Movassaghi: tolls must be considered for I-49

...
written by Jason D. Faulk , April 15, 2009 - 03:15 am

If perhaps the funding should ever become unworkable for the elevated I-49 Connector within Lafayette (I-10 to Kaliste

Saloom), then I would propose the following as a more affordable option:
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/lessons-from-san-francisco/
Title: "San Francisco: Removal of the Embarcadero Freeway" and a portion of the Central Freeway.

Pictures do speak a thousand words.

Perhaps when Lafayette began design plans with the LaDOTD all the way back in 1993, as documented by the Independent in

these articles, the community consensus had not had an opportunity to be introduced to any of the principles of "Smart

Growth." Even today, we could argue that all aspects of our community have not yet seen the understanding of these

principles develop to their full maturity, held as a common public knowledge that shapes our discussions on important

policy questions such as this project.

I remember moving to Lafayette in 1994 from neighboring rural Iberia Parish, and as a high school student at the time, I

became enamored with the Rand McNally map, and sought to solve traffic obstacles, disconnections and overall congestion, at

least within my own mind.

In the time since then, we have seen the completion of Jefferson Streetscape Phase One, the Downtown Central Parks, the old

close in neighborhoods, the near full development of River Ranch commencing only in 1998, along with the varied area design

plans for which the UL Community Design Workshop has been brought in. All of these events have brought a new light within

the public mind to the merits of limiting unresticted sub-urban scale development, focusing resources more wisely than in

the past. These areas are more affordable to maintain and keep populated because of the scale to which buildings relate to

each other, the streets around them, the parks, but also beneficial to our community for the neighborhood cohesion and

sidewalk life that is fostered in them that often is absent in the suburban areas lacking in walkable destinations.

In the beginning, the 1993 Thruway study propsed several design options. The one which was the most visually contiguous

for the urban streetgrid and its buildings was the "sunken" option. This option never seriously considered and was later

ruled out when the current incarnation of the Thruway/Connector planning was initiated, due to the difficult hydrological

conditions in our area, which would make it's cost of construction and continued operation and maintenance unworkable.
An at grade freeway which would have completely bisected the neighborhoods and business districts abutting the thruway

corridor more fully than the railroad ever would have was also ruled out during this process.

We were left with an elevated corridor as the only option to solve our list of issues. Primary amongst these, I understand

is the need to move traffic on a continguous freeway corridor, removing all stops to traffic flow, the most justifiable

reason of course is the rare and occassional hurricane evacuation but also for other important factors.

...
written by Jason D. Faulk , April 15, 2009 - 03:24 am

Now it is my current understanding from news articles and statements I have seen in recent months, that approximately 90% of the traffic on Evangeline Thruway is local in nature. If this is then true, then the great majority of the traffic being accomodated is not long haul or regional trucking or visitors to our area and region, but simply... ourselves.

I would suggest that the reader of this comment view the video I have linked here:
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/lessons-from-san-francisco/

Consider this and place yourself in that environment, before and after.

I appreciate the rigorous efforts and design standards produced by our planning officials, along with their unyielding efforts to preserve the design integrity of this project from revisional indifference from engineers at the state, federal and engineering contractor level. Our planners and civic leaders have made efforts consistent in seeking to make this elevated freeway unlike any other ever constructed in this country; it may yet prove to be a less obtrusive design than any other, and reinvigorate dense urban development in this part of Lafayette. At the end of a day, I would prefer that we consider a money saving alternative should the need arise. As the recent stories reference, elevated freeways are vastly more expensive than those built at grade, or a surface street that participates in the street network. Essentially, every structure as this is a bridge, and as this state knows, bridges are numerous and more costly to maintain than a road itself.

If we could save money, preserve the visual continuity, foster a more beneficial urban street grid, pedestrian activity and bicycle activity along with light rail conceived for the thruway corridor and design in it such a way that an "express" boulevard could effectively function for us during hurricane evacuation with managed street crossing closings, (as we now do), with the addition of additional overpasses at Willow, University and Kaliste Saloom for local connectivity, then I would suggest that such a move would be a win for us in Lafayette, especially again, if funding comes up short.

Incidentally, there are no complete, continuous freeways in the core of Washington, D.C., nor in Paris, France, and Paris as we know has some of the most elegant urban arterial boulevards in the world, (which function much as the Octavia Boulevard does in the attached video.)

I also wonder if in the era of energy scarcity, as highlighted by Matt Simmons, if America can afford to build more freeways for most INTRA-urban people transportation. The national awareness is beginning to shift away from Fossil Fuel sources, and our current attempts to brand I-49 as America's Energy Corridor are well intentioned but may lack some staying power in the national consensus emerging about renewable energy and the need for clean "green" jobs. Along with this is the understanding that unlimited growth has threatened our prime agricultural lands nearest our urban centers, which affects our food security in this country. This growth also puts pressure on further development of wild areas for offset agricultural needs as well as development into more sub-urban areas, which impact drastic tolls on our environment's ability to mitigate against our human impacts upon it.

As funding is doled out in the coming "highway" see "transporation" bills in Congress, more funds will continue to flow into forms of transport other than increased, costly to maintain highway capacity.
The term energy and Louisiana now, are still associated with dirty forms of energy, that we here produce. Perhaps we will transition into algae-based oil production which for now appears most promising of all options on the table for liquid fuels, and additional wind power offshore as well as local solar for our Louisiana domestic energy needs.

Still, we will be left with use of limited financial resources, and the need to develop lean, efficient, health-inducing, livable cities.

Where does Lafayette wish to go?