I49 in LA

[Bobby5280]

think you guys are creating straw man arguments here.... esp. the idea that Dallas would remove I30. The proposal is to remove I345 which carries significantly less traffic and blocks downtown from a very popular area. In addition, this thread is about building a new freeway where there was no freeway before. Big difference.

Not really. First of all, just how much of unsigned I-345 is to be removed? Do they take it out all the way down to the I-30/I-45 interchange, and take out a chunk of North Central Expressway, a possible future North extension of I-45, in the process? Or do they just remove the Woodall-Rogers Expressway segment, a freeway that has been a fixture in downtown Dallas for a pretty long time?

In the case of the Woodall-Rogers Expressway, it's worth noting Klyde-Warren Park literally covers the freeway for 3 city blocks, thus creating a pretty natural connection between downtown Dallas, Victory Park and Uptown. I would go so far as to say it might be cheaper to just cap the Woodall-Rogers expressway with more green space rather than spend hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions considering it's downtown Dallas, converting that freeway into some boulevard. After all, that would mean removing Klyde-Warren Park and other efforts to hide the freeway.

[roadman65]

Is this really serious?  One of the area's biggest interstates is a subject of possible removal?   I thought that I-81 in Syracuse was far out, even though they have the I-481 bypass nearby.    This is crazy, then again we live among many crazy people in society.

[DNAguy]

think you guys are creating straw man arguments here.... esp. the idea that Dallas would remove I30. The proposal is to remove I345 which carries significantly less traffic and blocks downtown from a very popular area. In addition, this thread is about building a new freeway where there was no freeway before. Big difference.

Not really. First of all, just how much of unsigned I-345 is to be removed? Do they take it out all the way down to the I-30/I-45 interchange, and take out a chunk of North Central Expressway, a possible future North extension of I-45, in the process? Or do they just remove the Woodall-Rogers Expressway segment, a freeway that has been a fixture in downtown Dallas for a pretty long time?

In the case of the Woodall-Rogers Expressway, it's worth noting Klyde-Warren Park literally covers the freeway for 3 city blocks, thus creating a pretty natural connection between downtown Dallas, Victory Park and Uptown. I would go so far as to say it might be cheaper to just cap the Woodall-Rogers expressway with more green space rather than spend hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions considering it's downtown Dallas, converting that freeway into some boulevard. After all, that would mean removing Klyde-Warren Park and other efforts to hide the freeway.

Well, yes you are but I digress.

I am not aware of any plans or have seen any mentioning of extending I45 up through Oklahoma at all. So I don't see that as having any weight on whether I345 should remain. In addition, Uptown is already nice and capping more of 366 isn't going to really help the city in making it "nicer". Getting rid of I345, however, would go along way in helping development migrate more east / southeast to areas that have not seen the same kind of development as uptown.

As I understand it the 345 removal would be from the 366 to I30. Most likely I45 and US75 would tie into Caesar Chaves Blvd via a spur and exit respectively.

US75 traffic headed south would be forced to either continue on a highway via 366 or exit via a spur to ~ John Carpenter park to tie into Caesar Chaves Blvd.

I45 traffic north would be forced to exit at S Caesar Chavis St and Grand for downtown & fairgrounds destinations... and possibly S Good Latimer Expy for Deep Ellum destinations where currently US 175 and I45 now meet (this alignment of US175 is going away btw and the I45 intersection will be moved farther south. Current alignment of US175 from 310 to 45 is being turned into blvd) or traffic will continue on to I30 where you'd be forced to exit to either I30 east /west.

This would resemble something most like Houston's plan to get rid of the Pierce Elevated without the need to route an interstate along another interstate.

I realize this is an I49 thread and apologize for going on, but I thought I would at least address your question.

[Anthony_JK]

Only lives of motorists matter. Fuck the rest.

I suppose rerouting I-49 through I-220 across Cross Lake and threatening the city's water supply would be better, right?

Then I-220 should be closed. Duh.

Existing I-220 is a potential threat to Cross Lake, but it's too late to close it. Routing I-49 through I-220, though, would require adding an additional lane in both directions to I-220, which could really threaten contamination of Cross Lake because without the ICC, LA 3132 and I-220 would become the main Haz-Mat route for avoiding trips through downtown Shreveport.

But, whateves, NE2. Routing freeways away from cities that use them is your fetish, I guess. Roll with it.

[Scott5114]

I am not aware of any plans or have seen any mentioning of extending I45 up through Oklahoma at all. So I don't see that as having any weight on whether I345 should remain.

US-69 in Oklahoma is specifically called out in ISTEA (the 1991 highway bill) as a potential Interstate. All Oklahoma has to do is request it, which they have never done. Presumably it would be an I-45 extension, though no number is attached to it in the actual law.

[DNAguy]

Only lives of motorists matter. Fuck the rest.

I suppose rerouting I-49 through I-220 across Cross Lake and threatening the city's water supply would be better, right?

Then I-220 should be closed. Duh.

Existing I-220 is a potential threat to Cross Lake, but it's too late to close it. Routing I-49 through I-220, though, would require adding an additional lane in both directions to I-220, which could really threaten contamination of Cross Lake because without the ICC, LA 3132 and I-220 would become the main Haz-Mat route for avoiding trips through downtown Shreveport.

But, whateves, NE2. Routing freeways away from cities that use them is your fetish, I guess. Roll with it.

It's Hazmat already routed along I220?

[Anthony_JK]

Only lives of motorists matter. Fuck the rest.

I suppose rerouting I-49 through I-220 across Cross Lake and threatening the city's water supply would be better, right?

Then I-220 should be closed. Duh.

Existing I-220 is a potential threat to Cross Lake, but it's too late to close it. Routing I-49 through I-220, though, would require adding an additional lane in both directions to I-220, which could really threaten contamination of Cross Lake because without the ICC, LA 3132 and I-220 would become the main Haz-Mat route for avoiding trips through downtown Shreveport.

But, whateves, NE2. Routing freeways away from cities that use them is your fetish, I guess. Roll with it.

It's Hazmat already routed along I220?

Yes, but if the ICC is completed as planned, it could be used as an alternative route for N/S HazMat traffic.

[DNAguy]

Only lives of motorists matter. Fuck the rest.

I suppose rerouting I-49 through I-220 across Cross Lake and threatening the city's water supply would be better, right?

Then I-220 should be closed. Duh.

Existing I-220 is a potential threat to Cross Lake, but it's too late to close it. Routing I-49 through I-220, though, would require adding an additional lane in both directions to I-220, which could really threaten contamination of Cross Lake because without the ICC, LA 3132 and I-220 would become the main Haz-Mat route for avoiding trips through downtown Shreveport.

But, whateves, NE2. Routing freeways away from cities that use them is your fetish, I guess. Roll with it.

It's Hazmat already routed along I220?

Yes, but if the ICC is completed as planned, it could be used as an alternative route for N/S HazMat traffic.

So you're saying that having hazardous materials routed through the city, < 2 miles west of downtown and through multiple neighborhoods (one of which you'd have to get approval to build the highway though in the first place) is a selling point for building the ICC?

You've lost me.

[cjk374]

The Cross Lake bridge of I-220 is built to contain any hazmat spill that stays on the bridge. There are drains in the median and the spill would be directed to a concrete holding pond on the east side of the bridge.

Now if the hazmat flips off the side of the bridge directly into the water...then 12-Mile Bayou will become...as it does when Cross Lake drops to low levels...the back up water system until the lake would get cleaned up.

[bassoon1986]

No pictures due to rain, but I was in Shreveport this past Saturday and can update a bit. The first major thing, is that I-220 in Caddo Parish has done sign overhauling. All I-220 trailblazers have TO I-49 shields in both directions (going east: To North I-49, and going west: TO South I-49). They are almost Texas style with 2 shields on 1 post. Approaching I-220's westbound terminus, the sign just before the 1C exit now has West I-20 shield and TO I-49 shield on the Monroe BGS. It's so dumb to me, because staying on LA 3132 is only 7 miles to I-49 south. Going I-20 west then I-49 south to the same point is 11 miles. When you pass I-220's terminus and transition to LA 3132 the BGS says To I-49 Alexandria anyway.

I-49 work at I-220 is coming along. 220 is one lane each direction between exits 5 (LA 173) and 7A/B (US 71/ LA 1) and you drive along the original eastbound lanes. The large posts are under construction for the flyover lanes to I-49 north. There is significant flooding to the south of I-220 in this area from the Louisiana flooding, and probably a good bit in the construction on the north side as well.

Also noteworthy: I-220 BGS in Shreveport have mostly all been replaced by Clearview font. They FINALLY changed exit 5 to the correct streetname. It was formerly Blanchard Rd, which wasn't technically correct (Shreveport-Blanchard Hwy). Now it says LA 173 Hilry Huckaby III (with no "Hwy" added). It was also interesting that at the Jefferson Paige Rd. exit (1A) there is a west parish road 18 shield from the exit ramps. Not often you see one of those within a bigger city.

[apjung]

The section at the LA/AR border is finally on Google Street View but currently only Northbound.
https://goo.gl/maps/ebu5zMapCbE2

[Grzrd]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its February 26, 2016 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes, which indicate that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for the Inner City Connector ("ICC") should be ready by the end of 2016, provide an optimistic assessment that FHWA could issue a Record of Decision ("ROD") for the ICC by late February, 2017, and also provide a cost estimate for the ICC project of just under $500 million to just over $600 million (pp. 1, 3-4/4 of pdf):

Others Present
Mr. Jerry Jones — Legal Counsel for NLCOG
Mr. Kent Rogers — NLCOG
....
Mr. Rogers directed the members to the short update provided for the I-49 Inner City Connector Study ....
He stated the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be available around the end of this year. He stated the draft EIS will be advertised in the Federal Register for 45 days along with a public hearing during that time frame. There will probably be two meetings with one during the day in the downtown area and one in the evening within the project area. Following those meetings, the comments will be included in the final EIS for FHWA for a 30-day review period. At the end of that, the Record of Decision will be issued. Mr. Rogers stated it should be around this time next year if all goes well ....
He stated off the top of his head the costs were just under $500 million to just over $600 million. He stated that varied depending on elevated versus at-grade, interchanges, etc. Dr. Wilson asked if that was for all five options. Mr. Rogers said yes that included all five alternatives.

Will Loop It be happy with the preferred alignment?

[The Ghostbuster]

What is the likelihood that the ICC will be constructed? Would anyone care to hazard a guess?

[Grzrd]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its November 20, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and those Draft Minutes reflect considerable discussion about Context Sensitive Soutions ("CSS") for the I-49 ICC, including the possibility of maximizing the amount of at-grade roadway, and whether the water table limits options for depressing the roadway:

Others Present
Ms. Anna O'Neal — Legal Counsel for NLCOG
Mr. Kent Rogers — NLCOG ....
Mr. Rogers introduced Ms. Jolie Maberry with Providence Engineering to give an update of the I-49 ICC. Ms. Maberry stated originally all of the area was considered wetlands and that has now changed.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its February 26, 2016 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes, which indicate that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for the Inner City Connector ("ICC") should be ready by the end of 2016

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its April 15, 2016 Draft Transportation Policy Committee Minutes, which indicate that the ICC project team will take another look at the areas that were removed from the official wetlands designation and that FHWA anticipates that the DEIS will identify two or more build alternatives instead of identifying one preferred alignment:

A. I-49 Inner City Connector
Mr. Rogers directed the members to the short update provided for the I-49 Inner City Connector Study. He stated the project team, including federal and state agencies, reviewed the comments and the matrix of data collected, and which corridors to move forward with. He stated part of that discussion centered on areas that were removed from the official wetlands designation. He stated there would an initial look at those areas prior to moving forward with the corridor decisions. Mr. Rogers stated the FHWA representative stated he expects the draft EIS will not identify one preferred alternative, rather it would have two or more build alternatives to be considered ...

I'm not sure whether the additional look at the wetlands issue will push the issuance of the DEIS into 2017.

[Grzrd]

NLCOG has posted its October 3, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes and, in regard to the Inner City Connector I-220/LA 3132 Build Alternative No. 5, they contain some discussion about improvements that would need to be made to the existing I-49/ LA 3132 interchange at the southern end of the potential LA 3132 section of the Inner City Connector:

Mr. Rogers directed the members to the diagram of the potential new interchange at I‐49 and LA 3132 if Alternate 5 is chosen as the preferred alignment. He stated a minimum of two (2) through lanes for I‐49 needed to continue carrying traffic at interstate speeds. FHWA, LaDOTD, and EPA stated the study must look at bringing LA 3132 to the same interstate standards as the build‐through options. Mr. Rogers stated a modification to the existing interchange will be needed to avoid creating nightmare for future traffic and there is a possibility that the Linwood Avenue exit would be closed.

I could not find the interchange diagram as an attachment to the Draft Minutes.

The Documents page on the I-49 Inner-City Connector-Shreveport website now includes materials from the January 19-21 Round 3 Community Input Meetings, including the Meeting Presentation.

The Outreach page was recently updated with the addition of the Event Summary Report to the Round 3 Community Input materials.  While looking at other materials on the page, the proposed modifications to the I-49/ LA 3132 interchange and the closure of the currently existing LA 3132/ Linwood interchange if the "Loop" alternative is chosen caught my eye (red for removals and green for additions):



I suspect that these modifications would be expensive.

[robbones]

If the "Loop It" is the alternative chosen, will the current I 49 be renamed north of the LA 3132 interchange?

6045O

[Anthony_JK]

If the "Loop It" is the alternative chosen, will the current I 49 be renamed north of the LA 3132 interchange?

6045O

I'm guessing it would have to be...probably either an even I-x49 connector or perhaps, if John Lundquist gets his way and an at-grade "parkway" replaces the ICC all the way to I-20, Louisiana gets its first I-49 Business. Or, it becomes LA 3049.


Update:  OOPS...just saw I meant to say I-220, not I-20....of course, if the ICC isn't built, existing I-49 would probably become an I-x49 connector....but if a parkway was built in place of the ICC, you could see a Business I-49/LA 3049 extending from Shreveport South I-49/LA 3132 all the way to I-220/I-49 North.

[Henry]

Yeah, I could see BL 49 through Shreveport. The southern half would be the fifth instance of a Business Interstate being routed on a freeway (40 in Winston-Salem, 80 in Sacramento, 85 in Spartanburg and Greensboro), which I really do not care for at all. But if they loop I-49, then so be it.

[yakra]

What the...? What's wrong with the existing W->S ramp? Or N->E?

[dfwmapper]

Each is just a single lane. Presumably the new ones would be 2 lanes each.

[Anthony_JK]

What the...? What's wrong with the existing W->S ramp? Or N->E?

They would have to be readjusted to make way for the new 2-lane through routing of I-49 to LA 3132 West/North.

[rickmastfan67]

The southern half would be the fifth instance of a Business Interstate being routed on a freeway (40 in Winston-Salem, 80 in Sacramento, 85 in Spartanburg and Greensboro), which I really do not care for at all. But if they loop I-49, then so be it.

6th.  Don't forget most of I-376 Business is a freeway.

[Grzrd]

Slow progress on the Shreveport I-49 Inner City Connector ("ICC"). This article reports that Providence Engineering was supposed to present two alternatives to the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") today, but they only eliminated one alternative and four remain:

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments hoped the engineers working on Shreveport's Interstate 49 connector project would have had two recommended routes to present on Friday, but instead they presented a status update on the remaining four, citing a lack of important data and an upcoming report on the route's possible impact on Cross Lake and SWEPCO Park ....
On Friday, project manager Kerry Oriol with Providence Engineering told the NLCOG that her firm didn't have enough data yet to make a recommendation.
"There was an expectation that we would have recommendations, but we don't have them yet," Oriol said. "We expected to know by now, but we don't."
Prospective route 3, which of the inner city connector options would have had I-49 largest impact on the Allendale neighborhood, was taken out of consideration. It  had the farthest deviation from the projected inner city corridor.
Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would build a 36-mile I-49 extension, running along Twelve Mile Bayou and through the northeast corner of the city's Allendale neighborhood a couple miles west of downtown Shreveport.
Alternative 5, which would have I-49 connect to Highway 220 to the already existing loop around the city that connects to I-20. There's also the option to not build a connector at all, Oriol said ....
The next step in the project, Oriol said, is to have SWEPCO Park, Cross Lake and other recreational areas near the connector analyzed to make sure construction wouldn't have any detrimental effect on the environment of the public parks. After the analysis is complete, the project team will gather environmental and community impact data for the proposed routes before holding a final public hearing.
Friday's meeting was the last time the public was able to comment on the project until the final public hearing, Oriel said. That hearing, if all goes smoothly, could take place around this time next year.
"We can't circumvent the process," Oriol said. "The process must be followed."
The estimated total cost of the I-49 North project is $670 million.

[cjk374]

New signs are up on I-220 for the new I-49 interchange. I couldn't get pictures, but the overhead BGS says: EXIT 6...I-49 shield with NO direction listed...TEXARKANA.

At the location where the EXIT ramp will be are 3 overheads on 1 gantry. From left to right they are:

1. TO SOUTH (I-49 shield) Alexandria

2. (I-220 shield) WEST. Dallas

3. EXIT 6...I-49 shield with NO direction listed...Texarkana.

[Alex]

Checked in on the LADOTD page for Interstate 49, and noticed that completion of the segment north from I-220 was pushed back from 2016-17:

I-220 to La. 1, Segments J-K, clearing and grubbing, drainage, embankment and paving — Estimated completion 2017-2018