Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grzrd]

A ROD has not yet been issued for SIU 14.  I've communicated with a local FHWA official and it appears that the major holdup/problem is that neither Louisiana nor Arkansas has any funds allocated for I-69 SIU 14 in their respectives STIPs.  If a ROD were to sit dormant for a certain length of time, a re-evaluation would have to occur before any construction could begin.  The various governmental entities are currently trying to figure out the best way to handle this situation.

Over this past weekend, I tried to check the I-69 SIU 14 website to see if a ROD has been issued and noticed that the website is down.  I emailed LaDOTD and was told that they expect a ROD by the end of February and that NLCOG will assume responsibility for the SIU 14 website from the consultant in the near future.  LaDOTD's reply:

We expect to get a ROD for SIU 14 before the end of February 2012. There are no funds left in the consultant contract to renew the annual contract for the domain name. NLCOG has agreed to take over the contract of the website.  It looks like the transfer of the domain name (from URS to NLCOG)has not been completed yet as the website is down.

I wonder if Louisiana and/or Arkansas has committed to a minimal amount of work on SIU 14 in near future to make the issuance of A ROD worthwhile.  

[Grzrd]

Over this past weekend, I tried to check the I-69 SIU 14 website to see if a ROD has been issued and noticed that the website is down.  I emailed LaDOTD and was told that they expect ... that NLCOG will assume responsibility for the SIU 14 website from the consultant in the near future.  LaDOTD's reply:

We expect to get a ROD for SIU 14 before the end of February 2012. There are no funds left in the consultant contract to renew the annual contract for the domain name. NLCOG has agreed to take over the contract of the website.  It looks like the transfer of the domain name (from URS to NLCOG)has not been completed yet as the website is down.

I just checked and the SIU 14 website is active once again.

[Grzrd]

I just noticed that the Agenda for tomorrow's NLCOG Transportation Committee meeting has scheduled updates for I-69 SIUs 14, 15, and 16, the Inner Loop Extension, and the I-49 ICC:
http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/Agenda_11172011.pdf

NLCOG has posted the Draft Minutes from its November 17, 2011 meeting.  Of note is that SIU 15 has been divided into five sections and Section 3, which includes a bridge over the Red River, is envisioned to be built first (page 10/16 of pdf; map of the five sections on page 11/16 of pdf):

SIU 14 – Eldorado Ark. – Haughton La.
USACE (Corp of Eng.) has granted concurrence on the wetland delineation decision and mitigation. Their comments have been incorporated into the Final EIS. Final EIS has been distributed. It is anticipated that a Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued by end of calendar year 2011 or early 2012. Engineering and Right-of-Way phases can begin following issuance of the ROD.

SIU 15 – Haughton La – Stonewall La.
A resolution with the LSU AgCenter Pecan Research Station in proximity to the Port has been reached. The Final EIS is to be distributed February 2012 with close of Final EIS review in March of 2012. It is anticipated that a Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued June/July 2012. Engineering and Right-of-Way phases can begin following issuance of the ROD. A draft of the Project Management Plan needs to be submitted to FHWA 60 days prior to issuance of ROD.

Project Management Plan
Prior to the issues with the Pecan Station an initial Project Management Plan was being developed. Part of this process is to identify segments for implementation and a prioritization of those segments. SIU 15 is divided into 5 segments. The consultant team meet with our Technical members and are recommending the following Priority for implementation:
Segment 3 – Red River Crossing LA 1 to US 71
Segment 2 – I-49 to LA 1
Segment 4 – US 71 to LA 157
Segment 5 – LA 157 to I-20
Segment 1 – US 171 to I-49

SIU 16 – Stonewall La – Tenaha Tx.
Texas had been using a two stage environmental process. The project got bogged down in politics due to it’s initial tie in with the Trans Texas Corridor program. They have since stepped back and done some grass roots planning throughout the entire corridor in Texas breaking the full project into several sections SIU 16 included in Section One. The initial recommendations for this grass roots effort are to begin the formal Environmental Studies for the connection from Tenaha to Louisiana and include Louisiana.

The SIU 16 update appears to be consistent with the TxDOT Segment 1 Committee's November 9, 2011 report (page 3/31 of pdf).

[Gordon]

This article look's  like more disagreements for I 49 inner connector. http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120308/OPINION0106/203080333/State-Rep-Roy-Burrell-NLCOG-conducting-transparent-study-49-inner-city-corridor?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

[Grzrd]

A ROD has not yet been issued for SIU 14.  I've communicated with a local FHWA official and it appears that the major holdup/problem is that neither Louisiana nor Arkansas has any funds allocated for I-69 SIU 14 in their respectives STIPs

The following information about SIU 14 is out of date for above reason, and I suspect the following information about SIU 15 may be out of date for a similar reason:

• The final Environmental impact Statement (EIS) for the National Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 14 from El Dorado, AK to Shreveport, LA has been distributed for public comment. A Record of Decision (ROD) may be issued 45 days after close of public comment.
• National SIU 15 from Shreveport, LA to near Stonewall, LA final EIS will be distributed for comment late December 2011 or early January 2013.

NLCOG's Transportation Policy Committee March 15 Agenda indicates that the TIP will be amended to allow preliminary engineering on I-69:

C. I-69 Update
a. TIP Amendments for Preliminary Engineering

The Agenda does not distinguish between SIU 14 and SIU 15, but hopefully both will be included in the TIP amendments to allow for a SIU 14 ROD and a SIU 15 FEIS.

[Grzrd]

NLCOG's Transportation Policy Committee March 15 Agenda indicates that the TIP will be amended to allow preliminary engineering on I-69:

C. I-69 Update
a. TIP Amendments for Preliminary Engineering

The Agenda does not distinguish between SIU 14 and SIU 15, but hopefully both will be included in the TIP amendments to allow for a SIU 14 ROD and a SIU 15 FEIS.

I received an email update from NLCOG today.  In essence, LaDOTD is anticipated to modify the state TIP in accordance with NLCOG's amendments to its TIP ($500,000 for SIU 14 and $1 million for SIU 15).  As a result, a ROD is expected for SIU 14 in late April and a ROD for SIU 15 this summer.  NLCOG's response:

·        FHWA is requiring that both SIU 14 and 15 are programmed with funding for the Engineer/Design Phase (phase that typically proceeds the completion of the Environmental Study/Assessment). As it stands now, LADOTD will modify the State TIP (i.e. STIP) in accordance with our requested TIP amendments for both SIU 14 and 15. Once that housekeeping issue is completed, we anticipate a ROD being signed for SIU-14 in late April.
·        We don’t foresee any additional impediments concerning the issuance of the FEIS for SIU-15. Anticipated issuance of the ROD is expected sometime during the summer of 2012. We’ve already addressed, see above, the FHWA programming requirement for SIU 15 ($1 mil.) as was done for SIU 14 ($500 k). 
·        Since SIU 15 already has “Earmarked” (DEMO) funding from current (SAFETEA-LU) and previous (TEA-21) Transportation Authorizations, it is good bet that it will proceed at a faster pace as compared to SIU 14. Further, the travel demand for SIU 15, linking I-20 via the Port of Shreveport-Bossier to I-49, is far greater than SIU 14. The first segment that will be pursued, within SIU 15, is the Red River Crossing (Bridge) at the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. 
·        TxDOT is still on-board, and is the lead investigator, concerning the Environmental Assessment/Analysis, of SIU 16. Since their plans for the Trans-Texas Corridors have fallen through, TxDOT has dropped back and reassessed their initial Environmental Study Methodology and recognize that I-69 SIU 16 will terminate in the Stonewall, Louisiana area along US 171 where SIU 15 currently terminates.

[Grzrd]

I received an email update from NLCOG today.  In essence, LaDOTD is anticipated to modify the state TIP in accordance with NLCOG's amendments to its TIP ($500,000 for SIU 14 and $1 million for SIU 15).  As a result, a ROD is expected for SIU 14 in late April and a ROD for SIU 15 this summer. 

It looks like LaDOTD modified the state TIP earlier this month for SIU 14 (page 16/70 of pdf) and SIU 15 (page 13/70 of pdf).  It looks like the path is now clear for the SIU 14 ROD and the SIU 15 FEIS.

[Grzrd]

This TV video report outlines a little bit of legal drama going on in Shreveport regarding the Inner Loop extension.    As this story points out, a red flag arose when other agencies produced email correspondence with Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover, but Mayor Glover did not produce his copies of the emails:

Attorney John Settle, on behalf of the coalition, filed the request seeking copies of all emails, letters, memorandums and other written communications from Nov. 1, 2006, to present regarding state Highway 3132 and the Inner Loop Extension.
He also submitted similar requests to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, City Engineer Ron Norwood and North Louisiana Council of Government.
Settle later filed a lawsuit against Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover and the city for failure to turn over the documents.
On Monday, two days before Wednesday's hearing to determine if city officials are in violation of the open records law, the attorney received 28 pages of documents from the city.
Settle argued during the hearing that Glover withheld three critical emails dated April 14, 2011, and a letter of importance Glover received from DOTD dated April 15, 2011. The city submitted fewer documents than the others, the attorney said.
"It's obvious the mayor has not attempted to comply with this request," Settle said. "The city is totally, totally playing games with this request. "» Other agencies can provide emails to and from the mayor, and he is copied. The mayor needs to take the stand. He is not above the law. He needs to take the stand today."
Settle asked that Glover turn his cellphone over to the court to download emails and text messages or have the court issue an order for the city's cellphone carrier to produce the information.
City Attorney Terri Scott told the court the city didn't intentionally withhold information and agreed to submit any documents that may have been omitted. She also said the city will provide the requested information for its cellular coverage.

Basically, the Finish 3132 Coalition believes that Mayor Glover and NLCOG are attempting to ram through a "No Build" Environmental Assessment to fulfill a back-room deal that they allegedly cut with a local developer.  The court has ordered that the emails be produced by April 26.  Too bad there's no money to build the extension ...

[Grzrd]

It looks like LaDOTD modified the state TIP earlier this month for SIU 14 (page 16/70 of pdf) and SIU 15 (page 13/70 of pdf).  It looks like the path is now clear for the SIU 14 ROD and the SIU 15 FEIS.

NLCOG has posted its May 17 Agenda, which includes the following:

B. I-69 Update
a. SIU 14 Record of Decision

This agenda item suggests that a ROD has been issued for I-69 SIU 14, but neither the I-69 SIU 14 website nor LaDOTD's press releases provides an announcement of a Record of Decision as of the time of this post.

Hopefully, the "update" will not be the announcement of another problem that needs to be addressed before a ROD can be issued.

[Grzrd]

In the FEIS, Louisiana set forth a schedule to build its section of SIU 14 over a fifteen year period from 2019 to 2033 (page 5-7 of FEIS; page 207/760 of pdf).

It looks like LaDOTD modified the state TIP earlier this month for SIU 14 (page 16/70 of pdf) ...  It looks like the path is now clear for the SIU 14 ROD

NLCOG has posted its May 17 Agenda, which includes the following:

B. I-69 Update
a. SIU 14 Record of Decision

Louisiana has been issued its first ROD for a SIU of I-69 that is located there.  I recently received an email update from NLCOG to that effect:

FHWA issued a ROD, for I-69 SIU-14, April 27th, 2012. NLCOG is in the process of transferring the SIU-14 website from URS Corp. to our domain, but it is a painful process to work with Network Solutions. I might go ahead and post the signed ROD document on our nlcog.org homepage.

Maybe the FEIS for SIU 15 will be announced in the near future, too.

EDIT

NLCOG has moved quickly and posted the I-69 SIU 14 ROD on its website.* The ROD indicates that Louisiana has revised its FEIS implementation schedule in order to make SIU 14 construction be contingent on the completion of SIU 15 (page 10 of ROD; page 12/44 of pdf):

The implementation schedule, as presented in the Final EIS, was revised for inclusion in the Project Management Plan (PMP) for the Louisiana portion of SIU 14. The revisions are a result of updated FHWA regulations in addition to recommendations from LADOTD, FHWA, and Northwest Louisiana Council on Governments (NLCOG) to base the schedule start date contingent upon completion of SIU 15. The scheduled start date is 2025 and extends 15 years to 2039.

I guess it is fair to interpret the above as saying the expectation is that SIU 15 will be completed around 2025.  Maybe the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension mess will be cleared up by then, too.

It's also interesting that Bossier City is considered as being large enough in its own right to be separate from Shreveport (page 2 of ROD; page 4/44 of pdf):

Previous studies completed for the national I-69 Corridor have demonstrated that extending I-69 from Indianapolis, through Memphis, Bossier City and Houston to the Mexican border in the Lower Rio Grande Valley is a feasible project.

I wonder if one day Bossier City will be the control city instead of Shreveport?

* edit

LaDOTD also has an I-69 SIU 14 Environmental Documents page.

[mcdonaat]

Any idea about the future of 3132's route number? I'm thinking that the LaDOTD will replace 3132 west of I-49 with I-49 temporarily, and then change it to I-169. It would make the most sense, since you already have 220 at that intersection, and 49 is about two miles away.

[sr641]

They should leave it 3132.

[mcdonaat]

They should leave it 3132.

If you change it to an Interstate, not only do you immediately have the funds available (the 90/10), but the Interstate banner will make drivers feel more safe (most people I know don't use 3132, even if going from Dallas to Alexandria, simply because "the Interstate is faster"). How's I-220 sound for 3132's replacement? Or I-249 if it connects I-69 to I-20?

[sr641]

They should leave it 3132.

If you change it to an Interstate, not only do you immediately have the funds available (the 90/10), but the Interstate banner will make drivers feel more safe (most people I know don't use 3132, even if going from Dallas to Alexandria, simply because "the Interstate is faster"). How's I-220 sound for 3132's replacement? Or I-249 if it connects I-69 to I-20?

I like the idea of Interstate 220 replacing 3132 in the future. I wouldn't want it to be named I-169 or 249.

[NE2]

If you change it to an Interstate, not only do you immediately have the funds available

Not anymore.

[mcdonaat]

Contrary to probably what would be done, I wouldn't mind 220 being spun off of I-69, skirting the edge of Barksdale. You would have people more willing to travel from Bossier or Minden to the south of Shreveport via I-69, and the I-220/I-69 concurrency would let drivers have a single number to follow. Upgrading the La. 157 corridor could end up being the answer, making a true Shreveport/Bossier loop. Any thoughts?

[Anthony_JK]

Any idea about the future of 3132's route number? I'm thinking that the LaDOTD will replace 3132 west of I-49 with I-49 temporarily, and then change it to I-169. It would make the most sense, since you already have 220 at that intersection, and 49 is about two miles away.

Nope...NLCOG's plan -- at least until the ICC is completed -- is to run I-49 along its present corridor to I-20, then use I-20 west to I-220, then run concurrent with I-220 to the beginning of I-49 North. Using LA 3132 would create an issue of redesignating existing I-49 between I-220 and I-20, which would not be easy to resolve.

Until I-69 is completed through NW LA, the best thing would be to simply keep it as LA 3132...especially since there are questions as to whether the extension to LA 1/future I-69 will actually be freeway grade or merely expressway grade with at-grade crossovers/intersections.

[Alps]

Nope...NLCOG's plan -- at least until the ICC is completed -- is to run I-49 along its present corridor to I-20, then use I-20 west to I-220, then run concurrent with I-220 to the beginning of I-49 North. Using LA 3132 would create an issue of redesignating existing I-49 between I-220 and I-20, which would not be easy to resolve.

What's not easy about replacing a few shields with I-149? 3132 is a definite shortcut for 49 once it's extended, and keeps through traffic out of downtown. I would much rather have I-49 traffic use 3132. If I were LADOT, what I would do is sign "TO 49" along 3132, and the section of I-49 north of 3132 would be signed "TO 49 SOUTH" SB and "TO 20" NB. 49 can then technically follow the 20/220 route, without being such a silly routing.

[mcdonaat]

Nope...NLCOG's plan -- at least until the ICC is completed -- is to run I-49 along its present corridor to I-20, then use I-20 west to I-220, then run concurrent with I-220 to the beginning of I-49 North. Using LA 3132 would create an issue of redesignating existing I-49 between I-220 and I-20, which would not be easy to resolve.

What's not easy about replacing a few shields with I-149? 3132 is a definite shortcut for 49 once it's extended, and keeps through traffic out of downtown. I would much rather have I-49 traffic use 3132. If I were LADOT, what I would do is sign "TO 49" along 3132, and the section of I-49 north of 3132 would be signed "TO 49 SOUTH" SB and "TO 20" NB. 49 can then technically follow the 20/220 route, without being such a silly routing.

I'm all for designating LA 3132 as I-149, or at least TO I-49. Instead of a simple TO Alexandria, you put TO I-49. Makes plenty of sense to me. I wish, though, that I-49 would loop around using 3132 and 220. It would save on costs... Take the current I-49 north of 3132, and imagine adding all of the truck traffic that normally uses La 1, US 71, and then add the tourists and people who are going to take the road. Mark my words, five years after I-49 is completed straight through Shreveport, there will be a push to widen the road.

[sr641]

I changed my mine. It should stay 3132.

[mcdonaat]

I changed my mine. It should stay 3132.

I changed my mine. It should stay 3132.

How about 20-49 Connector? I-49 Spur? US 171 Bypass? Hey, let's just make up our own thing, and say LA 2049?

[Alps]

I changed my mine. It should stay 3132.

How about 20-49 Connector? I-49 Spur? US 171 Bypass? Hey, let's just make up our own thing, and say LA 2049?

No, no, LA doesn't do 2xxx routes, we've learned.
Also: what is up with this double quoting thing?

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

I changed my mine. It should stay 3132.

How about 20-49 Connector? I-49 Spur? US 171 Bypass? Hey, let's just make up our own thing, and say LA 2049?

No, no, LA doesn't do 2xxx routes, we've learned.
Also: what is up with this double quoting thing?

<shrugs shoulders> you tell us, you're an admin here.

[Anthony_JK]

Nope...NLCOG's plan -- at least until the ICC is completed -- is to run I-49 along its present corridor to I-20, then use I-20 west to I-220, then run concurrent with I-220 to the beginning of I-49 North. Using LA 3132 would create an issue of redesignating existing I-49 between I-220 and I-20, which would not be easy to resolve.

What's not easy about replacing a few shields with I-149? 3132 is a definite shortcut for 49 once it's extended, and keeps through traffic out of downtown. I would much rather have I-49 traffic use 3132. If I were LADOT, what I would do is sign "TO 49" along 3132, and the section of I-49 north of 3132 would be signed "TO 49 SOUTH" SB and "TO 20" NB. 49 can then technically follow the 20/220 route, without being such a silly routing.

It's not silly if Shreveport wants the routing through downtown...and running I-49 via LA 3132 and I-220 carries its own problems. There's the fact that you would probably have to add a lane in each direction to I-220 to handle the additional bypass traffic; and there's the part about I-220 crossing Cross Lake, which supplies Shreveport-Bossier with its drinking water, which could pose a potential threat from hazardous materials traffic. Besides, why waste it when all you need to close the gap between I-49 North and existing I-49 is three miles??


Anthony

[Anthony_JK]

Plus..since the segment of I-49 between LA 3132 and I-20 does connect between two interstates, an even numbered 3di would suffice (I-449??)

Now, if they do decide to kill the ICC or go with a "low build" part freeway/part boulevard connection (yuck!!!!) and reroute I-49 around the city using LA 3132 and I-220, then there may be the potential for an "I-49 Business" using the old I-49 corridor plus the new downtown "boulevard" connection to I-49 North....but Louisiana doesn't do Interstate business routes, as we all know.