I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)

[mcdonaat]

... the developer should have realized that the state is trying to build a highway and not built houses.

The developer probably did realize that 3132 could go through his land (it's not that difficult to look at a map and see it) and built stuff there to either keep the extension from happening or to extort*COUGH* demand more money from the state to acquire the ROW. These people who buy and develop land tend to be rather shrewd.

Well why not shift the expressway onto an alternate alignment? I know 3132 doesn't seem like that big of a deal now, but when I-69 is built in the area, people will be so glad it exists.

Is there a way to buy land without actually having an approved path? It seems like, if the state determines a new route is best, the same person could buy that land and develop it quickly.

[Anthony_JK]

... the developer should have realized that the state is trying to build a highway and not built houses.

The developer probably did realize that 3132 could go through his land (it's not that difficult to look at a map and see it) and built stuff there to either keep the extension from happening or to extort*COUGH* demand more money from the state to acquire the ROW. These people who buy and develop land tend to be rather shrewd.

Sort of like the people behind the Allendale housing project who are currently trying to block the Inner City Connector and reroute I-49 around via LA 3132 and I-220??

[mcdonaat]

... the developer should have realized that the state is trying to build a highway and not built houses.

The developer probably did realize that 3132 could go through his land (it's not that difficult to look at a map and see it) and built stuff there to either keep the extension from happening or to extort*COUGH* demand more money from the state to acquire the ROW. These people who buy and develop land tend to be rather shrewd.

Sort of like the people behind the Allendale housing project who are currently trying to block the Inner City Connector and reroute I-49 around via LA 3132 and I-220??

I actually prefer upgrading 3132 and sending I-49 traffic down that route. Cheaper, finished quicker, and can mean a complete I-49 without clogging the current highway between 20 and 3132.

Nexus 7

[Anthony_JK]

... the developer should have realized that the state is trying to build a highway and not built houses.

The developer probably did realize that 3132 could go through his land (it's not that difficult to look at a map and see it) and built stuff there to either keep the extension from happening or to extort*COUGH* demand more money from the state to acquire the ROW. These people who buy and develop land tend to be rather shrewd.

Sort of like the people behind the Allendale housing project who are currently trying to block the Inner City Connector and reroute I-49 around via LA 3132 and I-220??

I actually prefer upgrading 3132 and sending I-49 traffic down that route. Cheaper, finished quicker, and can mean a complete I-49 without clogging the current highway between 20 and 3132.

Nexus 7

Absolutely....NOT.

Not cheaper, because LA 3132 is not completely Interstate standard, I-220 would have to be widened, and it isn't the most direct route. Also, downtown/CBD areas deserve to be served by Interstates...not plowed under, but not abandoned, either.

Also....only the six block area between Ford Street and I-20 would be the costliest and most impacted. The remainder of the ICC goes through mostly abandoned wetlands.

Imagine Alexandria if I-49 had bypassed them and the connector to the Pineville Expressway hadn't been built.

[mcdonaat]

If you widen LA 3132 and I-220, it would still be cheaper than building a new route, because eventually, LA 3132 is going to have the concrete either replaced or patched, so it's a non-avoidable cost. Downtown Shreveport is accessible by I-20, and the I-49 Spur.

Wetlands aren't abandoned...

Alexandria was fine before I-49. The Pineville Expressway is a commuter route designed to send LA 28 East traffic, and Grant Parish traffic, into downtown Alexandria while bypassing Main Street. Before it was US 167, it was LA 3026, a relief artery for Pineville. Sure, traffic does hop onto I-49, but most of your traffic is commuters...and truck traffic wishing to bypass the O.K. Allen Bridge on US 71.

Alexandria still runs along MacArthur Drive, Jackson Street Ext, and Hwy 28 West, so the only thing that has changed is that your thru traffic runs along I-49 instead of US 71. It's also why US 71 Bypass runs along I-49. The original plan was for I-49 to split, one side running along Eddie Williams and taking the Pineville Expressway, then crossing back around Rapides Station, while the other side was running on a western bypass of the city. That was dumped to have the highway run close to downtown along the MoPac RR alignment. Drive along I-49, and take the expressway exit, and see how much traffic merges in from Casson Street to head across the river... at the same time, watch the traffic on I-49 South, and see how much of it actually exits for US 167 North.

I-49 hasn't had as much potential as it can, and Alexandria would honestly be no more different. In fact, I believe widening LA 28 West to Leesville had more impact than I-49 coming to town. Lecompte, Cheneyville, and Bunkie would back me up on that.

Now, pertaining to LA 3132, what would need to be done to bring the highway up to Interstate standards? I see guardrails protecting overhead signage, spacious acceleration lanes on onramps, a numbered exit system, a wide median (comparable to I-20), and well marked shoulders with a reasonable speed limit.

[Anthony_JK]

Gotta disagree fundamentally on all counts.

Widening nearly 25 miles of peripheral corridor is cheaper than building 7 miles of new freeway?? Not quite. Also, the interchange between I-49 and LA 3132 south of Shreveport would have to be reworked entirely to either add lanes to the relevant exits or to rework it to have the through movements transferred to the bypass. Also, 3132 isn't quite Interstate standard due to insufficient shoulders in some part and the proximity of the Linwood Avenue interchange to the I-20/I-220 West/LA 3132 interchange.

And also...it has been confirmed that I-220 would have to be widened across Cross Lake, which is Shreveport/Bossier's sole source of drinking water.

It really doesn't make sense to reroute an Interstate around a downtown area merely to avoid a three block area of displacements that are already scheduled to be removed in the first place.

Downtown Shreveport would be accessible via I-20 and existing I-49 from the south, but how from the north? I-220 east to US 71 would be more doubling back, and there already is currently a major issue with traffic. The proposed ICC would solve that issue directly.

As to I-49 through Alexandria?? Not quite. One of the original North-South Expressway alternates that was favored by LADOTD's predecesor would have completely bypassed the city to the west, but provided a connection to the Pineville Expressway that would have run generally parallel to Horseshoe Lane and Masonic Drive. It was rejected because the local community WANTED I-49 to be built through downtown with a shorter connection to the Pineville Expy, and because of the fear that the connection wouldn't be built as part of I-49, thusly cutting access to the city and forcing more pressure on current local streets. Plus, the current routing eliminated many hazardous at-grade railroad crossings of the Union Pacific, including Broadway Ave, Jackson St. and the Second/Third St. couplet.

[Another alternative would have upgraded MacArthur Drive up to Bolton Avenue (LA 1), then upgraded LA 1 to a freeway up to a bypass of Boyce, with a connector to the Pineville Expressway running pretty much where the current I-49 is, but with a direct connection rather than an interchange. That was rejected due to strong opposition from businesses along MacArthur Drive, which still remain strong against subsequent efforts to "freewayize" that arterial and build an interchange to replace Masonic Circle.]

Now, Alexandria/Pineville may sprawl to a point where a bypass might become more feasible, but since the Fort Buhlow Bridge is being upgraded, and MacArthur Drive is adequate for now as a "bypass", I hardly see how the routing for I-49 has hurt Alexandria.

Most of the towns along US 71 south of Alex were probably more hurt by I-49 going to Opelousas due to the ease of the I-49/US 190 route for points southeastward. The closure of the Melville ferry on LA 10 didn't help matters any, either.

[mcdonaat]

My only concern, really, with the ICC, is that you have an increased amount of traffic that will use I-49 at the I-20 interchange, and you would really have to rework the 49/20 interchange. A ramp from 49 South to 20 East would need to be built, and you would probably have to restripe EVERYTHING for new movements. Also, since I-49 North would exist, Cross Lake Bridge would need a widening, since you now have a shorter route from north Louisiana to east Texas instead of using Louisiana highways. As for Texarkana to Dallas traffic, they would use I-30, but Texarkana to anything else, like Marshall or Longview, would use I-49. We talk of increased traffic, but that increased traffic would also want to use a bypass of Shreveport instead of dealing with the 90-degree pattern of I-49 to I-20, instead of I-49 to I-220 to I-20. I could even see a new Red River bridge on 220 as well.

As for LA 3132, would it make sense to upgrade it to full Interstate status? I could see it resigned as an Interstate highway.. maybe not I-149, but an extension of I-220 if possible. If you upgrade it now while traffic levels are where they are, you avoid waiting until I-49 Detour traffic is routed through there.

However, in theory, I-49 North will not really have an increased traffic load exceeding the rate at which any other Shreveport freeways add traffic. Anyone who would use I-49 (aka Lafayette-to-Texarkana traffic) was already using LA 3132 to I-220 to US 71, then following US 71 to Arkansas. The Cross Lake Bridge will have to be widened, regardless of any Interstate designation thrown on it.

Now, I will ask this... what on earth does LA 3132 need to bring it up to Interstate standards? I see onramps and offramps with very long acceleration lanes, a 60 MPH speed limit, and mile-based exits. What else could we ask for, to make it have Interstate standards? Since this is a forum about LA 3132, and I see the accusation that it isn't up to Interstate standards, what would make it Interstate standard?

Just curious!

[bassoon1986]

I agree with Anthony that the proximity of Linwood Ave. to the I-49 exit is a big issue along LA 3132. It's more of a jam coming southward (technically east) on 3132 past Linwood. The on ramp from Linwood makes a third lane that extends past the I-49 exit. The exit is a slip rather than the 3rd lane exit only. It's constantly an issue to slow way down or scoot over quickly to catch your exit to I-49 south.

As far as the 20-49 interchange seeing increased traffic, I think it can handle it. 49 has 6 lanes of traffic through Shreveport and it isn't congested. That may change if it become a through route but I just can't imagine that it would need more lanes in the immediate future. I think future north and south through traffic on 49 would definitely stay on 49 through Shreveport rather than use the loop, although 3132/220 will continue to be a nice detour or bypass if needed. Like you said, any central and south Louisiana to Texas traffic will continue to follow 49 around 3132 to I-20 and vice versa.

I wonder about your argument about the Texarkana to Longview and east TX traffic. I just can't imagine that drivers would opt to drive straight south from Texarkana through Arkansas and North Louisiana then west on 220 and 20 rather than staying in Texas and taking a more direct route on US 59 straight from Texarkana to Marshall. Texas highways like 59 are more likely to have a 70 or even 75 mph speed limit these days. Although I-49 through LA will have 75 mph speed limit, I don't think the time benefit, if any will be worth it.

I've said it before. It doesn't make sense to have the current I-49 in Shreveport built from LA 3132 to I-20 and the northern section built down to connect to I-220 and not have the 3-4 miles of ICC not built. In town traffic will be relieved greatly with that completed. There's really just North Market St as a major arterial from the north side of town into downtown Shreveport and points further south into town. The only other usable road now as an alternative is LA 173 and it doesn't make sense to use unless you're coming from Blanchard. Morning traffic on LA 1/US 71 constantly gets hung up at the traffic light at MLK (LA 3194) just north of I-220. Id wager to say there is a hefty amount of commuters from the smaller towns north of Shreveport that a fully completed I-49 would benefit greatly.

[Anthony_JK]

My only concern, really, with the ICC, is that you have an increased amount of traffic that will use I-49 at the I-20 interchange, and you would really have to rework the 49/20 interchange. A ramp from 49 South to 20 East would need to be built, and you would probably have to restripe EVERYTHING for new movements. Also, since I-49 North would exist, Cross Lake Bridge would need a widening, since you now have a shorter route from north Louisiana to east Texas instead of using Louisiana highways. As for Texarkana to Dallas traffic, they would use I-30, but Texarkana to anything else, like Marshall or Longview, would use I-49. We talk of increased traffic, but that increased traffic would also want to use a bypass of Shreveport instead of dealing with the 90-degree pattern of I-49 to I-20, instead of I-49 to I-220 to I-20. I could even see a new Red River bridge on 220 as well.

The I-49/I-20 interchange does actually include both direct connector ramps and mainlane connections to both I-20 and to the one way couplet (Allen Ave./Pete Harris Ave.) that serves the downtown area. (Though, northbound traffic on I-49 could also use the Common St. and Third/Market combo interchanges to access the CBD.) It wouldn't take that much a remodel to complete the 4-level stack through extending the I-49 mainlanes through while retaining the connections to the local street couplet.

Most of the people using LA 3132 is probably New Orleans/Baton Rouge to DFW/OKC traffic that really does want to bypass Shreveport. The big payoff for completing I-49 (including the ICC) would be for the folks in Shreveport and those that would use I-49 as a north-south commuting route to Texarkana (and ultimately, once the Texarkana-Fort Smith segments  and the BVB are completed, to Kansas City) and Lafayette (ultimately, once I-49 South is done, NOLA). Driving interstates through downtown areas can be quite destructive, but placing them in close proximity to downtown is potential $$$$ that no bypass coould ever generate. That was the main reason businesses in Lafayette favor the I-49 Connector there, and why business groups in Alex got I-49 rerouted as it is today. (LADOTD had originally wanted I-49 to bypass Alexandria.)

Increased traffic shouldn't be an issue, because, as bassoon noted, I-49 is already 6 lanes from 3132 to 20, and the ICC will be six lanes all the way to I-220 (North)...and that doesn't include the Pete Harris/Allen couplet that will handle the transitory traffic to downtown. There is a case that could be made that I-20 would have to be widened through Shreveport to handle the potential increase in traffic from the west to downtown..but LADOTD already has plans for that anyway.

US 59 in Longview/Marshall and from Texarkana southward is going to be upgraded anyway under the I-369 project, so I can't see any divergence of traffic from there to I-49, even when the Shreveport/Texarkana segment is completed.

[mcdonaat]

How much money would a four-stack cost to redo? I couldn't imagine traffic from one mainline to another having to use surface streets... maybe use that piece of a stub on the onramp from North I-49 onto East I-20, but it seems like a quick fix.

[Anthony_JK]

In the case of the I-20/I-49 stack, not much...all they would have to rebuild are the connections to the north mainlines and some connections to the surface service streets.

[Grzrd]

NLCOG's Fiscal Year 2014 Unified Planning Work Program is now available for public review and comment and it expressly mentions the Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX Segment of Independent Utility ("SIU") 16 (page 6/43 of pdf; page 6 of 43 of document):

Task B-2 Project Development Stage 0 and Stage 1 ....
Coordination of ongoing efforts with I-69 SIU 16 connection the urban area to Texas.

NLCOG has posted its May 20, 2013 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and the draft minutes include discussion of the probability that I-69 SIU 16 is as low on LaDOTD's priority list as it is on TxDOT's priority list and that it may be counterproductive to take the lead on the project (page 3/4 of pdf):

Mayor Walker gave a brief update about I‐69 and stated that it seemed Texas would make SIU 16 as their last priority. Mr. Rogers stated NLCOG may want to pursue completing the Logansport to Stonewall area. Mr. Goza stated it would be low on LaDOTD's list as well, while Mayor Walker agreed that it may be counterproductive to pursue that angle.

NLCOG has posted its Fiscal Year 2015 Unified Planning Work Program and, in addition to continuing efforts to complete the Stage 1 environmental analysis for the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension, it again mentions coordinating efforts with Texas regarding I-69 SIU 16 (page 7/45 of pdf; page 7 of 45 of document):

Task B-2 Project Development Stage 0 and Stage 1 ....
Stage 0 and Stage 1 of this process involves the feasibility and environmental analysis of the project. The purpose of Task B-2 is to develop Stage 0 Feasibility Studies and Stage 1 Planning and Environmental Studies for projects identified in the Long Range Plan. Specific focus will be given to those projects identified and/or earmarked in federal transportation legislation and those projects receiving Urban Area greater than 200k funding including Stage 1 Environmental Assessment for the Inner Loop (LA 3132) Extension and continued coordination of ongoing efforts with I-69 SIU 16 connection the urban area to Texas and continue to provide assistance to for the I-220 BAFB Gate Access Road.

I assume the "coordination of ongoing efforts" continues to move at a snail's pace, although making those efforts a "specific focus" may mean otherwise.

The SIU 15 website has a new FEIS webpage ....
Now wait and see if a ROD is issued and then if anything actually does start in 2014.

Speaking of moving at a snail's pace, I still do not see any indication of a Record of Decision from FHWA regarding the Shreveport/ Bossier City area I-69 SIU 15.

[Grzrd]

This May 7 video reports that the Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission recently denied an application to allow for the subdivision of some of Esplanade's lots ....
The Finish 3132 Coalition has posted its take regarding the vote on its blog:
http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/14-05-08/MPC_Commissioners_Again_Vote_to_Protect_Hwy_3132_Extension.aspx

The Coalition has asked the court to order NLCOG, the Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development (LA DOTD), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to re-do the Stage 0 Study of remaining route options. This followed the Coalition's discovery of irrefutable evidence - routes and explanatory emails from LA DOTD personnel - of routes which would protect surrounding homeowners - such as Twelve Oaks homeowners. The critical difference in these routes is that they would require Larkin's land. They were, thus, deliberately withheld from the public. The lots Larkin asked yesterday to be approved were dead within any remaining available route from Flournoy-Lucas to the Port. His Esplanade is the only undeveloped land available for construction of the Extension.

Although this Shreveport Times editorial is primarily about an alleged overpayment for bond work, the Times appears to point the finger at Mayor Cedric Glover as a major cause of the delays on the LA 3132 extension:

Hopes for Mayor Cedric Glover's administration to unite and bring the community closer for a new day in human relations now seem a distant past ....
However, when it comes to certain issues, a spirit of much-needed compromise falls fast to partisan bickering and political posturing.
For example, one can't even talk about the conflict over the stalled extension of La. Highway 3132 without heads (and tempers) exploding on all sides of the issue. Distrust fueled by lack of transparency and failure to put in place essential groundwork to involve ALL stakeholders seems to be a major fault ....
Obviously, either something is rotten in Shreveport or leadership has lost its way in bringing this beautiful and diverse community together to solve problems. We would prefer to believe the latter.
We urge our city's elected leadership to seek more solutions to our problems TOGETHER instead of throwing obstacles into the paths of progress.

[Grzrd]

The SIU 15 website has a new FEIS webpage ....
Now wait and see if a ROD is issued and then if anything actually does start in 2014.

Speaking of moving at a snail's pace, I still do not see any indication of a Record of Decision from FHWA regarding the Shreveport/ Bossier City area I-69 SIU 15.

I recently received an email update from NLCOG indicating that a few more details need to be finalized with FHWA, and that an I-69 SIU 15 Record of Decision is currently hoped to be issued in September, 2014.  If that timeline comes to fruition, then the Record of Decision will be issued more than a year after completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Glacial..............................

[Grzrd]

This May 7 video reports that the Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission recently denied an application to allow for the subdivision of some of Esplanade's lots

This TV video reports that the Shreveport City Council has reversed the decision of the Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission and will allow Larkin to subdivide his land:

Three hours: that's how long it took Shreveport City Council to hear one issue at the meeting today.
Developer and Bossier City Councilman Timothy Larkin made his plea to Shreveport City Council members on Tuesday, to continue building in the Esplanade subdivision in south Caddo Parish ....
City council granted his appeal, with some changes.
Larkin would have to leave out some lots that sit in the way of the possible route.
But those with the Finish 3132 Coalition believe he shouldn't continue building at all.
"We believe what Mr. Larkin is building is in the route,"  says Elliot Stonecipher. "We believe it will effectively kill the highway."
Stonecipher and neighbors in Esplanade and Twelve Oaks communities say an extension is desperately needed to relieve traffic in south Caddo Parish.

Here is a Stonecipher blog from the Finish 3132 website:

http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/14-06-10/Make_No_Mistake_Shreveport_This_Matters_and_Hurts_A_Lot.aspx

Here is a report from the Shreveport Times:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20140611/NEWS01/306110046/Shreveport-council-lets-Tim-Larkin-subdivide-his-land?nclick_check=1

Here is a KTBS video report:

http://www.ktbs.com/story/25744881/shreveport-city-council-reverses-mpcs-decision-on-neighborhood-near-hwy-3132-with-modifications

[Grzrd]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its May 29 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and the Draft Minutes provide some discussion about I-69 in general, I-69 SIUs 15 & 16, and the LA 3132 extension:

I-69 in general:

Mr. England asked for an update on I‐69. Mr. Rogers stated he was willing to attend the Port's meeting to do a formal presentation. Mr. Rogers further stated while he was in Washington, DC with Mr. Bruce Easterly, they met with other coalitions regarding I‐69 and the reauthorization of the transportation bill. He stated I‐69 is talked about as one of the "Corridors of the Future"  program mentioned throughout legislation. This could bump up potential funding.

I-69 SIU 15:

[Mr. Rogers] also stated he met with the Louisiana delegation and that the SIU 14 record of decision (ROD) is a line item in the TIP for corridor preservation and right‐of‐way purchase. SIU 15, once a record of decision is received, would also have a TIP line item. Mr. Rogers stated memorandums of   understand and resolutions from the cities MPCs, and parishes would also be needed to preserve the right‐of‐way. He stated the SIU 15 ROD is expected at the end of September 2014.

I-69 SIU 16:

Mr. Rogers stated TXDOT will discuss with LaDOTD regarding the SIU 16 environmental work. Mayor Walker stated the connecting link of SIU 16 is needed as TXDOT is already signing US 59 as the future I‐69.

LA 3132:

Mr. England also asked about LA 3132 .... FHWA has stated a full environmental impact statement is required rather than an environmental assessment.

The long wait will be much longer now.

[mcdonaat]

In regards to LA 3132, Exit 7 shows Shreveport and Alexandria as control cities. However, looking back at pics, Shreveport is actually a green out. Anyone from NWLA have an idea as to what's underneath?

[bassoon1986]

Yep sure do. I-49 only used to come as far north as the Inner Loop (LA 3132) and forced you off there. From 3132 you could only exit south to 49. So exit 7 signs only said Alexandria. When the portion of I-49 opened in Shreveport to connect the inner loop to I-20 (in either December of 94 or 95) they added Shreveport onto the existing sign.

[mcdonaat]

Yep sure do. I-49 only used to come as far north as the Inner Loop (LA 3132) and forced you off there. From 3132 you could only exit south to 49. So exit 7 signs only said Alexandria. When the portion of I-49 opened in Shreveport to connect the inner loop to I-20 (in either December of 94 or 95) they added Shreveport onto the existing sign.

Interesting! Actually, in theory, wouldn't it make sense to leave it at Alexandria, since you're already in Shreveport?

[bassoon1986]

Yeah. I feel like they need to change ones further north in the future if the ICC is ever completed. At Kings Hwy one exit south of I-49 at I-20 the sign for 49 north says Shreveport. It could easily be switched to Texarkana one day. I guess for now Shreveport works fine.

[cjk374]

Yep sure do. I-49 only used to come as far north as the Inner Loop (LA 3132) and forced you off there. From 3132 you could only exit south to 49. So exit 7 signs only said Alexandria. When the portion of I-49 opened in Shreveport to connect the inner loop to I-20 (in either December of 94 or 95) they added Shreveport onto the existing sign.

Interesting! Actually, in theory, wouldn't it make sense to leave it at Alexandria, since you're already in Shreveport?

You could pull "Shreveport" off and replace it with "Texarkana" once the ICC is finished.  I actually thought "Texarkana" was under "Shreveport" so it would be ready for the ICC completion.

[mcdonaat]

Yep sure do. I-49 only used to come as far north as the Inner Loop (LA 3132) and forced you off there. From 3132 you could only exit south to 49. So exit 7 signs only said Alexandria. When the portion of I-49 opened in Shreveport to connect the inner loop to I-20 (in either December of 94 or 95) they added Shreveport onto the existing sign.

Interesting! Actually, in theory, wouldn't it make sense to leave it at Alexandria, since you're already in Shreveport?

You could pull "Shreveport" off and replace it with "Texarkana" once the ICC is finished.  I actually thought "Texarkana" was under "Shreveport" so it would be ready for the ICC completion.

Actually, looking at photos, if you pull "Shreveport" and replace it with "Texarkana" once the ICC was complete, then you would have to remove "To Texarkana" from LA 3132 and put something else in its' place. Always wondered why "To" was even on there... Maybe "Dallas, Port of Shreveport" or "Dallas, Coushatta" to give LA 3132 East a control city? Any thoughts?

Also, are there any plans to take I-69 and make it three lanes in each direction across the Red River? I'm sure it will be signed at the I-20/I-69 exit as "Alexandria, Haynesville" and at the I-49/I-69 exit as "Logansport, Bossier City", but what other points could be used? I-49 has three distance cities in each direction (Next Exit, Natchitoches, Alexandria, for example), so maybe Next Exit, Bossier City, El Dorado, since it would hook up with US 167 and US 82 there, and southbound, it would have Next Exit, Shreveport or Alexandria (via I-49), and Nacogdoches or Houston.

[jbnv]

Interesting! Actually, in theory, wouldn't it make sense to leave it at Alexandria, since you're already in Shreveport?

There's precedent in Louisiana for using the city you're already in as the control city. See numerous signs along I-10 and I-12 directing you to Baton Rouge when you are already in Baton Rouge. I think the 10-12 split is where Baton Rouge "begins" and the new control city is Lafayette.

[bassoon1986]

Interesting! Actually, in theory, wouldn't it make sense to leave it at Alexandria, since you're already in Shreveport?

There's precedent in Louisiana for using the city you're already in as the control city. See numerous signs along I-10 and I-12 directing you to Baton Rouge when you are already in Baton Rouge. I think the 10-12 split is where Baton Rouge "begins" and the new control city is Lafayette.

I could see signs being changed in Shreveport if and when ICC is completed through downtown. It would make sense to change destinations for I-49 north to Texarkana for those interchanges inside the LA 3132 loop (70th St, Pierremont, Kings) and maybe at the 3132 exit for 49 north as well. I could see Bert Kouns keeping Shreveport for 49 north. Similar to the west side of town: Pines Rd still shows Shreveport for I-20 east, but beginning at I-220/LA 3132, the city changes to Monroe.

[mcdonaat]

Interesting! Actually, in theory, wouldn't it make sense to leave it at Alexandria, since you're already in Shreveport?

There's precedent in Louisiana for using the city you're already in as the control city. See numerous signs along I-10 and I-12 directing you to Baton Rouge when you are already in Baton Rouge. I think the 10-12 split is where Baton Rouge "begins" and the new control city is Lafayette.

I could see signs being changed in Shreveport if and when ICC is completed through downtown. It would make sense to change destinations for I-49 north to Texarkana for those interchanges inside the LA 3132 loop (70th St, Pierremont, Kings) and maybe at the 3132 exit for 49 north as well. I could see Bert Kouns keeping Shreveport for 49 north. Similar to the west side of town: Pines Rd still shows Shreveport for I-20 east, but beginning at I-220/LA 3132, the city changes to Monroe.

Instead of just Monroe for I-20, could it possibly be changed to both Monroe and El Dorado or even Haynesville once I-69 opens? Both points are closer than Monroe.