I49 in LA

[amroad17]

Could it be for possible C/D lanes on US 71?

[UptownRoadGeek]

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

That's typical bridge construction in Louisiana south of I-10/I-12. Blame the topography.

[codyg1985]

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

That's typical bridge construction in Louisiana south of I-10/I-12. Blame the topography.

But this is well north of there, north of I-20 even. I suppose being in the Red River flood plain may have something to do with it.

[Anthony_JK]

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

That's typical bridge construction in Louisiana south of I-10/I-12. Blame the topography.

But this is well north of there, north of I-20 even. I suppose being in the Red River flood plain may have something to do with it.

Maybe also LADOTD has standardized it for the entire state. Lack of proper fill material for the embankments, perhaps?

[Grzrd]

This TV video report reports on the efforts of Vivian, LA to annex land adjacent to the I-49/LA 170 interchange, and it contains some footage in and around the construction zone of the interchange:

Vivian is currently 5 miles away from the LA HWY 170 and I-49 interchange. Taylor says he and other officials are in active pursuit of the land around it. They're in contact with state legislators and have applied for a $1.5 million capital outlay grant for infrastructure ....
"If there is someone willing to sell property or go ahead and annex it. then, we can go through the process of annexing the highway," he said.
He's talking about the entire length of HWY 170, from Vivian to 1-49. Taylor says funds have been budgeted to upgrade the highway. "Particularly for access to larger delivery vehicles and trucks that would be coming to the industrial park," he said.

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

Maybe also LADOTD has standardized it for the entire state. Lack of proper fill material for the embankments, perhaps?

The bridges at the I-49/LA 170 interchange appear to be of a similar length as the ones at the US 71 interchange.

[bassoon1986]

^^^

I still can't get over what it looks like in that area with I-49 construction now. That road (LA 170) was a tiny 2 lane road through some dense woods. I went to school around the corner from that interchange. It was surrounded by cotton fields. Hard to believe they can almost see an interstate across the highway from it now.

[Grzrd]

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.

The Community Input Meetings (Round 2) December 11-13, 2012 Event Summary has been posted on the Inner City Connector website.  It contains some interesting information regarding opposition to the project.  First, from a small sample set of 238 choice cards, 149 cards (63%) expressed a preference for the No Build Alternative (page 22/184 of pdf):

Build or No-Build?
No-Build: 149 63%
Build: 71 30%
No Response: 18 8%

Also, an opposition flyer was distributed which proposed combining the No Build Alternative with the conversion of US 171/North Market Street into a business boulevard (pages 46-47/184 of pdf):





It is interesting that the project opponents took the extra step of adding the boulevardization of US 171 to the No Build Alternative.

[codyg1985]

^ Isn't that supposed to be US 71 and not US 171?

[Anthony_JK]

Sorry, but this is a non-starter.

First off, you still have the issue of what do you do with existing I-49 between I-220/LA 3132 and I-20. Does it stay in the Interstate system, or do the proponents of the "bypass" I-49 downgrade that to a surface street, too?

Second, can the traffic on existing I-220 handle the increase of through traffic from I-49 going N/S, or will I-220 and LA 3132 have to be widened to six lanes?? If the latter, then there goes any cost savings.

Third, you still have the issue of increased traffic crossing Cross Lake, which is Sheveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water. Would the folks promoting this "bypass" be willing to pay for the costs of contamination if a Haz-Mat accident occured along that route and traffic had to be detoured along "existing" I-49 and local streets (or I-49/I-20/Spring-Market Streets).

Fourth....it's US 71, not US 171.

Fifth...where will the funds for this new "boulevard" along Market/Spring Streets come from?? Cutting from the extension of LA 3132??

Finally....the proposal reworks "Segment K" of the I-49 North proposal to a direct connection w/ I-220 at its interchange with US 71. Considering that Seg. K is fully funded and about to be constructed, how do you suppose that the state and the Feds will feel about shifting the alignment at the last moment??

One of these days, we will have to get over NIMBYism and commit to building things right. The current plan for the I-49 ICC is fine as is, and fills a badly needed gap. As much as I sympathize with those who would be displaced, sometimes you just have to allow for common sense.

Now, if you really do want an internim structure, then why not simply keep I-49 as is, but build a partial facility from the current I-49 North/I-220 interchange to near Milam St., then use Allen Avenue and Pete Harris Ave as an internim one-way couplet (similar to the Evangeline Thruway in Lafayette) to hold over until the final project is completed? You could still have I-220 and LA 3132 as a "bypass" facility, but there would be a far more suitable connection to downtown than this foolish "boulevard" proposal.

Sorry for ranting, but this is getting quite ridiculous.

[cjk374]

Sorry, but this is a non-starter.

First off, you still have the issue of what do you do with existing I-49 between I-220/LA 3132 and I-20. Does it stay in the Interstate system, or do the proponents of the "bypass" I-49 downgrade that to a surface street, too?

Perhaps it could become I-149?

Second, can the traffic on existing I-220 handle the increase of through traffic from I-49 going N/S, or will I-220 and LA 3132 have to be widened to six lanes?? If the latter, then there goes any cost savings.

LA 3132 definitely needs a surfacing job, & upgraded to 70 MPH standards, but I think it & I-220 could handle the traffic.

Third, you still have the issue of increased traffic crossing Cross Lake, which is Sheveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water. Would the folks promoting this "bypass" be willing to pay for the costs of contamination if a Haz-Mat accident occured along that route and traffic had to be detoured along "existing" I-49 and local streets (or I-49/I-20/Spring-Market Streets).

As long as the KCS has its mainline along the east shore of Cross Lake, nobody is allowed to complain or worry about haz-mat.

Fourth....it's US 71, not US 171.

Correct.

Fifth...where will the funds for this new "boulevard" along Market/Spring Streets come from?? Cutting from the extension of LA 3132??

Finally....the proposal reworks "Segment K" of the I-49 North proposal to a direct connection w/ I-220 at its interchange with US 71. Considering that Seg. K is fully funded and about to be constructed, how do you suppose that the state and the Feds will feel about shifting the alignment at the last moment??

These are the main reasons why there is no need to worry about the fate of the I-49 ICC.  It's gonna happen.

One of these days, we will have to get over NIMBYism and commit to building things right. The current plan for the I-49 ICC is fine as is, and fills a badly needed gap. As much as I sympathize with those who would be displaced, sometimes you just have to allow for common sense.

If the state was just taking over the land without compensating the owners, then sympathy would be warranted.  They will be paid, & probably live in a better neighborhood.

Now, if you really do want an internim structure, then why not simply keep I-49 as is, but build a partial facility from the current I-49 North/I-220 interchange to near Milam St., then use Allen Avenue and Pete Harris Ave as an internim one-way couplet (similar to the Evangeline Thruway in Lafayette) to hold over until the final project is completed? You could still have I-220 and LA 3132 as a "bypass" facility, but there would be a far more suitable connection to downtown than this foolish "boulevard" proposal.

Sorry for ranting, but this is getting quite ridiculous.

Sounds like a good idea...I don't know why they didn't plan for this.

[ShawnP]

Uhhhhhhh are folks actually trying to build another Bruce Watkins fiasco in Louisiana?

Please, please don't do it Louisiana. It is a death trap waiting to happen.

[Anthony_JK]

Uhhhhhhh are folks actually trying to build another Bruce Watkins fiasco in Louisiana?

Please, please don't do it Louisiana. It is a death trap waiting to happen.

Not quite the same sitch as BWD, though, because there is I-220 and I-20 to Spring/Market (US 71 North) as a backup.

[Anthony_JK]

Sorry, but this is a non-starter.

First off, you still have the issue of what do you do with existing I-49 between I-220/LA 3132 and I-20. Does it stay in the Interstate system, or do the proponents of the "bypass" I-49 downgrade that to a surface street, too?

Perhaps it could become I-149?

Since it would connect between existing interstates, an even numbered 3di would be acceptable (I-249???), but still...

Second, can the traffic on existing I-220 handle the increase of through traffic from I-49 going N/S, or will I-220 and LA 3132 have to be widened to six lanes?? If the latter, then there goes any cost savings.

LA 3132 definitely needs a surfacing job, & upgraded to 70 MPH standards, but I think it & I-220 could handle the traffic.

Problem is, it wouldn't get much N/S through traffic, since most of the latter is designated solely towards downtown Shreveport. LA 3132 does get plenty of bypass traffic for folks going to/from Dallas from/to points southward (say, NOLA or Lafayette), but that doesn't count for I-220.

Third, you still have the issue of increased traffic crossing Cross Lake, which is Sheveport/Bossier City's sole source of drinking water. Would the folks promoting this "bypass" be willing to pay for the costs of contamination if a Haz-Mat accident occured along that route and traffic had to be detoured along "existing" I-49 and local streets (or I-49/I-20/Spring-Market Streets).

As long as the KCS has its mainline along the east shore of Cross Lake, nobody is allowed to complain or worry about haz-mat.

The problem is that there is no road bypass alternative to I-220...and highway spillage would be a greater threat. I'm sure KCS has speed restrictions that would prevent any potential hazmat situations from getting out of hand.

[bugo]

Uhhhhhhh are folks actually trying to build another Bruce Watkins fiasco in Louisiana?

Please, please don't do it Louisiana. It is a death trap waiting to happen.

Not quite the same sitch as BWD, though, because there is I-220 and I-20 to Spring/Market (US 71 North) as a backup.

There's I-435 to I-70 in Kansas City as a backup...

[ShawnP]

Yes I-435 to I-70 is a backup.

My biggest worry is not traffic flow or routing.

Those lights are death traps.

I would even go so far as to do away with the lights and make them Interchanges but not allow I-49 north of I-435 and lower the speed limit to 45mph.

[Grzrd]

Here is the Home Page. The I-49 South page illustrates their "regional vision" by expressing support for a new I-10 bridge in Lake Charles and a new link between Texas and Mississippi:

As we move forward, a larger goal of the coalition will be to link Texas and Mississippi along this southern route when I-49 South is completed.
To foster regional support and maximize the economic development potential of an uninterrupted, safe interstate system, the coalition will include in its plans a new I-10 bridge in Lake Charles. This critical component will connect the Energy Corridor seamlessly to the West.

Their logo:

[Anthony_JK]

I'm assuming that this "new bridge" would be the long sought upgrade and replacement of the existing Calcasieu River I-10 bridge in Lake Charles, no??

And what exactly would this new "link" between Texas and Mississippi be??  Upgrading TX 12/LA 12/US 190 between Vidor and Baton Rouge?? The proposed "I-14" going through Alexandria and Vidalia/Natchez??

Either way, though, this is LONG overdue. If they can at least get the segments through Lafayette on to Morgan City built, I'd go for that in a heartbeat.

[Grzrd]

NLCOG received a $250,000 HUD grant on March 18 to help develop a plan going forward for distressed neighborhoods of Allendale and Ledbetter Heights (NLCOG's grant application: http://www.nlcog.org/pdfs/Choice_Neighborhoods_Grant_Final.pdf [map of Allendale and Ledbetter in relation to I-49/I-20 interchange is on page 67/95 of the application pdf])Here is reference to Inner-City Connector in HUD application:

 I-49 Inner City Connector Study: NLCOG has historically recognized the need to develop a connection between existing Interstate 49 (I-49) to the I-49 North interchange with Interstate-220. This 3.8 mile section was part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement developed in 1976 for the I-49 Corridor. The inner-city section was removed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Recently, the I-49 North route received environmental clearance, and NLCOG has received over $3million from the State to design the connection. NLCOG has taken a comprehensive view of the project area, and incorporated livability principles into the planning effort; an extensive public involvement plan has been developed. Public participation is fostered through multiple means of outreach, public meetings and survey tools. Stakeholder interviews, public input surveys and community meetings have been utilized to ensure the public has been engaged in the process of determining the feasibility of the plan. Far too often planners consider the public after planning and design has begun, with preconceived ideas. The intent of this extensive outreach has been to enter the project with "eyes wide open/a blank page” with a simple request "you tell us.” This method has become a model for other projects in the region.

[pages 7-8/95 of the HUD application pdf linked above]

This TV video report reports that the Shreveport Housing Authority is proceeding with a development that may serve as an increased condemnation cost to the Inner City Connector:

When the Naomi D. Jackson Heights Housing Development was torn down in May 2006 demolition was supposed to make way for new low to moderate income housing.
Almost 7 years later, the only thing growing on the empty lot is grass.
Now the Shreveport Housing Authority plans to convert the green space to a housing development called the The Renaissance at Allendale for mixed-income families.
Authorities plan to break ground on the first phase as soon as October, using six and a half million dollars for the first 40 apartments. It will be funded primarily from private equity ....
However, the biggest potential roadblock could be a literal road: the Interstate 49 inner-city connector.
The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments is still charting the connector's path. Some versions cut through this property, others put them side by side, and at least by-passes the lot completely.
Architect Kim Mitchell doubts the two developments could co-exist in Allendale.
"Within 100 feet -maybe 50 feet- we're gonna build an elevated expressway with traffic going 60 miles per hour through the center of our city?" Mitchell asks. "Does that sound like a place anybody wants to live?"

I suppose the private money is driving the project, but I still wonder if all of the local agencies are on the same page.

[O Tamandua]

Forgive this STUPID question but...when is driving supposed to be allowed on I-49 from the Arkansas line to wherever they link it in SHV?  And when will Arkansas finish connecting their segment to the state line?  (I"ve seen a video somewhere that looks like there's a LOT of interstate in north Caddo Parish now but am unsure just when it's supposed to open.)

Feel like a fool asking this out of all the posts on this thread, but I'd like to drive this, too, when possible...

[Grzrd]

^ This map shows Segments A-K of I-49 North.  Segments B-I are supposed to have a joint grand opening at some point during the summer (Segment A will have to wait until Arkansas completes its state line section in 2015).  Segments J & K are scheduled to open in 2016.

I am guessing the opening will be in late summer because it looks like an upgrade project for LA 168 in Caddo Parish is scheduled to be let on May 8. This project extends westward from I-49 to LA 1 and eastward from I-49 to US 71. LA 168 is at the interchange dividing Segments A and B and its I-49 to US 71 section will serve as part of a "TO I-49" routing until the 2015 opening of the Arkansas state line section.

I assume LaDOTD intends to complete the LA 168 project before it opens Segments B-I of I-49 North, which leads to my guess of a late summer opening. 

[O Tamandua]

^ This map shows Segments A-K of I-49 North.  Segments B-I are supposed to have a joint grand opening at some point during the summer (Segment A will have to wait until Arkansas completes its state line section in 2015).  Segments J & K are scheduled to open in 2016.

I am guessing the opening will be in late summer because it looks like an upgrade project for LA 168 in Caddo Parish is scheduled to be let on May 8. This project extends westward from I-49 to LA 1 and eastward from I-49 to US 71. LA 168 is at the interchange dividing Segments A and B and its I-49 to US 71 section will serve as part of a "TO I-49" routing until the 2015 opening of the Arkansas state line section.

I assume LaDOTD intends to complete the LA 168 project before it opens Segments B-I of I-49 North, which leads to my guess of a late summer opening.

Please accept my apologies for not saying this earlier, but thanks, Grzrd.

[Anthony_JK]

Some very interesting developments now brewing concerning I-49 South, and the newly emerging coalition to finally build the project. This is from the KATC-TV (ABC Lafayette affiliate) website:

I-49 South Coalition Stakeholders' Meeting set for March 18

There will be an I-49 South Coalition Stakeholders' Meeting at the Patterson Civic Center at 3 pm on Monday, March 18th. The coalition to promotes, advocates, and identifies funding streams to ultimately complete I-49 South from I-49 in Lafayette to I-310 in Boutte. The meeting is open to the public, and they are encouraged to attend.

A secondary aspect of the project will be to fund and build a new I-10 bridge in Lake Charles and eventually link the new I-49 South with New Orleans through the GNO bridge.

The coalition is currently in the process of pitching these ideas to groups such as chambers, industrial groups, and other civic organizations so they can in turn recommend to their respective memberships.

So, apparently the idea is now to truncate I-49 South by constructing it only as far as I-310 near Boutte, then replacing I-310 to terminate at I-10 just west of NOLA's Louie Armstrong International Airport; and then wait until later to build the remaining segment to the Westbank Expressway (probably signed as the currently hidden I-910).

Also...the "new bridge" in Lake Charles is more than likely the rebuild and expansion of the existing I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge.

Snail's pace progress, but progress nevertheless.

[Grzrd]

One more mile (Segment K) to I-220. 

It's getting closer... The March 28 Agenda for the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") Transportation Policy Committee includes an update presentation on the I-49 North/I-220 interchange by AFJM:

I-49 Update
1. I-49 North @ I-220 Interchange AFJM
2. I-49 Inner City Stage 1 Kent Rogers

I assume AFJM is doing the design work for the interchange.

If anybody is in the neighborhood on the 28th...

[Grzrd]

The Community Input Meetings (Round 2) December 11-13, 2012 Event Summary has been posted on the Inner City Connector website.

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments ("NLCOG") Transportation Policy Committee has posted its January 17 Draft Minutes. In that meeting, two representatives from Providence Engineering provided an update on the Inner City Connector.  Interestingly, they commented that traffic studies demonstate that one interchange would be preferable to two interchanges and that the public prefers the Hearne Avenue interchange over the Ford Street interchange:

Mr. Rogers introduced the members to Ms. Kerry Oriol, Providence Engineering's project manager for the I‐49 Inner City Connector study and Mr. Adam Davis of Providence Engineering .... Ms. Oriol ... Alternate 3, the eastern‐most route, received the most votes of the build options. She stated that route was developed to maintain community cohesion in the Allendale / Ledbetter Heights neighborhoods ... Mayor Walker asked if there was an interchange for Alternate 3. Mr. Davis stated it was proposed for either Ford or Hearne Avenue and the public chose Hearne Avenue. Mayor Walker asked how many total interchanges along the ICC, if built. Mr. Davis stated traffic data showed that 1 interchange was better than having 2 .... Mayor Glover asked about the interchanges, specifically at Ford, if they would help increase the potential for commerce within the community. He stated an interchange at Hearne would have no effect or impact on the neighborhoods. Ms. Oriol stated the costs of an interchange at Ford increase which makes it less feasible, but not ruled out. She further stated EPA was needed to help with the environmental justice input for the interchange.

an opposition flyer was distributed which proposed combining the No Build Alternative with the conversion of US 171/North Market Street into a business boulevard (pages 46-47/184 of pdf) ...

The Providence Engineering reps also noted that the opposition flyer contained misinformation, particularly the notion that there would be no cost associated with the LA 3132/I-220 No Build Alternative:

Ms. Oriol also stated there is a group opposed to any of the alternates that caused some confusion at a couple of the previous meetings because of materials they passed out to attendees ... there is some misinformation floating around that there is no cost on the Inner Loop / I‐220 "no‐build"  option and in the ability to just re‐sign a roadway to make it an interstate .... Ms. Oriol stated the persons who handed out the confusing materials (Loop It, LLC) were mobilized by professionals to hand out the materials without understanding the implications. She further stated that everything they heard from the public post‐meeting was positive, that the public wanted the interstate connection. Mr. Jones asked if there would be a requirement to 6‐lane the no‐build option or if not required, would there be additional costs. Mr. Davis stated there could be the requirement to widen the road and possibly some median upgrades. Mayor Glover asked about the curve at Jefferson Paige Road to I‐20 and if any re‐alignment would be needed. Mr. Goza stated the Inner Loop would need to be rebuilt to handle interstate traffic and the interchange from I‐220 to I‐20 would need to be re‐aligned. Mr. Rogers stated there would likely also need to be improvements to LA 1 / US 71 to handle the increased traffic. Mr. Oriol stated these costs are key to the misinformation the no‐build group is spreading.

[Anthony_JK]

Any group that confuses US 71 with US 171 can hardly be called "professional".

I sympathize with those who are attempting to protect their neighborhood, but this project needs to proceed.

I don't see why they just can't extend Pete Harris and Allen Avenues as an one-way couplet and connect that to I-49 as a frontage road system, and use that to connect with Ford Street.