AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: Grzrd on April 27, 2011, 06:11:33 PM

Title: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on April 27, 2011, 06:11:33 PM
Draft minutes from early April NLCOG Transportation Committee meeting indicate that a ROD for I-69 SIU 15 (map: http://www.i69dotd.com/Handouts/July2010/Study_Area.pdf) should be released sometime around March of next year.  There is also discussion of the LA 3132 Inner Loop Expressway Extension and how it might connect to I-69 (to make a long story short, the revision of I-69 SIU 15's path caused a five year delay; in the interim, a subdivision was built near the the original proposed path of the Extension that would connect to I-69 and NLCOG now wants to consider alternatives to the original routing, including non-controlled access options).  Thought it would be as good a time as any to start an I-69 Louisiana thread [since it is the beginning of the thread, here is a link to a map of SIU 14 (Haughton to El Dorado AR), even though Committee meeting had nothing to do with it (http://www.i69arkla.com/images/RevisedPreferredAlternative(1454%20x%202046).jpg)]. Here's the link to the draft minutes:

http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/MPO_04_07_11.pdf

Quote
II. Status Update I-69 SIU 15
J. Kent Rogers (NLCOG Staff)
Mr. Rogers stated that FHWA and DOTD have concurred that the term functional replacement is now being replaced with Mitigation based on the loss of research ability.
Dr. Richardson has offered the following alternatives:
1) Complete relocation of the research facility to research property they own down in Red River Parish. He said his rough estimate for full relocation would be ~$5 — $7 million. The current research station property would revert back to the State of Louisiana.
2) Purchase contiguous property in an amount that would establish entirely new research plots on the newly acquired property... during the meeting we roughly figured ~40 - 45 acres.
Federal Highways legal department is reviewing alternative one. The benefit to this is although there will be a ~$5 — $7 million relocation cost there would be no right of way cost associated with this parcel due to it reverting back to state ownership.
DOTD has agreed to this. Following federal legal review an agreement will be drafted between all parties (LSU — DOTD — FHWA). The port agreement will be used as a template since it has undergone scrutiny and approval by all parties.

Michael Baker is updating some field work and will then finalize the EIS. The Final EIS should hit the streets for review around the December-January time frame and we should have a ROD 30 — 45 days following.

Mayor Walker asked to clarify if the property for relocation was in Red River Parish or if it is actually in Bossier Parish along the Red River at their existing facility. Mr. Petro stated he would check on that but he recalled it being at their facility in Red River Parish.
Mr. Rogers stated that all of this has caused a roughly 5 year delay with the environmental work and receiving a ROD on I-69 SIU 15. This in turn leads us to the next item on the agenda.

III. LA 3132 (Inner Loop Expressway Ext.) discussion
J. Kent Rogers (NLCOG Staff)
Mr. Rogers started the discussion with some background on the Inner Loop Extension and its history including the initial study performed by the City of Shreveport (copy available on the table). Mr. Rogers noted that this study had looked at many alternatives to completing a controlled access loop around the Shreveport Bossier urban area. When I-69 came to light the group then commissioned an I-69 Inner Loop Compatibility Report. This report reviewed that a major portion of I-69 SIU 15 could be accomplished through the development of the Inner Loop Extension and vice versa. At that time it was decided to focus on a two phased development of the Inner Loop Extension the first section from Bert Kouns to Flournoy-Lucas and phase two from Flournoy-Lucas to I-69 in proximity to the port. In addition, the Inner Loop Extension Study became the background on which the EIS for I-69 SIU 15 was to be developed and a gentleman's agreement was arranged for the environmental work and construction of the second phase of the Inner Loop Extension to potentially be completed as part of I-69 SIU 15 as a connector. The environmental would begin with the issuance of a ROD for SIU 15 thereby providing the two ending points.

Mr. Rogers then pointed out that with the delay in completing the Environmental work on I-69 due to the issues discussed earlier, the development of 12 Oaks subdivision to the south and east of the current intersection with Flournoy-Lucas and now with Mr. Larkin's development to the south and west of the intersection this poses some concerns over the future Inner Loop Extension as currently laid out in the MPO Long Range Plan. Mr. Rogers then asked Mr. Larkin if he would like to express his concerns as they relate to his development.
Mr. Larkin presented a map with the Inner Loop Extension superimposed over the 12 Oaks development and the surrounding area. He then described his development in the area and the expenses he has incurred to date. This included over a million dollars on the bridge crossing Bayou Pierre. Mr. Larkin stated that he had a number of studies completed towards implementation of the project including some traffic studies.
Mr. Larkin then began a discussion over other potential alignments and/or ways to connect the port facility and I-69. These options included using Flournoy-Lucas and La 1 since Flournoy-Lucas is nearing completion of the expansion to 5 lanes and La 1 is 4 lanes with median from that point south to the port facility. Mr. Rogers pointed out that technically since the I-69 compatibility study was done that the plan and model show the alignment more of a straight shot towards I-69 and port connection. Mr. Larkin noted that a traffic study he had completed showed that Flournoy-Lucas and La 1 should be able to handle any future traffic for many years.

Mr. Larkin continued to emphasize the need to remove the alignment shown due to impacts on the surrounding properties. He noted that current property owners would need to disclose this potential alignment on future sales of property. Mr. Rogers pointed out that technically they should be doing that now. Mr. Larkin stated that he knew for a fact that these land owners did not know of this potential alignment and were not made aware of it through current land sales.
Mr. Larkin then discussed his request for access to Flournoy-Lucas in the area of current control of access to the Inner Loop and the proposed extension. Again Mr. Larkin referenced a traffic study he had completed and noted the study concluded that the access would not impact traffic flow through the area and that the design of the intersection and with the 5 lanes of Flournoy-Lucas there was plenty of capacity to handle the traffic.

Mr. Altimus asked Mr. England for the ports perspective as related to the inner loop and I-69. Mr. England described that the port felt that with the extension of Inner Loop to Flournoy-Lucas and with the expansion of Flournoy-Lucas to LA 1 these facilities could handle the volumes of truck traffic for a number of years. Mr. England stated that the ports long range connection is with I-69 and its river crossing. He further stated that the port was putting its eggs in the I-69 basket.

Mr. Altimus then asked Mr. Sanders for the opinion of the DOTD district office. Mr. Sanders noted that again the long range plan reflects a controlled access loop around the area. By directing traffic to Flournoy-Lucas and La1 you are in effect giving up on that controlled access facility. Although it may currently handle the traffic there is still potential for other developments along Flournoy-Lucas. Mr. Sanders state they are less concerned with LA 1 due to the levees on one side and the rail lines on the other. Mr. Sanders stated that they did not want this section of Flournoy-Lucas to become another Bert Kouns. Again Mr. Sander's stated the need for control of access. Mr. Glover noted that he does not wish to abandon control access concept just to look at other alignments and other means to do so. Mr. Glover then stated that he would like to offer the following motion.

I, Cedric Glover, Mayor of Shreveport move that:
1. The MPO rescind the approved corridor alignment for the southerly extension of the Inner Loop (La 3132) from Flournoy-Lucas Rd. (La 523) to La Hwy 1.
2. The MPO requests the removal of the roadway "control of access"  along Flournoy-Lucas Rd. at it's intersection with the Inner Loop thus allowing access to community development in the area.
3. The MPO requests access approval to the future community development as shown as Option 1 on the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Neel-Schaffer dated March 4, 2011.
4. A study be undertaken to investigate the feasibility of an alternative Inner Loop extension corridor northwest and east of the existing Inner Loop terminus through undeveloped property north of Bayou Pierre from Flournoy-Lucas Rd to La Hwy 1.

Mr. England seconded the motion. Mr. Altimus opened the floor for discussion.
Mr. Rogers asked that from a staff/technical stand point he would like the wording of the study to reflect an Environments Study. Mr Rogers also asked if items 2 and 3 would be recommendations or request because the MPO actually has no control over this. These are items handled by DOTD and that these facilities are state highways.
Mr. Sanders concurred with Mr. Rogers. Mr. Altimus also state that we all understand that DOTD has final say on the access to state highways. This would be a request. Mr. Glover concurred and restated the motion for the record with the inclusion of Environmental Study in item 4.
Mr. Altimus called for a vote. The motion passed with Mr. Sanders as a dissenting vote.
Mr. Jambor noted that he felt that we were trying to preserve the corridor and that we need to be sure to do better for preserving what ever corridor comes forth from the environmental study.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 04, 2011, 08:26:04 AM
Since I-69 interrelated with Inner Loop Expressway Extension, I have placed them in same thread.  Opinion piece in Shreveport Times recounts how two new subdivisions, in conjunction with officials apparently asleep at the wheel, may possibly kill the Extension (and the Extension's connection to and concurrency with I-69):

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110501/OPINION0102/104300312/Loop-s-labor-lost?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

Quote
A developer's request for access to Flournoy Lucas Road near its intersection with the Inner Loop set off an odd chain of April events.
In considering the proposed entrance to developer Tim Larkin's new 150-acre Esplanade neighborhood, the region's transportation planning panel discovered that an overlay of an Inner Loop extension corridor would wipe out 40 upscale houses in the adjacent Twelve Oaks subdivision ...
Yikes! was sort of the response as the – take a breath – Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Planning Committee calculated the $15 million cost to plow through those upscale houses, while Mayor Cedric Glover counted the lost property taxes.
So the committee, led by Glover, killed the corridor.
Never mind that an MPO staffer noted that the preferred route since 1992 actually would miss Twelve Oaks. Instead of intersecting with Louisiana 1, the preferred route would more closely brush Larkin's high-end development on its more southerly route toward a hoped-for intersection with the dreamed-of Interstate 69. The goal: complete a controlled-access loop around Shreveport-Bossier City ... So without the hope of an Inner Loop continuing south, some now see Flournoy Lucas doomed as the permanent "industrial" loop for heavy traffic traveling to and from the Port of Shreveport-Bossier ... Of course the chief mistake, in fact a bureaucratic and leadership mystery, is just how a couple of major subdivisions were allowed to not just deflect, but perhaps kill, the path of a 19-year-old Inner Loop corridor.

A discussion of the the Extension is the major item on tomorrow's Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Planning Committee agenda:

http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/Agenda_05052011.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 04, 2011, 12:29:31 PM
Two words, Shreveport MPO/NLCOG: CORRIDOR PRESERVATION.

Why the city allowed the subdivisions to get in the way of the Inner Loop extension in the first place is a major concern.

If they are going to downgrade the proposed interchange at Flournoy Lucas Rd., then they might as well downgrade the entire section E of I-49 to expressway/arterial status...or go back to Plan A and complete I-220 through Barksdale AFB.

Or...just do as I originally recommended and dump I-69 between Carthage and Monticello and reroute through US 425/US 165 to I-10 E of Lake Charles, and use the US 59 corridor to Texarkana for the Texas segments.

The Inner City Connector segment of I-49 is more important, anyway.


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 08, 2011, 02:59:39 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 04, 2011, 12:29:31 PM
Two words, Shreveport MPO/NLCOG: CORRIDOR PRESERVATION.
Why the city allowed the subdivisions to get in the way of the Inner Loop extension in the first place is a major concern.
Anthony

Quote
Shreveport Councilman Michael Corbin ... offered one of the best big-picture assessments of this planning dysfunction episode.
"We just went through a master plan process. If we block off transportation access to I-69 and to the port, if we're short-sighted just for the promise of property taxes (from new housing development), that's not in the spirit (of the process)."
The bottom line, he said, "We've got to get a corridor and protect it."

Above quote is from article talking about confusion that arose at the May 5 NLCOG Transportation Policy Committee meeting in which the Committee attempted to determine the current status of the Inner Loop Expressway Extension corridor: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110508/OPINION0102/105070347/Craig-Durrett-Inner-Loop-extension-furor-illustrates-our-planning-problems?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

Quote
If you want to design a system that can give the illusion of planning without the fuss and bother of follow-through, look no further than Shreveport and Caddo Parish.
Taxpayers spent millions to extend the Inner Loop from Bert Kouns Industrial Loop to Flournoy Lucas Road only to leave the four-lane highway hanging. The Loops's next leap south is suspended in a concrete freeze frame, its path clouded by development.
The city also spent almost a half million dollars to secure 16 acres for the southern access at Flournoy Lucas Road, yet key planners for the Metropolitan Planning Commission and the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments say there is no official route. "We're not preserving a corridor, we're preserving a patch of ground," as MPC planner Roy Jambor put it Thursday at NLCOG's Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Policy Committee ....
As noted in this space last week, the uncertainty of the Inner Loop extension jeopardizes a decades-old plan for a complete, controlled-access highway around Shreveport-Bossier City ....
The Transportation Policy Committee chose not to act on a request by NLCOG Executive Director Kent Rogers to back up on its April 7 vote to explore an alternate Inner Loop corridor. Rogers wants to instead assess several corridor alternatives in order to move toward a definitive route ...

I hope this mess is not a preview of process for I-49 Inner-City Connector.

EDIT

The Shreveport City Council is now getting involved and may seek public input ...

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110510/NEWS01/105100324/Shreveport-Council-considers-first-sale-175-million-bond-issue?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Quote
... [Shreveport City C]ouncil members will consider calling a meeting for public input into the future extension of La. Highway 3132 in southeast Shreveport, an area experiencing high-end residential growth.
A 1992 study mapped out a proposed path for the continuation of La. 3132 that would connect with the Interstate 69 corridor. The planned route now includes more than 40 homes within the Twelve Oaks subdivision, which Glover estimated would cost more than $15 million to acquire.
The Office of the Mayor has suggested redirecting the route of the extension to the northeast.
Other options could straighten the path out or adjust it to meander in a direction that has minimal impact on nearby subdivisions ...
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 12, 2011, 11:08:25 AM
Here is a TV news report with a video that provides a visual background of the evolving Inner Loop Extension controversy to go with the report:
http://www.ktbs.com/news/27862373/detail.html

And, there will be a public hearing in near future: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110511/NEWS01/105110339/Shreveport-planning-hearing-Inner-Loop-extension

Quote
The meeting is unscheduled but will be at LSU-Shreveport ... [City Councilman Michael] Corbin, who represents southeast Shreveport, said he's gotten more phone calls and emails about the situation than anything else since his council term started in November. He compared the trickle of information to removing an onion's skin.
"Every time you peel back another layer," Corbin said, "there's another layer behind it."

EDIT

The public meeting will be this Thursday: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110515/OPINION0102/105150335/Craig-Durrett-Inner-Loop-controversy-finally-get-public-airing?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp
Title: Re: I-69 in LA
Post by: cjk374 on May 18, 2011, 07:40:35 PM
Whatever happened to "right of eminent domain"?  The LaDOTD needs to grow a pair and just tell these developers to get ready for the highway and get over themselves.  It's not bothering the LaDOTD to destroy a downtown Shreveport neighborhood to build I-49.  So what if these are new homes in the way of LA 3132 are new and the downtown area is not...it hasn't bothered them before.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 18, 2011, 09:05:38 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on May 18, 2011, 07:40:35 PM
Whatever happened to "right of eminent domain"?  The LaDOTD needs to grow a pair and just tell these developers to get ready for the highway and get over themselves.  It's not bothering the LaDOTD to destroy a downtown Shreveport neighborhood to build I-49.  So what if these are new homes in the way of LA 3132 are new and the downtown area is not...it hasn't bothered them before.

It's not destruction if the neighborhood in question (Allendale) actually supports the Inner City Connector and is willing to adjust to meet it.

On the other hand, it's not really LaDOTD's call...if the homeowners and developers don't want to move, and they got approval from the state to build on the ROW, then there isn't much choice. I'd rather just realign the extension to fulfill the goal of continuous freeway standards, and let them use Flournoy-Lucas Road to their hearts' content.


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in LA
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 18, 2011, 09:06:32 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on May 18, 2011, 07:40:35 PM
Whatever happened to "right of eminent domain"?  The LaDOTD needs to grow a pair and just tell these developers to get ready for the highway and get over themselves.  

In the middle of the Morganza spillway?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 20, 2011, 08:25:53 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 12, 2011, 11:08:25 AM
The public meeting will be this Thursday
From the attendees present at the meeting, it initially appears that Shreveporters want the Inner Loop to be completed, but it will take at least two years just to determine a new route:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110520/NEWS01/105200317/Shreveporters-City-Hall-should-finish-Inner-Loop?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Quote
The Inner Loop may stop at its current terminus, but Shreveporters made it clear Thursday they want it to move ahead .... More than 300 – dozens wearing LA 3132 T-shirts, pointing out the highway's state-issued number – gathered at LSU-Shreveport for a public hearing on the future of the limited access highway ... But they left with few answers on how the freeway got to where it is or where it might go ... And for now, according to Mayor Cedric Glover and the state Department of Transportation and Development, there is no designated corridor for its growth .... Finding a new route will cost at least $750,000 for environmental and feasibility studies, according to DOTD Deputy Secretary Eric Kalivoda. It'll take two years .... "We're prepared to move forward with that right away," Kalivoda said.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2011, 09:06:39 PM
NLCOG has posted its Draft Minutes from the May 5 meeting which centered on the Inner Loop Extension.  The participants could not even agree to approve the April 7 Minutes.  To sum it up, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding the possibility of LA 3132 extending from its current terminus to a connection with I-69 (the confusion actually makes for some entertaining reading):

http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_05052011.pdf

Their next meeting will be Thursday.  Here is the agenda:

http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/Agenda_06022011.pdf

This Shreveport Times article outlines some of the players, subtle competitions and possible hidden agendas:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110529/OPINION0102/105280360/Craig-Durrett-What-s-next-Inner-Loop-saga-?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

The article also indicates the possibility of a large turnout and maybe some interesting Public Comments at Thursday's meeting:

Quote
... If you're not into daytime TV or can break away from work, you might try the 10 a.m. Thursday meeting of NLCOG's Metropolitan Planning Organization on the fourth floor of downtown's American Tower. As the controversy was erupting at the time of its May 5 meeting, the group could neither frame a motion to rescind its realignment action nor even approve its minutes from the now infamous April 7 meeting. You might want to arrive early and bring your own chair.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on June 03, 2011, 06:54:33 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 31, 2011, 09:06:39 PM
Their next meeting will be Thursday.  Here is the agenda:
http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/Agenda_06022011.pdf
Things appear to be calming down:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110603/OPINION03/106030320/Sunshine-fresh-start-needed?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

- There appears to be movement to begin environmental review process for the Extension:

Quote
Steps are under way to begin environmental assessments of possible corridors to serve the Port of Shreveport-Bossier and get heavy truck traffic off Flournoy Lucas Road. And there was talk about safeguarding potential routes.

- Circumstantial evidence of political cronyism (even at state level):

Quote
Rare event. Larkin's access to Flournoy Lucas was at first turned down by the state for safety considerations for being so near a major interchange – the off ramp of Highway 3132. That the state subsequently rescinded its "control of access" standard to allow a curb cut, apparently is rare, if not unprecedented. Local transportation engineers advised against the access but were overruled in Baton Rouge.

One man's suggested alternate:

Quote
Alternate route. Twelve Oaks developer Tony Janca advocated a new corridor that would circle south of his development toward state Highway 1 as a quicker, cheaper solution to getting truck traffic off Flournoy Lucas. The extension also could open other areas to development and further entice a supermarket that would like to build near Twelve Oaks. Among the obstacles: the tight fit of going over a rail line at Highway 1 then avoiding the Red River levee.

Is there even a future need for it?:

Quote
Trucks or no trucks. We're not convinced of the argument that the arrival of Interstate 69 near the port would mean relatively few trucks on Highway 3132 and thus make it less cost effective. There still would be local truck traffic servicing the port. And wouldn't the completion of Interstate 49 to Arkansas bring traffic from the north?"

With the approximate two-year environmental process on the Extension corridor just starting, it is now possible that ground may be broken on I-69 SIU 15 before the Extension (although both are in distant future, if ever).
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on June 03, 2011, 11:57:37 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 27, 2011, 06:11:33 PM
"Status Update I-69 SIU 15 ... Michael Baker is updating some field work and will then finalize the EIS. The Final EIS should hit the streets for review around the December-January time frame and we should have a ROD 30 — 45 days following ... "
Quote from: Grzrd on April 27, 2011, 06:11:33 PM
Thought it would be as good a time as any to start an I-69 Louisiana thread [since it is the beginning of the thread, here is a link to a map of SIU 14 (Haughton to El Dorado AR) ... (http://www.i69arkla.com/images/RevisedPreferredAlternative(1454%20x%202046).jpg)].
Since FEIS and ROD may be published for SIU 15 by early next year, I emailed the SIU 14 website to see what the current timetable is for SIU 14.  The FEIS is ready to go; however, the Corps of Engineers still has to provide its blessing.  The reply (from URS Corporation):

Quote
The Final EIS for SIU 14 has been standing ready to print for some while now.  We will get the approval for release when we are given final clearance from the US Corps of Engineers on the delineation of wetlands and concurrence on the Preferred Alternative. The ROD is also ready to release once any edits that may come from the Corps are applied. The ROD will be issued following the 30 day comment period for the EIS.

No telling how long the Corps will take ...
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on June 15, 2011, 08:17:05 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 20, 2011, 08:25:53 AM
Finding a new route will cost at least $750,000 for environmental and feasibility studies, according to DOTD Deputy Secretary Eric Kalivoda. It'll take two years .... "We're prepared to move forward with that right away," Kalivoda said."
NLCOG voted to proceed today with a feasibility study for three alternative routes from current end of LA 3132 to proposed I-69 (article has a good map showing relationship of Extension to I-69):
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110616/NEWS01/106160324/3-routes-proposed-Shreveport-Inner-Loop-extension

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAysID.jpg&hash=776a4521d0802f5f5668c16c41c338d0101d6cc0)

Quote
A group of northwest Louisiana officials this afternoon unanimously approved a $1 million study to examine the completion of Shreveport's Inner Loop ... The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments' transportation committee will use $800,000 in federal funding to examine three routes for Highway 3132's southward extension toward the future Interstate 69. The state will contribute $200,000. The committee handles regional transportation planning.

Among the paths to be considered:
A: Abandoning the section of 3132 that now runs from Bert Kouns Industrial Loop to Flournoy Lucas Road. The new piece would head from Bert Kouns to Highway 1.
B: Extending 3132 from its current terminus at Flournoy Lucas and curving eastward toward Highway 1.
C: Continuing 3132 from its current terminus and heading more directly south to connect with I-69.

Another option to be considered will be whether finishing the freeway is practical ... The feasibility study should be done by Dec. 31, according to NLCOG. After that, a reporter that would consider environmental effects would take another year-and-a-half.

Also, here's a link to a TV news video about the lawsuit filed by a local attorney which has as its ultimate intent preservation of the LA 3132 corridor:

http://www.kmsstv.com/news/lawyer-files-suit-on-3132-expansion-controversy
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on August 24, 2011, 03:26:01 PM
NLCOG has posted the Plan of Action for connecting LA 3132 to I-69.  Three route alternatives are being considered, as well as a "no build" alternative.  The schedule targets a two-year completion date for an Environmental Assessment:
http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/LA3132_PlanofAction_Update082211.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on September 15, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
I have recently received communications from both LaDOTD and TxDOT regarding the current status of Louisiana's portion of I-69 SIU 16 from US 171 to the Texas state line.

Here is the current status regarding I-69 SIU 16 from TXDOT:

Quote
On January 3, 2011, TxDOT submitted a request for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to rescind the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Tier One Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-69/Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) Project.  The limits of this project included SIU 16.  At the end of 2007, FHWA and TxDOT circulated the I-69/TTC Tier One DEIS for public review and comment.  Public hearings were held during February and March 2008.  However, since that time, TxDOT has officially retired the TTC concept, thereby resulting in the cancellation of the I-69/TTC project and any further consideration or study of it.  Consequently, there is currently no environmental study underway on any portion of the I-69 National High Priority Corridor 18 and 20 systems in Texas, including SIU 16.  Also, TxDOT has no firm plans to initiate any I-69 environmental studies.  Currently, TxDOT is working with local community leaders to prepare a locally focused, citizen driven plan to study and develop I-69.  This plan is anticipated to be completed later in 2011.  The timeline for implementing the plan, which will likely focus on identifying potential projects to upgrade existing highways to meet interstate standards as part of I-69, will be dependent upon the amount of funding that becomes available.

From LaDOTD (with my questions):

Quote
Q: "Has LaDOTD ever proposed a tentative route for I-69 from US 171 to the Texas state line?  If so, would it be possible to provide a description and/or a map of such a route?"

A: "TXDOT, is in charge of preparing any planning/environmental study for I-69 through Texas and through the Stateline (SIU 16)  to connect to Louisiana US  171 where SIU 15 ends just south of Stonewall.  TXDOT will have to consult with LADOTD throughout the study process as to where it crosses into Louisiana.   There was a Tier —One Corridor Study Draft EIS put out to public review by TXDOT in late 2007.  The corridor was several miles wide. The DEIS was rescinded in 1/3/2011 and the document was pulled from the TXDOT website.  There was no route chosen or decided. As of now, they are focusing on upgrading existing highways to meet interstate standard."

Q: "Also, TxDOT''s I-69 Segment One Committee is currently studying the possible I-69 route to the Louisiana state line.  Are there currently any types of coordination efforts between TxDOT and LaDOTD regarding the state line crossing?  If so, does LaDOTD currently have a "preferred" routing?"

A: "Right now due to limited funding, TXDOT has no plan to restart an EIS for I-69 that crosses into Louisiana.  Again, if and when they do, TXDOT will have to consult with LADOTD on what is the preferred route going into Louisiana. There is no "preferred route"  for LADOTD at this time as the environmental study for SIU 16 has not been initiated.

In short, the section from the Texas state line to US 171 will not be built during my lifetime.  :-/
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Expressway Extension)
Post by: NE2 on September 15, 2011, 02:30:59 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 15, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
In short, the section from the Texas state line to US 171 will not be built during my lifetime.  :-/
Good. The whole diagonal across Louisiana and Arkansas seems rather pointless.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on September 15, 2011, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 15, 2011, 02:30:59 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 15, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
In short, the section from the Texas state line to US 171 will not be built during my lifetime.  :-/
Good. The whole diagonal across Louisiana and Arkansas seems rather pointless.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 04, 2011, 12:29:31 PM
Or...just do as I originally recommended and dump I-69 between Carthage and Monticello and reroute through US 425/US 165 to I-10 E of Lake Charles, and use the US 59 corridor to Texarkana for the Texas segments.
Anthony
It does seem like it would be much more economical and time-efficient to expand upon TxDOT's current efforts to upgrade existing roads for I-69 and use Anthony's similar notion for Louisiana and Arkansas up to Monticello.  Maybe keep the portion of SIU 15 that would complete the Shreveport Inner Loop.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Expressway Extension)
Post by: NE2 on September 15, 2011, 04:19:15 PM
If a direct Memphis-Shreveport highway is deemed useful, it can start out as a four-lane upgrade of US 79, perhaps with a connection to present I-69 via a new bridge over the Mississippi or the US 49 corridor. Then in the future, if traffic warrants it, on-the-spot upgrades can be done. This would probably be more direct than the zigzagging I-69 plan.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Expressway Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 16, 2011, 12:04:54 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 15, 2011, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 15, 2011, 02:30:59 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 15, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
In short, the section from the Texas state line to US 171 will not be built during my lifetime.  :-/
Good. The whole diagonal across Louisiana and Arkansas seems rather pointless.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 04, 2011, 12:29:31 PM
Or...just do as I originally recommended and dump I-69 between Carthage and Monticello and reroute through US 425/US 165 to I-10 E of Lake Charles, and use the US 59 corridor to Texarkana for the Texas segments.
Anthony
It does seem like it would be much more economical and time-efficient to expand upon TxDOT's current efforts to upgrade existing roads for I-69 and use Anthony's similar notion for Louisiana and Arkansas up to Monticello.  Maybe keep the portion of SIU 15 that would complete the Shreveport Inner Loop.


I've always thought that it would be better to simply split the proposed I-69 extension into three elements:

-- The US 59 upgrade between Laredo and Texarkana (possibly as I-41 or I-47), with US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville upgraded as an extension of I-37 (the remaining segment  of existing I-37 to CC would become an I-x37 connector, while the segments of SH 44 and US 77 connecting with US 59 could be upgraded as standalone freeways (or as I-x41/I-x47)).

-- An upgraded US 165/US 425 corridor from Lake Charles through Alexandria, Monroe, Bastrop, and Monticello (my proposed I-51) that would then branch off into two branches: one would continue along present I-530 to Little Rock, then extend NW along I-40 and US 65 through Conway, Mountain Home, Branson, Springfield, and then NW'rd to connect with Future I-49/US 71 near Kansas City; the other would be the truncated I-69 extension to Memphis. (I'd save I-53 for the US 67 freeway, which would be extended as planned to Popular Bluff, MO, then to Festus, then cosigned with I-55 to the outskirts of St. Louis, then connected with US 61 to a freewayized Avenue of the Saints all the way to just south of Minneapolis-St. Paul.)

-- And, the third branch would be the proposed I-69 extension from Memphis to Indy, which would remain as planned.

'Course, I'm a bit biased in this, since I've been pushing for a Lake Charles/Alex/Monroe/Monticello freeway for the longest.


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on September 22, 2011, 08:59:20 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 03, 2011, 11:57:37 AM
I emailed the SIU 14 website to see what the current timetable is for SIU 14.  The FEIS is ready to go; however, the Corps of Engineers still has to provide its blessing.  The reply (from URS Corporation):
"The Final EIS for SIU 14 has been standing ready to print for some while now.  We will get the approval for release when we are given final clearance from the US Corps of Engineers on the delineation of wetlands and concurrence on the Preferred Alternative. The ROD is also ready to release once any edits that may come from the Corps are applied. The ROD will be issued following the 30 day comment period for the EIS."
The Final EIS for SIU 14 (Haughton LA to El Dorado AR) is in the final review period and is now available for review on the SIU 14 website:
http://www.i69arkla.com/FinalEIS.asp

The comment period ends November 10.

Construction cost estimates in 2008 dollars (page 12/760 of pdf):
Louisiana section: $640,413,000
Arkansas section: $389,067,020
Total: $1.03 billion
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on November 16, 2011, 03:56:34 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 15, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
Currently, TxDOT is working with local community leaders to prepare a locally focused, citizen driven plan to study and develop I-69.  This plan is anticipated to be completed later in 2011 ... "TXDOT, is in charge of preparing any planning/environmental study for I-69 through Texas and through the Stateline (SIU 16)  to connect to Louisiana US  171 where SIU 15 ends just south of Stonewall.  TXDOT will have to consult with LADOTD throughout the study process as to where it crosses into Louisiana ... "Right now due to limited funding, TXDOT has no plan to restart an EIS for I-69 that crosses into Louisiana.  Again, if and when they do, TXDOT will have to consult with LADOTD on what is the preferred route going into Louisiana ...
Nov. 10 Texarkana Gazette article indicates that the Texas I-69 Segment 1 Committee should be ready to send its draft report to the state next month (you have to pay for article).  At a recent meeting, added to the list of recommendations was a closer working relationship with Louisiana to determine the state line crossing.  Kent Rogers, Executive Director of NLCOG, was quoted as commenting that Louisiana residents are also local to the Segment 1 project and that it currently seems like they are being shut out of the process.
Here's link to article:
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2011/11/10/i-69-group-puts-final-touches-on-draft-328709.php

It may be possible that the process in Texas will also lead to a proposed route for I-69 in Louisiana from the state line to US 171.

EDIT

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
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on December 22, 2011, 03:08:56 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 24, 2011, 03:26:01 PM
NLCOG has posted the Plan of Action for connecting LA 3132 to I-69.  Three route alternatives are being considered, as well as a "no build" alternative.  The schedule targets a two-year completion date for an Environmental Assessment:
http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/LA3132_PlanofAction_Update082211.pdf
Here's a link to a November 17 update of the Plan of Action:
http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/La3132/Inner%20Loop%20Extension%20Plan%20of%20Action%20-%20Update%2011-17-2011.pdf

Also, this article provides a good visual of the route alternatives:
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110616/NEWS01/106160324/3-routes-proposed-Shreveport-Inner-Loop-extension

In addition, Shreveport Times editorial indicates that a citizens' group is wary of governmental groups attempting to ram through a "no-build" conclusion for the LA 3132 extension; as a first step, a scheduled Dec. 20 environmental study meeting was delayed until some time in 2012:
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20111220/OPINION03/112200345/Transportation-Transparency

Quote
The proximity to Christmas proved the undoing of tonight's public hearing at LSUS concerning the environmental study phase for the 3132 extension. The meeting will be rescheduled for early in 2012 ...
But while motivations and aims might be discounted, the truth remains that southerly corridors to serve the Port of Caddo-Bossier were steadily compromised during the last decade by the Metropolitan Planning Commission and the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments.
Fearing the current feasibility studies are window dressing for a "no build" conclusion from consultants and decisionmakers, the coalition wants to add citizens to the oversight panel that is now made up of elected mayors, hired parish administrators and key government bureaucrats." ...
But the La. 3132 case offers unpredictable wrinkles, such as a key residential developer also being a member of the Bossier City Council. The public also may find it odd that the only vote against an April 7 measure to reconsider corridors came from the transportation panel's most knowledgeable road expert, the district administrator for the state highway department. Further questions were raised by the involvement of state lawmakers as go-betweens with key officials in Baton Rouge.
Yes, restoring public confidence will take some effort. NLCOG's response to the 3132 Coalition's additional requests for key memos and emails related to the project can help begin repairs. NLCOG also should be alert for any opportunity to assure transparency, whether selecting hearing times or better publicizing meetings.
Big lessons for the public? Pay attention and show up.

In addition, here's a link to an article covering a presentation made by the Finish 3132 Coalition to NLCOG at NLCOG's Dec. 15 Executive Committee meeting:
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20111216/NEWS01/112160345/NLCOG-hears-from-Finish-3132-Coalition?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on January 04, 2012, 01:53:10 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 22, 2011, 08:59:20 AM
The Final EIS for SIU 14 (Haughton LA to El Dorado AR) is in the final review period and is now available for review on the SIU 14 website:
http://www.i69arkla.com/FinalEIS.asp
The comment period ends November 10.
Construction cost estimates in 2008 dollars (page 12/760 of pdf):
Louisiana section: $640,413,000
Arkansas section: $389,067,020
Total: $1.03 billion
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.

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).  Maybe it is better to wait on the ROD.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on January 25, 2012, 12:45:31 PM
This article includes a video report about the Jan. 24 Inner Loop Extension public meeting. (http://www.ktbs.com/news/30292303/detail.html)  LA 3132 Coalition seems convinced that NLCOG and influential power brokers do not want the Extension to be built.  Related to the LA 3132 Coalition suspicion, a public records access lawsuit was recently filed on behalf of the Coalition. (http://www.ksla.com/story/16584260/new-suit-filed-over-unfinished-hwy-3132)

EDIT

This article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120125/NEWS01/201250345/3132-Public-meeting-format-upsets-some-consensus-found) reports that the format of the meeting changed at the last minute, but an informal consensus emerged as to the most popular routing:

Quote
A public meeting on the future of Louisiana Highway 3132 was filled with contention and mistrust, but a common thread of public opinion for a final route came through the clutter.
The meeting, which was changed from a public hearing format the day before, was held in a format many attendees were displeased with. Most had expected a chance for individuals to voice their concerns over the highway project.
Instead, 15 tables of seven to eight people were established. Each table was given a laminated map of Highway 3132 and the surrounding area, some markers and about 20 minutes to draw their most favored end route for the highway.
After the maps were drawn, group leaders discussed their tables' consensus for about three minutes before the crowd.
"The idea is to get 15 different maps, not 300," said Jacob Loeske, regional operation manager for Highway 3132 contractors Buchart Horn Inc. "This is their chance to provide their opinions to us."
The groups were diverse, some hosting ordinary area residents and major players in the project at the same table. But by the end of the meeting, most of the groups had agreed: from the current terminus of Highway 3132, the extension should go south to Bayou Pierre and between the edge of the Esplanade development and the Twelve Oaks subdivision. Not building the extension is not an option.
Loeske said the maps would be considered and tweaked by the state when processing the final plan for Highway 3132 ...
One voice from the Coalition to Finish 3132 reminded the audience – when he wasn't being hushed by the meeting's host – they'd been here before.
"It's 2012 in America, and this process should not be allowed to continue the way it has," demographer and coalition member Elliott Stonecipher said. "This process has never yielded a road. None of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments' process have."
Stonecipher echoed the project back to 1969 when it began and told the crowd to be wary of promises the highway would be complete this time. Loeske reminded Stonecipher it was a public meeting, not a public hearing and his time was limited to three minutes.
"He can have my three minutes" was the crowd's chorus.

I'm guessing that the consensus approximated Route A (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110616/NEWS01/106160324/3-routes-proposed-Shreveport-Inner-Loop-extension):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAysID.jpg&hash=776a4521d0802f5f5668c16c41c338d0101d6cc0)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on January 25, 2012, 03:12:54 PM
The meeting notes from the Texas I-69 Segment Committee 1's November 9, 2011 meeting (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg1/notes_110911.pdf) were recently posted on the TxDOT website.  The notes include the following points about coordination with Louisiana, including a desired state line crossing north of Logansport, LA. (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=31.982043886373802~-94.00989055633543&lvl=14&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Logansport%2C%20LA&form=LMLTCC) [page 3/31 of pdf].

Quote
Kent Rogers, Executive Director for Northwest Louisiana, Council of Governments, briefed the committee on the status of I-69 in Louisiana. Discussion included the following:
- The Shreveport/Bossier City area has been successful in securing money for projects such as I-49 in the past.
- Committee member William Holley spoke with citizens of the town of Logansport and a crossing of the Texas/Louisiana border, north of Logansport, is preferred.
- The committee chair suggested that TxDOT coordinate closely with LaDOTD to tie to the national I-69 route.
- Roger Beall explained that the process under way in Texas is a high level grass-roots planning process and it does consider the Louisiana National Corridor tie-point near Stonewall.
- A question was asked regarding the use of existing roadways in Louisiana. Kent Rogers explained that the alignment in Louisiana is a combination of both existing roadway and new alignment.

The state line crossing at Logansport would connect to the Joaquin/Tenaha (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Joaquin,+TX&hl=en&ll=31.960901,-94.143906&spn=0.190496,0.307274&oq=Joaqui&hnear=Joaquin,+Shelby,+Texas&t=h&z=12) relief route on the Texas side [page 4/31 of pdf]:

Quote
- Connections are important, to the interstates, I-20 (Marshall relief route), I-30 (Texarkana relief route) and the I-69 national route (Joaquin/ Tenaha relief route).

It is interesting that Rogers is quoted as stating that Louisiana's alignment is both existing roadway and new alignment.  My understanding is that SIU 14 and SIU 15 are both all new terrain routings.  Perhaps the preliminary thought in regard to SIU 16 is to upgrade LA 5 between Logansport and Keatchie (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=32.14850169460325~-93.82917404174803&lvl=11&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Logansport%2C%20LA&form=LMLTCC) (and possibly some part of  US 171 from Gloster to Stonewall)?

Also, the Texas/Louisiana link is described as an "early implementation possibility", i. e. initiate an environmental/route location study that will engage the public, investigate environmental issues, initiate preliminary design and ultimately produce a recommended alignment [page 4/31 of pdf]:

Quote
Another early implementation possibility could be to direct TxDOT to initiate coordination with Louisiana and proceeding with the connection to the I-69 national route.

Quote from: Grzrd on January 04, 2012, 01:53:10 PM
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:

Quote
- 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on February 13, 2012, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 04, 2012, 01:53:10 PM
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 (http://www.i69arkla.com/default.asp) 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:

Quote
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.  :hmm:
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on February 18, 2012, 10:36:46 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 13, 2012, 02:06:44 PM
Over this past weekend, I tried to check the I-69 SIU 14 website (http://www.i69arkla.com/default.asp) 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:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on February 29, 2012, 03:59:24 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 16, 2011, 03:56:34 PM
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 (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_11172011.pdf).  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):

Quote
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 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg1/notes_110911.pdf) (page 3/31 of pdf).
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Gordon on March 08, 2012, 05:20:24 PM
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
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on March 12, 2012, 04:31:23 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 25, 2012, 03:12:54 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 04, 2012, 01:53:10 PM
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:
Quote
• 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 (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/Agenda_03152012.pdf) indicates that the TIP will be amended to allow preliminary engineering on I-69:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on March 16, 2012, 02:51:52 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 12, 2012, 04:31:23 PM
NLCOG's Transportation Policy Committee March 15 Agenda (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/Agenda_03152012.pdf) indicates that the TIP will be amended to allow preliminary engineering on I-69:
Quote
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:

Quote
·        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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on April 20, 2012, 11:13:27 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 16, 2012, 02:51:52 PM
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 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/stip/stip.pdf) 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.
Title: Mayoral Coverup in LA 3132 Extension Controversy?
Post by: Grzrd on April 21, 2012, 03:03:00 PM
This TV video report (http://www.ksla.com/story/17590500/highway-3132-extension-controversy-boils-over) outlines a little bit of legal drama going on in Shreveport regarding the Inner Loop extension.  :ninja:  As this story (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120419/NEWS01/204190325/Judge-gives-city-officials-one-week-comply-public-records-request) 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:

Quote
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 (http://www.finish3132.com/Index.aspx) 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 ...
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 13, 2012, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 20, 2012, 11:13:27 AM
It looks like LaDOTD modified the state TIP (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/stip/stip.pdf) 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 (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/Agenda_05172012.pdf), which includes the following:

Quote
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 (http://www.i69arkla.com/default.asp) nor LaDOTD's press releases (http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/) 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 15, 2012, 01:05:38 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 04, 2012, 01:53:10 PM
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).
Quote from: Grzrd on April 20, 2012, 11:13:27 AM
It looks like LaDOTD modified the state TIP (http://www.dotd.la.gov/lettings/stip/stip.pdf) earlier this month for SIU 14 (page 16/70 of pdf) ...  It looks like the path is now clear for the SIU 14 ROD
Quote from: Grzrd on May 13, 2012, 12:06:22 AM
NLCOG has posted its May 17 Agenda (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/Agenda_05172012.pdf), which includes the following:
Quote
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:

Quote
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 (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/I69SIU14_ROD/I-69%20SIU%2014%20Signed%20ROD%20%2004-27-2012.pdf) 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):

Quote
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):

Quote
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 (http://www.dotd.la.gov/planning/environ/DirListing.aspx?txtPath=/planning/environ/documents/I-69_SIU_14_from_El_Dorado,_Ark_to_Shreveport,_LA) page.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 15, 2012, 03:31:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sr641 on May 15, 2012, 04:53:40 PM
They should leave it 3132.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 15, 2012, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: sr641 on May 15, 2012, 04:53:40 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sr641 on May 15, 2012, 05:02:06 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 15, 2012, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: sr641 on May 15, 2012, 04:53:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: NE2 on May 15, 2012, 05:16:18 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 15, 2012, 04:58:28 PM
If you change it to an Interstate, not only do you immediately have the funds available
Not anymore.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 15, 2012, 05:30:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 15, 2012, 07:41:15 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 15, 2012, 03:31:37 PM
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.



Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Alps on May 15, 2012, 08:04:54 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 15, 2012, 07:41:15 PM

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 15, 2012, 08:36:45 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 15, 2012, 08:04:54 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 15, 2012, 07:41:15 PM

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sr641 on May 15, 2012, 08:39:17 PM
I changed my mine. It should stay 3132.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 15, 2012, 08:45:46 PM
Quote from: sr641 on May 15, 2012, 08:39:17 PM
I changed my mine. It should stay 3132.
Quote from: sr641 on May 15, 2012, 08:39:17 PM
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? :P
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Alps on May 15, 2012, 08:57:26 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 15, 2012, 08:45:46 PM
Quote from: sr641 on May 15, 2012, 08:39:17 PM
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? :P
No, no, LA doesn't do 2xxx routes, we've learned.
Also: what is up with this double quoting thing?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 15, 2012, 10:35:32 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 15, 2012, 08:57:26 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 15, 2012, 08:45:46 PM
Quote from: sr641 on May 15, 2012, 08:39:17 PM
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? :P
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 15, 2012, 11:46:42 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 15, 2012, 08:04:54 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 15, 2012, 07:41:15 PM

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
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 15, 2012, 11:55:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 06:04:15 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 15, 2012, 11:55:22 PM
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.
We do have Business routes! They're never I-XX business routes though... our main bannered Interstates, if you've ever been to New Orleans, just take on regular numbers (I-10 Truck = I-510, I-10 Bypass = I-610, I-10 Spur = I-310). I'd see I-49 north of 3132 as I-149, or I could even see 3132 Spur being placed along the corridor. Maybe even designate it as LA 1 Bypass? If I-49 in Alexandria is US 71 Bypass, then I-49 in Shreveport can be LA 1 Bypass.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 16, 2012, 06:08:32 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 06:04:15 PMour main bannered Interstates, if you've ever been to New Orleans, just take on regular numbers

I've never heard of anyone referring to any interstate with those banners.

well, there is a "Truck I-278" in NYC, but that is it.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 06:14:09 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 16, 2012, 06:08:32 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 06:04:15 PMour main bannered Interstates, if you've ever been to New Orleans, just take on regular numbers

I've never heard of anyone referring to any interstate with those banners.

well, there is a "Truck I-278" in NYC, but that is it.
I think you know the guy that rides around and takes the pictures of the Interstate guide signs... take a look at I-220, and you have By-Pass 220. I could see I-620 being used, or I-249. By the way, tell the guy who makes the website that the Interstate Guide Sign Manager has the site bookmarked! There are fans high up who look at the site.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: NE2 on May 16, 2012, 06:20:29 PM
:pokesmot:
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 16, 2012, 06:24:54 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 06:14:09 PM
I think you know the guy that rides around and takes the pictures of the Interstate guide signs... take a look at I-220, and you have By-Pass 220. I could see I-620 being used, or I-249. By the way, tell the guy who makes the website that the Interstate Guide Sign Manager has the site bookmarked! There are fans high up who look at the site.

where is this photo of a By-Pass I-220?  can you give us the link?

generally, do you refer to the shield gallery?  if so, I am the one who runs it, and we have lots of contributors - some of whom I indeed know in person.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 06:28:16 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 16, 2012, 06:24:54 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 06:14:09 PM
I think you know the guy that rides around and takes the pictures of the Interstate guide signs... take a look at I-220, and you have By-Pass 220. I could see I-620 being used, or I-249. By the way, tell the guy who makes the website that the Interstate Guide Sign Manager has the site bookmarked! There are fans high up who look at the site.

where is this photo of a By-Pass I-220?  can you give us the link?

generally, do you refer to the shield gallery?  if so, I am the one who runs it, and we have lots of contributors - some of whom I indeed know in person.
Not the shield gallery, but the Interstate Guide site.

http://www.southeastroads.com/louisiana020/i-020_eb_exit_011_03.jpg
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 16, 2012, 06:34:15 PM
I thought that was I-220, and the 'By-Pass' designation was just clarifying its purpose with respect to I-20.  Am I not correct?  is there both a regular and bannered 220?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Alps on May 16, 2012, 06:47:59 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 16, 2012, 06:34:15 PM
I thought that was I-220, and the 'By-Pass' designation was just clarifying its purpose with respect to I-20.  Am I not correct?  is there both a regular and bannered 220?
Pretty damn certain there's only one 220.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 16, 2012, 06:47:59 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 16, 2012, 06:34:15 PM
I thought that was I-220, and the 'By-Pass' designation was just clarifying its purpose with respect to I-20.  Am I not correct?  is there both a regular and bannered 220?
Pretty damn certain there's only one 220.
Only one 220, but it seems like the state HAS to designate it as By-Pass 220. 110 isn't designated as a SPUR 110, and 210 isn't designated as By-Pass 210.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Alps on May 16, 2012, 07:03:49 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 16, 2012, 06:47:59 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 16, 2012, 06:34:15 PM
I thought that was I-220, and the 'By-Pass' designation was just clarifying its purpose with respect to I-20.  Am I not correct?  is there both a regular and bannered 220?
Pretty damn certain there's only one 220.
Only one 220, but it seems like the state HAS to designate it as By-Pass 220. 110 isn't designated as a SPUR 110, and 210 isn't designated as By-Pass 210.
Before you make a loaded statement like that, check state law. My guess is that it's just LADOTD signing it that way to take through traffic off 20.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 07:11:25 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 16, 2012, 07:03:49 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 16, 2012, 06:47:59 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 16, 2012, 06:34:15 PM
I thought that was I-220, and the 'By-Pass' designation was just clarifying its purpose with respect to I-20.  Am I not correct?  is there both a regular and bannered 220?
Pretty damn certain there's only one 220.
Only one 220, but it seems like the state HAS to designate it as By-Pass 220. 110 isn't designated as a SPUR 110, and 210 isn't designated as By-Pass 210.
Before you make a loaded statement like that, check state law. My guess is that it's just LADOTD signing it that way to take through traffic off 20.
The only thing is... state law says nothing. Went to the DOTD, the lady said state law only pertains to route numbers, not banners. Our state uses the MUTCD, with no state supplement. It's why Clearview is going up EVERYWHERE :/

My only guess is that, since 20 actually is faster than 220, they want to designate 220 with a Bypass... when you look at a sign and see EAST 20 and EAST 220, the careless eye could mistake the two 2's for one. Baton Rouge's 110 has two control points, and its green. The 10 sign at the same intersection has black, yellow, and green, and just has one control point. Our DOTD is weird though, on 49, it carries US 71 Bypass around Alexandria, but no actual signs exist for US 71 Byp other than the BGS.
Title: I-220 To Be Extended Into Barksdale AFB?
Post by: Grzrd on May 16, 2012, 08:08:57 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 15, 2012, 05:30:12 PM
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?

Looking at the NLCOG Transportation Committee March 15 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_03152012.pdf), plans for I-220 going into Barksdale were discussed:

Quote
III. Executive Director's Report
Mr. Rogers discussed the MAP‐21 transportation bill the Senate passed that was being held due to further amendments. He stated it was an 18‐month pay/go re‐authorization. Mr. Rogers stated the bill would streamline the environmental process for projects and would provide expansion for the military access program (I‐220 into Barksdale AFB access) ....
Mr. Rogers also discussed the recent CC to DC trip and stated he spoke with the local and state delegates regarding various highway projects including ... the I‐220 entrance into BAFB ....
e. I‐220 at BAFB Update — Interchange Modification Report (IMR)
Mr. Rogers stated the IMR was required to run another analysis for a 20‐year build‐out. He stated the worse‐case scenario had already been run so this additional analysis was a small task.

The reference to "the I-220 entrance into BAFB" indicates that the project does not seem to contemplate an "I-220 through route" through the base to possibly connect to I-69; however, the reference to a "20-yr. build-out" makes me wonder if a larger project is in the works (possibly a better loop around Shreveport/ Bossier City?)

Does anyone know any details about this project?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 16, 2012, 10:12:31 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 06:04:15 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 15, 2012, 11:55:22 PM
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.
We do have Business routes! They're never I-XX business routes though... our main bannered Interstates, if you've ever been to New Orleans, just take on regular numbers (I-10 Truck = I-510, I-10 Bypass = I-610, I-10 Spur = I-310). I'd see I-49 north of 3132 as I-149, or I could even see 3132 Spur being placed along the corridor. Maybe even designate it as LA 1 Bypass? If I-49 in Alexandria is US 71 Bypass, then I-49 in Shreveport can be LA 1 Bypass.

Ahhhh...no. There are NO designated Interstate business routes in Louisiana.

And NO, you do NOT downgrade an Interstate highway to a spur of a 4-digit state highway. Louisiana doesn't even have Spur routes anymore.

Finally, the only reason why I-49 in Alexandria between MacArthur Drive and the former North Traffic Circle (now an interchange) was designated as "US 71 Bypass" was to essentially get through traffic off of MacArthur Drive and put a US Highway shield on the Pineville Expressway.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 17, 2012, 07:37:48 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 16, 2012, 10:12:31 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 16, 2012, 06:04:15 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 15, 2012, 11:55:22 PM
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.
We do have Business routes! They're never I-XX business routes though... our main bannered Interstates, if you've ever been to New Orleans, just take on regular numbers (I-10 Truck = I-510, I-10 Bypass = I-610, I-10 Spur = I-310). I'd see I-49 north of 3132 as I-149, or I could even see 3132 Spur being placed along the corridor. Maybe even designate it as LA 1 Bypass? If I-49 in Alexandria is US 71 Bypass, then I-49 in Shreveport can be LA 1 Bypass.

Ahhhh...no. There are NO designated Interstate business routes in Louisiana.

And NO, you do NOT downgrade an Interstate highway to a spur of a 4-digit state highway. Louisiana doesn't even have Spur routes anymore.

Finally, the only reason why I-49 in Alexandria between MacArthur Drive and the former North Traffic Circle (now an interchange) was designated as "US 71 Bypass" was to essentially get through traffic off of MacArthur Drive and put a US Highway shield on the Pineville Expressway.
From what I believe, we do have SPUR state routes... maybe not so much in rural areas, but there is SPUR 2, SPUR 3, SPUR 8, SPUR 10, SPUR 327 (all Louisiana routes).

US 71 By-Pass was slapped onto I-49, but that's where the mistake is. US 167 is ALSO cosigned with I-49 from MacArthur Drive to the Pineville Expwy, but the Pineville Expwy doesn't carry US 71. US 167 has always followed the Expressway, at least since they finished the route way before I-49 was brought through Alexandria.

If Shreveport wants to keep I-49 along its alignment, it's going to be dumb to have two through Interstates, and the connector road is an Interstate for 2/3 of the circle, and the other third is a state road. I do see I-49 as going around Shreveport, and the current segment of I-49 as I-120, and LA 1 By-Pass being cosigned with LA 3132 to I-49, then cosigned with I-120 to 20, then back to LA 1.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bassoon1986 on May 18, 2012, 12:38:45 AM
I'm pretty sure they will not ever sign a LA 1 By-pass in Shreveport. No one uses LA 1 for a through route below south Shreveport. I grew up north of Shreveport and I would either take 1 thru town, 220/3132 to LA 526 to get to retail in South Shreveport or use the Clyde Fant Parkway on the river. If people wanted to avoid LA 1 thru town it would be fairly obvious to take 220 around and it wouldn't need a LA 1 bypass. Granted Natchitoches has a LA 1 bypass but thats only because the thru route in the historic part of downtown is mostly 25 mph, brick streets, and a college campus.

When I-49 north from 220 to AR is completed, whether the ICC ever comes to pass, it won't matter if 49 gets signed around the loop and over the Cross Lake Bridge or not. That's what traffic uses now anyway. If you come from Alexandria and go north, unless you plan on stopping, you take the loop west and north of town. I really doubt that people southbound take 1/71 into downtown and then 20 over to 49 south.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 18, 2012, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 29, 2012, 03:59:24 PM
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:
Quote
SIU 15 – Haughton La – Stonewall La.
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
Quote from: Grzrd on May 15, 2012, 01:05:38 PM
Maybe the FEIS for SIU 15 will be announced in the near future, too ....
I guess it is fair to interpret the above as saying the expectation is that SIU 15 will be completed around 2025.

I recently received an email update from NLCOG which clarified that only the first segment of SIU 15, the Red River crossing, is expected to be completed by 2025 and that the SIU 15 FEIS is expected to come out before September 2012:

Quote
We anticipate the FEIS for I-69 SIU-15 coming out before September 2012. With the full funding of I-49 North (i.e. Northwest LA's consensus highest priority project for the last 20 years), four or five regionally/nationally significant transportation projects will be vying for local/state/federal funding, political, and public support going forward. I-69 SIU-15 is one of those significant projects. Realistically, we're looking at the 2030 to 2035 timeframe before the entire SIU-15 is open for travel. However, the first section that could be completed by 2025, as identified in the Project Mgnt' Plan (PMP), is the Red River Bridge Crossing at the Port of Caddo/Bossier.

Quote from: Grzrd on May 16, 2012, 08:08:57 PM
Looking at the NLCOG Transportation Committee March 15 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_03152012.pdf), plans for I-220 going into Barksdale were discussed

I also received some email info about the I-220/Barksdale project (I-220 will never go through Barksdale):

Quote
Another regionally/nationally significant project is the Modified I-20/I-220 interchange and new gate access road to Barksdale AFB. Currently, we're completing the public-side of the EIS regarding this project. The base-side (restricted) environmental analysis is complete. In an effort to maintain control of access and secure the base itself,  DoD will not allow a publically accessible, new interstate/freeway classified roadway to traverse through Barksdale AFB property. Further, the land area located on the east side of the reservation is a secured weapons stockpile/storage area. I-220 will never be extended south through Barksdale AFB.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mgk920 on May 18, 2012, 02:48:35 PM
Yea, Barksdale is where the B-52 bomber fleet calls home.  Sad to say it, but if I-220 is to be extended around the southeast quadrant of the Shreveport area, it'll have to loop around the base well to the east by Haughton, LA where (where I-69 will be going?) - but not too much farther east, there's an Army ammo plant just east of Haughton.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 18, 2012, 03:29:50 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on May 18, 2012, 12:38:45 AM
I'm pretty sure they will not ever sign a LA 1 By-pass in Shreveport. No one uses LA 1 for a through route below south Shreveport. I grew up north of Shreveport and I would either take 1 thru town, 220/3132 to LA 526 to get to retail in South Shreveport or use the Clyde Fant Parkway on the river. If people wanted to avoid LA 1 thru town it would be fairly obvious to take 220 around and it wouldn't need a LA 1 bypass. Granted Natchitoches has a LA 1 bypass but thats only because the thru route in the historic part of downtown is mostly 25 mph, brick streets, and a college campus.

When I-49 north from 220 to AR is completed, whether the ICC ever comes to pass, it won't matter if 49 gets signed around the loop and over the Cross Lake Bridge or not. That's what traffic uses now anyway. If you come from Alexandria and go north, unless you plan on stopping, you take the loop west and north of town. I really doubt that people southbound take 1/71 into downtown and then 20 over to 49 south.
The only idea was to give people a single number to follow. Most of my family still takes I-49 North into Shreveport, then I-20 west to Dallas, instead of 3132, because 3132 is a state highway, and they swear to the bone that it has about 10 stoplights. If the state decides to put up Clearview, even for a year or two before I-49 is signed through Shreveport to the north, my request is that TO I-49 is slapped on there.

By the way, does anyone know what the purpose of the "Southern Loop" is? It most definitely does NOT make a loop
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 18, 2012, 06:02:33 PM
So. most likely, the "Southern Loop" wil basically consist of an extension of LA 3132 to LA 1, then an upgrade of LA 1 to where I-69 is proposed to meet it, and then I-69 to I-20 near Haughton. Am I correct??

And, to answer mcdonaat, if Shreveport and/or LaDOTD wanted I-49 to be diverted via I-220/LA 3132, they would have requested it when the remaining segments of I-49 North was committed. That they haven't, and that they have proposed that I-49 be routed through I-20 rather than LA 3132 says a lot about their ultimate routing.

Sure, traffic using I-20 to I-49 coming to/from South Louisiana to/from Dallas and points west would use LA 3132, but I'm betting the farm that traffic going to downtown Shreveport and north to Texarkana, and NE from there to Little Rock and beyond would much rather take I-49 to I-20 to LA 1 to I-220 to reach I-49 North. And when the ICC is constructed, it will further diminish the need for using LA 3132/I-220, since it will allow for a much more direct N/S route. Heck, it could even relieve congestion on LA 1.

BTW...do they still refer to LA 3132 as the "Terry Bradshaw Passway"??? Or is it still most likely called "Inner Loop"??


Anthony


Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 19, 2012, 05:05:35 PM
People still refer to it as 3132, not the "Terry Bradshaw Passway." It's the same with US 190, nobody refers to it as the "Acadian Trail," just 190
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bassoon1986 on May 20, 2012, 06:03:16 PM
Everyone in Shreveport calls it the Inner Loop. The "Terry Bradshaw" thing just got tacked on to that southwest quadrant from 20 to 49 bc he grew up near Linwood Ave. and graduated high school there.

I cannot remember if there were ever more long term plans for Southern Loop. It was mainly meant to give the Southern Trace area of affluent homes east of 49 a connection to the interstate. Otherwise they'd have a longer commute into Shreveport up Ellerbe Rd. Also was supposed to give relief to Linwood Ave traffic coming north in the mornings.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 21, 2012, 05:02:20 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on May 20, 2012, 06:03:16 PM
Everyone in Shreveport calls it the Inner Loop. The "Terry Bradshaw" thing just got tacked on to that southwest quadrant from 20 to 49 bc he grew up near Linwood Ave. and graduated high school there.

I cannot remember if there were ever more long term plans for Southern Loop. It was mainly meant to give the Southern Trace area of affluent homes east of 49 a connection to the interstate. Otherwise they'd have a longer commute into Shreveport up Ellerbe Rd. Also was supposed to give relief to Linwood Ave traffic coming north in the mornings.
I'm hoping it eventually conencts to 171, and maybe LA 1.
Title: LA 3132 Extension Update
Post by: Grzrd on May 24, 2012, 09:45:34 PM
The LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension soap opera continues ...

This Shreveport Times article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120523/NEWS01/205230317/City-Council-sends-road-construction-decision-back-MPC) reports that the Shreveport City Council is remanding the appeal of a road decision that might impact the future route of LA 3132 back to the Metropolitan Planning Commission and that Councilman Joe Shyne opposes any possible obstruction to the completion of state Highway 3132:

Quote
The Shreveport City Council opted to remand the appeal of controversial road construction back to the Metropolitan Planning Commission at its meeting Tuesday.
At the suggestion of Vice Chairman Michael Corbin, the council decided Esplanade developer Tim Larkin's appeal could best be answered where it began. The council gave some direction to the MPC, requesting it work with Larkin to allow him to begin building houses despite a previously determined stipulation he could not without a paved road connecting his development to Flournoy Lucas Road.
The proposed road was contested because it might conflict with the future construction of state Highway 3132 ....
Councilman Joe Shyne, District F, opposed remanding the decision to the MPC on the grounds that its decision had already been made. Shyne said he opposed any possible obstruction to the completion of state Highway 3132.
"I think at this time that would be a mistake on our part," Shyne said. "(Highway) 3132 is too important to this city, and it's more important than Mr. Larkin's development."

In this TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/3132-debate-pits-mayor-against-council-member-citizen/-/144844/14075886/-/cjeo60z/-/index.html) Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover appears to accuse Joe Shyne of a conflict-of-interest in supporting the extension:

Quote
The 3132 debate took a bizarre spin in Tuesday's city council meeting.
During public comments regarding developer Tim Larkin's appeal to build a road from the Esplanade subdivision to Flournoy Lucas Road, Mayor Cedric Glover asked Acadiana Place resident and Willis Knighton employee Darrell Rebouche if he was there representing his employer. Rebouche stated he was there strictly to represent the Acadiana Place Homeowners Association. Glover then asked Rebouche if any of his colleagues served on the council, to which he responded, "Not to my knowledge."
But personal financial disclosures obtained by KTBS show that councilman Joe Shyne has done work for Willis Knighton for at least three years, from 2008 to 2010. When asked Wednesday whether he was still employed at Willis Knighton, Shyne said he still does contract work for them inspecting properties.
Willis Knighton has lobbied heavily during the 3132 debate, and has funded much of the efforts of the Finish 3132 Now Coalition. But Shyne says Willis Knighton Health System would not profit in any way from city council decisions regarding 3132, so there is no conflict of interest.

Calls to Mayor Cedric Glover's office for comment were not returned as of deadline Wednesday afternoon.

This TV video report (http://www.ksla.com/story/18599649/3132-issue-gets-kicked-back-to-mpc) suggests that a district court will eventually decide the matter:

Quote
The issue of completing the 3132 Loop is now back in front of the Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission. It was just there a couple of weeks ago.
And thanks to the Shreveport City Council it's back there again .... Now the MPC will have a decision to make again. But some believe this issue could be decided by the district court.
(bold emphasis in all above quotes added by me)

Democracy in action ...  :coffee:
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on July 26, 2012, 12:38:50 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 26, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
Personally, I don't think that Shreveport will really blow up as a regional center until I-49 is completed to Texarkana/Fort Smith, and LA 3132 is extended to connect with I-69.
(above quote from Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg164023#msg164023) thread

As regards LA 3132, on Thursday, August 2, NLCOG will hold a meeting to present the findings of the Stage 0 Feasibility Study for the extension of LA 3132 (Inner Loop) (http://www.nlcog.org/):

Quote
A public information meeting will be held to present the findings of the Stage 0 Feasibility Study for the extension of LA 3132 (Inner Loop).
The Public Meeting will be conducted as an OPEN HOUSE FORMAT with tables and exhibits staged within the ballroom.  Representatives of LADOTD, the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG), and the project team will be present to receive comments and answer questions related to the proposed project. All interested parties are invited and encouraged to attend the meeting.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Louisiana State University- Shreveport Campus (LSU-S)University Center Ballroom — Second Floor
6:00 pm — 8:00 pm
1 University Place, Shreveport, Louisiana

The Finish 3132 Coalition (http://finish3132.com/Get-Involved/Meeting-Schedule/12-07-24/NLCOG_Public_Meeting_Regarding_Stage_0_Feasibility_Study.aspx) says that the public should expect to see the recommended route for the extension at the meeting:

Quote
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG) will hold a public meeting regarding the Stage 0 Feasibility Study for 3132 on Thursday, Aug. 2, at the LSUS University Center ballroom. The event, from 6 to 8 p.m. The public should expect to see the recommended route for the extension and should also expect to be allowed to comment on results of the study. The Finish 3132 Coalition urges members and their family members to attend the meeting in support of the long-awaited extension of this important controlled access highway. As the Coalition understands it, this will not be like a previous meeting in the same location where the public's opportunity to comment was closely controlled by the consulting engineering group from Baton Rouge that organized the meeting.

The meeting has the potential to be both informative and entertaining.  Route alternatives for the I-69 connection that have been under consideration:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAysID.jpg&hash=776a4521d0802f5f5668c16c41c338d0101d6cc0)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mgk920 on July 27, 2012, 12:00:33 PM
^^
Of those, I would very strongly favor option 'C'.  I seldom like it when an existing street of that style is upgraded to a full freeway - IMHO it is too disruptive to the local 'grid' and potential future growth patterns.  A new-ROW corridor, with the provision for future extension, is the best way to go.

(Too bad Barksdale AFB is in the way of the original I-220 plans....)

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on July 27, 2012, 12:10:47 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 27, 2012, 12:00:33 PM
Of those, I would very strongly favor option 'C'.  I seldom like it when an existing street of that style is upgraded to a full freeway - IMHO it is too disruptive to the local 'grid' and potential future growth patterns.  A new-ROW corridor, with the provision for future extension, is the best way to go.
(Too bad Barksdale AFB is in the way of the original I-220 plans....)
Mike

NLCOG (http://www.nlcog.org/) recently posted some pdfs related to the Aug. 2 meeting including a fairly detailed Alternative Exhibits pdf (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/La3132/Draft%207-26-2012/APPENDIX%20A%20-%20ALTERNATIVE%20EXHIBITS.pdf) and an Environmental Summary pdf (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/La3132/Draft%207-26-2012/APPENDIX%20D-%20ENVIRONMENTAL%20SUMMARY%20.pdf).

EDIT

LaDOTD now has a LA 3132 Inner Loop Expressway in Caddo Parish (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/la3132/) page devoted to the project, but, even though the title describes it as an "Expressway", the page's description of the project states that it is intended to be interstate standard:

Quote
This project will extend LA 3132, which is a controlled access (interstate standard) roadway, from its current terminus with LA 523 southward towards a future intersection with I-69 near the Shreveport/Bossier Port. This ultimately will provide an interstate standard connector route between I-20, I-49 and I-69.

A map of the alternatives (page 57/79 of the Environmental Summary pdf (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/la3132/Documents/APPENDIX_C_-_ENVIRONMENTAL_SUMMARY.pdf)):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fo6M0E.jpg&hash=93d034bc79a93702fd15043bd27c81c6cfe463d1)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on July 27, 2012, 08:11:46 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 15, 2012, 01:05:38 PM
Louisiana has been issued its first ROD for a SIU of I-69 .... NLCOG has moved quickly and posted the I-69 SIU 14 ROD (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/I69SIU14_ROD/I-69%20SIU%2014%20Signed%20ROD%20%2004-27-2012.pdf) on its website.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 18, 2012, 01:26:09 PM
I recently received an email update from NLCOG which clarified that ... the SIU 15 FEIS is expected to come out before September 2012.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 15, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
Quote
TXDOT, is in charge of preparing any planning/environmental study for I-69 through Texas and through the Stateline (SIU 16)  to connect to Louisiana US  171 where SIU 15 ends just south of Stonewall.  TXDOT will have to consult with LADOTD throughout the study process as to where it crosses into Louisiana.   There was a Tier —One Corridor Study Draft EIS put out to public review by TXDOT in late 2007.  The corridor was several miles wide. The DEIS was rescinded in 1/3/2011 and the document was pulled from the TXDOT website.  There was no route chosen or decided. As of now, they are focusing on upgrading existing highways to meet interstate standard ... Right now due to limited funding, TXDOT has no plan to restart an EIS for I-69 that crosses into Louisiana.  Again, if and when they do, TXDOT will have to consult with LADOTD on what is the preferred route going into Louisiana.

On July 24, the Segment One Committee in Texas released its I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg1_final.pdf) and identified the US 84 relief route around Joaquin and Tenaha as one of its five major priorities. In doing so, the Committee noted the importance of the Louisiana study to identifying the eastern terminus of the US 84 relief route (page 36/155 of pdf; page 30 of document):

Quote
US 84 Relief Route from Tenaha to Joaquin — The committee recognized the connection to the national I-69 route as a priority and recommended the development of a relief route for US 84 to serve this connection. Committee members were updated by a representative of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments who advised the committee that, in 2013, Louisiana would complete an environmental/route location study for portions of I-69 between I-49 and El Dorado, Arkansas and the next phase would be for Texas and Louisiana to work to complete the environmental/route location study for the portion of I-69 between I-49 and the Texas/Louisiana border. Determining route location during the I-49, Texas/Louisiana border study would provide the eastern terminus for the US 84 relief route.

Who knows?  Maybe an environmental study for the "between I-49 and the Texas/Louisiana border" section of I-69 will begin by late 2013, after a ROD is issued for SIU 15, which happens to include a segment from I-49 to US 171 that should be addressed in the upcoming SIU 15 FEIS.  :hmm:
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 29, 2012, 11:52:36 AM
One interesting note on the proposed Alignment A...they don't say whether or not that alignment would include a freeway upgrade of LA 1 between its terminus and the proposed junction with I-69.  If so, wouldn't that necessitate a more directional interchange between LA 1 and I-69 than the folded diamond that is shown?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on July 30, 2012, 09:30:11 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 24, 2011, 03:26:01 PM
NLCOG has posted the Plan of Action for connecting LA 3132 to I-69.  Three route alternatives are being considered, as well as a "no build" alternative.  The schedule targets a two-year completion date for an Environmental Assessment:
http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/LA3132_PlanofAction_Update082211.pdf
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 29, 2012, 11:52:36 AM
One interesting note on the proposed Alignment A...they don't say whether or not that alignment would include a freeway upgrade of LA 1 between its terminus and the proposed junction with I-69.

The Plan of Action (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/LA3132_PlanofAction_Update082211.pdf) indicates the alignment includes a freeway upgrade of LA 1 between its terminus and the proposed junction with I-69 (page 1/3 of pdf):

Quote
At least four alternatives will be considered: (a) seek a new alignment from Bert Kouns (LA 526) to the south; (b) extend south from Flournoy Lucas (LA 523) avoiding Twelve Oaks, connect to Youree Drive (LA 1) and upgrade LA 1 to a freeway to connect to future I-69; (c) extend south from Flournoy Lucas (LA 523) avoiding Twelve Oaks, run parallel to Youree Drive (LA 1) to connect to future I-69; and (d) "no-build"  — leave everything as-is.

CAUTION - BEWARE OF ALTERNATIVE LABELS ON DIFFERENT MAPS
This 2011 map speaks of the LA 1 freeway upgrade as "Alternative AB - Upgrade of LA 1 to a freeway to connect to future I-69":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAysID.jpg&hash=776a4521d0802f5f5668c16c41c338d0101d6cc0)

In this more recent map of the alternatives, LA 1 is part of Alternatives A and C (page 57/79 of the Environmental Summary pdf (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/la3132/Documents/APPENDIX_C_-_ENVIRONMENTAL_SUMMARY.pdf)):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fo6M0E.jpg&hash=93d034bc79a93702fd15043bd27c81c6cfe463d1)

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 29, 2012, 11:52:36 AM
would ... a freeway upgrade of LA 1 between its terminus and the proposed junction with I-69 ... necessitate a more directional interchange between LA 1 and I-69 than the folded diamond that is shown?

I'll leave that to the engineers in the forum.  I don't know if it matters, but the design speed is 60 mph (pages 6-7/50 of pdf; pages 1-2 of document):

Quote
The four-lane controlled access extension of LA 3132 is proposed to run generally north-south, and provide an alternative route for industrial and residential traffic to Shreveport and Bossier City .... The proposed design speed is 60 miles per hour (mph) for all proposed Build Alternatives. The ramps have been proposed as 15-foot travel lanes with a four-foot inside shoulder and an eight-foot outside shoulder.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on July 31, 2012, 05:11:15 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 27, 2012, 12:00:33 PM
I seldom like it when an existing street of that style is upgraded to a full freeway - IMHO it is too disruptive to the local 'grid' and potential future growth patterns.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 29, 2012, 11:52:36 AM
they don't say whether or not that alignment would include a freeway upgrade of LA 1 between its terminus and the proposed junction with I-69.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 27, 2012, 12:10:47 PM
LaDOTD now has a LA 3132 Inner Loop Expressway in Caddo Parish (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/la3132/) page devoted to the project

A Draft Stage 0 Feasibility Study Report (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/la3132/Documents/DRAFT_STAGE_0_REPORT_-_LA_3132_EXTENSION_-_SPN_H009213.pdf) has been added to the LA 3132 Inner Loop Expressway in Caddo Parish page on the LaDOTD website. The Draft Report states that Access Management on LA 1 would need more detailed analysis during later stages of the study, but it does offer the following suggestions (page 27/36 of pdf; page 20 of document): (1) a frontage road on the western side LA 1, and (2) have the drives on the eastern side of LA 1 tie into one of three Port gates.

I wonder if a preference for a particular Alternative will be expressed at the August 2 meeting.
Title: LA 3132 Stage 0 Public Meeting
Post by: Grzrd on August 03, 2012, 08:30:25 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 26, 2012, 12:38:50 PM
The Finish 3132 Coalition (http://finish3132.com/Get-Involved/Meeting-Schedule/12-07-24/NLCOG_Public_Meeting_Regarding_Stage_0_Feasibility_Study.aspx) says that the public should expect to see the recommended route for the extension at the meeting:
Quote
The public should expect to see the recommended route for the extension and should also expect to be allowed to comment on results of the study. The Finish 3132 Coalition urges members and their family members to attend the meeting in support of the long-awaited extension of this important controlled access highway

This article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120802/NEWS01/120802044/Concerned-curious-residents-see-proposed-La-3132-routes?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE) reports on last night's meeting and makes the point that a Stage 0 review does not identify a preferred alternative:

Quote
... tonight's meeting only unveiled potential routes for the highway extension.
"We do not have a preferred route,"  Kent Rogers, executive director of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments said. "Part of this process is to help identify a preferred route."

Maybe the Finish 3132 Coalition raised some false expectations.   This TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/LA-3132-meeting-leaves-citizens-upset-wanting-more-answers/-/144844/15950892/-/4i76i0z/-/index.html) indicates that some attendees were upset, but it is quite possible that they simply did not understand the purpose of a Stage 0 meeting:

Quote
The LA 3132 extension is remains a hot topic for many in Shreveport. Thursday, officials held the Stage Zero Public Information Meeting. It's a way for citizens to express their problems or suggestions about extension plans. Dozens of Shreveporters showed at the LSUS Ballroom to see the extension's plans. Several aren't happy with the plans or the meeting format .... Though some public figures, like Mayor Glover, were present for discussion, Long and others feel the meeting lacked proper transparency.
"They have a lot of information, but you know, you need to have someone here to explain it," Long said. "We were expecting, I was expecting, a meeting of some kind, you know, with an explanation of they intend to do."
Elliot Stonecipher with the 3132 Coalition agrees with Long and says this meeting wasn't what was expected. Kent Rogers with NLCOG says Stage Zero planning doesn't require a question and answer meeting. He says that will come with Stage One. There will be a total of 7 stages during the extension. Rogers says if all goes to plan, he expects construction to begin with the next ten years.

The process is creaking along ...

Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on August 04, 2012, 06:16:34 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 15, 2012, 01:05:38 PM
NLCOG has moved quickly and posted the I-69 SIU 14 ROD (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/I69SIU14_ROD/I-69%20SIU%2014%20Signed%20ROD%20%2004-27-2012.pdf) 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):
Quote
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.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 18, 2012, 01:26:09 PM
I recently received an email update from NLCOG which clarified that only the first segment of SIU 15, the Red River crossing, is expected to be completed by 2025 and that the SIU 15 FEIS is expected to come out before September 2012:
Quote
We anticipate the FEIS for I-69 SIU-15 coming out before September 2012 ... Realistically, we're looking at the 2030 to 2035 timeframe before the entire SIU-15 is open for travel. However, the first section that could be completed by 2025, as identified in the Project Mgnt' Plan (PMP), is the Red River Bridge Crossing at the Port of Caddo/Bossier.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 27, 2012, 08:11:46 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 15, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
Quote
TXDOT, is in charge of preparing any planning/environmental study for I-69 through Texas and through the Stateline (SIU 16)  to connect to Louisiana US  171 where SIU 15 ends just south of Stonewall.
Who knows?  Maybe an environmental study for the "between I-49 and the Texas/Louisiana border" section of I-69 will begin by late 2013, after a ROD is issued for SIU 15, which happens to include a segment from I-49 to US 171 that should be addressed in the upcoming SIU 15 FEIS.  :hmm:

Although the report is primarily about the Texarkana I-69 Spur, the final thirty seconds of this July 26 TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/I-69-Texarkana-Update-7-26-12/-/144844/15735674/-/k6mn26/-/index.html) discusses I-69 in Louisiana, has Bossier City Mayor Lo Walker state that Louisiana has two (not three; I guess he forgot about US 171 to the Texas state line SIU 16) I-69 SIUs, and concludes by indicating to viewers that I-69 should be completed in ten years.  :banghead:

edit - In addition to being the Mayor of Bossier City, Lo Walker is also president of the I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition (http://www.bossierpress.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4711:the-road-to-i-69&Itemid=161).  In saying that Louisiana only has two I-69 SIUs, I hope that he meant to say that LaDOTD has been the lead agency for two I-69 SIUs.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on August 11, 2012, 09:47:30 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 01, 2012, 12:12:43 PM
In an op-ed in today's Shreveport Times, Brian Bond and Woody Schick of the Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce ... list four major transportation projects in the Greater Shreveport area that need to be prioritized in terms of funding: LA 3132 extension, I-49 Inner City Connector, widen Jimmy Davis bridge, and a new southern entrance to Barksdale Air Force Base
Quote
...there are four significant highway construction projects important for our region. It is important for us to prioritize these projects and then work to secure funding to complete them. As we have done in the past, we will survey our members and ask for their input to help prioritize these four projects: extending La. Highway 3132 to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier, the "Inner City" I-49 connector, a new southern entrance for Barksdale Air Force Base and the widening of the Jimmy Davis Bridge over the Red River.
(above quote from Western Louisiana (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3378.msg128484#msg128484) thread)

Quote from: Grzrd on May 18, 2012, 01:26:09 PM
I recently received an email update from NLCOG which clarified that only the first segment of SIU 15, the Red River crossing, is expected to be completed by 2025
Quote
... the first section that could be completed by 2025, as identified in the Project Mgnt' Plan (PMP), is the Red River Bridge Crossing at the Port of Caddo/Bossier.

This article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012120808062) suggests that, although the Jimmie Davis Bridge is a current regional priority, a second bridge parallel to it might not be built in the foreseeable future because the I-69 Red River bridge could provide a useful crossing for years before I-69 SIU 15 is completed:

Quote
A second bridge parallel to the Jimmie Davis Bridge will have to wait, but repairs to the existing Red River crossing are in the works.
"This is a first start to get the Jimmie Davis Bridge back in shape,"  Sen. Barrow Peacock said. "They can start doing planning and engineering and next year move more money into it."  ....
with Interstate 69 in the works, a bridge could be built farther south near the Port of Caddo-Bossier and later used as the interstate's crossing over the Red River.
Peacock used the Shreveport-Barksdale Highway bridge as an example.
"As the cities moved south, it was never a traffic problem. The question is going to be, over time, is it more practical to put a bridge there or go farther south toward the port where Interstate 69 would potentially cross?" ....
Jimmie Davis Bridge .... was originally designed to carry 13,500 vehicles per day. According to Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development traffic counts, the bridge carried more than 24,000 per day in 2010.

Maybe the need for another Red River crossing will jumpstart construction on Louisiana's first section of I-69.

Below is a photo of the Jimmie Davis Bridge accompanying the article:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeTzNT.jpg&hash=6bd579a73b97e87d2e4db2f862d55240c97cd4cd)

edit - here is another photo accompanying AP version of the article:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2iwNy.jpg&hash=32a15d5c66ce765e1fbd21d8189eb9538ac39643)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on September 06, 2012, 01:18:44 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 18, 2012, 01:26:09 PM
I recently received an email update from NLCOG which clarified that ... the SIU 15 FEIS is expected to come out before September 2012:
Quote
We anticipate the FEIS for I-69 SIU-15 coming out before September 2012.

FHWA has not issued the SIU 15 FEIS yet. I recently received an email update from NLCOG; it's now looking like some time around the New Year:

Quote
We had hoped for a ROD on I-69 SIU-15 this month... however, that is not going to happen. Currently, the consulting team, Michael Baker Jr. Inc, has submitted the Draft doc, addressed all public comments, and resolved the issues concerning the preferred alignment as it approaches the Red River Bridge/Approaches to FHWA for their required review of the Draft submission. "Fingers-crossed"  that FHWA will approve a FEIS by December and we can have a ROD signing party Jan.-Feb. of 2013.

Maybe the SIU 15 ROD signing party can be coordinated with an I-49 North driving party in early '13.  :sombrero:

Quote from: Grzrd on July 27, 2012, 08:11:46 PM
On July 24, the Segment One Committee in Texas released its I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg1_final.pdf) and identified the US 84 relief route around Joaquin and Tenaha as one of its five major priorities. In doing so, the Committee noted the importance of the Louisiana study to identifying the eastern terminus of the US 84 relief route (page 36/155 of pdf; page 30 of document):
Quote
US 84 Relief Route from Tenaha to Joaquin – The committee recognized the connection to the national I-69 route as a priority and recommended the development of a relief route for US 84 to serve this connection. Committee members were updated by a representative of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments who advised the committee that, in 2013, Louisiana would complete an environmental/route location study for portions of I-69 between I-49 and El Dorado, Arkansas and the next phase would be for Texas and Louisiana to work to complete the environmental/route location study for the portion of I-69 between I-49 and the Texas/Louisiana border. Determining route location during the I-49, Texas/Louisiana border study would provide the eastern terminus for the US 84 relief route.

The email I received also mentioned SIU 16. An interesting piece of information in it is that LaDOTD has offered to become the lead agency for the SIU 16 environmental review, but TxDOT currently insists on remaining the lead agency:

Quote
Concerning I-69 SIU-16 we really haven't heard much locally from TXDOT, as far as, proactively leading the environmental study of SIU-16. LADOTD, who is identified as the secondary sponsor of the env. study of SIU-16, has offered to take the lead, but TXDOT has responded that it plans to continue leading this endeavor.

Not that LaDOTD would move quickly on SIU 16, but it will be interesting to see if any tension arises for TxDOT moving slowly on SIU 16, particularly if the Texarkana-Tenaha I-69 Spur gains some traction.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 06, 2012, 01:58:23 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 06, 2012, 01:18:44 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 18, 2012, 01:26:09 PM
I recently received an email update from NLCOG which clarified that ... the SIU 15 FEIS is expected to come out before September 2012:
Quote
We anticipate the FEIS for I-69 SIU-15 coming out before September 2012.

FHWA has not issued the SIU 15 FEIS yet. I recently received an email update from NLCOG; it's now looking like some time around the New Year:

for those people who complain that the transportation industry is filled with too much jargon (see thread in following link):

www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7523.msg169677

I didn't know for sure what any of those acronyms (except FHWA) stood for.  about 45 seconds of googling, I know exactly what Grzrd is saying.

so, that just proves conclusively that anyone who complains about jargon is either a moron or an op-ed author.  but, I repeat myself.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on September 08, 2012, 10:45:03 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 06, 2012, 01:58:23 PM
for those people who complain that the transportation industry is filled with too much jargon (see thread in following link):
www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7523.msg169677
I didn't know for sure what any of those acronyms (except FHWA) stood for.  about 45 seconds of googling, I know exactly what Grzrd is saying.

This article from the September 7 Shreveport Times (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120907/NEWS01/209080332/Interstate-69-route-closer-being-finalized?odyssey=nav%7Chead) reports on essentially the same topic that I discussed in my acronym-laden post used by agentsteel53 to make his point:

Quote
But the segment connecting U.S. Highway 71 near Stonewall to Interstate 20 near Haughton as part of the project to link Indianapolis to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas is closer to fruition than people may think, said Kent Rogers, director of the North Louisiana Council of Governments.
The final environmental impact study, which outlines the project's impact on the area, was submitted July 26 to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and tentatively is set to be released publicly in October, at which time a 30-day comment period will begin.
Once the environmental process is complete, the Federal Highway Administration requires a formal cost estimate review for all projects totaling more than $500 million. Preliminary estimates put this project at more than $860 million.
The first construction priority is the Red River crossing. A study of that crossing is under way because the U.S. Geological Survey issued new navigational vertical clearance requirements earlier this year.

Above, the writer "spells out" NLCOG, avoids the use of "SIU 15" altogether, and "spells out" FEIS, LaDOTD, FHWA and USGS (I did not refer to the last agency in my post  :-D).  Also, the article has an illustration of "the segment connecting U.S. Highway 71 near Stonewall to Interstate 20 near Haughton":

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FglDAA.jpg&hash=6a7080e9666d81bb5078f4c878655ebf2a51386b)

The article also describes SIU 14 and SIU 16 without using the jargon:

Quote
Similarly, Rogers estimates $20 million has been set aside over the past 15 years for three I-69 segments in Louisiana. In addition to the Stonewall-to-Haughton stretch, those segments include an extension from Haughton to El Dorado, Ark., and a small portion between Stonewall and Tenaha, Texas.

Finally, the author clearly defines ROD:

Quote
Upon completion of the reports and incorporation of any comments received, the final environmental impact study will be submitted to Louisiana's highway department and the Federal Highway Administration for final approval and a record of decision (ROD) for the final route. That record will outline what's necessary for the I-69 project to move forward. That should happen mid-2013, Rogers said.

All in all, the author did a good job of avoiding the jargon. I'll stick to posting and let others write newspaper articles.  That said, in the past, I have tried identifying an acronym:

Quote from: Grzrd on June 08, 2012, 12:57:49 PM
approval from the Texas Transportation Commission will still be necessary .... It's interesting that TxDOT submitted its requests to AASHTO and FHWA before having final approval from the TTC
Quote from: deanej on June 08, 2012, 06:04:06 PM
Toronto Transit Commission?  Trident Technical College?  The Tetris Company?
Or maybe this thing Wikipedia call the Trans-Texas Corridor?
(above quotes from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg153469#msg153469) thread)

No methodology is foolproof.  :pan:

Quote from: Grzrd on August 11, 2012, 09:47:30 AM
This article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012120808062) suggests that, although the Jimmie Davis Bridge is a current regional priority, a second bridge parallel to it might not be built in the foreseeable future because the I-69 Red River bridge could provide a useful crossing for years before I-69 SIU 15 is completed

The September 7 article also briefly discusses a potential monetary conflict between a second bridge next to the Jimmie Davis bridge and the I-69 Red River Bridge:

Quote
State Sen. Barrow Peacock has been pushing for another Red River crossing, looking mainly at a second bridge parallel to the Jimmie Davis Bridge. If that were constructed, however, selling a fifth bridge for I-69 to the Louisiana Legislature could prove difficult, he said.
"The idea is if you could get I-69 funded, there's a possibility we would build a bridge that would cross down there," the Shreveport Republican said. "That would be a federal road with federal money paying for part of it rather than the state paying for all of it. On Jimmie Davis, this (renovation) is a first step, and we'll see how it develops in time."
The formal cost review and crossing study will be conducted while the final statement is out for public comment
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on September 18, 2012, 10:07:15 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 06, 2012, 01:18:44 PM
LaDOTD has offered to become the lead agency for the SIU 16 environmental review, but TxDOT currently insists on remaining the lead agency:
Quote
Concerning I-69 SIU-16 we really haven't heard much locally from TXDOT, as far as, proactively leading the environmental study of SIU-16. LADOTD, who is identified as the secondary sponsor of the env. study of SIU-16, has offered to take the lead, but TXDOT has responded that it plans to continue leading this endeavor.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG) has recently posted its June 18 MPO Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_06182012.pdf).  In regard to the section of I-69 from Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX (also known as Section of Independent Utility 16 (SIU 16)), some concern was expressed that Texas is not being aggressive in pursuing SIU 16 (pages 2-3/4 of pdf):

Quote
Mayor Walker stated that regarding SIU 16 (which crosses into Texas) the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) was not as aggressive as Louisiana is in working through the process. He further said the cities/state may need to be more involved in the future. Mr. Jones asked if we could move on SIU 16 without Texas. Mr. Rogers stated no, TxDOT would be the lead on that study.

There was also discussion of putting better maps and other visual aids regarding all of I-69 in Louisiana on the NLCOG website (page 3/4 of pdf)  :clap::

Quote
Mayor Glover asked if the NLCOG website had any visual depictions regarding I‐69 or if there was any community awareness/education materials available. Mr. Rogers stated NLCOG had links to each SIU website and that staff could put together a few other things including maps. Mayor Walker stated he had a summary he could provide to the board; he said I‐69 would happen, but it would take another 10‐20 years and money for construction. Mayor Glover stated visual aids would be a great way to get information out to the public.

Finally, a curious concern about I-69 and the Port of Houston was expressed (page 3/4 of pdf):

Quote
Mr. Kirkland questioned whether the Port of Houston had taken an official stand for, against or neutral regarding I‐69. Mr. Rogers stated the Port of Houston stood for the interstate but he was not sure if they were agreeable to any specific end alignment/corridor. Mayor Walker stated the Port of Houston had a vested interest in the project.

Maybe the above concern reflects a greater concern that TxDOT will promote the Texarkana I-69 Spur and its connection to mainline I-69 in Tenaha at the expense of mainline I-69 SIU 16 from Tenaha into Louisiana in order to grab a greater share of the freight traffic from the Port of Houston.   :hmm:
Title: LA 3132 to become I-220?
Post by: Grzrd on September 18, 2012, 10:17:15 AM
Sorry for the double post, but I did not want this news to buried by length of above post. The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG) has recently posted its June 18 MPO Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_06182012.pdf). The minutes indicate that LaDOTD is looking into renumbering LA 3132 as I-220 (page 4/4 of pdf):

Quote
The question was raised whether or not LA 3132 was considered as a defense highway. Mayor Walker stated the Department of Defense deactivated the weapons storage at Barksdale Air Force Base. Mr. Rogers stated the federal process is clearly defined and following the process if exactly what NLCOG is doing. The process is what takes so long for roadways to be constructed. Mr. Goza stated LA 3132 is s temporary route number and that it will be re‐numbered in the future. LaDOTD is looking into re‐numbering LA 3132 as I‐220 between I‐20 and i‐49. Mayor Glover asked if the three digit number is indicative of loops. Mr. Goza stated yes, and the state assigns numbers in the 3000 range as temporary.

I suppose this would rule out an I-x69 designation from I-49 to I-69.

edit -
Quote from: mgk920 on July 27, 2012, 12:00:33 PM
(Too bad Barksdale AFB is in the way of the original I-220 plans....)

From the above Minutes:
Quote
Mayor Walker stated the Department of Defense deactivated the weapons storage at Barksdale Air Force Base.

Although many other reasons justify not extending I-220 through Barksdale, I still find it interesting that I was recently advised in May that weapons storage was one of the primary reasons for not doing so:

Quote from: Grzrd on May 18, 2012, 01:26:09 PM
Quote
Another regionally/nationally significant project is the Modified I-20/I-220 interchange and new gate access road to Barksdale AFB. Currently, we're completing the public-side of the EIS regarding this project. The base-side (restricted) environmental analysis is complete. In an effort to maintain control of access and secure the base itself,  DoD will not allow a publically accessible, new interstate/freeway classified roadway to traverse through Barksdale AFB property. Further, the land area located on the east side of the reservation is a secured weapons stockpile/storage area. I-220 will never be extended south through Barksdale AFB.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: apjung on November 19, 2012, 06:55:10 PM
Is Louisiana the only state that doesn't have any section of I-69 under construction?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: NE2 on November 19, 2012, 07:11:38 PM
Quote from: apjung on November 19, 2012, 06:55:10 PM
Is Louisiana the only state that doesn't have any section of I-69 under construction?
Florida doesn't :bigass:

Mississippi has no current I-69 projects.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on November 19, 2012, 07:31:24 PM
Quote from: apjung on November 19, 2012, 06:55:10 PM
Is Louisiana the only state that doesn't have any section of I-69 under construction?
I thought for a while that the Southern Loop was part of I-69, until it was built.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: apjung on November 20, 2012, 12:04:52 AM
Let me restate that, Louisiana doesn't have a single mile of I-69 built nor under construction, while Mississippi has built a short section of I-69. Arkansas is building what will be I-69 at SIU 13 in Monticello, AR.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: NE2 on November 20, 2012, 12:35:11 AM
No big surprise; Louisiana also has the least I-69 mileage, if I'm not mistaken.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on December 07, 2012, 05:52:46 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 18, 2012, 10:07:15 AM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG) has recently posted its June 18 MPO Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_06182012.pdf).  In regard to the section of I-69 from Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX (also known as Section of Independent Utility 16 (SIU 16)), some concern was expressed that Texas is not being aggressive in pursuing SIU 16 (pages 2-3/4 of pdf)

The Texas I-69 Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/advisory_committee_report.pdf), combining information from the five segment committees (and current to November 5, 2012), has been posted on the TxDOT website.  The US 84 Relief Route at Tenaha and Joaquin is shown as an upgrade priority, but I do not know if that translates to TxDOT starting the environmental review process for SIU 16 any time soon (page 25/30 of pdf; page 19 of document):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzMVsj.jpg&hash=7a7f6f2592a11840a16edb873710094d017a3da7)

edit

It is not encouraging that an environmental study for SIU 16 is conspicuously absent from a map displaying, among other things, Recommended Environmental/ Route Location and Planning Studies (page 26/30 of pdf; page 20 of document):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FydczW.jpg&hash=bcaa70d452b85c5f261e05a06914769dae1d36d2)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on December 08, 2012, 12:34:14 AM
I would think that La will build the Shreveport loop before anything else, designating it from I-49 to I-20 as I-69, while numbering 3132 as I-269. I could also see US 79 as Business I-69 through Minden.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 09, 2012, 02:05:53 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on December 08, 2012, 12:34:14 AM
I would think that La will build the Shreveport loop before anything else, designating it from I-49 to I-20 as I-69, while numbering 3132 as I-269. I could also see US 79 as Business I-69 through Minden.

What Shreveport Loop?? I thought that was I-220 + LA 3132 extended to proposed I-69 near the Port of Shreveport-Bossier City??

The "extension" of I-220 east to Barksdale AFB is only to provide a gateway access from I-20/I220....nothing more. Any thought of extending that to incorporate LA 3132/I-220 to complete a Shreveport Loop is essentially dead and gone. Plus, the I-49 ICC is more important, anyway.

If anything, make LA 3132 into an even I-x69 or an extension of I-220, and save the former for another highway.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on December 09, 2012, 11:24:47 PM
The Shreveport Loop being the construction of I-69 across the Red towards I-20, connecting I-49 with the eastern edge of Bossier. I know that 220 will never actually connect all the way through, and LA 3132 is going to be extended to the port, but I-69 would essentially complete an offset loop of the city.

Speaking of I-69, how will they push it through Logansport? I was hoping for south of the city, with US 84 being four-laned and serve as Business I-69, but that's just wishful thinking. With an Interstate cutting just north of Toledo Bend, I could really see that area taking off.
Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement Issued For Metro Shreveport I-69 (SIU 15)
Post by: Grzrd on January 14, 2013, 03:23:34 PM
The Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") for Section of Independent Utility 15 ("SIU 15") of I-69 in the metro Shreveport/ Bossier City area was submitted to LaDOTD and FHWA on December 14 and a Record of Decision ("ROD") is anticipated to be issued in the relatively near future. From an email I received from the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG"):

Quote
I-69 SIU-15 FEIS Status: December 14th 2012, the consultant, Michael Baker Jr. Inc, submitted the Final EIS document, with all the public comments appropriately addressed, to LADOTD and FHWA for their signatures and issuance of the ROD. They are required to provide a response within a 45 day timeframe. I don't think we'll have very much fanfare concerning this ROD as compared to the one we had with I-49 North. We'll post the issuance statement to our web site as soon as we receive it.

Quote from: Grzrd on December 07, 2012, 05:52:46 PM
The Texas I-69 Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/advisory_committee_report.pdf), combining information from the five segment committees (and current to November 5, 2012), has been posted on the TxDOT website.  The US 84 Relief Route at Tenaha and Joaquin is shown as an upgrade priority, but I do not know if that translates to TxDOT starting the environmental review process for SIU 16 any time soon (page 25/30 of pdf; page 19 of document) ....
It is not encouraging that an environmental study for SIU 16 is conspicuously absent from a map displaying, among other things, Recommended Environmental/ Route Location and Planning Studies (page 26/30 of pdf; page 20 of document)

In regard to the Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX SIU 16, it does not appear that TxDOT will begin the environmental process any time soon:

Quote
As far as I-69 SIU-16 (TxDOT lead) is concerned, I'm not holding out much hope for any progress to be made, at least from a NEPA standpoint, in the near future.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on January 16, 2013, 08:20:13 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 14, 2013, 03:23:34 PM
Quote
I-69 SIU-15 FEIS Status: December 14th 2012, the consultant, Michael Baker Jr. Inc, submitted the Final EIS document, with all the public comments appropriately addressed, to LADOTD and FHWA for their signatures and issuance of the ROD.

I have also received the following response from Baker:

Quote
The Final EIS is under final review by the Louisiana DOTD and the Federal Highway Administration.  We anticipate that the document will be distributed for public review in early-Spring 2013.   The document will be available for review at local libraries and the DOTD District 04 office, and will also be posted on the I-69 SIU 15 website.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on February 07, 2013, 09:32:50 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 14, 2013, 03:23:34 PM
From an email I received from the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG) .... In regard to the Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX SIU 16, it does not appear that TxDOT will begin the environmental process any time soon:
Quote
As far as I-69 SIU-16 (TxDOT lead) is concerned, I'm not holding out much hope for any progress to be made, at least from a NEPA standpoint, in the near future.

At approximately the 1:00 mark of this TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/Officials-Meet-in-Austin-for-I-69-Update/-/144844/18435332/-/1142dc0z/-/index.html), the following map caught my eye:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJHFlRzp.jpg&hash=fc280895ecbb168c375a580b880523b9eab0a025)

TxDOT used this map as part of its recent I-69 presentation to the Texas legislature. It (and TxDOT) seems to be tossing Shreveport a bone by using a star to denote that it is at the crossroads of the I-20/I-10 corridor, I-49 and I-69.  I still suspect that TxDOT is in no hurry to begin the SIU 16 environmental process.

I wonder if the folks in Myrtle Beach will want the I-20 extension after taking a look at this?  :happy:
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on February 13, 2013, 08:45:31 AM
Quote from: O Tamandua on August 09, 2012, 05:23:09 PM
Through acquisitions the KCS got the Louisiana and Arkansas and a railroad which runs pretty much parallel to I-49 (current, plus I-10 and future) all the way to New Orleans, and now with their still developing Mexico line they're running parallel to a future Kansas City/Mexico corridor via I-49 and I-69 .... Shows me just how critical this emerging dual I-69 and I-49 corridor is as well.
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg167179#msg167179) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on February 07, 2013, 09:32:50 PM
At approximately the 1:00 mark of this TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/Officials-Meet-in-Austin-for-I-69-Update/-/144844/18435332/-/1142dc0z/-/index.html), the following map caught my eye:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJHFlRzp.jpg&hash=fc280895ecbb168c375a580b880523b9eab0a025)
TxDOT used this map as part of its recent I-69 presentation to the Texas legislature. It (and TxDOT) seems to be tossing Shreveport a bone by using a star to denote that it is at the crossroads of the I-20/I-10 corridor, I-49 and I-69.

This article (http://www.ktbs.com/news/Interstate-69-Expected-to-Revive-ArkLaTex-Ecoomy/-/144844/18523356/-/3u495n/-/index.html) quotes Kent Rogers with the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments as describing how the three interstates, the port, and the Kansas City and UP railroads will make Shreveport a "shipping mecca":

Quote
Texans aren't the only ones excited about the new path to a brighter economic future... I-69 is also slated to cross the red river near the Port of Shreveport. Kent Rogers with NLCOG said, "Shreveport-Bossier becomes the smallest urban area in the country with 3 intersecting cross continental interstate highways. With the highways in place, with the work that Kansas City railroad is doing, with up railroad, with the growth of the port. We become the shipping mecca you could say."
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 16, 2013, 05:16:10 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 06, 2012, 01:18:44 PM
The email I received also mentioned SIU 16. An interesting piece of information in it is that LaDOTD has offered to become the lead agency for the SIU 16 environmental review, but TxDOT currently insists on remaining the lead agency:
Quote
Concerning I-69 SIU-16 we really haven't heard much locally from TXDOT, as far as, proactively leading the environmental study of SIU-16. LADOTD, who is identified as the secondary sponsor of the env. study of SIU-16, has offered to take the lead, but TXDOT has responded that it plans to continue leading this endeavor
Quote from: Grzrd on January 14, 2013, 03:23:34 PM
From an email I received from the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") .... In regard to the Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX SIU 16, it does not appear that TxDOT will begin the environmental process any time soon:
Quote
As far as I-69 SIU-16 (TxDOT lead) is concerned, I'm not holding out much hope for any progress to be made, at least from a NEPA standpoint, in the near future.

NLCOG's Transportation Policy Committee has posted its March 28, 2013 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_032813.pdf) and it looks like NLCOG wants Louisiana's politicians to start thinking about encouraging their Texas counterparts to begin the environmental process for the Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX Segment of Independent Utility ("SIU") 16 (page 2/3 of pdf):

Quote
Mayor Walker voiced concerns about the lack of work on the Texas portion of SIU 16. He motioned for the committee to send a letter to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) Secretary LeBas expressing their concerns. Mr. Altimus seconded the motion and suggested both the local and national congressional delegations be copied along with Mr. Kalivoda at LaDOTD. The motion passed with no opposition.

I guess they want Texas to either lead or get out of the way and let LaDOTD lead.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 30, 2013, 04:03:02 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 16, 2013, 05:16:10 PM
NLCOG's Transportation Policy Committee has posted its March 28, 2013 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_032813.pdf) and it looks like NLCOG wants Louisiana's politicians to start thinking about encouraging their Texas counterparts to begin the environmental process for the Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX Segment of Independent Utility ("SIU") 16 (page 2/3 of pdf)

NLCOG's Fiscal Year 2014 Unified Planning Work Program (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/upwp/FY2014UPWP.pdf) is now available for public review and comment and it expressly mentions the Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX Segment of Independent Utility ("SIU") 16 (page 6/43 of pdf; page 6 of 43 of document):

Quote
Task B-2 Project Development Stage 0 and Stage 1 ....
Coordination of ongoing efforts with I-69 SIU 16 connection the urban area to Texas.

I find SIU 16 and Louisiana's (tepid so far) efforts to prod Texas to move the project forward interesting for the following reason: a strong argument could be made that an I-49/I-x69 overlap (or simply I-49) from near Stonewall to Texarkana, in conjunction with SIU 16 from Stonewall to Tenaha, would decrease the attraction (on a national scale) of upgrading US 59 to I-369 from Tenaha to Texarkana (which in turn creates a disincentive for Texas to move SIU 16 forward at the possible expense of the development of I-369).  Of course, a central component of such an argument would be that I-49 from near Stonewall to Texarkana has essentially been completed.  At any rate, it is interesting to see SIU 16 mentioned in an official planning document.
Title: US 84 Sabine River Bridge Replacement an I-69 Project?
Post by: Grzrd on June 05, 2013, 01:40:37 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 30, 2013, 04:03:02 PM
NLCOG's Fiscal Year 2014 Unified Planning Work Program (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/upwp/FY2014UPWP.pdf) is now available for public review and comment and it expressly mentions the Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX Segment of Independent Utility ("SIU") 16 (page 6/43 of pdf; page 6 of 43 of document):
Quote
Task B-2 Project Development Stage 0 and Stage 1 ....
Coordination of ongoing efforts with I-69 SIU 16 connection the urban area to Texas.
... it is interesting to see SIU 16 mentioned in an official planning document.

This TxDOT I-69 Funding Program map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf) includes $13,886,080 in funding for the US 84 Sabine River Bridge (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Logansport,+LA&hl=en&ll=31.97267,-94.005557&spn=0.007035,0.009602&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=52.914243,78.662109&oq=logansport&t=h&hnear=Logansport,+De+Soto,+Louisiana&z=17) replacement project as part of I-69 Funding Program.  I emailed LaDOTD and asked them if they considered this to be an I-69 project, and, if so, has a corridor been chosen for a Logansport bypass. Louisiana does not consider this project to have anything to do with I-69 and asserts that there are no current plans for a Logansport bypass:

Quote
The U.S. 84 Bridge project is a  joint effort between DOTD and TxDOT but does not have anything to do with I-69, that we are aware of.  The project is scheduled to go to bid in August of this  year and is estimated to cost between $7.5M-$10M (our cost). 
This project will construct 2 new bridges that will have two lanes going in  eastbound and westbound direction. 
As of now, there is no Logansport bypass.

I cannot imagine I-69 being routed on Main Street.




Quote from: Grzrd on September 08, 2012, 10:45:03 AM
This article from the September 7 Shreveport Times (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120907/NEWS01/209080332/Interstate-69-route-closer-being-finalized?odyssey=nav%7Chead)
Quote
But the segment connecting U.S. Highway 71 near Stonewall to Interstate 20 near Haughton as part of the project to link Indianapolis to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas is closer to fruition than people may think, said Kent Rogers, director of the North Louisiana Council of Governments ... The first construction priority is the Red River crossing. A study of that crossing is under way because the U.S. Geological Survey issued new navigational vertical clearance requirements earlier this year.
Quote from: apjung on November 19, 2012, 06:55:10 PM
Is Louisiana the only state that doesn't have any section of I-69 under construction?

Who knows? If the new Sabine River bridges are ultimately incorporated into I-69, and construction begins on them begins before construction begins on the I-69 Red River bridge(s)(which at this point appears several years away), then it would be ironic that the first I-69 construction on Louisiana soil would have arguably begun in the SIU 16 corridor (before SIU 16 corridor environmental studies had been started by TxDOT/LaDOTD).
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: O Tamandua on July 26, 2013, 10:18:24 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 13, 2013, 08:45:31 AM
Quote from: O Tamandua on August 09, 2012, 05:23:09 PM
Through acquisitions the KCS got the Louisiana and Arkansas and a railroad which runs pretty much parallel to I-49 (current, plus I-10 and future) all the way to New Orleans, and now with their still developing Mexico line they're running parallel to a future Kansas City/Mexico corridor via I-49 and I-69 .... Shows me just how critical this emerging dual I-69 and I-49 corridor is as well.
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg167179#msg167179) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on February 07, 2013, 09:32:50 PM
At approximately the 1:00 mark of this TV video report (http://www.ktbs.com/news/Officials-Meet-in-Austin-for-I-69-Update/-/144844/18435332/-/1142dc0z/-/index.html), the following map caught my eye:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJHFlRzp.jpg&hash=fc280895ecbb168c375a580b880523b9eab0a025)
TxDOT used this map as part of its recent I-69 presentation to the Texas legislature. It (and TxDOT) seems to be tossing Shreveport a bone by using a star to denote that it is at the crossroads of the I-20/I-10 corridor, I-49 and I-69.

This article (http://www.ktbs.com/news/Interstate-69-Expected-to-Revive-ArkLaTex-Ecoomy/-/144844/18523356/-/3u495n/-/index.html) quotes Kent Rogers with the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments as describing how the three interstates, the port, and the Kansas City and UP railroads will make Shreveport a "shipping mecca":

Quote
Texans aren't the only ones excited about the new path to a brighter economic future... I-69 is also slated to cross the red river near the Port of Shreveport. Kent Rogers with NLCOG said, "Shreveport-Bossier becomes the smallest urban area in the country with 3 intersecting cross continental interstate highways. With the highways in place, with the work that Kansas City railroad is doing, with up railroad, with the growth of the port. We become the shipping mecca you could say."

Grzrd, while I know this should be in the "Bella Vista Fort Smith" thread, it's very amusing that, given that map above from Channel 3 in Shreveport, around Bella Vista the AHTD is only funding two lanes of the Bella Vista bypass at this time (even while they're funding six-laning the future I-49 just a scant 10-20 miles south).

That "two-lane" stuff is going to get old awfully quick on this corridor, from the Northwest Arkansas (home of three Fortune 500 companies, the new Crystal Bridges Museum of Art, the home of the University of Arkansas (member of the recent four-time-straight-home-of-a-national-football-champion Southeastern Conference West), etc.) traffic alone....
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: O Tamandua on July 29, 2013, 02:24:40 PM
Well, here's a fine kettle of fish...

Shreveport Times: "Residents question rebuilding housing complex in potential path of Interstate (49) expansion":

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20130728/SPECIALPROJECTS01/307280023/Residents-question-rebuilding-housing-complex-potential-path-interstate-expansion
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: apjung on July 29, 2013, 03:54:50 PM
I have similar questions on a similar issue on I-49 South in Westwego on why they planted all those trees and installed light poles that will have to be removed when I-49 is extended to the West Bank (Harry Lee) Expressway.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Brandon on July 29, 2013, 04:00:37 PM
I flew over this on my way from Houston Hobby to Midway Airport.  The route of I-49 north of I-220 looks like it is complete, and the routing appears to go through a lightly developed area to connect to the current I-49.  Would I be correct in assuming that the corridor on the west side of the river is lightly developed?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on August 06, 2013, 11:17:18 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 27, 2012, 12:10:47 PM
A map of the alternatives (page 57/79 of the Environmental Summary pdf (http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/la3132/Documents/APPENDIX_C_-_ENVIRONMENTAL_SUMMARY.pdf)):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fo6M0E.jpg&hash=93d034bc79a93702fd15043bd27c81c6cfe463d1)

The fun and games regarding the LA 3132 extension in Shreveport continues.  The Finish 3132 Coalition has posted an Esplanade Aerial View (http://www.finish3132.com/Documents/2013-Maps/3132-6.pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fz3w7SgW.png&hash=b7d0f2d1f92484b18f4cc423e82706ef09fcaf7e)

The Finish 3132 Coalition has also posted an article explaining the Aerial View (http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/13-08-06/Aerial_Photographs_Development_in_Path_of_Hwy_3132_Extension_Is_Underway.aspx):

Quote
On the opening page of the Finish3132 Coalition's website - www.finish3132.com - entitled "August 2013 Updated Imagery:Esplanade Aerial View," is a photograph taken a few weeks ago of the development and surrounding area. Outlined in red is the 16+ acre tract owned by Shreveport taxpayers, outlined in yellow is Larkin's land, and the double, bolded purple lines are Hwy. 3132. The diamond interchange with Hwy. 3132 and Flournoy-Lucas Road (LA Hwy. 523) is shown at the top of the image, with the proposed southerly Extension of 3132, proceeding across Bayou Pierre, shown as it swings toward the Port. Clearly, the Hwy. 3132 Extension would run through a sizable portion of Larkin's development. Regardless, construction of the development is clearly visible ....
Last year, our Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) board members voted twice, unanimously each time, to block Larkin's building of a roadway from Flournoy-Lucas to Bayou Pierre. Likewise, in two separate votes, the Shreveport City Council refused to approve permits for that roadway because it is in the path of the 3132 Extension. Regardless, one day following the fourth and final such vote taken over several months, Glover ordered his city attorney and his city engineer to issue the permit to Larkin ....

I wonder if the Finish 3132 folks and the Loop It 49 folks ever share a few beers at the end of the day?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on August 10, 2013, 03:53:43 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 30, 2013, 04:03:02 PM
NLCOG's Fiscal Year 2014 Unified Planning Work Program (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/upwp/FY2014UPWP.pdf) is now available for public review and comment and it expressly mentions the Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX Segment of Independent Utility ("SIU") 16 (page 6/43 of pdf; page 6 of 43 of document):
Quote
Task B-2 Project Development Stage 0 and Stage 1 ....
Coordination of ongoing efforts with I-69 SIU 16 connection the urban area to Texas.

NLCOG has posted its May 20, 2013 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_052013.pdf) and the draft minutes include discussion of the probability that I-69 SIU 16 is as low on LaDOTD's priority list as it is on TxDOT's priority list and that it may be counterproductive to take the lead on the project (page 3/4 of pdf):

Quote
Mayor Walker gave a brief update about I‐69 and stated that it seemed Texas would make SIU 16 as their last priority. Mr. Rogers stated NLCOG may want to pursue completing the Logansport to Stonewall area. Mr. Goza stated it would be low on LaDOTD's list as well, while Mayor Walker agreed that it may be counterproductive to pursue that angle.




NLCOG has also posted its June 21, 2013 Executive Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/Exec_agendas/minutes/minutes_06212013_exec.pdf) and those draft minutes include a discussion of "mega projects" in Northwest Louisiana (page 2/4 of pdf):

Quote
... staff identified major transportation improvements or "mega projects"  that have been proposed for Northwest Louisiana. For the purposes of the update, a mega project is a very expensive or large‐scale transportation improvement that would have a regional or statewide impact, and require special funding beyond the normal LaDOTD funding program. A transportation improvement included as a mega project in the plan may be eligible for further study and possibly implementation should additional state or federal funding become available.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaEufAfh.jpg&hash=0faf75a003ba93ccb3aad9c05a29a269f6141a96)

Not surprisingly, I-69 and the LA 3132 extension are both on the list.




Also included on the "mega projects" list is high-speed rail from Shreveport to Dallas.  In the May 20 Transportation Committee Draft Minutes, it was suggested that the high-speed rail project might be a "bargaining chip" to obtain funding for I-69 (page 3/4 of pdf):

Quote
Mr. Jambor asked about the Meridian, MS rail line. Mr. Rogers stated a second group was looking at a high speed only line and that a memorandum of agreement/understanding was in the works from the Dallas/Fort Worth, Tyler and Longview agencies. Mayor Walker stated a feasibility study was due in late May and indications are that the line may not be as feasible as originally thought — that the line is a $3 billion project. Mr. Goza asked if it would be a possible bargaining chip for I‐69; Mayor Walker stated he was not sure.
Title: I-69 Shreveport-Bossier City SIU 15 FEIS Released For Public Review
Post by: Grzrd on August 17, 2013, 04:42:44 PM
The SIU 15 website has a new FEIS webpage (http://www.i69dotd.com/FEIS.htm).  The Summary (http://www.i69dotd.com/FEIS/Summary.pdf) includes an implementation schedule to design and construct SIU 15 that has design and construction beginning in 2014 and concluding in 2026 (page S-21; p. 14/25 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnEdsZd2.jpg&hash=dae09890c9f38240d182c7dd8dd6d73e3aea621e)

Here's a map of the implementation schedule (Exhibit S-2; p. 16/25 of pdf) :

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F010yZQV.jpg&hash=6f4a5698a7c1ae88bb9fea47c7f98beb7070ddc2)

Also of interest is that the I-49/I-69 interchange will require a design exception (page S-5; p. 5/25 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FA7mKp0F.jpg&hash=8b78dff58b633a50da7769a064e84ad899512b5b)

Now wait and see if a ROD is issued and then if anything actually does start in 2014.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: thefro on August 17, 2013, 07:05:44 PM
Table S2/Page 17 has the implentation schedule which has construction of the Red River bridge (the first scheduled segment) starting in 2016.  2014 is just preliminary engineering/mitigation, 2015 is Final Design/ROW/utilities

It'll be pretty encouraging for the completition of the entire I-69 project if this segment starts getting built.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on October 02, 2013, 12:05:13 PM
Quote from: thefro on August 17, 2013, 07:05:44 PM
Table S2/Page 17 has the implentation schedule which has construction of the Red River bridge (the first scheduled segment) starting in 2016.  2014 is just preliminary engineering/mitigation, 2015 is Final Design/ROW/utilities
It'll be pretty encouraging for the completition of the entire I-69 project if this segment starts getting built.

Louisiana is inching closer to being the last "I-69 state" to initiate I-69 construction-related activity.  I had a recent Q & A with a NLCOG representative:

Quote
Q: ... The Implementation Schedule in the I-69 SIU 15 FEIS includes a little under $10 million for preliminary engineering for the Red River crossing for FY 2014.  However, in taking a look at the Draft District 4 FY 2014-15 Highway Program (http://www.dotd.la.gov/press/documents/09_30_2013_SFY_14_15_Highway_Program_District_04.pdf), I do not see the preliminary engineering included for the Red River crossing.
I know the Comment Period for the SIU 15 FEIS is still ongoing and scheduled to conclude October 7.  Was the preliminary engineering excluded from the Highway Program because a Record of Decision has not yet been issued?  Related to that, what is the current best guess for the issuance of a ROD?

A: You're correct... until the project is issued a ROD, funds are not programmed and authorized for performing design/engineering, ROW acquisition, Utility Relocation, or Construction services along the selected alignment... otherwise our Federal partners will withdraw any future support (i.e. funding) for the project.
Late December or early January timeframe is the anticipated I-69 SIU 15 ROD signing party!

I assume it would be easy to amend the Highway Program once the ROD is finalized and allow the preliminary engineering to begin in 2014.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on October 19, 2013, 11:06:32 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 05, 2013, 01:40:37 PM
This TxDOT I-69 Funding Program map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf) includes $13,886,080 in funding for the US 84 Sabine River Bridge (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Logansport,+LA&hl=en&ll=31.97267,-94.005557&spn=0.007035,0.009602&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=52.914243,78.662109&oq=logansport&t=h&hnear=Logansport,+De+Soto,+Louisiana&z=17) replacement project as part of I-69 Funding Program.  I emailed LaDOTD and asked them if they considered this to be an I-69 project, and, if so, has a corridor been chosen for a Logansport bypass. Louisiana does not consider this project to have anything to do with I-69 and asserts that there are no current plans for a Logansport bypass

This article (http://www.news-journal.com/panola/news/future-of-i--looking-brighter/article_1a68f6e6-1864-5d18-81dc-c6184106714f.html), primarily about I-369 in Texas, includes some discussion about Logansport and I-69:

Quote
Charles Thomas, executive director of the Carthage Improvement Corporation ....
"We wanted I-69 to come up to Carthage and then go Highway 79 east, but Logansport had a congressman on the appropriation board,"  Thomas said ....
In a joint effort, Texas and Louisiana road departments are working to improve transportation and safety on the Highway 84 corridor. Part of that corridor will be converted to I-69.

In Logansport, Mayor Katherine Freeman said the city is working toward welcoming the progress of Highway 84 and I-69.
" We're having the groundbreaking for the two new river bridges at 10:30 a.m., Nov. 8,"  Freeman said.
While I-69 is not expected to come directly through town, an improved Highway 84 and nearby access to the interstate only means good things for the small town.
"I think it would be wonderful impact for us,"  Freeman said. "Right now we're not on a major highway; everything in the parish has gone to Stonewall or Mansfield because of I-49. Except for the saltwater trucks coming to town going to drop their loads in Texas we don't have too much traffic."
The bridges will accommodate in total four lanes of traffic with two lanes going east and two lanes going west.
"They've been working on this for about 26 years or so,"  Freeman said. "The project finally came back in at 40 percent over, several million over budget, but both Texas and Louisiana finally concurred to pay."
Freeman became mayor in 2007 after her husband Dennis Freeman died. Dennis served as mayor from 1984 until 2007, a total of 23 years.
"He went to Washington, a long time ago, because at first Highway 84 was going to come through town with no new bridge and would not allow parking on Main Street,"  Freeman said. "That would have killed the town, but he worked with Texas and Louisiana to get that changed to this concept."
Freeman said her husband also worked to keep I-69 in western Louisiana.
"He went to Washington a couple of times trying to get I-69 to come through, too. At that time we were just trying to get it through our area."
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on November 12, 2013, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 06, 2013, 11:17:18 AM
The Finish 3132 Coalition has posted an Esplanade Aerial View (http://www.finish3132.com/Documents/2013-Maps/3132-6.pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fz3w7SgW.png&hash=b7d0f2d1f92484b18f4cc423e82706ef09fcaf7e)
The Finish 3132 Coalition has also posted an article explaining the Aerial View (http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/13-08-06/Aerial_Photographs_Development_in_Path_of_Hwy_3132_Extension_Is_Underway.aspx)

This November 8 Shreveport Times article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20131109/NEWS01/311090025/Highway-3132-dispute-lingers) reports that lawsuits filed by the Finish 3132 Coalition haved stalled the process for construction of the extension:

Quote
The coalition pushing to finish Louisiana Highway 3132 is – ironically – a large part of the reason construction of the extension has stalled.
While the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) is ready to proceed with the environmental impact study that would continue the process to link the highway from its end at Flournoy Lucas Road to the Port of Caddo-Bossier, the project remains at a standstill because of lawsuits filed by the Finish 3132 Coalition and Willis-Knighton Health Systems late last year.
"We have a contract ready to go for Stage 1; but because of all the litigation, we haven't been able to get going,"  said Kent Rogers, executive director of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG).
Three lawsuits are pending – two that have been consolidated into one in Caddo District Court and one in federal court.
"What we're trying to do is get the Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration to build a road on what we consider to be the most appropriate alignment or route from Flournoy Lucas to the port, which is across a portion of the subdivision which Mr. Larkin is building,"  said Billy Pesnell, attorney for the coalition and Willis-Knighton.

The article does not provide an estimate of when the legal proceedings will allow the environmental study to proceed.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on December 02, 2013, 11:51:13 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 12, 2013, 03:27:52 PM
This November 8 Shreveport Times article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20131109/NEWS01/311090025/Highway-3132-dispute-lingers) reports that lawsuits filed by the Finish 3132 Coalition haved stalled the process for construction of the extension

In this Nov. 28 guest column (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20131129/OPINION0106/311290002/), Finish 3132 Coalition spokesperson Elliott Stonecipher puts forth the rationale for the Coalition's lawsuits:

Quote
Some 10 years ago, certain officials and developers, without mandated public involvement, commandeered the federally mandated highway planning process. The extension's adopted corridor route, set in 1992, is exactly where Twelve Oaks was built by its developers. Also in 2003, with no public participation, the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments then relocated the route across Bayou Pierre. Soon, in 2006, developer Tim Larkin began his Esplanade subdivision exactly in the extension's new route, which he expected or knew would be terminated.
When, in 2011, Mayor Cedric Glover and NLCOG attempted that termination, with only insiders present, this important battle began.
Now, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has withheld certain route alternatives initially designed and recommended by its own consulting and department engineers. In a key email, DOTD's project engineer explained that the alternatives protect adjacent, existing homeowners by instead using the available undeveloped land which would be Esplanade. She was overruled. The coalition discovered the routes and made them public at its expense, but officials have neither acknowledged their existence, nor presented them for debate by the public.
Thus, existing homeowners were denied the mandated forum to argue for protection of their property.
The project engineer, consulting engineers and the coalition agree: the hidden routes moving deep into undeveloped Esplanade land must be used. The DOTD/NLCOG route actually means the La. 3132 extension cannot safely, fairly or affordably be constructed.

This could take a long time ..... but it's fun to see highway proponents fight LaDOTD, NLCOG, etc.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on January 31, 2014, 10:23:16 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 17, 2013, 04:42:44 PM
The SIU 15 website has a new FEIS webpage (http://www.i69dotd.com/FEIS.htm) ....Now wait and see if a ROD is issued and then if anything actually does start in 2014.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") Transportation Policy Committee has posted its November 15, 2013 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_11152013.pdf) and it seems that, at that time, they needed to respond to some comments from FHWA (page 2/5 of pdf; page 2 of document):

Quote
Mr. Rogers updated the members on I‐69 and some comments received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Dr. Wilson with the Caddo Parish Commission arrived, creating a quorum.  Mayor Walker clarified that a resolution from the committee to the FHWA was needed requesting a quick response to the EPA's comments.  Mr. Rogers stated it would be prudent to send a letter or resolution.  Mayor Walker asked for a motion from the committee to have Mr. Rogers draft a resolution on behalf of  the committee.  Mr. Altimus motioned and Dr. Wilson seconded.  The motion passed with no objections.  Mr. Goza cautioned to carefully word the resolution; Mayor Walker asked for a draft to be sent to the committee for review.

NLCOG has also posted the Transportation Policy Committee's January 17, 2014 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_01172014.pdf).  I could not find any followup regarding communication with FHWA related to a possible I-69 SIU 15 ROD.  I hope that indicates that it was a relatively minor matter.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on January 31, 2014, 11:35:14 PM
I would love to see the bridge built first, and with a superstructure! Something like a cable stay, that just screams "I'm an open and free route! USE ME!".

I'm new to this I-69 thing, but is the highway, in essence, an upgraded US 79? It seems like a newer alignment, passing near the same towns as US 79.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: NE2 on February 01, 2014, 01:01:00 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on January 31, 2014, 11:35:14 PM
I'm new to this I-69 thing, but is the highway, in essence, an upgraded US 79? It seems like a newer alignment, passing near the same towns as US 79.
Sort of. But it zigzags back and forth to serve pork production.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on April 14, 2014, 04:48:24 PM
Upthread and elsewhere in the Forum I have posted the following map of "I-49 I-69 Crossroads to the Future":

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDuNOAKU.png&hash=3b96930655c8f4fbbec54edcb724ba9a87f4c770)

I recently came across another version of the map being used in presentations that emphasizes a Mexican city as well as two Canadian cities:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbC8ERt2.png&hash=3e65cf8592e5ebb1379cef99fa1f63880d10bbb9)

Too bad the Mexican city is misspelled .....




How long will it take to fulfill the "Crossroads" vision?  This March 31 article (http://bossierpress.com/2014/03/31/growing-pains-lie-ahead/) includes a projection of twenty years:

Quote
In about 20 years, Shreveport-Bossier should be one of the major transportation crossroads of America but like other fast-growing areas, residents will see some growing pains.
"In another 20 years,the completion of I-69 and I-49 to go with I-20 will make this area the smallest metropolitan area in the country with three cross-continental interstates," said Kent Rogers, executive director of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments." That's huge."

Twenty years may be a tad optimistic ....
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: yakra on April 24, 2014, 10:50:43 PM
Heh. I-49 will only be about as cross-continental as US 66 was...
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 11, 2014, 10:45:20 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 02, 2013, 11:51:13 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 12, 2013, 03:27:52 PM
This November 8 Shreveport Times article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20131109/NEWS01/311090025/Highway-3132-dispute-lingers) reports that lawsuits filed by the Finish 3132 Coalition haved stalled the process for construction of the extension
In this Nov. 28 guest column (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20131129/OPINION0106/311290002/), Finish 3132 Coalition spokesperson Elliott Stonecipher puts forth the rationale for the Coalition's lawsuits:
Quote
the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has withheld certain route alternatives initially designed and recommended by its own consulting and department engineers .... The project engineer, consulting engineers and the coalition agree: the hidden routes moving deep into undeveloped Esplanade land must be used. The DOTD/NLCOG route actually means the La. 3132 extension cannot safely, fairly or affordably be constructed.

This May 7 video (http://www.ktbs.com/story/25458775/shreveport-mpc-denies-developers-application-for-land-in-possible-la-3132-extension-corridor) reports that the Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission recently denied an application to allow for the subdivision of some of Esplanade's lots:

Quote
After two and a half hours of presentations, questions and deliberation, the Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission decided Tuesday to deny an application some say could Tuesday a decision could affect the expansion of LA 3132 all the way to the Port of Caddo-Bossier.
The application in question was filed by Larkin Development @ Railsback LLC et al to subdivide land in its existing community. The developer of the Esplanade Community wants to break up the lots to sell in a new phase of the development. This section is south of Flournoy Road, sandwiched between Ellerbe Road and Bayou Pierre. It's a stretch of land some say will be used for Highway 3132.
But if what Tom Arceneaux, attorney for the developers, said is correct it could have implications on the funding for 3132. Arceneaux said by denying the application, the Commission basically picks the route for the highway. Arceneaux said there is a chance the federal government could deny providing funds since a study has not been conducted to pick a specific a route, and the road project would essentially die.

The Finish 3132 Coalition has posted its take regarding the vote on its blog:

http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/14-05-08/MPC_Commissioners_Again_Vote_to_Protect_Hwy_3132_Extension.aspx

Quote
the Larkin forces are angry that there is a federal court suit at issue. The Coalition has asked the court to order NLCOG, the Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development (LA DOTD), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to re-do the Stage 0 Study of remaining route options. This followed the Coalition's discovery of irrefutable evidence - routes and explanatory emails from LA DOTD personnel - of routes which would protect surrounding homeowners - such as Twelve Oaks homeowners. The critical difference in these routes is that they would require Larkin's land. They were, thus, deliberately withheld from the public. The lots Larkin asked yesterday to be approved were dead within any remaining available route from Flournoy-Lucas to the Port. His Esplanade is the only undeveloped land available for construction of the Extension.

This may take a while.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 08:36:26 PM
It was discussed upthread whether I-69 would use the Sabine River crossing at Logansport. It was mentioned that LaDOTD has no plans for a bypass around Logansport. I put the I-69 proposal into my own map and projected it into Texas. On my map, it appears that I-69 will course well north of Logansport, crossing into Texas before crossing the river southbound.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 11, 2014, 11:19:51 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 08:36:26 PM
It was discussed upthread whether I-69 would use the Sabine River crossing at Logansport. It was mentioned that LaDOTD has no plans for a bypass around Logansport. I put the I-69 proposal into my own map and projected it into Texas. On my map, it appears that I-69 will course well north of Logansport, crossing into Texas before crossing the river southbound.
I would doubt that I-69 would stray that far north of Logansport, but it definitely isn't using the new US 84 bridge... however, with the state building a four-lane structure to serve US 84, I'm guessing it will serve Joaquin more than Logansport anyways. I would prefer to see I-69 dip BELOW Logansport, but that's never going to happen!

As for the LA 3132 Extension, what would the Esplanade developer do if LaDOTD abandoned the section leading right to his property, and instead moved the Inner Loop to the property between the subdivision and LA 1? I see nothing but empty land there, and you could give access ramps to LA 1 directly instead of Flouroy Lucas. Also, if the federal government would deny funding for just that stretch of LA 3132, build it as a separate project than the rest of the stretch. I'm 50/50, because the state should have bought the ROW ahead of time and prevented this from happening, and the developer should have realized that the state is trying to build a highway and not built houses. All LA 3132 happens to be now is an overdeveloped, limited access driveway to the new subdivision.

I'm all for shifting LA 3132 to the east, riding between the subdivision and LA 1, and removing exit ramps for Flornoy Lucas Road. In fact, could you not just upgrade LA 1 for a good stretch? ROW is already there...
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 11, 2014, 11:19:51 PM
... the developer should have realized that the state is trying to build a highway and not built houses.

The developer probably did realize that 3132 could go through his land (it's not that difficult to look at a map and see it) and built stuff there to either keep the extension from happening or to extort*COUGH* demand more money from the state to acquire the ROW. These people who buy and develop land tend to be rather shrewd.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 12, 2014, 12:48:02 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 11, 2014, 11:19:51 PM
... the developer should have realized that the state is trying to build a highway and not built houses.

The developer probably did realize that 3132 could go through his land (it's not that difficult to look at a map and see it) and built stuff there to either keep the extension from happening or to extort*COUGH* demand more money from the state to acquire the ROW. These people who buy and develop land tend to be rather shrewd.
Well why not shift the expressway onto an alternate alignment? I know 3132 doesn't seem like that big of a deal now, but when I-69 is built in the area, people will be so glad it exists.

Is there a way to buy land without actually having an approved path? It seems like, if the state determines a new route is best, the same person could buy that land and develop it quickly.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 12, 2014, 09:49:38 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 11, 2014, 11:19:51 PM
... the developer should have realized that the state is trying to build a highway and not built houses.

The developer probably did realize that 3132 could go through his land (it's not that difficult to look at a map and see it) and built stuff there to either keep the extension from happening or to extort*COUGH* demand more money from the state to acquire the ROW. These people who buy and develop land tend to be rather shrewd.

Sort of like the people behind the Allendale housing project who are currently trying to block the Inner City Connector and reroute I-49 around via LA 3132 and I-220??
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 12, 2014, 07:59:54 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 12, 2014, 09:49:38 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 11, 2014, 11:19:51 PM
... the developer should have realized that the state is trying to build a highway and not built houses.

The developer probably did realize that 3132 could go through his land (it's not that difficult to look at a map and see it) and built stuff there to either keep the extension from happening or to extort*COUGH* demand more money from the state to acquire the ROW. These people who buy and develop land tend to be rather shrewd.

Sort of like the people behind the Allendale housing project who are currently trying to block the Inner City Connector and reroute I-49 around via LA 3132 and I-220??
I actually prefer upgrading 3132 and sending I-49 traffic down that route. Cheaper, finished quicker, and can mean a complete I-49 without clogging the current highway between 20 and 3132.

Nexus 7

Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 12, 2014, 08:12:52 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 12, 2014, 07:59:54 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 12, 2014, 09:49:38 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 11, 2014, 11:19:51 PM
... the developer should have realized that the state is trying to build a highway and not built houses.

The developer probably did realize that 3132 could go through his land (it's not that difficult to look at a map and see it) and built stuff there to either keep the extension from happening or to extort*COUGH* demand more money from the state to acquire the ROW. These people who buy and develop land tend to be rather shrewd.

Sort of like the people behind the Allendale housing project who are currently trying to block the Inner City Connector and reroute I-49 around via LA 3132 and I-220??
I actually prefer upgrading 3132 and sending I-49 traffic down that route. Cheaper, finished quicker, and can mean a complete I-49 without clogging the current highway between 20 and 3132.

Nexus 7



Absolutely....NOT.

Not cheaper, because LA 3132 is not completely Interstate standard, I-220 would have to be widened, and it isn't the most direct route. Also, downtown/CBD areas deserve to be served by Interstates...not plowed under, but not abandoned, either.

Also....only the six block area between Ford Street and I-20 would be the costliest and most impacted. The remainder of the ICC goes through mostly abandoned wetlands.

Imagine Alexandria if I-49 had bypassed them and the connector to the Pineville Expressway hadn't been built.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 12, 2014, 11:42:28 PM
If you widen LA 3132 and I-220, it would still be cheaper than building a new route, because eventually, LA 3132 is going to have the concrete either replaced or patched, so it's a non-avoidable cost. Downtown Shreveport is accessible by I-20, and the I-49 Spur.

Wetlands aren't abandoned...

Alexandria was fine before I-49. The Pineville Expressway is a commuter route designed to send LA 28 East traffic, and Grant Parish traffic, into downtown Alexandria while bypassing Main Street. Before it was US 167, it was LA 3026, a relief artery for Pineville. Sure, traffic does hop onto I-49, but most of your traffic is commuters...and truck traffic wishing to bypass the O.K. Allen Bridge on US 71.

Alexandria still runs along MacArthur Drive, Jackson Street Ext, and Hwy 28 West, so the only thing that has changed is that your thru traffic runs along I-49 instead of US 71. It's also why US 71 Bypass runs along I-49. The original plan was for I-49 to split, one side running along Eddie Williams and taking the Pineville Expressway, then crossing back around Rapides Station, while the other side was running on a western bypass of the city. That was dumped to have the highway run close to downtown along the MoPac RR alignment. Drive along I-49, and take the expressway exit, and see how much traffic merges in from Casson Street to head across the river... at the same time, watch the traffic on I-49 South, and see how much of it actually exits for US 167 North.

I-49 hasn't had as much potential as it can, and Alexandria would honestly be no more different. In fact, I believe widening LA 28 West to Leesville had more impact than I-49 coming to town. Lecompte, Cheneyville, and Bunkie would back me up on that.

Now, pertaining to LA 3132, what would need to be done to bring the highway up to Interstate standards? I see guardrails protecting overhead signage, spacious acceleration lanes on onramps, a numbered exit system, a wide median (comparable to I-20), and well marked shoulders with a reasonable speed limit.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 13, 2014, 06:08:56 AM
Gotta disagree fundamentally on all counts.

Widening nearly 25 miles of peripheral corridor is cheaper than building 7 miles of new freeway?? Not quite. Also, the interchange between I-49 and LA 3132 south of Shreveport would have to be reworked entirely to either add lanes to the relevant exits or to rework it to have the through movements transferred to the bypass. Also, 3132 isn't quite Interstate standard due to insufficient shoulders in some part and the proximity of the Linwood Avenue interchange to the I-20/I-220 West/LA 3132 interchange.

And also...it has been confirmed that I-220 would have to be widened across Cross Lake, which is Shreveport/Bossier's sole source of drinking water.

It really doesn't make sense to reroute an Interstate around a downtown area merely to avoid a three block area of displacements that are already scheduled to be removed in the first place.

Downtown Shreveport would be accessible via I-20 and existing I-49 from the south, but how from the north? I-220 east to US 71 would be more doubling back, and there already is currently a major issue with traffic. The proposed ICC would solve that issue directly.

As to I-49 through Alexandria?? Not quite. One of the original North-South Expressway alternates that was favored by LADOTD's predecesor would have completely bypassed the city to the west, but provided a connection to the Pineville Expressway that would have run generally parallel to Horseshoe Lane and Masonic Drive. It was rejected because the local community WANTED I-49 to be built through downtown with a shorter connection to the Pineville Expy, and because of the fear that the connection wouldn't be built as part of I-49, thusly cutting access to the city and forcing more pressure on current local streets. Plus, the current routing eliminated many hazardous at-grade railroad crossings of the Union Pacific, including Broadway Ave, Jackson St. and the Second/Third St. couplet.

[Another alternative would have upgraded MacArthur Drive up to Bolton Avenue (LA 1), then upgraded LA 1 to a freeway up to a bypass of Boyce, with a connector to the Pineville Expressway running pretty much where the current I-49 is, but with a direct connection rather than an interchange. That was rejected due to strong opposition from businesses along MacArthur Drive, which still remain strong against subsequent efforts to "freewayize" that arterial and build an interchange to replace Masonic Circle.]

Now, Alexandria/Pineville may sprawl to a point where a bypass might become more feasible, but since the Fort Buhlow Bridge is being upgraded, and MacArthur Drive is adequate for now as a "bypass", I hardly see how the routing for I-49 has hurt Alexandria.

Most of the towns along US 71 south of Alex were probably more hurt by I-49 going to Opelousas due to the ease of the I-49/US 190 route for points southeastward. The closure of the Melville ferry on LA 10 didn't help matters any, either.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 13, 2014, 07:54:19 PM
My only concern, really, with the ICC, is that you have an increased amount of traffic that will use I-49 at the I-20 interchange, and you would really have to rework the 49/20 interchange. A ramp from 49 South to 20 East would need to be built, and you would probably have to restripe EVERYTHING for new movements. Also, since I-49 North would exist, Cross Lake Bridge would need a widening, since you now have a shorter route from north Louisiana to east Texas instead of using Louisiana highways. As for Texarkana to Dallas traffic, they would use I-30, but Texarkana to anything else, like Marshall or Longview, would use I-49. We talk of increased traffic, but that increased traffic would also want to use a bypass of Shreveport instead of dealing with the 90-degree pattern of I-49 to I-20, instead of I-49 to I-220 to I-20. I could even see a new Red River bridge on 220 as well.

As for LA 3132, would it make sense to upgrade it to full Interstate status? I could see it resigned as an Interstate highway.. maybe not I-149, but an extension of I-220 if possible. If you upgrade it now while traffic levels are where they are, you avoid waiting until I-49 Detour traffic is routed through there.

However, in theory, I-49 North will not really have an increased traffic load exceeding the rate at which any other Shreveport freeways add traffic. Anyone who would use I-49 (aka Lafayette-to-Texarkana traffic) was already using LA 3132 to I-220 to US 71, then following US 71 to Arkansas. The Cross Lake Bridge will have to be widened, regardless of any Interstate designation thrown on it.

Now, I will ask this... what on earth does LA 3132 need to bring it up to Interstate standards? I see onramps and offramps with very long acceleration lanes, a 60 MPH speed limit, and mile-based exits. What else could we ask for, to make it have Interstate standards? Since this is a forum about LA 3132, and I see the accusation that it isn't up to Interstate standards, what would make it Interstate standard?

Just curious! :P
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bassoon1986 on May 13, 2014, 09:01:38 PM
I agree with Anthony that the proximity of Linwood Ave. to the I-49 exit is a big issue along LA 3132. It's more of a jam coming southward (technically east) on 3132 past Linwood. The on ramp from Linwood makes a third lane that extends past the I-49 exit. The exit is a slip rather than the 3rd lane exit only. It's constantly an issue to slow way down or scoot over quickly to catch your exit to I-49 south.

As far as the 20-49 interchange seeing increased traffic, I think it can handle it. 49 has 6 lanes of traffic through Shreveport and it isn't congested. That may change if it become a through route but I just can't imagine that it would need more lanes in the immediate future. I think future north and south through traffic on 49 would definitely stay on 49 through Shreveport rather than use the loop, although 3132/220 will continue to be a nice detour or bypass if needed. Like you said, any central and south Louisiana to Texas traffic will continue to follow 49 around 3132 to I-20 and vice versa.

I wonder about your argument about the Texarkana to Longview and east TX traffic. I just can't imagine that drivers would opt to drive straight south from Texarkana through Arkansas and North Louisiana then west on 220 and 20 rather than staying in Texas and taking a more direct route on US 59 straight from Texarkana to Marshall. Texas highways like 59 are more likely to have a 70 or even 75 mph speed limit these days. Although I-49 through LA will have 75 mph speed limit, I don't think the time benefit, if any will be worth it.

I've said it before. It doesn't make sense to have the current I-49 in Shreveport built from LA 3132 to I-20 and the northern section built down to connect to I-220 and not have the 3-4 miles of ICC not built. In town traffic will be relieved greatly with that completed. There's really just North Market St as a major arterial from the north side of town into downtown Shreveport and points further south into town. The only other usable road now as an alternative is LA 173 and it doesn't make sense to use unless you're coming from Blanchard. Morning traffic on LA 1/US 71 constantly gets hung up at the traffic light at MLK (LA 3194) just north of I-220. Id wager to say there is a hefty amount of commuters from the smaller towns north of Shreveport that a fully completed I-49 would benefit greatly.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 13, 2014, 11:25:13 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 13, 2014, 07:54:19 PM
My only concern, really, with the ICC, is that you have an increased amount of traffic that will use I-49 at the I-20 interchange, and you would really have to rework the 49/20 interchange. A ramp from 49 South to 20 East would need to be built, and you would probably have to restripe EVERYTHING for new movements. Also, since I-49 North would exist, Cross Lake Bridge would need a widening, since you now have a shorter route from north Louisiana to east Texas instead of using Louisiana highways. As for Texarkana to Dallas traffic, they would use I-30, but Texarkana to anything else, like Marshall or Longview, would use I-49. We talk of increased traffic, but that increased traffic would also want to use a bypass of Shreveport instead of dealing with the 90-degree pattern of I-49 to I-20, instead of I-49 to I-220 to I-20. I could even see a new Red River bridge on 220 as well.

The I-49/I-20 interchange does actually include both direct connector ramps and mainlane connections to both I-20 and to the one way couplet (Allen Ave./Pete Harris Ave.) that serves the downtown area. (Though, northbound traffic on I-49 could also use the Common St. and Third/Market combo interchanges to access the CBD.) It wouldn't take that much a remodel to complete the 4-level stack through extending the I-49 mainlanes through while retaining the connections to the local street couplet.

Most of the people using LA 3132 is probably New Orleans/Baton Rouge to DFW/OKC traffic that really does want to bypass Shreveport. The big payoff for completing I-49 (including the ICC) would be for the folks in Shreveport and those that would use I-49 as a north-south commuting route to Texarkana (and ultimately, once the Texarkana-Fort Smith segments  and the BVB are completed, to Kansas City) and Lafayette (ultimately, once I-49 South is done, NOLA). Driving interstates through downtown areas can be quite destructive, but placing them in close proximity to downtown is potential $$$$ that no bypass coould ever generate. That was the main reason businesses in Lafayette favor the I-49 Connector there, and why business groups in Alex got I-49 rerouted as it is today. (LADOTD had originally wanted I-49 to bypass Alexandria.)

Increased traffic shouldn't be an issue, because, as bassoon noted, I-49 is already 6 lanes from 3132 to 20, and the ICC will be six lanes all the way to I-220 (North)...and that doesn't include the Pete Harris/Allen couplet that will handle the transitory traffic to downtown. There is a case that could be made that I-20 would have to be widened through Shreveport to handle the potential increase in traffic from the west to downtown..but LADOTD already has plans for that anyway.

US 59 in Longview/Marshall and from Texarkana southward is going to be upgraded anyway under the I-369 project, so I can't see any divergence of traffic from there to I-49, even when the Shreveport/Texarkana segment is completed.

Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 13, 2014, 11:52:46 PM
How much money would a four-stack cost to redo? I couldn't imagine traffic from one mainline to another having to use surface streets... maybe use that piece of a stub on the onramp from North I-49 onto East I-20, but it seems like a quick fix.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 14, 2014, 03:53:36 AM
In the case of the I-20/I-49 stack, not much...all they would have to rebuild are the connections to the north mainlines and some connections to the surface service streets.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 26, 2014, 01:47:56 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 10, 2013, 03:53:43 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 30, 2013, 04:03:02 PM
NLCOG's Fiscal Year 2014 Unified Planning Work Program (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/upwp/FY2014UPWP.pdf) is now available for public review and comment and it expressly mentions the Stonewall, LA to Tenaha, TX Segment of Independent Utility ("SIU") 16 (page 6/43 of pdf; page 6 of 43 of document):
Quote
Task B-2 Project Development Stage 0 and Stage 1 ....
Coordination of ongoing efforts with I-69 SIU 16 connection the urban area to Texas.
NLCOG has posted its May 20, 2013 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_052013.pdf) and the draft minutes include discussion of the probability that I-69 SIU 16 is as low on LaDOTD's priority list as it is on TxDOT's priority list and that it may be counterproductive to take the lead on the project (page 3/4 of pdf):
Quote
Mayor Walker gave a brief update about I‐69 and stated that it seemed Texas would make SIU 16 as their last priority. Mr. Rogers stated NLCOG may want to pursue completing the Logansport to Stonewall area. Mr. Goza stated it would be low on LaDOTD's list as well, while Mayor Walker agreed that it may be counterproductive to pursue that angle.

NLCOG has posted its Fiscal Year 2015 Unified Planning Work Program (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/upwp/FY2015UPWP_draft.pdf) and, in addition to continuing efforts to complete the Stage 1 environmental analysis for the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension, it again mentions coordinating efforts with Texas regarding I-69 SIU 16 (page 7/45 of pdf; page 7 of 45 of document):

Quote
Task B-2 Project Development Stage 0 and Stage 1 ....
Stage 0 and Stage 1 of this process involves the feasibility and environmental analysis of the project. The purpose of Task B-2 is to develop Stage 0 Feasibility Studies and Stage 1 Planning and Environmental Studies for projects identified in the Long Range Plan. Specific focus will be given to those projects identified and/or earmarked in federal transportation legislation and those projects receiving Urban Area greater than 200k funding including Stage 1 Environmental Assessment for the Inner Loop (LA 3132) Extension and continued coordination of ongoing efforts with I-69 SIU 16 connection the urban area to Texas and continue to provide assistance to for the I-220 BAFB Gate Access Road.

I assume the "coordination of ongoing efforts" continues to move at a snail's pace, although making those efforts a "specific focus" may mean otherwise.




Quote from: Grzrd on August 17, 2013, 04:42:44 PM
The SIU 15 website has a new FEIS webpage (http://www.i69dotd.com/FEIS.htm) ....
Now wait and see if a ROD is issued and then if anything actually does start in 2014.

Speaking of moving at a snail's pace, I still do not see any indication of a Record of Decision from FHWA regarding the Shreveport/ Bossier City area I-69 SIU 15.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on June 01, 2014, 10:52:05 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 11, 2014, 10:45:20 AM
This May 7 video (http://www.ktbs.com/story/25458775/shreveport-mpc-denies-developers-application-for-land-in-possible-la-3132-extension-corridor) reports that the Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission recently denied an application to allow for the subdivision of some of Esplanade's lots ....
The Finish 3132 Coalition has posted its take regarding the vote on its blog:
http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/14-05-08/MPC_Commissioners_Again_Vote_to_Protect_Hwy_3132_Extension.aspx
Quote
The Coalition has asked the court to order NLCOG, the Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development (LA DOTD), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to re-do the Stage 0 Study of remaining route options. This followed the Coalition's discovery of irrefutable evidence - routes and explanatory emails from LA DOTD personnel - of routes which would protect surrounding homeowners - such as Twelve Oaks homeowners. The critical difference in these routes is that they would require Larkin's land. They were, thus, deliberately withheld from the public. The lots Larkin asked yesterday to be approved were dead within any remaining available route from Flournoy-Lucas to the Port. His Esplanade is the only undeveloped land available for construction of the Extension.

Although this Shreveport Times editorial (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20140601/OPINION/306010007/) is primarily about an alleged overpayment for bond work, the Times appears to point the finger at Mayor Cedric Glover as a major cause of the delays on the LA 3132 extension:

Quote
Hopes for Mayor Cedric Glover's administration to unite and bring the community closer for a new day in human relations now seem a distant past ....
However, when it comes to certain issues, a spirit of much-needed compromise falls fast to partisan bickering and political posturing.
For example, one can't even talk about the conflict over the stalled extension of La. Highway 3132 without heads (and tempers) exploding on all sides of the issue. Distrust fueled by lack of transparency and failure to put in place essential groundwork to involve ALL stakeholders seems to be a major fault ....
Obviously, either something is rotten in Shreveport or leadership has lost its way in bringing this beautiful and diverse community together to solve problems. We would prefer to believe the latter.
We urge our city's elected leadership to seek more solutions to our problems TOGETHER instead of throwing obstacles into the paths of progress.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on June 04, 2014, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 26, 2014, 01:47:56 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 17, 2013, 04:42:44 PM
The SIU 15 website has a new FEIS webpage (http://www.i69dotd.com/FEIS.htm) ....
Now wait and see if a ROD is issued and then if anything actually does start in 2014.
Speaking of moving at a snail's pace, I still do not see any indication of a Record of Decision from FHWA regarding the Shreveport/ Bossier City area I-69 SIU 15.

I recently received an email update from NLCOG indicating that a few more details need to be finalized with FHWA, and that an I-69 SIU 15 Record of Decision is currently hoped to be issued in September, 2014.  If that timeline comes to fruition, then the Record of Decision will be issued more than a year after completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Glacial..............................
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on June 11, 2014, 03:13:34 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 11, 2014, 10:45:20 AM
This May 7 video (http://www.ktbs.com/story/25458775/shreveport-mpc-denies-developers-application-for-land-in-possible-la-3132-extension-corridor) reports that the Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission recently denied an application to allow for the subdivision of some of Esplanade's lots

This TV video (http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/story/d/story/3132/13056/_Bvj2TFRa0C5IcUM1_EEFA) reports that the Shreveport City Council has reversed the decision of the Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission and will allow Larkin to subdivide his land:

Quote
Three hours: that's how long it took Shreveport City Council to hear one issue at the meeting today.
Developer and Bossier City Councilman Timothy Larkin made his plea to Shreveport City Council members on Tuesday, to continue building in the Esplanade subdivision in south Caddo Parish ....
City council granted his appeal, with some changes.
Larkin would have to leave out some lots that sit in the way of the possible route.
But those with the Finish 3132 Coalition believe he shouldn't continue building at all.
"We believe what Mr. Larkin is building is in the route,"  says Elliot Stonecipher. "We believe it will effectively kill the highway."
Stonecipher and neighbors in Esplanade and Twelve Oaks communities say an extension is desperately needed to relieve traffic in south Caddo Parish.

Here is a Stonecipher blog from the Finish 3132 website:

http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/14-06-10/Make_No_Mistake_Shreveport_This_Matters_and_Hurts_A_Lot.aspx

Here is a report from the Shreveport Times:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20140611/NEWS01/306110046/Shreveport-council-lets-Tim-Larkin-subdivide-his-land?nclick_check=1

Here is a KTBS video report:

http://www.ktbs.com/story/25744881/shreveport-city-council-reverses-mpcs-decision-on-neighborhood-near-hwy-3132-with-modifications
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on June 18, 2014, 02:27:10 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its May 29 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_05292014.pdf) and the Draft Minutes provide some discussion about I-69 in general, I-69 SIUs 15 & 16, and the LA 3132 extension:

I-69 in general:

Quote
Mr. England asked for an update on I‐69. Mr. Rogers stated he was willing to attend the Port's meeting to do a formal presentation. Mr. Rogers further stated while he was in Washington, DC with Mr. Bruce Easterly, they met with other coalitions regarding I‐69 and the reauthorization of the transportation bill. He stated I‐69 is talked about as one of the "Corridors of the Future"  program mentioned throughout legislation. This could bump up potential funding.




I-69 SIU 15:

Quote
[Mr. Rogers] also stated he met with the Louisiana delegation and that the SIU 14 record of decision (ROD) is a line item in the TIP for corridor preservation and right‐of‐way purchase. SIU 15, once a record of decision is received, would also have a TIP line item. Mr. Rogers stated memorandums of   understand and resolutions from the cities MPCs, and parishes would also be needed to preserve the right‐of‐way. He stated the SIU 15 ROD is expected at the end of September 2014.




I-69 SIU 16:

Quote
Mr. Rogers stated TXDOT will discuss with LaDOTD regarding the SIU 16 environmental work. Mayor Walker stated the connecting link of SIU 16 is needed as TXDOT is already signing US 59 as the future I‐69.




LA 3132:

Quote
Mr. England also asked about LA 3132 .... FHWA has stated a full environmental impact statement is required rather than an environmental assessment.

The long wait will be much longer now.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on July 01, 2014, 12:51:20 AM
In regards to LA 3132, Exit 7 shows Shreveport and Alexandria as control cities. However, looking back at pics, Shreveport is actually a green out. Anyone from NWLA have an idea as to what's underneath?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bassoon1986 on July 01, 2014, 07:09:12 PM
Yep sure do. I-49 only used to come as far north as the Inner Loop (LA 3132) and forced you off there. From 3132 you could only exit south to 49. So exit 7 signs only said Alexandria. When the portion of I-49 opened in Shreveport to connect the inner loop to I-20 (in either December of 94 or 95) they added Shreveport onto the existing sign.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on July 02, 2014, 06:09:45 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on July 01, 2014, 07:09:12 PM
Yep sure do. I-49 only used to come as far north as the Inner Loop (LA 3132) and forced you off there. From 3132 you could only exit south to 49. So exit 7 signs only said Alexandria. When the portion of I-49 opened in Shreveport to connect the inner loop to I-20 (in either December of 94 or 95) they added Shreveport onto the existing sign.
Interesting! Actually, in theory, wouldn't it make sense to leave it at Alexandria, since you're already in Shreveport?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bassoon1986 on July 02, 2014, 08:07:49 PM
Yeah. I feel like they need to change ones further north in the future if the ICC is ever completed. At Kings Hwy one exit south of I-49 at I-20 the sign for 49 north says Shreveport. It could easily be switched to Texarkana one day. I guess for now Shreveport works fine.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: cjk374 on July 06, 2014, 09:25:44 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 02, 2014, 06:09:45 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on July 01, 2014, 07:09:12 PM
Yep sure do. I-49 only used to come as far north as the Inner Loop (LA 3132) and forced you off there. From 3132 you could only exit south to 49. So exit 7 signs only said Alexandria. When the portion of I-49 opened in Shreveport to connect the inner loop to I-20 (in either December of 94 or 95) they added Shreveport onto the existing sign.
Interesting! Actually, in theory, wouldn't it make sense to leave it at Alexandria, since you're already in Shreveport?

You could pull "Shreveport" off and replace it with "Texarkana" once the ICC is finished.  I actually thought "Texarkana" was under "Shreveport" so it would be ready for the ICC completion.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on July 07, 2014, 01:23:07 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on July 06, 2014, 09:25:44 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 02, 2014, 06:09:45 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on July 01, 2014, 07:09:12 PM
Yep sure do. I-49 only used to come as far north as the Inner Loop (LA 3132) and forced you off there. From 3132 you could only exit south to 49. So exit 7 signs only said Alexandria. When the portion of I-49 opened in Shreveport to connect the inner loop to I-20 (in either December of 94 or 95) they added Shreveport onto the existing sign.
Interesting! Actually, in theory, wouldn't it make sense to leave it at Alexandria, since you're already in Shreveport?

You could pull "Shreveport" off and replace it with "Texarkana" once the ICC is finished.  I actually thought "Texarkana" was under "Shreveport" so it would be ready for the ICC completion.
Actually, looking at photos, if you pull "Shreveport" and replace it with "Texarkana" once the ICC was complete, then you would have to remove "To Texarkana" from LA 3132 and put something else in its' place. Always wondered why "To" was even on there... Maybe "Dallas, Port of Shreveport" or "Dallas, Coushatta" to give LA 3132 East a control city? Any thoughts?

Also, are there any plans to take I-69 and make it three lanes in each direction across the Red River? I'm sure it will be signed at the I-20/I-69 exit as "Alexandria, Haynesville" and at the I-49/I-69 exit as "Logansport, Bossier City", but what other points could be used? I-49 has three distance cities in each direction (Next Exit, Natchitoches, Alexandria, for example), so maybe Next Exit, Bossier City, El Dorado, since it would hook up with US 167 and US 82 there, and southbound, it would have Next Exit, Shreveport or Alexandria (via I-49), and Nacogdoches or Houston.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: jbnv on July 07, 2014, 03:36:13 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 02, 2014, 06:09:45 PM
Interesting! Actually, in theory, wouldn't it make sense to leave it at Alexandria, since you're already in Shreveport?

There's precedent in Louisiana for using the city you're already in as the control city. See numerous signs along I-10 and I-12 directing you to Baton Rouge when you are already in Baton Rouge. I think the 10-12 split is where Baton Rouge "begins" and the new control city is Lafayette.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bassoon1986 on July 08, 2014, 10:11:28 AM
Quote from: jbnv on July 07, 2014, 03:36:13 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 02, 2014, 06:09:45 PM
Interesting! Actually, in theory, wouldn't it make sense to leave it at Alexandria, since you're already in Shreveport?

There's precedent in Louisiana for using the city you're already in as the control city. See numerous signs along I-10 and I-12 directing you to Baton Rouge when you are already in Baton Rouge. I think the 10-12 split is where Baton Rouge "begins" and the new control city is Lafayette.

I could see signs being changed in Shreveport if and when ICC is completed through downtown. It would make sense to change destinations for I-49 north to Texarkana for those interchanges inside the LA 3132 loop (70th St, Pierremont, Kings) and maybe at the 3132 exit for 49 north as well. I could see Bert Kouns keeping Shreveport for 49 north. Similar to the west side of town: Pines Rd still shows Shreveport for I-20 east, but beginning at I-220/LA 3132, the city changes to Monroe.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on July 08, 2014, 03:49:41 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on July 08, 2014, 10:11:28 AM
Quote from: jbnv on July 07, 2014, 03:36:13 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 02, 2014, 06:09:45 PM
Interesting! Actually, in theory, wouldn't it make sense to leave it at Alexandria, since you're already in Shreveport?

There's precedent in Louisiana for using the city you're already in as the control city. See numerous signs along I-10 and I-12 directing you to Baton Rouge when you are already in Baton Rouge. I think the 10-12 split is where Baton Rouge "begins" and the new control city is Lafayette.

I could see signs being changed in Shreveport if and when ICC is completed through downtown. It would make sense to change destinations for I-49 north to Texarkana for those interchanges inside the LA 3132 loop (70th St, Pierremont, Kings) and maybe at the 3132 exit for 49 north as well. I could see Bert Kouns keeping Shreveport for 49 north. Similar to the west side of town: Pines Rd still shows Shreveport for I-20 east, but beginning at I-220/LA 3132, the city changes to Monroe.
Instead of just Monroe for I-20, could it possibly be changed to both Monroe and El Dorado or even Haynesville once I-69 opens? Both points are closer than Monroe.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: jbnv on July 08, 2014, 03:56:44 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on July 08, 2014, 10:11:28 AM
Quote from: jbnv on July 07, 2014, 03:36:13 PM
There's precedent in Louisiana for using the city you're already in as the control city. See numerous signs along I-10 and I-12 directing you to Baton Rouge when you are already in Baton Rouge. I think the 10-12 split is where Baton Rouge "begins" and the new control city is Lafayette.

I could see signs being changed in Shreveport if and when ICC is completed through downtown. It would make sense to change destinations for I-49 north to Texarkana for those interchanges inside the LA 3132 loop (70th St, Pierremont, Kings) and maybe at the 3132 exit for 49 north as well. I could see Bert Kouns keeping Shreveport for 49 north. Similar to the west side of town: Pines Rd still shows Shreveport for I-20 east, but beginning at I-220/LA 3132, the city changes to Monroe.

It is logical to have the control city be Shreveport outside of the loop and the next city by direction within it. It is logical to have the loop define the "boundary" of Shreveport regarding navigation.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on August 19, 2014, 09:55:27 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 12, 2013, 03:27:52 PM
This November 8 Shreveport Times article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20131109/NEWS01/311090025/Highway-3132-dispute-lingers) reports that lawsuits filed by the Finish 3132 Coalition have stalled the process for construction of the extension ....
The article does not provide an estimate of when the legal proceedings will allow the environmental study to proceed.

The Finish 3132 lawsuit has been dismissed without prejudice as premature pending completion of the Stage 1 study (http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/14-07-30/Good_News_for_3132_Extension_from_the_U_S_District_Court.aspx), and this article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2014/08/18/la-stage-study-moves-forward/14262173/) reports that the Stage 1 study is underway and that the consultant should have a dedicated website for the extension project up and running in the near future:

Quote
The ball is rolling on the Stage 1 Planning and Environmental Study for Louisiana Highway 3132 Inner Loop Expressway extension.
State, federal and local governing agencies met with Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc., the engineering consultant hired to conduct the study, Monday to go over the study's preliminaries. The meeting included selecting key point persons, reviewing the consultant timeline as well as getting a project layout ....
BKI is expected to produce a website that would update the public on the study's progress. The Stage 1 study is second step in LaDOTD's project delivery process.
BKI received notice to proceed with the 18-month study July 10.

Eighteen months for the study to be completed and then wait and see if more lawsuits are filed .............
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: JON30 on September 10, 2014, 10:56:04 AM
The ROD has been issued for I-69 SIU 15.  Approved!!
http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015%20ROD.pdf (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015%20ROD.pdf)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 10, 2014, 04:01:06 PM
And can we have the boundaries on SIU 15?  And is there any remote chance of funding on the horizon?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: thefro on September 10, 2014, 04:46:55 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on September 10, 2014, 04:01:06 PM
And can we have the boundaries on SIU 15?  And is there any remote chance of funding on the horizon?

The ROD seems to indicate it will be funded and very slowly built/completed between 2015-2026
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 10, 2014, 08:41:40 PM
I-49 to I-20?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on September 10, 2014, 08:44:25 PM
Quote from: thefro on September 10, 2014, 04:46:55 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on September 10, 2014, 04:01:06 PM
And can we have the boundaries on SIU 15?  And is there any remote chance of funding on the horizon?
The ROD seems to indicate it will be funded and very slowly built/completed between 2015-2026

Exhibit 6 from the ROD (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015%20ROD.pdf) shows that I-69 SIU 15 has been divided into five segments from US 171 to I-20 and it shows the order in which the five segments will be built, with the Red River Bridge segment being first (page 24/87 of pdf; Exhibit 6 of document):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpdeNjM5.jpg&hash=9f95493d7f2bd7a1dbec0699bdac4046bdfe45c5)

edit

Page 22 of the Record of Decision (page 23/87 of pdf) indicates that preliminary design work on the Red River Bridge can be advanced immediately:

Quote
Project appropriations currently exist to advance the Red River Bridge preliminary design upon completion of the NEPA studies and execution of the Record of Decision.

It looks like Louisiana is now the clear-cut favorite to complete its I-69 Red River Bridge before Arkansas and Texas complete their I-49 Red River Bridge.  :-P
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: cjk374 on September 14, 2014, 10:53:00 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 10, 2014, 08:44:25 PM

It looks like Louisiana is now the clear-cut favorite to complete its I-69 Red River Bridge before Arkansas and Texas complete their I-49 Red River Bridge.  :-P

That's a really bright spotlight for Louisiana to be in, but it just doesn't seem right for an interstate so close to being finished (49) to take a backseat to an interstate that is still, in some ways, a pipe dream in some places (69).  It just don't seem right.  :no:
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 14, 2014, 06:18:09 PM
LA is being wise in that the red River Bridge could become the most difficult part to complete so get it out of the way first.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: lordsutch on September 14, 2014, 06:27:28 PM
Plus the Red River crossing probably has the most independent utility of any of the segments; if funding dries up, better to have the bridge in place first rather than a freeway that goes to where the bridge isn't.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: cjk374 on September 14, 2014, 11:08:25 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on September 14, 2014, 06:18:09 PM
LA is being wise in that the red River Bridge could become the most difficult part to complete so get it out of the way first.

Quote from: lordsutch on September 14, 2014, 06:27:28 PM
Plus the Red River crossing probably has the most independent utility of any of the segments; if funding dries up, better to have the bridge in place first rather than a freeway that goes to where the bridge isn't.

Very true on both points.  :nod:
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Henry on September 16, 2014, 10:59:44 AM
Since TX is building out its sections of I-69 at a furious pace (compared to the other states anyway), I think it would make sense to build the portions south of Shreveport first, and then see what path the highway will take to the north.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: thefro on September 16, 2014, 09:27:29 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 16, 2014, 10:59:44 AM
Since TX is building out its sections of I-69 at a furious pace (compared to the other states anyway), I think it would make sense to build the portions south of Shreveport first, and then see what path the highway will take to the north.

I'm sure that's what they'll do once the Shreveport segments are done.  Much more utility in finishing the road to the TX border at the moment.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on September 26, 2014, 03:29:28 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 02, 2013, 12:05:13 PM
I had a recent Q & A with a NLCOG representative:
Quote
Q: ... The Implementation Schedule in the I-69 SIU 15 FEIS includes a little under $10 million for preliminary engineering for the Red River crossing for FY 2014.  However, in taking a look at the Draft District 4 FY 2014-15 Highway Program (http://www.dotd.la.gov/press/documents/09_30_2013_SFY_14_15_Highway_Program_District_04.pdf), I do not see the preliminary engineering included for the Red River crossing ...
A: ... until the project is issued a ROD, funds are not programmed and authorized for performing design/engineering, ROW acquisition, Utility Relocation, or Construction services along the selected alignment... otherwise our Federal partners will withdraw any future support (i.e. funding) for the project.
Quote from: JON30 on September 10, 2014, 10:56:04 AM
The ROD has been issued for I-69 SIU 15.  Approved!!
http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015%20ROD.pdf (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015%20ROD.pdf)

Since the ROD for SIU 15 was issued in early September, I was a little disappointed to see that the Preliminary FY 2015-16 Highway Program (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Preliminary%20Program/Fiscal%20Year%2015-16%20Highway%20Program%20District%2004.pdf) only references the Environmental Impact Statement and does not include any preliminary work on the Red River Bridge (page 11/38 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeGL1yGp.png&hash=3e33e2ae4a91d6af1736e7563840daf9505fbc07)

Maybe something will be added to the final version.

edit

The above link regarding the 2015-16 Highway Program only covers LaDOTD's District 4.  Links to the other districts can be found on this page:

http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Pages/Preliminary_Program.aspx
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on October 07, 2014, 08:34:10 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 26, 2014, 03:29:28 PM
Quote from: JON30 on September 10, 2014, 10:56:04 AM
The ROD has been issued for I-69 SIU 15.  Approved!!
http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015%20ROD.pdf (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015%20ROD.pdf)
Since the ROD for SIU 15 was issued in early September, I was a little disappointed to see that the Preliminary FY 2015-16 Highway Program (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Preliminary%20Program/Fiscal%20Year%2015-16%20Highway%20Program%20District%2004.pdf) only references the Environmental Impact Statement and does not include any preliminary work on the Red River Bridge (page 11/38 of pdf)

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Draft 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program ("TIP") (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/tip/Final_Draft_TIP2015_ShreveportMPO.pdf) for public comment.  In my first look at it, I could not find any preliminary work for the I-69 Red River bridge.  I emailed NLCOG to see if they had plans for I-69 during the 2015-2018 time period.  The response:

Quote
We are in consultation with LaDOTD about the next steps.  We previously had a line item in the TIP Year 2012 and therefore are not reflected in the current TIP.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEKMlpCv.jpg&hash=e2c12c8ad29ec6ff9ef6f331805efc069333792e)

At least NLCOG and LaDOTD are discussing the project.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on October 08, 2014, 10:53:43 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 26, 2014, 03:29:28 PM
Since the ROD for SIU 15 was issued in early September, I was a little disappointed to see that the Preliminary FY 2015-16 Highway Program (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Preliminary%20Program/Fiscal%20Year%2015-16%20Highway%20Program%20District%2004.pdf) only references the Environmental Impact Statement and does not include any preliminary work on the Red River Bridge (page 11/38 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeGL1yGp.png&hash=3e33e2ae4a91d6af1736e7563840daf9505fbc07)
Quote from: Grzrd on October 07, 2014, 08:34:10 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Draft 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program ("TIP") (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/tip/Final_Draft_TIP2015_ShreveportMPO.pdf) for public comment.  In my first look at it, I could not find any preliminary work for the I-69 Red River bridge.  I emailed NLCOG to see if they had plans for I-69 during the 2015-2018 time period.  The response:
Quote
We are in consultation with LaDOTD about the next steps.  We previously had a line item in the TIP Year 2012 and therefore are not reflected in the current TIP.

I just received an email update from LaDOTD regarding the current status of I-69 SIU 15:

Quote
Although the ROD has been issued for I-69, SIU 15, it is still in the environmental phase. The consultant is in the process of finalizing the Project Management Plan. That should be completed by the end of November. The PMP will contain an implementation plan to break up SIU 15 into smaller construction projects by schedule. 
Once the project is cleared environmentally, we will work to determine if the design will be done with in-house personnel or begin the consultant procurement process, provided enough funding is available.

I guess this explains the classification of the project in the Highway Program.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on October 27, 2014, 03:55:11 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted it October 17, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_10172014.pdf) and the Committee discussed all three of the Louisiana I-69 SIUs: SIUs 14, 15, and 16:

SIU 15 (issuance of ROD and implementation schedule):

Quote
Mr. Rogers discussed the I‐69 Section of Independent (SIU) 15 — Haughton to Stonewall (I‐20 to US 171). A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed August 28, 2014 ....
The MPO's 2012 Transportation Improvement Program allocated funding for preliminary engineering for Segment 3 from La 1 to US 71 including the Red River Bridge crossing.
The MPO will also be working to develop a corridor preservation plan for all of SIU 15. A Project Management Plan is being developed. Part of this process is to identify segments for implementation and a prioritization of those segments .... Mr. Altimus asked if there was funding for the bridge. Mr. Rogers stated there is some funding available for Segment 3 — approximately $20 million.

SIU 14 (corridor preservation):

Quote
Mr. Rogers briefly discussed I‐69 SIU 14 — El Dorado, AR to Haughton, LA (US 82 to I‐20). A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed April 27, 2012 ....
Mayor Walker cautioned that Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) are needed sooner rather than later to preserve the corridors. He asked if there was an MOU for SIU 14 corridor preservation. Mr. Rogers stated there was not and that LaDOTD discussed moving both projects [with SIU 15] forward together.

SIU 16 (coordination with TxDOT for environmental work):

Quote
Mr. Rogers discussed I‐69 SIU 16 — Stonewall, LA to Tenaha TX (US 171 to US 59). Texas is the lead agency on the formal environmental process for SIU 16. The MPO has been working with the two state DOTs to help further this work in Louisiana. Mr. Rogers stated an option is to use a portion of the earmarked funds to move forward with the environmental work on this SIU. Mr. Easterly stated this committee may need to ask LaDOTD to request a release from TxDOT in order to move this project forward.

Future I-20/ I-69 interchange (SIUs 14 & 15 - I-20 widening):

Quote
The I‐20 Bossier — I‐220 to Future I‐69 project entails widening I‐20 from just east of the I‐220 interchange to the future I‐69 interchange from 4‐lanes to 6‐lanes. Using the roughly $5 million /mile estimate from Texas Line to Pines Road project this would be $50+ million.
The I‐20 Bossier —Future I‐69 to Minden project entails widening I‐20 from the future I‐69 interchange to Minden, LA from 4‐lanes to 6‐lanes. Estimate would be $100+ million.

Still just a lot of "talk" about I-69 in Louisiana, but getting ever closer to some "walk".
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on October 28, 2014, 11:21:22 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 11, 2012, 09:47:30 AM
This article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012120808062) suggests that, although the Jimmie Davis Bridge is a current regional priority, a second bridge parallel to it might not be built in the foreseeable future because the I-69 Red River bridge could provide a useful crossing for years before I-69 SIU 15 is completed:
Quote
A second bridge parallel to the Jimmie Davis Bridge will have to wait, but repairs to the existing Red River crossing are in the works.
"This is a first start to get the Jimmie Davis Bridge back in shape,"  Sen. Barrow Peacock said. "They can start doing planning and engineering and next year move more money into it."  ....
with Interstate 69 in the works, a bridge could be built farther south near the Port of Caddo-Bossier and later used as the interstate's crossing over the Red River ....
Jimmie Davis Bridge .... was originally designed to carry 13,500 vehicles per day. According to Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development traffic counts, the bridge carried more than 24,000 per day in 2010 ....
Below is a photo of the Jimmie Davis Bridge accompanying the article:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeTzNT.jpg&hash=6bd579a73b97e87d2e4db2f862d55240c97cd4cd)

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted it October 17, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_10172014.pdf) and they indicate that the long-term plan is to build a sister span to the Jimmie Davis Bridge at an undetermined time after the rehab on the current span is completed:

Quote
Mr. Rogers discussed the LA 511 Jimmie Davis Bridge rehab. The initial project was based off the Stage 0 Feasibility study. This was to replace the existing bridge with a new facility or major rehab to existing and build of sister span. Funding has been secured for the major rehab of the existing facility ($20+ million) so the emphasis in the Stage 1 NEPA is to provide for a sister span. The cost of the additional span ranges from $50 ‐ $80 million. Dr. Wilson asked when the rehab would start. Mr. North stated that the project would be out letting on November 12. Mayor Walker asked if the bridge would still close in January for one year. Mr. North stated yes. Mr. Rogers stated the study would include bicycle and pedestrian connections for both sides of the river.

It looks like the I-69 Red River Bridge will be built before the sister span to the Jimmie Davis Bridge will be built. If so, then in a way the I-69 Red River Bridge will serve as a short-term quasi-relief route for the Jimmie Davis Bridge.




Quote from: Grzrd on January 14, 2014, 06:46:48 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 28, 2013, 07:26:45 PM
This article (http://bossierpress.com/2013/12/27/bossier-city-parish-look-ahead-to-2014/) reports that right of way purchasing for the extension from Sligo Road to LA 527 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Taylortown,+LA&hl=en&ll=32.404458,-93.622913&spn=0.117684,0.154324&sll=33.767713,-84.420604&sspn=0.463494,0.617294&oq=taylortown&t=h&hnear=Taylortown,+Bossier,+Louisiana&z=13) may begin in late 2014
This Shreveport Times article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20140114/NEWS01/301140038/Bossier-Parish-has-too-few-dollars-buy-right-way-Teague-parkway-extension) reports that declining sales tax revenues will delay the above schedule for ROW purchasing:
Quote
Efforts to ensure Arthur Ray Teague Parkway's connection to the future Interstate 69 have hit a roadblock.
Sales tax revenues for Bossier Parish in 2012 and 2013 were down a combined $3.6 million, which stalled plans to purchase the right-of-ways for the roadway's future southern extension from its current terminus to Taylortown.
(above quote from Western Louisiana (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3378.msg271209#msg271209) thread)

If the I-69 Red River Bridge does serve as a short-term relief route, then funding for and construction of the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway southern extension may coincide with the construction of the bridge, which would provide a nice eastern side of the "relief route". At this point, I don't think anyone can venture a guess as to when the LA 3132 western side of the "relief route" will be completed ................*

edit

* From the Draft Minutes:

Quote
Mr. Rogers discussed the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension which is now in the Stage 1. He said the Stage 0 identified four potential options, but that the Stage 1 would look at any and all options within the study area. He stated the options ranged from $60 — 100 million. The options fell into two categories: tying into LA 1 and tying into I‐69. He stated this study is still 18‐24 months from completion.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on November 20, 2014, 08:58:38 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 27, 2014, 03:55:11 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its October 17, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_10172014.pdf) ....
Quote
Mr. Rogers briefly discussed I‐69 SIU 14 — El Dorado, AR to Haughton, LA (US 82 to I‐20). A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed April 27, 2012 ....
Mayor Walker cautioned that Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) are needed sooner rather than later to preserve the corridors. He asked if there was an MOU for SIU 14 corridor preservation. Mr. Rogers stated there was not and that LaDOTD discussed moving both projects [with SIU 15] forward together.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee November 21, 2014 Agenda (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/MPO_Agenda_11212014.pdf) and it looks like they intend to ask to use federal earmarked funds for planning of I-69 SIUs 14 and 15 corridor preservation:

Quote
I-69 SIU 14 & 15 Corridor Preservation
Kent Rogers

Request use of Federal Earmarked funds to develop Corridor Preservation Plans for I-69 SIU's 14 and 15 within Louisiana




From the October 17 draft minutes:

Quote
Mr. Rogers discussed I‐69 SIU 16 — Stonewall, LA to Tenaha TX (US 171 to US 59). Texas is the lead agency on the formal environmental process for SIU 16. The MPO has been working with the two state DOTs to help further this work in Louisiana. Mr. Rogers stated an option is to use a portion of the earmarked funds to move forward with the environmental work on this SIU. Mr. Easterly stated this committee may need to ask LaDOTD to request a release from TxDOT in order to move this project forward.

The November 21 Agenda also indicates that they want to conduct a SIU 16 Stage 1 environmental study within Louisiana, which I suppose makes sense because Texas intends to upgrade US 84 to interstate standards on its side of the state line:

Quote
I-69 SIU 16 NEPA Environmental Impact Study
Kent Rogers

Request use of Federal Earmarked funds for the development of a Stage 1 NEPA Environmental Impact Study for I-69 SIU 16 within Louisiana

However, I think there will probably need to be some type of bypass around Logansport in the state line area that would need to be included in the study.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: codyg1985 on November 21, 2014, 06:53:21 AM
I'm really impressed with how proactive LaDOTD is when it comes to getting these major interstate projects done, even if it a slow but steady pace. They aren't moving as fast as TxDOT, however.

I envision that I-69 will have a gap between Shreveport and Memphis for the foreseeable future. Arkansas and Mississippi don't seem to have compelling reasons to finish the road other than the cliche "economic development" reasons that are always cited. Plus, MDOT is broke for now, and until they get more funding, I don't see anything happening with their sections, either.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on December 16, 2014, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2014, 08:58:38 AM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee November 21, 2014 Agenda (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/MPO_Agenda_11212014.pdf) and it looks like they intend to ask to use federal earmarked funds for planning of I-69 SIUs 14 and 15 corridor preservation .... The November 21 Agenda also indicates that they want to conduct a SIU 16 Stage 1 environmental study within Louisiana, which I suppose makes sense because Texas intends to upgrade US 84 to interstate standards on its side of the state line

This Dec. 12 5 min. 38 sec. TV video (http://www.ktbs.com/video?clipId=10941667&autostart=true) reports, among other things, that Louisiana is leery of Texas focusing on upgrading US 59 to Texarkana along the I-369 corridor at the expense of the SIU 16 mainline corridor through Louisiana, that Louisiana is working on corridor preservation for SIUs 14 & 15, that the Red River bridge is slated to be the first I-69 construction project in Louisiana, and that NLCOG believes that increases in both the Louisiana and federal gas taxes would be a good way to help pay for I-69 in Louisiana.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: seicer on December 16, 2014, 03:55:56 PM
Why not just complete Interstate 220 and use that alignment?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: NE2 on December 16, 2014, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on December 16, 2014, 03:55:56 PM
Why not just complete Interstate 220 and use that alignment?
Military hardasses.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on December 17, 2014, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 16, 2014, 01:58:59 PM
This Dec. 12 5 min. 38 sec. TV video (http://www.ktbs.com/video?clipId=10941667&autostart=true)

KTBS has another page featuring the above video (http://www.ktbs.com/story/27605744/another-interstate-in-northwest-louisiana-where-i-69-stands) that also includes some text from the video:

Quote
I-69 will run through eight states when it's complete, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. The miles left to build were divided into 32 segments, with 16 of those in Texas.
"Texas is working to upgrade US 59 to interstate standards for the great majority of that project,"  Rogers said.
The upgrades include the part of US 59 to Texarkana, which worries the northwest Louisiana's council of government or NLCOG.
The group said it appears Texas is not worried about the segment connecting to Louisiana, and by only focusing on US 59 separates Louisiana from the preferred corridor. NLCOG noted in a recent briefing, "If that is a fact, it would have a drastically negative impact on the utility of I-69 for the state of Louisiana."

Rogers said Louisiana is in charge of two legs–starting near Magnolia, Arkansas and passing through the Haughton area, and from Haughton around Barksdale Air Force Base to south of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish.
"We know we don't have enough money to buy all of the land needed for both of those sections, so what we want to do is put into place some ordinances and some things through the MPC's, the cities, the parishes–all the different bodies that would be involved--to preserve that corridor,"  Rogers said.
There is enough money to buy some land and Rogers said their first purchase would be at the Port of Shreveport Bossier so construction can start on the Red River Crossing. The bridge will connect to Highway 71 in Bossier Parish.
"It'll help relieve some of the stuff from the Jimmie Davis,"  Rogers explained. "Some of the earmarked moneys we've received over the past have language that referenced the Red River Crossing therefore; we pretty much have to use it in that area."
The Red River Crossing alone is estimated to cost more than $340 million–that's also about the same estimate for the proposed I-49 inner-city connector in Shreveport. The total cost for everything both segments in Louisiana is estimated to cost $1,948,415,300.

The webpage also has a link to NLCOG's "recent briefing", which is an October 2014 I-69 Status Report (http://ftpcontent2.worldnow.com/ktbs/files/I69inLouisianastatusreportforOctober2014.pdf).  The language regarding SIU 16 referenced in the video is as follows (page 14/18 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Foocyr0U.jpg&hash=5f7c4833854c1d388d491717170c526a8ad53acb)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 18, 2014, 09:21:20 AM
I would assume that Texas designating the Tenaha to Texarkana segment of US 59 as I-369 rather than I-69 would resolve the fears of NLCOG that they are being bypasses by the entire I-69 corridor....plus, the plans for Texas to upgrade the US 84 corridor from Tenaha to the LA state line would settle any issues.


I do think that TXDOT and LADOTD need to get together and resolve these differences, though, and get back in the same page.



Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on December 20, 2014, 10:47:39 AM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its December 2014 Draft Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 Update (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/tip/LRTP2035_Complete%20Report_12182014.pdf).  The timetable for road projects is essentially divided into three parts: (1) the current 2015-18 TIP, (2) the Short-Range Program (FY 2019 and 2020), and the Long-Range Program (FY 2021-2035).  I was mildly surprised/disappointed that the I-69 Red River Bridge project (I think) is placed in the Long-Range Program instead of the Short-Range Program. Apparently, the I-220 extension to Barksdale is a higher priority and has been placed in the Short-Range program (page 48/53 of pdf; page 6-4 of document):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FukDEBCH.jpg&hash=4af339d2c159ae572a820db1b4543f27eef62e7a)

Here is a snip from the Long-Range Program; I am a little confused that it only references I-69 from US 71 to I-20, which would not include the Red River Bridge (possible draft typo? - US 171 to I-20 would encompass all of SIU 15, including the Red River Bridge) (page 50/53 of pdf; page 6-6 of document):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FttS0HAX.jpg&hash=388e793ba7c0f83e1be50d691797c3515135480b)

Due to the uncertainties surrounding the I-49 Inner City Connector and the LA 3132 Inner Loop extension, I am not surprised that they are included in the Long-Range Program.  However, the recent issuance of the Record of Decision for I-69 SIU 15 seems to make it possible that work on SIU 15 could start in the FY 2019-2020 time frame.  That said, NLCOG has greater priorities and not much money to make it happen.

If anyone is interested, NLCOG will accept written comments on the Draft Plan through January 16, 2015.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on January 07, 2015, 03:15:49 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2014, 08:58:38 AM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee November 21, 2014 Agenda (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/MPO_Agenda_11212014.pdf) ... The November 21 Agenda also indicates that they want to conduct a SIU 16 Stage 1 environmental study within Louisiana, which I suppose makes sense because Texas intends to upgrade US 84 to interstate standards on its side of the state line.
Quote from: Grzrd on December 17, 2014, 08:26:17 PM
KTBS has another page featuring the above video (http://www.ktbs.com/story/27605744/another-interstate-in-northwest-louisiana-where-i-69-stands) that also includes some text from the video:
Quote
"Texas is working to upgrade US 59 to interstate standards[/b] for the great majority of that project,"  Rogers said.
The upgrades include the part of US 59 to Texarkana, which worries the northwest Louisiana's council of government or NLCOG.
The group said it appears Texas is not worried about the segment connecting to Louisiana, and by only focusing on US 59 separates Louisiana from the preferred corridor. NLCOG noted in a recent briefing, "If that is a fact, it would have a drastically negative impact on the utility of I-69 for the state of Louisiana." ....
The webpage also has a link to NLCOG's "recent briefing", which is an October 2014 I-69 Status Report (http://ftpcontent2.worldnow.com/ktbs/files/I69inLouisianastatusreportforOctober2014.pdf).

In the December 2014 I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Route Study Working Group Recommendation Report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/harrison-marshall/grp-recommendations-1214.pdf), the following language may support NLCOG's concerns that TxDOT is ignoring its responsibilities as the lead agency for I-69 SIU 16 in both Texas and Louisiana by studying only the Texas component of I-69 SIU 16 (page 7/25 of pdf; page 7 of document):

Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is working to find the most appropriate means to develop the I-69 System from Texarkana and the Louisiana state line to the Mexico border in the Lower Rio Grande Valley and Laredo.

Although failing to mention the section of SIU 16 in Louisiana from US 171 to the Texas state line is probably understandable, doing so provides another argument for Louisiana to conduct its own study of SIU 16 in Louisiana.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: txstateends on January 07, 2015, 06:42:53 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 07, 2015, 03:15:49 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2014, 08:58:38 AM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee November 21, 2014 Agenda (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/MPO_Agenda_11212014.pdf) ... The November 21 Agenda also indicates that they want to conduct a SIU 16 Stage 1 environmental study within Louisiana, which I suppose makes sense because Texas intends to upgrade US 84 to interstate standards on its side of the state line.
Quote from: Grzrd on December 17, 2014, 08:26:17 PM
KTBS has another page featuring the above video (http://www.ktbs.com/story/27605744/another-interstate-in-northwest-louisiana-where-i-69-stands) that also includes some text from the video:
Quote
"Texas is working to upgrade US 59 to interstate standards[/b] for the great majority of that project,"  Rogers said.
The upgrades include the part of US 59 to Texarkana, which worries the northwest Louisiana's council of government or NLCOG.
The group said it appears Texas is not worried about the segment connecting to Louisiana, and by only focusing on US 59 separates Louisiana from the preferred corridor. NLCOG noted in a recent briefing, "If that is a fact, it would have a drastically negative impact on the utility of I-69 for the state of Louisiana." ....
The webpage also has a link to NLCOG's "recent briefing", which is an October 2014 I-69 Status Report (http://ftpcontent2.worldnow.com/ktbs/files/I69inLouisianastatusreportforOctober2014.pdf).

In the December 2014 I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Route Study Working Group Recommendation Report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/harrison-marshall/grp-recommendations-1214.pdf), the following language may support NLCOG's concerns that TxDOT is ignoring its responsibilities as the lead agency for I-69 SIU 16 in both Texas and Louisiana by studying only the Texas component of I-69 SIU 16 (page 7/25 of pdf; page 7 of document):

Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is working to find the most appropriate means to develop the I-69 System from Texarkana and the Louisiana state line to the Mexico border in the Lower Rio Grande Valley and Laredo.

Although failing to mention the section of SIU 16 in Louisiana from US 171 to the Texas state line is probably understandable, doing so provides another argument for Louisiana to conduct its own study of SIU 16 in Louisiana.

Wow, this sounds like it may end up as a who-will-blink-first a-la the I-49 border situations at both AR-LA and MO-AR.  Hopefully it doesn't and cooperation/sanity will prevail.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: cjk374 on January 07, 2015, 06:47:37 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 07, 2015, 03:15:49 PM
Although failing to mention the section of SIU 16 in Louisiana from US 171 to the Texas state line is probably understandable, doing so provides another argument for Louisiana to conduct its own study of SIU 16 in Louisiana.

I really don't know why Texas got put in charge of Louisiana's land.  Louisiana should be working on Louisiana's land, and Texas working on their land.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: codyg1985 on January 07, 2015, 08:32:40 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on January 07, 2015, 06:47:37 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 07, 2015, 03:15:49 PM
Although failing to mention the section of SIU 16 in Louisiana from US 171 to the Texas state line is probably understandable, doing so provides another argument for Louisiana to conduct its own study of SIU 16 in Louisiana.

I really don't know why Texas got put in charge of Louisiana's land.  Louisiana should be working on Louisiana's land, and Texas working on their land.

Louisiana is also in charge of SIU 17 that goes up into Arkansas to I think El Dorado.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on January 07, 2015, 11:21:32 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 07, 2015, 08:32:40 PM
Louisiana is also in charge of SIU 17 that goes up into Arkansas to I think El Dorado.

LaDOTD was the lead agency for SIU 14 (Shreveport, LA to El Dorado, AR) and did a fine job in leading the process, in cooperation with AHTD, that resulted in an August, 2011 I-69 SIU 14 Final Environmental Impact Statement:

http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2014/I-69%20SIU%2014%20FEIS%208-2011.pdf

FHWA later issued a Record of Decision for I-69 SIU 14 in April, 2012:

http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2014/I-69%20SIU%2014%20Signed%20ROD%20%2004-27-2012.pdf

edit

The project even had a logo using the "boot" formed by the two states:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSVIYGLb.jpg&hash=c3326896897861ecf4dd97f4a83efe1bcb07e7bd)

IIRC Arkansas and LSU play for a trophy called "The Boot" in their annual football game.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: galador on January 08, 2015, 06:03:37 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 07, 2015, 11:21:32 PMIIRC Arkansas and LSU play for a trophy called "The Boot" in their annual football game.

You do recall correctly:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F7%2F71%2FThe_boot_%2528lsu-arkansas%2529.jpg&hash=d4acfb81946747348f75c094a21cf2eb4d0b9e12)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on January 12, 2015, 01:25:18 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2014, 08:58:38 AM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee November 21, 2014 Agenda (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/MPO_Agenda_11212014.pdf) and it looks like they .... want to conduct a SIU 16 Stage 1 environmental study within Louisiana
Quote from: Grzrd on December 17, 2014, 08:26:17 PM
KTBS has another page featuring the above video (http://www.ktbs.com/story/27605744/another-interstate-in-northwest-louisiana-where-i-69-stands) that also includes some text from the video:
Quote
"Texas is working to upgrade US 59 to interstate standards for the great majority of that project,"  Rogers said.
The upgrades include the part of US 59 to Texarkana, which worries the northwest Louisiana's council of government or NLCOG.
The group said it appears Texas is not worried about the segment connecting to Louisiana, and by only focusing on US 59 separates Louisiana from the preferred corridor. NLCOG noted in a recent briefing, "If that is a fact, it would have a drastically negative impact on the utility of I-69 for the state of Louisiana."
Quote from: txstateends on January 07, 2015, 06:42:53 PM
Wow, this sounds like it may end up as a who-will-blink-first a-la the I-49 border situations at both AR-LA and MO-AR.  Hopefully it doesn't and cooperation/sanity will prevail.
Quote from: cjk374 on January 07, 2015, 06:47:37 PM
I really don't know why Texas got put in charge of Louisiana's land.  Louisiana should be working on Louisiana's land, and Texas working on their land.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee November 21, 2014 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_11212014.pdf), which reflect that NLCOG has requested that Secretary LeBas authorize LaDOTD to conduct an I‐69 SIU 16 NEPA Environmental Impact Study for the portion within Louisiana and to use current earmarked funds to pay for the study:

Quote
Mayor Walker moved on to the next item, I‐69 SIU 16 NEPA Environmental Impact Study, stating it is in our best interest to start this process. Mr. Rogers stated in his request to Secretary LeBas, Texas DOT is ignoring this portion of the project and asked to start the environmental document for the portion that is in Louisiana. Mayor Walker gave a brief overview of the project.
Dr. Wilson motioned to approve the Request use of Federal Earmarked funds for the development of a Stage 1 NEPA Environmental Impact Study for I‐69 SIU 16 within Louisiana; seconded by Mayor Glover. The motion passed unanimously.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on January 13, 2015, 12:23:10 PM
On www.la3132.com (http://www.la3132.com/), LaDOTD has posted FHWA's December 9, 2014 Logical Termini Approval (http://www.la3132.com/dist/assets/pdfs/APPROVED_Logical_Termini_12_2014.pdf) of LA 526, LA 1, and Future I-69 for the LA 3132 extension.  Also posted is a January 9, 2015 Stage 1 Environmental Study Solicitation of Views packet (http://www.la3132.com/dist/assets/pdfs/01092015_SOV_Letter_and_Package.pdf), in which the Purpose and Need of the project is described as follows:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5ZJVhqP.png&hash=d77f01a9a3456bfc2614624ffdcb7c7cb7e46a11)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ft9Fnlrl.png&hash=fd4e8b284c91f21dda4e954b2bf449132715cf4c)

It is still envisioned as a high-speed full control access project.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on February 06, 2015, 11:41:37 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 20, 2014, 10:47:39 AM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its December 2014 Draft Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 Update (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/tip/LRTP2035_Complete%20Report_12182014.pdf).  The timetable for road projects is essentially divided into three parts: (1) the current 2015-18 TIP, (2) the Short-Range Program (FY 2019 and 2020), and the Long-Range Program (FY 2021-2035).  I was mildly surprised/disappointed that the I-69 Red River Bridge project (I think) is placed in the Long-Range Program instead of the Short-Range Program.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 05, 2015, 10:49:27 PM
this article (http://surfky.com/index.php/component/content/article/123-general-news-for-all-sites/57398-advocates-re-launch-bipartisan-i-69-congressional-caucus) reports that the six Congressmen who formed the 2013 Caucus are all still in office and have re-launched the I-69 Caucus .... However, it looks like neither Arkansas nor Louisiana currently has a member in the Caucus.
(bottom quote from Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10534.msg2040465#msg2040465) thread)

This article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/02/05/area-planners-mull-uncertain-growth/22937589/) reports that leaders from Caddo and Bossier parishes recently held a brainstorming session, in part to see if I-69 can be completed during their lifetimes:

Quote
Planners and leaders from agencies and businesses across Caddo and Bossier parishes met Thursday to study figures on population growth and set up a framework to divine future needs, from transportation and water supplies to schools and hospitals.
Sponsored by the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments and facilitated by the Alliance Transportation Group, the four-hour meeting was a Delphi process kickoff meeting, where the more than 60 invited participants met, possibly for the only time, to brainstorm.
Delphi is "a brainstorming and consensus-building process developed by the defense industry and aerospace industry back in the 1960s," Alliance Director of Planning Jim Harvey said. These "use a group of experts to explore issues that past activity or performance historical trends don't necessarily predict future outcomes."
That's particularly important now, he said, since the nation is slowly recovering from a recession that has lasted almost a decade ....
Faces in the crowd included Shreveport Downtown Development Authority head Liz Swaine, Bossier Parish Administrator Bill Altimus, Cyber Innovation Center Vice President G.B. Cazes, Shreveport Public Assembly and Recreation Director Shelly Ragle, SporTran Director Dinero Washington, BPCC Risk Management Director (and former Bossier City Council Member) David Jones and Bossier Parish Parish Engineer Butch Ford.
The last three were among a group of eight people sitting at one table, typical of the mini-brainstorm sessions that took place in the Bodcau Room of the Bossier Civic Center.
Issues bounced around the table ranged from the potential for growth at Barksdale Air Force Base, especially if Global Strike Command there is bumped up to four-star status, to drainage issues, to whether Interstate 69 will be realized during the lifetime of those present, to the interaction between the two parishes.

Strongly encouraging a Congressperson from the Caddo/Bossier area to participate in the Congressional I-69 Caucus might be a reasonable first step towards at least completing I-69 SIU 15 in their lifetimes.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 06, 2015, 08:41:25 PM
I believe that the Congressman representing Shreveport/Bossier at this time is John Fleming. Unfortunately, he's a pretty radical Tea Party-type conservative Republican whom has said in the past that the Federal government should have nothing to do with funding transportation, and he's solidly against raising the gas tax. I guess for him, it's either tolls or nothing re: I-69 in Louisiana.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on February 07, 2015, 10:01:33 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 06, 2015, 08:41:25 PM
I believe that the Congressman representing Shreveport/Bossier at this time is John Fleming. Unfortunately, he's a pretty radical Tea Party-type conservative Republican whom has said in the past that the Federal government should have nothing to do with funding transportation, and he's solidly against raising the gas tax. I guess for him, it's either tolls or nothing re: I-69 in Louisiana.

In looking at Fleming's website (http://fleming.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=177864), it appears that, back in the earmarks era (specifically 2009), he sought $1.28 billion in federal appropriations to complete I-69 in Louisiana.  He later took credit for securing the $750,000 that was ultimately allocated to Louisiana's section of I-69 that year (http://fleming.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=177880).  With that in his history, it seems like he would consider participating in the Caucus (and maybe he will, but simply not be one of the six co-chairs).
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on March 09, 2015, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 05, 2015, 12:53:38 PM
LA 3132 has been truncated
(above quote from Moving I-69 Out of NWLA (Responding to NE2)  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14950.msg2048527#msg2048527) thread)

This March 6 TV video (http://www.ksla.com/story/28285971/cc-to-dc-i-49-inner-city-connector-its-a-no-brainer) reports on a trip by representatives of the Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce to Washington, D.C. in order to lobby for funding in regard to several projects.  What I find interesting about the report is that the Chamber speaks of completion of the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension in the same breath as completion of the I-49 Inner City Connector in terms of importance to the Greater Shreveport area:

Quote
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
The Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce is using basic geometry to make their point to lawmakers in Washington D.C. about building the I-49 inner city connector and completing the 3132 Inner Loop, direct to the Port of Shreveport/Bossier.

"It's a no-brainer," says Robert Dean, the chamber's chairman of the board ....
"It's kind of like baseball," adds Dean.
"We've got our foot hovering over home plate. And we can finish the two little spurs of road and basically bring to fruition the full ability to utilize the assets of I-49, 3132 and the port."

Yes, the LA 3132 extension is on life support, but the Chamber apparently thinks it is important enough to allow to mature to a fully productive life.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on March 21, 2015, 11:50:54 AM
Hi, I'm new to this site and have learned quite a bit about the road projects in the Shreveport/Bossier area.  It seems to me, finishing I-49 through the downtown area and then getting I-69 construction started should be the priority.  The Shreveport/Bossier area will be sitting pretty for future growth with 3 major interstates triangulating the area. 

One thing new that I learned here was the proposed 220 extension, south of I-20 to create a new entrance to Barksdale AFB.  I can't understand the logic in that, unless it is contingent on a big expansion of Barksdale. 

One other observation:  The I-69 SIU-15 construction priority is to first build the bridge over the Red River and connect w/ Hwy 71 on the Bossier side and Hwy 1 on the Shreveport side, right at the Port.  Could the I-69 bridge make the new, second Jimmy Davis bridge a lower priority.???  There's only so much money to go around! 

Priority #2 on I-69 SIU-15 is then to connect to the Red River bridge to I-49.  If this happens, does Hwy 3132 extension need to happen?  Again, there's only so much money to go around.

Just a few humble observations and opinions from an interested taxpayer.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bassoon1986 on March 22, 2015, 07:08:51 PM
Hi Dave! Welcome to the forum! I'm from Shreveport, too. I love in Woodworth now,just south of Alexandria.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on April 08, 2015, 12:46:19 PM
Quote from: Dave H on March 21, 2015, 11:50:54 AM
Hi, I'm new to this site ....
Priority #2 on I-69 SIU-15 is then to connect to the Red River bridge to I-49.  If this happens, does Hwy 3132 extension need to happen?
Just a few humble observations and opinions from an interested taxpayer.

Welcome!  You may want to circle May 7 on your calendar for an opportunity to ask your Highway 3132 extension question at a NLCOG Open House Public Meeting regarding the LA 3132 (Inner Loop) Extension (http://www.finish3132.com/Documents/3132-Public-Meeting-Thursday-May-07-2015.pdf):

Quote
NLCOG and the LA 3132 Stage 1 Environmental Study Project Team will conduct a Public Meeting for a proposed extension of LA 3132 to initiate public involvement'on the project.
This project is currently in the planning stage. Representatives of the project team will be present to receive comments and answer questions related to the proposed project ... All interested parties are invited and encouraged to attend. The Public Meeting will be offered at two sites for convenience ....
Members of the public may arrive at any time during the meetings. The meeting will include a brief, continuously-running slide presentation, project team availability for direct questions during an open house, followed by a question and answer session in the final 30 minutes.

One of the meetings should provide a great opportunity for you to follow up on your interest.




Quote from: Dave H on March 21, 2015, 11:50:54 AM
The I-69 SIU-15 construction priority is to first build the bridge over the Red River and connect w/ Hwy 71 on the Bossier side and Hwy 1 on the Shreveport side, right at the Port.  Could the I-69 bridge make the new, second Jimmy Davis bridge a lower priority.???  There's only so much money to go around!

FWIW I agree with you, particularly if the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway southern extension is completed around the time that the I-69 Red River bridge is completed, as I mentioned in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4510.msg2016495;topicseen#msg2016495).
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on April 26, 2015, 09:02:15 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 12, 2015, 01:25:18 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee November 21, 2014 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_11212014.pdf), which reflect that NLCOG has requested that Secretary LeBas authorize LaDOTD to conduct an I‐69 SIU 16 NEPA Environmental Impact Study for the portion within Louisiana and to use current earmarked funds to pay for the study

The Alliance for I-69 Texas Resource Center page (http://i69texasalliance.com/resource.html) now includes a link to an April 22, 2015 State-by-state status updates presented to the I-69 Congressional Caucus PowerPoint presentation.  Page 16/24 of the presentation discusses SIU 16, but it gives no indication that Louisiana is conducting its own NEPA review for the Louisiana section of SIU 16:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqbWP7LR.jpg&hash=c773cfb2f78e001af059690bf5e46af498afcc05)

I suppose that there is no real need to hurry ..........................
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 04, 2015, 08:28:35 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 08, 2015, 12:46:19 PM
Quote from: Dave H on March 21, 2015, 11:50:54 AM
Priority #2 on I-69 SIU-15 is then to connect to the Red River bridge to I-49.  If this happens, does Hwy 3132 extension need to happen?
You may want to circle May 7 on your calendar for an opportunity to ask your Highway 3132 extension question at a NLCOG Open House Public Meeting regarding the LA 3132 (Inner Loop) Extension (http://www.finish3132.com/Documents/3132-Public-Meeting-Thursday-May-07-2015.pdf)

Also, this article (http://bossierpress.com/i-69-public-forum-to-be-held-may-6-in-bossier/) reports that the I-69 Mid Continent  Coalition, Inc. will hold a series of public forums this month to discuss the status of the Interstate 69 project, with a May 6 meeting in Bossier City, a May 13 meeting in Homer, and a May 20 meeting in Stonewall:

Quote
Bossier City Mayor Lo Walker, who is president of the I-69 Mid Continent  Coalition, Inc. executive committee, plans to attend this week's meeting in Bossier as well as others scheduled later this month. Walker, along with Max LeComte, Executive Director of the Coordinating and Development Corporation (who also serves as the Mid Continent Coalition Louisiana vice-president) will be on hand to provide the public with an overview of the I-69 project.
The public  is invited to attend and will be able to ask questions about plans regarding development of I-69 in northwest Louisiana.
There will also be an opportunity to sign up to become a Team Member of the I-69 Coalition, Inc.

edit

I think each meeting will focus on a particular I-69 SIU, i.e. May 6 (SIU 15), May 13 (SIU 14), and May 20 (SIU 16):

Quote
The first meeting will be held in Bossier City Wednesday, May 6, for Bossier, Caddo and Red River Parishes .... The next meetings will be held Wednesday, May 13 ...  (For Claiborne, Webster, Lincoln, and Bienville Parishes) and Wednesday, May 20 ...  (For DeSoto, Sabine, and Natchitoches Parishes).




Quote from: Grzrd on April 26, 2015, 09:02:15 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas Resource Center page (http://i69texasalliance.com/resource.html) now includes a link to an April 22, 2015 State-by-state status updates presented to the I-69 Congressional Caucus PowerPoint presentation.  Page 16/24 of the presentation discusses SIU 16, but it gives no indication that Louisiana is conducting its own NEPA review for the Louisiana section of SIU 16

Maybe the May 20 meeting will provide some insight as to whether LaDOTD is proceeding with a NEPA review for Louisiana's section of I-69 SIU 16.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: thefro on May 08, 2015, 01:41:12 PM
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/05/06/progress-ki69-forum/70908330/

QuoteFor too long Interstate 69 has taken a back seat to Interstate 49 and Bossier City Mayor Lo Walker wants to change that.

"I love I-49 but I'm ready to get to work on I-69," Walker told about 30 people gathered Wednesday afternoon in the Bossier Civic Center for the first of three public forums on the planned interstate. Walker is president of the I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition executive committee.

Admittedly, construction of the interstate, stretching 2,000 miles from Michigan's border with Canada southward to Mexico, is perhaps up to a decade or two away. But the time is now, Walker said, to refocus Louisiana residents on the benefits of the highway and what they can do to help speed it along.

The most influence citizens can have is making sure their state and national lawmakers know of their support. "We're restarting our efforts to inform and get people behind it," Walker said.

Three sections will cross through northwest Louisiana. One enters the state from near El Dorado, Ark., and ends at Haughton. The second extends from Haughton to Stonewall, and the third leaves Stonewall and juts into Texas from Logansport, where already a two-span bridge is being constructed over the Sabine River.

Estimated Louisiana costs: $29 billion. And therein lies the problem: Where is the money? The project requires an 80/20 split of federal and state funds.

"That's the big elephant in the room," Walker said.

Church opposes La. 3132 alternative route

"Creative funding" may be the answer, said Kent Rogers, Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments president.

In a meeting in Washington, D.C., last week, Walker said ideas such as repatriation of funds from outside of the U.S., tolls roads and public-private partnerships were tossed about. One clear message was to not look at a gasoline tax increase.

"In the long term they will look at anything and everything ... every type of option out there for funding," Rogers said.

Some federal funds in hand are earmarked for bridge projects so building a new four-lane span over the Red River near the Port of Shreveport-Bossier will be the first segment slated for construction.

Max LeComte, executive committee vice president and Coordinating and Development Corporation president, is confident in I-69's future because of its importance in the nation's freight system. The Panama Canal is being deepened and widened, meaning eventually more foreign cargo ships will take that route to ports along the southern coast.

"There will be emphasis on funding where it ties into freight," LeComte said. "The heart of our future is in our transportation system."

Another request to the congressional delegation is getting I-69 designated as a national freight corridor. An example of its benefit to heavy haulers is the savings of 8 hours on a drive from Port Huron to Mexico, Walker said.

The next step for NLCOG is to work with municipalities along the route to make sure regulations are in place to keep development from encroaching on the defined corridors, Rogers said.

NLCOG is also working to add I-69 information to its website for public access and to drive interest.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 08, 2015, 08:56:11 PM
$29 BILLION for Louisiana's share of I-69? Really?? When the entire I-49 South extension will cost less than $2 billion? Someone needs to proofread their stories over there. I assume they meant $2B for LA's segment of I-69, right?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: cjk374 on May 09, 2015, 11:03:27 AM
That has to be a typo. Even with the new Red River bridge, there is no way it will take $29B to build that.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Chris on May 09, 2015, 02:43:05 PM
They probably meant $ 2.9 billion?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2015, 10:21:34 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 08, 2015, 08:56:11 PM
$29 BILLION for Louisiana's share of I-69? Really?? When the entire I-49 South extension will cost less than $2 billion? Someone needs to proofread their stories over there. I assume they meant $2B for LA's segment of I-69, right?

Yes, $2 billion is the estimated cost to complete I-69 SIUs 14 and 15 in Louisiana (but does not include a cost estimate to complete I-69 SIU 16 in Louisiana), as reflected in this slide from an April 22, 2015 state-by-state status updates presented to the I-69 Congressional Caucus PowerPoint (linked on this page (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/resource.html) (slide 17/54)):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZV6p0QX.jpg&hash=39a3dd639af2ba6bc67ecdccac1fe265cd9600a7)




The $29 billion figure is approximately the estimate to complete the entire I-69 Corridor in the U.S., as reflected in this slide from the Mississippi part of the presentation (slide 28/54 of PowerPoint):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FoBekGVH.jpg&hash=061415b443a9f320aa33b7090cc2efc9f4209e19)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 13, 2015, 10:12:21 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") now has an I-69 Information Outlet (http://www.nlcog.org/Transport/I69%20Info.htm) page on its website.  The intent for the page is for it to be a repository of a lot of Louisiana I-69 information:

Quote
The intent of this site is to provide current information regarding the status of I-69 within Northwest Louisiana. Further, this site will serve as an I-69 data resource consisting of links to news releases/articles, map graphics, and pertinent images.

Let's hope that NLCOG fulfills its intent.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 16, 2015, 12:00:47 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 08, 2015, 12:46:19 PM
Quote from: Dave H on March 21, 2015, 11:50:54 AM
Priority #2 on I-69 SIU-15 is then to connect to the Red River bridge to I-49.  If this happens, does Hwy 3132 extension need to happen?
You may want to circle May 7 on your calendar for an opportunity to ask your Highway 3132 extension question at a NLCOG Open House Public Meeting regarding the LA 3132 (Inner Loop) Extension (http://www.finish3132.com/Documents/3132-Public-Meeting-Thursday-May-07-2015.pdf)

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted the Information Flyer for the May 7 meeting (http://nlcoglistens.com/sites/nlcog2.engagingplans.org/files/document/pdf/Information_Flyer_LA3132_4p.pdf), which includes a map for each of the four build alternatives.  This May 8 Shreveport Times article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/05/07/happening-today-public-meetings-la/70940028/) reports that the route alternatives have been adjusted from their Stage 0 versions:

Quote
Kent Rogers, executive director of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, said the alignment of the alternative routes has been adjusted since the La. 3132 Inner Loop Extension's Stage 0 Feasibility Study concluded.
Sections of the routes were shifted up in some areas or down in other areas. Rogers said public input gathered from Thursday's sessions will be used to make additional changes.

The article describes the alternatives as follows:

Quote
The alternatives include:
- A "no build" option
- Alternative A – a 3.3 mile controlled-access roadway extending La. 3132 at East Flournoy Lucas Road to La. 1.
- Alternative B1 – a 6.6 mile controlled-access roadway extending La. 3132 at East Flournoy Lucas Road to the future Interstate 69 corridor near Naylor Airstrip.
- Alternative B2 –a 5.9 mile controlled-access roadway extending La. 3132 also from East Flournoy Lucas Road to the future I-69 corridor to Naylor Airstrip.
- Alternative C – a 3.8 mile controlled access roadway extending from La. 3132 near East Bert Kouns Industrial Loop to La. 1 near Leonard Road.

Meanwhile, the Finish 3132 Coalition still suspects that NLCOG is trying to steer the process to the "no build" option (http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/15-05-08/The_Battle_to_Bring_3132_Extension_Back_to_Life.aspx):

Quote
Building a Louisiana highway is one of the most awfully political, inscrutable and insanely expensive - in all ways - processes known to man, woman or child. Attending one of these "public meetings" is a taste of the mayhem. First escorted into a darkened-room for a video presentation complete with robotic narration, we then proceeded to a display of all manner of maps and and easels and other devices, ordered and hastened to fill out this sheet or form or card, then directed to put them on or into this box or table.
Emphasis here is on making sure no questions of any kind somehow escape some silly taxpayer's brain and mouth, no matter how accidentally. In fact, the lengths to which these people go to completely stomp-out citizen participation make these confabs a raw and open assault on our rights.
When we were done, mass rolling of eyes and shaking of heads over until the next time, one thing of real importance had occurred. The would-be Esplanade development of Bossier City Councilman Tim Larkin was additionally protected, at the expense of some homeowners in the Twelve Oaks subdivision in Shreveport ....
All that being said, there is a good chance that a "No Build," the only study outcome which fully protects Esplanade, may be the result of this Stage 1 Study. Two additional meetings from and by NLCOG will occur between now and a decision, supposedly early next year.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on May 16, 2015, 01:55:19 PM
Just looking at Google Maps, why can't LA 3132 be extended directly south to tie into Ellerbe Rd? To make a tighter turn south, and to create an easier gradient for the curve, we can eliminate the Flournoy Lucas interchange. If the state does that, imagine how much people in the neighborhoods that want a no-build option will complain that the state "took away their highway."

I would prefer Alternative A, eliminating the interchange with Flournoy Lucas. Honestly, though, I would have preferred the state blocking any purchase of land directly in the ROW.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on June 16, 2015, 09:48:50 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 30, 2013, 03:22:51 PM
this January 2013 map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) ... (pp. 7-8/122 of pdf)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwSGwd7B.jpg&hash=5471e4c70707092f0ef533d6455a80714df7508b)
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg256570;topicseen#msg256570) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on August 06, 2012, 06:18:58 PM
The I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg1_final.pdf) ... (page 21/155 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVWdNt.png&hash=921f62b57bd046ee3b52463703852412e2f2bc60)
(above quote from Texarkana (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg166484;topicseen#msg166484) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on January 12, 2015, 01:25:18 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee November 21, 2014 Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_11212014.pdf), which reflect that NLCOG has requested that Secretary LeBas authorize LaDOTD to conduct an I‐69 SIU 16 NEPA Environmental Impact Study for the portion within Louisiana and to use current earmarked funds to pay for the study:
Quote
Mr. Rogers stated in his request to Secretary LeBas, Texas DOT is ignoring this portion of the project and asked to start the environmental document for the portion that is in Louisiana ....
Dr. Wilson motioned to approve the Request use of Federal Earmarked funds for the development of a Stage 1 NEPA Environmental Impact Study for I‐69 SIU 16 within Louisiana; seconded by Mayor Glover. The motion passed unanimously.

I recently emailed LaDOTD to see if they are following up on NLCOG's request to conduct the environmental study for the Louisiana section of SIU 16 and I was surprised to learn that LaDOTD does not want to conduct the study because "more than 70% of SIU 16 falls within Texas":

Quote
Currently, DOTD has an agreement with Texas whereby the responsibility for the EIS for SIU 16 is with Texas, as more than 70% of SIU 16 falls within Texas. DOTD does not plan to terminate this agreement at this time.
DOTD realizes the importance of the I-69 corridor and remains committed to I-69 through Louisiana. DOTD completed the environmental process for SIU 14 and SIU 15 and these segments each have a Record of Decision with selected alignments. For now, DOTD intends to focus on moving these segments further along, in particular SIU 15 near Shreveport. As these segments move forward, interest in moving SIU 16 forward will likely increase.

I don't know where the southern terminus for the "old" SIU 16 was in Texas, but, using a 70+%/-30% eyeball, I'm guessing that it was somewhere near Nacogdoches. As the above two maps indicate, TxDOT and the I-69 Segment One Citizen Committee have proceeded with and are steadily proceeding with studies on Segment One (which includes the "old" SIUs 29 and 16), which could be to the possible detriment of Louisiana and its section of SIU 16.  In other words, it appears that TxDOT is already doing preliminary work on both its section of SIU 16 and the Tenaha-Texarkana SIU 29 corridor, but with absolutely no efforts going towards Louisiana's section of SIU 16.

I understand that, as a practical matter, nothing would happen on Louisiana's SIU 16 in the near future even if an environmental study were conducted.  That said, I would consider progress on SIU 16 to be more important than progress on SIU 14.  SIU 14 already has a ROD; why should LaDOTD not start the process to get one for SIU 16, particularly if it can be paid for with earmarked funds?




Quote from: Grzrd on May 13, 2015, 10:12:21 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") now has an I-69 Information Outlet (http://www.nlcog.org/Transport/I69%20Info.htm) page on its website.

NLCOG has posted its maps of SIU 14 and SIU 15 (http://www.nlcog.org/Transport/I69%20Info.htm) showing the route of the I-69 Corridor in those SIUs.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mcdonaat on June 16, 2015, 11:38:31 PM
Just curious, but why is I-69 following US 59 from Nacogdoches to Logansport instead of TX 7 through Center? It seems like less development along TX 7, and you would serve an additional town with an airport. Also, with the new US 84 bridge going up, will I-69 require a second bridge over the Sabine? It took LA/TX 20 years to go forward with a new bridge, so I-69 might never get finished!
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 17, 2015, 01:32:01 AM
Unless they plan on breaking up I-69 into three parts or routing I-69 through Texarkana, then I-30, I'm guessing that they are simply delaying the development of SIU 16 until there's resolution on the other SIU's on US 59 southward to Houston. Also, Louisiana will have its hands full with finishing I-49 South, which is their #1 priority now, with #2 probably being I-10 in Baton Rouge/Baton Rouge Outer Loop, #3 being the I-49 Shreveport ICC.

I'm assuming that the new bridge for US 84 near Logansport will be built with future Interstate standards in mind, right? Then, TX and LA can join forces to complete SIU 16 to US 171 once SIU 15 is completed.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on September 16, 2015, 03:44:15 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 20, 2014, 10:47:39 AM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its December 2014 Draft Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 Update (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/tip/LRTP2035_Complete%20Report_12182014.pdf).  The timetable for road projects is essentially divided into three parts: (1) the current 2015-18 TIP, (2) the Short-Range Program (FY 2019 and 2020), and the Long-Range Program (FY 2021-2035).  I was mildly surprised/disappointed that the I-69 Red River Bridge project (I think) is placed in the Long-Range Program instead of the Short-Range Program.

Maybe the I-69 Red River Bridge project is in the Long-Range Program for a good reason. The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 21, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_08212015.pdf) and they indicate the possibility that, if a certain alignment for the LA 3132 extension is selected, then that may "possibly disrupt or re-open" the Record of Decision ("ROD") for I-69 SIU 15. (pp. 5, 6/6 of pdf; pp. 5, 6 of document):

Quote
LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension ....
Mr. Rogers
directed the members to the handouts and slides from the Project Advisory Committee's (PAC) second meeting. Mr. Rogers stated the meeting consisted of discussion of the input received from the public meetings, the analysis done prior to the public meetings and the input from the PAC. He discussed a couple of the issues that were found with some of the alignments and interchanges. Mr. Rogers stated there would be more review and then the PAC would develop a preferred alternative ....
Mayor Walker stated the alignment on the LA3132 extension that would possibly disrupt or re‐open the I‐69 EIS ROD would not be in the best interest as it took so long to get that ROD.

Maybe the third time would be the charm ..........
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 16, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 16, 2015, 03:44:15 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 20, 2014, 10:47:39 AM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its December 2014 Draft Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 Update (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/tip/LRTP2035_Complete%20Report_12182014.pdf).  The timetable for road projects is essentially divided into three parts: (1) the current 2015-18 TIP, (2) the Short-Range Program (FY 2019 and 2020), and the Long-Range Program (FY 2021-2035).  I was mildly surprised/disappointed that the I-69 Red River Bridge project (I think) is placed in the Long-Range Program instead of the Short-Range Program.

Maybe the I-69 Red River Bridge project is in the Long-Range Program for a good reason. The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 21, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_08212015.pdf) and they indicate the possibility that, if a certain alignment for the LA 3132 extension is selected, then that may "possibly disrupt or re-open" the Record of Decision ("ROD") for I-69 SIU 15. (pp. 5, 6/6 of pdf; pp. 5, 6 of document):

Quote
LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension ....
Mr. Rogers
directed the members to the handouts and slides from the Project Advisory Committee's (PAC) second meeting. Mr. Rogers stated the meeting consisted of discussion of the input received from the public meetings, the analysis done prior to the public meetings and the input from the PAC. He discussed a couple of the issues that were found with some of the alignments and interchanges. Mr. Rogers stated there would be more review and then the PAC would develop a preferred alternative ....
Mayor Walker stated the alignment on the LA3132 extension that would possibly disrupt or re‐open the I‐69 EIS ROD would not be in the best interest as it took so long to get that ROD.

Maybe the third time would be the charm ..........

Can I assume, Grzz, that the offensive alignment for the LA 3132 extension would be the one that goes over to LA 1 and then uses the LA 1 alignment to connect with I-69? I can see why, since that section and the ultimate interchange with I-69 would not meet Interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on September 17, 2015, 08:16:39 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 16, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
Can I assume, Grzz, that the offensive alignment for the LA 3132 extension would be the one that goes over to LA 1 and then uses the LA 1 alignment to connect with I-69? I can see why, since that section and the ultimate interchange with I-69 would not meet Interstate standards.

Anthony, I had no idea which alignment is at issue and emailed NLCOG to get some clarification. Basically, they are considering a suggestion from the general public to look at a "single footprint" facility for LA 3132 extension Alternatives B1 and B2 that would incorporate the LA 1/ I-69 interchange. The NLCOG response:

Quote
Mayor Walker was referring to the publically generated request to consider a multi-stacked, directional interchange where LA 1/I-69 SIU-15/LA 3132 Ext Alternatives B1 and B2 interchange within a single footprint/facility. This would trigger the "re-opening"  of the I-69 SIU-15 EIS document since it is currently cleared (i.e. ROD issued) for the interchange of LA 1 and I-69 SIU-15 alignment at the Port... not a 3 system directional interchange as was suggested at one of our public meetings.

I think that this suggestion was put forth at the May 7, 2015 public meetings (http://nlcoglistens.com/public-meetings-la-3132-ext-stage-1-round-1); as a result, this suggestion is not included in the maps for Alternatives B1 and B2 that were presented at the meetings.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 18, 2015, 12:45:26 PM
I wonder, though...exactly how would they merge LA 1, I-69, and LA 3132 in such a mega-directional interchange?

I'd prefer that they modify Alignment A with frontage roads along the segment concurrent with LA 1, and then modify the existing LA 1/I-69 interchange with directional free-flow ramps, making that segment a true freeway/freeway interchange. Otherwise, go with B-1 or B-2 as currently designed, as a standalone alignment for LA 3132.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on October 02, 2015, 05:18:17 AM
I saw where the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition posted on their website that the 3132 extension is no longer the best option.  They stated and sent a letter to NLCOG that the I-69 section between I-49 and the Red River will cure the truck problem in the urban areas.  Gee, I posted that on this sight back in March.

I sent an email to the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition website asking them if they now support the "No Build" option.  Have not heard back from them.

On the issue of the potential 3132/LA1/I-69 interchange, I was told the Feds have a requirement that interchanges must be no closer than 2 miles.  So they either stack them altogether or the B1 or B2 options for 3132 has to move far enough west to be 2 miles away from the I-69/LA1 interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on October 02, 2015, 03:07:57 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 04, 2011, 12:29:31 PM
Two words, Shreveport MPO/NLCOG: CORRIDOR PRESERVATION.
Why the city allowed the subdivisions to get in the way of the Inner Loop extension in the first place is a major concern.
Quote from: Dave H on October 02, 2015, 05:18:17 AM
I saw where the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition posted on their website that the 3132 extension is no longer the best option.  They stated and sent a letter to NLCOG that the I-69 section between I-49 and the Red River will cure the truck problem in the urban areas.  Gee, I posted that on this sight back in March.
I sent an email to the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition website asking them if they now support the "No Build" option.  Have not heard back from them.

Maybe the Finish 3132 Coalition will change its name to the Start I-69 Coalition!  :biggrin:
Focusing on I-69 between I-49 and the Red River Bridge probably does make the most economic sense and maybe there is no need to "cut the corner" with the Extension.

This thread began with the NLCOG meeting where Cedric Glover "killed" the extension, ostensibly to the benefit of developer Tim Larkin's Esplanade subdivision and to the detriment of the Twelve Oaks subdivision (and Willis-Knighton).  Reading the Draft Minutes posted in the OP, I find it hard to believe that Finish 3132 had not previously considered the I-69 option. I get the sense that Twelve Oaks, after several years of fighting the alleged favoritism to Larkin, has decided that if they can't beat Esplanade, then they will join them.  Both subdivisions would theoretically experience less truck traffic and not be disturbed by Extension ROW if the "I-69 option" is adopted.  The recent rise of a possible "threat" to the I-69 ROD by certain LA 3132 Extension possibilities might lead a suspicious mind to believe that a back-room deal has already been reached, i.e. "we either have to build I-69 now or go through another endless environmental process for I-69 - let's come together and get it built!" provides cover for everyone.

How this process finally plays out should be really interesting.

Here is a link to the letter sent to Kent Rogers at NLCOG:

http://www.finish3132.com/documents/stonecipher/Pesnell-letter-to-Kent-Rogers-9-21-15.pdf

Here is Finish 3132's post about the letter:

http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/15-09-30/A_New_and_Far_Superior_Hwy_3132_Extension_Route.aspx
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 02, 2015, 06:11:30 PM
Ohhhh-kay.


So, that would pretty much get LADOTD to expedite their segment of I-69 through NW LA, and could potentially give a kick to the bootys of Arkansas and Mississippi to get moving on their I-69 segments as well.


Problem is, though....that would basically dead-end LA 3132, and all but kill any hopes of a completed Inner Loop.


If that be the case, then they might as well downgrade all of LA 3132 east of I-49 to expressway standards, rebuild the Flournoy-Lucas Road interchange with LA 3132 as a conventional intersection, and just extend 3132 as an arterial to LA 1 with at grade connections to both the Esplanade and Twin Oaks neighborhoods.


Unless, of course, they are secretly planning to revive that I-220 extension through Barksdale AFB....


Before all that is settled, they better focus on completing the I-49 Inner City Connector first.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: cjk374 on October 02, 2015, 07:10:07 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 02, 1970, 11:06:22 AM


Before all that is settled, they better focus on completing the I-49 Inner City Connector first.

I whole-heartedly agree with this.   :clap:

In fact, my honest opinion lists these projects in the order I feel should be the highway priority list for Shreveport/Bossier City:

1.  The I-49 ICC. I would have put the I-49/I-220 interchange here if they had not already started the work.

2. The I-69 Red River crossing just so the Jimmie Davis bridge/LA 511 can get some relief.

3. Finding/building a place to end LA 3132.

4. Any updating/improvements to LA 3132 from Bert Kouns north to I-20/I-220. Because...(go to #5)

5. I think they should complete the loop of I-220 and bring it around the eastern edge of the BAFB property. They can build a tall cyclone fence along the interstate to keep trepassers out. Look no further than Huntsville, AL alongside I-565 where it meets the Marshall Flight Center property (or is that Redstone Arsenal? Cody...Freebrick...anyone?)

6. Widening I-20 through Shreveport/Bossier City.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: codyg1985 on October 02, 2015, 09:12:26 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on October 02, 2015, 07:10:07 PM
5. I think they should complete the loop of I-220 and bring it around the eastern edge of the BAFB property. They can build a tall cyclone fence along the interstate to keep trepassers out. Look no further than Huntsville, AL alongside I-565 where it meets the Marshall Flight Center property (or is that Redstone Arsenal? Cody...Freebrick...anyone?)

It is Redstone that I-565 is adjacent to. There is just a regular fence there.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on October 05, 2015, 12:19:21 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 02, 2015, 06:11:30 PM
Ohhhh-kay.


So, that would pretty much get LADOTD to expedite their segment of I-69 through NW LA, and could potentially give a kick to the bootys of Arkansas and Mississippi to get moving on their I-69 segments as well.


Problem is, though....that would basically dead-end LA 3132, and all but kill any hopes of a completed Inner Loop.


If that be the case, then they might as well downgrade all of LA 3132 east of I-49 to expressway standards, rebuild the Flournoy-Lucas Road interchange with LA 3132 as a conventional intersection, and just extend 3132 as an arterial to LA 1 with at grade connections to both the Esplanade and Twin Oaks neighborhoods.


Unless, of course, they are secretly planning to revive that I-220 extension through Barksdale AFB....


Before all that is settled, they better focus on completing the I-49 Inner City Connector first.

If the "No Build" option on Hwy 3132 wins out, I bet a smaller project of a parkway type road ends up getting built, south of Flournoy Lucas and either connecting with Leonard Rd or Hwy 1.  The developers might even foot the bill on this.

If Shreveport-Bossier ends up "Trianglulated" w/ I-20, I-49 and I-69, does it really need a 220 loop around BAFB?  That's basically where I-69 is headed, towards Haughton.  For me, a 220 loop on the south side of SB is a bridge too far, or at least a bypass too much.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: jasondobbins on October 07, 2015, 02:50:36 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 02, 2015, 03:07:57 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 04, 2011, 12:29:31 PM
Two words, Shreveport MPO/NLCOG: CORRIDOR PRESERVATION.
Why the city allowed the subdivisions to get in the way of the Inner Loop extension in the first place is a major concern.
Quote from: Dave H on October 02, 2015, 05:18:17 AM
I saw where the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition posted on their website that the 3132 extension is no longer the best option.  They stated and sent a letter to NLCOG that the I-69 section between I-49 and the Red River will cure the truck problem in the urban areas.  Gee, I posted that on this sight back in March.
I sent an email to the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition website asking them if they now support the "No Build" option.  Have not heard back from them.

Maybe the Finish 3132 coalition will change its name to the Start I-69 Coalition!  :biggrin:
Focusing on I-69 between I-49 and the Red River Bridge probably does make the most economic sense and maybe there is no need to "cut the corner" with the Extension.

This thread began with the NLCOG meeting where Cedric Glover "killed" the extension, ostensibly to the benefit of developer Tim Larkin's Esplanade subdivision and to the detriment of the Twelve Oaks subdivision (and Willis-Knighton).  Reading the Draft Minutes posted in the OP, I find it hard to believe that Finish 3132 had not previously considered the I-69 option. I get the sense that Twelve Oaks, after several years of fighting the alleged favoritism to Larkin, has decided that if they can't beat Esplanade, then they will join them.  Both subdivisions would theoretically experience less truck traffic and not be disturbed by Extension ROW if the "I-69 option" is adopted.  The recent rise of a possible "threat" to the I-69 ROD by certain LA 3132 Extension possibilities might lead a suspicious mind to believe that a back-room deal has already been reached, i.e. "we either have to build I-69 now or go through another endless environmental process for I-69 - let's come together and get it built!" provides cover for everyone.

How this process finally plays out should be really interesting.

Here is a link to the letter sent to Kent Rogers at NLCOG:

http://www.finish3132.com/documents/stonecipher/Pesnell-letter-to-Kent-Rogers-9-21-15.pdf

Here is Finish 3132's post about the letter:

http://www.finish3132.com/Meetings-News/Elliott-Stonecipher/15-09-30/A_New_and_Far_Superior_Hwy_3132_Extension_Route.aspx

Focusing on the I-69 segment between I-49 and LA HWY 1 does make some sense. However, the approved ROD for I-69 SIU 15 says the Red River Bridge is the top priority segment and will go to construction first. The ROD would probably need to be reopened to change the implementation schedule. It took a long time to get that ROD approved, so I don't see them reopening the ROD.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on November 05, 2015, 07:57:48 PM
Quote from: Dave H on October 02, 2015, 05:18:17 AM
I saw where the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition posted on their website that the 3132 extension is no longer the best option.  They stated and sent a letter to NLCOG that the I-69 section between I-49 and the Red River will cure the truck problem in the urban areas.  Gee, I posted that on this sight back in March.
I sent an email to the Finish Hwy 3132 Coalition website asking them if they now support the "No Build" option.  Have not heard back from them.
Quote from: Dave H on October 05, 2015, 12:19:21 PM
If the "No Build" option on Hwy 3132 wins out, I bet a smaller project of a parkway type road ends up getting built, south of Flournoy Lucas and either connecting with Leonard Rd or Hwy 1.  The developers might even foot the bill on this.

The NLCOG website (http://www.nlcog.org/) has posted that Open House Public Meeting #2 for the Stage 1 Environmental Assessment will be held on November 19:

Quote
Open House Public Meeting #2 Set for LA 3132 Extension Environmental Assessment Study

Efforts to determine if and how LA 3132 will be extended are continuing as the Stage 1 Environmental Assessment study progresses. To date, the project team, led by engineering firm Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc. (BKI) has met with federal, state and local officials and requested input from these entities, as well as from area technical advisory personnel as they seek to further refine the alternatives brought forth as a result of the feasibility study. Initial Open House Public meetings for this study were held in May 2015 to gain input on potential alternatives.
The preliminary results of the alternatives analysis will be available for review during the second public meeting offered on Thursday evening, November 19. The public is encouraged to attend to provide their input. The open house public meeting time and location is:

Thursday, November 19, 2015
4:00 pm - 7:00 pm
LSU-Shreveport
University Center Ballroom
One University Place
Shreveport, LA 71115


A continuous presentation will be available throughout the meeting, as well as an open house session with project team members. A question and answer period will take place during the last 30 minutes of the meeting.

It will be interesting to see how much emphasis, if any, NLCOG will place on the "I-69 alternative"; it fits in well with the "if and how" language in the announcement.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on November 16, 2015, 04:44:22 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 16, 2015, 09:48:50 PM
I recently emailed LaDOTD to see if they are following up on NLCOG's request to conduct the environmental study for the Louisiana section of SIU 16 and I was surprised to learn that LaDOTD does not want to conduct the study because "more than 70% of SIU 16 falls within Texas":
Quote
Currently, DOTD has an agreement with Texas whereby the responsibility for the EIS for SIU 16 is with Texas, as more than 70% of SIU 16 falls within Texas. DOTD does not plan to terminate this agreement at this time.
DOTD realizes the importance of the I-69 corridor and remains committed to I-69 through Louisiana. DOTD completed the environmental process for SIU 14 and SIU 15 and these segments each have a Record of Decision with selected alignments. For now, DOTD intends to focus on moving these segments further along, in particular SIU 15 near Shreveport. As these segments move forward, interest in moving SIU 16 forward will likely increase.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its September 18, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_09182015.pdf) and the Minutes, as part of a LA 3132 Extension update, indicate that NLCOG intends to try again and approach the next governor and next LaDOTD Secretary (Sherri LeBas has announced that she is stepping down) for the funding to start the NEPA process for Louisiana's part of SIU 16 (p. 5/6 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIaL8aAi.png&hash=6f67cb7906487dfea30fec83be1f6b23a9d9c0d0)

I will be surprised if NLCOG receives a different answer the second time around.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: thefro on November 23, 2015, 08:34:38 AM
Well, the governor-elect belongs to a different political party than the current LA governor, so it's certainly worth a shot for them to make another request.
Title: Re: El Paso Projects: Go-10 and Border West Expressway debut sites
Post by: Dave H on November 24, 2015, 07:21:05 PM
I went to the Hwy 3132 Project Update presentation at LSUS last week.  All the alternatives were presented and some of the pros and cons of each option were highlighted.  My take on it was the Alternative A option has been less econically attractive due to upgrade requirements to LA1 interchange.  It seems one of the B options seems to be the preferred "Build" option.  I also think a "No Build" option will be considered.  It's interesting to note the either of the B options do not directly connect with the Port and there do little to improve or remove truck traffic from Flournoy-Lucas and LA1.  Therefore, I support the No Build option, as stated before, and just wish the money and effort goes into I69.

The alternatives include:
- A "no build" option
- Alternative A – a 3.3 mile controlled-access roadway extending La. 3132 at East Flournoy Lucas Road to La. 1.
- Alternative B1 – a 6.6 mile controlled-access roadway extending La. 3132 at East Flournoy Lucas Road to the future Interstate 69 corridor near Naylor Airstrip.
- Alternative B2 –a 5.9 mile controlled-access roadway extending La. 3132 also from East Flournoy Lucas Road to the future I-69 corridor to Naylor Airstrip.
- Alternative C – a 3.8 mile controlled access roadway extending from La. 3132 near East Bert Kouns Industrial Loop to La. 1 near Leonard Road.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on December 09, 2015, 11:12:13 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 04, 2011, 12:29:31 PM
Two words, Shreveport MPO/NLCOG: CORRIDOR PRESERVATION.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 16, 2015, 04:44:22 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its September 18, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_09182015.pdf) and the Minutes, as part of a LA 3132 Extension update, indicate that NLCOG intends to try again and approach the next governor and next LaDOTD Secretary (Sherri LeBas has announced that she is stepping down) for the funding to start the NEPA process for Louisiana's part of SIU 16 (p. 5/6 of pdf)
Quote from: thefro on November 23, 2015, 08:34:38 AM
Well, the governor-elect belongs to a different political party than the current LA governor, so it's certainly worth a shot for them to make another request.

This article (http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/local_news/article_82b7d068-9e5c-11e5-bcff-b7b9aa3c336c.html), reporting about a recent meeting in El Dorado, AR about I-69 and the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, quotes Max LeComte, president and CEO of the Coordinating and Development Corporation of Shreveport, as saying that Texas is not even enthusiastic about spending money on the Texas part of SIU 16 and confirming that outgoing Gov. Bobby Jindal has not been a supporter of I-69; however, local support has been demonstrated by Stonewall making efforts to preserve its corridor and by Logansport considering the possibility of doing likewise:

Quote
Max LeComte, president and CEO of the Coordinating and Development Corporation of Shreveport, talked about Interstate 69 activities in Louisiana and Texas.
Louisiana has struggled to find political support for the superhighway. Outgoing Gov. Bobby Jindal has not supported the I-69 project.
However, public support for the project is showing life. The City of Stonewall recently annexed all land along the highway's prospective route through the town so that development may be controlled.
Officials in Logansport, where the interstate will cross from Louisiana into Texas, are considering a similar move.

The current cost estimate for the McGehee-Haynesville leg is $600 million. It will cost $900 million to build 110 miles of Interstate 69 across Northwest Louisiana.
The State of Texas, meanwhile, is spending about $100 million annually to upgrade portions of U.S. 59 to interstate standards. Texas is not enthusiastic about spending money on the planned portion of Interstate 69 from Logansport to Tenaha, TX, LeComte said ....
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on December 12, 2015, 03:43:51 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 05, 2013, 01:40:37 PM
I emailed LaDOTD and asked them if they considered this to be an I-69 project, and, if so, has a corridor been chosen for a Logansport bypass. Louisiana does not consider this project to have anything to do with I-69 and asserts that there are no current plans for a Logansport bypass:
Quote
This project will construct 2 new bridges that will have two lanes going in  eastbound and westbound direction. 
As of now, there is no Logansport bypass
.... Who knows? If the new Sabine River bridges are ultimately incorporated into I-69, and construction begins on them before construction begins on the I-69 Red River bridge(s)(which at this point appears several years away), then it would be ironic that the first I-69 construction on Louisiana soil would have arguably begun in the SIU 16 corridor (before SIU 16 corridor environmental studies had been started by TxDOT/LaDOTD).
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 17, 2015, 01:32:01 AM
I'm assuming that the new bridge for US 84 near Logansport will be built with future Interstate standards in mind, right? Then, TX and LA can join forces to complete SIU 16 to US 171 once SIU 15 is completed.
Quote from: Grzrd on December 09, 2015, 11:12:13 AM
This article (http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/local_news/article_82b7d068-9e5c-11e5-bcff-b7b9aa3c336c.html), reporting about a recent meeting in El Dorado, AR about I-69 and the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, quotes Max LeComte, president and CEO of the Coordinating and Development Corporation of Shreveport, as saying that ... local support has been demonstrated by Stonewall making efforts to preserve its corridor and by Logansport considering the possibility of doing likewise
Quote from: Grzrd on December 09, 2015, 08:25:08 AM
A video of the meeting has been posted on Youtube:
(above quote from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg2111396#msg2111396) thread)

At about the 1:07:30 mark in the above video, LeComte states that the two-lane bridge under construction is being built to interstate standards and that eventually another bridge will be placed adjacent to it.  At about the 1:08:10 mark, LeComte starts discussing an under-construction Logansport bypass being built to the new bridge upon which traffic will be shifted "behind the town" and that is expected to eventually be incorporated into I-69.

Here is a snip from the video of one of the bypass construction photos:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKgFSesK.jpg&hash=81a13f06ba774eef7d357952ed5a4a284edd5bb1)

Has I-69 dirt already been turned in Louisiana?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: froggie on December 12, 2015, 08:54:11 PM
Is that Logansport bypass north of town or south?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on December 12, 2015, 09:36:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 12, 2015, 08:54:11 PM
Is that Logansport bypass north of town or south?

Given the description of the project quoted from an article in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11372.msg289341#msg289341) describing the new bridge as being constructed between the old bridge and the railroad bridge, my best guess is that the bypass is south of town (a Google Maps update of aerial imagery would be nice):

Quote from: Grzrd on March 30, 2014, 12:43:25 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 05, 2013, 01:40:37 PM
US 84 Sabine River Bridge (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Logansport,+LA&hl=en&ll=31.97267,-94.005557&spn=0.007035,0.009602&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=52.914243,78.662109&oq=logansport&t=h&hnear=Logansport,+De+Soto,+Louisiana&z=17) replacement project
(above quote from I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4510.msg225444#msg225444) thread)
This article (http://www.news-journal.com/panola/news/m-bridge-project-connecting-joaquin-and-logansport-gaining-steam/article_8100235c-3f6a-5e28-bacd-6b840b9e5a0a.html) provides a construction update ... :
Quote
the plan calls for a new two-lane structure to be built between the existing bridge and the railroad tracks and for a new bridge to replace the current bridge in its footpath ...
Each of the new bridges will have two 12-foot lanes, a 10-foot outside shoulder and a four-foot inside shoulder. One bridge will have a sidewalk connecting the two towns.
New eastbound lanes will run from approximately County Road 3598 in Texas to LA 5 in Louisiana and will be built between the railroad bridge and existing river bridge.
(above quote from US 84 Sabine River Bridge Replacement Project (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11372.msg289341#msg289341) thread)

edit

This November 24, 2013 article (http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/2013/11/25/sabine-river-bridge-replacement-begins-in-january/3681667/) reports that the bypass is south of town:

Quote
The southern bridge routing motorists from Texas creates a new pathway to the south of the downtown area before eventually intersecting at Hwy. 84 at Louisiana Highway 5.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on January 13, 2016, 01:51:01 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 09, 2015, 10:21:34 PM
... $2 billion is the estimated cost to complete I-69 SIUs 14 and 15 in Louisiana (but does not include a cost estimate to complete I-69 SIU 16 in Louisiana), as reflected in this slide from an April 22, 2015 state-by-state status updates presented to the I-69 Congressional Caucus PowerPoint (linked on this page (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/resource.html) (slide 17/54)):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZV6p0QX.jpg&hash=39a3dd639af2ba6bc67ecdccac1fe265cd9600a7)

This Shreveport Times article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/watchdog/2016/01/13/push-make-progress--69-underway--49-north-out-way/78665888/) reports that, with the completion of I-49 North in sight, efforts to get I-69 underway in Louisiana are increasing:

Quote
Efforts to get funding and support for the planned Interstate 69 route through northwest Louisiana picked up in recent months following the opening of Interstate 49 North to motorists.
Bossier City Mayor Lo Walker
, who's also president of the I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition board of directors, said he felt now is the time to drive interest in the project given the completion of significant portions of I-49 in Louisiana.
"We knew the state could not support two mega projects at the same time so we did not push our project publicly as much because we did not want to interfere with the completion of I-49," Walker said.
There's just one problem – money.
  Portions of I-69 are either underway or completed in other states. Louisiana is responsible for two segments of the highway expansion project. It'sportion is expected to cost upwards to $29 billion, according to published reports. Walker also puts the project's estimated cost in that range. The federal and state governments are expected to  split the costs 80/20.
But given the Louisiana's budgetary issues and the challenges the United States has maintaining its current infrastructure, construction isn't going to start anytime soon ...
John Olivieri, national campaign director for 21st century transportation for the United States Public Interest Research Group
Louisiana has a $12.7 billion backlog in transportation maintenance projects. The amount needed to complete I-69 in Louisiana would more than cover that, Olivieri said.

Walker understands Louisiana's financial difficulties. It's dire, he said.  He doesn't expect the state to fork over it's portion of the money anytime soon.
"We've got two records of decision already sitting there all ready to build when we can get the money," he said ....
Walker believes there will be a high return on the investment if the route is built in Louisiana. It would reduce travel time and have an economic impact as it passes by airports and ports. The future I-69 would go directly through The Port Caddo-Bossier.
The impact of the highway on the port would be both economic and physical, Walker said. In 2007, the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration also deemed the I-69 corridor as one of six interstate routes that are a "Corridor of the Future."

One thing Mayor Walker could do is to back off the $29 billion figure (roughly the national estimated cost to complete I-69), which Olivieri has apparently used to suggest that Louisiana's cost is in excess of $12.7 billion, and make sure to use the $2 billion + cost of SIU 16 figure for the estimated cost of I-69 in Louisiana. Also, no mention of I-49 South as a mega project?




The article also mentions that efforts are underway to preserve the SIU 14 and SIU 15 corridors and to begin the environmental process for SIU 16:

Quote
Kent Rogers, executive director of the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ....
said NLCOG still is pushing to get the environmental work completed on the portion of the project from Tenaha, Texas, to Stonewall. Texas will be a lead on that portion, he said. NLCOG also wants legislation to preserve the corridors for Louisiana's two segments.
The goal is to keep development from infringing on the corridors until money is found to buy the land needed. Ninety-nine percent of Louisiana's segments are in "virgin territory," meaning they would have to be constructed, Rogers said.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: jbnv on January 13, 2016, 02:10:55 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 13, 2016, 01:51:01 PM
Also, no mention of I-49 South as a mega project?

Welcome to Louisiana politics. The northern and southern halves of the state might as well be separate states. Every region focuses on their own needs.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 14, 2016, 03:21:12 AM
Quote from: jbnv on January 13, 2016, 02:10:55 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 13, 2016, 01:51:01 PM
Also, no mention of I-49 South as a mega project?

Welcome to Louisiana politics. The northern and southern halves of the state might as well be separate states. Every region focuses on their own needs.

Welp, North Louisiana will just have to wait their turn, just as South Louisiana had to wait until I-49 North from Shreveport to the Arkansas state line was completed. I-49 South is the main emphasis now, and will be until at least the I-49 Connector in Lafayette and the segments from Lafayette to Morgan City are fully funded and completed. They will get theirs for the I-49 ICC and I-69 ultimately.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on February 23, 2016, 01:04:10 PM
Quote from: Dave H on November 24, 2015, 07:21:05 PM
I went to the Hwy 3132 Project Update presentation at LSUS last week.  All the alternatives were presented and some of the pros and cons of each option were highlighted.  My take on it was the Alternative A option has been less econically attractive due to upgrade requirements to LA1 interchange.  It seems one of the B options seems to be the preferred "Build" option.  I also think a "No Build" option will be considered.  It's interesting to note the either of the B options do not directly connect with the Port and there do little to improve or remove truck traffic from Flournoy-Lucas and LA1.  Therefore, I support the No Build option, as stated before, and just wish the money and effort goes into I69 ....

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its January 15, 2016 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_01152016.pdf) and the Minutes indicate that NLCOG voted for Alternatives B1 and B2 as their MPO Preferred Alignments (pp. 3-5/6 of pdf; pp. 3-5 of deocument):

Quote
Mr. Kent Rogers — NLCOG ....
Dr. Wilson moved the committee into the first order of new business which was the discussion of the recommended alternatives moving forward with the Stage 1 Environmental Study for the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension. Mayor Walker motioned to begin discussion of the recommended alignments as the MPO Preferred Alignments for further environmental analysis. Mayor Tyler seconded.  Mr.Rogers introduced Mr. Tyler Comeaux with BKI to give a brief presentation and update on what has occurred since the last public meeting ....
Mr. Comeaux .... stated Alternatives A and C were the most costly due to the elevated portions and to still have access at the Port ....
Mr. Rogers stated that at the end of the day, it is FHWA's decision as they issue the expected Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the study it will be on what they call the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Mayor Tyler asked how many stages until construction. Mr. Comeaux stated funding is next and then design and construction. Dr. Wilson asked within the discussion point they are at now, what is next. Mr. Rogers stated he had drafted a resolution for the recommendation, with blanks. He read the resolution. Mr. Sweeney motioned to consider B1 and B2 with Mr. Washington seconding. Dr. Wilson asked for continued discussion. Dr. Wilson stated he was comfortable with B1 and B2. Mayor Tyler confirmed her support. Mayor Walker stated the Port's position with A, B1 and B2 included in these options. Mr. Malone clarified the Port's position of preferably B1. There was no further discussion. The motion passed with no opposition.

Here is a snip from the November 19, 2015 Stage 1 Round 2 Public Materials (http://www.nlcoglistens.com/public-meetings-la-3132-ext-stage-1-round-2) of Alternative 1:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FikkOubX.png&hash=dcd4f8a9ff99f14ec4f7faacdc2eaa7f14332b84)

Here is another snip from the November 19 Public Materials of Alternative B2:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fi5hldZp.png&hash=fdc429e2ed20ec0bb0075c743ff4067650e4d56c)

With both Alternatives contingent upon I-69's construction, this environmental process may have to be repeated many years from now, which may effectively default to a "No Build" option.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: lordsutch on February 23, 2016, 04:56:22 PM
I'm not at all sure you'd need to repeat the environmental process. At worst you'd have to do a supplemental EIS if the conditions when the extension from Leonard Rd to I-69 would be built were substantially different than anticipated when the FONSI was issued.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2016, 10:15:22 AM
Quote from: lordsutch on February 23, 2016, 04:56:22 PM
I'm not at all sure you'd need to repeat the environmental process. At worst you'd have to do a supplemental EIS if the conditions when the extension from Leonard Rd to I-69 would be built were substantially different than anticipated when the FONSI was issued.

Actually, if the conditions didn't change too drastically, you could even do a supplemental EA leading to a new FONSI, as was done with the US 90/LA 318 interchange last year.

Personally, i like this choice...it maintains the Inner Loop as a freeway, it provides a connection to the first segment of I-69 that would be built, and it saves LA 1 from the headache of an major upgrade. Plus, it provides direct access to the Port from the west and north, rather than having traffic have to double back down I-49 and then I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on February 29, 2016, 03:41:29 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2016, 10:15:22 AM
Quote from: lordsutch on February 23, 2016, 04:56:22 PM
I'm not at all sure you'd need to repeat the environmental process. At worst you'd have to do a supplemental EIS if the conditions when the extension from Leonard Rd to I-69 would be built were substantially different than anticipated when the FONSI was issued.

Actually, if the conditions didn't change too drastically, you could even do a supplemental EA leading to a new FONSI, as was done with the US 90/LA 318 interchange last year.

Personally, i like this choice...it maintains the Inner Loop as a freeway, it provides a connection to the first segment of I-69 that would be built, and it saves LA 1 from the headache of an major upgrade. Plus, it provides direct access to the Port from the west and north, rather than having traffic have to double back down I-49 and then I-69.

Did you read and understand the comment made on the traffic study for this roadway extension? For the 6 miles of new road, less than 1 car per mile at peak traffic times.  Why spend $160 million dollars on a project with so little traffic?  The original intent of the Hwy 3132 extension was to connect to the Port.  The two perferred alternatives don't do that, they go tie into the future I69.  I69 will tie into the Port, so this 3132 extension(B1 or B2) is a complete waste of taxpayers money.



Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 29, 2016, 11:48:54 AM
Quote from: Dave H on February 29, 2016, 03:41:29 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2016, 10:15:22 AM
Quote from: lordsutch on February 23, 2016, 04:56:22 PM
I'm not at all sure you'd need to repeat the environmental process. At worst you'd have to do a supplemental EIS if the conditions when the extension from Leonard Rd to I-69 would be built were substantially different than anticipated when the FONSI was issued.

Actually, if the conditions didn't change too drastically, you could even do a supplemental EA leading to a new FONSI, as was done with the US 90/LA 318 interchange last year.

Personally, i like this choice...it maintains the Inner Loop as a freeway, it provides a connection to the first segment of I-69 that would be built, and it saves LA 1 from the headache of an major upgrade. Plus, it provides direct access to the Port from the west and north, rather than having traffic have to double back down I-49 and then I-69.

Did you read and understand the comment made on the traffic study for this roadway extension? For the 6 miles of new road, less than 1 car per mile at peak traffic times.  Why spend $160 million dollars on a project with so little traffic?  The original intent of the Hwy 3132 extension was to connect to the Port.  The two perferred alternatives don't do that, they go tie into the future I69.  I69 will tie into the Port, so this 3132 extension(B1 or B2) is a complete waste of taxpayers money.


I don't agree...if this extension isn't built, you basically force Port traffic from the west via LA 3132 to carry an extra 5 miles down I-49 to proposed I-69, and then double back 10 additional miles to get to the Port. Or, would you rather Port traffic negotiate local city streets through south Shreveport?

I'm guessing that the I-69 bridge across the Red River near the Port will be the first phase of I-69 to be built, but that won't come for a long while due to the emphasis on getting the I-69 system finished in TX. The 3132 extension could be built to sync with the segment of I-69 through the Port/Red River, thus creating a decent start to a southern bypass of the Shreveport/Bossier City area.

And actually, the original intent of the Inner Loop was not only to reach the Port, but complete I-220 as a full Shreveport/Bossier City loop. That dream is now dead thanks to Barksdale AFB opposing a through route.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on March 11, 2016, 10:49:50 AM
How many loops around SB are needed?  When or if I69 is completed, or at least the portion from I49 (south of Shreveport) to I20 (Haughton), then the SB area will be  looped.  If you drew a theorethical I220/Hwy3132 southern or southeastern portion loop going across the Red River, around south Bossier and Barksdale, then connecting at I20 to complete the 220 loop, you get essentially the same thing with I69.  Sure it would be nice to have both, but let's be realisitic as it will be tough to finance just one of these projects in the next 20 years.

Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 11, 2016, 10:50:07 PM
Quote from: Dave H on March 11, 2016, 10:49:50 AM
How many loops around SB are needed?  When or if I69 is completed, or at least the portion from I49 (south of Shreveport) to I20 (Haughton), then the SB area will be  looped.  If you drew a theorethical I220/Hwy3132 southern or southeastern portion loop going across the Red River, around south Bossier and Barksdale, then connecting at I20 to complete the 220 loop, you get essentially the same thing with I69.  Sure it would be nice to have both, but let's be realisitic as it will be tough to finance just one of these projects in the next 20 years.



There really will be only one loop when the LA 3132 extension is completed to Future I-69, because you could combine that with the segment of I-69 between I-49 near Stonewall and I-20 near Haughton, which would include the bridge across the Red River near the Port of Shreveport-Bossier City. The original I-220  south loop has been truncated to a gate entrance to Barksdale AFB.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on April 05, 2016, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 12, 2015, 03:43:51 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 09, 2015, 11:12:13 AM
This article (http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/local_news/article_82b7d068-9e5c-11e5-bcff-b7b9aa3c336c.html), reporting about a recent meeting in El Dorado, AR about I-69 and the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge, quotes Max LeComte, president and CEO of the Coordinating and Development Corporation of Shreveport, as saying that ... local support has been demonstrated by Stonewall making efforts to preserve its corridor and by Logansport considering the possibility of doing likewise
Quote from: Grzrd on December 09, 2015, 08:25:08 AM
A video of the meeting has been posted on Youtube:
(above quote from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg2111396#msg2111396) thread)
At about the 1:07:30 mark in the above video, LeComte states that the two-lane bridge under construction is being built to interstate standards and that eventually another bridge will be placed adjacent to it.  At about the 1:08:10 mark, LeComte starts discussing an under-construction Logansport bypass being built to the new bridge upon which traffic will be shifted "behind the town" and that is expected to eventually be incorporated into I-69.
Quote from: froggie on December 12, 2015, 08:54:11 PM
Is that Logansport bypass north of town or south?

Google Maps has updated its Logansport aerial imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.9721869,-94.0054431,845m/data=!3m1!1e3) and it now shows the bypass south of town.  I'm not convinced that it will eventually be incorporated into I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: jbnv on April 05, 2016, 04:32:45 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 05, 2016, 03:19:39 PM
Google Maps has updated its Logansport aerial imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.9721869,-94.0054431,845m/data=!3m1!1e3) and it now shows the bypass south of town.  I'm not convinced that it will eventually be incorporated into I-69.

I'm having trouble finding the bypass. I see a new bridge that goes into the heart of the town, but no bypass. Maybe I didn't pan out enough?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on April 05, 2016, 04:50:51 PM
The "bypass" is the new construction proceeding eastward from the new bridge.  Here is a snip of it:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FI0tEeWQ.png&hash=48cafd7534cfbace6c657ba071e6ff8bf03ac9d8)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: jbnv on April 05, 2016, 04:52:39 PM
That doesn't look anything like a bypass. It goes through the heart of town and apparently has at-grade intersections with local streets.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 06, 2016, 01:50:46 PM
From the looks of it, it's not so much a "bypass" but a realignment that would temporarily switch US 84 traffic onto the newly completed structure while the old structure was demolished and replaced. Possibly, an ultimate short one-way couplet design until the new 4-lane is built?

I'd say that if I-69 is ultimately built, it will be on a true new-alignment bypass, not using US 84.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: abqtraveler on April 07, 2016, 12:53:28 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 06, 2016, 01:50:46 PM
From the looks of it, it's not so much a "bypass" but a realignment that would temporarily switch US 84 traffic onto the newly completed structure while the old structure was demolished and replaced. Possibly, an ultimate short one-way couplet design until the new 4-lane is built?

I'd say that if I-69 is ultimately built, it will be on a true new-alignment bypass, not using US 84.

From what I've read, my understanding that an EIS hasn't even been started for Segment 16, which includes the Logansport area.  I recall that the Texas Department of Transportation had completed a Tier I EIS for the proposed (and now-dead) Trans-Texas Corridor, which would have covered the Texas part of I-69 Segment 16; the Tier I Record of Decision documented the "No-Build" alternative being selected for the I-69 TTC.  Since the TTC concept was scrapped, Texas and Louisiana would have to complete a new EIS for Segment 16 which runs from Tenaha to Stonewall, roughly following US-84.  It'll be many years at best before that's done.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 20, 2016, 07:47:32 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 23, 2016, 01:04:10 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its January 15, 2016 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_01152016.pdf) and the Minutes indicate that NLCOG voted for Alternatives B1 and B2 as their MPO Preferred Alignments (pp. 3-5/6 of pdf; pp. 3-5 of document)
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2016, 10:15:22 AM
Personally, i like this choice...it maintains the Inner Loop as a freeway, it provides a connection to the first segment of I-69 that would be built, and it saves LA 1 from the headache of an major upgrade. Plus, it provides direct access to the Port from the west and north, rather than having traffic have to double back down I-49 and then I-69.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 11, 2016, 10:50:07 PM
Quote from: Dave H on March 11, 2016, 10:49:50 AM
How many loops around SB are needed?  When or if I69 is completed, or at least the portion from I49 (south of Shreveport) to I20 (Haughton), then the SB area will be  looped.  If you drew a theorethical I220/Hwy3132 southern or southeastern portion loop going across the Red River, around south Bossier and Barksdale, then connecting at I20 to complete the 220 loop, you get essentially the same thing with I69.  Sure it would be nice to have both, but let's be realisitic as it will be tough to finance just one of these projects in the next 20 years.
There really will be only one loop when the LA 3132 extension is completed to Future I-69, because you could combine that with the segment of I-69 between I-49 near Stonewall and I-20 near Haughton, which would include the bridge across the Red River near the Port of Shreveport-Bossier City. The original I-220  south loop has been truncated to a gate entrance to Barksdale AFB.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its April 15, 2016 Draft Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_04152016.pdf), which indicate that there are issues with both LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension alternative alignments that will need to be further investigated prior to moving forward with the Stage 1 study (apparently bald eagle habitat and Indian mounds and artifacts), resulting in an anticipated delay of approximately six months (p. 1, 4/4 of pdf):

Quote
Members Present
....
Mr. Eric England — Caddo — Bossier Port
Others Present
....
Mr. Kent Rogers — NLCOG

....
B. LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension
Mr. Rogers stated the consultant for the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension has requested a supplemental scope of services as the further analysis requested on the two corridors showed a few things on both corridors. Mr. Rogers stated the hope was that there would be an outstanding issue with one of the corridors that would help narrow it down, but there are issues with both corridors that will need to be further investigated prior to moving forward. Mr. Rogers stated there are bald eagles within the area as well as Indian mounds and artifacts. He stated the project is still moving forward ....
Mr. England asked about the new completion date for LA 3132 Stage 1 study given the developments. Mr. Rogers stated it has changed in regards to the original by about six months. He stated he did not remember the original completion date from the original notice-to-proceed. Mr. Rogers stated there would still be a public hearing prior to the study going to LaDOTD and FHWA for a 45-day review period. He stated that could add a delay while those entities review the study. Mr. England asked Mr. Rogers to send him a timeline.

Grinding away ........................
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on September 21, 2016, 10:40:08 AM
http://nlcoglistens.com/field-review-update

Field Review Update

Posted by JamesTaylor on Mon, 09/19/2016 - 3:58pm
Field Review Update

Starting on Monday, October 10, 2016 and continuing through Friday, October 28, 2016, representatives of Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc., along with its subconsultants HDR Engineering, Inc. and EJES, Inc. will complete a walk-through of two proposed alignments for LA 3132 extension, Alternatives B1 and B2.

Notification letters were sent to property owners within the area of survey on Friday, September 16, 2016 seeking permission to enter property for the purposes of this walk-through. The purpose of this survey is to complete a review of standing structures, wetland and archeological field studies, biological species examination and an initial environmental site examination. This process includes taking a visual survey, photographs and measurements in the survey area, as well as limited shovel testing in order to take core samples in potential wetland areas and potential archeological sites. The team will fill all small holes dug at the time of survey.

All team members will have appropriate identification, along with safety vests and safety gear, as well as copies of the request letter and photo identification for presentation at the time of entry and survey.



Property Owner Questionnaire

Starting the week of September 19, 2016, property owners within the area of survey will receive questionnaires from EJES, Inc. to assist in the completion of the initial environmental site examination. The questionnaire consists of a two-page form, based upon the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice E-1527-13. It is routinely completed by the individual landowner or other occupant representatives. When complete, the questionnaire can be returned to EJES. Recipients of this request also have the option to complete the questionnaire by phone interview with the EJES project presentative. Details for this choosing this option are provided in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire.

Any questions regarding either of these processes are welcomed by the BKI project representative, Tyler Comeaux, at 318/222-5901 or the NLCOG project manager, Chris Petro, at 318/841-5957.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on October 12, 2016, 09:03:34 AM

LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension
http://nlcoglistens.com/project/la-3132-inner-loop-extension

Posted by JamesTaylor on Tue, 10/04/2016 - 2:47pm
Summary report of the second round of public meetings for LA 3132 Extension - DOTD Stage 1 study.

http://nlcoglistens.com/sites/nlcog2.engagingplans.org/files/document/pdf/LA3132_Stage1_PublicMeeting2-Summary_ver4-web.pdf

Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on November 16, 2016, 08:09:17 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2014, 08:58:38 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 27, 2014, 03:55:11 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its October 17, 2014 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_10172014.pdf) ....
Quote
Mr. Rogers briefly discussed I‐69 SIU 14 — El Dorado, AR to Haughton, LA (US 82 to I‐20). A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed April 27, 2012 ....
Mayor Walker cautioned that Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) are needed sooner rather than later to preserve the corridors. He asked if there was an MOU for SIU 14 corridor preservation. Mr. Rogers stated there was not and that LaDOTD discussed moving both projects [with SIU 15] forward together.
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its Transportation Policy Committee November 21, 2014 Agenda (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/MPO_Agenda_11212014.pdf) and it looks like they intend to ask to use federal earmarked funds for planning of I-69 SIUs 14 and 15 corridor preservation:
Quote
I-69 SIU 14 & 15 Corridor Preservation
Kent Rogers

Request use of Federal Earmarked funds to develop Corridor Preservation Plans for I-69 SIU's 14 and 15 within Louisiana

I'm not sure about the relationship between federal earmarked funds and local funds, but this Nov. 11 article (http://press-herald.com/police-jury-expecting-near-1-million-budget-shortfall/) reports that the I-69 Corridor is not essential in Webster Parish and subject to a cut:

Quote
The Webster Parish Police Jury may be facing a near $1 million decline in revenue in 2017 and Treasure/Secretary Ronda Carnahan notified the jurors before the November meeting with suggestions to offset the 2017 budget.
The jury's general fund may be affected while funds from Ad Valorem tax, revenue sharing and occupational licenses are "holding steady,"  General Severance and Timber Tax is down approximately $500,000.
"I do not foresee this coming up in 2017,"  Carnahan explained to jurors. "It will be necessary to transfer from the special general fund to be able to meet budget."
Expenditures that are not considered "essential funding"  are suggested to be reduced by 20 percent.
Those areas include
Council on Aging, Coordinating and Development Council, Trailblazers, Economic Development, North Louisiana Economic Partnership, Minden Trail of Lights, Interstate 69 corridor, Juror Recreation, Arts an Museum and Sparta Expense ....
With regards to road funds, the sales tax which supplies much of the revenue for road projects has earned the jury approximately $400,000 less in 2016 and it is not expected for those funds to increase in 2017.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: cjk374 on November 16, 2016, 09:10:22 PM
Sounds fine with me. I-69 is a waste of tax money. Just give the headache to Arkansas & Texas.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: lordsutch on November 16, 2016, 09:12:34 PM
I'd assume from the context they're cutting funding for membership in the corridor coalition (i.e. helping pay for lobbyists) or something like that; I doubt they're spending local money on corridor preservation when it's not in the TIP.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on December 17, 2016, 10:51:44 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 10, 2014, 08:44:25 PM
Exhibit 6 from the ROD (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015%20ROD.pdf) shows that I-69 SIU 15 has been divided into five segments from US 171 to I-20 and it shows the order in which the five segments will be built, with the Red River Bridge segment being first (page 24/87 of pdf; Exhibit 6 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpdeNjM5.jpg&hash=9f95493d7f2bd7a1dbec0699bdac4046bdfe45c5)

This Oct. 7 article (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2016/10/07/next-steps-discussed--69-northwest-louisiana/91690270/) reports on three main options that could serve as the next step for I-69 in Louisiana: (1) corridor preservation for SIUs 14 & 15, (2) the Red River Bridge (number 3 on above map), and (3) from the Port to I-49 (number 2 on above map):

Quote
Eric Kalivoda of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development said the state can use $11.7 million in I-69 federal earmark funds and the $2.9 million state match to consider several options that would constitute progress in the foreseeable future.
"We can develop a corridor preservation plan for Sections of Independent Utilities 14 and 15 — we have already started that, we have not finished it,"  he said. "It's going to get expensive if we do because we've got to go and work with all the local governments along the route to enact ordinances to prevent people from building things within the corridor."
Focus could also shift to the Red River Bridge crossing at the Port of Caddo-Bossier, which would connect La. 1 and U.S. 71. The estimated cost of construction is $340 million.
"That would provide a lot of benefit, it would be good to have that connection particularly right there at the port,"  he said. "The third option is to focus on a connection between the port and Interstate 49, to go ahead and do the engineering and they can purchase the right of way to go ahead and have that segment put in place."
Financial assistance could also be offered to Texas to try and accelerate the completion of the environmental impact statement  of the segment passing through that state.

"They've indicated they are stretched thin with the money they have available, and that may help,"  he said.
Ultimately, the issue of funding is going to be an obstacle that the coalition will need to overcome, Kalivoda said.
"The funding that I've indicated for I-69 with the federal earmark and the state match is only $15 million,"  he said. "Louisiana's cost for the portion of SIU 14 that's in Louisiana and SIU 15 is $2 billion. That's not counting our portion of SIU 16. That is a hard pill to swallow in a small state with a lot of other transportation needs."
The country needs a program to reconstruct and expand the existing interstate system so it can accomplish things like I-69, Kalivoda said.
"It's a matter of getting Congress to move forward with something like that,"  he said. "For any state individually to take on projects of this magnitude by themselves is going to be very difficult."

Working on the section from the Port to I-49 also serves the purpose of providing a connection to the proposed LA 3132 extension alignments, but that's another story .....
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on March 29, 2017, 08:11:06 AM
Louisiana considering increasing gasoline tax.  While I am against increasing overall taxation, increasing the current 16 cents/gallon gas tax to something higher makes sense.  In fact, a graduated increase, say 5-10 cents a year over 2-4 years would work. 

http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/2017/03/27/la-residents-might-put-peddle-metal-gas-tax/99691082/

Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 29, 2017, 10:11:42 AM
Quote from: Dave H on March 29, 2017, 08:11:06 AM
Louisiana considering increasing gasoline tax.  While I am against increasing overall taxation, increasing the current 16 cents/gallon gas tax to something higher makes sense.  In fact, a graduated increase, say 5-10 cents a year over 2-4 years would work. 

http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/2017/03/27/la-residents-might-put-peddle-metal-gas-tax/99691082/



That money should go more towards completing I-49 in Louisiana, (including I-49 South from Lafayette to New Orleans and the Shreveport I-49 Inner City Connector), I-10 through Baton Rouge, the Calcasieu River Bridge and widening I-10 through Lake Charles, widening I-20 in north Louisiana, and the evacuation route connecting I-10 to the Houma-Thibodeaux area. Perhaps, even a new bridge for a south Baton Rouge bypass and widening the rest of I-10 through LA. Until a consensus is reached on funding I-69 in its entirity, it should await its turn in the queue until these other more important projects get done.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on April 05, 2017, 10:54:47 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 23, 2016, 01:04:10 PM
Here is another snip from the November 19 Public Materials of Alternative B2:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fi5hldZp.png&hash=fdc429e2ed20ec0bb0075c743ff4067650e4d56c)

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") is slowly reducing a backlog in Transportation Policy Committee Minutes and has posted its January 19, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/MPO_Minutes_01192017.pdf), which indicate that Alternative B2 is the locally preferred alternative for the LA 3132 extension (p.3/3 of pdf):

Quote
4. LA-3132 Inner Loop Extension
Mr. Tyler Comeaux from BKI gave an update on the Environmental Study for the La 3132 (Inner Loop) Extension project. Mr. Comeaux went over the field review and survey work that had been done on Alternative B1 and B2. He specifically noted those properties that the team had full access to, those with limited access, and those with no access granted. Mr. Comeaux went over the Preliminary Findings in some detail paying specific attention to the following categories: Potential Displacements, Potential Noise Effects, Review of Natural Resources, the Cultural Resources Review, the Environmental Site Review, and Community Input. He noted that the results had been reviewed by the Technical and Project Advisory committee and that they concurred with the input and recommended that Alternative B2 move forward as the locally preferred alternative. Following a brief discussion Mr. Rogers presented the committee
with a resolution in concurrence with these findings
and the recommendation of the Project Advisory Committee to move forward with Alternative B2. Mr. Rogers read the resolution into the record. Mayor Tyler called for a motion on the resolution as presented and read. Mr. Washington motioned for approval with Mr. Sweeney seconding the motion. The motion passed 8 - 0 with 1 absent.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 25, 2017, 02:20:26 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 17, 2016, 10:51:44 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 10, 2014, 08:44:25 PM
Exhibit 6 from the ROD (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015/I-69%20SIU%2015%20ROD.pdf) shows that I-69 SIU 15 has been divided into five segments from US 171 to I-20 and it shows the order in which the five segments will be built, with the Red River Bridge segment being first (page 24/87 of pdf; Exhibit 6 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpdeNjM5.jpg&hash=9f95493d7f2bd7a1dbec0699bdac4046bdfe45c5)
Working on the section from the Port to I-49 also serves the purpose of providing a connection to the proposed LA 3132 extension alignments, but that's another story .....

But it may be part of the story of changing the order of construction. The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has published its March 17, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Agenda (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_Agendas/FFY2017/MPOAgenda__03172017.pdf). Tne entry for I-69 SIU 15 reads as follows:

Quote
5. I-69 SIU 15
Kent Rogers

Request to LADOTD moving forward with segment from LA 1 to I-49

The March 17, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/FFY2017/MPO_Minutes_031717.pdf) read as follows:

Quote
5. I-69 SIU 15
Discussion in Washington, D.C. regarding I-69 centered on the benefit it will have as a corridor of the future. The congressman giving his testimony mentioned I-69, I-49, and the Barksdale Gate. DOTD has contacted NLCOG to participate in meeting about existing project, changes that have occurred, and what could be done within the existing project regarding opening a section prior to the bridge. Funding may be available if the project relates to the area. Mr. Altimus encouraged the board to wait until the end of the legislative session to vote on this issue regarding sections of I-69. He referred to Senator Peacock's work regarding the Jimmy Davis Bridge which may be completed in 2020 and the national infrastructure money that may come through the state and impact a bridge for I-69. Discussion continued regarding the realignment of the Texas portion of I-69. Mr. Rogers concluded by encouraging the committee to look carefully at the long-term projects and funding available at the end of this legislative session.

I assume that, in talking about "opening a section prior to the bridge", they are talking about the LA 1 to I-49 section referenced in the Agenda, which would provide a terminus for Alternative B2 of the LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension and would be the first section of I-69 built in Louisiana. I assume "the realignment of the Texas portion of I-69" is simply I-369.




This May 8 article (https://www.ktbs.com/news/us-hwy-bridge-construction-completed/article_bfce58bd-7dc8-57e3-8891-378f65855f04.html), about the completion of the US 84 Sabine River bridges (prior discussion here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11372.msg2228069#msg2228069)) has an interesting comment from Dr. Shawn Wilson, Secretary of LaDOTD:

Quote
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's Secretary, Dr. Shawn Wilson says the two bridges will help ease traffic, improve the local economy, and improve evacuation routes in times of disaster.
"This bridge will also serve as an evacuation route located on the future I-69 another important thing the state department of transportation of both states take very seriously," said Wilson.

If Secretary Wilson's comment is true about them "located on the future I-69", the Sabine River bridges will be the first piece of I-69 completed in Louisiana. I don't buy it, but he is the head man at LaDOTD .......
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 31, 2017, 12:40:24 AM
I'm assuming, Grz, that that segment of I-69 between I-49 and LA 1 can be built first and signed as I-69 immediately because it both connects to NHS highways and can be an SIU that also completes the Inner Loop extension, right?


But, what would happen if, in the worst case scenario, the I-49 ICC is diverted to the Inner Loop/I-220 ("Loop It") route? Would that affect the completion of LA 3132 extension in any way?


Also....if I-69 is going to use the conversion of the existing US 84 four-laned section through Logansport, there's going to be hell to pay for driving a freeway through that segment. Or, building a bypass right after widening the existing US 84 to a 4-lane divided facility, which seems cost-ineffective.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2017, 10:54:47 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 31, 2017, 12:40:24 AM
I'm assuming, Grz, that that segment of I-69 between I-49 and LA 1 can be built first and signed as I-69 immediately because it both connects to NHS highways and can be an SIU that also completes the Inner Loop extension, right?

It could be signed because of the connection to I-49. With the concern over "the realignment over the Texas portion of I-69", I would expect them to sign it. I guess you could make the argument that it would be its own SIU, but I don't think it is critical to whether there can be signage. Is the currently signed I-369 a SIU?

Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 31, 2017, 12:40:24 AM
But, what would happen if, in the worst case scenario, the I-49 ICC is diverted to the Inner Loop/I-220 ("Loop It") route? Would that affect the completion of LA 3132 extension in any way?

I don't think so. The LA 3132 extension is not in the I-49 corridor, even if the Loop It proposal is adopted.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 31, 2017, 12:40:24 AM
Also....if I-69 is going to use the conversion of the existing US 84 four-laned section through Logansport, there's going to be hell to pay for driving a freeway through that segment. Or, building a bypass right after widening the existing US 84 to a 4-lane divided facility, which seems cost-ineffective.

I think Secretary Wilson's comment about the Sabine River bridges being "located on the Future I-69" simply reflects the concern over "the realignment over the Texas portion of I-69" and was intended to remind people that "mainline" I-69 goes through Louisiana.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on August 12, 2017, 10:48:11 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 16, 2015, 03:44:15 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its August 21, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_08212015.pdf) and they indicate the possibility that, if a certain alignment for the LA 3132 extension is selected, then that may "possibly disrupt or re-open" the Record of Decision ("ROD") for I-69 SIU 15. (pp. 5, 6/6 of pdf; pp. 5, 6 of document):
Quote
LA 3132 Inner Loop Extension ....
Mr. Rogers
directed the members to the handouts and slides from the Project Advisory Committee's (PAC) second meeting. Mr. Rogers stated the meeting consisted of discussion of the input received from the public meetings, the analysis done prior to the public meetings and the input from the PAC. He discussed a couple of the issues that were found with some of the alignments and interchanges. Mr. Rogers stated there would be more review and then the PAC would develop a preferred alternative ....
Mayor Walker stated the alignment on the LA3132 extension that would possibly disrupt or re‐open the I‐69 EIS ROD would not be in the best interest as it took so long to get that ROD.
Quote from: lordsutch on February 23, 2016, 04:56:22 PM
I'm not at all sure you'd need to repeat the environmental process. At worst you'd have to do a supplemental EIS if the conditions when the extension from Leonard Rd to I-69 would be built were substantially different than anticipated when the FONSI was issued.
Quote from: Grzrd on April 05, 2017, 10:54:47 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 23, 2016, 01:04:10 PM
Here is another snip from the November 19 Public Materials of Alternative B2:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fi5hldZp.png&hash=fdc429e2ed20ec0bb0075c743ff4067650e4d56c)
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") ... has posted its January 19, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/MPO_Minutes_01192017.pdf), which indicate that Alternative B2 is the locally preferred alternative for the LA 3132 extension

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its May 19, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/FFY2017/May%2019%20MPO%20minutes.pdf) and it seems like FHWA and LaDOTD are trying to figure out what needs to be done since Alternative B2 for the LA 3132 extension has been selected:

Quote
6. I-69 SIU 15
Mr. Rogers directed the committee's attention to the map in their packets. He stated that DOTD and FHWA are looking at what might possibly be done along this portion of I-69 between the port and I-49 without disturbing the existing environmental document. Mr. Rogers noted that no action had been taken on this yet.

No teling how long it will take FHWA to make a decision.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on August 17, 2017, 10:08:33 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 05, 2017, 10:54:47 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 23, 2016, 01:04:10 PM
Here is another snip from the November 19 Public Materials of Alternative B2:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fi5hldZp.png&hash=fdc429e2ed20ec0bb0075c743ff4067650e4d56c)
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") ... has posted its January 19, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/MPO_Minutes_01192017.pdf), which indicate that Alternative B2 is the locally preferred alternative for the LA 3132 extension

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its June 16, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/FFY2017/June16MPOminutes.pdf) and they reflect that LaDOTD and FHWA have concurred on NLCOG's recommendation of Alternative B2 as the preferred alternative for the LA 3132 extension, and that a FONSI could be issued by the end of this year or early next year (p. 2/3 of pdf):

Quote
LA 3132 (Inner Loop) Extension
Mr. Tayler Comeaux from BKI
gave a brief update on the project to date. Mr. Comeaux stated they had received concurrence on the recommendation of Alternative B2 from both DOTD and FHWA. The process from here out is finalizing the Technical Reports including Line and Grade, Traffic Noise, and others. Following that they will prepare the Draft Environmental Assessment for review by DOTD and FHWA. Upon their approval we could then advertise and hold the public hearing and prepare the final documentation. At this point we are looking at the end of the year or early next for issuance of a FONSI. Dr. Wilson asked to clarify that Alternative B2 is the Alternative recommended by the MPO. Mr. Rogers concurred with this.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on October 28, 2017, 08:01:23 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its September 15, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/FFY2018/September15_MPO%20minutes.pdf) and they reflect a possibility that "Future I-69" signs will be posted in Louisiana in the relatively near future (p. 3/4 of pdf):

Quote
Mayor Walker asked how we could do Future Corridor signs similar to those that Texas has done with I-69, specifically along the I-69 SIU 14 and 15 Corridors. Mr. Comeaux noted that we would need to work with DOTD. Mrs. O'Neal commented that Lafayette has also done some future corridor signs but that we would need to be sure to work with DOTD on the regulations regarding these signs. Mayor Walker asked staff to reach out to Dr. Kalivoda at DOTD to see what could be done.

I guess that is some sort of progress.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on May 16, 2018, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 17, 2017, 10:08:33 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its June 16, 2017 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/FFY2017/June16MPOminutes.pdf) and they reflect that LaDOTD and FHWA have concurred on NLCOG's recommendation of Alternative B2 as the preferred alternative for the LA 3132 extension, and that a FONSI could be issued by the end of this year or early next year (p. 2/3 of pdf)

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its April 27, 2018 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/FFY2018/April%2027_MPO%20minutes.pdf) and they reflect a hope for a firm timeline for completion of the project by the June meeting (p. 4/4 of pdf):

Quote
6. Brief Updates
Mr. Rogers stated that he wanted to just give a quick update on a couple of the projects. He stated that the initial draft EA report for the Inner Loop project had been submitted to DOTD for comments. He noted that DOTD and FHWA have concurred with the MPO on the identification of Alternative B2 as the locally preferred alternative. Dr. Wilson asked Mr. England if this was the alternative preferred by the port. Mr. England stated it was.
Mr. Rogers then noted that he has asked the three major consultant for the three main projects being I-49 Inner City, the Regional Thoroughfare Plan, and the 3132 project to be able to provide a very detailed update on the project between now and the June meeting. He stated he asked them for a listing of all the technical documents that had been submitted, when submitted if approved, where the documents stand at date and what it will take to get them completed. He also stated that he wants firm timelines from them for completion of the projects.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on June 12, 2018, 03:05:28 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 16, 2015, 04:44:22 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its September 18, 2015 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/minutes_09182015.pdf) and the Minutes, as part of a LA 3132 Extension update, indicate that NLCOG intends to try again and approach the next governor and next LaDOTD Secretary (Sherri LeBas has announced that she is stepping down) for the funding to start the NEPA process for Louisiana's part of SIU 16 (p. 5/6 of pdf)

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its May 11, 2018 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/FFY2018/May_11_MPO%20minutes.pdf) and they indicate that NLCOG will contact the new LaDOTD Secretary and Dr. Kalivoda from LaDOTD to ask them to put pressure on Texas to move forward with the environmental process for SIU 16 (p. 4.4 of pdf):

Quote
Mr. Washington asked if we could have an update on I-69. Mayor Walker stated that the President of the I-69 Coalition recently passed away and a new president has not been appointed. He further stated that approximately 5 names have been floated to the state coalition directors for their review but that no one has been appointed as of yet. Mayor Walker stated that the biggest obstacle in the process is the state of Texas and their unwillingness to move forward with the environmental process on the section from Stonewall to Tenaha. The mayor stated that he has again contacted Secretary Wilson and Dr. Kalivoda at DOTD urging them to contact their counterparts in Texas to move forward. Mr. Washington expressed his concern that it seems we are in the same position as we were a year ago. Mr. Brown stated that this is going on a 30-year process and that we need to do something soon in the state of Louisiana. Mr. Brown stated that DeSoto parish stands ready to do whatever necessary to move the project forward.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: jbnv on June 12, 2018, 03:19:07 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 12, 2018, 03:05:28 PM
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") has posted its May 11, 2018 Transportation Policy Committee Draft Minutes (http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/MPOPolicy_mins/FFY2018/May_11_MPO%20minutes.pdf) and they indicate that NLCOG will contact the new LaDOTD Secretary and the Governor to ask them to put pressure on Texas to move forward with the environmental process for SIU 16 (p. 4.4 of pdf):

Quote
Mr. Washington asked if we could have an update on I-69. Mayor Walker stated that the President of the I-69 Coalition recently passed away and a new president has not been appointed. He further stated that approximately 5 names have been floated to the state coalition directors for their review but that no one has been appointed as of yet. Mayor Walker stated that the biggest obstacle in the process is the state of Texas and their unwillingness to move forward with the environmental process on the section from Stonewall to Tenaha. The mayor stated that he has again contacted Secretary Wilson and Dr. Kalivoda at DOTD urging them to contact their counterparts in Texas to move forward. Mr. Washington expressed his concern that it seems we are in the same position as we were a year ago. Mr. Brown stated that this is going on a 30-year process and that we need to do something soon in the state of Louisiana. Mr. Brown stated that DeSoto parish stands ready to do whatever necessary to move the project forward.

Good luck with that! I can't imagine why Louisiana's short portion of I-69 is any sort of priority to Texas.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2018, 01:12:25 AM
Yeah, I think they need to put more muscle behind the I-49 projects. The intercity connector in Shreveport is a pretty big project. Same goes for the I-49 project cutting through Lafayette. OTOH, I don't know how close either project is to getting plans finalized (and out of the court room). Extending the Westbank Expressway out of the New Orleans metro is yet another huge project.

I'm convinced TX DOT will build I-69 up to a certain point, but then prioritize building I-369 up to the Texarkana area. Arkansas might build bits and pieces of I-69 in/near towns like Monticello. But then I think they'll put more emphasis on getting I-530 extended down to the proposed I-69 corridor before building I-69 down to the Louisiana border. And then that's not factoring in all their priorities with I-49 in Fort Smith, Belle Vista, etc.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: cjk374 on June 13, 2018, 06:22:11 PM
I believe that TX will build I-69 to where ever THEY decide to build I-69. If they want it to go all the way to Texarkana, by golly that is where I-69 is going to go and to hell with what anyone else thinks or plans.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 13, 2018, 06:49:55 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2018, 01:12:25 AM
Yeah, I think they need to put more muscle behind the I-49 projects. The intercity connector in Shreveport is a pretty big project. Same goes for the I-49 project cutting through Lafayette. OTOH, I don't know how close either project is to getting plans finalized (and out of the court room). Extending the Westbank Expressway out of the New Orleans metro is yet another huge project.

[...]


Just for updating:

The Lafayette Connector portion of I-49 South is in somewhat a slowdown right now, because the Supplemental EIS is still being developed for some minor changes made in the design from the original ROD signed in 2003. Officials expect to have a Supplemental ROD in place by the summer of next year.

The Shreveport Inner City Connector portion of I-49 is well into its EIS process; a Draft EIS is expected to be completed by either this coming winter or spring, with a ROD signed by next summer.

The remaining elements of I-49 South are also either ending Supplemental EIS processes or just waiting for money to complete.

Completing the upgrade of the Westbank Expressway to US 90 isn't as huge as you might think, because most of the really expensive work, such as the highrise bridge across the Harvey Canal and the elevated sections going west to Westwego, has already been finished. Only extending the freeway portion to US 90 and reworking the interchange there would be needed.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2018, 07:02:29 PM
To be a little more fair, Texas has a whole lot of proposed miles worth of I-69 within Texas. It's difficult to decide which corridors rank higher in priority. The Houston to Texarkana corridor is a pretty big deal. I think it's also a priority for TX DOT to get the Rio Grande Valley region in the far South end of Texas (and its 1.5 million residents in that cluster of growing cities) connected to the rest of the Interstate system. Even if TX DOT deliberately puts off building its I-69 segment to the Louisiana border the agency will have legitimate excuses for doing so.

This situation is just another example of why the federal government has to start taking a leading role again in Interstate highway corridor development. Under the current planning and funding model these corridors will be nothing more than a lot of different local roads strung together in a very irregular manner. There is zero big picture approach going on with this.

Quote from: Anthony_JKCompleting the upgrade of the Westbank Expressway to US 90 isn't as huge as you might think, because most of the really expensive work, such as the highrise bridge across the Harvey Canal and the elevated sections going west to Westwego, has already been finished. Only extending the freeway portion to US 90 and reworking the interchange there would be needed.

Of course the funny thing now is the existing sections of the Westbank Expressway are now aging. I remember when they first started building it: back in the early 1980's. My family lived in the area at the time and I was just a teenager in middle school. The rest of the existing highway was completed in the late 80's and early 90's. The newest portions are over 25 years old.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on June 13, 2018, 07:33:28 PM
Wouldn't at all be surprised if the eventual 69/369 interchange near Tenaha ends up with 369 as the "straightline" from Houston, while I-69 toward LA is relegated to a TOTSO.  TX does have its priorities!
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: txstateends on August 19, 2018, 12:58:30 PM
Nothing new, other than asking if I-69 will still happen in LA.  A TV news report video is included with the article.

https://tylerpaper.com/news/texas/interstate-go-or-no/article_a198a50d-4473-55e1-93bb-d0391a4c6b9a.html
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 20, 2018, 04:15:09 PM
Interstate 69 might still be built in Louisiana (and Arkansas), but it will be at least a few decades before that occurs.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on March 20, 2019, 03:20:00 PM
This TV video report (https://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/local-news/easier-way-to-drive-through-bossier-in-the-works/1834270798) doesn't have any updates about I-69, but it does include discussion of a southern extension of the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway (in Bossier City) to Taylortown (and a presumptive interchange with I-69 ......... someday):

Quote
.... Butch Ford, Bossier Parish engineer ....
Ford said they're anticipating the future corridor of Interstate 69 that will run right through Taylortown.
"Imagine I-69 coming through and the growth that will occur because of that," Ford said.

The important project finally comes to fruition to connect Bossier Parish like never before.
The parish will start acquiring "right-of-way" for land to begin project next year.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: txstateends on March 20, 2019, 10:32:48 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 20, 2019, 03:20:00 PM
Quote
.... Butch Ford, Bossier Parish engineer ....
Ford said they're anticipating the future corridor of Interstate 69 that will run right through Taylortown.
"Imagine I-69 coming through and the growth that will occur because of that," Ford said.


I hope "imagining" isn't all that will ever happen.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on July 15, 2019, 04:35:56 PM
I came across this May 15 TV video report (https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/i--frontage-road-first/article_5c2d5302-7043-11e9-b1ea-03cf06e8401e.html) and it indicates that the first I-69 construction in Louisiana could begin in two years, BUT it will be the frontage roads instead of the mainline:

Quote
.... Kent Rogers, Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments executive director ....
But, now there's some movement, there's some optimism, there's actually some money to get something done on what's being called the proposed I-69 Frontage Road.
The proposed I-69 frontage road would take it off I-49 along the Stonewall-Frierson Road then go northeast across Ellerbe Road and continuing on to intersect at state Highway 1 near the Port of Caddo-Bossier. It would be built in four segments.
"This is the Port of Caddo-Bossier property, the 2,600 acre complex. This would utilize portions of Robson Road in red. New construction in green and blue, as well as the Stonewall-Frierson Road, the 3.31-mile stretch in DeSoto Parish in yellow," said port executive director Eric England.
So red, green and yellow is existing roadway that would need to be upgraded. Blue would be completely new roadway. Why the urgency seemingly all of sudden to get this done now?
"We have some earmarked money, federal earmarked money that was set aside for the project. They come from various other smaller pots of money. A couple years ago Congress swept up a bunch of older earmarked money leftovers. And there's kind of been some rumblings that they may do that again. In order to not lose those funds we decided to sweep them together, look at what we could get done and start working on a project
," said Rogers.
There is $16 million in federal funds available right now. They would need to come up with another $8-10 million from various local sources to complete the project. But that doesn't look like it's going to be an issue because of the overriding benefits to the area and the entities involved.
"Ultimately, with the building of this road, Louisiana would be saying, 'Hey, we're serious about wanting I-69 and continuing I-69 through our state and this is what we're doing to show that," said DOTD spokeswoman Erin Buchanan. "In our estimation it would be very economically feasible and viable to be able to construct this road and have new access for all of the people and commercial entities that would be using it." ....
"It's a project that everybody is excited about and everybody is on board for, and again that's not a whole lot of money to get something out there and get something on the ground in terms of I-69 and it also provides a great connection between the port and I-49 for some of that truck traffic," said Rogers.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 15, 2019, 07:33:42 PM
At least they can get the ball rolling by building just one or maybe two frontage roads. The most important near-term goal is simply getting the route established and preserving the ROW needed by the future freeway. I think it would be better overall to build a much longer corridor with either a Super 2 main line or the first half of a pair of frontage roads than it would to be a full blown freeway that runs only a short distance. A freeway segment that is built to a dead end can have further extensions blocked by new development.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on July 15, 2019, 11:04:46 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 15, 2019, 04:35:56 PM
I came across this May 15 TV video report (https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/i--frontage-road-first/article_5c2d5302-7043-11e9-b1ea-03cf06e8401e.html) and it indicates that the first I-69 construction in Louisiana could begin in two years, BUT it will be the frontage roads instead of the mainline:

Quote
.... Kent Rogers, Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments executive director ....
But, now there's some movement, there's some optimism, there's actually some money to get something done on what's being called the proposed I-69 Frontage Road.
The proposed I-69 frontage road would take it off I-49 along the Stonewall-Frierson Road then go northeast across Ellerbe Road and continuing on to intersect at state Highway 1 near the Port of Caddo-Bossier. It would be built in four segments.
"This is the Port of Caddo-Bossier property, the 2,600 acre complex. This would utilize portions of Robson Road in red. New construction in green and blue, as well as the Stonewall-Frierson Road, the 3.31-mile stretch in DeSoto Parish in yellow," said port executive director Eric England.
So red, green and yellow is existing roadway that would need to be upgraded. Blue would be completely new roadway. Why the urgency seemingly all of sudden to get this done now?
"We have some earmarked money, federal earmarked money that was set aside for the project. They come from various other smaller pots of money. A couple years ago Congress swept up a bunch of older earmarked money leftovers. And there's kind of been some rumblings that they may do that again. In order to not lose those funds we decided to sweep them together, look at what we could get done and start working on a project
," said Rogers.
There is $16 million in federal funds available right now. They would need to come up with another $8-10 million from various local sources to complete the project. But that doesn't look like it's going to be an issue because of the overriding benefits to the area and the entities involved.
"Ultimately, with the building of this road, Louisiana would be saying, 'Hey, we're serious about wanting I-69 and continuing I-69 through our state and this is what we're doing to show that," said DOTD spokeswoman Erin Buchanan. "In our estimation it would be very economically feasible and viable to be able to construct this road and have new access for all of the people and commercial entities that would be using it." ....
"It's a project that everybody is excited about and everybody is on board for, and again that's not a whole lot of money to get something out there and get something on the ground in terms of I-69 and it also provides a great connection between the port and I-49 for some of that truck traffic," said Rogers.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 15, 2019, 07:33:42 PM
At least they can get the ball rolling by building just one or maybe two frontage roads. The most important near-term goal is simply getting the route established and preserving the ROW needed by the future freeway. I think it would be better overall to build a much longer corridor with either a Super 2 main line or the first half of a pair of frontage roads than it would to be a full blown freeway that runs only a short distance. A freeway segment that is built to a dead end can have further extensions blocked by new development.

Worst case analysis is that I-69 comes in from TX, circumvents Shreveport, and simply dumps its traffic out on I-20 for years.  There's a reason the whole I-69 corridor was broken up into discrete SIU's -- so the more sections most vital to local economies can be "sold" on their own merit rather than relying on a full-corridor rationale.  Of course, the fate of the LA section is dependent upon TXDOT actually getting serious about planning their "stub" east of the I-369 divergence (since the TX goal has always been Texarkana and I-30 rather than a shortcut to Shreveport).  If that can be nailed down, then a SE Shreveport bypass may well become reality.  The following section in the piney woods heading for El Dorado (AR) will probably just have to wait for a while!
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on February 25, 2020, 03:20:36 PM
Here are the things I see getting in the way in Louisiana.

1) Finishing future I-49 (or whatever the number winds up being) from Lafayette to New Orleans
2) Loop from US-190 to new Mississippi River Bridge (Port Allen)
3) New Mississippi River Bridge (Baton Rouge)
4) Upgrading US-190 between Oppolousas and Port Allen (Needs Done before I-10 Rebuild)
5) Replace Calcaseau River Bridge on I-10
6) Replace Bridges on Interstate 10 between Lafayette and Port Allen
7) I-49 Connector (Shreveport)
8) I-69 Red River Bridge (Whether I-69 gets built to Shreveport or not a bridge at the port of Shreveport - Bossier is high priority. )

Not any money to get these things done, much less build a road that doesn't move Louisianans out of the Hurricane zones.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 25, 2020, 03:54:48 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 25, 2020, 03:20:36 PM
Here are the things I see getting in the way in Louisiana.

1) Finishing future I-49 (or whatever the number winds up being) from Lafayette to New Orleans
2) Loop from US-190 to new Mississippi River Bridge (Port Allen)
3) New Mississippi River Bridge (Baton Rouge)
4) Upgrading US-190 between Oppolousas and Port Allen (Needs Done before I-10 Rebuild)
5) Replace Calcaseau River Bridge on I-10
6) Replace Bridges on Interstate 10 between Lafayette and Port Allen
7) I-49 Connector (Shreveport)
8) I-69 Red River Bridge (Whether I-69 gets built to Shreveport or not a bridge at the port of Shreveport - Bossier is high priority. )

Not any money to get these things done, much less build a road that doesn't move Louisianans out of the Hurricane zones.

1) I-49 South and the I-49 Lafayette Connector should be the FIRST priority after I-10 through Baton Rouge is resolved.

2) The bypass of I-10 in Baton Rouge will probably be built as an extension of LA 415 to LA 1 and then through the new Mississippi River Bridge near Addis to LA 30 near Gardere. Unfortunately, it will be built as a standard 4-lane expressway, not a freeway as it should be.

3) Upgrading US 190 between I-49 at *Opelousas* and BTR is not happening. Too many access points and too many speed traps (Port Barre, Krotz Springs, Livonia, Erwinville).

4) The Shreveport I-49 ICC will happen as soon as they get the EIS done (and the lawsuits are resolved).

5) The new Calcasieu River Bridge on I-10 also can go as soon as funding is found.

I-69 in Louisiana need not happen soon; since there is still enough time to wait until TX and LA resolves the beef over whether and whenever the I-69/I-369 fork will be built.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on February 25, 2020, 07:05:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 25, 2020, 03:54:48 PM
I-69 in Louisiana need not happen soon; since there is still enough time to wait until TX and LA resolves the beef over whether and whenever the I-69/I-369 fork will be built.

The fork itself isn't the issue; it's all but a foregone conclusion that TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts would greatly prefer to act as if I-69 from Houston to Tenaha and the whole of I-369 is the main corridor to be prioritized.  The "stub" into LA -- and whether it can snag a "piece of the action" , so to speak, poses the question that need to be answered about TX commitment to the part of the project they consider of secondary importance.  AFAIK, there still is no consensus regarding exactly where the I-69 "main line" will cross the state line -- along US 84 or somewhere to the north of that point.  Until at least that occurs, any corridor activity in the Shreveport area is simply a local matter, isolated from the developmental effort in TX. 

But one thing is more likely than not -- I-69 east of Tenaha will be configured as a TOTSO from the 69/369 interchange unless it's developed as a fully directional wye (LH exit for 369 NB).   
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 25, 2020, 07:31:35 PM
This has always bugged me...

Asides from serving Marshall and some towns south of Texarkana, isn't I-369 technically redundant to I-49 in Louisiana?

If I-69 was constructed to I-49 (~30 miles between Texas and Louisiana), it's 91 miles of completed interstate highway (I-49) to Texarkana.

I-369 is a 100 mile freeway that will practically parallel the already existing I-49.

The only thing I-369 has going for it is that it will be around 20 miles shorter and bypass Shreveport, but in a world with limited funding, wouldn't it be more worthwhile to focus on completing the connection to I-49 simply to provide a completed interstate highway connection that's competitive to the proposed I-369 / US-59 routing?

I'm not against the idea of completing I-369, but it's just a thought. Obviously political pressure in Texas will drive its completion to keep the corridor entirely in that state rather than dipping into Louisiana even if it requires over 100 miles of new interstate highway (at least $2.5 billion or more).
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on February 25, 2020, 08:04:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2020, 07:31:35 PM
Obviously political pressure in Texas will drive its completion to keep the corridor entirely in that state rather than dipping into Louisiana even if it requires over 100 miles of new interstate highway (at least $2.5 billion or more).

Bingo!  Obviously, completing the composite 69/369 corridor to Marshall and letting the 20/220/49 continuum take over from there to Texarkana would be a fiscally sound concept -- but, then, we're dealing with TX, and that state has a history of cobbling up the necessary funding to advance in-state projects that keep any potential benefits within state boundaries.  That world with limited funding isn't apportioned equally among jurisdictions; in that respect, TX is more than willing to flex their significantly larger muscles!
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sprjus4 on February 25, 2020, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 25, 2020, 08:04:30 PM
TX is more than willing to flex their significantly larger muscles!
As evident by at least 4 different I-69's, along with two spurs.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on February 26, 2020, 10:54:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2020, 07:31:35 PM
This has always bugged me...

Asides from serving Marshall and some towns south of Texarkana, isn't I-369 technically redundant to I-49 in Louisiana?

If I-69 was constructed to I-49 (~30 miles between Texas and Louisiana), it's 91 miles of completed interstate highway (I-49) to Texarkana.

I-369 is a 100 mile freeway that will practically parallel the already existing I-49.

The only thing I-369 has going for it is that it will be around 20 miles shorter and bypass Shreveport, but in a world with limited funding, wouldn't it be more worthwhile to focus on completing the connection to I-49 simply to provide a completed interstate highway connection that's competitive to the proposed I-369 / US-59 routing?

I'm not against the idea of completing I-369, but it's just a thought. Obviously political pressure in Texas will drive its completion to keep the corridor entirely in that state rather than dipping into Louisiana even if it requires over 100 miles of new interstate highway (at least $2.5 billion or more).

I-20 doesn't have the capacity to carry what it already does.  So the Marshall to Shreveport route is not the way to go. It probably would cost 75% as much to upgrade I 20 and 220 not even taking into consideration the delays and mess. Upgrading US 79 from Carthage to Greenwood is probably a better and less expensive alternative. A lot Texas folks outside of Shelby county seemingly prefer this as the I-69 main route.

Why does Texas have problems with the EIS on the Logansport to Stonewall Segment? Primarily because Louisiana wants Texas to pay for most of it (agreed the route Louisiana insists on leaves most of the significant wetland disturbance in Texas.)  Basically they want the bridges across the Sabine to be all in Texas, closer to Joaquin than the Texas to Louisiana crossing in or near Logansport.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on February 26, 2020, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 25, 2020, 07:05:31 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 25, 2020, 03:54:48 PM
I-69 in Louisiana need not happen soon; since there is still enough time to wait until TX and LA resolves the beef over whether and whenever the I-69/I-369 fork will be built.

The fork itself isn't the issue; it's all but a foregone conclusion that TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts would greatly prefer to act as if I-69 from Houston to Tenaha and the whole of I-369 is the main corridor to be prioritized.  The "stub" into LA -- and whether it can snag a "piece of the action" , so to speak, poses the question that need to be answered about TX commitment to the part of the project they consider of secondary importance.  AFAIK, there still is no consensus regarding exactly where the I-69 "main line" will cross the state line -- along US 84 or somewhere to the north of that point.  Until at least that occurs, any corridor activity in the Shreveport area is simply a local matter, isolated from the developmental effort in TX. 

But one thing is more likely than not -- I-69 east of Tenaha will be configured as a TOTSO from the 69/369 interchange unless it's developed as a fully directional wye (LH exit for 369 NB).

Historically, Texas doesn't like turn off to stay on.  I635 NB at I-20EB was reconfigured to  assert the primacy of I-20 even though the high traffic count stays on 635. Confuses me every time that you stay left to turn right.  I realize highway purists despise TOTSO but sometimes it has a better flow,
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on February 26, 2020, 11:54:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2020, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 25, 2020, 08:04:30 PM
TX is more than willing to flex their significantly larger muscles!
As evident by at least 4 different I-69's, along with two spurs.


Spending money that you have is not being a bully. Yes Texas has gobs of money they can spend.Texas has the money to build roads in Texas. I don't see the logic in building a connector that will land out on LA-5 and dump freeway traffic onto what amounts to a moderate quality Farm to Market road.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on February 27, 2020, 04:12:46 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 26, 2020, 11:54:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2020, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 25, 2020, 08:04:30 PM
TX is more than willing to flex their significantly larger muscles!
As evident by at least 4 different I-69's, along with two spurs.


Spending money that you have is not being a bully. Yes Texas has gobs of money they can spend.Texas has the money to build roads in Texas. I don't see the logic in building a connector that will land out on LA-5 and dump freeway traffic onto what amounts to a moderate quality Farm to Market road.

Neither does TxDOT; hence the reason for their prioritization of 69/369 over the "stub" into LA, which still lacks a definitive state-line crossing point.  They're not being a bully by any means; but they will quite naturally prioritize corridor segments that benefit their own populace -- and Marshall, along the 369 portion, is the largest town in that area.  By sticking to that priority, they're doing what state highway departments have done for the last century -- take care of their own.  And, in a backhanded way, that is -- via I-20 -- providing a reasonably direct path from Houston to Shreveport in the process, providing an indirect benefit to that city without any activity from LA entities (effectively a type of "free rider").     
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on March 20, 2020, 03:17:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 27, 2020, 04:12:46 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 26, 2020, 11:54:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 25, 2020, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 25, 2020, 08:04:30 PM
TX is more than willing to flex their significantly larger muscles!
As evident by at least 4 different I-69's, along with two spurs.


Spending money that you have is not being a bully. Yes Texas has gobs of money they can spend.Texas has the money to build roads in Texas. I don't see the logic in building a connector that will land out on LA-5 and dump freeway traffic onto what amounts to a moderate quality Farm to Market road.

Neither does TxDOT; hence the reason for their prioritization of 69/369 over the "stub" into LA, which still lacks a definitive state-line crossing point.  They're not being a bully by any means; but they will quite naturally prioritize corridor segments that benefit their own populace -- and Marshall, along the 369 portion, is the largest town in that area.  By sticking to that priority, they're doing what state highway departments have done for the last century -- take care of their own.  And, in a backhanded way, that is -- via I-20 -- providing a reasonably direct path from Houston to Shreveport in the process, providing an indirect benefit to that city without any activity from LA entities (effectively a type of "free rider").   

I will agree with one point. That the routing is as much about politics as about expediency / efficiency.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on July 16, 2020, 04:23:06 PM
I was involved in an interesting discussion with someone who is inside the political process of Louisiana last week. His take on I-69 was neither promising nor favorable.  His take is that the priority is low enough it will NEVER get built. He thinks the portion from I-49 to I-20 will probably get built in the next twenty years, primarily due to the Red River crossing at the Port of Shreveport / Bossier.  The part from I-49 to Texas is an outside possibility but the part on to the Arkansas state line is far less likely. The bottom line is both states are looking at the other state's lack of movement and neither will start until the other one does. Even if Arkansas were eager, Louisiana might still not be in play for it.

As to Louisiana, I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans will occupy most of the funding during the first half of the current decade. The point of any construction project in NORTH Louisiana is to trade votes to get what SOUTH Louisiana wants / needs.

What does SOUTH Louisiana want / need after i-49 is finished to New Orleans? Louisiana needs to rebuild / upgrade I-10 pretty much from Lake Pontchartrain to the Texas line.
The Baton Rouge Loop is the highest priority un-started project. While I-69 may be a trade-off that gets built to offset the SOUTH Louisiana spending, the folks in the south would prefer another North / South Corridor. Where would they build that? Probably from Natchez to Monroe and try to get Mississippi to build freeway along US-61 to Natchez.  New Roads to Monroe would be the better choice, but the three rivers crossings and getting it elevated enough to not flood would likely make this cost prohibitive.  In a perfect world, Mississippi would build US 61 as freeway  to Vicksburg or farther and Louisiana would have far less need to build it themselves.

So we all know I-49 is not that congested. Why another north south route?  Evacuate the coast when hurricanes come through.  When you hear about making significant improvements to US 96 in Texas that is the purpose; NOT that the traffic is routinely overwhelming.

The bottom line is that North Louisiana ESPECIALLY Northwest Louisiana lacks the political clout in Baton Rouge to get I-69 built. It doesn't get close enough to Alexandria or Monroe for their support. Lacking some miracle (or a major US capital improvement program dictated from Washington) , I-69 in Louisiana is not going to get built.


Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 16, 2020, 06:43:35 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on July 16, 2020, 04:23:06 PM
I was involved in an interesting discussion with someone who is inside the political process of Louisiana last week. His take on I-69 was neither promising nor favorable.  His take is that the priority is low enough it will NEVER get built.

I agree with your assessment of the situation.

There is the tremendous backlog of higher-priority projects in Louisiana that never seem to move forward. There doesn't even seem to be funding for much-needed projects like replacing the Lake Charles I-10 bridge. Then there's I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans, which I drove recently and was surprised how much work needs to be done (probably $1-2 billion). Then consider maintenance on aging existing facilities which are getting older every year (e.g. I-10 built in the 1960s), and low-priority projects just don't have much chance of ever being built.

Louisiana's small population of 4.6 million and uncertain economic future, with the oil & gas industry in long-term decline, means that resources are very limited. Even Texas, with vastly more resources, is struggling to get I-69 built in a reasonable time period. (Sure, there is far more mileage in Texas, but TxDOT's slow & steady program is going to take at least 20 more years.)

Barring some kind of major (and unlikely) long-term federal funding for Interstate System expansion, bwana39's assessment is almost certain going to be reality. I'm not even convinced I-49 New Orleans-Lafayette can ever be finished.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: brad2971 on July 17, 2020, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 16, 2020, 06:43:35 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on July 16, 2020, 04:23:06 PM
I was involved in an interesting discussion with someone who is inside the political process of Louisiana last week. His take on I-69 was neither promising nor favorable.  His take is that the priority is low enough it will NEVER get built.

I agree with your assessment of the situation.

There is the tremendous backlog of higher-priority projects in Louisiana that never seem to move forward. There doesn't even seem to be funding for much-needed projects like replacing the Lake Charles I-10 bridge. Then there's I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans, which I drove recently and was surprised how much work needs to be done (probably $1-2 billion). Then consider maintenance on aging existing facilities which are getting older every year (e.g. I-10 built in the 1960s), and low-priority projects just don't have much chance of ever being built.

Louisiana's small population of 4.6 million and uncertain economic future, with the oil & gas industry in long-term decline, means that resources are very limited. Even Texas, with vastly more resources, is struggling to get I-69 built in a reasonable time period. (Sure, there is far more mileage in Texas, but TxDOT's slow & steady program is going to take at least 20 more years.)

Barring some kind of major (and unlikely) long-term federal funding for Interstate System expansion, bwana39's assessment is almost certain going to be reality. I'm not even convinced I-49 New Orleans-Lafayette can ever be finished.

Frankly, on I-49 from Lafayette to NOLA, if the feds weren't going to kick in the $1-2 billion to complete it after Katrina's flood, when there would have been a reason to do so that would've been obvious to the rest of the USA, it's significantly doubtful the feds would do so 15 years after Katrina. The apparent success of I-10 east and west out of NOLA as a contraflow route may have (regretfully) diminished the need for an additional interstate out of NOLA.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 17, 2020, 01:53:50 PM
Disagree entirely re: I-49 South. It's going to get built ultimately....maybe very slowly at a snail's pace, but it will get done.

LADOTD is already fully committed to and is still planning the upgrade of US 90 in lower Lafayette and Iberia/St. Martin Parishes. The Albertson's Parkway/St. Nazaire Road/LA 182 interchange is complete and does even contain some beginning progress on the frontage road bridges over the BNSF rail line that will ultimately extend to the Ambassador Caffery Parkway South future interchange. Planning is also going strong on the next interchange down the line at Youngsville Parkway/Young Street (LA 92/LA 92-1), and expanding the frontage roads further south to ultimately the LA 88 interchange, where the completed freeway segment through New Iberia to near Jeanerette begins.  From there on to Wax Lake, all that remains is to remove some direct access crossings and remove the rail spur crossing south of LA 85.

That would leave the Lafayette Connector segment to the existing I-49/I-10 interchange, the segment just south of there (including the Verot School Road, Southpark Road (LA 89), and Morgan Avenue interchanges and continuous frontage roads), and the segment between Wax Lake and Berwick through Patterson and Bayou Vista. Obviously, funding has to be secured, but even at a slowed down pace I think LADOTD is too committed to this project to even consider trashing it....especially since they have now secured I-10 through BTR.

The Lafayette to Morgan City segment will probably be the first priority for I-49 South completion, then finishing the Westbank Expressway to US 90. The segment from Raceland through Des Allemands and Boutte and the connection to I-310 will probably be the last link to be built.

The justification for I-49 South is not another hurricane evacuation route for NOLA, but access to the major ports in South Louisiana and hurricane evac for those towns and cities (Morgan City, New Iberia, et. al.) served by the US 90 corridor.

The Calcasieu River Bridge and widening of I-10 from the Texas state line to at least Lafayette (to meet the now under construction widening from Lafayette east to the foot of the Atchafalaya Basin viaduct) would probably be the next emphasis, along with completing I-49 through downtown Shreveport to fill that gap.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on July 18, 2020, 10:20:08 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 17, 2020, 01:53:50 PM
Disagree entirely re: I-49 South. It's going to get built ultimately....maybe very slowly at a snail's pace, but it will get done.

LADOTD is already fully committed to and is still planning the upgrade of US 90 in lower Lafayette and Iberia/St. Martin Parishes.

The justification for I-49 South is not another hurricane evacuation route for NOLA, but access to the major ports in South Louisiana and hurricane evac for those towns and cities (Morgan City, New Iberia, et. al.) served by the US 90 corridor.

The Calcasieu River Bridge and widening of I-10 from the Texas state line to at least Lafayette (to meet the now under construction widening from Lafayette east to the foot of the Atchafalaya Basin viaduct) would probably be the next emphasis, along with completing I-49 through downtown Shreveport to fill that gap.

I think I exactly agree with you Anthony.  I-49 south of Layfayette will be completed as funds become available. It is not if, it is when.

I agree the I-49 downtown connector is a part that WILL get built IF NLCOG is supporting it. The problem with I-49 through Shreveport and LA-3132 to the port is the local politics. The problem with the local politics is lack of consistiency. As the regime changes, so do the priorities. The problem on this (or these projects) is if the funding becomes available when the against faction's voice is the official one, the monies will go to "someone who wants it."

Max, as to the I-49 / US-90 upgrade, I agree with your premise, but I believe it is a project that WILL get built even at the neglect of other more needed projects.  As an aside, much of the US-90 freeway already open on the route will need MAJOR repairs by the time the rest of it is finished.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 22, 2020, 10:36:50 AM
Going back to the original topic of this thread:

NLCOG really needs to get on the stick and push hard for the Stonewall-Haughton-El Dorado-Monticello branch of I-69, because that's what they are relying on as a connection to the Port of Greater Shreveport-Bossier now that any dream of a full Inner Loop extension through Barksdale AFB has been shattered (BAFB is now getting an access entrance tied into the east I-20/I-220 interchange). If Texas manages to get I-369 completed to Texarkana before LA and TX work out their differences on a Tenaha-Stonewall routing for I-69, they could lose it all....especially if Mississippi and Arkansas decide to bail on the Great River Bridge.

I still think that ultimately they will complete I-69 as a full corridor, but time will tell and money is of the essence. In the meantime, I-49 South and I-49 through Shreveport, as well as widening I-10, should be the main priorities as of now.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: rte66man on July 22, 2020, 07:29:00 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 22, 2020, 10:36:50 AM
Going back to the original topic of this thread:

NLCOG really needs to get on the stick and push hard for the Stonewall-Haughton-El Dorado-Monticello branch of I-69, because that's what they are relying on as a connection to the Port of Greater Shreveport-Bossier now that any dream of a full Inner Loop extension through Barksdale AFB has been shattered (BAFB is now getting an access entrance tied into the east I-20/I-220 interchange).

So where is the extension of I220 east of Bossier City going to end up?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: abqtraveler on July 22, 2020, 10:13:38 PM
Quote from: rte66man on July 22, 2020, 07:29:00 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 22, 2020, 10:36:50 AM
Going back to the original topic of this thread:

NLCOG really needs to get on the stick and push hard for the Stonewall-Haughton-El Dorado-Monticello branch of I-69, because that's what they are relying on as a connection to the Port of Greater Shreveport-Bossier now that any dream of a full Inner Loop extension through Barksdale AFB has been shattered (BAFB is now getting an access entrance tied into the east I-20/I-220 interchange).

So where is the extension of I220 east of Bossier City going to end up?

From what I've seen, the extension of I-220 will provide direct access to Barksdale AFB from I-20. I think they're building a new gate for the base that the freeway extension will end at.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: edwaleni on July 23, 2020, 01:56:08 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 22, 2020, 10:13:38 PM
Quote from: rte66man on July 22, 2020, 07:29:00 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 22, 2020, 10:36:50 AM
Going back to the original topic of this thread:

NLCOG really needs to get on the stick and push hard for the Stonewall-Haughton-El Dorado-Monticello branch of I-69, because that's what they are relying on as a connection to the Port of Greater Shreveport-Bossier now that any dream of a full Inner Loop extension through Barksdale AFB has been shattered (BAFB is now getting an access entrance tied into the east I-20/I-220 interchange).

So where is the extension of I220 east of Bossier City going to end up?

From what I've seen, the extension of I-220 will provide direct access to Barksdale AFB from I-20. I think they're building a new gate for the base that the freeway extension will end at.

The LADOT Project site is here.

http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/home.aspx?key=129 (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/home.aspx?key=129)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on July 23, 2020, 11:54:14 PM
The extension will go to a new MAIN ENTRANCE at Barksdale and nowhere else.

Quote from: abqtraveler on July 22, 2020, 10:13:38 PM
Quote from: rte66man on July 22, 2020, 07:29:00 PM


From what I've seen, the extension of I-220 will provide direct access to Barksdale AFB from I-20. I think they're building a new gate for the base that the freeway extension will end at.

The extension will go to a new MAIN ENTRANCE at Barksdale and nowhere else.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: cjk374 on July 25, 2020, 02:23:08 PM
Look at the current main gate entrance at the intersection of US 71, LA 3032 (Shreveport/Barksdale Hwy) and the Kansas City Southern's mainline to New Orleans. Any wonder why BAFB NEEDS a new main gate?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDQqudAZmBoD2Cqa7

Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sprjus4 on July 25, 2020, 03:18:37 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on July 25, 2020, 02:23:08 PM
Any wonder why BAFB NEEDS a new main gate?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDQqudAZmBoD2Cqa7
Better access to the east, and to provide a direct connection to the interstate system. Reduce traffic on surface routes.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: debragga on July 25, 2020, 06:20:37 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on July 25, 2020, 02:23:08 PM
Look at the current main gate entrance at the intersection of US 71, LA 3032 (Shreveport/Barksdale Hwy) and the Kansas City Southern's mainline to New Orleans. Any wonder why BAFB NEEDS a new main gate?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDQqudAZmBoD2Cqa7

Traffic can get really nasty there when a train comes through. Direct access from an interstate will be much better.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: cjk374 on July 25, 2020, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: debragga on July 25, 2020, 06:20:37 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on July 25, 2020, 02:23:08 PM
Look at the current main gate entrance at the intersection of US 71, LA 3032 (Shreveport/Barksdale Hwy) and the Kansas City Southern's mainline to New Orleans. Any wonder why BAFB NEEDS a new main gate?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDQqudAZmBoD2Cqa7

Traffic can get really nasty there when a train comes through. Direct access from an interstate will be much better.

When I was growing up, if you came down LA 3032 to the light there, you only had 6 seconds of green light to turn left. After that, you had to sit 2 minutes while everyone around you took turns (longer than your green light). LaDOTD has since lengthened the green light for LA 3032.

And yes, the few trains that cross there are lengthy and can back traffic up in all 4 directions for awhile.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mgk920 on July 28, 2020, 12:07:53 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on July 25, 2020, 02:23:08 PM
Look at the current main gate entrance at the intersection of US 71, LA 3032 (Shreveport/Barksdale Hwy) and the Kansas City Southern's mainline to New Orleans. Any wonder why BAFB NEEDS a new main gate?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDQqudAZmBoD2Cqa7

Also, the connections between the Main Gate and I-20 look to be pretty crappy overall, the railroad notwithstanding.  Might the Air Force be planning to move the entire base to the other side of the runway once that new access is completed?

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: abqtraveler on July 28, 2020, 01:59:48 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 28, 2020, 12:07:53 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on July 25, 2020, 02:23:08 PM
Look at the current main gate entrance at the intersection of US 71, LA 3032 (Shreveport/Barksdale Hwy) and the Kansas City Southern's mainline to New Orleans. Any wonder why BAFB NEEDS a new main gate?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDQqudAZmBoD2Cqa7

Also, the connections between the Main Gate and I-20 look to be pretty crappy overall, the railroad notwithstanding.  Might the Air Force be planning to move the entire base to the other side of the runway once that new access is completed?

Mike

It would be really hard to relocate the base building to the other side of the airfield. Aside from the amount of MILCON money it would take to construct all new buildings, the real showstopper would be the "historical" nature of the base.  Because the base has been designated as historical, simply demolishing the existing buildings and building new ones in their place is a definite no-go. Point in fact, to make simple modifications to the existing facilities at BAFB requires years jumping through a zillion hoops just to get the design approved, thanks to all of the additional reviews and clearances that are required under a historic place designation.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on July 28, 2020, 03:09:54 PM
The newer Military housing is East of the flight line already. The other gates are not going to totally close. Traffic will still be relatively as close to the main base as it is currently going through either the main or north gates and the city streets to get there.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 01, 2020, 01:52:01 PM
You keep the Military as happy with you as you can. Bossier Parish built a campus for a command that was maybe coming. Then PTB in DC decided to put it somewhere else.
https://www.ksla.com/story/6520927/cyber-command-center-could-come-to-bossier/
https://www.ktbs.com/news/barksdale-loses-cyber-command-headquarters/article_bca68e6b-ebb4-5440-8ae9-7666c841e125.html

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2020, 03:18:37 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on July 25, 2020, 02:23:08 PM
Any wonder why BAFB NEEDS a new main gate?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDQqudAZmBoD2Cqa7
Better access to the east, and to provide a direct connection to the interstate system. Reduce traffic on surface routes.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 03, 2020, 05:17:22 PM
You know; I am sure I seem like a know-it-all, I don't.

I have looked at the existing I-49 / I-220 intersection and I cannot see for the life of me where the Inner City Connector would come out of it.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 04, 2020, 07:48:38 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 03, 2020, 05:17:22 PM
You know; I am sure I seem like a know-it-all, I don't.

I have looked at the existing I-49 / I-220 intersection and I cannot see for the life of me where the Inner City Connector would come out of it.
I've got 2 images that may help out. The first from aaroads and the second from bayoubrief.com

49 will turn more southward instead of continuing SW through the I-220 interchange. The second image shows the path still to be chosen through the Allendale neighborhood just west of downtown Shreveport.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200804/d400d471db64f3157584ae15f1418a2a.jpg)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200804/8cb8fe621171a6e2db7f9c946b9e0394.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 04, 2020, 10:57:12 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on August 04, 2020, 07:48:38 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 03, 2020, 05:17:22 PM
You know; I am sure I seem like a know-it-all, I don't.

I have looked at the existing I-49 / I-220 intersection and I cannot see for the life of me where the Inner City Connector would come out of it.
I've got 2 images that may help out. The first from aaroads and the second from bayoubrief.com

49 will turn more southward instead of continuing SW through the I-220 interchange. The second image shows the path still to be chosen through the Allendale neighborhood just west of downtown Shreveport.



It seems the mainlanes of I-49 would have to be the top level of the stack.  I drive through here several times a week and  I just cannot find a gap at any lower level even skewing more to the east.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: mgk920 on August 04, 2020, 11:10:18 PM
Eyeballing the Google Streetview images of the area, it looks to me like there is plenty of room between the EB I-220 to NB I-49 ramp and the I-220 mainline roadways for another level of bridges, those being for the future I-49 mainline.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on August 06, 2020, 03:44:21 PM
The I-69 frontage road (also known as the I-49 Port Connector project) is moving along slowly, but Stage 0 of the environmental process should be completed by the New Year. NLCOG's June 19 draft minutes indicate that:

http://www.nlcog.org/Meetings/FY_2020/MPO/June_19_2020/June_19_2020_MPO_Minutes.pdf

The Draft Minutes also indicate that  an Open House for the LA 3132 extension has been delayed because of COVID.

A Feb. 22 TV video discusses these projects:

https://www.ksla.com/2019/02/23/nwla-leaders-briefed-mega-projects/
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Grzrd on August 10, 2020, 03:41:49 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 06, 2020, 03:44:21 PM
http://www.nlcog.org/Meetings/FY_2020/MPO/June_19_2020/June_19_2020_MPO_Minutes.pdf
The Draft Minutes also indicate that  an Open House for the LA 3132 extension has been delayed because of COVID.

I forgot to mention that the Open House is for the general public to review the Environmental Assessment, which can be found here:

http://www.nlcoglistens.com/document/la-3132-ext-environmental-assessment
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on April 03, 2021, 05:36:38 PM
At least as of now, it appears the I-49 port connector (AKA I-69 frontage road) is to a point that they have the funding in place unless state funding is reduced.  It connects I-49 to the Shreveport side of the port of Shreveport / Bossier

https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/direct-access-highway-from-the-port-to-i-49-is-in-the-works/article_4fa2a2f4-8da6-11eb-b125-4f19cf09fc3b.html
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: TheBox on July 15, 2021, 06:35:17 PM
Nothing new here, just posting the images for reminder
(https://i.imgur.com/PLKD10K.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FikkOubX.png&hash=dcd4f8a9ff99f14ec4f7faacdc2eaa7f14332b84)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fi5hldZp.png&hash=fdc429e2ed20ec0bb0075c743ff4067650e4d56c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fo6M0E.jpg&hash=93d034bc79a93702fd15043bd27c81c6cfe463d1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforward-now.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2FAug-2013-Aerial-3132sm.jpg&hash=cff3f98605481dcf5f89c4e912e1d908e2fca21c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVWdNt.png&hash=921f62b57bd046ee3b52463703852412e2f2bc60)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: kernals12 on July 15, 2021, 09:14:41 PM
Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on July 16, 2021, 03:14:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 15, 2021, 09:14:41 PM
Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

Aside from the fact that it's a direct extension of existing I-49 and the shortest alternative, one of the rationales for not simply rerouting I-49 over I-220 and Loop 3132 is the Cross Lake bridge on I-220; if the rerouted through traffic were to increase, it might be necessary to widen/rebuild that bridge, which traverses Shreveport's main water supply.  Apparently there are measures built into the existing bridges to keep refuse and detritus from bridge automotive traffic out of the reservoir below; widening the bridge would entail not only rebuilding the oil/waste collection system but expose the reservoir to construction debris.  I-49 wasn't even on anyone's mind, save LADOT, back in the '70's when I-220 was opened to traffic, so ready provisions for expansion weren't built into the facility. 
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: kernals12 on July 16, 2021, 06:33:24 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 16, 2021, 03:14:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 15, 2021, 09:14:41 PM
Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

Aside from the fact that it's a direct extension of existing I-49 and the shortest alternative, one of the rationales for not simply rerouting I-49 over I-220 and Loop 3132 is the Cross Lake bridge on I-220; if the rerouted through traffic were to increase, it might be necessary to widen/rebuild that bridge, which traverses Shreveport's main water supply.  Apparently there are measures built into the existing bridges to keep refuse and detritus from bridge automotive traffic out of the reservoir below; widening the bridge would entail not only rebuilding the oil/waste collection system but expose the reservoir to construction debris.  I-49 wasn't even on anyone's mind, save LADOT, back in the '70's when I-220 was opened to traffic, so ready provisions for expansion weren't built into the facility.

Okay thanks.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sprjus4 on July 16, 2021, 08:46:58 AM
^ In addition, both interchanges with I-49 would need a complete reconstruction in order to provide continuity for the route. That would be a costly expense in of itself, along with mainline widening to six or more lanes along the entire loop.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on July 16, 2021, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 15, 2021, 09:14:41 PM
Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

It isn't but a handful of homes. There is an apartment complex that was built solely to thwart the freeway construction. South of Caddo / Ford street what is in the path is mostly derelict (even those that are still inhabited.)  North of Ford (about 5 blocks total) there are some homes that would be affected. I really don't know how many are actually owner occupied.  Most of the path is either along a former rail line or over a flood plane.


Locally, the  main reason for opposition is really the idea that the money would be better (for the community) spent on other things. Most of the opposition is from outside agitators and locals who want to use the arguments to increase their position or power.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: kernals12 on July 16, 2021, 05:57:41 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on July 16, 2021, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 15, 2021, 09:14:41 PM
Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

It isn't but a handful of homes. There is an apartment complex that was built solely to thwart the freeway construction. South of Caddo / Ford street what is in the path is mostly derelict (even those that are still inhabited.)  North of Ford (about 5 blocks total) there are some homes that would be affected. I really don't know how many are actually owner occupied.  Most of the path is either along a former rail line or over a flood plane.


Locally, the  main reason for opposition is really the idea that the money would be better (for the community) spent on other things. Most of the opposition is from outside agitators and locals who want to use the arguments to increase their position or power.

But the people nearby the highway will suffer from noise and pollution, especially as this road will have lots of truck traffic
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Thegeet on July 16, 2021, 09:02:21 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2021, 05:57:41 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on July 16, 2021, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 15, 2021, 09:14:41 PM
Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

It isn't but a handful of homes. There is an apartment complex that was built solely to thwart the freeway construction. South of Caddo / Ford street what is in the path is mostly derelict (even those that are still inhabited.)  North of Ford (about 5 blocks total) there are some homes that would be affected. I really don't know how many are actually owner occupied.  Most of the path is either along a former rail line or over a flood plane.


Locally, the  main reason for opposition is really the idea that the money would be better (for the community) spent on other things. Most of the opposition is from outside agitators and locals who want to use the arguments to increase their position or power.

But the people nearby the highway will suffer from noise and pollution, especially as this road will have lots of truck traffic
I believe they can construct sound barriers, if it does become a problem in the future.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 17, 2021, 10:14:39 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 16, 2021, 03:14:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 15, 2021, 09:14:41 PM
Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

Aside from the fact that it's a direct extension of existing I-49 and the shortest alternative, one of the rationales for not simply rerouting I-49 over I-220 and Loop 3132 is the Cross Lake bridge on I-220; if the rerouted through traffic were to increase, it might be necessary to widen/rebuild that bridge, which traverses Shreveport's main water supply.  Apparently there are measures built into the existing bridges to keep refuse and detritus from bridge automotive traffic out of the reservoir below; widening the bridge would entail not only rebuilding the oil/waste collection system but expose the reservoir to construction debris.  I-49 wasn't even on anyone's mind, save LADOT, back in the '70's when I-220 was opened to traffic, so ready provisions for expansion weren't built into the facility. 

In addition to what Sparker said, re-routing I-49 along the LA 3132/I-220 "Loop It" route would bring some issues with Federal Interstate standards. The south interchange between I-49 and LA 3132 would have to be totally rebuilt; it's currently a 4-level stack, but would have to be significantly modified to allow the transfer of the through movements from existing I-49 to the south to the Inner Loop to the west/northwest. The Linwood Avenue interchange with the Inner Loop may have to be closed due to interchange spacing requirements due to its proximity to the I-49 interchange, seriously impacting local access. In addition, there is a sharp curve just before the Inner Loop/I-20/I-220(W) interchange that would have to be eased in order to meet Federal Interstate standards. Alongside with having to widen I-220 over Cross Lake and threaten Shreveport's/Bossier City's drinking water supply, that's one of the biggest advantages of the central alignment, besides its direct and short connection filling the I-49 gap (all respect to the impacts on Allendale, of course).
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Strider on July 17, 2021, 11:42:01 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 17, 2021, 10:14:39 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 16, 2021, 03:14:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 15, 2021, 09:14:41 PM
Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

Aside from the fact that it's a direct extension of existing I-49 and the shortest alternative, one of the rationales for not simply rerouting I-49 over I-220 and Loop 3132 is the Cross Lake bridge on I-220; if the rerouted through traffic were to increase, it might be necessary to widen/rebuild that bridge, which traverses Shreveport's main water supply.  Apparently there are measures built into the existing bridges to keep refuse and detritus from bridge automotive traffic out of the reservoir below; widening the bridge would entail not only rebuilding the oil/waste collection system but expose the reservoir to construction debris.  I-49 wasn't even on anyone's mind, save LADOT, back in the '70's when I-220 was opened to traffic, so ready provisions for expansion weren't built into the facility. 

In addition to what Sparker said, re-routing I-49 along the LA 3132/I-220 "Loop It" route would bring some issues with Federal Interstate standards. The south interchange between I-49 and LA 3132 would have to be totally rebuilt; it's currently a 4-level stack, but would have to be significantly modified to allow the transfer of the through movements from existing I-49 to the south to the Inner Loop to the west/northwest. The Linwood Avenue interchange with the Inner Loop may have to be closed due to interchange spacing requirements due to its proximity to the I-49 interchange, seriously impacting local access. In addition, there is a sharp curve just before the Inner Loop/I-20/I-220(W) interchange that would have to be eased in order to meet Federal Interstate standards. Alongside with having to widen I-220 over Cross Lake and theaten Shreveport's/Bossier City's drinking water supply, that's one of the biggest advantages of the central alignment, besides its direct and short connection filling the I-49 gap (all respect to the impacts on Allendale, of course).


I don't think I-49 is going to be built through that community. There are strong opposition in that area. Loop it is the best method. IMO.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 11:49:10 AM
^ Not really... it seems the majority of the opposition is coming from outside RE/T groups.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on July 17, 2021, 01:26:03 PM
Quote from: Strider on July 17, 2021, 11:42:01 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 17, 2021, 10:14:39 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 16, 2021, 03:14:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 15, 2021, 09:14:41 PM
Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

Aside from the fact that it's a direct extension of existing I-49 and the shortest alternative, one of the rationales for not simply rerouting I-49 over I-220 and Loop 3132 is the Cross Lake bridge on I-220; if the rerouted through traffic were to increase, it might be necessary to widen/rebuild that bridge, which traverses Shreveport's main water supply.  Apparently there are measures built into the existing bridges to keep refuse and detritus from bridge automotive traffic out of the reservoir below; widening the bridge would entail not only rebuilding the oil/waste collection system but expose the reservoir to construction debris.  I-49 wasn't even on anyone's mind, save LADOT, back in the '70's when I-220 was opened to traffic, so ready provisions for expansion weren't built into the facility. 

In addition to what Sparker said, re-routing I-49 along the LA 3132/I-220 "Loop It" route would bring some issues with Federal Interstate standards. The south interchange between I-49 and LA 3132 would have to be totally rebuilt; it's currently a 4-level stack, but would have to be significantly modified to allow the transfer of the through movements from existing I-49 to the south to the Inner Loop to the west/northwest. The Linwood Avenue interchange with the Inner Loop may have to be closed due to interchange spacing requirements due to its proximity to the I-49 interchange, seriously impacting local access. In addition, there is a sharp curve just before the Inner Loop/I-20/I-220(W) interchange that would have to be eased in order to meet Federal Interstate standards. Alongside with having to widen I-220 over Cross Lake and theaten Shreveport's/Bossier City's drinking water supply, that's one of the biggest advantages of the central alignment, besides its direct and short connection filling the I-49 gap (all respect to the impacts on Allendale, of course).


I don't think I-49 is going to be built through that community. There are strong opposition in that area. Loop it is the best method. IMO.

Loop it (as opposed to a true NO-BUILD option) will result in MORE displacement, more turmoil, more.... LA-3132 has been called the WORST condition freeway in the USA. It would have to be totally rebuilt. Both LA-3132 and I-220 are already jammed and I-49 north of Texarkana is still years away. They would badly need to be widened. It would probably cost more to revamp the Cross Lake crossing than the entire cost of the ICC. To widen LA-3132 between I-49 and Jewella would create displacements too. There would likely be a few along I-220 between I-20 and Cross Lake.  "Loop it" is a billion dollar plus proposal.  No build which some seem to confuse with Loop IT has real capacity issues. Both of them also thwart the desire to get the HC off of I-220 across Cross Lake.

While the effects to Allendale will probably be less, the effects to both Shreveport in general and to minority communities will be as great (probably greater) than building I-49 through. If through frontage roads were built along Allen Avenue and Pete Harris from Murphy to Ford / Caddo it will do more for Allendale than anything that is going to happen with nothing coming through.

This idea of a walkable through boulevard here or for I-345 in Dallas , or anywhere else is almost laughable. Right now there is enough traffic along Ford street that it is not "walkable" . The oft discussed through Boulevard connected to freeways on both ends will just have truck traffic rendering it less walkable or crossable than it already is.  Allendale was already divided by the intraurban railroad. This long abandoned rail routing created a divide long before any thought of this. The northern portion has more homes.

Does Allendale need revitalized?  Yes. If this road is not built it isn't going to happen. It might not happen if it is.  Would the people of Allendale benefit if the cost of building the freeway were spent on community development in Allendale? If it were done well, yes. If not no. To make a difference, it will mean pouring funds into repair and replacement of privately owned housing units.  What is generally done is subsidizing rents in homes and apartments. The outcome is slightly better housing conditions, but none of the real generational wealth increase that comes with home ownership. Rental assistance is a short term solution for the renter, but it has no long term benefit for them. Any long-term benefits of rental assistance is all for the property owners. Even there, the real benefit is for the original developer with subsequent owners having diminishing profitability as the renters tend to lack investment in the property and the landlords try to squeeze every penny out of the property through lessened maintenance standards and unsustainable rent price increases, then blame all of the problems on the tenants.
One of the problems is the economic model that says a usable real property NEVER diminishes in cost. This translates to landlords buying for at least what it was previously sold for regardless of the condition when the previous price,  plus inflation, adjusted for property conditions should have been the cost. By corollary, rents NEVER decrease. 

I could spend hours discussing the economics of poverty.  The bottom line is that if the residents of Allendale expected to be fairly remunerated in this process the opposition would be minimal. The bottom line is renters will get the short straw in this or any relocation deal. Their rent WILL go up after a short term that the cost is similar to their current rental cost. Resident owners will get a value for their current home that is far below replacement cost.  This is the real disconnect in the equation. There are ways to adequately relocate the people without the state and the community both taking it on the chin. What inevitably happens is the owners of woefully inadequate rental properties will expect the same treatment and there is no way to pay them using a different formula.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 20, 2021, 03:48:32 PM
I don't buy the water supply rationale.  There's already a freeway crossing it.  I-49 traffic is already using it.  Adding signs will change nothing about that.
I-220/LA 3132 is already the default I-49 thru route.  Is this not functional?

In a world of limited resources, Louisiana would be better off putting I-49 money to work down south; pick up the painfully slow freeway conversion pace down there between Nola and Lafayette.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on July 20, 2021, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 20, 2021, 03:48:32 PM
I don't buy the water supply rationale.  There's already a freeway crossing it.  I-49 traffic is already using it.  Adding signs will change nothing about that.
I-220/LA 3132 is already the default I-49 thru route.  Is this not functional?

In a world of limited resources, Louisiana would be better off putting I-49 money to work down south; pick up the painfully slow freeway conversion pace down there between Nola and Lafayette.

Adding signage is the least of the worries; as stated previously, the Cross Lake bridges were designed specifically so road runoff would be shunted elsewhere and not into the reservoir being crossed; if traffic coming and going from I-49 north wouldn't be enough to result in congestion -- subsequently fomenting plans for I-220 (49) expansion -- then there wouldn't be a problem for the time being; only the substandard portions of Loop 3132 would have to be brought up to standard.  But that probably won't be the case; a "loop it" scenario will likely caused increased congestion over time around the loop and its various interchanges, causing a revisiting of the Cross Lake bridges.  Point to ponder:  the presence of a freeway loop doesn't mean it's appropriate as an Interstate alternate alignment; in this case, there's a lot of substandard features (I know, I've driven 3132 several times) that will need addressing.  All that will have to be weighed against the issues with the direct in-town alignment (although it's likely that some parties to that discussion have already made up their minds).
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on July 20, 2021, 06:45:14 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 20, 2021, 03:48:32 PM
I don't buy the water supply rationale.  There's already a freeway crossing it.  I-49 traffic is already using it.  Adding signs will change nothing about that.
I-220/LA 3132 is already the default I-49 thru route.  Is this not functional?

In a world of limited resources, Louisiana would be better off putting I-49 money to work down south; pick up the painfully slow freeway conversion pace down there between Nola and Lafayette.


Is this not functional?  With the current traffic loads barely. When I-49 is extended to Fort Smith, the traffic load will likely increase significantly. As it is, the traffic is pretty significant on LA 3132/ I -220. It moves MOSTLY. 

You also need to look at the north to south traffic through Shreveport (admittedly mostly Bossier City). From a local perspective, it would alleviate the gridlock crossing the I-20 Red River Bridge (it backs up as much as 1/4 mile onto I-49 and past I-49 on I-20 EB...  both over 2 miles.) then both Benton Road and Airline Drive are congested from I-20 to I-220 going to North Bossier.

I-49 / US-90. How long do you perceive the ICC to be? It is to be about 5 miles. There is a bigger problem spot in Lafayette alone much less all the way from Lafayette to New Orleans.  Or are you talking about I-10?

Still five miles is negligible as a cost transfer.

Sparker talks about the design the MINIMIZE the possibility of contamination of Cross Lake. Both sides tilt inward (kind of a reverse hog-back) to have the runoff etc drain into a collection pan and then off the bridge to the shore. But the outboard sides CAN spill if the contaminate were to have significant volume. Those ports are currently covered with sand bags. Real safety from contamination!
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bassoon1986 on July 20, 2021, 06:48:06 PM
My thing is...why was I-49 ever built through central Shreveport (between LA 3132 Inner Loop and I-20) if it was never going to be constructed north of that point? Especially now that I-49 has been constructed down to I-220.

Those 3.5 miles between I-20 and I-220 are mostly empty land. Only 1.5 or so are through the Allendale neighborhood. I'm not saying  that neighborhood is not important but it's definitely not an Overton Park/I-40 situation like Memphis or examples like those.

And it's not only the argument about I-49 using LA 3132 and I-220 as the Loop option with Cross Lake as the issue. I-49 completed north south through the center of downtown Shreveport will relieve LA 3132 traffic. The combined I-220/LA 3132 loop from north to south Shreveport is a combination of local traffic and long range. Having grown up north of Shreveport, it was very common to use I-220 to the west and LA 3132 to south Shreveport to get to the Youree Dr (LA 1) and Bert Kouns (LA 526) area of businesses. LA 3132 is very frequently the cutoff for Louisiana travelers going westward to Texas and vice versa.


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on July 20, 2021, 07:03:08 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on July 20, 2021, 06:48:06 PM
My thing is…why was I-49 ever built through central Shreveport (between LA 3132 Inner Loop and I-20) if it was never going to be constructed north of that point? Especially now that I-49 has been constructed down to I-220.

Those 3.5 miles between I-20 and I-220 are mostly empty land. Only 1.5 or so are through the Allendale neighborhood. I’m not saying  that neighborhood is not important but it’s definitely not an Overton Park/I-40 situation like Memphis or examples like those.

And it’s not only the argument about I-49 using LA 3132 and I-220 as the Loop option with Cross Lake as the issue. I-49 completed north south through the center of downtown Shreveport will relieve LA 3132 traffic. The combined I-220/LA 3132 loop from north to south Shreveport is a combination of local traffic and long range. Having grown up north of Shreveport, it was very common to use I-220 to the west and LA 3132 to south Shreveport to get to the Youree Dr (LA 1) and Bert Kouns (LA 526) area of businesses. LA 3132 is very frequently the cutoff for Louisiana travelers going westward to Texas and vice versa.


iPhone


I think money was the issue. They used it up . When I-49 was built it was thought the Casinos were going to solve every money problem Louisiana ever had. There would be plenty of money as soon as the doors opened. It would just be a couple of years and they would have plenty of money to build I-49 ICC and probably more.

Here we are 27 years later. Louisiana is still broke. The Casinos in South Mississippi are still a bigger draw. The casinos in Oklahoma are doing well an hour and a half from DFW vs 3 hours plus to Shreveport  / Bossier.

It was a moot point until I-49 opened to the north. Traffic actually did go west to US-59 to get to Texarkana (not all of it, but a significant portion.) Now it goes on around and takes i-49.

Local traffic is still a big component of why this road needs built.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: edwaleni on July 21, 2021, 10:10:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sprjus4 on July 21, 2021, 11:24:06 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on July 21, 2021, 12:17:24 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 21, 2021, 10:10:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: The Ghostbuster 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on July 22, 2021, 04:11:23 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster 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.

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.   
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: triplemultiplex 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on July 22, 2021, 06:28:21 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex 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.

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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: TheBox 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
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Thegeet 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on July 23, 2021, 12:23:48 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 22, 2021, 06:28:21 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex 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.

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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Strider on July 23, 2021, 12:53:22 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 21, 2021, 11:24:06 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.

Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Strider 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sprjus4 on July 23, 2021, 01:52:03 AM
^ "through a neighborhood" , okay, keep using that fallacy argument  :-D
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on July 23, 2021, 01:53:35 AM
Quote from: Strider 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.

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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 23, 2021, 09:17:38 AM
Quote from: Strider 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.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Strider on July 23, 2021, 05:01:29 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 23, 2021, 09:17:38 AM
Quote from: Strider 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.

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?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sprjus4 on July 23, 2021, 06:51:13 PM
^ Allendale. Doesn't. Oppose. Nowadays. But you love to keep thinking that.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 25, 2021, 02:06:30 AM
Quote from: Strider on July 23, 2021, 05:01:29 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 23, 2021, 09:17:38 AM
Quote from: Strider 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.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Thegeet on July 25, 2021, 02:10:25 AM
Quote from: Strider on July 23, 2021, 05:01:29 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 23, 2021, 09:17:38 AM
Quote from: Strider 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.

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?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on July 25, 2021, 03:53:02 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on July 25, 2021, 02:10:25 AM
Quote from: Strider on July 23, 2021, 05:01:29 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 23, 2021, 09:17:38 AM
Quote from: Strider 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.

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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 15, 2021, 04:53:08 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 25, 2021, 02:06:30 AM
Quote from: Strider on July 23, 2021, 05:01:29 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 23, 2021, 09:17:38 AM
Quote from: Strider 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.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: abqtraveler on August 17, 2021, 10:27:44 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex 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.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 17, 2021, 04:26:26 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 17, 2021, 10:27:44 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex 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.

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.


Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK 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?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on August 17, 2021, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK 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?

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?!).
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 17, 2021, 05:54:59 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 17, 2021, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK 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?

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bassoon1986 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
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 17, 2021, 07:07:13 PM
So I post today in this thread and then see this article in Shreveport. Apparently Shreveport still sees a future of I-69 if they expect the LA 3132 extension to link up with it:

https://www.ktbs.com/news/preferred-route-of-hwy-3132-extension-between-neighborhoods-to-get-public-airing/article_21b9d0f6-feee-11eb-9218-37e3a3d13601.html?fbclid=IwAR3sb6A15gBsFDnewaI9HG8fRRc4L3TmJL2_SZmISY7Nsqflqyh1oQeCXqA

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210817/e0dd71248ff2a350fc3a9bae5581f7b1.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on August 17, 2021, 08:29:30 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 17, 2021, 05:54:59 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 17, 2021, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK 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?

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 US59 / 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 do 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.

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.

OK, nobody's going to Arkansas City; obviously there's an assumption here that the corridor is going to abruptly end there short of where the Dean bridge would be sited.  And equally obvious is the fact that TX and LA can't seem to agree on a state-line crossing but within TX there are mini-controversies over that issue as well; a resolution seems no closer today than it was in 1995 when I-69 was designated.  Add to that the fact that TxDOT and the quasi-official state backers appear to consider the combined 69/369 corridor completion as "job #1" (i.e. "provide a northeastern commercial egress from Houston, whatever it takes").  Thus my previous comment about simply shunting I-69 along I-20 through Shreveport/Bossier.  That change is a simple "speedbump" in the whole I-69 developmental process -- but unless there's a sea change that would prompt rethinking of the whole Shreveport-Memphis corridor segment, including cutting down the new-terrain mileage to save money and/or rerouting the Mississippi River crossing over US 82/278,  69 will split off from I-20 at or near where currently planned.  Except for not having a national rooting section for the planned Red River crossing, there probably wouldn't be too many folks who would consider the minor TX/LA reroute as particularly detrimental -- probably not TxDOT, who would simply curve I-69 north around Tenaha and not have to worry about a system interchange there, and almost definitely not LADOT, who have enough on their plate with the ICC and I-49 South.

Now -- if such a move occurs, it wouldn't be surprising if some enterprising soul suggests continuing the I-20/69 multiplex all the way to Monroe before turning north on the composite 165/425 corridor, which might make some S. Arkansas folks blanch -- but ARDOT and their LR handlers would probably capitulate to this as long as AR 530 connects to wherever the I-69 corridor ends up (that N-S "branch" seems to get more state priority than the main I-69 trunk, almost certainly because of where it goes and what it serves).  As far as the original "central" section of I-69 goes, it may fall victim to the mentality (not unjustified in today's state fiscal environments) of "chew a piece off here, realign it there, shorten it a bit, and sooner or later you might have a corridor that's workable and affordable".  At this point, I think once a first move toward that end is made, the dominoes will fall and the corridor will eventually no longer resemble the original plan but feature much less new-terrain construction. 
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 17, 2021, 11:31:19 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on August 17, 2021, 07:07:13 PM
So I post today in this thread and then see this article in Shreveport. Apparently Shreveport still sees a future of I-69 if they expect the LA 3132 extension to link up with it:

https://www.ktbs.com/news/preferred-route-of-hwy-3132-extension-between-neighborhoods-to-get-public-airing/article_21b9d0f6-feee-11eb-9218-37e3a3d13601.html?fbclid=IwAR3sb6A15gBsFDnewaI9HG8fRRc4L3TmJL2_SZmISY7Nsqflqyh1oQeCXqA

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210817/e0dd71248ff2a350fc3a9bae5581f7b1.jpg)


iPhone


LA-3132 should go to the port regardless of the outcome of I-69. The I-49 (to the) Port Connector is in the ROW acquisition stage. This ROW will be the path of I-69 if it ever comes across from Teneha. If it doesn't there would be initially service roads then (hopefully) main lanes at least from I-49 to the port. Absent I-69, it would still be the plan to build the segments from I-20 to I-49 however they might (or might not) be labeled. The current highway access to the port is less than desirable.  Youree Drive (LA-1)  and Flournoy-Lucas Rd is not a viable conduit from the Caddo side and Barksdale Blvd (US-71) is less so on the Bossier City side.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 17, 2021, 11:45:05 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 17, 2021, 05:54:59 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 17, 2021, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK 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?

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 US59 / 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 do 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.

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.


I know you like the I-69 to I-20 duplex. If it ever comes to that, TXDOT will pave I-69 along US-79 to the state line around Bethany and leave it to the two-lane in Louisiana.  I know never to say never, but I-69 will never duplex with I-20 in Texas . As to IH duplexes in Texas in  general, I believe (check me if I am wrong) the longest IH Duplex in Texas will be I-10/I-45 or I-45/I-69 in Houston.  I think the current I-10 /I-45 Duplex is the current longest.  There may come a time when I-69 ends at I-20, but that would be happenstance not anything by design.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sprjus4 on August 18, 2021, 12:00:31 AM
^ I-35 / I-10 in San Antonio is currently longer.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 18, 2021, 12:03:58 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 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

Three points:
I-49 will require a 15 mile jaunt south from I-20. Greenwood is closer.
Most don't hop on 59 in Carthage. Most of the traffic uses SH-315 so you can have fewer miles and fewer small towns. All of US-59 is 4-lane, but the bulk of the traffic chooses SH-315 and its 2-lane stretches.
A freeway from just south of Shreveport would probably get the traffic, but for those in Shreveport, the current Shreveport to Nacogdoches routing is not a deal breaker.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 18, 2021, 12:15:50 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2021, 12:00:31 AM
^ I-35 / I-10 in San Antonio is currently longer.

You are correct. I stand corrected. And after I detailed it, both sections of the I-45 duplex together probably would not  be greater than San Antonio. I honestly showed my lack of knowledge of San Antonio.

That said it is less than six miles.  As I said elsewhere, San Antonio Freeways as a whole look different in their style than the rest of Texas. Regardless, duplexes are not the norm in Texas or even a nominally accepted exception. 
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 18, 2021, 07:08:55 AM
The problem with a US 79/I-20 routing through Shreveport for I-69 is that that would potentially increase traffic on I-20 through Shreveport, and it would kill any shot of getting I-69 access to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier -- which is the entire point of that corridor in Shreveport in the first place -- along with providing an eastern completion to the Inner Loop now that I-220 East was butchered and truncated to a portal to Barksdale AFB.

I'm guessing that the authorities will take a go-slow/wait-and-see approach as to what TXDOT decides.

It's all the more reason I favored a split alignment for I-69 in the first place:

1) Houston to Texarkana using US 59 (then I-30/I-40 to Memphis)

2) Lake Charles/Iowa to Monroe to Little Rock via US 165/US 425/AR 530/I-530 (then either US 82 to Greenville then US 61 to Memphis, or a truncated AR alignment from Monticello to Memphis using the current proposal

Let Shreveport have the ICC and an extended Inner Loop to I-20 near Haughton as a consolation prize.



Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 18, 2021, 11:30:00 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 18, 2021, 07:08:55 AM
The problem with a US 79/I-20 routing through Shreveport for I-69 is that that would potentially increase traffic on I-20 through Shreveport, and it would kill any shot of getting I-69 access to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier -- which is the entire point of that corridor in Shreveport in the first place -- along with providing an eastern completion to the Inner Loop now that I-220 East was butchered and truncated to a portal to Barksdale AFB.

I'm guessing that the authorities will take a go-slow/wait-and-see approach as to what TXDOT decides.

It's all the more reason I favored a split alignment for I-69 in the first place:

1) Houston to Texarkana using US 59 (then I-30/I-40 to Memphis)

2) Lake Charles/Iowa to Monroe to Little Rock via US 165/US 425/AR 530/I-530 (then either US 82 to Greenville then US 61 to Memphis, or a truncated AR alignment from Monticello to Memphis using the current proposal

Let Shreveport have the ICC and an extended Inner Loop to I-20 near Haughton as a consolation prize.

In the short term, this is what it looks like.  I agree fully!

I think from the POV of Caddo and Bossier Parishes, if they can get the ICC, The 3132 extension, and the port connector, they have a win. If they can get the port bridge and a complete loop around BAFB, it will be gravy. There is little to no expectation of I-69 actually getting built especially north of I-20 in the next 40 years or so.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Henry on August 18, 2021, 11:37:13 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 18, 2021, 11:30:00 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 18, 2021, 07:08:55 AM
The problem with a US 79/I-20 routing through Shreveport for I-69 is that that would potentially increase traffic on I-20 through Shreveport, and it would kill any shot of getting I-69 access to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier -- which is the entire point of that corridor in Shreveport in the first place -- along with providing an eastern completion to the Inner Loop now that I-220 East was butchered and truncated to a portal to Barksdale AFB.

I'm guessing that the authorities will take a go-slow/wait-and-see approach as to what TXDOT decides.

It's all the more reason I favored a split alignment for I-69 in the first place:

1) Houston to Texarkana using US 59 (then I-30/I-40 to Memphis)

2) Lake Charles/Iowa to Monroe to Little Rock via US 165/US 425/AR 530/I-530 (then either US 82 to Greenville then US 61 to Memphis, or a truncated AR alignment from Monticello to Memphis using the current proposal

Let Shreveport have the ICC and an extended Inner Loop to I-20 near Haughton as a consolation prize.

In the short term, this is what it looks like.  I agree fully!

I think from the POV of Caddo and Bossier Parishes, if they can get the ICC, The 3132 extension, and the port connector, they have a win. If they can get the port bridge and a complete loop around BAFB, it will be gravy. There is little to no expectation of I-69 actually getting built especially north of I-20 in the next 40 years or so.
Better to build new-terrain I-69 than use existing highways through town. I've always believed that the only way an LA 3132 extension ever gets built is to have I-69 running to the southeast, and then it will have a meaningful connection. I hope it does happen, even if I become too old to drive by then (I'll be 91 at the end of the timeline).
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sparker on August 18, 2021, 05:07:40 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As far as a "split alignment" for I-69 goes, that was attempted by a cadre of AR congressfolks 20+ years ago with what was termed the "Dickey Split", which didn't double up on I-30 and I-40 but ran a branch up US 79 until about Stuttgart, then veered east to cross into Mississippi somewhere near the US 49 bridge.  While that was shot down, as a "consolation prize" the delegation got a I-69 branch (SIU #28) heading north from Monticello, tying in with I-530 at Pine Bluff.  Since then, a sizeable chunk of the funds obtained so far by AR for construction of their share of the I-69 corridor has gone to extending AR 530 (familiar number?) south from Pine Bluff to near the E-W I-69 alignment at Monticello; so far, construction has been 2 lanes on a 4-lane ROW, more to reserve the ROW than anything.  With that branch in place, the chances of reconsidering anything like the original Dickey Split are slim and none, particularly if the alternative simply dumps more traffic onto the already crowded I-30 and I-40 east of LR.  But the idea of continuing the trunk I-69 corridor over US 79 to I-20 than simply replacing the south end of I-369 would be convincing if not for the fact that TxDOT is already planning a massive stack interchange at the 20/369 junction just east of Marshall; it's just as likely, considering the scope -- and overall cost -- of this and other in-state corridors, they would rather save some bucks, bite their cheeks, and tolerate a multiplex of I-69 with I-20 for the few miles east of Marshall to the state line.   
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 18, 2021, 11:53:34 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 18, 2021, 07:08:55 AM
The problem with a US 79/I-20 routing through Shreveport for I-69 is that that would potentially increase traffic on I-20 through Shreveport, and it would kill any shot of getting I-69 access to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier -- which is the entire point of that corridor in Shreveport in the first place -- along with providing an eastern completion to the Inner Loop now that I-220 East was butchered and truncated to a portal to Barksdale AFB.

I'm guessing that the authorities will take a go-slow/wait-and-see approach as to what TXDOT decides.

It's all the more reason I favored a split alignment for I-69 in the first place:

1) Houston to Texarkana using US 59 (then I-30/I-40 to Memphis)

2) Lake Charles/Iowa to Monroe to Little Rock via US 165/US 425/AR 530/I-530 (then either US 82 to Greenville then US 61 to Memphis, or a truncated AR alignment from Monticello to Memphis using the current proposal

Let Shreveport have the ICC and an extended Inner Loop to I-20 near Haughton as a consolation prize.

I-220 was always supposed to go EXACTLY where it did. Just in the seventies when it was built, it was supposed to go on through Barksdale. Sort of like US 280 through Ft Benning. After 9-11 that simply is NOT going to happen.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on August 19, 2021, 02:20:13 PM
It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 19, 2021, 11:02:15 PM
Quote from: Dave H on August 19, 2021, 02:20:13 PM
It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.

It might surprise you. Since this bridge will not get built absent some miracle AND the fact that local traffic outside commercial port traffic won't really use it initially at least, I think it could happen. Sell it as a commercial bridge with little POV traffic from the locals and it might just happen.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 20, 2021, 08:53:16 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 19, 2021, 11:02:15 PM
Quote from: Dave H on August 19, 2021, 02:20:13 PM
It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.

It might surprise you. Since this bridge will not get built absent some miracle AND the fact that local traffic outside commercial port traffic won't really use it initially at least, I think it could happen. Sell it as a commercial bridge with little POV traffic from the locals and it might just happen.

Dis you ask Kent(y) Rodgers if he knows how to hold 'em?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 20, 2021, 09:29:51 PM
Quote from: Dave H on August 19, 2021, 02:20:13 PM
It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.

Doesn't a toll bridge actually require enough traffic to justify it?

Unless they also plan to build the entirity of that segment of I-69 from I-49 to I-20 near Haughton and make that a toll road, this is a major "PASS" for me.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: debragga on August 20, 2021, 11:10:08 PM
A toll bridge in S/BC sounds like a terrible idea
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Thegeet on August 21, 2021, 01:46:18 AM
If a toll road isn't a good idea, how long would it take to start construction?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 22, 2021, 11:00:47 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 20, 2021, 09:29:51 PM
Quote from: Dave H on August 19, 2021, 02:20:13 PM
It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.


Doesn't a toll bridge actually require enough traffic to justify it?

Unless they also plan to build the entirity of that segment of I-69 from I-49 to I-20 near Haughton and make that a toll road, this is a major "PASS" for me.

I think from a governmental POV, a toll road here is less than optimal. The point was that a NGO was going to build it at their cost and operate it. Unless the local government has to guarantee the bonds to build it, it is win / win for the locals. If the locals can get hung with a default, that is something to run from like the plague. If there is no guarantee by local governments (including the Port Commission), the worst outcome is the toll road / bridge is too expensive and no one even port traffic uses it. Such a waste, but at the same time, not the worst possible outcome.

As to the Amazon warehouse / DC, there are a couple of ways to look at it. Walmart's biggest DC complex is outside of Palestine (TX) and the nearest freeway is 30 miles away (I-45 in Buffalo).

The other way is that this new DC is just a block or two away from the ICC. By the way, it makes the logical intersection be Hearne AVE, not Caddo /  Ford Street / Hilry Huckaby III Dr. which is what the locals have wanted.  That is why US-171 was truncated at Greenwood Road and re-signed as LA-3094 so it would be permittable for the intersection to NOT be Hearne.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: NE2 on August 23, 2021, 12:49:11 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 22, 2021, 11:00:47 PM
That is why US-171 was truncated at Greenwood Road and re-signed as LA-3094 so it would be permittable for the intersection to NOT be Hearne.
Not true. From Application_LA_1978_171_US:
QuoteThe Route Numbering Committee and the Executive Committee of AASIITO
have examined your Department's application for the extension of U.S. 171
In Shreveport. They voted to reject your application since the route lies
entirely within the State of Louisiana and Is In violation of Policy #5
of the Purpose and Policy In the Establishment and Development of United
States Numbered Highways, a copy of which Is attached.
They have asked that you review this route with the objective In mind
of renumbering U.S. 171 as a State Route and dropping the U.S. designation.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on August 23, 2021, 08:17:55 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 23, 2021, 12:49:11 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 22, 2021, 11:00:47 PM
That is why US-171 was truncated at Greenwood Road and re-signed as LA-3094 so it would be permittable for the intersection to NOT be Hearne.
Not true. From Application_LA_1978_171_US:
QuoteThe Route Numbering Committee and the Executive Committee of AASIITO
have examined your Department's application for the extension of U.S. 171
In Shreveport. They voted to reject your application since the route lies
entirely within the State of Louisiana and Is In violation of Policy #5
of the Purpose and Policy In the Establishment and Development of United
States Numbered Highways, a copy of which Is attached.
They have asked that you review this route with the objective In mind
of renumbering U.S. 171 as a State Route and dropping the U.S. designation.

You appear to be correct. Maps from the fifties, seventies, and early nineties verify what you say. I was going from discussion about the ICC locally (Primarily from around a decade ago). I am ALMOST certain that when I first came to being in Shreveport regularly (25 years ago more or less) that there were 171 signs along Hearne north of Greenwood Road.

I was guilty of trusting news reports and local discussions.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Mapmikey on August 23, 2021, 09:21:12 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 23, 2021, 08:17:55 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 23, 2021, 12:49:11 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 22, 2021, 11:00:47 PM
That is why US-171 was truncated at Greenwood Road and re-signed as LA-3094 so it would be permittable for the intersection to NOT be Hearne.
Not true. From Application_LA_1978_171_US:
QuoteThe Route Numbering Committee and the Executive Committee of AASIITO
have examined your Department's application for the extension of U.S. 171
In Shreveport. They voted to reject your application since the route lies
entirely within the State of Louisiana and Is In violation of Policy #5
of the Purpose and Policy In the Establishment and Development of United
States Numbered Highways, a copy of which Is attached.
They have asked that you review this route with the objective In mind
of renumbering U.S. 171 as a State Route and dropping the U.S. designation.

You appear to be correct. Maps from the fifties, seventies, and early nineties verify what you say. I was going from discussion about the ICC locally (Primarily from around a decade ago). I am ALMOST certain that when I first came to being in Shreveport regularly (25 years ago more or less) that there were 171 signs along Hearne north of Greenwood Road.

I was guilty of trusting news reports and local discussions.

Random rejection by AASHO...

Before and since they have approved changes (including extensions) of other single-state US routes...
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 24, 2021, 07:50:07 PM
Also, US 171 used to follow Mansfield Rd all the way to Greenwood Rd/Texas Ave at US 79 and US 80 and then followed those highways along Texas into downtown Shreveport where it met US 71 and LA 1. Once Hearne Ave was completed and connected through town, 171 followed Hearne to its current terminus at 79/80 at Greenwood Rd. But it never went north of there.


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on February 15, 2023, 02:55:38 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 19, 2021, 11:02:15 PM
Quote from: Dave H on August 19, 2021, 02:20:13 PM
It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.

It might surprise you. Since this bridge will not get built absent some miracle AND the fact that local traffic outside commercial port traffic won't really use it initially at least, I think it could happen. Sell it as a commercial bridge with little POV traffic from the locals and it might just happen.

This thing is still creeping along.... The developer has applied for permits from the USACOE.

https://www.ksla.com/2023/02/14/company-planning-build-toll-bridge-across-red-river-seeking-approval-permits/
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: abqtraveler on February 15, 2023, 05:00:35 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 15, 2023, 02:55:38 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 19, 2021, 11:02:15 PM
Quote from: Dave H on August 19, 2021, 02:20:13 PM
It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.

It might surprise you. Since this bridge will not get built absent some miracle AND the fact that local traffic outside commercial port traffic won't really use it initially at least, I think it could happen. Sell it as a commercial bridge with little POV traffic from the locals and it might just happen.

This thing is still creeping along.... The developer has applied for permits from the USACOE.

https://www.ksla.com/2023/02/14/company-planning-build-toll-bridge-across-red-river-seeking-approval-permits/
Is this bridge going to become part of I-69 or is this a separate project?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on February 15, 2023, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 15, 2023, 05:00:35 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 15, 2023, 02:55:38 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 19, 2021, 11:02:15 PM
Quote from: Dave H on August 19, 2021, 02:20:13 PM
It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.

It might surprise you. Since this bridge will not get built absent some miracle AND the fact that local traffic outside commercial port traffic won't really use it initially at least, I think it could happen. Sell it as a commercial bridge with little POV traffic from the locals and it might just happen.

This thing is still creeping along.... The developer has applied for permits from the USACOE.

https://www.ksla.com/2023/02/14/company-planning-build-toll-bridge-across-red-river-seeking-approval-permits/
Is this bridge going to become part of I-69 or is this a separate project?

It is in the right place more or less.  By itself it is NOT a part of the I-69 PROJECT. It mates up with the I-49 to LA-1 port connector project which should eventually become I-69 (if it ever reaches Shreveport.)  To the locals the only part of the I-69 project that has any import is getting  better highway access to the port and a bridge across the Red River at the port. Perhaps an I-49 to I-20 connector.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 15, 2023, 07:28:58 PM
The two-lane Monticello Bypass excluded, I would be very surprised if any additional segments of Interstate 69 are constructed in Louisiana, Mississippi, or between Memphis, TN and Dyersburg, TN within the next 40 or 50 years.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on February 15, 2023, 09:56:34 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 15, 2023, 07:28:58 PM
The two-lane Monticello Bypass excluded, I would be very surprised if any additional segments of Interstate 69 are constructed in Louisiana, Mississippi, or between Memphis, TN and Dyersburg, TN within the next 40 or 50 years.

I agree fully. The single exception is if the US congress created funding restricted to I-69. Mississippi might pass even then.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Some one on February 17, 2023, 01:05:20 PM
Yeah let's face it, outside of Texas, Kentucky, and Indiana, no other states really feel compelled to finish their portion of I-69. They just have bigger fish to fry. Even in Texas, some segments have more priority than others.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 19, 2023, 10:56:42 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 15, 2023, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 15, 2023, 05:00:35 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 15, 2023, 02:55:38 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 19, 2021, 11:02:15 PM
Quote from: Dave H on August 19, 2021, 02:20:13 PM
It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.

It might surprise you. Since this bridge will not get built absent some miracle AND the fact that local traffic outside commercial port traffic won't really use it initially at least, I think it could happen. Sell it as a commercial bridge with little POV traffic from the locals and it might just happen.

This thing is still creeping along.... The developer has applied for permits from the USACOE.

https://www.ksla.com/2023/02/14/company-planning-build-toll-bridge-across-red-river-seeking-approval-permits/
Is this bridge going to become part of I-69 or is this a separate project?

It is in the right place more or less.  By itself it is NOT a part of the I-69 PROJECT. It mates up with the I-49 to LA-1 port connector project which should eventually become I-69 (if it ever reaches Shreveport.)  To the locals the only part of the I-69 project that has any import is getting  better highway access to the port and a bridge across the Red River at the port. Perhaps an I-49 to I-20 connector.

If they can find a way to expand this to incorporate the proposed "I-69 frontage road" and create a fully access tolled connection between I-49 at Stonewall and I-20 near Haughton, that would be very helpful.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on February 19, 2023, 11:06:58 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 19, 2023, 10:56:42 PM


If they can find a way to expand this to incorporate the proposed "I-69 frontage road" and create a fully access tolled connection between I-49 at Stonewall and I-20 near Haughton, that would be very helpful.

The plan is to connect as you called it the "I-69 Frontage Road" (I-49 / Port connector)

In the short run, it will connect LA-1 to US-71. The I-49 to LA-1 segment is probably going to be built to some degree in the not that distant future. Like you said, probably just one 2-lane frontage road.

The US-71 to IH-20 segment is probably 15+ years off.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: TheBox on March 21, 2023, 01:13:35 PM
Posting the pictures here for a reminder of what has yet to be done
(https://i.imgur.com/glDAA.jpeg)
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/ktbs.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/30/7306be74-95a2-11ec-9b0c-43384bf0e5ef/6217d347d03cf.image.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210817/e0dd71248ff2a350fc3a9bae5581f7b1.jpg)

as well as Arkansas (late December 2022 at the latest)
(https://i.imgur.com/sMprpx4.png)

and Mississippi
(https://i.imgur.com/K7SVUdP.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 21, 2023, 01:45:35 PM
And who knows if a completed Interstate 69 in those states will carry sufficient traffic volumes to make constructing the projects worthwhile?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 23, 2023, 01:58:20 PM
Considering the rather crooked path I-69 is proposed to follow through Arkansas and Mississippi, I'm wondering if a Houston-Memphis road trip via the I-69/I-369/I-30/I-40 combo would end up being shorter in mileage rather than staying on I-69 the entire way.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: sprjus4 on March 23, 2023, 02:57:54 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 23, 2023, 01:58:20 PM
Considering the rather crooked path I-69 is proposed to follow through Arkansas and Mississippi, I'm wondering if a Houston-Memphis road trip via the I-69/I-369/I-30/I-40 combo would end up being shorter in mileage rather than staying on I-69 the entire way.
I don't have it off the top of my head, but I believe I compared the two routes before and it was around the same mileage.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on March 23, 2023, 11:59:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2023, 02:57:54 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 23, 2023, 01:58:20 PM
Considering the rather crooked path I-69 is proposed to follow through Arkansas and Mississippi, I'm wondering if a Houston-Memphis road trip via the I-69/I-369/I-30/I-40 combo would end up being shorter in mileage rather than staying on I-69 the entire way.
I don't have it off the top of my head, but I believe I compared the two routes before and it was around the same mileage.

It seemed like it was 25 or thirty miles farther along the tentatively proposed I-69 routing. It should, however, be significantly less congested.   I say tentatively because Robert Moore i(Arkansas) is retired and other routes that do not go through his home town will be considered.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on July 27, 2023, 02:17:33 PM
Not really anything new...

https://www.ktbs.com/news/i-69-service-road-could-alleviate-commercial-truck-congestion/article_6ba5e09e-2c08-11ee-92ea-37814a2e5f3b.html
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: TheBox on October 26, 2023, 09:34:12 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on July 27, 2023, 02:17:33 PM
Not really anything new...

https://www.ktbs.com/news/i-69-service-road-could-alleviate-commercial-truck-congestion/article_6ba5e09e-2c08-11ee-92ea-37814a2e5f3b.html
As we are nearing the end of the year 2023, surprise surprise they still need funding for the I-69 Service Road but still no said funding yet.

Louisiana has bigger fish to fry like I-10 expansion between the TX/LA state line and Baton Rouge, and I-49 thru Shreveport and Layfette (and then the rest of the way to said New Orleans after that), As they would gain and benefit more from those two than they would from I-69 (which just cuts thru a corner).

Same with Arkansas but with I-57 instead of I-10, and arguably even add in US-412 west of NWA.

EDIT: And as for Mississippi, I don't know anything they have on their plate, but I do remember they don't have the funding nor benefits for it either.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on December 25, 2023, 11:09:00 AM
Interesting videos on this subject

https://youtu.be/3It8GOsq5RE

https://youtu.be/J7bWKiacj24

Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on February 10, 2024, 09:47:32 AM
https://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/library/EnvStudy/LA3132_Ext/LA3132_FONSI_Signed.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on February 10, 2024, 09:54:40 AM
https://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/announcement.aspx?key=34266

Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: hurricanehink on February 10, 2024, 04:52:51 PM
Quote from: Dave H on February 10, 2024, 09:54:40 AM
https://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/announcement.aspx?key=34266

This is all southeast of Shreveport. Based on that, it appears that I-69 will connect with I-49 between exits 186 and 191. Does anyone know where 69 is projected to meet up with LA 1?
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on February 10, 2024, 08:18:25 PM
Quote from: hurricanehink on February 10, 2024, 04:52:51 PM
Quote from: Dave H on February 10, 2024, 09:54:40 AM
https://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/announcement.aspx?key=34266

This is all southeast of Shreveport. Based on that, it appears that I-69 will connect with I-49 between exits 186 and 191. Does anyone know where 69 is projected to meet up with LA 1?

If you look at P5 of the PDF in the NLCOG packet, it has that lined out.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: Dave H on February 12, 2024, 01:27:35 PM
I-69 will intersect LA1 immediately to the south of Doug Attaway Blvd, which is one of the main entrances to the port.

Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: bwana39 on March 05, 2024, 01:01:42 PM
Nothing new... This is about where everything is

https://www.nlcog.org/megaprojects.html
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 05, 2024, 02:07:19 PM
Interstate 69 probably won't be built for 20 to 30 years, if it is built at all. Maybe they could build the segment between Interstate 49 and Interstate 20 first. That portion would likely be the most-heavily utilized segment, although that might not be saying much.
Title: Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
Post by: MikieTimT on March 08, 2024, 08:56:47 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 05, 2024, 02:07:19 PM
Interstate 69 probably won't be built for 20 to 30 years, if it is built at all. Maybe they could build the segment between Interstate 49 and Interstate 20 first. That portion would likely be the most-heavily utilized segment, although that might not be saying much.

Bits and pieces will be built in Arkansas over the next 4 decades with higher utility segments, starting with Super 2 facilities with ROW for 4 lanes.  Drew County (SIU 13) will likely get everything done Super-2 over the next couple of decades (complete Monticello 2 lane bypass), including AR-530, then we just wait and see if Mississippi or Louisiana get serious and funded about SIU's near the borders.  SIU 12 (Dean Bridge) doesn't happen at all with Arkansas or Mississippi either one footing anywhere close to 20% of the bill, though.  Arkansas likes to punt to richer surrounding states when dealing with the Mississippi River or Red River bridge crossings, but won't have that possibility when partnering with the likes of Mississippi.