Letters: Loop unlikely; rail a good idea

Much discussion involving the problems with traffic in the Baton Rouge area has been centered on a loop around the city. I feel that many supporters of this proposal are failing to realize that the construction of new highways will only encourage additional low-density suburban growth in Ascension and Livingston Parishes.

Fortunately, the lack of federal funds and “Not in my back yard” attitudes in these parishes will likely kill any prospects of this thing getting built.

Recently, voters approved an increase in funding for the Capital Area Transit System. The additional revenue will allow for more-frequent service and more-logical bus routes. It’s clear that residents are seeing expanded public transportation as a part of the solution.

The problem, however, is that public services are usually designed for the poor. This population segment tends to be underrepresented and less politically active, so these systems usually find themselves disconnected, inefficient and regularly gutted of funding for more politically popular endeavors and commitments.

But what if we established a system that was both dignified and fast, and designed for those who carry with them more positive economic impacts than the working poor?

Because of its proximity to major cargo and industrial facilities, the Baton Rouge area is crisscrossed by railways that generally follow the paths of major intercity highways. Within the city, these railways pass near the airport, major attractions, hospitals, industrial and office parks, shopping centers, sporting venues and universities — an attractive assortment of destinations for a wide variety of demographics.

If the city could find a way for freight trains to bypass these areas, we would free up vast amounts of railway infrastructure that the city could potentially utilize for a dignified rapid transit system.

A new railway bridge across the Mississippi River near Plaquemine could do this. It would connect the UP, CN and KCS railways that parallel the river.

The railroad would travel primarily through rural, state-owned lands — meaning acquisition, engineering and construction would consume just a fraction of the resources needed for a freeway traveling through existing developments. While freeways can take decades to build, a rapid transit system along existing railways could be operational within a few years.

In addition, industrial railway traffic originating from refineries on the edges of the city would maintain uninhibited access to either of the two bridges, while passenger traffic moves people around the commercial and residential areas in the city.

Establishing a rapid transit system within Baton Rouge would lead to significant reductions in highway traffic, in addition to improved connectivity between existing developments — for a substantially smaller cost than current proposals. In light of our budget woes, this should be an option worth considering.

David M. Raffray

student

Lafayette


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (18)


1) Comment by ABayouBoy - 06/09/2012

Instead of so many traffic signals with the d@mn cameras, get rid of the intersections themselves. Make Airline Hwy. a non-stop through fare with overpasses at the major intersections.with service roads as a previous comment suggested.

2) Comment by Attila - 05/09/2012

I agree that B R definitely needs a loop....as long as it does not cross any parish lines, or go through Central, the Kipster can build his folly and the people of EBR can loop around and around until the world looks level...or they get dizzy...whichever comes first.

3) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 05/09/2012

This young man is a student with a dream. Sadly, a dream not economically viable for a city the size of Baton Rouge. You'll not find a city of our size with such a system, David. I commend your interest in civic affairs. Keep offering ideas, but I suggest a little research before offering them so as to establish your credibility among your peers. Thanks for caring.

4) Comment by Straight Shooter - 05/09/2012

I commend the author of this letter for thinking outside of the box. Seems like an educated young man thirsting for an alternative to the status quo. I don't know if his plan is feasible considering BR's addiction to vehicles. In my opinion, it would seem more feasible to use rail transit to connect cities, but not the inner city. Once the train gets to the city, CATS and taxis can be used to transport people from point to point in the city. But anything is worth considering, especially when proper planning has held back this city for so long. I trust that those who are experts in the field, urban planners, would consider anything to alleviate traffic. It is obivious that expanding lanes and putting more vehicles on the roads has not been the answer.

5) Comment by phil - 05/09/2012

Speaking of getting railroaded....

6) Comment by 8point6 - 05/09/2012

"Recently, voters approved an increase in funding for the Capital Area Transit System." mr. "student". Did you notice that only the property owners within the BR city limits were allowed to vote on this? arin hit the nail on the head about that.

7) Comment by Whatchange - 05/09/2012

I think a passenger rail system within Louisiana is a great idea, will it cut down on traffic, that answer is NO. As for a rail system in BR only, BR keeps getting compared to cities like NY, NJ, SF, LA, Chicago, Salt Lake, etc., there is no comparison, we are not the same size, heck some of those cities have a larger population than the entire state of Louisiana. The other thing they have, once you get to your destination, there is a mass amount of taxis and buses to take you where you want to go, BR nor any city in Louisiana has nothing like that. Heck if you use the ferry system to go from NJ to NY, when you walk out the terminal in NY you get on a free bus, if that one is full wait, there will be another one, if you don't want to ride the bus, get a taxi, don't want a taxi, take the subway, heck, stand on any corner in any of the major cities we keep being compared to and either a bus or taxi will pull up in a matter of minutes. These cities not only cater to everyone they also support their transit system not only with a property tax but a sales tax, they know using a property tax only to support a transit system is a stupid, stupid idea. As for the rail system, it is not an over night idea, this is an idea that will take at the very least 5 years to put together and get it up and running and that's just within BR, on the other hand, a loop will take years and years, heck I'm 53 and probably would never drive on it, and we all see how long it takes to widen the interstate. One more thing to think about, a property tax only will not support a rail system, it will take a sales tax and higher fares, which I'm sure some will say is unfair to the poor, which is why people say public transportation is for the poor.

8) Comment by ScotB - 05/09/2012

The lack of federal funds and NIMBY attitudes will also preclude your rail idea, David. At least as likely, if not more so. I commend you as a student for taking an interest. There are many more issues than you presuppose on getting the railroads to move their operations and abandon their current rights of way. I would say this is far less likely than a loop, although I agree that a loop is a longshot as well. Clearly, something needs to be done. A decision needs to be made and pushed forward but it will have to come from the governor's office to acquire any momentum.

9) Comment by DMJ - 05/09/2012

Excellent idea, David. The only surefire way to reduce traffic is to reduce driving. More roads and wider lanes only encourage more cars, which is the problem to begin with. The problem is...people still prefer to drive themselves to, literally, every single destination they go every day. It's part laziness...part impatience...but mostly, not having a viable alternative. Mostly, people just want to have their cake and eat it too. They complain about traffic....but they don't want a loop...and they ridicule a rail system...and they vote against public transit taxes...and they don't want gasoline taxes raised.... and they don't want bike lanes.... Something's gotta give. At least Mr. Raffray offered a solution, instead of whining about losing the CATS election...again. You'd think that would get old by now. Guess not...

10) Comment by Being_Stupid - 05/09/2012

We need a Loop. They can start by converting Florida Blvd into a nonstop freeway with service roads going one-way on either side.

11) Comment by phil - 05/09/2012

When I was a kid I got a toy train for Christmas that went round and round on the floor and it never had any toy passengers. It was really fun to watch. Now that I am an adult it seems like some smart growth folks want another expensive train to watch go round and round, and also never have any real passengers. Kind of an expensive new toy in my opinion.

12) Comment by phil - 05/09/2012

When BR has a massive urban area then we can start talking about mass transit. Until then, mass transit is pretty much not feasible because BR is too spread out and really does not have a very big existing urban downtown area. When downtown BR gets to be as big as some other major cities, then perhaps mass transit will work - but mainly just for the urban downtown area even then. Concerning CATS - two previous tax votes failed that included the homestead exemption. The third tax vote passed and it was sold before the election as NOT including the homestead exemption. Then after the election it was determined that the homestead exemption WILL apply. It seems like if the first 2 elections failed and included the homestead exemption, then the 3rd vote would have probably failed also with the homestead exemption applied. I think taxpayers got the old bait and switch on that one. By the way, is it legal to pass a law or have a tax proposition that is known to be flawed, and then just wait to see if someone takes it to court and spends a lot of money in attorney fees to fix it? I bet this question will not stay here too long.

13) Comment by arin - 05/09/2012

In response to Mr.Raffray's comment on CATS. If he had reviewed the votes for and against, he would see that the taxpaying population were against it. In the city limits of Baton Rouge, the poor voted to increase the amount of tax property owners pay. If we have another property tax election that is within the city limits for any thing, I would bet the house that it would pass.

14) Comment by phil - 05/09/2012

In addition we already have a lot of canals and creeks and boats in BR so let's just create a rapid boat transit network in BR. Then all of those people using those new paths along wards creek will have something nice to look at. Yes - this is sarcasm if you were not sure.

15) Comment by SuzanneMS - 05/09/2012

Mass transit is not viewed as a service for the poor in most of the nation, certainly not in New York, Washington D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, San Antonio . . . all of the major cities. And as Baton Rouge's population changes, so, too, will the attitude toward public transportation.

16) Comment by phil - 05/09/2012

Good idea possibly, but sounds like potentially a lot of passenger rail lines that will go nowhere that nobody will ever ride. On the other hand, whenever those private railroad companies want to try this using their own private funds then I am certainly for trying it. However if this is going to be another venture that will cost taxpayers $millions per year to subsidize then I say forget it. By the way, with all of that high-speed rail (or snail rail) in urban BR, how many times will autos have to stop at railroad crossings to let the trains go by? How will that help traffic? Also why is someone is Lafayette discussing rail in BR anyway? Is this some more of that "smart" growth that is being pushed now?

17) Comment by tradewinns - 05/09/2012

hear hear bighug!

18) Comment by Bighug - 05/09/2012

Has there been a study to see how many people would use the passenger rail system? It could be like the CATS busses, mostly empty. Too many of these projects are funded merely to provide public officials the opportunity to raise money for themselves or their friends.