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. 

A plan you say? Preposterous!

I'm incredibly syndical about the Baton Rouge "loop" project which emerged a few years ago. No American city builds loops anymore (bypasses, beltways, etc); and when they are discussed they get rejected by the community fast. Most are shot down because of NIMY’ism. Heck, one could say that Jane Jacobs was a NIMBY at the time.

But the difference between Jane Jacobs and NIMBY's are solution based. Just opposing something gets a city nowhere. Obviously Baton Rouge has a traffic problem. We lack citywide connectivity with little to no interstate alternatives through town. Solutions are needed (plural "solutions"). We need interstate improvements; we need surface street improvements; we need transit improvements. We need an overall plan.

(Caution: sarcasm ahead.)

Baton Rouge insist on paying more than less, and mostly because of an “us” vs. “them”. Transit users are either poor, can’t drive, or get some kind of high using “free services from the government”. Obviously these are the only reasons anyone would use transit. Thus "transportation planners" (um, engineers) argue for a one solution (a loop), instead of a comprehensive fix to the Baton Rouge traffic.

The funny thing is, transit is cheaper, fee based, and can transport more people. So I cringe when newspaper comment sections blow up when the transit system wants $18 million dollars, yet no one opposes an additional three mile lane on the interstate for the same amount (see the above articles). Because of course, one solution is the best. We continue to throw millions and millions of dollars at one solution without any results being produced. A city the size of Baton Rouge needs a plan with options. When I fly home I have several options (my parents live in the middle of nowhere, btw). I could take the commuter rail, Amtrak, MegaBus, or Greyhound… or my family could come pick me up and take interstates, toll roads, highways, etc. I’m not stuck. When I fly into New Orleans I have two options to get home. I park, or someone picks me up. Both options are not ideal. The sad thing is, New Orleans was once on a tier of Chicago or New York... and their infrastructure still reflects that tier to an extent.

So the Baton Rouge's transit system sucks. But our traffic infrastructure is almost worse. Heck, I-10 goes to one lane after exiting the Mississippi River Bridge. Then the interstate expands to three lanes, and finally five lanes in the suburbs. Since Baton Rouge already has a dysfunctional urban interstate, I don't even know why we are arguing a new bypass. We need to improve existing conditions. So when the state proposes an upgrade, we shouldn't just shoot down the idea. This is the time to fix and improve what's wrong. Millions of dollars will be thrown at an interstate project (because a highway will never be rejected by the 'fiscally responsible'), so take a bad situation and make it better for the surrounding communities. I find it funny when people say a wider interstate will “ruin” an area that initially gained its character because it’s under an interstate (Perkins Road underpass). 

Of course, other arguments need to be made. Many cities are tearing down urban highway. Baton Rouge's "plan" should have this scenario. Rerouting I-10 around Airline Highway might be feasible; or around Baton Rouge all together. Even if a complete reroute of I-10 wasn't feasible, upgrading Airline Highway and Florida Boulevard would be much smarter than building an entirely new loop. Airline Highway was "the loop". Why can't it still be the loop? I would assume the cost of upgrading the Airline Highway would be far less than a loop. (But I have to assume because not one study was done).

When someone wakes up one day and decides a loop will fix all the traffic problems, it doesn't make sense. I don't consider myself a genius, but I can come up with all sorts of scenarios that should be studied before dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into just one project. But I guess that's the "planner" coming out in me.

The core to education is the community

While not directly related to urban development, the recent plans for education in Louisiana have many ramifications to development both local and statewide. I guess I didn't truly understand the importance between education and community development until I moved to Louisiana. I may have grown up in a rural, poverty setting. But public education was very important. I now live in the inner part of Baton Rouge, and would hesitate sending my children to private schools (or risking a lottery for a charter school). Thus my suburban job makes me realize why people still move to the suburbs with children.

My overall thoughts about the governor's proposal would create a huge education gap between haves and have nots; all while getting rid of public education in general. But that’s more my political view coming from a family of public school teachers. From an urban development view, education needs to be tackled at the core. Louisiana has a huge income, poverty, and racial divide. These factors run deep in Louisiana and create unstable communities, and thus unstable families. The failing points in our schools aren’t generally teachers, it’s the overall situation. A child's environment is directly related to their performance. The blame can be thrown back on the parents that they “aren’t working hard enough”, or “just want hand outs”, etc, etc, etc… but even in the rare case this is true, why is that the child’s fault. 

Nor is the problem embedded in the school buildings and teachers performance. Blaming teachers is the last thing we want to do.  That will just encourage the good ones to leave the state. All while allowing private schools to pick and choose which students they can accept; leaving behind a massive group. In the last fifty years Louisiana went from a strong state social system, to a very weak social system. State run colleges are so underfunded that we have no prestigious state school. Our healthcare system is dumping the uninsured. Our infrastructure is failing badly. Yet we have this new culture of “no government is good government”. Thus the state government has underfunded all these programs which is the foundation to our state’s economy. Education already has a history of non-importance in the state. All while the school’s are still recovering from segregation of less than fifty years ago. That problem in itself doesn't go away overnight (although a good portion of society seems to think it did).

Thus there is a huge list of problems that need to be tackled. It’s complicated. If it was easy, previous governors would have done it a long time ago. Heck, the solutions in the plan aren’t even revolutionary. The action steps are the same ones conservatives have been touting for years (where are the results?).  Our governor is just getting on board? In his second term? The plan needs to be revolutionary, not the same. There needs to be community based plans in place like Detroit. Plans at the community and family level within the school areas. Instead, the government is just saying “we failed”, and now if your special enough we will try and fix the problem. Assuming all the pieces fall into place – like, is there room at the school you want to attend? Can you provide transportation to that school? Are your parents willing to partake in your life? There are so many unknowns. Yet the governor says that his solution is “easy” and “cheaper”?

Meanwhile, our inner cities continue to drain like it's the 1980's. Leaving behind neighborhoods segregated-era created neighborhoods. Our past history requires the state to focus on the many social aspects of education. Not just the infrastructure within the school.