I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)

[Strider]

1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

You don't need an official project at all... TODAY, virtually all through I-49 traffic is using the beltway.

You say would have to be widened to 6 lanes... why? What are the traffic volumes? Are they something like 50-60,000+ AADT that would warrant a needed expansion? What are the future projections? You still have failed to show any of this.

The loop is virtually interstate standards, and carries interstate through traffic without any issues.

Thanks Anthony! I am going to add...

It lacks a lot to be interstate standards. Both the Linwood and Jewella / Mansfield Road exits would need to be rejiggered. Linwood would likely have to be deleted altogether.  While the I-49 / LA-3132 exit would likely get by with a waiver, The I-20 / LA-3132 /I-220 Southbound would HAVE to be reconfigured and northbound MIGHT (Curves just north of I-20 have too great of an angle)

The curve just south of Mansfield road MIGHT have to be re-radiused. The shoulders would need to be paved AND the mainlanes really need redone.

I-220/LA-3132 already serves as the de-facto connection between I-49 North and I-49 South and it doesn't appear to be overwhelmed by traffic by any stretch of the imagination. It's not so much the reconfiguration of the I-20/I-220/LA-3132 or I-49(S)/LA-3132 interchanges that makes the "Loop-It" option unpalatable; rather it's the insistence by officials that the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake "must be widened" for the I-220/LA-3132 loop to become part of I-49. From what I've seen the bridge over Cross Lake handles traffic just fine, so I respectfully disagree that a new, wider bridge would be absolutely required for the loop to be designated as I-49.  Maybe a wider bridge over Cross Lake is something they could consider when the current bridge reaches the end of its service life and is due for replacement, but that will be many years away.

If I may add to that: I looked at I-49 Shreveport ICC website where they listed the alternatives and what they plan on build when the alternative is chosen. I looked at the LA 3132/I-49 stack interchange, the only modifications they are going to make is the I-49 movements, the sweeping flyover from LA 3132 West to I-49 South and the interchange next to it and that is pretty much it. Of course, they are going to have to widen LA 3132 and I-220 as well as the Cross Lake Bridge. However, the connection between both I-49 segments is already there and traffic is using it.

Of course, the supporters of ICC rather to see a neighborhood being destroyed and dispatched so they can build 4 miles of I-49 right through town. It was clear from from their standpoint and it's whatever.

Also, if widening the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake is so problematic and costly, then why is the bridge there at the first place? Eventually they will have to replace the bridge in the future anyways, so they may go ahead and get that bridge replacement over with before it gets all too expensive.

Plus, the ICC is UNFUNDED so who's paying for it to be built when you already have the Loop It in which I-49 traffic has been using for years?

The Inner Loop and I-220 does not carry I-49 through traffic. There is already I-49 that exists from the Inner Loop north to I-20 which carries the bulk of I-49 traffic north to near downtown. But I suppose they built that just to divide the city and spite Urbanists, huh?

LADOTD has BGS's explicitly telling through I-49 traffic to take I-20 east to the current I-49 terminus at I-20. There are NO signs anywhere on I-49 directing traffic to take LA 3132.

It may be unfunded as of now, but it is one of LADOTD's top priority megaprojects (Priority A), and it is fully backed by the city of Shreveport. Once it's approved, it will get funding.

Also, one of the alternatives in the original North-South Expressway alignment discussion that gave us I-49 to begin with was to route the freeway along the Inner Loop to I-220. The authorities rejected that approach for a central alignment through the heart of Shreveport to I-20 with an ultimate connection close to downtown. Do you think that was a waste of funds?

Finally, this distorts the primary purpose of the ICC; it is not just to complete I-49 through Shreveport; it is also to provide a direct connection to important destinations within central Shreveport, including the downtown area.

Again, if the people most affected by this project are willing to consider all the alternatives and still back what they consider to be the best one, then we can all argue otherwise. It's their city, and it's their decision. And, their funds.


moto g power (2022)

Not everybody has GPS.

Also, not everybody bases their driving decisions on what roadgeeks on a forum argue.

I'm with 3mx...we've all made our points. Let's move on.

I'm with sprjus4. There is no signage telling people to use I-49/I-20/I-220. Most people see "To Texarkana" and will use LA 3132/I-220 to reach I-49 North anyways. Besides, it is not their funds because they asked the Federal Government to pay most of it since it is an interstate project. Without facts, all of what you said is purely based on assumptions. I will end this one for one and all: Until the ICC is chosen and funded, there's always I-220/LA 3132.

[Some one]

Yeah I'm also for letting this topic die out till we get any news on the fate of the ICC. But I will say that the notion that no one will take the bypass route because it's not the same signage is stupid. Plenty of cities have bypasses around them and they've been able to get by with no problems. Hell, even Louisana has two in the sense of I-12 and I-610. They both serve as through-traffic alternatives for I-10 and they see plenty of through-traffic. Or if you want an example similar to this, the planned I-69 extension in Indianapolis is going to bypass the city by overlapping with I-465, rather than go through it. I-69 was supposed to end at I-65 downtown but was canceled due to pushback. I'm also for "Loop-It" alternative if it means not having to displace any more residents or create another barrier through town. That's all I have to say for now.

[MikieTimT]

Yeah I'm also for letting this topic die out till we get any news on the fate of the ICC. But I will say that the notion that no one will take the bypass route because it's not the same signage is stupid. Plenty of cities have bypasses around them and they've been able to get by with no problems. Hell, even Louisana has two in the sense of I-12 and I-610. They both serve as through-traffic alternatives for I-10 and they see plenty of through-traffic. Or if you want an example similar to this, the planned I-69 extension in Indianapolis is going to bypass the city by overlapping with I-465, rather than go through it. I-69 was supposed to end at I-65 downtown but was canceled due to pushback. I'm also for "Loop-It" alternative if it means not having to displace any more residents or create another barrier through town. That's all I have to say for now.

Most people don't pay much attention to signage anymore period.  They just go where Google Maps navigation tells them to go.

[Anthony_JK]

I-12 serves its own purpose as a direct through route, as well as a semi-direct route from Baton Rouge or the Northshore to Jackson (via I-55).

I-610 does serve as a bypass, but it does NOT replace I-10 through downtown NOLA.

No one is calling for I-69 to go past I-465 in Indianapolis. Red herring.

I am for the ICC because it completes the gap in I-49 in Shreveport in the most cost effective means possible, it provides the best access to downtown Shreveport from the north, and because the effects on Allendale are mitigatable enough for the benefits thereof. I have nothing against the I-220/LA 3132 routing as a temporary bypass, but ultimately, in my view, it needs to be built both for local needs and to help complete I-49 to Kansas City and New Orleans.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it. You are entitled to yours. We will see what we will see. The defense rests, Your Honor.

[vdeane]

1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

You don't need an official project at all... TODAY, virtually all through I-49 traffic is using the beltway.

You say would have to be widened to 6 lanes... why? What are the traffic volumes? Are they something like 50-60,000+ AADT that would warrant a needed expansion? What are the future projections? You still have failed to show any of this.

The loop is virtually interstate standards, and carries interstate through traffic without any issues.

Thanks Anthony! I am going to add...

It lacks a lot to be interstate standards. Both the Linwood and Jewella / Mansfield Road exits would need to be rejiggered. Linwood would likely have to be deleted altogether.  While the I-49 / LA-3132 exit would likely get by with a waiver, The I-20 / LA-3132 /I-220 Southbound would HAVE to be reconfigured and northbound MIGHT (Curves just north of I-20 have too great of an angle)

The curve just south of Mansfield road MIGHT have to be re-radiused. The shoulders would need to be paved AND the mainlanes really need redone.

I-220/LA-3132 already serves as the de-facto connection between I-49 North and I-49 South and it doesn't appear to be overwhelmed by traffic by any stretch of the imagination. It's not so much the reconfiguration of the I-20/I-220/LA-3132 or I-49(S)/LA-3132 interchanges that makes the "Loop-It" option unpalatable; rather it's the insistence by officials that the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake "must be widened" for the I-220/LA-3132 loop to become part of I-49. From what I've seen the bridge over Cross Lake handles traffic just fine, so I respectfully disagree that a new, wider bridge would be absolutely required for the loop to be designated as I-49.  Maybe a wider bridge over Cross Lake is something they could consider when the current bridge reaches the end of its service life and is due for replacement, but that will be many years away.

If I may add to that: I looked at I-49 Shreveport ICC website where they listed the alternatives and what they plan on build when the alternative is chosen. I looked at the LA 3132/I-49 stack interchange, the only modifications they are going to make is the I-49 movements, the sweeping flyover from LA 3132 West to I-49 South and the interchange next to it and that is pretty much it. Of course, they are going to have to widen LA 3132 and I-220 as well as the Cross Lake Bridge. However, the connection between both I-49 segments is already there and traffic is using it.

Of course, the supporters of ICC rather to see a neighborhood being destroyed and dispatched so they can build 4 miles of I-49 right through town. It was clear from from their standpoint and it's whatever.

Also, if widening the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake is so problematic and costly, then why is the bridge there at the first place? Eventually they will have to replace the bridge in the future anyways, so they may go ahead and get that bridge replacement over with before it gets all too expensive.

Plus, the ICC is UNFUNDED so who's paying for it to be built when you already have the Loop It in which I-49 traffic has been using for years?

The Inner Loop and I-220 does not carry I-49 through traffic. There is already I-49 that exists from the Inner Loop north to I-20 which carries the bulk of I-49 traffic north to near downtown. But I suppose they built that just to divide the city and spite Urbanists, huh?

LADOTD has BGS's explicitly telling through I-49 traffic to take I-20 east to the current I-49 terminus at I-20. There are NO signs anywhere on I-49 directing traffic to take LA 3132.

It may be unfunded as of now, but it is one of LADOTD's top priority megaprojects (Priority A), and it is fully backed by the city of Shreveport. Once it's approved, it will get funding.

Also, one of the alternatives in the original North-South Expressway alignment discussion that gave us I-49 to begin with was to route the freeway along the Inner Loop to I-220. The authorities rejected that approach for a central alignment through the heart of Shreveport to I-20 with an ultimate connection close to downtown. Do you think that was a waste of funds?

Finally, this distorts the primary purpose of the ICC; it is not just to complete I-49 through Shreveport; it is also to provide a direct connection to important destinations within central Shreveport, including the downtown area.

Again, if the people most affected by this project are willing to consider all the alternatives and still back what they consider to be the best one, then we can all argue otherwise. It's their city, and it's their decision. And, their funds.


moto g power (2022)

Not everybody has GPS.

Also, not everybody bases their driving decisions on what roadgeeks on a forum argue.

I'm with 3mx...we've all made our points. Let's move on.

I'm with sprjus4. There is no signage telling people to use I-49/I-20/I-220. Most people see "To Texarkana" and will use LA 3132/I-220 to reach I-49 North anyways. Besides, it is not their funds because they asked the Federal Government to pay most of it since it is an interstate project. Without facts, all of what you said is purely based on assumptions. I will end this one for one and all: Until the ICC is chosen and funded, there's always I-220/LA 3132.

There actually are, just not that far south.

[sprjus4]

I'm with sprjus4. There is no signage telling people to use I-49/I-20/I-220. Most people see "To Texarkana" and will use LA 3132/I-220 to reach I-49 North anyways. Besides, it is not their funds because they asked the Federal Government to pay most of it since it is an interstate project. Without facts, all of what you said is purely based on assumptions. I will end this one for one and all: Until the ICC is chosen and funded, there's always I-220/LA 3132.

There actually are, just not that far south.

That signage is beyond LA-3132... once you're that far north, either following surface streets or using I-20 -> I-220 is your only option.

If you're long distance traffic heading north on I-49 south of LA-3132, you're going to use LA-3132 to I-220 to bypass the city entirely on interstate-grade highway.

[Some one]

No one is calling for I-69 to go past I-465 in Indianapolis. Red herring.

Red herring how? Maybe not now, but in the past, before it was planned to be extended further south beyond Indianapolis, there were plans to have I-69 end at the I-65/70 split but it was canceled due to neighborhood protests. Maybe it's not the best example, but now that I-69 is planned to go around Indianapolis rather than go through it, maybe it shows that not every freeway needs to go through the city it's supposed to serve.

[Bobby5280]

I-69 inside the I-465 loop is an apples-oranges comparison to the situation in Shreveport.

The cancelled I-69 segment just to downtown Indianapolis would have been over 9 miles in length -nearly all of it running through developed areas. Add in at least another 4 miles worth of new freeway from I-70 to get I-69 down to its newer Southern connection with I-465. After all of that the mileage savings of a "direct" I-69 through the middle of Indianapolis would have been only about 2.5 miles (as opposed to taking I-465 round the East and South sides of the city).

The I-49 gap in Shreveport is under 4 miles in length and over half of it running through undeveloped green space. The remaining chunk is nearly all run-down, blighted area. The Renaissance At Allendale apartments complex is the only property in the proposed ROW that looks like it's worth anything. The I-49 ICC would provide roughly 5 miles of mileage savings between the I-49/I-220 interchange and I-49/LA-3132 interchange (as opposed to taking I-220 and LA-3132 around the West side of Shreveport).

[Some one]

I-69 inside the I-465 loop is an apples-oranges comparison to the situation in Shreveport.

The cancelled I-69 segment just to downtown Indianapolis would have been over 9 miles in length -nearly all of it running through developed areas. Add in at least another 4 miles worth of new freeway from I-70 to get I-69 down to its newer Southern connection with I-465. After all of that the mileage savings of a "direct" I-69 through the middle of Indianapolis would have been only about 2.5 miles (as opposed to taking I-465 round the East and South sides of the city).

The I-49 gap in Shreveport is under 4 miles in length and over half of it running through undeveloped green space. The remaining chunk is nearly all run-down, blighted area. The Renaissance At Allendale apartments complex is the only property in the proposed ROW that looks like it's worth anything. The I-49 ICC would provide roughly 5 miles of mileage savings between the I-49/I-220 interchange and I-49/LA-3132 interchange (as opposed to taking I-220 and LA-3132 around the West side of Shreveport).

Okay, you got me there. It's not a fair comparison. Still, idk if it's justifiable to tear down "blight"  to run a highway through there just to save a couple minutes. That was the same justification urban planners used in the 50s and 60s to tear down neighborhoods for highways.

[sprjus4]

I-69 inside the I-465 loop is an apples-oranges comparison to the situation in Shreveport.

The cancelled I-69 segment just to downtown Indianapolis would have been over 9 miles in length -nearly all of it running through developed areas. Add in at least another 4 miles worth of new freeway from I-70 to get I-69 down to its newer Southern connection with I-465. After all of that the mileage savings of a "direct" I-69 through the middle of Indianapolis would have been only about 2.5 miles (as opposed to taking I-465 round the East and South sides of the city).

The I-49 gap in Shreveport is under 4 miles in length and over half of it running through undeveloped green space. The remaining chunk is nearly all run-down, blighted area. The Renaissance At Allendale apartments complex is the only property in the proposed ROW that looks like it's worth anything. The I-49 ICC would provide roughly 5 miles of mileage savings between the I-49/I-220 interchange and I-49/LA-3132 interchange (as opposed to taking I-220 and LA-3132 around the West side of Shreveport).

Okay, you got me there. It's not a fair comparison. Still, idk if it's justifiable to tear down "blight"  to run a highway through there just to save a couple minutes. That was the same justification urban planners used in the 50s and 60s to tear down neighborhoods for highways.

It's questionable... but if Louisiana wants to burn a billion dollars on this over other priorities such as I-49 through Lafayette (where no freeway or bypass exists) or major improvements that have been needed for decades along I-10, then that's there wasteful spending.

I'm not necessarily opposed should they chose to build it, but it certainly is questionable being a "priority" over other sorely needed projects in the lower part of the state. I-10 and I-12 should be six lanes across the state, along with a bypass of Baton Rouge, before this gets built.

[Bobby5280]

Okay, you got me there. It's not a fair comparison. Still, idk if it's justifiable to tear down "blight"  to run a highway through there just to save a couple minutes.

There are considerably more reasons to build the ICC than just saving thru travelers a few minutes of drive time on I-49. A thru I-49 connection could help spark a lot of new development in downtown Shreveport as well as improve the Allendale neighborhood. One of the motivations is bringing more employers into that general downtown area, thus providing more job opportunities, particularly to residents living in that immediate area.

50+ years ago urban freeway projects were indeed being built without taking the concerns of local residents into account. Some of the efforts were even racist in their intent.

Today gentrification is a huge problem. It's often happening in urban areas where there isn't some new super highway being built. The process just happens on a building by building basis. With a super highway project like the ICC there has to be concern for residents who could be displaced and complete follow-thru to get them re-housed without it wrecking them financially.

Whether or not the I-49 ICC is built any time soon the Shreveport city government could target various dilapidated buildings in the Allendale area for demolition. Many cities have "D & D Lists" of dangerous and dilapidated buildings. Here in Lawton dozens of junked out structures have been demolished and cleared. They even tore down a shopping plaza called Midtown Square because it was such an eye sore. Usually these buildings are abandoned by owners and don't have any working utilities. The buildings may have squatters living there and be a source of criminal activity.

Anyway, the folks trying to block the I-49 ICC need to do quite a bit more than just build a token apartment building at the edge of a freeway to freeway interchange.

I'm not necessarily opposed should they chose to build it, but it certainly is questionable being a "priority" over other sorely needed projects in the lower part of the state. I-10 and I-12 should be six lanes across the state, along with a bypass of Baton Rouge, before this gets built.

The ICC in Shreveport is a considerably easier project to build than the I-49 connector in Lafayette. The ICC is small in scale to replacing those long I-10 bridges over the swamps between Lafayette, Baton Rouge and New Orleans -especially if we're talking about expanding the capacity to 3x3 lanes.

[Henry]

It should be noted, though, that the I-69 southern extension wasn't proposed until 1998, so no freeway proposal was ever considered south of downtown Indianapolis. Routing it around I-465 is a much better solution anyway, as it uses a preexisting freeway instead of completely piercing the heart of the city with mostly new-terrain routing.

As for the ICC, it certainly is one of the most badly-needed freeways in not just LA or the South, but in the entire nation. We can worry about Texarkana-Ft. Smith (the biggest piece of the puzzle) later, and even Lafayette-New Orleans, but right now, the ICC is the single most urgent priority in the ongoing I-49 saga.

[sprjus4]

A thru I-49 connection could help spark a lot of new development in downtown Shreveport as well as improve the Allendale neighborhood. One of the motivations is bringing more employers into that general downtown area, thus providing more job opportunities, particularly to residents living in that immediate area.

So... a downtown boxed in by I-20 (a major east-west interstate highway), I-220 to the north, and nearby I-49 connecting to both the north and south just isn't enough?

Why is this small I-49 urban freeway the piece that is needed to revitalize the area? The area in question has immediate access to I-20, I-220, and I-49 South, and close access to I-49 North... any redevelopment can already happen today without this magical 3 mile segment that will save northeast Louisiana.

The ICC in Shreveport is a considerably easier project to build than the I-49 connector in Lafayette.

And yet the cost estimates are still north of $1 billion. I wouldn't exactly call it easy. Especially when this is the same state who's cash-strapped and at a standstill on where to proceed with a $2 billion bridge in Lake Charles on a major east-west interstate (I-10) that is old, falling apart, and congested. If this ICC project is Louisiana's priority over anything on I-10... their priorities are seriously misplaced.

[sprjus4]

As for the ICC, it certainly is one of the most badly-needed freeways in not just LA or the South, but in the entire nation. We can worry about Texarkana-Ft. Smith (the biggest piece of the puzzle) later, and even Lafayette-New Orleans, but right now, the ICC is the single most urgent priority in the ongoing I-49 saga.

Sure... I'll believe that 

If you're dismissing Lafayette-New Orleans and Texarkana-Fort Smith, then I-49 is virtually complete. The only "gap" is as much as I-95 isn't complete through Washington, I-69 / I-74 isn't complete through Indianapolis, I-70 isn't complete through Baltimore... you just take the beltways around the city and stay on 60+ mph freeways. Adds a couple miles. It's not a "most badly-needed freeway" in any regard.

[Bobby5280]

So... a downtown boxed in by I-20 (a major east-west interstate highway), I-220 to the north, and nearby I-49 connecting to both the north and south just isn't enough?

I already explained the advantages earlier. I repeat myself too often as it is. BTW, it's a slog getting to I-220 from downtown Shreveport via US-71. So I wouldn't imply I-220 is serving the central area of Shreveport.

And yet the cost estimates are still north of $1 billion. I wouldn't exactly call it easy. Especially when this is the same state who's cash-strapped and at a standstill on where to proceed with a $2 billion bridge in Lake Charles on a major east-west interstate (I-10) that is old, falling apart, and congested.

None of these Interstate projects in Louisiana can be funded totally on the state's dime. Even at a billion dollars the ICC is still the least costly out of that list. Making I-10 3x3 lanes across Louisiana could cost well over ten times as much, if not even more. The Lafayette I-49 project and I-49 South are both larger in scale than the ICC.

There is a better than decent chance none of this stuff will get built because the costs are so friggin' high and out of control. It's long overdue for these construction companies and engineers to innovate in the direction of saving some damned money and making things more efficient. Of course lawyers are a big source of the cost problem too.

[Plutonic Panda]

Like I said, the government of the state of Louisiana is going to have to come with a lot of new money through increased taxes coupled with fed money or half of this stuff won't ever get built. Hell damn near every major freeway in Shreveport needs to be rebuilt.

This doesn't even address what to do with I-10 in NOLA.

[silverback1065]

the original I-69 would have overlapped the already existing divided highway SR 37 now known as binford blvd. it would have went down to the north split with 65/70, then continued south as a 4th leg of the downtown inner loop to 465 using the harding street corridor the 4th leg was cancelled due to the white river and railroad tracks being in the way. having that would have been nice due to the amount of traffic the NE side has. they decided not to do this with the recent connection likely due to obvious opposition from residents. only 3 miles of this route to downtown would have displaced residents, the rest was essentially already built.

[triplemultiplex]

Considering there's little chance of Arkansas even starting on anything between Fort Smith and Texarkana this decade, I don't see any urgency to the ICC.  If that is going to somehow open the floodgates of traffic between Kansas City and the Gulf, it ain't happening any time soon.  So I agree with those who say Louisiana has more urgent highway needs than the ICC at this point in time.  Plenty of examples given already.

[Anthony_JK]

You mean, like, every other state in the country doesn't have revenue for transportation funding?

Louisiana's share for funding the ICC as a whole, based on 90/10 Federal funding, would be around $80 - $100 million dollars. The state share of funding for the Lafayette Connector alone would be around $150 million. Also, once the Lafayette Connector is approved environmentally, they can break the project down into segments that can be funded separately (like they are already doing with the Willow Street interchange and Kaliste Saloom Road interchanges) as funding is gradually acquired. It is NOT as if Louisiana is going to fund these projects completely with state funding entirely.

Also, you can segment the ICC so that the segment north of Hearne Avenue or even Caddo-Ford can be built first while engineering and design is completed for the other half segment to I-20.

Even as broke as Mississippi is, some of you still want them to upgrade US 61 to Greenville so you can have your favored I-69 routing; and even fund a new bridge crossing in South Memphis. Louisiana at least has some sembulence of revenue stream for transportation funds from oil revenues, yet you're telling me we can't fund completing I-49 to NOLA?

Oh, and widening I-10 in Baton Rouge is already under construction and fully funded. We're talking about funding for the future.

In addition, they are only doing environmental and design work for the ICC right now. No construction can even be thought about until NEPA approval is given, and that is still probably a year out given the EIS process. Only after the ROD is approved can they even file for Federal funding, since NEPA approval is required for Federal funding to begin with.

[Anthony_JK]

As for the ICC, it certainly is one of the most badly-needed freeways in not just LA or the South, but in the entire nation. We can worry about Texarkana-Ft. Smith (the biggest piece of the puzzle) later, and even Lafayette-New Orleans, but right now, the ICC is the single most urgent priority in the ongoing I-49 saga.

Sure... I'll believe that 

If you're dismissing Lafayette-New Orleans and Texarkana-Fort Smith, then I-49 is virtually complete. The only "gap" is as much as I-95 isn't complete through Washington, I-69 / I-74 isn't complete through Indianapolis, I-70 isn't complete through Baltimore... you just take the beltways around the city and stay on 60+ mph freeways. Adds a couple miles. It's not a "most badly-needed freeway" in any regard.

Apparently, the authorities in Shreveport and Lafayette or even the state of Louisiana don't share that opinion, since they are pushing hard for both the ICC and I-49 South.

Also, segments of I-49 South along US 90 and the Westbank Expressway are already at Interstate standards and completed. You think the elevated segment of US 90 from Morgan City to Raceland was built just for lolz, or that the bulk of US 90 from Broussard to Berwick were built for future upgradability to Interstate standards to worship the spirit of Huey Long and Edwin Edwards? If they didn't really think that this was needed, then why go through all that effort and fund the TIMED program to fund those projects? 

[sprjus4]

You mean, like, every other state in the country doesn't have revenue for transportation funding?

Louisiana's share for funding the ICC as a whole, based on 90/10 Federal funding, would be around $80 - $100 million dollars. The state share of funding for the Lafayette Connector alone would be around $150 million. Also, once the Lafayette Connector is approved environmentally, they can break the project down into segments that can be funded separately (like they are already doing with the Willow Street interchange and Kaliste Saloom Road interchanges) as funding is gradually acquired. It is NOT as if Louisiana is going to fund these projects completely with state funding entirely.

Where's the money then? They've been talking about this project for a couple decades now, if not longer. Seems like a huge priority for the state.

yet you're telling me we can't fund completing I-49 to NOLA?

Did I say that? A lot of progress has been made on US-90, with more slowly progressing.

Oh, and widening I-10 in Baton Rouge is already under construction and fully funded. We're talking about funding for the future.

How's that bridge replacement project in Lake Charles going? Where's all that federal money?

Or the outdated and crumpling interchange / viaduct structure that is a massive bottleneck in Baton Rouge?

In addition, they are only doing environmental and design work for the ICC right now. No construction can even be thought about until NEPA approval is given, and that is still probably a year out given the EIS process. Only after the ROD is approved can they even file for Federal funding, since NEPA approval is required for Federal funding to begin with.

Didn't they do an EIS like 20 years ago? Or is this still the original EIS, still not complete? Where was the funding then?

Apparently, the authorities in Shreveport and Lafayette or even the state of Louisiana don't share that opinion, since they are pushing hard for both the ICC and I-49 South.

They can talk a big talk, let's see some ground broken, money spent, bridges put up, then I'll believe it.

Also, segments of I-49 South along US 90 and the Westbank Expressway are already at Interstate standards and completed. You think the elevated segment of US 90 from Morgan City to Raceland was built just for lolz, or that the bulk of US 90 from Broussard to Berwick were built for future upgradability to Interstate standards to worship the spirit of Huey Long and Edwin Edwards? If they didn't really think that this was needed, then why go through all that effort and fund the TIMED program to fund those projects? 

Again... did I ever mention anything against upgrading US-90 to New Orleans? That's not even relevant here?

[bwana39]

I thought we agreed to stop arguing about this.

The one thing that is beyond any doubt is that the ICC is still a decade away from completion (if ever).

Likewise a lot of other projects (including the calcasieu bridge in L.C.)

Regardless of the conclusions we reach here, it is up to people in Baton Rouge to make the decisions with the input of local and regional groups (not us) .


For crying out loud!