- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Marineaux
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 76 |
| Registered on: | 7/16/2012 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Forum
Message
I’ve got 2 for sale in 519. Marino.corey@gmail.com if you’re interested.
0
re: WTB: 6 - Arkansas/LSU tickets needed
Posted by Marineaux on 10/17/24 at 9:46 am to GEAUXHOOKEM
I’ve got 2 FS in 519
Marino.corey@gmail.com
Marino.corey@gmail.com
re: WTS: (2) LSU vs. Arkansas in LSU Section (519), Row 8 $100/ticket
Posted by Marineaux on 10/15/24 at 9:06 am to Kittykat1992
Yes, still available
WTS: (2) LSU vs. Arkansas in LSU Section (519), Row 8 $100/ticket
Posted by Marineaux on 10/8/24 at 7:23 am
Contact me at Marino.Corey@gmail.com, and Geaux Tigers!
Details:
• Date: October 19th
• Location: Reynolds Razorback Stadium
• Section/Row: E519, row 8
• Price: $100 ea
Details:
• Date: October 19th
• Location: Reynolds Razorback Stadium
• Section/Row: E519, row 8
• Price: $100 ea
re: Update:found tickets! WTB 2 LSU ARK
Posted by Marineaux on 10/7/24 at 1:54 pm to Medtiger87
I’ve got 2 for sale on row 40. Marino.Corey@gmail.com
re: Need (2) tickets for Arkansas game
Posted by Marineaux on 10/4/24 at 2:34 pm to East texas tiger
I emailed you, but haven’t seen a reply. Marino.corey@gmail.com
I’ve got some for sale in lower and upper bowl. Email me at marino.corey@gmail.com if you’re interested.
SOLD LSU vs. Arkansas in Fayetteville – (2) Lower-Level & (2) Uppers, both in LSU Section
Posted by Marineaux on 9/30/24 at 2:57 pm
Don’t miss the game in Fayetteville! I’ve got two sets of (2) tickets for sale. Contact me at Marino.Corey@gmail.com, and Geaux Tigers!
Details:
• Date: October 19th
• Location: Reynolds Razorback Stadium
• Section/Row: (2) E120/40, (2) E519/8
• Price: E120 $200ea, E519, $50ea
Details:
• Date: October 19th
• Location: Reynolds Razorback Stadium
• Section/Row: (2) E120/40, (2) E519/8
• Price: E120 $200ea, E519, $50ea
[SOLD] LSU vs. USC in Las Vegas – (2) Great Upper-Level Seats!
Posted by Marineaux on 7/25/24 at 8:37 am
Don’t miss the game in Vegas! Contact me at Marino.Corey@gmail.com, and Geaux Tigers!
Details:
• Date: September 1st
• Location: Allegiant Stadium, LV
• Section: 305
• Row: 15
• Seats: 7-8
• Price: $168 each (price we paid LSU!)
Details:
• Date: September 1st
• Location: Allegiant Stadium, LV
• Section: 305
• Row: 15
• Seats: 7-8
• Price: $168 each (price we paid LSU!)
WTB Men’s Basketball Parking Pass (full season)
Posted by Marineaux on 11/3/22 at 9:49 am
Please let me know if you have one for sale. Thanks.
Marino dot Corey @ Gmail dot com
Marino dot Corey @ Gmail dot com
SOLD FS - 4 LSU Football Season Tickets at Cost
Posted by Marineaux on 3/3/22 at 2:35 pm
(No Message)
FS - 4 LSU Football Season Tickets for Cost.
Posted by Marineaux on 2/13/21 at 10:52 am
Section 412, Row 15. $3,260 total.
Please text at Two2Five77Three40Eight4
Thanks.
Please text at Two2Five77Three40Eight4
Thanks.
re: Why Not Tunnels?
Posted by Marineaux on 7/25/18 at 7:38 am to Boudreaux35
Boudreaux, what you say sounds like you know your stuff. Are you a Civil Engineer? Are you aware of any studies into the feasibility of a project like this that shows it wouldn’t work in a cost effective manner?
re: Why Not Tunnels?
Posted by Marineaux on 7/25/18 at 7:03 am to BurningHeart
Yeah, it seems like they are taking steps to fix the bottlenecks now. I live on the west side, south of BR. The backups to cross the bridge during peak times are insane. I wonder if bottleneck corrections are enough, so I keep thinking more crossings in addition to bottleneck fixes.
Seems like the parish presidents can’t agree on where a single crossing should go, too, so the idea of getting multiple crossings for the price of one bridge seems even more attractive in light of that.
Seems like the parish presidents can’t agree on where a single crossing should go, too, so the idea of getting multiple crossings for the price of one bridge seems even more attractive in light of that.
re: Why Not Tunnels?
Posted by Marineaux on 7/24/18 at 8:41 pm to BurningHeart
I really have no preference for one over the other. I like bridges and tunnels. I just saw how relatively inexpensive the GWT was in today’s dollars compared to the projected cost of single bridge and wondered if we could either save a ton of money with a single tunnel alternative or stretch the $1.2M into multiple additional crossings to further increase crossing points.
quote:
All the TD civil engineers on page 1 don't realize the George Wallace Tunnel isn't dug into the ground
Rereading the Wiki, this seems to be accurate! Seems like it was built in sections, then sunk into place and connected under water with the water pumped out afterwards. Does this change anyone’s perspective? A lot of people talking about the soil conditions, but perhaps this wouldn’t be an issue if it were sitting on the bottom?
re: Why Not Tunnels?
Posted by Marineaux on 7/24/18 at 8:09 pm to The Pirate King
The multiple tunnels in South Louisiana have already been discussed though. If they could build those, why can’t we build a newer, better one today with more technology and innovation?
re: Why Not Tunnels?
Posted by Marineaux on 7/24/18 at 7:08 pm to BurningHeart
quote:
An above ground tunnel may work though...
What exactly did you have in mind? If a tunnel wouldn't work (although I'm not sure I've read convincing support that it wouldn't yet), I'm all for thinking about creative alternatives to a $1.2M (and sure to be climbing) price tag for a new bridge.
One of the problems I see with anything other than a bridge, though, is that Act 488 this year provides pretty narrow language. It basically directs a new Capital Area Roads and Bridge District to discuss and come up with a location and funding solution for a bridge only. Doesn't seem to really give any wiggle room regarding the end product. Of course that could always be amended next year if there was a viable alternative.
re: Why Not Tunnels?
Posted by Marineaux on 7/24/18 at 1:37 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
Digging tunnels in Baton Rouge's soil would be an hilarious undertaking
Is Baton Rouge soil that much different than NOLA soil?
re: Why Not Tunnels?
Posted by Marineaux on 7/24/18 at 1:36 pm to East Coast Band
A lot of comments about how tunnels are terrible, or “I hate tunnels.” But I am trying to figure out how they are different from a traffic standpoint than a bridge. A friend of mine thinks people just slow down when driving through.
In theory, I think you can have the same number of lanes as a bridge and you have the same issue of it being a bottleneck in a sense that you can’t escape the traffic of an accident once you are on it (or in it).
Maybe the GWT gives people around here a bad taste in their mouth if they’ve run into traffic issues in it? But it seems to me that the issue there is that it’s one of the only direct ways through the bay, and as many people have said they are bidding out a bridge to help spread the traffic like we are considering doing here. I am curious why they are going bridge instead of another tunnel too, but I couldn’t find any info on that either.
In theory, I think you can have the same number of lanes as a bridge and you have the same issue of it being a bottleneck in a sense that you can’t escape the traffic of an accident once you are on it (or in it).
Maybe the GWT gives people around here a bad taste in their mouth if they’ve run into traffic issues in it? But it seems to me that the issue there is that it’s one of the only direct ways through the bay, and as many people have said they are bidding out a bridge to help spread the traffic like we are considering doing here. I am curious why they are going bridge instead of another tunnel too, but I couldn’t find any info on that either.
quote:
Forgets about Sandy? NYC flood-proofed a shite load more miles of tunnel than we would need. NYC tunnels 6 yrs after Sandy
Yeah I didn’t know about this work but that’s what I had in mind. Like the article says, huge flood gates for the entrances/exits. I’m sure those monsters wouldn’t be cheap though.
re: Why Not Tunnels?
Posted by Marineaux on 7/24/18 at 12:29 pm to fr33manator
quote:
No way you could get a stable grade to that depth and back up in a short enough distance. It would be undrivable
Any idea what the channel depth is in Addis? There’s a turn there where the river is 4,500 feet across, so 1.5 the length of where the current bridge is now and the length of the the GWT. Even at 100 feet deep, would that give enough room for the proper grading?
re: Why Not Tunnels?
Posted by Marineaux on 7/24/18 at 12:15 pm to Boudreaux35
Yeah this is the type of stuff I want to discuss becaus like I said, on the surface it seemed logical without more information than I had. There are just so many variables. Someone earlier suggested perhaps the price of labor was cheaper back then which I guess makes sense. I would have thought that we might have gone in the opposite direction on cost though with efficiencies over time. Like Elon Musks Boring company. The whole thing is about tunneling for less. I thought that if the purchasing power of the amount they spent on the GWT was about $294M today, perhaps it might be cheaper with new technologies and efficiencies.... or close to the same amount since it’s deeper and more challenging here vs there in Mobile. Regardless, a $900M cushion seems like a big buffer.
re: Why Not Tunnels?
Posted by Marineaux on 7/24/18 at 11:53 am to LSU Fan SLU Grad
quote:
Imagine another 2016 flood.....with tunnels
I thought about this. Obviously we have levees, so I assumed the water level gets higher than the tunnel entrance/exit would be. I also assumed (perhaps wrongly so) that the only way that would be an issue would be if there was a breach in the middle somewhere and water poured into the tunnel and out of the entrance(s)/exit(s). But... isn’t the Harvey canal built though or under levees? Also, couldn’t they build entrance/exit shutoffs or blockages to activate if this became an issue?
Popular
46
