminus built in LaPlace because of the port? That has to be the reason why it wasn't placed in either cities that straddle the corridor. Both of which don't have a major N/S interstate.
Last edited by annie_himself; 12-03-2011 at 02:27 PM..
Three digits are for spurs and loops that are contained within a state. In my opinion, I-12 should be used for another designation; I-49 was supposed to go hundreds of miles across state lines, it was a major interstate in planning.
Single and double digit numbering should only be major interstates. I think it should be a three digit number like I-910 or even Jean Lafitte or Huey P. Long Expressway.
If I-12 stands, I-610 in New Orleans will designated I-10 and the current I-10 will be I-49. The Claiborne bridge should be demolished.
Just a random question, was the I-55 terminus built in LaPlace because of the port? That has to be the reason why it wasn't placed in either cities that straddle the corridor. Both of which don't have a major N/S interstate.
Just all depends on what they would designate them as. Mainline interstate or loop/spur.
I-49 still is a major interstate in the planning...its just going at an embarrasingly slow pace at this point. Seriously...no excuse for how slow they are going. I doubt I'll be able to drive it straight through to KC in my lifetime. Probably the best I can hope for is to see it completed from Shreveport to the state line. Something like 9 of 11 segments are now under construction, but that won't mean beans until 11 of 11 segments are under construction.
Here's another idea for route designation if I-12 does indeed become I-10. Since the plans call for I-49 to eventually make a hook back up and go into New Orleans, why not do the same thing with I-59? Instead of ending in Slidell, let it continue South through New Orleans and make hook up into BR. Idk...the whole thing would be a mess, which is why I hope it never happens, and all the designations stay just as they are.
I think with I-55 they wanted to make it follow US 51 as close as possible.
Just all depends on what they would designate them as. Mainline interstate or loop/spur.
I-49 still is a major interstate in the planning...its just going at an embarrasingly slow pace at this point. Seriously...no excuse for how slow they are going. I doubt I'll be able to drive it straight through to KC in my lifetime. Probably the best I can hope for is to see it completed from Shreveport to the state line. Something like 9 of 11 segments are now under construction, but that won't mean beans until 11 of 11 segments are under construction.
Here's another idea for route designation if I-12 does indeed become I-10. Since the plans call for I-49 to eventually make a hook back up and go into New Orleans, why not do the same thing with I-59? Instead of ending in Slidell, let it continue South through New Orleans and make hook up into BR. Idk...the whole thing would be a mess, which is why I hope it never happens, and all the designations stay just as they are.
I think with I-55 they wanted to make it follow US 51 as close as possible.
Honestly, I'm really young and I doubt I will even get to drive on I-49 to KC either in my lifetime.
Makes sense with I-59, never thought about that. The whole process would confuse alot of people...
Loop Across Central | Central City News
Did they really have to emphasize "Communist China" and "Obama administration" here or am I reaching?
Should I assume that if it was being financed by "Corporate America" with support from the "Jindal administration" that they'd be all for it? Maybe I'm just looking for something.
It be would wise for anyone considering moving to to an underdeveloped area, but still inside a major metropolitan area to realize that it will only be a matter of time. No metro area in this country has not expanded over a 10 year period, even the dying ones. People want to have the peace and quiet of the country with the convenience of the city, but you can't have both. Either live in the country and make the drive or live in the city and make the drive out. If you won't both you'll have to settle for suburbia. In my opinion, moving a few miles out then fighting off development is like moving across the street from an airport and complaining about the noise. Just take a look around. Nashville, Montgomery, Austin, etc. are building loops. Memphis and Nashville are both building their 2nd loop. Houston is building their 3rd loop. I'm not saying that we should do what everybody else is doing, I'm just saying don't be surprised when it happens. Even the people in Lafayette want a loop.
On the other hand, looking at the proposed route of the BR loop I don't see the point in it. I don't see how it would improve local traffic at all and only the northern part would seem to help through traffic. I don't know BR traffic patterns like that though, so....... Outside of the northern stretch I can see the rest of it being used to develop the southwestern half of the area.
Last edited by WestbankNOLA; 12-06-2011 at 10:51 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
