Possible parkway linking Ascension and Livingston to be discussed

A pair of public meetings has been scheduled next week in Ascension and Livingston parishes to discuss the feasibility of building a parkway between the two parishes.

The first meeting will be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday at the Livingston Parish Health Unit, 29261 S. Frost Road, Livingston. Ascension Parish officials will host a meeting the next day, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., at Lakeside Primary School, 16500 La. 431, Prairieville.

Ascension Parish President Tommy Martinez announced the public meetings in a news release on Wednesday. Each of the meetings will be styled as an open house with parish engineers and officials on hand to answer questions and provide information for the proposed project.

Livingston residents with questions regarding the meeting can call [phone], while Ascension residents can call [phone].

Officials in the two parishes have been discussing the proposed parkway, a four-lane road and bridge crossing the Amite River, connecting U.S. 190, Interstate 12 and Interstate 10.

The parkway would link La. 933 in Ascension Parish to La. 447 in Livingston, lessening traffic on a new roundabout near Port Vincent at the intersection of La. 42 and La. 431, where about 20,000 cars cross the Amite River per day.

Preliminary discussion has centered around a potential toll road that could generate more than $5 million per year if a $2 toll would be charged, officials have said.

The road also would provide Livingston residents with quicker access to I-10, Ascension residents with quicker access to I-12 and possibly create economic development opportunities in both of the parishes, officials have said.

Comments

1) Comment by Melisse3 - 15/02/2013

A connecting corridor would be a good thing. But, can we also 4-lane the rest of Hwy 44?? ANY road widening or new turn lanes in Ascension would be a good thing. But, as residents recently showed (by voting down a traffic improvement plan), the majority in Ascension do not want to do anything about the traffic mess. Sad.

2) Comment by Whatnow - 14/02/2013

Thank you, BRmoderate. That is what so many people knew and felt was wrong about the whole loop. And I know that my sentimental feelings about this beautiful land that I worked to make beautiful all of my life doesn't hold any value to anyone but me and my family, but knowing that someone else would profit more makes my blood boil. And it's not the money. They don't have enough to pay me for the mourning of a lifetime of work and of losing my heritage and scattering my family. Progress to some is a blight to others. If I may ask, are you originally from Baton Rouge and living in Ascension now? What brought you here if you are?

3) Comment by BRmoderate - 14/02/2013

@Nimby, AGREED! We as AP residents should not allow a "land grab" that unduly hurts owners like Whatnow. I wholly agree that if anyone should stand to "profit" from the increased land value after construction, it should be owners like whatnow. Please understand, my biggest dog in this fight is that we need to start addressing our needs rather than sitting on our hands. AP needs to fix/design a better traffic system to deal with our growth.

4) Comment by Woody - 13/02/2013

i am sure senator amedee will propose more "quick take" legislation to get the land needed.

5) Comment by Whatnow - 13/02/2013

Build a loop around Baton Rouge in East Baton Rouge Parish.

6) Comment by Whatnow - 13/02/2013

BRmoderate, yeah, but it was more than one land owner. And where are the majority of the people coming from that want to go through AP? It wasn't our parish's need. The traffic is caused mostly by people from other parishes going through Ascension. And nimby? is right. We learned all about the developers profits through the meetings that we went to. And I helped build I-10 through McElroy Swamp through Ascension and part of East Baton Rouge. I worked out of a pirogue and fought snakes and alligators to survey. Most of the other land was pasture land. Mine is already partitioned off for my kids. I just haven't given it to them yet. Evidently, the loop wasn't going through your house and land Oh, well, it's spilt milk and already decided that the people of Ascension did not want it. Livingston had the most need and didn't want it either.

7) Comment by nimby? - 13/02/2013

BRmoderate , problem . developers , not land owners will be reaping the profits . they are requiring extensive right of ways , to be developed for their own profit . much of this land is used for farm/agriculture purposes . there's a lot more to this that nimbys land squatting .

8) Comment by BRmoderate - 13/02/2013

The fact is..... There is a current need for a highway connector between parishes. Lessening future sprawl will not relieve current conditions. Whatnow, I truly feel bad for you and would want you to be able to properly compensated for your land's value but we cannot just turn a blind eye to our parish's needs.

9) Comment by BRmoderate - 13/02/2013

@Nimby, if there was a viable mass transit system I would... If you ask the residents in LP and AP, I am sure they would say they want a highway connector. @Whatnow, where do you think the state got the land to build the current I10/12/110 roadways? From private landowners obviously. Did you think that some didn't want to sell their land? Of course some probably held out. Could you imagine what our region would look like without those highways??? Of course you can't because highways are an invaluable and necessary resource for our ENTIRE region. One land owner should not be able to hold up the progress of an entire region. Sorry

10) Comment by Whatnow - 13/02/2013

BRmoderate, I guess your inconvenience is worth more than losing my land to you. Well, not to me and others in this parish. It's more than a plot. I would lose 15 acres and a life time of improving it and planting fruit and nut orchards with my children for your inconvenience. And you think I could buy that much land for the price I get from the state? And would you pay me for the lifetime of what I've done with my land? Yeah, right. Good thing our politicians listened to the people.

11) Comment by nimby? - 13/02/2013

BRmoderate , take the bus ...

12) Comment by Dawson - 13/02/2013

@DMJ..You mean you are all for letting the people that will benefit from this "loop" pay for it? What a novel idea, why didn't we do the same thing with the CATS disaster in EBR and let the riders pay for it? If I remember, you were against having the users of the bus service kick in for the cost.

13) Comment by BRmoderate - 13/02/2013

omitted the word "give"

14) Comment by BRmoderate - 13/02/2013

Sorry Whatnow but I am not willing to sit in long lines of traffic along with thousands of other residents just so you can can a plot of land to your grandchildren. Land is plentiful in this parish, buy another plot

15) Comment by BRmoderate - 13/02/2013

Preppy, I know that in the current form this is not going to be a direct connection btw I10 and I12 but perhaps it should be. Regardless I think in the current form, the "entire region" would use this as an alternative route to bypass BR traffic.

16) Comment by Whatnow - 13/02/2013

zealer99, well, that's different, then. You know when it's used as a derogatory term by "some" people it's used as an insult. But, when used by oneself as a badge of honor, that's something else. DMJ, I didn't want the loop going through my land because I was leaving that land to my children to build their homes. They have already built the road with the family name on it. They were raised here along with generations of my family. Why should my children lose their inheritance and family land? To be fair or to be generous to strangers? For the betterment of all? We've already lost a huge chunk of land to the development of Hwy. 42 and none of this Progress is going to help us in the least. It's just going to make Ascension a mess that we never wanted in the first place without our approval. We love this land. It means more to us than the money. I guess that makes us the greedy ones.

17) Comment by Preppy6917 - 13/02/2013

BRmoderate: What on earth makes you think that the entire region would use it? Livingston has about 130,000 residents, while Ascension has about 110,00. Combined, they're less than a third of the Greater Baton Rouge MSA (~800,000 residents). A limited- access highway (like an Interstate) connecting I-12 and I-10 might get some use as part of...you know...the loop.

18) Comment by zealer99 - 13/02/2013

I apologize for anybody who took offense of my reference to the term "Red Neck", I consider myself in that number and strongly support the proposed Ascension - Livingston Loop, although I think the public could better focus on a catchier name.

19) Comment by DMJ - 13/02/2013

I say let Livingston and Ascension pay for it themselves, as a penance for killing the loop.

20) Comment by BRmoderate - 13/02/2013

You can't stop Sprawl. You can only design your communities to manage and run it efficiently. I think the Fed and State should kick in money too. It is not fair to expect only Ascension and Livingston to pay when an entire region would use this.

21) Comment by DMJ - 13/02/2013

The residents of these two parishes will want it, as long as they won't have to pay a toll to use it and their property taxes aren't raised to pay for it. In other words, this will never happen. Besides, the last thing they need in either parish is more sprawl.

22) Comment by jacksizeit - 13/02/2013

Yes the name redneck connection seems fitting and is highly clever. I like it. However, as far as building this, don't expect to be using it in your own lifetime. Maybe our children can use it but most likely it won't be finished until the year our grandchildren graduate college. For some reason, road construction in this town takes longer to complete than any other city in the world. Albeit we have 800 projects in progress simultaneously. Hmm, maybe that's the problem.

23) Comment by Whatnow - 13/02/2013

zealer99, Yes, it would. Isn't that what you intended?

24) Comment by LSUFan2005 - 13/02/2013

I've often felt the only viable, needed portion of a loop was the north-south route between Ascension and Livingston. Are they proposing building just a road and bridge between the ends of 933 and 447? Or are they going to expand and rebuild both of these to create one continuous four lane limited access highway? Also, 933 stops before Airline, so I guess there would need to build a connector between the end of 933, through Airline, to I-10? It's an interesting idea, and hopefully these meetings will provide some more information.

25) Comment by Attila - 13/02/2013

I would have to see a lot more information on the proposed route, the state's stake in "gap funding", the projected traffic counts, and projected toll revenue. From what I know now, I do not think this is a viable project. A $2 toll each way means at least $80 per month for 5 day commuters. How many miles will this cut off of the trip from 42 to 447? How much time will be saved? How much traffic would be taken off of the 42 roundabout and the Hwy 16 intersection in Livingston parish? Why would this road need to be 4 lanes when it starts and ends at two lane roads. Are there proposals to 4 lane 42 and 447? If not, all that this ":parkway" will accomplish is to get traffic to the choke points quicker.

26) Comment by ABayouBoy - 13/02/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

27) Comment by zealer99 - 13/02/2013

Without tolls, it will take about 50 years to get to this project, with the State's constructions funds being so obligated. Would it sound offensive if I suggested that we name this the "Red Neck Connection"? New Orleans has the Crescent City Connection (CCC) and I think the RNC has a ring to it..

28) Comment by NewsReader - 13/02/2013

I thought when this concept first surfaced the toll aspect was because it would be a private company building the road, bridge and acquiring the rights from impacted landowners. Is it still intended to be private or public? If the latter, then the toll needs to be put off as an idea. If still private, then let it stay and let them attempt to make a profit provided Ascension and Livingston don't have to guarantee profits like Kipster's preferred loop contractor would be.

29) Comment by all2neat - 13/02/2013

I agree, this must happen.

30) Comment by Preppy6917 - 13/02/2013

The Central Thruway was built as part of EBR's Green Light Plan, which was voted on and approved in 2005. Good luck getting the voters of Ascension and Livingston to follow suit.

31) Comment by BRmoderate - 13/02/2013

This absolutely needs to happen! But remove the toll! Central residents don't have to pay a toll for their new Central Thruway!