Talk:Crescent City Connection

New Orleans Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as High-importance).

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has factual errors in its statistics. First off, neither bridge is anywhere near the widest bridge on the Mississippi. Combined, their with of 144 feet is narrower than the I-610, I-94, I-694, and I-35W bridges. The I-35W bridge is 36 feet wider. The traffic flow numbers are also in error. Several sources including LA-DOT and the National Bridge Inventory state that the traffic counts are around 130,000 cars per day. There are several bridges on the Upper Mississippi have have higher traffic counts, such as the I-94 bridge that has 157,000 cars per day. The 180,000 per day number from the source quoted was a misprint made by that source. That is 180,000 people per day crossing the bridge at the rate of about 1.4 people per car. The on-line traffic count information from LA-DOT will confirm the traffic counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.129.232 (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gang! I'm getting confused by the use of the crossings navbox on this article. It was recently changed from "Bridges of the Mississippi" to "Crossings of the Mississippi and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway." But none of the other Mississippi bridges had their navboxes changed. And why is the GIW included? Shouldn't it have its own navbox? And the addition of ferries to the navboxes doesn't help because none of the ferries have articles -- they essentially break the usefulness of the navbox. SPUI, would you explain some of the reasoning behind the changes? I'm including my questions here rather than your talk page because I think perhaps more of the interested parties watch this page.

Thanks! I'm looking forward to getting some resolution here. Apologies if it's been talked out elsewhere already. Robshill 11:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The crossings format is more useful, I suppose. Then again, I had a problem with rail bridges being lumpted together with road bridges, but not a big enough problem to rv everything. I do believe ferries are encyclopedic, and that stubs can be made for those particular ferry crossings. —Rob (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Intercoastal Waterway needs to be a seperate navbox if its going to be included. As for ferries, they haven't been included anywhere else along the Mississippi River, but I'm not opposed to their presence. I suggest that a discussion be started on List of crossings of the Lower Mississippi River or List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River to develop a consensus about whether ferries should be included. VerruckteDan 21:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be mentioned here? Massive fuel spill closes part of Mississippi River - Denimadept (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no, the oil spill really doesn't have anything to do with the bridge other than having occurred nearby. The bridge did not contribute to the accident, nor has it been affected by the spill. VerruckteDan (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927132549/http://www.landlinemag.com/Legislative_Watch/2006/LA/Updates/SB97.htm to http://www.landlinemag.com/Legislative_Watch/2006/LA/Updates/SB97.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I have just modified one external link on Crescent City Connection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901161359/http://www.etcc.com/customers/cccd.shtml to http://www.etcc.com/customers/cccd.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]