I49 in LA

[bassoon1986]

Keep in mind both LA 1049 and 3049/3149 are used. Numbering it LA 249 could work, except for the fact that LA 3249 exists in Shreveport.

I have never heard of that number. I looked at the state log on this site but all it said was south interchange of I-20 to US 80.  Which interchange is that? Monkhouse?

Jefferson Paige Road, signed as TO US 79/80 from 20, but 3249 from 79/80 to 20.

AKA the last 220 exit before 20 West.

Is that actually signed??  All my life I've always seen one lone sign heading east of 220 there with LA 3231, which I always thought was way too close to LA 3132. Shrevport has that elsewhere though....(LA 3032 and 3036, or  LA 3049, LA 3094, and LA 3194)


Google Maps still shows it too...
https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Brookshire's,+North+Market+Street,+Shreveport,+LA&daddr=St+John's+Church+Rd,+Hosston,+LA&hl=en&ll=32.470034,-93.829958&spn=0.009631,0.013797&sll=32.864593,-93.872402&sspn=0.009588,0.013797&geocode=FdPN8AEdqflo-iGslSljALESaymhIxAZiMw2hjGslSljALESaw%3BFXVp9QEdJIdn-ik5lMZ6x682hjFvrQke4L7pZQ&oq=st+johns+&mra=ls&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.470098,-93.829866&panoid=gBSAL4lkHpbypTb2HWNzGg&cbp=12,103.56,,0,17.57

[Grzrd]

A recent email from LADOTD confirms that I-49 North will be initially signed as I-49.  Also, mileage for mile markers will be based on I-220 routing.  If and when ICC ever built, mile markers will be changed to reflect that routing.  Relevant part of email:

The new segment of I-49 from I-220 to Arkansas will be signed as I-49. Currently, we only have approval for the routing of I-49 that overlaps I-20 and I-220. The section that runs through Shreveport probably will not be open to traffic for quite some time. Once the section is built between I-20 and 220, the exit numbers on the north section will be changed.

Grzrd...that plan sheet makes me wonder if the mile markers are based on the Inner Loop/I-220 routing instead of the current 49 through town.

Great catch. It triggered a hazy memory of the 2010 email quoted above. Theoretically, the numbers should match an I-20/I-220 routing instead of an Inner Loop (LA 3132)/ I-220 routing.

[cjk374]

Well Road in West Monroe has been given a state road number recently...I think it was numbered LA 3249.  The only signs for it are on the Well Road exit ramps.  Can anyone else double check that? 

[cenlaroads]

Well Road in West Monroe has been given a state road number recently...I think it was numbered LA 3249.  The only signs for it are on the Well Road exit ramps.  Can anyone else double check that? 

This is correct.  LA 3249 is Well Road in West Monroe from US 80 to the south end of the interchange with I-20.  LA 3231 was Jefferson Paige Road in Shreveport from US 80 to the interchange with I-220.  I believe it was decommissioned earlier this year.

[mcdonaat]

My mistake, I thought Jefferson Paige was LA 3249. I personally have never seen LA 3249 signs, just TO I-20 and TO US 80. On the south end, though, you have a Ouachita Parish shield.

Let's number I-49 in segments... LA 1264-1, LA 1264-2, etc... just kidding.

[Anthony_JK]

Grzrd...that plan sheet makes me wonder if the mile markers are based on the Inner Loop/I-220 routing instead of the current 49 through town. If I guessed miles correctly based on US 71 now, milemarker 234 at US 71 south of hosston is about 22 miles from I-220 which would make a tentative milemarker there at 212. That's 6 miles away from I-49 at its terminus now, but it's exactly 13 miles away from I-49 at LA 3132, which is exit 199.

My numbers could be off but it looks like the mileage will go around the loop. If and when the ICC gets built down the road, it will be much later than the opening of 49 north of Shreveport. 30+ miles is a lot easier to replace mile markers than say all of 49 if mileage gets added to 49 south in 20 years...

I remember reading an old thread which said that according to LADOTD, until the ICC was completed, I-49 would use I-20 from the existing I-49 terminus west to I-220, then I-220 north/east to the proposed I-49 North terminus. Perhaps that would make for the difference in mile markers??

[Grzrd]

Funny, but I don't hear the people in Alexandria complaining about the damage I-49 wrought through their city ....
Also....has Morgan City or the Westbank communities of Gretna and Harvey been so damaged by the elevated segments of US 90 or the Westbank Expressway??

This TV video report includes some shots of renderings of the proposed elevated Inner City Connector coursing through Allendale, etc.

edit

This TV video report from one of the ICC public meetings is interesting because Pastor C.E. McLain of one of the community churches, Little Union Baptist Church, comments that, "I-49 is a reality; ready or not, it is coming ..."

[cjk374]

Well Road in West Monroe has been given a state road number recently...I think it was numbered LA 3249.  The only signs for it are on the Well Road exit ramps.  Can anyone else double check that? 

This is correct.  LA 3249 is Well Road in West Monroe from US 80 to the south end of the interchange with I-20.

I remember seeing the Ouachita Parish sign on the north end of Well Rd. (can't remember the number though).  But I do remember seeing the LA 3249 directional signs on the exit ramps pointing both north and south.

[Grzrd]

Still awaiting that blasted toll study, though....

The wait will continue a bit longer.  LaDOTD was supposed to present the toll study to the Legislature (I think by Dec. 13), but an extension was requested and has been granted.  From a LaDOTD email:

In order to complete a more thorough analysis of potential tolling options on the future I-49 south corridor, as required by legislative resolution, DOTD has requested and the legislature has granted an extension of the resolution deadline until summer 2013.
While a complete toll analysis of the corridor was completed several years ago, the new study will allow for a fresh look at tolling options, and include new data collection, traffic and revenue models.

No toll study under the tree this year...

[Grzrd]

... And the bid came in under $50 million:

H.003496.6 (DBE Goal Project)  I-49 NORTH (MLK TO LA HWY 1)
CLEARING AND GRUBBING, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, SUBGRADE TREATMENT, CLASS II BASE COURSE, SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT, PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT, PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER SPANS BRIDGE, AND RELATED WORK
Parish(es): Caddo
Route(s): I-49
Federal: 0021(011)
Estimated Construction Cost: $55,365,092.30
Apparent Low Bidder: Jb James Construction Llc
1881 WOODDALE BLVD.
BATON ROUGE, LA 70806
Phone: (225)927-3131  $49,935,632.84

One more mile (Segment K) to I-220. 

[Grzrd]

A recent email from LADOTD confirms that I-49 North will be initially signed as I-49.  Also, mileage for mile markers will be based on I-220 routing.  If and when ICC ever built, mile markers will be changed to reflect that routing.  Relevant part of email:

The new segment of I-49 from I-220 to Arkansas will be signed as I-49. Currently, we only have approval for the routing of I-49 that overlaps I-20 and I-220. The section that runs through Shreveport probably will not be open to traffic for quite some time. Once the section is built between I-20 and 220, the exit numbers on the north section will be changed.

Grzrd...that plan sheet makes me wonder if the mile markers are based on the Inner Loop/I-220 routing instead of the current 49 through town.

Great catch. It triggered a hazy memory of the 2010 email quoted above. Theoretically, the numbers should match an I-20/I-220 routing instead of an Inner Loop (LA 3132)/ I-220 routing.

It looks like I was misadvised in 2010 (or, during the two-year interim since LaDOTD sent me the above email, LaDOTD sought and received approval for the LA 3132 routing). Several new documents have been posted on the Inner City Connector website, including a No Build Alternative map, which shows a LA 3132/ I-220 routing.  At least you now have a definite route on which to check the accuracy of the mileage markers.

[Anthony_JK]

Seems like some folk down here aren't so willing to wait until this summer for some movement on I-49 South. From the Baton Rouge Advocate on Monday:

I-49 plans get renewed
Nonprofit coalition proposed


LAFAYETTE – Supporters of completing Interstate 49 from Lafayette to New Orleans are working to pull together a nonprofit coalition with a full-time executive director to help move the project forward.

"People have talked about I-49 for 30 years. It has moved and it has stopped, but mainly, it has stopped,"  said State Sen. R.L. "Bret"  Allain II, R-Franklin, who is part of the core group planning the new coalition.

Allain said two key factors in the renewed push to complete I-49 South will be soliciting more involvement from the industries that depend on the highway and hiring a full-time director to keep the effort focused and on track.

"One person dedicating their life to that is an absolute. It must happen,"  Allain said.

Community leaders and economic development officials from throughout the region came together at organizational meeting for the coalition this month in Lafayette.

A more extensive planning meeting is scheduled for next month.

"We are serious about getting this going,"  said Bruce Conque, with the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce.

The work to upgrade U.S. 90 to interstate standards has progressed steadily in recent years with a series of projects to build new overpasses, frontage roads and other improvements.

But an estimated $5 billion in work remains for the two most expensive portions – the partially elevated stretch through Lafayette and the southern leg from Raceland into the New Orleans area.

Those would be among the largest transportation projects in recent state history, and I-49 supporters have had little success in identifying a funding source at a time when state and federal highway money is tight.

Several efforts have been pursued over the past decade to galvanize support for the project, including a third incarnation of an I-49 South "task force"  that lost momentum soon after it launched in 2009 and a campaign to brand I-49 as "America's Energy Corridor"  in the hopes of attracting more attention.

St. Mary Parish Director of Economic Development Frank Fink said the new plans for the I-49 coalition differ from past efforts in that there is a greater emphasis on bringing the entire region from Lafayette to New Orleans on board and in actively involving business leaders.

"It's really come to the point where it is essential, and pulling together as a team will get it done,"  Fink said. "I think this is a fresh start."

The article also covers the possibility of using tolls to complete the project:

LA 1 Coalition Director Henri Boulet cautioned that even with a strong coalition, finding the money to complete I-49 South will be no easy task, considering that it will compete with projects nationwide for a limited pot of federal money.

"From this point on out, it is always going to be competitive. The nation has put off infrastructure improvements for many years, and it is finally catching up,"  Boulet said.

He said the use of tolls to pay for the road will have to be part of discussion.

Supporters of completing I-49 have proposed tolls as an option, and the state Department of Transportation and Development is now studying the feasibility of using tolls to help pay for the interstate project.

DOTD officials have also said they are studying existing plans for I-49 South to determine if the $5 billion price tag can be trimmed.

Allain said he is optimistic despite the obstacles.

"We have a great opportunity to get some movement in the right direction,"  he said.

Notice that I've taken the liberty of slightly altering my annotation to cap the "S" in "I-49 South" as it should properly be called. I've never liked the Advocate's insistence on lower-casing the phrase.

[Grzrd]

Looks like the next project on I-49 South would be the LA 318 interchange in St. Mary Parish. This one will require a complete rebuild of the intersection and ROW acquisitions. See Appendix A for how the proposed interchange will look. There are 2 proposed versions, Alt B and Alt D. I prefer Alt D as fewer homeowners would have to be relocated.
http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/us90/
Google Maps of the area
http://goo.gl/maps/LBsu

Personally, I'd prefer Alternative B, because it fits the other interchanges currently being built on US 90...but I'd no problems with Alternative D. Just build the damn thing already.

This article reports a possible construction date of late 2014 for this project:

Local state legislative delegation members Sen. Bret Allain and Rep. Sam Jones addressed the St. Mary Parish Council during its regular meeting Wednesday .... Upcoming road projects noted include ... the U.S. 90 overpass at La. 318 in the final design phase with possible construction to begin in late 2014 ...

Since construction of the interchange was mentioned, I emailed LaDOTD and asked them whether Alternative B or Alternative D had been chosen.  The reply leads me to believe that late 2014 may be an overly optimistic guess:

DOTD is currently in negotiations with the consultant to perform a supplemental environmental analysis. Once completed, we will be able to prepare the final environmental assessment to evaluate comments and concerns collected during the public hearing. DOTD will not make any recommendations on a preferred alternative until all comments have been assessed.

The Public Hearing was on July 17.  I think I recall an article in which an organized group of landowners proposed a modification to Alternative B that would affect fewer homes; I think they wanted to re-route the ramps to parallel the proposed new frontage roads to go behind the homes (I cannot find the article; link may be dead). I suspect that LaDOTD's desired supplemental EA may be related to that possibility (just my guess).  For a visual, here's Alternative B (page 8/76 of pdf):



For comparison's sake, here is Alternative D (page 40/76 of pdf):



Let's see, LaDOTD negotiates with consultant, consultant prepares supplemental EA, consultant then prepares final EA ... and construction begins late 2014? Maybe a "streamlined" process can move that quickly.

[Anthony_JK]

Might this be the article you were talking about, Grz??

http://www.iberianet.com/news/crossing-paths-homes-could-be-razed-for-overpass/article_30f65ed6-d0f9-11e1-98f3-0019

FOUR CORNERS – More than 30 residents here could lose their homes to make room for the development of an overpass at the intersection of U.S. 90 and Louisiana 318.

Those and other residents submitted their concerns – either in writing or through an audio recording – for the project during a public hearing held Tuesday by the state Department of Transportation and Development inside the West St. Mary Civic Center.

Concerns with the lack of a public comments period, or question-and-answer session during Tuesday's hearing were raised by Lorna Bourg, executive director of the non-profit Southern Mutual Help Association, developers of Caribbean Winds, a nearby neighborhood of nine mixed-income families whose homes could be bulldozed as a result of the overpass project.

Bourg took issue with the refusal by DOTD officials to allow an "open-mic"  session for community members to share their ideas for project alternatives.

"She wanted a question-and-answer session, but that's not how the process works,"  said Carl Winters, who was one of about 20 DOTD officials on hand for Tuesday's hearing.

Winters said all members of the public could weigh in on the project, but for those comments to be included in the public record, they must be submitted in either writing or on an audio voice recording.

"It would have been a better process if they had an open mic so we could all listen to each others' ideas,"  Bourg said. "That way they could hear the people's concerns now and possibly start making compromises. To say your comments will be included in the public minutes of this hearing is not allowing people a chance to really express their concerns."

One of the compromises being advocated by Bourg's Southern Mutual is a change in the location of the on/off ramps.

Of the three options being considered for the project, the one likely to be pursued involves raising U.S. 90 over Louisiana 318, which is estimated to cost about $47 million and would warrant the razing of 29 homes and seven mobile homes – including Caribbean Winds – to make way for the highway's on/off ramps.

The solution, Bourg said, is to relocate the on/off ramps on the opposite side of Louisiana 318, where there are no homes, only sugar cane fields.

Bourg said another problem with leveling Caribbean Winds is that the neighborhood's homeowners received state financing through the Louisiana Housing Trust Fund. Receiving that funding required each of the development's homeowners to undergo a competitive approval process against other low- to mid-income families from throughout the state. If Caribbean Winds goes away to make way for the U.S. 90 overpass, so too will that state funding, said Bourg, adding "There's no guarantee they'll get that money again for a new home somewhere else."

Clementine Matthews, a lifelong Four Corners resident, said she's old enough to remember the days before the existence of U.S. 90. Matthews said though she understands the importance of the project, she disagrees with the design of the exit ramps. Too many families will be impacted.

"The ramps need to be redesigned,"  Matthews said.

Among the public officials attending Tuesday's hearing was state Rep. Sam Jones, D-Franklin.

Jones said the project is long overdue. He said not only will it positively impact the Port of West St. Mary, but will go toward making the long-talked about conversion of U.S. 90 into the I-49 corridor a reality.

Jones said the project is expected to simultaneously start and end with the development of an overpass at the intersection of U.S. 90 and Ambassador Caffery Parkway, and will represent the longest "interstate-grade"  stretch of U.S. 90, going from Broussard to Patterson.

Jones made no guarantees but said that the relocation of the on/off ramps at the site of the Four Corners overpass was doable.

"If we're able to move the loop, it would affect fewer homes,"  Jones said.

DOTD communications director Deidra Lockhart said the deadline to submit comments on the project is Aug. 1. Once the comment period is over, Lockhart said a final decision will be made on which design will be used for the overpass. She estimated construction of the project will be put out for bid within the next one to two years.

[Anthony_JK]

I'm wondering whether a tighter diamond interchange (like the I-49/Judson Walsh Drive interchange in Opelousas) or even a SPUI would be more appropriate here. Forcing the north offramp to parallel the outer service road would violate CofA standards, and leave those homes in a island.

Also...I don't see the funding issue for replacement, since isn't LADOTD required to fully compensate displaced homeowners? Especially considering that this is a potential Environmental Justice issue, since most of the displaced homeowners would be mostly poor and Black??

Again, they should resolve this to the benefit of everyone and get the damn thing built already.

[Grzrd]

Might this be the article you were talking about, Grz??
http://www.iberianet.com/news/crossing-paths-homes-could-be-razed-for-overpass/article_30f65ed6-d0f9-11e1-98f3-0019

.... One of the compromises being advocated by Bourg's Southern Mutual is a change in the location of the on/off ramps.
Of the three options being considered for the project, the one likely to be pursued involves raising U.S. 90 over Louisiana 318, which is estimated to cost about $47 million and would warrant the razing of 29 homes and seven mobile homes – including Caribbean Winds – to make way for the highway's on/off ramps.
The solution, Bourg said, is to relocate the on/off ramps on the opposite side of Louisiana 318, where there are no homes, only sugar cane fields ....
Among the public officials attending Tuesday's hearing was state Rep. Sam Jones, D-Franklin ....
Jones made no guarantees but said that the relocation of the on/off ramps at the site of the Four Corners overpass was doable.
"If we're able to move the loop, it would affect fewer homes,"  Jones said ....

Yes, that is the article. Apologies for my faulty memory on the details.

Didn't you used to be Joe Friday?

edit

Apologies for the "LA"PD reference, too. 

[lamsalfl]

Alternative D is the best one.  Why unnecessarily destroy people's homes when you can more easily build the ramp in that sugarcane field.  Duh.

[US71]

Alternative D is the best one.  Why unnecessarily destroy people's homes when you can more easily build the ramp in that sugarcane field.  Duh.

Depends if it's a poor neighborhood </sarcasm>

[Scott5114]

Clementine Matthews, a lifelong Four Corners resident, said she's old enough to remember the days before the existence of U.S. 90.

Clementine Matthews is apparently older than my grandma.

[NE2]

Or she remembers the days before the current alignment of US 90 existed (it used to be on LA 182).

[Grzrd]

I received an email from the URS Project Manager today that provides a concise explanation of what is being studied:

Following the July 2012 Public Hearing, the LDOTD and FHWA identified a new alternative which is a combination of both Alternatives B and D. As part of the new alternative, US 90 will be elevated over LA 318 similar to Alternative B and the loop ramp on the Northeast quadrant of the interchange will be similar to Alternative D. URS will evaluate the new alternative in the final environmental assessment.

Assuming it is not less expensive, and with the loop ramp essentially the same, why would it it be preferable to elevate US 90 over LA 318 instead of elevating LA 318 over US 90?

[Anthony_JK]

Assuming it is not less expensive, and with the loop ramp essentially the same, why would it it be preferable to elevate US 90 over LA 318 instead of elevating LA 318 over US 90?

Probably much less need for ROW along LA 318...plus, Alternate D would have required some change in access to a public civic center that would be cut off from the main roadway due to CoA requirements. Also, it could possibly allow for retaining the eastern frontage road rather than cutting it off, possibly even saving the disputed residences that would have been displaced by the original Alignment B.

[apjung]

Google Maps now has updated aerials of I-49 under construction north of Shreveport.

[rte66man]

Saw this bridge on Google Maps:
http://goo.gl/maps/dvbG1
and wondered why it was so long. IT's about half again as long as it would need to be to clear US71. Any ideas?

rte66man

[Alps]

Saw this bridge on Google Maps:
http://goo.gl/maps/dvbG1
and wondered why it was so long. IT's about half again as long as it would need to be to clear US71. Any ideas?

rte66man

There are three types of bridge abutments, stub, half stub, and I forget. What changes with each one is how close you bring the fill on either side of the overpass, and thus bridge length. In this case, the design probably avoids the use of retaining walls altogether by keeping the fill slope below a certain maximum (1:2?), at the cost of a longer bridge. Someone must have done the math and figured out that the walls would have cost more (fill is relatively minor of a cost).