AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)  (Read 230012 times)

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1865
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 02:24:12 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #325 on: July 21, 2021, 12:17:24 PM »

Why did they allow a private developer (Renaissance at Allendale) build a multi-unit development right smack dab in the middle of where the proposed ROW would go through?

Why weren't they buying and reserving property? 

The area the route would plow through is a low income area and while it would be inexpensive to buy the land, it would destroy the neighborhood irreparably.

Simply because they didn't think anyone would try to take I-49 any further.

Accept the facts, route the badge around the city, rename the urban route I-149 and move on.

Destroying local neighborhoods so some trucks can cut 5-8 minutes off their route is not worth it.

No, the apartments were intentionally built there to seemingly stop the freeway.

There was one mayoral regime that humored the againers. Otherwise, the support has always been there for the ICC.   95% of Allendale is west of Allen Avenue.  Virtually all of the inhabitable housing is north of Ford / Caddo Streets. There are about 50 homes (that may or may not all be displaced) Most of the opposition is from OUTSIDE of Allendale.   

If it were simply as easy to sign the western loop as I-49 for no expense with no needed capacity increase, you MIGHT be right. It is not that easy from a multitude of reasons.

1) General Condition of LA-3132.
2) I-20 / I-220 / LA-3132 confluence. the "I-49" (thru) main-lanes would need to be reconstructed to meet FHWA standards. The current skew angles are too sharp.
3) Width of bridges and shoulders of LA-3132.
4) The I-49 to LA-3132 intersection falls short. (This one MIGHT get a waiver.)
5) Shreveport / Bossier needs the ICC to get traffic off of the I-20 bridge AND local surface streets primarily in Bossier but in Shreveport as well.
6) The total ICC is less than 5 miles. It would take less work than repairing 3132 from I-49 to 70th Street.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2021, 09:47:56 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4948
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:02:06 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #326 on: July 22, 2021, 03:04:04 PM »

Surely the city of Shreveport could build the "missing link" of Interstate 49 between 20 and 220, and make improvements to the existing Allendale neighborhood at the same time.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #327 on: July 22, 2021, 04:11:23 PM »

Surely the city of Shreveport could build the "missing link" of Interstate 49 between 20 and 220, and make improvements to the existing Allendale neighborhood at the same time.

The city wouldn't be responsible for actually constructing the freeway, although within their jurisdiction they'll need to sign off on the project.  Don't know LA practice regarding ownership of street sections crossing the freeway on a bridge or underneath a freeway overpass, but in most cases actual maintenance responsibility for those lies with the jurisdiction in question.  As far as making improvements to the adjoining neighborhood, while LADOT may contribute in terms of both money and engineering, either the city itself or an alternate metro authority would commission any neighborhood upgrades.   
Logged

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4146
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 03:51:37 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #328 on: July 22, 2021, 05:25:06 PM »

I keep coming back to this reservoir thing because I am underwhelmed by the supposed threat to Shreveport's drinking water.  This is a surface reservoir fed by dozens of creeks with hundreds of crossings by roads when you take into account all the intermittent tributaries and drainages.  There's an oil and gas field in its headwaters.  The lake is lined with hundreds of homes.  There's a freakin' railroad track riding across the dam that holds back the lake.  The existing bridge has some mitigation in place (which can always be improved).

The water doesn't go straight to the tap, of course.  There's a treatment plant.  The normal run-off from suburbia is already being handled by that system. I-49 adds nothing to the existing conditions.

The prospect of more traffic brought on by an eventual connection to Kansas City; maybe.  We'll see what happens in 40 years (or whatever) when that finally gets built. In the mean time, the status quo can be tweaked with spot improvements as needed.

There are more worthy projects in Louisiana that are worth fighting for.  The ICC is not a hill I'm going to die on in this modern era where these things are scraped for tooth-and-nail with various interests and advocates.  An all-freeway route for I-49 functionally exists through Shreveport.  Good enough.
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #329 on: July 22, 2021, 06:28:21 PM »

I keep coming back to this reservoir thing because I am underwhelmed by the supposed threat to Shreveport's drinking water.  This is a surface reservoir fed by dozens of creeks with hundreds of crossings by roads when you take into account all the intermittent tributaries and drainages.  There's an oil and gas field in its headwaters.  The lake is lined with hundreds of homes.  There's a freakin' railroad track riding across the dam that holds back the lake.  The existing bridge has some mitigation in place (which can always be improved).

The water doesn't go straight to the tap, of course.  There's a treatment plant.  The normal run-off from suburbia is already being handled by that system. I-49 adds nothing to the existing conditions.

The prospect of more traffic brought on by an eventual connection to Kansas City; maybe.  We'll see what happens in 40 years (or whatever) when that finally gets built. In the mean time, the status quo can be tweaked with spot improvements as needed.

There are more worthy projects in Louisiana that are worth fighting for.  The ICC is not a hill I'm going to die on in this modern era where these things are scraped for tooth-and-nail with various interests and advocates.  An all-freeway route for I-49 functionally exists through Shreveport.  Good enough.

All of what you say is technically correct; if LADOT built the I-220 bridge to minimize road runoff, there's no reason why an expansion couldn't dovetail into that system.  Construction debris would have to be closely monitored, but, again, there's no reason why that couldn't be done.  What is likely driving the ICC preference is simple cost-benefit calculations -- the cost of constructing it versus the cost of modifying the various loop segments to handle the traffic and pass I-standards muster.  It probably works out to something of a wash, dollar-wise -- but with a good deal of traffic interruption during the loop's upgrade effort versus practically none with the ICC -- and that might just be the scale-tipping factor here.  Also have no idea whether there has been any pissing and moaning from the trucking sector about the extra mileage involved with the present interim loop; if so, that might figure in to the calculus as well.  It likely boils down to -- if the ICC can feasibly be done, then it will be done; all of the cards haven't been dealt as of yet. 
Logged

TheBox

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 179
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Houston, TX, United States
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:27:37 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #330 on: July 22, 2021, 10:07:56 PM »

You guys can talk about the I-49 ICC here you know  :poke: :pan:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3124.1450
Logged
Wake me up when they upgrade US-290 between the state’s largest city and growing capital into expressway standards if it interstate standards.

Giddings bypass, Elgin bypass, and Elgin-Manor freeway/tollway when?

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 363
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 12:41:26 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #331 on: July 22, 2021, 11:18:33 PM »

In that case…if I-69 gets finished in LA (not Los Angeles, haha), I predict 2051.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1865
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 02:24:12 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #332 on: July 23, 2021, 12:23:48 AM »

I keep coming back to this reservoir thing because I am underwhelmed by the supposed threat to Shreveport's drinking water.  This is a surface reservoir fed by dozens of creeks with hundreds of crossings by roads when you take into account all the intermittent tributaries and drainages.  There's an oil and gas field in its headwaters.  The lake is lined with hundreds of homes.  There's a freakin' railroad track riding across the dam that holds back the lake.  The existing bridge has some mitigation in place (which can always be improved).

The water doesn't go straight to the tap, of course.  There's a treatment plant.  The normal run-off from suburbia is already being handled by that system. I-49 adds nothing to the existing conditions.

The prospect of more traffic brought on by an eventual connection to Kansas City; maybe.  We'll see what happens in 40 years (or whatever) when that finally gets built. In the mean time, the status quo can be tweaked with spot improvements as needed.

There are more worthy projects in Louisiana that are worth fighting for.  The ICC is not a hill I'm going to die on in this modern era where these things are scraped for tooth-and-nail with various interests and advocates.  An all-freeway route for I-49 functionally exists through Shreveport.  Good enough.

All of what you say is technically correct; if LADOT built the I-220 bridge to minimize road runoff, there's no reason why an expansion couldn't dovetail into that system.  Construction debris would have to be closely monitored, but, again, there's no reason why that couldn't be done.  What is likely driving the ICC preference is simple cost-benefit calculations -- the cost of constructing it versus the cost of modifying the various loop segments to handle the traffic and pass I-standards muster.  It probably works out to something of a wash, dollar-wise -- but with a good deal of traffic interruption during the loop's upgrade effort versus practically none with the ICC -- and that might just be the scale-tipping factor here.  Also have no idea whether there has been any pissing and moaning from the trucking sector about the extra mileage involved with the present interim loop; if so, that might figure in to the calculus as well.  It likely boils down to -- if the ICC can feasibly be done, then it will be done; all of the cards haven't been dealt as of yet.

I think one of the points we all miss is this. However they choose to modify the cross lake bridge situation, the lake crossing will assuredly cost more than buying every house east of Allen Avenue for the ICC for extra attractive prices and building the entire ICC.  Little to none of the local opposition to I-49 ICC is actually in Allendale and virtually all of the local opposition is based upon an idea that the money might somehow still come to Shreveport and be spent to truly benefit the community. IE not any road.

I can assure you Allendale MIGHT be better off if the freeway comes through. Without it, the only reason it MIGHT improve is developers tearing most of the existing housing and building new (probably) apartments. 
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 987
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:31:52 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #333 on: July 23, 2021, 12:53:22 AM »

^ Constructing a new route overtop mostly undeveloped land on the edge of a community is not “destroying a neighborhood”  - accept the facts.

IIRC, more opposition seems to come from the outside than the inside itself - there’s actually local support for the project. Accept the facts.


It doesn't matter where opposition comes from. If there is an opposition, there is one and we both know those who opposes a new highway will do anything to stop it. It comes from everywhere, not just a local city.

Logged

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 987
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:31:52 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #334 on: July 23, 2021, 01:08:58 AM »

LA 3132 should have been fixed BEFORE they thought about planning the I-49 ICC. The question is: why didn't they fix LA 3132 the first place? Ran out of money? Instead, they want to run the interstate through a neighborhood because it's cheaper? Sorry, I am not buying it. Something else is in play.

We will see what happens in 2022 or whenever the decision is made.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #335 on: July 23, 2021, 01:52:03 AM »

^ “through a neighborhood” , okay, keep using that fallacy argument  :-D
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #336 on: July 23, 2021, 01:53:35 AM »

LA 3132 should have been fixed BEFORE they thought about planning the I-49 ICC. The question is: why didn't they fix LA 3132 the first place? Ran out of money? Instead, they want to run the interstate through a neighborhood because it's cheaper? Sorry, I am not buying it. Something else is in play.

We will see what happens in 2022 or whenever the decision is made.

LA 3132, for all its insufficiencies, is a full freeway and has been for 20+ years; it does not, however, meet Interstate standards.  The simple reason why it wasn't "fixed" (or brought up to such standards) is that LADOT was planning to build the ICC as I-49 all along and saw no reason to sink additional funds into 3132, since that wasn't going to be part of the permanent Interstate network.  Maybe some roadgeeks thought that 3132 should at least be a I-220 extension, but that sentiment wasn't echoed by LADOT. 
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1742
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 02:22:08 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #337 on: July 23, 2021, 09:17:38 AM »

LA 3132 should have been fixed BEFORE they thought about planning the I-49 ICC. The question is: why didn't they fix LA 3132 the first place? Ran out of money? Instead, they want to run the interstate through a neighborhood because it's cheaper? Sorry, I am not buying it. Something else is in play.

We will see what happens in 2022 or whenever the decision is made.

The Inner Loop was upgraded to freeway standards during the 1980's.

The plan all along was to run a north-south freeway through the heart of Shreveport; the original North-South Expressway proposal run during the 70's called for a full freeway basically using the central alignment now overlaid by current I-49 and the proposed ICC. Because Allendale raised so much hell back then, LADOTD and FHWA compromised back then: they approved the segment of the N/S Expressway from I-20 southward as part of I-49 to Lafayette via Alexandria; but they placed the section from I-20 north to I-220 onto the Federal Aid Program as a placeholder.  Of course, until the current ICC project was restarted, it remained in mothballs.
Logged

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 987
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:31:52 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #338 on: July 23, 2021, 05:01:29 PM »

LA 3132 should have been fixed BEFORE they thought about planning the I-49 ICC. The question is: why didn't they fix LA 3132 the first place? Ran out of money? Instead, they want to run the interstate through a neighborhood because it's cheaper? Sorry, I am not buying it. Something else is in play.

We will see what happens in 2022 or whenever the decision is made.

The Inner Loop was upgraded to freeway standards during the 1980's.

The plan all along was to run a north-south freeway through the heart of Shreveport; the original North-South Expressway proposal run during the 70's called for a full freeway basically using the central alignment now overlaid by current I-49 and the proposed ICC. Because Allendale raised so much hell back then, LADOTD and FHWA compromised back then: they approved the segment of the N/S Expressway from I-20 southward as part of I-49 to Lafayette via Alexandria; but they placed the section from I-20 north to I-220 onto the Federal Aid Program as a placeholder.  Of course, until the current ICC project was restarted, it remained in mothballs.



Alright. thank you for explaining the history. I wondered if Allendale (or surrounding communities) raised so much hell back then... why would LADOTD and FHWA decide to propose the same alignment, knowing Allendale will oppose once again? Did the negotiations went bad or what?
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #339 on: July 23, 2021, 06:51:13 PM »

^ Allendale. Doesn’t. Oppose. Nowadays. But you love to keep thinking that.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1742
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 02:22:08 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #340 on: July 25, 2021, 02:06:30 AM »

LA 3132 should have been fixed BEFORE they thought about planning the I-49 ICC. The question is: why didn't they fix LA 3132 the first place? Ran out of money? Instead, they want to run the interstate through a neighborhood because it's cheaper? Sorry, I am not buying it. Something else is in play.

We will see what happens in 2022 or whenever the decision is made.

The Inner Loop was upgraded to freeway standards during the 1980's.

The plan all along was to run a north-south freeway through the heart of Shreveport; the original North-South Expressway proposal run during the 70's called for a full freeway basically using the central alignment now overlaid by current I-49 and the proposed ICC. Because Allendale raised so much hell back then, LADOTD and FHWA compromised back then: they approved the segment of the N/S Expressway from I-20 southward as part of I-49 to Lafayette via Alexandria; but they placed the section from I-20 north to I-220 onto the Federal Aid Program as a placeholder.  Of course, until the current ICC project was restarted, it remained in mothballs.



Alright. thank you for explaining the history. I wondered if Allendale (or surrounding communities) raised so much hell back then... why would LADOTD and FHWA decide to propose the same alignment, knowing Allendale will oppose once again? Did the negotiations went bad or what?

Well, in the original proposal, there was universal and loud opposition from the community. This time around, it's not so universal. Of course, those displaced directly by the new proposed ICC are opposed; but most of the opposition is from the usual outside forces: the New Urbanists who oppose freeways on principle, now backed by the Buttigieg-run FHWA which has swallowed their illogic fully; and other traditionally anti-freeway groups like the Sierra Club. The actual state representative of the district in which Allendale is located is actually a strong proponent of the ICC.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 363
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 12:41:26 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #341 on: July 25, 2021, 02:10:25 AM »

LA 3132 should have been fixed BEFORE they thought about planning the I-49 ICC. The question is: why didn't they fix LA 3132 the first place? Ran out of money? Instead, they want to run the interstate through a neighborhood because it's cheaper? Sorry, I am not buying it. Something else is in play.

We will see what happens in 2022 or whenever the decision is made.

The Inner Loop was upgraded to freeway standards during the 1980's.

The plan all along was to run a north-south freeway through the heart of Shreveport; the original North-South Expressway proposal run during the 70's called for a full freeway basically using the central alignment now overlaid by current I-49 and the proposed ICC. Because Allendale raised so much hell back then, LADOTD and FHWA compromised back then: they approved the segment of the N/S Expressway from I-20 southward as part of I-49 to Lafayette via Alexandria; but they placed the section from I-20 north to I-220 onto the Federal Aid Program as a placeholder.  Of course, until the current ICC project was restarted, it remained in mothballs.



Alright. thank you for explaining the history. I wondered if Allendale (or surrounding communities) raised so much hell back then... why would LADOTD and FHWA decide to propose the same alignment, knowing Allendale will oppose once again? Did the negotiations went bad or what?
What makes you think they will oppose again?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #342 on: July 25, 2021, 03:53:02 AM »

LA 3132 should have been fixed BEFORE they thought about planning the I-49 ICC. The question is: why didn't they fix LA 3132 the first place? Ran out of money? Instead, they want to run the interstate through a neighborhood because it's cheaper? Sorry, I am not buying it. Something else is in play.

We will see what happens in 2022 or whenever the decision is made.

The Inner Loop was upgraded to freeway standards during the 1980's.

The plan all along was to run a north-south freeway through the heart of Shreveport; the original North-South Expressway proposal run during the 70's called for a full freeway basically using the central alignment now overlaid by current I-49 and the proposed ICC. Because Allendale raised so much hell back then, LADOTD and FHWA compromised back then: they approved the segment of the N/S Expressway from I-20 southward as part of I-49 to Lafayette via Alexandria; but they placed the section from I-20 north to I-220 onto the Federal Aid Program as a placeholder.  Of course, until the current ICC project was restarted, it remained in mothballs.



Alright. thank you for explaining the history. I wondered if Allendale (or surrounding communities) raised so much hell back then... why would LADOTD and FHWA decide to propose the same alignment, knowing Allendale will oppose once again? Did the negotiations went bad or what?
What makes you think they will oppose again?

Because they can.  Since the old John Norquist days, there has been a peripatetic "traveling RE/T carnival" with playdates in any city with (a) an Interstate link through a city that potentially could be bypassed by some sort of loop or belt arrangement, and (b) any semblance of an aggrieved population.  It's sort of like the old "Music Man" musical -- like the targeted pool halls of the play, Interstates -- and urban freeways in general -- are elevated to the point of villainy; they're the catalyst of a myriad of urban woes.  Of course, these folks are ignorant -- and seemingly often willingly so -- of the difference between causal and contributory effects (or they simply flunked Statistics 101!).  And it seems a bit presumptuous to assume that urban residents don't value mobility beyond their immediate area -- or resent those who exercise that mobility.  It would appear that this "traveling show" doesn't tend to interact with the greater city population, electing to align with -- and amplify -- the loudest local voices that happen to mirror their POV.   Instead of determining what would best reflect the wishes of the urban residents -- a "reality-inward" approach, they prefer to function from a "preferred conceptual solution outward" stance; in the long haul, that often results in a "product" that might look pretty but does little to address the root problems that plague cities. 
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1865
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 02:24:12 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #343 on: August 15, 2021, 04:53:08 PM »

LA 3132 should have been fixed BEFORE they thought about planning the I-49 ICC. The question is: why didn't they fix LA 3132 the first place? Ran out of money? Instead, they want to run the interstate through a neighborhood because it's cheaper? Sorry, I am not buying it. Something else is in play.

We will see what happens in 2022 or whenever the decision is made.

The Inner Loop was upgraded to freeway standards during the 1980's.

The plan all along was to run a north-south freeway through the heart of Shreveport; the original North-South Expressway proposal run during the 70's called for a full freeway basically using the central alignment now overlaid by current I-49 and the proposed ICC. Because Allendale raised so much hell back then, LADOTD and FHWA compromised back then: they approved the segment of the N/S Expressway from I-20 southward as part of I-49 to Lafayette via Alexandria; but they placed the section from I-20 north to I-220 onto the Federal Aid Program as a placeholder.  Of course, until the current ICC project was restarted, it remained in mothballs.



Alright. thank you for explaining the history. I wondered if Allendale (or surrounding communities) raised so much hell back then... why would LADOTD and FHWA decide to propose the same alignment, knowing Allendale will oppose once again? Did the negotiations went bad or what?

Well, in the original proposal, there was universal and loud opposition from the community. This time around, it's not so universal. Of course, those displaced directly by the new proposed ICC are opposed; but most of the opposition is from the usual outside forces: the New Urbanists who oppose freeways on principle, now backed by the Buttigieg-run FHWA which has swallowed their illogic fully; and other traditionally anti-freeway groups like the Sierra Club. The actual state representative of the district in which Allendale is located is actually a strong proponent of the ICC.

The original opposition was  back before they removed the shotgun shacks from east of Allen Avenue.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1229
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:26:26 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #344 on: August 17, 2021, 10:27:44 AM »

I keep coming back to this reservoir thing because I am underwhelmed by the supposed threat to Shreveport's drinking water.  This is a surface reservoir fed by dozens of creeks with hundreds of crossings by roads when you take into account all the intermittent tributaries and drainages.  There's an oil and gas field in its headwaters.  The lake is lined with hundreds of homes.  There's a freakin' railroad track riding across the dam that holds back the lake.  The existing bridge has some mitigation in place (which can always be improved).

The water doesn't go straight to the tap, of course.  There's a treatment plant.  The normal run-off from suburbia is already being handled by that system. I-49 adds nothing to the existing conditions.

The prospect of more traffic brought on by an eventual connection to Kansas City; maybe.  We'll see what happens in 40 years (or whatever) when that finally gets built. In the mean time, the status quo can be tweaked with spot improvements as needed.

There are more worthy projects in Louisiana that are worth fighting for.  The ICC is not a hill I'm going to die on in this modern era where these things are scraped for tooth-and-nail with various interests and advocates.  An all-freeway route for I-49 functionally exists through Shreveport.  Good enough.

If they're using the reservoir as part of their logic to oppose running I-49 through Allendale, then why would they have ever allowed I-220 to be built across Cross Lake? Makes no sense to me.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1742
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 02:22:08 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #345 on: August 17, 2021, 04:26:26 PM »

I keep coming back to this reservoir thing because I am underwhelmed by the supposed threat to Shreveport's drinking water.  This is a surface reservoir fed by dozens of creeks with hundreds of crossings by roads when you take into account all the intermittent tributaries and drainages.  There's an oil and gas field in its headwaters.  The lake is lined with hundreds of homes.  There's a freakin' railroad track riding across the dam that holds back the lake.  The existing bridge has some mitigation in place (which can always be improved).

The water doesn't go straight to the tap, of course.  There's a treatment plant.  The normal run-off from suburbia is already being handled by that system. I-49 adds nothing to the existing conditions.

The prospect of more traffic brought on by an eventual connection to Kansas City; maybe.  We'll see what happens in 40 years (or whatever) when that finally gets built. In the mean time, the status quo can be tweaked with spot improvements as needed.

There are more worthy projects in Louisiana that are worth fighting for.  The ICC is not a hill I'm going to die on in this modern era where these things are scraped for tooth-and-nail with various interests and advocates.  An all-freeway route for I-49 functionally exists through Shreveport.  Good enough.

If they're using the reservoir as part of their logic to oppose running I-49 through Allendale, then why would they have ever allowed I-220 to be built across Cross Lake? Makes no sense to me.

Exactly.  Perhaps the threat to the water supply was enough that they compromised and built special features into the I-220 crossing of Cross Lake in order to protect its potability. Perhaps KCS or UP put in their own features to protect their railline from possible contamination of the lake.

In any case, it has been documented that any rerouting of I-49 via I-220 and the Inner Loop would require major reconstruction and mitigation of that corridor that would increase the costs prohibitively, above the cost of the ICC. It doesn't matter that the route already exists as a freeway; federal Interstate design standards require such revisions, and the 404 Clean Water Act frowns very much on anything that could threaten the drinking water supply.

That's independent of the fundamental advantages of the ICC as a direct route serving N-S traffic within Shreveport; it's role in connecting existing I-49 with the Texarkana segment as part of the overall I-49 link between Lafayette (ultimately NOLA) and KCMO; and its potential to jumpstart downtown development and access.

Very easy for outsiders and naysayers to say what is and isn't good enough. I'll respect those who live there and understand what is needed.


Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1742
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 02:22:08 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #346 on: August 17, 2021, 04:32:06 PM »

Taking this back to its actual intended topic....

I assume there has been no update whatsoever on whether LaDOTD and TxDOT have resolved their differences on doing an EIS for the Tenaha to Shreveport segment, right?

If that segment manages to get nuked, then what becomes of the section of I-69 through suburban Shreveport? An I-x49 connector?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #347 on: August 17, 2021, 04:40:44 PM »

Taking this back to its actual intended topic....

I assume there has been no update whatsoever on whether LaDOTD and TxDOT have resolved their differences on doing an EIS for the Tenaha to Shreveport segment, right?

If that segment manages to get nuked, then what becomes of the section of I-69 through suburban Shreveport? An I-x49 connector?

If by chance the I-69 segment crossing the TX/LA line disappears, it's likely that TxDOT would petition to extend I-69 up the I-369 alignment as far as I-20, with the intention of multiplexing I-69 over I-20 to east of Shreveport, where it would diverge north toward AR.  If the Shreveport section -- at least the SE arc between I-49 and I-20 is retained as a local freeway loop, it may or may not get an Interstate number; as a southern extension of I-69 from the eastern I-20 divergence point, it would likely be a x69 if remaining an Interstate corridor.  But then again LADOT could just keep it as a state loop (3134?!).
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1865
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 02:24:12 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #348 on: August 17, 2021, 05:54:59 PM »

Taking this back to its actual intended topic....

I assume there has been no update whatsoever on whether LaDOTD and TxDOT have resolved their differences on doing an EIS for the Tenaha to Shreveport segment, right?

If that segment manages to get nuked, then what becomes of the section of I-69 through suburban Shreveport? An I-x49 connector?

If by chance the I-69 segment crossing the TX/LA line disappears, it's likely that TxDOT would petition to extend I-69 up the I-369 alignment as far as I-20, with the intention of multiplexing I-69 over I-20 to east of Shreveport, where it would diverge north toward AR.  If the Shreveport section -- at least the SE arc between I-49 and I-20 is retained as a local freeway loop, it may or may not get an Interstate number; as a southern extension of I-69 from the eastern I-20 divergence point, it would likely be a x69 if remaining an Interstate corridor.  But then again LADOT could just keep it as a state loop (3134?!).

From someone who is in Louisiana far more than he wants to be and is far too intimate with Louisiana in general and Shreveport / Bossier specifically I can tell you, no one in Northwest La thinks that I-69 gets built as proposed. Lots of folks beyond the economic development types want to see it from I-49 to I-20. The thinking would be more as a farther out outer belt as opposed to a through freeway.  The difference between US259 / SH315 / US79 and the proposed routing saves a dozen miles from Nacogdoches to  Shreveport more or less. Whether you go south along I-49 to connect or west along I-20 it still is close to the same. 

As far as the EIS goes, there is not even a firm agreement where the road would go. The discussion ranges from anywhere following US-84 And crossing the river just North of Logansport to going cross country from around Timpson to Woods and crossing the Sabine entirely in Texas.  The officials and advocates in DeSoto Parish hate this more northerly routing. The Shelby County people really aren't the greatest fans. The Shelby County folks had wanted it routed east of Nacogdoches and follow SH-7  to Joaquin. That was years ago.  There was a clear-cut decision NOT to do that. Texas has supposedly offered US-79 as an alternative and the Louisiana contingent nixed that because it probably would do away with the port crossing. 

No one in Shreveport is going to Arkansas City Arkansas. The extra fifteen minutes or less to Houston does nothing for the folks in Shreveport AND as Baton Rouge to Texas on the I-10 corridor is growing immensely, Shreveport/ Bossier is growing minimally or shrinking and less white. There  is no need to trade off in the legislature, NW Louisiana has a lesser portion of the members AND Baton Rouge and Southwest LA pretty much can decide to spend money however they want. That most likely won't be anything in NW Louisiana.  To a limited extent, New Orleans gets things because of the perceived value to Louisiana, not because of local legislative support.

The beauty to the Woods routing would be that there would only be around twenty miles from the state line to I-49. The Logansport route is over 30 Louisiana miles to I-49.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2021, 10:57:29 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

bassoon1986

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1337
  • Finish I-49 north in LA!

  • Age: 37
  • Location: Woodworth, LA
  • Last Login: October 06, 2023, 09:24:17 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #349 on: August 17, 2021, 06:19:00 PM »

I’m surprised that there really hasn’t been any more interest or push from Shreveport/Bossier for I-69. Northwest LA would benefit from I-69 more than their need for a route to Memphis. If nothing else, it would give another river crossing for the Red River. The southernmost bridge in Shreveport, the Jimmie Davis bridge/LA 511 is the only 2 lane crossing and has been needing to be 4 lanes for quite some time with no avail. It also gives a little bypass from the south to a few destinations east of Bossier City by being able to skirt around Barksdale AFB. It would also greatly improve driving from Shreveport/Bossier/NWLA to Houston. US 79 is a slog until you get to Carthage, TX and can hop on 59.


iPhone
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.