AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I49 in LA  (Read 555542 times)

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1890
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:00:30 AM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1450 on: March 22, 2021, 02:13:18 PM »

Declare the interstate system complete? That sounds absurd and an attempt to make sure no new freeways are built. Even many Western European countries are still building new long distances freeways that are the equivalent of interstates but here in America were just going to give up so we donít offend anyone. What a joke.
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1798
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 10:58:05 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1451 on: March 22, 2021, 02:15:42 PM »

Declare the interstate system complete? That sounds absurd and an attempt to make sure no new freeways are built. Even many Western European countries are still building new long distances freeways that are the equivalent of interstates but here in America were just going to give up so we donít offend anyone. What a joke.
Works for me.  It is complete.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1890
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:00:30 AM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1452 on: March 22, 2021, 02:22:12 PM »

Declare the interstate system complete? That sounds absurd and an attempt to make sure no new freeways are built. Even many Western European countries are still building new long distances freeways that are the equivalent of interstates but here in America were just going to give up so we donít offend anyone. What a joke.
Works for me.  It is complete.
Lol. Iím guessing this post is sarcasm... hopefully :p
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6656
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:29 AM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1453 on: March 22, 2021, 02:41:54 PM »

Declare the interstate system complete? That sounds absurd and an attempt to make sure no new freeways are built. Even many Western European countries are still building new long distances freeways that are the equivalent of interstates but here in America were just going to give up so we donít offend anyone. What a joke.
Works for me.  It is complete.
Lol. Iím guessing this post is sarcasm... hopefully :p
Given his post history, nope.
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 12313
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:16:14 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1454 on: March 22, 2021, 03:53:22 PM »

Declare the interstate system complete? That sounds absurd and an attempt to make sure no new freeways are built. Even many Western European countries are still building new long distances freeways that are the equivalent of interstates but here in America were just going to give up so we donít offend anyone. What a joke.
Works for me.  It is complete.

It only works for you because you're a cheapass.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 752
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 05:03:53 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1455 on: March 22, 2021, 05:53:17 PM »

Declare the interstate system complete? That sounds absurd and an attempt to make sure no new freeways are built. Even many Western European countries are still building new long distances freeways that are the equivalent of interstates but here in America were just going to give up so we donít offend anyone. What a joke.
Works for me.  It is complete.

It only works for you because you're a cheapass.

It seems  that he only posts (with this handle) when he wants to be a smug.....
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8282
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 05:27:35 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1456 on: March 23, 2021, 04:10:24 AM »

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  :-D :-D

Quote
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.

It's not within the parvenu of the Secretary of Transportation to unilaterally "declare the Interstate System complete" when there are congressionally-enacted corridors yet to be constructed dating back to 1991; each one of those, with its own authorizing language, would have to be rescinded one at a time -- and the chances of that happening are slim & none (and slim's left the building!).  As I've iterated before on more than one occasion, these corridors are in and of themselves both political animals and often political detritus.  Now -- a moratorium on building new freeway mileage within urban areas would be somewhat politically feasible (many of the areas affected have already either enacted measures to that effect or have, in a de facto sense, simply chosen not to entertain new-terrain freeway mileage -- even the poster child for the freeway, L.A., fits into this category).  But outlying areas beyond the reach of any reasonable transit network still require safe & efficient roads to handle both interregional travel and commercial transport.  The rail network, in private hands, is increasingly geared toward long-distance and "bulk" movements, essentially leaving short and mid-distance hauls to trucks (and often employing "hub & spoke" networks to effect any intermodal transfers); as that system is configured today, any suggestion to simply move freight to rail is disingenuous at best.

Also, this current administration, given their precarious levels of support in the rural sectors, will probably attempt to pick their battles to those areas where they have a reasonable chance or success.  In the transportation sector, that will likely mean concentrating any push for modal change away from roads & automobiles within the urban areas that provided them with their electoral support last year.  For better or worse, that will mean that items such as the Shreveport connector (or maybe even the Lafayette crosstown project) may not find much support from USDOT, but longer-distance and rural-based projects like I-11 or the P2P, which have the blessing (if not the funding) from the relevant states may be given something of a grudging "green light"; doing otherwise would draw political flack from not only the usual R suspects but members of the administration's party who have been championing these corridors for a quarter-century or more. 
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3509
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 10:17:54 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1457 on: March 23, 2021, 08:50:36 AM »

honestly, we don't need any more interstates. finishing 49 is enough and finishing 69 to memphis. We need to fix existing infrastructure.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1890
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:00:30 AM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1458 on: March 23, 2021, 09:16:30 AM »

I guess all of people who could greatly use I-11 should just fuck off lol
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 674
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 04:27:46 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1459 on: March 23, 2021, 09:47:20 AM »

I guess all of people who could greatly use I-11 should just fuck off lol

The folks who believe that the Interstate Highway System is functionally complete, have clearly already gotten theirs and don't live in an area with any growth, so why would they want to see their tax money go where the drivers actually are moving to.  They must also have the same notion in regards to legislative representation needing to be fixed at a certain number of representatives regardless of demographic changes, so the census doesn't actually have much meaning to them either.  Contrary to their belief, the population does actually move around, especially out of the more rural areas to more metropolitan areas of various sizes, and lately, from larger metros to smaller metros to get more space for their money.  I actually have a different take, and I came from one of those areas.  When the population decreases to a certain point, the roads need to revert back to the next lower tier government for maintenance, which generally will spend less on those roads' upkeep anyway.  That would result in road funds being spent more on where they are needed rather than keeping paved roads going through emptying ghost towns.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 752
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 05:03:53 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1460 on: March 23, 2021, 11:23:32 AM »

honestly, we don't need any more interstates. finishing 49 is enough and finishing 69 to memphis. We need to fix existing infrastructure.

While I am not sure that I don't agree that we may not more INTERSTATES, I clearly believe we need highway upgrades. That is more lanes at places, fewer red lights, stop signs, and more highway-speed miles. Part of the infrastructure problems is overuse.  Expanding capacities is the answer. 

My issue with interstates comes from my home state TEXAS. Due to access laws, through frontage roads are almost a given. So almost any time you build a four-lane freeway, you build eight lanes of road.  I fully agree that there need to be significant upgrades in the ports-to-plains corridor. All of it should be four-lane divided highway with a MINIMUM speed limit of 65 MPH. That means controlled access loops around most if not all of the cities and towns.  It means an interstate grade facility at points. It means grade separated overpasses at major intersections.  On the other hand, most of the rural stretches could be what TXDOT calls Multi-lane Rural Highway (4-lane divided).  Yes, there would be multiple uncontrolled access points. There would be crossovers. 

Far more value for the buck, but not an interstate.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6656
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:29 AM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1461 on: March 23, 2021, 11:48:11 AM »

^

For many states on the eastern seaboard, not counting Florida and Georgia, it would be helpful if rural divided highway mileage would be posted at 65 mph or greater. Instead, we're stuck with artificial state laws that restrict speed limits to 60 mph on anything that is not a controlled access highway.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 752
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 05:03:53 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1462 on: March 23, 2021, 12:15:27 PM »

^

For many states on the eastern seaboard, not counting Florida and Georgia, it would be helpful if rural divided highway mileage would be posted at 65 mph or greater. Instead, we're stuck with artificial state laws that restrict speed limits to 60 mph on anything that is not a controlled access highway.

In Texas, that certainly is not the problem. It almost always is posted at 65 of more, usually 70 or 75. It is when you transition into the (usually small) town and decrease from 75 to 35 that it becomes an issue.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6656
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:29 AM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1463 on: March 23, 2021, 01:41:18 PM »

^

For many states on the eastern seaboard, not counting Florida and Georgia, it would be helpful if rural divided highway mileage would be posted at 65 mph or greater. Instead, we're stuck with artificial state laws that restrict speed limits to 60 mph on anything that is not a controlled access highway.

In Texas, that certainly is not the problem. It almost always is posted at 65 of more, usually 70 or 75. It is when you transition into the (usually small) town and decrease from 75 to 35 that it becomes an issue.
Agreed, and Texas could get away with creating a rural divided highway with a consistently maintained 75 mph speed limit with limited access segments and interchanges where necessary in order to hold that speed.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1436
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 01:07:39 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1464 on: March 25, 2021, 03:14:09 AM »

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  :-D :-D

Quote
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.

It's not within the parvenu of the Secretary of Transportation to unilaterally "declare the Interstate System complete" when there are congressionally-enacted corridors yet to be constructed dating back to 1991; each one of those, with its own authorizing language, would have to be rescinded one at a time -- and the chances of that happening are slim & none (and slim's left the building!).  As I've iterated before on more than one occasion, these corridors are in and of themselves both political animals and often political detritus.  Now -- a moratorium on building new freeway mileage within urban areas would be somewhat politically feasible (many of the areas affected have already either enacted measures to that effect or have, in a de facto sense, simply chosen not to entertain new-terrain freeway mileage -- even the poster child for the freeway, L.A., fits into this category).  But outlying areas beyond the reach of any reasonable transit network still require safe & efficient roads to handle both interregional travel and commercial transport.  The rail network, in private hands, is increasingly geared toward long-distance and "bulk" movements, essentially leaving short and mid-distance hauls to trucks (and often employing "hub & spoke" networks to effect any intermodal transfers); as that system is configured today, any suggestion to simply move freight to rail is disingenuous at best.

Also, this current administration, given their precarious levels of support in the rural sectors, will probably attempt to pick their battles to those areas where they have a reasonable chance or success.  In the transportation sector, that will likely mean concentrating any push for modal change away from roads & automobiles within the urban areas that provided them with their electoral support last year.  For better or worse, that will mean that items such as the Shreveport connector (or maybe even the Lafayette crosstown project) may not find much support from USDOT, but longer-distance and rural-based projects like I-11 or the P2P, which have the blessing (if not the funding) from the relevant states may be given something of a grudging "green light"; doing otherwise would draw political flack from not only the usual R suspects but members of the administration's party who have been championing these corridors for a quarter-century or more. 

Ahhh, yes...Charles Mahron, yet another New Urbanist who doesn't know diddley poop about how highways are funded.

No, sir...Allendale can boom just as well with the ICC in place, because most of the ROW that would be removed by the ICC is dead (outside of the apartments deliberately put there by obstructionists), and the remaining displacements can be mitigated quite easily.

If this is a preliminary for what these fools are planning for the Lafayette I-49 Connector segment, this will be all out WAR.

There is no Goddess damn way that LADOTD is going to build Teche Ridge Alignment through Cypress Swamp, or invest $2B into the Lafayette Regional Expressway toll loop just to avoid going through 6 blocks between the Evangeline Thruway that will still get choked off by existing traffic.

If they can't adequately fund needed corridors and defend them, then why have a gas tax and an Interstate system to begin with?

To HELL with Pete Buttigieg and all of them.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3101
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 09:17:13 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1465 on: March 25, 2021, 09:08:54 PM »

Will the Interstate 49 "missing link" between Interstates 20 and 220 be built anytime soon? I have a feeling the locals might be successful in delaying or killing the project, forcing 49 to follow 3132 and 220.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8282
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 05:27:35 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1466 on: March 26, 2021, 02:25:40 AM »

That's a subject that has been bandied about for some time in this thread.  Apparently there are both pro and con activists pressing their cases; the latter bolstered by outside (non-local) anti-freeway/automotive groups (I refer to them as the "usual suspects").  The "pro" folks think that a freeway in their vicinity will boost the visibility of the neighborhood and will have the potential of conveying customers to businesses functionally isolated by lack of connectivity -- the inverse of the notion of "pristine" neighborhoods untainted by the effects of traffic.  For better or worse, the latter approach seems to have been internalized within official circles, with USDOT being the latest to express some variant of the concept.  It remains to be seen whether that will be brought to bear on the situation or whether it will be wrung out locally, with the chips falling where they may.  Either way, a substantial level of funding will be needed for either the connector or upgrades to Loop 3132 and I-220 to accommodate I-49 through traffic.   
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 752
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 05:03:53 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1467 on: March 26, 2021, 08:12:43 AM »

While we see the media attention to the no-build or the separate "Loop-IT" options, on the ground, the small businesses in the path have signs SUPPORTING building the ICC. Before anyone jumps on the fact I said small businesses... They are a mechanic shop in a bedraggled building, used tire sales outlets in fifties vintage service station buildings, and a closed bodega.  There are a couple of derelict restaurants.

 

Someone mentioned the Funeral Home might be in the path. They hope so. The last route option through the corridor was added to make sure some buildings in that area were not left out of the ROW acquisition. The activists who drive LOOP-It are from outside of Allendale, and mostly from outside of Shreveport.

Locally the ONLY reason for NOT building the connector is about the idea that the same money spent on other unrelated (not necessarily road) projects would benefit the communities north of I-20 more. They probably are not wrong, but at the same time, that is not how funding works.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3509
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 10:17:54 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1468 on: March 26, 2021, 08:40:07 AM »

is this really a missing link from the original interstate highway plan? and how much traffic does 49 from the north carry? i don't believe that extra traffic would make it necessary to upgrade 220. i need some evidence to be convinced of this. also the path of the proposal appears to go through largely vacant land.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 752
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 05:03:53 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1469 on: March 26, 2021, 10:59:55 AM »

is this really a missing link from the original interstate highway plan? and how much traffic does 49 from the north carry? i don't believe that extra traffic would make it necessary to upgrade 220. i need some evidence to be convinced of this. also the path of the proposal appears to go through largely vacant land.

The traffic volume on the inner loop (I-220 and LA-3132) is pretty high. Much of it is intraregional traffic. Even at off-peak times it is moderate to heavy.  It degrades to just short of gridlock at peak usage times.  One of the things the inter-city connector would accomplish is reduce the I-20 traffic backups at the Red River as well as some of the traffic volume on Benton Road and Airline Drive in Bossier.  It would allow the traffic going from the South to bypass I-20 and the Bossier City surface streets when going to North Bossier. Increases in traffic volumes will necessitate expansion of the Inner Loop if the ICC is not built.

The inner city connector will only be  about three miles long.  The northernmost half goes through an area that is  undeveloped (except for a water or sewer plant). Realistically, this stretch is all prone to flooding and will have to be elevated to some extent.  Then in the middle is about five blocks with development. South of Caddo / Ford Street, there are a few a few houses (mostly substandard) with occupants, and some empty houses. There are a few businesses in really old buildings, a vacant church, an older set of apartments (which some of the maps bypass), and the new "let's block the route" apartments.

Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1436
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 01:07:39 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1470 on: March 26, 2021, 05:13:50 PM »

is this really a missing link from the original interstate highway plan? and how much traffic does 49 from the north carry? i don't believe that extra traffic would make it necessary to upgrade 220. i need some evidence to be convinced of this. also the path of the proposal appears to go through largely vacant land.

The traffic volume on the inner loop (I-220 and LA-3132) is pretty high. Much of it is intraregional traffic. Even at off-peak times it is moderate to heavy.  It degrades to just short of gridlock at peak usage times.  One of the things the inter-city connector would accomplish is reduce the I-20 traffic backups at the Red River as well as some of the traffic volume on Benton Road and Airline Drive in Bossier.  It would allow the traffic going from the South to bypass I-20 and the Bossier City surface streets when going to North Bossier. Increases in traffic volumes will necessitate expansion of the Inner Loop if the ICC is not built.

The inner city connector will only be  about three miles long.  The northernmost half goes through an area that is  undeveloped (except for a water or sewer plant). Realistically, this stretch is all prone to flooding and will have to be elevated to some extent.  Then in the middle is about five blocks with development. South of Caddo / Ford Street, there are a few a few houses (mostly substandard) with occupants, and some empty houses. There are a few businesses in really old buildings, a vacant church, an older set of apartments (which some of the maps bypass), and the new "let's block the route" apartments.








Wait a minute....that church is abandoned? I saw it in Street View via Google Maps, and it looked like it was recently built to block construction of the ICC.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2021, 05:23:09 PM by Anthony_JK »
Logged

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 711
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 06:15:50 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1471 on: March 26, 2021, 06:23:18 PM »

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  :-D :-D

Quote
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.
The op-ed argues against new urban freeways such as the proposed urban section of I-49 in Shreveport. It's certainly possible to agree with that but not with the idea of declaring the interstate system "complete." What North Carolina, Texas, and other southern states have been wanting to add to the system is new rural sections reaching underserved regions of the states.
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6420
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 02:45:45 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1472 on: March 26, 2021, 08:20:46 PM »

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  :-D :-D

Quote
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.
The op-ed argues against new urban freeways such as the proposed urban section of I-49 in Shreveport. It's certainly possible to agree with that but not with the idea of declaring the interstate system "complete." What North Carolina, Texas, and other southern states have been wanting to add to the system is new rural sections reaching underserved regions of the states.
Along with countless projects (mostly urban) that have been cancelled over the years, we should just agree that the opposite is true, that the Interstate system will never be complete.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 752
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 05:03:53 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1473 on: March 28, 2021, 10:23:36 PM »

is this really a missing link from the original interstate highway plan? and how much traffic does 49 from the north carry? i don't believe that extra traffic would make it necessary to upgrade 220. i need some evidence to be convinced of this. also the path of the proposal appears to go through largely vacant land.

The traffic volume on the inner loop (I-220 and LA-3132) is pretty high. Much of it is intraregional traffic. Even at off-peak times it is moderate to heavy.  It degrades to just short of gridlock at peak usage times.  One of the things the inter-city connector would accomplish is reduce the I-20 traffic backups at the Red River as well as some of the traffic volume on Benton Road and Airline Drive in Bossier.  It would allow the traffic going from the South to bypass I-20 and the Bossier City surface streets when going to North Bossier. Increases in traffic volumes will necessitate expansion of the Inner Loop if the ICC is not built.

The inner city connector will only be  about three miles long.  The northernmost half goes through an area that is  undeveloped (except for a water or sewer plant). Realistically, this stretch is all prone to flooding and will have to be elevated to some extent.  Then in the middle is about five blocks with development. South of Caddo / Ford Street, there are a few a few houses (mostly substandard) with occupants, and some empty houses. There are a few businesses in really old buildings, a vacant church, an older set of apartments (which some of the maps bypass), and the new "let's block the route" apartments.








Wait a minute....that church is abandoned? I saw it in Street View via Google Maps, and it looked like it was recently built to block construction of the ICC.


They did spend not insignificant dollars doing renovations to do that, but yes. It is currently unoccupied.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

TheBox

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 30
  • Location: Houston, TX, United States
  • Last Login: July 29, 2021, 10:44:41 PM
Re: I49 in LA
« Reply #1474 on: July 22, 2021, 10:06:45 PM »

REMINDER: You guys can talk about I-49 at Shreveport in this topic you know   :poke: :pan:
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.