Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grzrd]

Of those, I would very strongly favor option 'C'.  I seldom like it when an existing street of that style is upgraded to a full freeway - IMHO it is too disruptive to the local 'grid' and potential future growth patterns.  A new-ROW corridor, with the provision for future extension, is the best way to go.
(Too bad Barksdale AFB is in the way of the original I-220 plans....)
Mike

NLCOG recently posted some pdfs related to the Aug. 2 meeting including a fairly detailed Alternative Exhibits pdf and an Environmental Summary pdf.

EDIT

LaDOTD now has a LA 3132 Inner Loop Expressway in Caddo Parish page devoted to the project, but, even though the title describes it as an "Expressway", the page's description of the project states that it is intended to be interstate standard:

This project will extend LA 3132, which is a controlled access (interstate standard) roadway, from its current terminus with LA 523 southward towards a future intersection with I-69 near the Shreveport/Bossier Port. This ultimately will provide an interstate standard connector route between I-20, I-49 and I-69.

A map of the alternatives (page 39/50 of the Environmental Summary pdf):

[Grzrd]

Louisiana has been issued its first ROD for a SIU of I-69 .... NLCOG has moved quickly and posted the I-69 SIU 14 ROD on its website.

I recently received an email update from NLCOG which clarified that ... the SIU 15 FEIS is expected to come out before September 2012.

TXDOT, is in charge of preparing any planning/environmental study for I-69 through Texas and through the Stateline (SIU 16)  to connect to Louisiana US  171 where SIU 15 ends just south of Stonewall.  TXDOT will have to consult with LADOTD throughout the study process as to where it crosses into Louisiana.   There was a Tier –One Corridor Study Draft EIS put out to public review by TXDOT in late 2007.  The corridor was several miles wide. The DEIS was rescinded in 1/3/2011 and the document was pulled from the TXDOT website.  There was no route chosen or decided. As of now, they are focusing on upgrading existing highways to meet interstate standard ... Right now due to limited funding, TXDOT has no plan to restart an EIS for I-69 that crosses into Louisiana.  Again, if and when they do, TXDOT will have to consult with LADOTD on what is the preferred route going into Louisiana.

On July 24, the Segment One Committee in Texas released its I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations and identified the US 84 relief route around Joaquin and Tenaha as one of its five major priorities. In doing so, the Committee noted the importance of the Louisiana study to identifying the eastern terminus of the US 84 relief route (page 36/155 of pdf; page 30 of document):

US 84 Relief Route from Tenaha to Joaquin – The committee recognized the connection to the national I-69 route as a priority and recommended the development of a relief route for US 84 to serve this connection. Committee members were updated by a representative of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments who advised the committee that, in 2013, Louisiana would complete an environmental/route location study for portions of I-69 between I-49 and El Dorado, Arkansas and the next phase would be for Texas and Louisiana to work to complete the environmental/route location study for the portion of I-69 between I-49 and the Texas/Louisiana border. Determining route location during the I-49, Texas/Louisiana border study would provide the eastern terminus for the US 84 relief route.

Who knows?  Maybe an environmental study for the "between I-49 and the Texas/Louisiana border" section of I-69 will begin by late 2013, after a ROD is issued for SIU 15, which happens to include a segment from I-49 to US 171 that should be addressed in the upcoming SIU 15 FEIS. 

[Anthony_JK]

One interesting note on the proposed Alignment A...they don't say whether or not that alignment would include a freeway upgrade of LA 1 between its terminus and the proposed junction with I-69.  If so, wouldn't that necessitate a more directional interchange between LA 1 and I-69 than the folded diamond that is shown?

[Grzrd]

NLCOG has posted the Plan of Action for connecting LA 3132 to I-69.  Three route alternatives are being considered, as well as a "no build" alternative.  The schedule targets a two-year completion date for an Environmental Assessment:
http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/LA3132_PlanofAction_Update082211.pdf

One interesting note on the proposed Alignment A...they don't say whether or not that alignment would include a freeway upgrade of LA 1 between its terminus and the proposed junction with I-69.

The Plan of Action indicates the alignment includes a freeway upgrade of LA 1 between its terminus and the proposed junction with I-69 (page 1/3 of pdf):

At least four alternatives will be considered: (a) seek a new alignment from Bert Kouns (LA 526) to the south; (b) extend south from Flournoy Lucas (LA 523) avoiding Twelve Oaks, connect to Youree Drive (LA 1) and upgrade LA 1 to a freeway to connect to future I-69; (c) extend south from Flournoy Lucas (LA 523) avoiding Twelve Oaks, run parallel to Youree Drive (LA 1) to connect to future I-69; and (d) “no-build” – leave everything as-is.

CAUTION - BEWARE OF ALTERNATIVE LABELS ON DIFFERENT MAPS
This 2011 map speaks of the LA 1 freeway upgrade as "Alternative AB - Upgrade of LA 1 to a freeway to connect to future I-69":


In this more recent map of the alternatives, LA 1 is part of Alternatives A and C (page 39/50 of the Environmental Summary pdf):

would ... a freeway upgrade of LA 1 between its terminus and the proposed junction with I-69 ... necessitate a more directional interchange between LA 1 and I-69 than the folded diamond that is shown?

I'll leave that to the engineers in the forum.  I don't know if it matters, but the design speed is 60 mph (pages 6-7/50 of pdf; pages 1-2 of document):

The four-lane controlled access extension of LA 3132 is proposed to run generally north-south, and provide an alternative route for industrial and residential traffic to Shreveport and Bossier City .... The proposed design speed is 60 miles per hour (mph) for all proposed Build Alternatives. The ramps have been proposed as 15-foot travel lanes with a four-foot inside shoulder and an eight-foot outside shoulder.

[Grzrd]

I seldom like it when an existing street of that style is upgraded to a full freeway - IMHO it is too disruptive to the local 'grid' and potential future growth patterns.

they don't say whether or not that alignment would include a freeway upgrade of LA 1 between its terminus and the proposed junction with I-69.

LaDOTD now has a LA 3132 Inner Loop Expressway in Caddo Parish page devoted to the project

A Draft Stage 0 Feasibility Study Report has been added to the LA 3132 Inner Loop Expressway in Caddo Parish page on the LaDOTD website. The Draft Report states that Access Management on LA 1 would need more detailed analysis during later stages of the study, but it does offer the following suggestions (page 27/36 of pdf; page 20 of document): (1) a frontage road on the western side LA 1, and (2) have the drives on the eastern side of LA 1 tie into one of three Port gates.

I wonder if a preference for a particular Alternative will be expressed at the August 2 meeting.

[Grzrd]

The Finish 3132 Coalition says that the public should expect to see the recommended route for the extension at the meeting:

The public should expect to see the recommended route for the extension and should also expect to be allowed to comment on results of the study. The Finish 3132 Coalition urges members and their family members to attend the meeting in support of the long-awaited extension of this important controlled access highway

This article reports on last night's meeting and makes the point that a Stage 0 review does not identify a preferred alternative:

... tonight's meeting only unveiled potential routes for the highway extension.
“We do not have a preferred route,” Kent Rogers, executive director of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments said. “Part of this process is to help identify a preferred route.”

Maybe the Finish 3132 Coalition raised some false expectations.   This TV video report indicates that some attendees were upset, but it is quite possible that they simply did not understand the purpose of a Stage 0 meeting:

The LA 3132 extension is remains a hot topic for many in Shreveport. Thursday, officials held the Stage Zero Public Information Meeting. It's a way for citizens to express their problems or suggestions about extension plans. Dozens of Shreveporters showed at the LSUS Ballroom to see the extension's plans. Several aren't happy with the plans or the meeting format .... Though some public figures, like Mayor Glover, were present for discussion, Long and others feel the meeting lacked proper transparency.
"They have a lot of information, but you know, you need to have someone here to explain it," Long said. "We were expecting, I was expecting, a meeting of some kind, you know, with an explanation of they intend to do."
Elliot Stonecipher with the 3132 Coalition agrees with Long and says this meeting wasn't what was expected. Kent Rogers with NLCOG says Stage Zero planning doesn't require a question and answer meeting. He says that will come with Stage One. There will be a total of 7 stages during the extension. Rogers says if all goes to plan, he expects construction to begin with the next ten years.

The process is creaking along ...

[Grzrd]

NLCOG has moved quickly and posted the I-69 SIU 14 ROD on its website. The ROD indicates that Louisiana has revised its FEIS implementation schedule in order to make SIU 14 construction be contingent on the completion of SIU 15 (page 10 of ROD; page 12/44 of pdf):

The implementation schedule, as presented in the Final EIS, was revised for inclusion in the Project Management Plan (PMP) for the Louisiana portion of SIU 14. The revisions are a result of updated FHWA regulations in addition to recommendations from LADOTD, FHWA, and Northwest Louisiana Council on Governments (NLCOG) to base the schedule start date contingent upon completion of SIU 15. The scheduled start date is 2025 and extends 15 years to 2039.

I recently received an email update from NLCOG which clarified that only the first segment of SIU 15, the Red River crossing, is expected to be completed by 2025 and that the SIU 15 FEIS is expected to come out before September 2012:

We anticipate the FEIS for I-69 SIU-15 coming out before September 2012 ... Realistically, we’re looking at the 2030 to 2035 timeframe before the entire SIU-15 is open for travel. However, the first section that could be completed by 2025, as identified in the Project Mgnt’ Plan (PMP), is the Red River Bridge Crossing at the Port of Caddo/Bossier.

TXDOT, is in charge of preparing any planning/environmental study for I-69 through Texas and through the Stateline (SIU 16)  to connect to Louisiana US  171 where SIU 15 ends just south of Stonewall.

Who knows?  Maybe an environmental study for the "between I-49 and the Texas/Louisiana border" section of I-69 will begin by late 2013, after a ROD is issued for SIU 15, which happens to include a segment from I-49 to US 171 that should be addressed in the upcoming SIU 15 FEIS. 

Although the report is primarily about the Texarkana I-69 Spur, the final thirty seconds of this July 26 TV video report discusses I-69 in Louisiana, has Bossier City Mayor Lo Walker state that Louisiana has two (not three; I guess he forgot about US 171 to the Texas state line SIU 16) I-69 SIUs, and concludes by indicating to viewers that I-69 should be completed in ten years. 

edit - In addition to being the Mayor of Bossier City, Lo Walker is also president of the I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition.  In saying that Louisiana only has two I-69 SIUs, I hope that he meant to say that LaDOTD has been the lead agency for two I-69 SIUs.

[Grzrd]

In an op-ed in today's Shreveport Times, Brian Bond and Woody Schick of the Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce ... list four major transportation projects in the Greater Shreveport area that need to be prioritized in terms of funding: LA 3132 extension, I-49 Inner City Connector, widen Jimmy Davis bridge, and a new southern entrance to Barksdale Air Force Base

...there are four significant highway construction projects important for our region. It is important for us to prioritize these projects and then work to secure funding to complete them. As we have done in the past, we will survey our members and ask for their input to help prioritize these four projects: extending La. Highway 3132 to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier, the "Inner City" I-49 connector, a new southern entrance for Barksdale Air Force Base and the widening of the Jimmy Davis Bridge over the Red River.

(above quote from Western Louisiana thread)

I recently received an email update from NLCOG which clarified that only the first segment of SIU 15, the Red River crossing, is expected to be completed by 2025

... the first section that could be completed by 2025, as identified in the Project Mgnt’ Plan (PMP), is the Red River Bridge Crossing at the Port of Caddo/Bossier.

This article suggests that, although the Jimmie Davis Bridge is a current regional priority, a second bridge parallel to it might not be built in the foreseeable future because the I-69 Red River bridge could provide a useful crossing for years before I-69 SIU 15 is completed:

A second bridge parallel to the Jimmie Davis Bridge will have to wait, but repairs to the existing Red River crossing are in the works.
“This is a first start to get the Jimmie Davis Bridge back in shape,” Sen. Barrow Peacock said. “They can start doing planning and engineering and next year move more money into it.” ....
with Interstate 69 in the works, a bridge could be built farther south near the Port of Caddo-Bossier and later used as the interstate’s crossing over the Red River.
Peacock used the Shreveport-Barksdale Highway bridge as an example.
“As the cities moved south, it was never a traffic problem. The question is going to be, over time, is it more practical to put a bridge there or go farther south toward the port where Interstate 69 would potentially cross?” ....
Jimmie Davis Bridge .... was originally designed to carry 13,500 vehicles per day. According to Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development traffic counts, the bridge carried more than 24,000 per day in 2010.

Maybe the need for another Red River crossing will jumpstart construction on Louisiana's first section of I-69.

Below is a photo of the Jimmie Davis Bridge accompanying the article:


edit - here is another photo accompanying AP version of the article:

[Grzrd]

I recently received an email update from NLCOG which clarified that ... the SIU 15 FEIS is expected to come out before September 2012:

We anticipate the FEIS for I-69 SIU-15 coming out before September 2012.

FHWA has not issued the SIU 15 FEIS yet. I recently received an email update from NLCOG; it's now looking like some time around the New Year:

We had hoped for a ROD on I-69 SIU-15 this month… however, that is not going to happen. Currently, the consulting team, Michael Baker Jr. Inc, has submitted the Draft doc, addressed all public comments, and resolved the issues concerning the preferred alignment as it approaches the Red River Bridge/Approaches to FHWA for their required review of the Draft submission. “Fingers-crossed” that FHWA will approve a FEIS by December and we can have a ROD signing party Jan.-Feb. of 2013.

Maybe the SIU 15 ROD signing party can be coordinated with an I-49 North driving party in early '13. 

On July 24, the Segment One Committee in Texas released its I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations and identified the US 84 relief route around Joaquin and Tenaha as one of its five major priorities. In doing so, the Committee noted the importance of the Louisiana study to identifying the eastern terminus of the US 84 relief route (page 36/155 of pdf; page 30 of document):

US 84 Relief Route from Tenaha to Joaquin – The committee recognized the connection to the national I-69 route as a priority and recommended the development of a relief route for US 84 to serve this connection. Committee members were updated by a representative of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments who advised the committee that, in 2013, Louisiana would complete an environmental/route location study for portions of I-69 between I-49 and El Dorado, Arkansas and the next phase would be for Texas and Louisiana to work to complete the environmental/route location study for the portion of I-69 between I-49 and the Texas/Louisiana border. Determining route location during the I-49, Texas/Louisiana border study would provide the eastern terminus for the US 84 relief route.

The email I received also mentioned SIU 16. An interesting piece of information in it is that LaDOTD has offered to become the lead agency for the SIU 16 environmental review, but TxDOT currently insists on remaining the lead agency:

Concerning I-69 SIU-16 we really haven’t heard much locally from TXDOT, as far as, proactively leading the environmental study of SIU-16. LADOTD, who is identified as the secondary sponsor of the env. study of SIU-16, has offered to take the lead, but TXDOT has responded that it plans to continue leading this endeavor.

Not that LaDOTD would move quickly on SIU 16, but it will be interesting to see if any tension arises for TxDOT moving slowly on SIU 16, particularly if the Texarkana-Tenaha I-69 Spur gains some traction.

[agentsteel53]

I recently received an email update from NLCOG which clarified that ... the SIU 15 FEIS is expected to come out before September 2012:

We anticipate the FEIS for I-69 SIU-15 coming out before September 2012.

FHWA has not issued the SIU 15 FEIS yet. I recently received an email update from NLCOG; it's now looking like some time around the New Year:

for those people who complain that the transportation industry is filled with too much jargon (see thread in following link):

www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7523.msg169677

I didn't know for sure what any of those acronyms (except FHWA) stood for.  about 45 seconds of googling, I know exactly what Grzrd is saying.

so, that just proves conclusively that anyone who complains about jargon is either a moron or an op-ed author.  but, I repeat myself.

[Grzrd]

for those people who complain that the transportation industry is filled with too much jargon (see thread in following link):
www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7523.msg169677
I didn't know for sure what any of those acronyms (except FHWA) stood for.  about 45 seconds of googling, I know exactly what Grzrd is saying.

This article from the September 7 Shreveport Times reports on essentially the same topic that I discussed in my acronym-laden post used by agentsteel53 to make his point:

But the segment connecting U.S. Highway 71 near Stonewall to Interstate 20 near Haughton as part of the project to link Indianapolis to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas is closer to fruition than people may think, said Kent Rogers, director of the North Louisiana Council of Governments.
The final environmental impact study, which outlines the project's impact on the area, was submitted July 26 to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and tentatively is set to be released publicly in October, at which time a 30-day comment period will begin.
Once the environmental process is complete, the Federal Highway Administration requires a formal cost estimate review for all projects totaling more than $500 million. Preliminary estimates put this project at more than $860 million.
The first construction priority is the Red River crossing. A study of that crossing is under way because the U.S. Geological Survey issued new navigational vertical clearance requirements earlier this year.

Above, the writer "spells out" NLCOG, avoids the use of "SIU 15" altogether, and "spells out" FEIS, LaDOTD, FHWA and USGS (I did not refer to the last agency in my post  ).  Also, the article has an illustration of "the segment connecting U.S. Highway 71 near Stonewall to Interstate 20 near Haughton":



The article also describes SIU 14 and SIU 16 without using the jargon:

Similarly, Rogers estimates $20 million has been set aside over the past 15 years for three I-69 segments in Louisiana. In addition to the Stonewall-to-Haughton stretch, those segments include an extension from Haughton to El Dorado, Ark., and a small portion between Stonewall and Tenaha, Texas.

Finally, the author clearly defines ROD:

Upon completion of the reports and incorporation of any comments received, the final environmental impact study will be submitted to Louisiana's highway department and the Federal Highway Administration for final approval and a record of decision (ROD) for the final route. That record will outline what's necessary for the I-69 project to move forward. That should happen mid-2013, Rogers said.

All in all, the author did a good job of avoiding the jargon. I'll stick to posting and let others write newspaper articles.  That said, in the past, I have tried identifying an acronym:

approval from the Texas Transportation Commission will still be necessary .... It's interesting that TxDOT submitted its requests to AASHTO and FHWA before having final approval from the TTC

Toronto Transit Commission?  Trident Technical College?  The Tetris Company?
Or maybe this thing Wikipedia call the Trans-Texas Corridor?

(above quotes from I-69 in TX thread)

No methodology is foolproof. 

This article suggests that, although the Jimmie Davis Bridge is a current regional priority, a second bridge parallel to it might not be built in the foreseeable future because the I-69 Red River bridge could provide a useful crossing for years before I-69 SIU 15 is completed

The September 7 article also briefly discusses a potential monetary conflict between a second bridge next to the Jimmie Davis bridge and the I-69 Red River Bridge:

State Sen. Barrow Peacock has been pushing for another Red River crossing, looking mainly at a second bridge parallel to the Jimmie Davis Bridge. If that were constructed, however, selling a fifth bridge for I-69 to the Louisiana Legislature could prove difficult, he said.
"The idea is if you could get I-69 funded, there's a possibility we would build a bridge that would cross down there," the Shreveport Republican said. "That would be a federal road with federal money paying for part of it rather than the state paying for all of it. On Jimmie Davis, this (renovation) is a first step, and we'll see how it develops in time."
The formal cost review and crossing study will be conducted while the final statement is out for public comment

[Grzrd]

LaDOTD has offered to become the lead agency for the SIU 16 environmental review, but TxDOT currently insists on remaining the lead agency:

Concerning I-69 SIU-16 we really haven’t heard much locally from TXDOT, as far as, proactively leading the environmental study of SIU-16. LADOTD, who is identified as the secondary sponsor of the env. study of SIU-16, has offered to take the lead, but TXDOT has responded that it plans to continue leading this endeavor.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG) has recently posted its June 18 MPO Transportation Policy Committee Minutes.  In regard to the section of I-69 from Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX (also known as Section of Independent Utility 16 (SIU 16)), some concern was expressed that Texas is not being aggressive in pursuing SIU 16 (pages 2-3/4 of pdf):

Mayor Walker stated that regarding SIU 16 (which crosses into Texas) the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) was not as aggressive as Louisiana is in working through the process. He further said the cities/state may need to be more involved in the future. Mr. Jones asked if we could move on SIU 16 without Texas. Mr. Rogers stated no, TxDOT would be the lead on that study.

There was also discussion of putting better maps and other visual aids regarding all of I-69 in Louisiana on the NLCOG website (page 3/4 of pdf)  :

Mayor Glover asked if the NLCOG website had any visual depictions regarding I‐69 or if there was any community awareness/education materials available. Mr. Rogers stated NLCOG had links to each SIU website and that staff could put together a few other things including maps. Mayor Walker stated he had a summary he could provide to the board; he said I‐69 would happen, but it would take another 10‐20 years and money for construction. Mayor Glover stated visual aids would be a great way to get information out to the public.

Finally, a curious concern about I-69 and the Port of Houston was expressed (page 3/4 of pdf):

Mr. Kirkland questioned whether the Port of Houston had taken an official stand for, against or neutral regarding I‐69. Mr. Rogers stated the Port of Houston stood for the interstate but he was not sure if they were agreeable to any specific end alignment/corridor. Mayor Walker stated the Port of Houston had a vested interest in the project.

Maybe the above concern reflects a greater concern that TxDOT will promote the Texarkana I-69 Spur and its connection to mainline I-69 in Tenaha at the expense of mainline I-69 SIU 16 from Tenaha into Louisiana in order to grab a greater share of the freight traffic from the Port of Houston.   

[Grzrd]

Sorry for the double post, but I did not want this news to buried by length of above post. The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG) has recently posted its June 18 MPO Transportation Policy Committee Minutes. The minutes indicate that LaDOTD is looking into renumbering LA 3132 as I-220 (page 4/4 of pdf):

The question was raised whether or not LA 3132 was considered as a defense highway. Mayor Walker stated the Department of Defense deactivated the weapons storage at Barksdale Air Force Base. Mr. Rogers stated the federal process is clearly defined and following the process if exactly what NLCOG is doing. The process is what takes so long for roadways to be constructed. Mr. Goza stated LA 3132 is s temporary route number and that it will be re‐numbered in the future. LaDOTD is looking into re‐numbering LA 3132 as I‐220 between I‐20 and i‐49. Mayor Glover asked if the three digit number is indicative of loops. Mr. Goza stated yes, and the state assigns numbers in the 3000 range as temporary.

I suppose this would rule out an I-x69 designation from I-49 to I-69.

edit -

(Too bad Barksdale AFB is in the way of the original I-220 plans....)

From the above Minutes:

Mayor Walker stated the Department of Defense deactivated the weapons storage at Barksdale Air Force Base.

Although many other reasons justify not extending I-220 through Barksdale, I still find it interesting that I was recently advised in May that weapons storage was one of the primary reasons for not doing so:

Another regionally/nationally significant project is the Modified I-20/I-220 interchange and new gate access road to Barksdale AFB. Currently, we’re completing the public-side of the EIS regarding this project. The base-side (restricted) environmental analysis is complete. In an effort to maintain control of access and secure the base itself,  DoD will not allow a publically accessible, new interstate/freeway classified roadway to traverse through Barksdale AFB property. Further, the land area located on the east side of the reservation is a secured weapons stockpile/storage area. I-220 will never be extended south through Barksdale AFB.

[apjung]

Is Louisiana the only state that doesn't have any section of I-69 under construction?

[NE2]

Is Louisiana the only state that doesn't have any section of I-69 under construction?

Florida doesn't

Mississippi has no current I-69 projects.

[mcdonaat]

Is Louisiana the only state that doesn't have any section of I-69 under construction?

I thought for a while that the Southern Loop was part of I-69, until it was built.

[apjung]

Let me restate that, Louisiana doesn't have a single mile of I-69 built nor under construction, while Mississippi has built a short section of I-69. Arkansas is building what will be I-69 at SIU 13 in Monticello, AR.

[NE2]

No big surprise; Louisiana also has the least I-69 mileage, if I'm not mistaken.

[Grzrd]

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG) has recently posted its June 18 MPO Transportation Policy Committee Minutes.  In regard to the section of I-69 from Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX (also known as Section of Independent Utility 16 (SIU 16)), some concern was expressed that Texas is not being aggressive in pursuing SIU 16 (pages 2-3/4 of pdf)

The Texas I-69 Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations, combining information from the five segment committees (and current to November 5, 2012), has been posted on the TxDOT website.  The US 84 Relief Route at Tenaha and Joaquin is shown as an upgrade priority, but I do not know if that translates to TxDOT starting the environmental review process for SIU 16 any time soon (page 25/30 of pdf; page 19 of document):



edit

It is not encouraging that an environmental study for SIU 16 is conspicuously absent from a map displaying, among other things, Recommended Environmental/ Route Location and Planning Studies (page 26/30 of pdf; page 20 of document):

[mcdonaat]

I would think that La will build the Shreveport loop before anything else, designating it from I-49 to I-20 as I-69, while numbering 3132 as I-269. I could also see US 79 as Business I-69 through Minden.

[Anthony_JK]

I would think that La will build the Shreveport loop before anything else, designating it from I-49 to I-20 as I-69, while numbering 3132 as I-269. I could also see US 79 as Business I-69 through Minden.

What Shreveport Loop?? I thought that was I-220 + LA 3132 extended to proposed I-69 near the Port of Shreveport-Bossier City??

The "extension" of I-220 east to Barksdale AFB is only to provide a gateway access from I-20/I220....nothing more. Any thought of extending that to incorporate LA 3132/I-220 to complete a Shreveport Loop is essentially dead and gone. Plus, the I-49 ICC is more important, anyway.

If anything, make LA 3132 into an even I-x69 or an extension of I-220, and save the former for another highway.

[mcdonaat]

The Shreveport Loop being the construction of I-69 across the Red towards I-20, connecting I-49 with the eastern edge of Bossier. I know that 220 will never actually connect all the way through, and LA 3132 is going to be extended to the port, but I-69 would essentially complete an offset loop of the city.

Speaking of I-69, how will they push it through Logansport? I was hoping for south of the city, with US 84 being four-laned and serve as Business I-69, but that's just wishful thinking. With an Interstate cutting just north of Toledo Bend, I could really see that area taking off.

[Grzrd]

The Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") for Section of Independent Utility 15 ("SIU 15") of I-69 in the metro Shreveport/ Bossier City area was submitted to LaDOTD and FHWA on December 14 and a Record of Decision ("ROD") is anticipated to be issued in the relatively near future. From an email I received from the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG"):

I-69 SIU-15 FEIS Status: December 14th 2012, the consultant, Michael Baker Jr. Inc, submitted the Final EIS document, with all the public comments appropriately addressed, to LADOTD and FHWA for their signatures and issuance of the ROD. They are required to provide a response within a 45 day timeframe. I don’t think we’ll have very much fanfare concerning this ROD as compared to the one we had with I-49 North. We’ll post the issuance statement to our web site as soon as we receive it.

The Texas I-69 Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations, combining information from the five segment committees (and current to November 5, 2012), has been posted on the TxDOT website.  The US 84 Relief Route at Tenaha and Joaquin is shown as an upgrade priority, but I do not know if that translates to TxDOT starting the environmental review process for SIU 16 any time soon (page 25/30 of pdf; page 19 of document) ....
It is not encouraging that an environmental study for SIU 16 is conspicuously absent from a map displaying, among other things, Recommended Environmental/ Route Location and Planning Studies (page 26/30 of pdf; page 20 of document)

In regard to the Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX SIU 16, it does not appear that TxDOT will begin the environmental process any time soon:

As far as I-69 SIU-16 (TxDOT lead) is concerned, I’m not holding out much hope for any progress to be made, at least from a NEPA standpoint, in the near future.

[Grzrd]

I-69 SIU-15 FEIS Status: December 14th 2012, the consultant, Michael Baker Jr. Inc, submitted the Final EIS document, with all the public comments appropriately addressed, to LADOTD and FHWA for their signatures and issuance of the ROD.

I have also received the following response from Baker:

The Final EIS is under final review by the Louisiana DOTD and the Federal Highway Administration.  We anticipate that the document will be distributed for public review in early-Spring 2013.   The document will be available for review at local libraries and the DOTD District 04 office, and will also be posted on the I-69 SIU 15 website.

[Grzrd]

From an email I received from the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG) .... In regard to the Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX SIU 16, it does not appear that TxDOT will begin the environmental process any time soon:

As far as I-69 SIU-16 (TxDOT lead) is concerned, I’m not holding out much hope for any progress to be made, at least from a NEPA standpoint, in the near future.

At approximately the 1:00 mark of this TV video report, the following map caught my eye:



TxDOT used this map as part of its recent I-69 presentation to the Texas legislature. It (and TxDOT) seems to be tossing Shreveport a bone by using a star to denote that it is at the crossroads of the I-20/I-10 corridor, I-49 and I-69.  I still suspect that TxDOT is in no hurry to begin the SIU 16 environmental process.

I wonder if the folks in Myrtle Beach will want the I-20 extension after taking a look at this?