Bourbon Street: True Identity Hidden in Itself

Is Bourbon Street authentic? New Orleans scholar makes case in grand, new history

I have always found it interesting that people are quick to judge Bourbon Street at a "tourist" destination, or a poor reflection on the city. When in fact, it's just the opposite. The compromise of Bourbon is all New Orleans - random, interesting, a little dangerous, edgy, sometimes questionable, and yet fun. Every single person who speaks poorly of Bourbon Street, are the same people who find themselves there at 3:00 AM when all the other bars in the city have calmed down and they're still up for more fun. That's the point of the Bourbon, and that's the philosophy of New Orleans and South Louisiana in general. So my thoughts (as an outsider, that have now spent a good fair share "down the bayou"). 

Most people who label Bourbon Street as touristy are locals (city and DDB). Why is it funny, and even more, ironic? This is where almost every single person began their New Orleans nightlife experience. Going to New Orleans is a "trip", even though it's less than an hour away. It's an escape from reality. When people first go to New Orleans it's in the Quarter. They had fun. They broke loose and lived their young lives. However, as in all people, it becomes old and we become more "sophisticated". So we move our lives to more "mature" places. Thus, Bourbon Street (and the Quarter in general) is labeled by the locals as the "tourist area". Yet, it's the people who live there that made the place, then label it as "uncool". Then newcomers (myself) get the idea that it is actually a tourist area because South LA has labeled it as such. Yet it's completely New Orleans. Yes, it's where tourist go... but seriously, would any Tourist Commission - anywhere - look at Bourbon and say "this is how we want people to see or city". No. They create nice places (downtown redevelopment, museums, parks, etc), and then send visitors there. New Orleans on the other hand doesn't mind this representing the city, because the essence of the place is the essence of the city (random, interesting, dangerous, and fun). 

What makes Bourbon even more unique is the street is the country's only entertainment area (that I can think of) that happened organically and has thrived in it's current condition, even with it's, um, questionable activities. That combined with it's fascinating history makes it both underrated and overrated.

Now I just have to read it. 

Open Letter to CATS Concerning their Proposal

http://www.brcats.com/news-resources/Public-Notice-of-CATS-Route-Adjustments

Was a professional transportation planner involved creating these routes, ensuring the numbers jive? This would include projected population usage/density, linking with job centers, university/schools, and entertainment areas? Where can that be found?

CATS Terminal and EKL Hub

• What's the reasoning behind keeping the Earl K. Long hub when the hospital is now closed. Shifting it to the Scotlandville Commercial Area would make it similar to using downtown and the malls as hubs.
• The CATS terminal still has a lot of routes terminating. It just seems like those routes should hub downtown. Especially since LA Swift no longer operates and many routes already pass by the Greyhound Station headed to the downtown hub.

Downtown Shuttle

The DDD could be approached concerning Route 16. Combining a little extra funding from both the DDD and CATS could expand its time period past lunch, and ultimately it's footprint. Most downtowns use their shuttles for special events and not just lunch, since the service is already being funded. Things such as neighborhood integration for Live After Five. Or service for football game days. Other university towns don't use a glamorous $20 shuttle to get people downtown to the university. Instead, they use their shuttles to provide free parking downtown, and circulate all day. It's a win/win for the downtown because they already pay for the shuttle, and it encourages people to tailgate on campus then watch the game downtown. Or visa/versa. Right now the "shuttle" is used as an "attraction" and not a viable transportation source. Lastly, the shuttle could be used for night service into adjacent neighborhoods for a new ridership base. The funding for the shuttle is already subsidized by the DDD. Adding some extra would boost ridership tremendously (ie more federal funding).

Foster Drive and Acadian Thruway

Route 20 seems to be obsolete, yet runs frequently. All riders on this route will have to make a transfer one way or another, as it terminates at the CATS terminal. Combining it with Route 17 would give a citywide connection up and down Acadian. Same thing with Route 23. Combining it with Route 18 would lessen transfers. Right now it terminates at CitiPlace, which doesn't seem like a major destination (as compared to LSU). Thus most people will be transferring. 

Neighborhood Routes

The Plank, Scenic, Government, Perkins, and Highland Routes are great spur routes that not only serve neighborhood populations during the day, but also at night. Government Street and Perkins should be added. These routes would work great for expanded night hours and add younger, new ridership. The Highland Route is somewhat a duplication of the LSU service (I already see a CATS bus following an LSU bus frequently). 

Industry Routes

Given the hospital route connects the medical districts, the hospitals should be approached to assure staff will utilize the shuttle. Many medical districts in the country provide transportation and it's widely successful, thus an opportunity to bring about another source of possible funding assistance. Also, were other commercial, employment centers, and SU/BRCC engaged for possible funding? Many cities and transit agencies gain much of their funding for specific routes through these entities. I realize CATS lost LSU, but there is no reason to engage other large areas. 

Routes Outside the City

Route 50 is mostly outside of the city, is one of the few routes that runs frequently, and only brings the small neighborhood to the hub at the missing EKL. This is also true of Route 59, which seems more centric for people outside the city.

Lastly, while overhauling the system CATS should also be looking at expanding their base (ie younger people needing transportation after 2:00). 

Baton Rouge "Bypass" (aka Loop)

I'm never an advocate for huge infrastructure projects that will only cut travel time by minor increments. Which is the main reason to oppose the currently proposed "Baton Rouge Loop" that kinda sorta just came out of thin air. The actual path wouldn't helps "traffic problems" in the metro area. Instead it would allow people in the suburbs to avoid Baton Rouge at all costs. Actual "travel time" probably won't be reduced... and the millions invested have yet to show any sort of cost/benefit analysis along with reduced travel times. The only rational is avoiding an occasional accident; while in inconvenient, that's A LOT of money. Especially when it is very rare the interstate actually closes. Is it really worth spending a billion dollars to save thirty minutes every so often?

So lets look at the problem purely from an automobile side (pretending other methods of transportation doesn't exist). Baton Rouge already has amazing infrastructure in place to assist in connectivity, and with some upgrades the City can fix a majority of the problems, while keeping the economic ramifications inside the Parish.

I'm still an advocate of upgrading Airline Highway to limited access (and possibly Florida Boulevard). A combination of access roads and interchanges would fix congestion problems. Obviously this process would be expensive, but it would actually help businesses WITHIN the Parish, and not adjacent Parishes. As for the western portion of the "bypass" the infrastructure is already there. Most the right of way is already in place for a connection of I-10 to the Sunshine Bridge; and there have been plans to upgrade Louisiana Highway 1 to limited access (most of the road is close to standards as is). Done. The interchanges at I-10 and the Huey Long Bridge have already been built.

So the recent articles coming out from Ascension and Livingston describing a new highway that links I-10 with I-12 is somewhat interesting. While I would still support the upgrade of Airline Highway, at least this plan utilizes current infrastructure and connects the Sunshine Bridge to I-12.

It just makes sense. People get up in arms when we spend a few million on a bus system... but there is rarely outcry when we want to build millions/billions of new road infrastructure that is duplicating systems already in place.

Diversified Transportation: More then one benefits

http://www.realtor.org/articles/how-millennials-move-the-car-less-trends

"The question is whether, after a downtown fling, millennials will follow in their parents’ footsteps and purchase homes in the suburbs."

I think the article points to the already known fact that people want better access on all levels - cars, trains, bikes, foot. That's been a given trend in the last ten/twenty years. We've been dumping to much of our money into cars for years. (Which comes no where close to the gas tax we pay).

But the quote above is the best indication. I know from my experiences, people don't move from an urban area once they have kids. I know lots of people who say they will, but then they stay. Heck, I've always said if I have a kid we're moving to an urban environment. It diversify's your child... and they aren't left to play alone in that "huge back yard". I know I was not a fan of said backyard, and it was an ordeal to arrange play dates with any of my friends. I wasn't mobile until I had a car, which is very very sheltered. 

Unassuming Signs Ahead

As many of my previous posts have described, the LSU Lakes are a sad representation of our community... and there isn't a plan (to my knowledge, including FutureBR) to deal with the issues resolving access and overall quality. The assets of the lake span beyond the Parish boundaries, and the lakes are the first impression most people get entering LSU. Yet the paths barley resemble a reasonable resource to the people who utilize the lakes. This ranges from path conditions, path size, path marking etc.

Instead of dwelling on the overall picture, I wanted to just nachalatly point out the issues that arise when actually approaching one of these mysterious pedestrian/bike/vehicle crossings along the route.

First, lets review state law (which pretty much mimickes the Baton Rouge Code of Ordinances).

RS 32:212
§212. Pedestrians right-of-way in crosswalks
A. When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or the roadway onto which the vehicle is turning.

RS 32:212
§197. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths
A. Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except under any of the following circumstances:

RS 32:232
(4) In the event an official traffic-control signal is erected and maintained at a place other than an intersection, the provisions of this Section shall be applicable except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application. Any stop required shall be made at a sign or marking on the pavement indicating where the stop shall be made, but in the absence of any such sign or marking, the stop shall be made at the signal.

Now, take these into consideration, and study the photo below.

To me, this is the biggest cluster. Ever. What is a person to do.

If one is driving, it's almost impossible to figure out what's going on here. First, this is a regular, signalized intersection. Nothing out of the ordinary... except for all the yield right hand turn lanes. Cars coming from the south, turning east yield to cars coming from the north turning east. In practice, this usually never happens. Southbound turning cars will usually yield to northbound turning cars, completely against any road signage. Making for a huge distraction taking place. Does the northbound turning car proceed, even when the southbound turning car is stopping? Should it wait? Should it break the yield sign and go? It's a predicament, and all their attention is now focused on this "cluster"...

Then notice notice what is within just feet of this cluster yield? A clearly marked crosswalk. Thus cars are to yield (per state law) to pedestrians in the crosswalk. But notice what is signed along the pedestrian walkway - a stop sign. Also per state law, the pedestrian is now suppose to wait for the car and disregard the yield in the crosswalk. Yet, there is no indication to the vehicle that the pedestrian does not have the right-away in this situation. On the contrary, the car is suppose to yield to the left hand turner, and then yield to the pedestrian.

But wait, there is even more a more complex situation taking place. The sign also has a bicycle. No where in state or local law does a biker have right-of-way over a vehicle, especially in a made up "bicycle crosswalk". Yet the sign for the vehicle would make it seem as if this were the case. 

Thus a cluster.

Actually, I would be interested to know the amount of accidents that occur in this area. There are so many conflicting events that so much cautious needs to take place. Thus creating a situation that may be safer at the end of the day. 

This happens all over the place. A favorite portion of the lakes is a very, very small portion when the paths are divided between southbound ped/bike and north bound ped/bike on both sides of the road. 

As you can see, one side of the road has a glorified shoulder, while the other side of the road is a small path. Mind you, this division only happens for a short half mile (maybe). Meaning pedestrian and bikes are suppose to cross in the meaningless "crosswalks", which (as you can see above) has amazing signage and is positioned perfectly... if you want to die. So of course, no one actually abides by the below markings, and they just continue to use the paths as normal.

Portion of the LSU Lake Paths that only allow northbound and southbound pedestrian and bikes on each side of the roadway.

Of course, they divided the pedestrian and bikes because the path widths suck. Bikes and pedestrians are suppose to use this (maybe) five foot walking trial. Which is near already impossible  Don't let this picture fool you... this is the most heavily traveled pedestrian/bike way in the Parish (and an amazing asset to the region). Not only does it provide for a six mile ring, it also provides a connection to LSU from densly populated neighborhoods and the downtown. 

Also notice in the above picture all the conflicting signage and road markings. Two clearly defined pedestrian crosswalks. A flashing caution light. EVERYONE has a stop sign (pedestrians and vehicles). In fact, the pedestrian/bike path has a stop sign for southbound travelers, even though the pavement clearly marks that pedestrian and bikers should not be traveling southbound. Not to mention the fact cars are coming up one of Baton Rouge's only hills, on a turn, in a 40 mph zone. They will only see the pedestrian crosswalk a  few seconds beforehand... but not to worry, the pedestrians are suppose to stop (per state law signage), but the vehicles don't know that because it is clearly marked as a crosswalk (where they suppose to yield to pedestrians and not bikes).

Thus a cluster.

Urban Freeways v. Suburban Bypass

Building the final link along Louisiana's Coast

While I’m obviously a firm supporter of a diversified transportation system and feel like the interstate funding has far superseded anything beyond (what I thought) taxpayer reality; I don’t discount interstate development at all. It is an important backbone to our economy. That’s why I fully support the I-49 extension between Baton Rouge and New Orleans (currently I-90). I mean, this should have been the actual route of I-10 because it includes much of Louisiana’s coastal infrastructure. So I see I-49 as a fairly critical link in Louisiana infrastructure. Thus, Lafayette is dealing with the bypass/inner-city freeway predicament.  Which is better?

On one hand, no one has dealt with an inner city freeway very well. Some places try to make parks under or above, some places try to bury the entire length, and some places just don’t care. There isn’t one place in this country where people “enjoy” living near the interstate. All other transportation infrastructure doesn’t really bother residents. Boulevards, Riverways, rail tracks, elevated transit, bike paths, etc. But the constant hum of the freeway is almost imposable. In addition (when above ground) it creates a nasty divide no matter which neighborhood it’s located in (upper/middle/lower class). There are some examples of minor mitigation, but I don’t know of any citywide efforts.

This has started a national trend of highway removal in urban areas (starting with San Francisco then Boston, and now a slew of other cities). But in our day and age, limited access freeways have to go somewhere. There are some great case studies of surface streets handling mass amounts of traffic, but it would be almost impossible to rid of the “interstate” culture.

So where do you direct the traffic? To a bypass/loop/beltway? Time and time again, this has been proven hugely ineffective for urban development. Yes it moves traffic (just) OK, but it also relocates entire sections of the city. Zoning laws and limited access can prevent some of these things. But it still draws away from economic development because people will chose to bypass the city for their destination.

So Lafayette is kind of caught in the middle. Do you mitigate the inner-city freeway? Do you do they bypass the city? Do they try a boulevard pilot project that deviates from Federal Interstate standards? Honestly, Acadian Thruway functions really well. But a bypass might take too much away from economic development inside the city (while also being hugely expensive).

At least Lafayette is being creative; down the road, Baton Rouge has (not) decided to build a multi-hundred (maybe billion) dollar loop. At the end of the day, it’s completely infeasible, and not one study shows how this will assist in traffic, economic development, etc. (Yes, it will be nice that one time traffic sucks so a driver can take the bypass; but is that really worth a billion dollars?)

If it's not broken, lets try to break it

http://theadvocate.com/home/2195766-125/ex-councilman-fighting-for-club.html

This article has so many things wrong, it literally made me giddy. I really wish I would have been at the meeting to see if it really was portrayed this horribly.

First, I’m not one to call racism fast. But wow. It seems that no one at this meeting even tried to hide raciest undertones. The people are against the bar because of alcohol… but then go on to say it’s really about the low income neighborhood, and the guns, and gangs. Really? There are two bars in the area… but this one will be the breaking point? Yeah.

Then people are against the bar because it’s in a “low-income area”. I didn’t realize the public was the police on “low-incomes”. In a state where the social scene surrounds the neighborhood bar, we’re really going to start regulating bar location based on income stature? This is news to me.

Finally is the fact people are against the bar because it’s so close to the neighborhoods. Of course this is the logical place for bars to be located. I mean, in the 70’s and 80’s we started putting bars along highways and interstates… but discovered that was a bad idea; which is why all the most popular entertainment areas are adjacent to neighborhoods. In a state with a high drinking and driving problem, we’re still going to advocate bars being located away from residential areas?

So I’m going to pretend I’m a Planning Commissioner, and instead of assuming people go to bars solely to “put their AK 47’s in the front seat", I’m going to look at the context. There are several bars in the area, including one of the biggest dance bars in Baton Rouge. Another bar wants to move in next door. This actually seems like a good idea. A cluster of bars near an established neighborhood. However, there are problems: noise, traffic, and other nuisances that come from late night entertainment. This area (oddly) wasn’t identified originally as an entertainment district. But maybe we should study the idea of it becoming a district. Make it comprehensive. Increase security, provide parking, make neighborhood connections, allow for better street crossings, etc.

I mean, if the study says points to different conclusions then you have a basis for the denial. But the thing about this particular zoning request is not use. It's purely alcohol.The use is allowed; Baton Rouge just requires an extra step in the zoning law to serve alcohol. 

Again, I’m irked by the train of thought in Baton Rouge. There’s an automatic mindset to reject things instead to improve situations that already exist.