I49 in LA

[sparker]

https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/battle-to-build-i-49-inner-city-connector-heating-up-in-2021/article_09ce8b6c-6a3d-11eb-a5bc-63fd21ec77c9.html

A "business boulevard", huh?

So, Allendale activists are once again trying to divert I-49 through the Inner Loop and I-220 West, I see.

Straight through Cross Lake, which is Shreveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water.

Requiring costly adjustments to both the Inner Loop and I-220.

And, creating a "business boulevard" that will get choked down with traffic anyway, because people going north on I-49 will still choose the most direct path, and the resulting noise and delay from a surface facility will do more damage to Allendale than an elevated freeway with CSS features will.

They need to learn from Lafayette and the I-49 Lafayette Connector process.

And also, Buttigieg will find out real quick if he attempts to oppose this: Louisiana isn't Bloomington.

From what I've gathered, there are local activists on both sides of the Shreveport issue, but the anti-I-49 side has been bolstered by the peripatetic "usual suspect" activists who seem to pop up whenever a freeway controversy emerges.  This may turn out to be the one instance where it's not simply a "freeway vs. the people" equation, a sentiment that serves as the catalyst for such activism.  We'll just have to see if the new Secretary can and will consider each situation on its specific merits and downsides, or will adopt a blanket approach that defaults to the negative.

And according to all the pretty pictures in that particular thread, I-69 is now integrated with Bloomington and has been for several years now!

[silverback1065]

getting 69 through bloomington was easy, 37 was already close to freeway grade through there.

[abqtraveler]

https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/battle-to-build-i-49-inner-city-connector-heating-up-in-2021/article_09ce8b6c-6a3d-11eb-a5bc-63fd21ec77c9.html

A "business boulevard", huh?

So, Allendale activists are once again trying to divert I-49 through the Inner Loop and I-220 West, I see.

Straight through Cross Lake, which is Shreveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water.

Requiring costly adjustments to both the Inner Loop and I-220.

And, creating a "business boulevard" that will get choked down with traffic anyway, because people going north on I-49 will still choose the most direct path, and the resulting noise and delay from a surface facility will do more damage to Allendale than an elevated freeway with CSS features will.

They need to learn from Lafayette and the I-49 Lafayette Connector process.

And also, Buttigieg will find out real quick if he attempts to oppose this: Louisiana isn't Bloomington.

From what I've gathered, there are local activists on both sides of the Shreveport issue, but the anti-I-49 side has been bolstered by the peripatetic "usual suspect" activists who seem to pop up whenever a freeway controversy emerges.  This may turn out to be the one instance where it's not simply a "freeway vs. the people" equation, a sentiment that serves as the catalyst for such activism.  We'll just have to see if the new Secretary can and will consider each situation on its specific merits and downsides, or will adopt a blanket approach that defaults to the negative.

And according to all the pretty pictures in that particular thread, I-69 is now integrated with Bloomington and has been for several years now!

And there's always the option of tunneling the I-49 Inner-City Connector under the Allendale neighborhood to minimize disruption to the overlying community while still getting last piece of I-49 built. A tunnel is really expensive, but that might be the only option that leaves everyone satisfied to some degree.

[sparker]

getting 69 through bloomington was easy, 37 was already close to freeway grade through there.

Physically, yes; sociopolitically, not so much.  Back around 2013 or so the pictures of protesters (ostensibly from IU-centered activist groups) on the overpasses during the upgrade construction efforts there made the local papers out here.   Didn't escape one's sense of irony that they were on pre-existing freeway overpasses that had been there for some time.  Guess the publicity surrounding the I-69 extension provided more than ample opportunity for them to make their points.

[silverback1065]

Can someone explain to me why simply routing it on 220 and 3132 isn't the most logical solution? The part from 20 to 3132 can be renumbered 249.

Pixel 5

[abqtraveler]

Can someone explain to me why simply routing it on 220 and 3132 isn't the most logical solution? The part from 20 to 3132 can be renumbered 249.

Pixel 5

The I-20/I-220/LA-3132 interchange would require a lot of rework, and I believe LA-3132 is not up to interstate standards. Some folks say that I-220 between I-20/LA-3132 and I-49 including the bridge over Cross Lake will need to be widened, but it's already an interstate, so I don't quite buy that argument.  I think they're looking at it from a cost perspective, believing it would be cheaper to just plow I-49 through the Allendale neighborhood, rather than performing upgrades to 3132 and reconfiguring the 20/220/2132 interchange on the west side.

[sprjus4]

Can someone explain to me why simply routing it on 220 and 3132 isn't the most logical solution? The part from 20 to 3132 can be renumbered 249.

Pixel 5

The I-20/I-220/LA-3132 interchange would require a lot of rework, and I believe LA-3132 is not up to interstate standards. Some folks say that I-220 between I-20/LA-3132 and I-49 including the bridge over Cross Lake will need to be widened, but it's already an interstate, so I don't quite buy that argument.  I think they're looking at it from a cost perspective, believing it would be cheaper to just plow I-49 through the Allendale neighborhood, rather than performing upgrades to 3132 and reconfiguring the 20/220/2132 interchange on the west side.

Wouldn't the I-49 / LA-3132 interchange also have to redesigned to provide continuity for I-49 traffic as well? I mean, it technically could just be routed on the ramps, but ideally it would be.

It seems to be most the logical option just to continue with current I-49 connector plans.

[Anthony_JK]

https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/battle-to-build-i-49-inner-city-connector-heating-up-in-2021/article_09ce8b6c-6a3d-11eb-a5bc-63fd21ec77c9.html

A "business boulevard", huh?

So, Allendale activists are once again trying to divert I-49 through the Inner Loop and I-220 West, I see.

Straight through Cross Lake, which is Shreveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water.

Requiring costly adjustments to both the Inner Loop and I-220.

And, creating a "business boulevard" that will get choked down with traffic anyway, because people going north on I-49 will still choose the most direct path, and the resulting noise and delay from a surface facility will do more damage to Allendale than an elevated freeway with CSS features will.

They need to learn from Lafayette and the I-49 Lafayette Connector process.

And also, Buttigieg will find out real quick if he attempts to oppose this: Louisiana isn't Bloomington.

From what I've gathered, there are local activists on both sides of the Shreveport issue, but the anti-I-49 side has been bolstered by the peripatetic "usual suspect" activists who seem to pop up whenever a freeway controversy emerges.  This may turn out to be the one instance where it's not simply a "freeway vs. the people" equation, a sentiment that serves as the catalyst for such activism.  We'll just have to see if the new Secretary can and will consider each situation on its specific merits and downsides, or will adopt a blanket approach that defaults to the negative.

And according to all the pretty pictures in that particular thread, I-69 is now integrated with Bloomington and has been for several years now!

And there's always the option of tunneling the I-49 Inner-City Connector under the Allendale neighborhood to minimize disruption to the overlying community while still getting last piece of I-49 built. A tunnel is really expensive, but that might be the only option that leaves everyone satisfied to some degree.

First off....tunneling is not a real viable option because of both the prohibitive cost and the sharp transition that would occur between the southern terminus of the ICC at the I-49/I-20 interchange and any depressed/tunneled area that would probably have to begin near Ford Street, where an interchange is proposed in the current plan to connect the ICC with downtown Shreveport and the local neighborhood. Plus, you have low wetlands just past Allendale to the north between there and I-220 (the northern terminus at the existing I-49 North/I-220 interchange) that would prohibit a sunken highway without serious wetland impacts.

Second...those who oppose the ICC would probably not want a depressed freeway or tunnel, since they are opposed on basic principle to the freeway alignment itself, and are insistent on diverting it away via LA 3132 and I-220, and using at-grade surface boulevards as a "cheap" substitute for "urban development".

Personally, I don't see the problem with an elevated highway from I-20 through Allendale; it gets the traffic through via the most direct route, while allowing for full accessibility underneath with adequate cross roads. You could use CSS principles to both ease the visual impact and prompt more and stable economic development.

Although, I perfectly understand why they would oppose the project, even as I fundamentally disagree with them.

[Anthony_JK]

Can someone explain to me why simply routing it on 220 and 3132 isn't the most logical solution? The part from 20 to 3132 can be renumbered 249.

Pixel 5

The I-20/I-220/LA-3132 interchange would require a lot of rework, and I believe LA-3132 is not up to interstate standards. Some folks say that I-220 between I-20/LA-3132 and I-49 including the bridge over Cross Lake will need to be widened, but it's already an interstate, so I don't quite buy that argument.  I think they're looking at it from a cost perspective, believing it would be cheaper to just plow I-49 through the Allendale neighborhood, rather than performing upgrades to 3132 and reconfiguring the 20/220/2132 interchange on the west side.

Wouldn't the I-49 / LA-3132 interchange also have to redesigned to provide continuity for I-49 traffic as well? I mean, it technically could just be routed on the ramps, but ideally it would be.

It seems to be most the logical option just to continue with current I-49 connector plans.

The current proposal in the ICC Draft EIS for an Inner Loop/I-220 bypass does include a rework of the I-49/Inner Loop interchange to allow a two-lane ramp transition between south I-49 and west/north LA 3132. The other issues would be that the current 3132 interchange with Linwood Avenue just west of I-49 would have to be eliminated due to interchange spacing requirements, a sharp bend on I-220 just north of the I-20/I-220/LA 3132 interchange would have to be adjusted and realigned, and a third lane would be required on I-220 from I-20 West to the current I-49 North (to Texarkana) terminus due to additional traffic. Although, I'd say that the proposed "commercial boulevard" would probably relieve the need for that traffic, but at a real cost to Allendale in terms of increased noise, less accessibility, and less cohesiveness.

The current more direct path, in my view, remains the best option.

[bwana39]

The ebb and flow of the intercity connector has run with the who is the mayor question.

Here is how the proposition works. The mayor's office sends his people to the NLCOG (Council of Governments). Without their support LADOTD will build nothing. I-49 was a high priority under Keith Hightower around the turn of the century.  Cedrick Glover pretty much stopped it dead in its tracks. Ollie Tyler's administration let it get started again. Where exactly Adrian Perkins sits is still up in the air.

Now back to the issue. There is an element in Shreveport that never gave up on getting I-49 inner-city connector cancelled.  They just see Buttigieg as a new way to get what they want.  Their primary argument is against "dividing the community" . There is virtually nothing east of any of the I-49 routes except for downtown. The only residences downtown are in repurposed multi-story commercial buildings. There have been some new apartments built in the past decade, but this falls into one of two groups of thought. 1) The vacant spaces between Allen avenue and downtown are excellent places to build housing and if we build something in the way they will cancel it. or 2) Let's throw something cheap up in the path and cash in when it is gets built.

The bottom line is there is very little to be separated. Most if not all of anything resembling a community is west of Allen. The freeway will likely be built east of Allen Avenue (the ideal would be build it down the abandoned intraurban railroad path and leave Pete Harris as as Northbound Frontage road and Allen Avenue as a southbound frontage.

[vdeane]

There have been some new apartments built in the past decade, but this falls into one of two groups of thought. 1) The vacant spaces between Allen avenue and downtown are excellent places to build housing and if we build something in the way they will cancel it.

Is that how these got built?  I couldn't figure out why someone would build brand new apartments directly in the path of an interstate.

[bwana39]

Loop It... (Using LA-3132 and I-220) Is a terrible idea. The traffic on 3132 is already too dense. The traffic across Cross Lake on I-220 is heavy.

Here is what it takes to use the Inner Loop as the primary route for I-49.

Complete rebuild of 3132 from I-49 to 70th Street.  This road was once voted the "Worst Freeway in the United States."

Add a third (or maybe fourth) lane all the way around.  This includes Cross Lake. The Cross Lake bridge on I-220 had both cost overruns AND a sinking problem once it was finished. It opened a couple of years late because of those issues. Building added capacity would probably run into the same problems.

There would be more dollars for bridges built just to ford Cross Lake than total roadway for the Inner City Connector. 

[sprjus4]

Eh, who cares about actual traffic problems? RE/T groups just want to use the lowballed option of slap some shields on existing routes and call it a day.

[bwana39]

The Interstate brand seems to be much like you suggested in the east and perhaps the upper mid-west. In the south, west, and southwest, the drive to put up interstate shields has been minimal. Texas, California, Arizona, and even Louisiana have multiple freeways that had they chosen when building them could have carried interstate shields with minimal upgrades. US Highway 80 from Terrell to I-30 could have been changed to a 3DI when I-20 was rerouted around the south side of Dallas and Fort Worth. Instead, it carries the US80 Shield.

Putting an Interstate Shield for the sake of doing it is not the norm away from the eastern seaboard.

[Strider]

I am in for moving I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220 and redesign the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 as an I-x49. They already signed "To North or South I-49" along I-220 and LA 3132, so why bother destroying the neighborhood just for an interstate highway? Moving it and widen the sections of LA 3132 and I-220 will do the job just fine. Maybe it will cost more money, but it is better than destroying and separating the neighborhood.

[Henry]

I can care less either way, but if the ICC can be built right (and this is a huge if, being the hot button topic in Allendale and other neighborhoods), I say go for it.

[abqtraveler]

I am in for moving I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220 and redesign the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 as an I-x49. They already signed "To North or South I-49" along I-220 and LA 3132, so why bother destroying the neighborhood just for an interstate highway? Moving it and widen the sections of LA 3132 and I-220 will do the job just fine. Maybe it will cost more money, but it is better than destroying and separating the neighborhood.

And to that point, I'm not entirely convinced there will be this huge influx of traffic on I-220 and LA-3132 if they're signed as I-49. With "TO I-49" signs already posted along the route since the northern stretch of I-49 from I-220 to Arkansas opened, I-220 and 3132 appear to be handling things just fine right now. I don't think you'd see a huge change in traffic flow on 220/3132 if they took the "TO" placard off and just signed it as I-49.

[bwana39]

I am in for moving I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220 and redesign the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 as an I-x49. They already signed "To North or South I-49" along I-220 and LA 3132, so why bother destroying the neighborhood just for an interstate highway? Moving it and widen the sections of LA 3132 and I-220 will do the job just fine. Maybe it will cost more money, but it is better than destroying and separating the neighborhood.

There is no neighborhood.
https://goo.gl/maps/p2aVX2sz83UxTpi86
https://goo.gl/maps/g5gy2eLJbi9UnAdD8

These are the primary things east of Pete Harris.  The will be no separating any community. There MIGHT be 15 inhabitable houses either east of or directly in the probably ROW.

It isn't about the people not wanting the freeway. It is about these groups wanting the money spent on things that would probably benefit the community more. The problem is that it doesn't work this way. The money will be spent on a highway somewhere. If Shreveport doesn't want it Alexandria or Monroe will

[MikieTimT]

I am in for moving I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220 and redesign the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 as an I-x49. They already signed "To North or South I-49" along I-220 and LA 3132, so why bother destroying the neighborhood just for an interstate highway? Moving it and widen the sections of LA 3132 and I-220 will do the job just fine. Maybe it will cost more money, but it is better than destroying and separating the neighborhood.

There is no neighborhood.
https://goo.gl/maps/p2aVX2sz83UxTpi86
https://goo.gl/maps/g5gy2eLJbi9UnAdD8

These are the primary things east of Pete Harris.  The will be no separating any community. There MIGHT be 15 inhabitable houses either east of or directly in the probably ROW.

It isn't about the people not wanting the freeway. It is about these groups wanting the money spent on things that would probably benefit the community more. The problem is that it doesn't work this way. The money will be spent on a highway somewhere. If Shreveport doesn't want it Alexandria or Monroe will

It looks to me like the ROW for an I-49 connector would have to go west of Pete Harris to connect with the other current termination, and that there is a neighborhood there complete with houses, churches, and a funeral home, but maybe the proposed ROW didn't connect the 2 current endpoints directly?

[abqtraveler]

I am in for moving I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220 and redesign the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 as an I-x49. They already signed "To North or South I-49" along I-220 and LA 3132, so why bother destroying the neighborhood just for an interstate highway? Moving it and widen the sections of LA 3132 and I-220 will do the job just fine. Maybe it will cost more money, but it is better than destroying and separating the neighborhood.

There is no neighborhood.
https://goo.gl/maps/p2aVX2sz83UxTpi86
https://goo.gl/maps/g5gy2eLJbi9UnAdD8

These are the primary things east of Pete Harris.  The will be no separating any community. There MIGHT be 15 inhabitable houses either east of or directly in the probably ROW.

It isn't about the people not wanting the freeway. It is about these groups wanting the money spent on things that would probably benefit the community more. The problem is that it doesn't work this way. The money will be spent on a highway somewhere. If Shreveport doesn't want it Alexandria or Monroe will

It goes to show you how few people understand how federal appropriations work. There are certain "colors" of money that can only be used to pay for certain things. If you use the wrong "color" of money to pay for something, you'll end up in trouble for misappropriating funds for something that wasn't intended by Congress.

[vdeane]

Judging by the comments I've read on Facebook, I don't think most people understand what appropriations even ARE much less how they work.

[bwana39]

I am in for moving I-49 along LA 3132 and I-220 and redesign the current I-49 from LA 3132 to I-20 as an I-x49. They already signed "To North or South I-49" along I-220 and LA 3132, so why bother destroying the neighborhood just for an interstate highway? Moving it and widen the sections of LA 3132 and I-220 will do the job just fine. Maybe it will cost more money, but it is better than destroying and separating the neighborhood.

There is no neighborhood.
https://goo.gl/maps/p2aVX2sz83UxTpi86
https://goo.gl/maps/g5gy2eLJbi9UnAdD8

These are the primary things east of Pete Harris.  The will be no separating any community. There MIGHT be 15 inhabitable houses either east of or directly in the probably ROW.

It isn't about the people not wanting the freeway. It is about these groups wanting the money spent on things that would probably benefit the community more. The problem is that it doesn't work this way. The money will be spent on a highway somewhere. If Shreveport doesn't want it Alexandria or Monroe will

It looks to me like the ROW for an I-49 connector would have to go west of Pete Harris to connect with the other current termination, and that there is a neighborhood there complete with houses, churches, and a funeral home, but maybe the proposed ROW didn't connect the 2 current endpoints directly?

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cc22e9d8561e4fb884b931e919560817&extent=-93.8379,32.4896,-93.7152,32.5467    Is still the current study corridor.

I made some assumptions that everyone knew the lay of the land. Basically that there is little between Allen Avenue and Pete Harris.
I agree that North of Ford / Caddo that there are a few houses maybe as many as 50 that will be either in the ROW or east of the ROW and cut off. The apartments at the north end of the existing I-49 were built primarily to stop the inner city connector.

I agree it would be west of Pete Harris. Probably between Allen and Pete Harris. Texas style frontage roads using Allen and Pete Harris would do more to revitalize the commercial community. Honestly revitalizing Pierre into a business Boulevard is just as viable(possibly more so) with the freeway as without.

I do agree that a freeway without through frontage roads ( between I-20 and Ford / Caddo) would have absolutely no value to the community and little for Shreveport.

[Scott5114]

There is no neighborhood.
https://goo.gl/maps/p2aVX2sz83UxTpi86

"A real fixer-upper!"

[LM117]

Stumbled across an op-ed on CNN that mentioned the ICC. It's as how you would expect...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html

[sprjus4]

Stumbled across an op-ed on CNN that mentioned the ICC. It's as how you would expect...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/perspectives/infrastructure-road-projects-cities/index.html

I love this part. Good luck 

The quickest, easiest and most powerful way for Buttigieg to fulfill his promise to "rebuild our nation's infrastructure into something that creates opportunities for all, especially those who have been historically shut out" is to declare the interstate system complete, permanently ending all planning for these final segments and freeing Allendale and poor neighborhoods like it from this funding-induced tyranny.