I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)

[Bobby5280]

The Bruce Watkins Drive corridor has a court order preventing those intersections from being converted to interchanges and extending the Interstate 49 designation to Interstates 70/670.

Which is why I said the court apparently prefers risking the lives of motorists on US-71 just to make a few assholes happy. The court order is 100% idiotic. I think anyone who gets seriously hurt in a traffic accident at any of those three intersections should be able to sue the State of Missouri for malpractice. The families of any anyone getting killed in accidents there should have legit wrongful death cases to file against the state.

The locals and the city government, however, seem to be happy with the status quo; so until there is some serious movement, I-49 will terminate at the Grandview Triangle. For now.

Those people should be grabbed by the backs of their necks and hauled into hospitals to visit anyone hurt in traffic accidents at those intersections and then try to explain themselves.

[MikieTimT]

What's even dumber is that with the exception of those 3 intersections on Bruce Watkins, all of the remaining cross streets have already had access removed as you can clearly see on satellite view, so how exactly would overpassing the roads with through lanes harm the neighborhood in any way?  It literally would only take making 3 through lanes each direction of a limited access addition in the wide median to I-49/US-71 as 2 overpasses, leaving those same intersections for access and turning the current US-71 facility that spreads out to both sides into D/E/F lanes for access to the neighborhood.  The current layout has already accomplished a neighborhood division with only those 3 cross streets connecting the neighborhoods on either side.  Access preserved, congestion relieved, and safety increased.

[Bobby5280]

If those three at-grade intersections were converted to limited access those intersections would be safer for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross. That's because the thru traffic would be isolated on the freeway main lanes. Pedestrians and bicyclists would have fewer vehicles to encounter on the frontage roads. And other motorists driving on the streets crossing US-71 would have fewer vehicles to encounter either. The whole thing would be safer.

Plus, if MO DOT was allowed to upgrade those intersections they could give them the same kind of beautification treatment they built on the Meyer Blvd crossing over US-71. It looks pretty nice and safe. And you barely see the freeway segment due to all the green-scaping they incorporated into the intersection.

[Henry]

Looks like we're going off-topic with the Kansas City situation, although I do wish that court order would be rescinded so that I-49 can reach its rightful endpoint at the Alphabet Loop in downtown. It'll be just a matter of time before the citizens get sick and tired of the injuries on that part of Bruce Watkins Drive.

[DJStephens]

The Allendale situation in Shreveport is almost as stupid. The "Renaissance at Allendale" apartment complex was literally built to try to block the proposed I-49 extension. We'll see how that goes. Over in Dallas in the not too distant future that whole Embree Hill/Lake Village West Apartments complex as well as a bunch of houses South of it are going to be removed for the extension of the GHW Bush Turnpike South of I-30. Those folks knew the turnpike would eventually be extended. When that happens it will be an example for the anti-freeway crowd in Shreveport.

If one watches any "Nick Johnson" videos, he describes the situation on the ground in Shreveport as being one of the worst in terms of conditions, and opportunity, of any medium sized city in the South.  There used to be a GM assembly plant there, it likely has either closed or sharply reduced output.  It might make construction of the ICC more possible, due to these issues.   

[Bobby5280]

A bunch of people in Shreveport desperately want the ICC to be built. An improved I-49 running uninterrupted through Shreveport might help spark development in and around the downtown area.

It shouldn't be all that hard to solve the problem of re-locating the small number of people who would be displaced by the new highway. Nation-wide there is a severe shortage of realistically affordable housing. I'm seeing this bullshit even here in Lawton, a mostly lower-middle class city. The only new homes getting built are for people with solid six-figure incomes, not for anyone making less than $50,000 per year.

Anyone renting a house or apartment in a neighborhood that is fixing to be affected by a new highway or just plain old gentrification would have a right to complain about that "progress." If a new highway project was coupled with new housing developments nearby to help re-home those who are displaced and not cost them any more than what they were paying previously there wouldn't be as much opposition to these highway projects. It's not good enough to pay a property owner fair market value and just say, "find somewhere else to live." And it's really bad when a landlord of an apartment building is getting paid whatever but the tenants are just kicked out on the street. That's what sparks a lot of anger. All that negative crap is preventable if certain parties would just work together.

[sprjus4]

A bunch of people in Shreveport desperately want the ICC to be built. An improved I-49 running uninterrupted through Shreveport might help spark development in and around the downtown area.

Does an uninterrupted I-20 not do this? I'd argue I-20 is far more of an important route in terms of freight and commerce than I-49 is, especially looking at the low volumes on I-49 north of the city.

[Bobby5280]

A single Interstate running gap-free through a city doesn't do much. Having two gap-free Interstates intersect each other does more to establish that junction as a transportation hub. It's somewhat of a psychological thing; it's visible on the map.

I know I-49 is not finished between Texarkana and Fort Smith. But politically speaking it's going to be much easier to build out that segment of I-49 in rural Arkansas. The ICC is a tougher thing to complete. The same can be said for the connector in Lafayette. They may end up getting all the freeway upgrade work done on the South side of Lafayette before the downtown connector gets built.

[sprjus4]

A single Interstate running gap-free through a city doesn't do much. Having two gap-free Interstates intersect each other does more to establish that junction as a transportation hub. It's somewhat of a psychological thing; it's visible on the map.

I-49 and I-20 do meet in Shreveport, and through traffic goes east-west and north-south. Filling in a small gap, one that already has an interstate standard bypass, isn't going to all of a sudden explode development.

[Anthony_JK]

There isn't really much N/S through traffic through Shreveport as of yet, and that won't really change until I-49 is completed between Texarkana and Fort Smith. Most of the main freight traffic is either W/E via I-20 or W/S via I-20/LA 3132/I-49. There MAY be some SW/NE freight increase once the segment of I-69 is completed from the TX state line to I-20 near Haughton, but that's debatable since much of the main freight traffic will probably go up I-369 to Texarkana to catch I-30.

If Amazon is serious about building their distribution center in Shreveport, that might fuel enough development to justify filling the gap in I-49, and once the Texarkana-Fort Smith segment is completed, you could potentially get more development as NW AR gains access to areas to the south and southeast.

Also, once again, LA 3132 is, while a controlled access freeway, NOT quite Interstate standard.

[Some one]

There isn't really much N/S through traffic through Shreveport as of yet, and that won't really change until I-49 is completed between Texarkana and Fort Smith. Most of the main freight traffic is either W/E via I-20 or W/S via I-20/LA 3132/I-49. There MAY be some SW/NE freight increase once the segment of I-69 is completed from the TX state line to I-20 near Haughton, but that's debatable since much of the main freight traffic will probably go up I-369 to Texarkana to catch I-30.

If Amazon is serious about building their distribution center in Shreveport, that might fuel enough development to justify filling the gap in I-49, and once the Texarkana-Fort Smith segment is completed, you could potentially get more development as NW AR gains access to areas to the south and southeast.

Also, once again, LA 3132 is, while a controlled access freeway, NOT quite Interstate standard.

What's stopping LaDOTD from upgrading it to interstate standards? And why is it bad to have thru traffic simply follow the bypass (LA3132/I-220 not I-20) instead?

[Anthony_JK]

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.

How exactly is it bad to have a through route that provides the most direct movement at the least cost, accesses the downtown areas directly, and does not strain a bypass that already has its own traffic to deal with? Not everyone going through Shreveport will want to completely bypass it.

[sprjus4]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

I am quoting directly from LADOTD and FHWA officials, who have said that. Not just my personal opinion.

The FHWA has standards for Interstate highways that are not just merely "controlled access freeway"; they include interchange spacing, adequate sight clearance, etc. Just because a route is freeway standard does NOT mean it would be adequate to Interstate-grade; improvements would have to be made in order to upgrade it to such standards.

The EIS, when it is released, will have the proper traffic volume information which justifies whether Loop It would have to be widened to meet the projected traffic needs of carrying through I-49 traffic. However, there is already the portion of I-49 between the Inner Loop and I-20 that handles the full burden of traffic in central Shreveport, and filling that brief gap between I-20 and I-220 would be relatively inexpensive compared to forcing that traffic to completely bypass downtown via LA 3132 and I-220.

Really, sprjus, if you are that opposed to building the ICC and would rather have I-49 taken off and moved over to the Inner Loop simply because of personal feelz, then feel free to take it up with the project managers and the people in Shreveport. They are the ones who are pushing for this project. If they believed that the current bypass was good enough, they would have signed it likewise; the fact that they are pushing for the ICC says more than enough about what they want. It's not my want; it's theirs.

[bwana39]

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.

[abqtraveler]

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.

[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?

[silverback1065]

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.

why would they have to do anything to those exits? the interchange spacing rule is broken all over the place, pretty much every urban interstate breaks this rule near downtown, hell even in the burbs this rule is broken.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

why would they have to do anything to those exits? the interchange spacing rule is broken all over the place, pretty much every urban interstate breaks this rule near downtown, hell even in the burbs this rule is broken.

How many of those highways were originally built in the period before such standards were imposed; and how much is being spent today to correct those design flaws?

Also, I did err before; it's the Linwood Avenue interchange with the Inner Loop that would be threatened, not Jewella Ave.


moto g power (2022)

[Rothman]

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.

why would they have to do anything to those exits? the interchange spacing rule is broken all over the place, pretty much every urban interstate breaks this rule near downtown, hell even in the burbs this rule is broken.

*facepalm*

Someone hasn't been paying attention to FHWA oversight of Interstate conversion for the last 20 years or more.

[Anthony_JK]

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)

[sprjus4]

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 of I-49 traffic north to near downtown. But I suppose they built that just to divide the city and spite Urbanists, huh?

No one is taking I-49 to I-20 to I-220. That is far out of the way compared to LA 3132. Much more unnecessary mileage. Any GPS routing takes them on the loop. You keep using this argument but it falls flat from reality.

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.

You sure about that?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/DnG42Z98YmR7Hj717?g_st=ic
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Fzsdy8Dae7mEAwib8?g_st=ic

No one cares about highway signs say... most are following GPS - which is routing Loop 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.

I'll believe it when I see it... until then, it's unfunded.

[triplemultiplex]

This discussion keeps going in circles.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah, I'd rather just let this thread sit idle until we see some real movement on this project.