AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: Plutonic Panda on September 23, 2021, 04:42:16 PM

Title: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 23, 2021, 04:42:16 PM
This project deserves its own thread. It has moved forward to Louisianaís Historical Preservation Society according to this article:

https://www.ksla.com/2021/09/22/controversial-i-49-inner-city-connector-project-shreveport-is-standstill/
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 23, 2021, 04:43:15 PM
Hereís the official project website:

https://www.i49shreveport.com/
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: silverback1065 on September 23, 2021, 05:55:35 PM
I don't live here so what do I know but it seems like routing it on 220 and 3132 is the best idea.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: cjk374 on September 23, 2021, 07:40:23 PM
I don't live here so what do I know but it seems like routing it on 220 and 3132 is the best idea.

Studies have shown that it is cheaper to build new terrain road than to upgrade LA 3132, the sharp curve located at MP 0 on I-220, and add extra lanes to the 2 mile long Cross Lake bridge.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2021, 08:20:24 PM
The neighborhood thru which the I-49 ICC is proposed to run features a lot of vacant lots and run down properties. This is not exactly an attractive historical district. No one who lives outside of that part of Shreveport is going to have any reason to visit that neighborhood.

If the I-49 ICC was built it would attract new businesses, new development and new jobs to that neighborhood. If the "Loop It" option was pursued or, more likely, the "no build" alternative chosen, then thru traffic using I-49 would go nowhere near downtown Shreveport or that neighborhood just to the West of it. Any new business development relating to I-49 would go to the edges of Shreveport, not the central area.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2021, 08:24:15 PM
So, the Loop It/Allendale Strong groups are using the Cultural Surveys option as their means to block the ICC? Really??

Other than that small portion north of Caddo/Ford Street to SWEPO Park, I don't really see any cultural resources or residential displacements that would dissuade development within Shreveport.

Also, if Shawn Wilson (LaDOTD Secretary) is crawfishing back to the "boulevard" option, then wouldn't that add even more expense to the "Loop It" option, since there still would be the need for a through freeway connection at the ends of this "boulevard"?

Looks to me like they are putting all their eggs in the basket of Buttigieg's anti-freeway opposition. LotsaLuck on that.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2021, 08:34:38 PM
Also, props to LADOTD for finally updating the ICC website. Took them a good while.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on September 24, 2021, 11:16:07 PM
This is what the economics say.
Build Alternative 1 Inner City Connector
– Fully elevated, 2 internal interchanges, 4 lanes - $547M
– Fully elevated, 2 internal interchanges, 6 lanes - $640M
Build Alternative 5**Loop It
– Resurfacing and widening existing LA 3132 - $832M
– Reconstruction and widening existing LA 3132 - $846M

I have said this over and over again. The businesses in the affected area of Allendale (small mechanic's shops, used tire stores, not much else) support the ICC. The affected neighborhood north of Caddo street and East of Allen Avenue will be worth more after the construction.  There isn't much between Allen Avenue and downtown as far as goes residential units.  There is some apartment construction a good bit east of the ROW.  There will be a few reasonable quality homes lost to the construction, but most of the units (including a  rather old apartment complex) are things that are at least sub-standard if not below what should be habitations for anyone. I would add one other thing, they could buy ALL of the businesses,  and occupied houses in the freeway path AND in the area north of Ford Street and East of the ICC for SIGNIFICANTLY less than the difference (probably around $10-million or less to buy all of them and resettle the occupants)

I would like to see how the house to house surveys came out. (Then again that all depends on the way the questions were phrased. )



Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on October 28, 2021, 10:26:49 PM
https://www.ksla.com/2021/10/28/overturned-mobile-home-closes-i-220-cross-lake-bridge-drivers-advised-avoid-area/

By this afternoon, traffic had figured out to avoid I-220. The side roads were a mess.

This is only a minor part of why Shreveport needs the Inner city connector.  I -220 , Market Street and Grimmet Drive are the sole ways from north to south. When I-220 gets blocked, there are hours long delays.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 29, 2021, 12:37:12 AM
This is what the economics say.
Ė Fully elevated, 2 internal interchanges, 6 lanes - $640M

Ė Reconstruction and widening existing LA 3132 - $846M
Both of these need to happen. Several parts of I-20 need to rebuilt and expanded. I really never thought about it until now but Shreveports freeways are severely neglected. Lots of money the state should pour into fixing them.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Henry on October 29, 2021, 01:47:35 PM
It's good to see that Shreveport is on board with it. If something like this were planned 50 years ago, they'd shoot it down in a heartbeat.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: MikieTimT on October 29, 2021, 02:23:49 PM
This is what the economics say.
Ė Fully elevated, 2 internal interchanges, 6 lanes - $640M

Ė Reconstruction and widening existing LA 3132 - $846M
Both of these need to happen. Several parts of I-20 need to rebuilt and expanded. I really never thought about it until now but Shreveports freeways are severely neglected. Lots of money the state should pour into fixing them.

It's crazy that less than 4 miles of 6 lane costs $640M.  I guess there'll be lots of overpass/bridge mileage, though, due to the waterway and cross streets.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on October 29, 2021, 09:29:12 PM
This is what the economics say.
Ė Fully elevated, 2 internal interchanges, 6 lanes - $640M

Ė Reconstruction and widening existing LA 3132 - $846M
Both of these need to happen. Several parts of I-20 need to rebuilt and expanded. I really never thought about it until now but Shreveports freeways are severely neglected. Lots of money the state should pour into fixing them.

It's crazy that less than 4 miles of 6 lane costs $640M.  I guess there'll be lots of overpass/bridge mileage, though, due to the waterway and cross streets.

It is all to be elevated. That said, only about a mile and a half is actually not subject to flooding.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bassoon1986 on October 30, 2021, 01:00:28 PM
I really hope itís built with 6 lanes just how it is from the Inner Loop up to I-20.

Iím honestly shocked that Most of I-20 through Bossier City isnít 3x3 and that there is still 4 lanes only at the lane drops leading to the Red River bridge in downtown Shreveport.


iPhone
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on October 30, 2021, 01:34:29 PM
I really hope itís built with 6 lanes just how it is from the Inner Loop up to I-20.

Iím honestly shocked that Most of I-20 through Bossier City isnít 3x3 and that there is still 4 lanes only at the lane drops leading to the Red River bridge in downtown Shreveport.


iPhone

Not any reason it shouldn't. The part north of I-220 is six lanes to Market Street
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bassoon1986 on October 30, 2021, 02:36:18 PM
I really hope itís built with 6 lanes just how it is from the Inner Loop up to I-20.

Iím honestly shocked that Most of I-20 through Bossier City isnít 3x3 and that there is still 4 lanes only at the lane drops leading to the Red River bridge in downtown Shreveport.


iPhone

Not any reason it shouldn't. The part north of I-220 is six lanes to Market Street
Itís not that far. Just from I-220 interchange to MLK.


iPhone
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on October 31, 2021, 06:25:25 PM
I really hope itís built with 6 lanes just how it is from the Inner Loop up to I-20.

Iím honestly shocked that Most of I-20 through Bossier City isnít 3x3 and that there is still 4 lanes only at the lane drops leading to the Red River bridge in downtown Shreveport.


iPhone

Not any reason it shouldn't. The part north of I-220 is six lanes to Market Street
Itís not that far. Just from I-220 interchange to MLK.


iPhone

You're right. i drive it virtually every day and I had not paid enough attention to it to know better.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on November 03, 2021, 02:46:10 PM
I really hope it’s built with 6 lanes just how it is from the Inner Loop up to I-20.

I’m honestly shocked that Most of I-20 through Bossier City isn’t 3x3 and that there is still 4 lanes only at the lane drops leading to the Red River bridge in downtown Shreveport.


iPhone

There is a planned widening of I-20 from around Airline Dr to east of I-220 in Bossier Parish.  The part west of Airline is a little trickier.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: abqtraveler on November 03, 2021, 10:11:40 PM
I really hope itís built with 6 lanes just how it is from the Inner Loop up to I-20.

Iím honestly shocked that Most of I-20 through Bossier City isnít 3x3 and that there is still 4 lanes only at the lane drops leading to the Red River bridge in downtown Shreveport.


iPhone

There is a planned widening from around Airline Dr to east of I-220 in Bossier Parish.  The part west of Airline is a little trickier.

They would need to widen I-20 between Airline and I-220, especially now that they're building the new main gate for Barksdale AFB that will connect directly to the I-20/I-220 interchange. That will certainly increase the amount of traffic using that stretch of I-20.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Henry on November 08, 2021, 10:07:47 AM
Now that the Transportation Bill has been passed, LA should set aside at least $1 billion for this project, especially since Allendale really wants it (a classic example of a YIMBY neighborhood).
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: codyg1985 on November 08, 2021, 11:00:34 AM
Now that the Transportation Bill has been passed, LA should set aside at least $1 billion for this project, especially since Allendale really wants it (a classic example of a YIMBY neighborhood).

It would be competing with the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge along with maybe a new Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 08, 2021, 02:30:18 PM
Now that the Transportation Bill has been passed, LA should set aside at least $1 billion for this project, especially since Allendale really wants it (a classic example of a YIMBY neighborhood).

It would be competing with the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge along with maybe a new Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge.
It shouldnít compete, all three need to happen along with a rebuild of I-10 through NOLA as long as they donít decide to tear it down and give it the NY treatment.

The I-10 bridge over the Mississippi in Baton Rouge needs to be replaced and widened. Are they even talking about it?
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on November 08, 2021, 11:17:42 PM
Now that the Transportation Bill has been passed, LA should set aside at least $1 billion for this project, especially since Allendale really wants it (a classic example of a YIMBY neighborhood).

It would be competing with the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge along with maybe a new Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge.
It shouldnít compete, all three need to happen along with a rebuild of I-10 through NOLA as long as they donít decide to tear it down and give it the NY treatment.

The I-10 bridge over the Mississippi in Baton Rouge needs to be replaced and widened. Are they even talking about it?

The I-10 (Horace Wilkinson) bridge has lots of life left in it. It is really over its capacity. It is thought that a bridge to the west bank around Gonzales with a freeway from I-10 to the bridge and along the west bank to around Port Allen would minimize the gridlock  on the Wilkinson bridge.  Yes, there needs to be more capacity for through traffic. Just building more bridge where the HWB is probably is not the best answer.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: jbnv on November 09, 2021, 01:10:18 PM
Now that the Transportation Bill has been passed, LA should set aside at least $1 billion for this project, especially since Allendale really wants it (a classic example of a YIMBY neighborhood).

It would be competing with the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge along with maybe a new Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge.

And I-49 South. Though as mentioned, they won't be competing for those funds if the Legislature dedicates the funds, which it needs to do.

Copying in my comments from the Lafayette Connector thread:

If the Lafayette Connector and Shreveport ICC can be done within the same timeframe, good for them.

$6 billion should be enough to finish I-49 South, Shreveport ICC, a new bridge at Calcasieu River and fixing the I-10 bottleneck in Baton Rouge. If the Legislature gets its act together, dedicates the funds and declares that These Things Will Get Done, then it can get leverage to persuade voters for additional taxes to fix other infrastructure issues. They should be able to get Edwards's signature on a package so that Edwards can retire from public service with his legacy in tact.

My fear is that they won't get together and these projects will drag out and cost more than we're getting. Too bad we aren't electing a governor until 2023, because this would be a *great* thing to have on the table in an election year. At best it's an opportunity for an ambitious legislator to get his name in the public eye so he can be the viable candidate not named Jeff Landry in 2023. If I were a state Senator or Representative from north/central Louisiana I'd get things in writing before south Louisiana locks up all of the funds.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on November 13, 2021, 12:54:53 PM
https://www.ksla.com/2021/11/12/mayor-perkins-attend-signing-infrastructure-bill-white-house/

The Shreveport mayor has his eyes on some of the infrastructure money.

The projects seem to be The ICC, LA-3132 to the port, the I-49 port connector (future I-69?), Jimmie Davis Bridge replacement,

These are the start. The port bridge and the port to I-20 section of I-69
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: jbnv on November 13, 2021, 04:12:34 PM
https://www.ksla.com/2021/11/12/mayor-perkins-attend-signing-infrastructure-bill-white-house/

The Shreveport mayor has his eyes on some of the infrastructure money.

The projects seem to be The ICC, LA-3132 to the port, the I-49 port connector (future I-69?), Jimmie Davis Bridge replacement,

These are the start. The port bridge and the port to I-20 section of I-69

I'd bet money that Perkins's eyes are also on the governor's office.

He needs to pick what he wants very carefully. The ICC alone takes up 10-15% of the funds. Add anything else from his wish list and we're talking about 25+% going to the Shreveport-Bossier area alone. I-49 South has been dragging along for three decades, and I-10/12 carries tons of interstate traffic while also serving a clear majority of the state's population. He's going to make very few fans in south Louisiana by asking for a large part of the pie just for Shreveport-Bossier.

If I were Perkins, I'd present an actual plan for the infrastructure funds: Rally for I-49 complete from Arkansas to New Orleans. Acknowledge the needs of the I-10/12 corridor but also make a case for I-20 as a transnational corridor. And suggest an allocation of funds that either completes the big projects or gets them going in a way that they can be completed.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on November 13, 2021, 11:38:45 PM
https://www.ksla.com/2021/11/12/mayor-perkins-attend-signing-infrastructure-bill-white-house/

The Shreveport mayor has his eyes on some of the infrastructure money.

The projects seem to be The ICC, LA-3132 to the port, the I-49 port connector (future I-69?), Jimmie Davis Bridge replacement,

These are the start. The port bridge and the port to I-20 section of I-69

I'd bet money that Perkins's eyes are also on the governor's office.

He needs to pick what he wants very carefully. The ICC alone takes up 10-15% of the funds. Add anything else from his wish list and we're talking about 25+% going to the Shreveport-Bossier area alone. I-49 South has been dragging along for three decades, and I-10/12 carries tons of interstate traffic while also serving a clear majority of the state's population. He's going to make very few fans in south Louisiana by asking for a large part of the pie just for Shreveport-Bossier.

If I were Perkins, I'd present an actual plan for the infrastructure funds: Rally for I-49 complete from Arkansas to New Orleans. Acknowledge the needs of the I-10/12 corridor but also make a case for I-20 as a transnational corridor. And suggest an allocation of funds that either completes the big projects or gets them going in a way that they can be completed.

Actually when you break it down, this single less than 5-mile stretch would take up nearly 20% of the transportation / bridge funding part.
Part of the problem is the expense of the construction. I think I mean engineering and quality control.

This said, I cannot figure out how it is supposed to cost $600M in the first case. 100M per mile in Houston would be deemed excessive.

The total ROW cost should be less than twenty million. Market value for all of the property in a 500' ROW would be less than this. You could buy every building east of Allen Avenue and keep it in line with this. The Renaissance at Allendale apartments are worth more than the rest of it combined. It should just run to the east of them or run each direction on either side (I know that is not feasible, but it is meeting Spite with spite or spitting in the face of opportunists.)
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 14, 2021, 04:27:38 AM
Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on November 14, 2021, 08:14:30 PM
Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

Still, over 100M per mile?
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2021, 12:27:04 PM
When/if the Interstate 49 ICC is constructed, will it have any interchanges between Interstate 20 and Interstate 220? I would imagine there would be at least one interchange constructed, maybe at Ford St./LA 173 or at N. Hearne Ave./LA 3094.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on November 15, 2021, 01:57:26 PM
When/if the Interstate 49 ICC is constructed, will it have any interchanges between Interstate 20 and Interstate 220? I would imagine there would be at least one interchange constructed, maybe at Ford St./LA 173 or at N. Hearne Ave./LA 3094.

The plan is an intersection at Milam and another at either Ford / Caddo (same street) or Hearne.  Originally it was Hearne then the local community wanted FORD. With the Amazon distribution center, it seems Hearne may be back on the list.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 28, 2021, 07:50:16 PM
There is a clear path from I-20 to Garden Street for a possible freeway (whether its one or both side) as indicated by how empty the area is south of LA 173 (Caddo Street). However, north of Garden Street, there would have to be some displacements or what not to connect to I-220.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: sprjus4 on December 28, 2021, 09:03:51 PM
Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.
Wouldnít I-10 be a higher priority than I-49? Far more traffic and immediate impact for such projects.

Unless youíre specifically referring to Lafayette only.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2021, 10:02:21 PM
The issues with I-10 are too enormous for Louisiana to handle without a great deal of federal funding and a lot of contractors. Those long, elevated bridges over swamp land between Lafayette, Baton Rouge and New Orleans need to be completely replaced with new bridges in at least a 3x3 lanes configuration. There's no telling what that will cost. My guess is $2-$5 billion. That might be seriously low-balling it. The I-10 bridges projects may be very disruptive to traffic. I don't think they're projects that anyone can afford allowing to take multiple years to complete.

If LA DOT has to do more of the heavy lifting they're going to stick with smaller, more do-able projects. The ICC in Shreveport, the I-49 project in Lafayette, the West Bank Expressway and I-49 South projects can all be done in phases and spot upgrades even down to one intersection at a time.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: sprjus4 on December 28, 2021, 10:08:16 PM
^ Itís a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: jbnv on December 29, 2021, 01:40:03 AM
If LA DOT has to do more of the heavy lifting they're going to stick with smaller, more do-able projects. The ICC in Shreveport, the I-49 project in Lafayette, the West Bank Expressway and I-49 South projects can all be done in phases and spot upgrades even down to one intersection at a time.

Also, we have statewide elections in two years. People who want to make their political careers have a major incentive to get the ball rolling on shovel-ready projects. Unfortunately for the ICC, I don't think it is shovel-ready enough to make the cut.

Bobby makes a very good point about I-10. If we spend the $6 billion wisely and demonstrate that we are putting it to good use, then we can go to Congress and ask for billions for I-10.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 29, 2021, 02:01:49 AM
The Calcasieu River Bridge segment in Lake Charles is a high priority, for LADOTD; it's just still in the engineering and environmental state.

Upgrading the Atchafalaya Basin viaduct segment of I-10 would be prohibitively expensive; that's way down the line of priorities.

They will be working on I-10 in Baton Rouge soon; the funding is established and letting will be forthcoming as soon as the design work is completed.

They still have to resolve the Allendale matter (and overcome the possible lawsuits) before the ICC will be built, so that's a bit down the line, too.

At least, I-49 South through Lafayette is being staged so that portions can be built while design work is completed on the Connector segment. The next section south of Lafayette which will start construction soon will be the Ambassador Caffery Parkway interchange with US 90 and the associated one-way frontage road system. The Verot School Road interchange just south of the Connector is also nearing completion of the design stage, awaiting funding for construction.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 09:14:08 AM
^ Itís a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

isn't that why 210 exists?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: sprjus4 on December 29, 2021, 12:11:35 PM
^ Itís a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

isn't that why 210 exists?  :hmmm:
I-210 is not a viable through traffic bypass. (unless a major incident, of course) Itís a local beltway route.

The vast majority of through traffic is sticking with I-10 all other times.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 12:15:35 PM
^ Itís a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

isn't that why 210 exists?  :hmmm:
I-210 is not a viable through traffic bypass. (unless a major incident, of course) Itís a local beltway route.

The vast majority of through traffic is sticking with I-10 all other times.

It's signed as the bypass though...
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: sprjus4 on December 29, 2021, 12:17:54 PM
^ Itís a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

isn't that why 210 exists?  :hmmm:
I-210 is not a viable through traffic bypass. (unless a major incident, of course) Itís a local beltway route.

The vast majority of through traffic is sticking with I-10 all other times.

It's signed as the bypass though...
Yet very little traffic actually uses it as such.

Itís a longer route, and is still an urban 60 mph interstate highway, no different than I-10.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2021, 01:07:25 PM
The I-210 Israel LaFleur Bridge over the Calcasieu River isn't any better either. It's just 2x2 lanes with no shoulders. Bridges on a lot of the other I-210 exits are badly outdated as well.

Quote from: Anthony_JK
Upgrading the Atchafalaya Basin viaduct segment of I-10 would be prohibitively expensive; that's way down the line of priorities.

The federal government really needs to start planning for that ASAP. The I-10 viaducts over the Atchafalaya Basin between Lafayette and Baton Route as well as the I-10 (and I-55) viaducts over the Maurepas Swamp just West of New Orleans are all pretty old. I remember traveling over those things when I was just a kid in the early 1980's. That's roughly 40 years ago. I don't think those bridges were brand new back then either. Those bridges do not have an indefinite life span. Their limited capacity acts as a bottleneck, especially the viaduct over the Atchafalaya Basin. Long distance I-10 traffic can use I-12 to bypass New Orleans and those viaducts over the Maurepas Swamp. That traffic has little alternative crossing the Atchafalaya. US-190 runs parallel to the North, but provides more of the same: long bridges with limited capacity spanning over swamp land.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 29, 2021, 03:29:51 PM
^ Itís a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Perkins might want to prepare for a fight, because I-49 South needs to be the first priority for these funds, and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is second. The ICC can be 3rd (or 4th behind the BTR I-10 widening or South Baton Rouge Mississippi River bridge "bypass").

I believe the elevated cost is due to having the entire corridor elevated all the way from I-20 to I-220.

isn't that why 210 exists?  :hmmm:

The main reasons why the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge is being replaced/upgraded is because: it is nearly 60 years old; it's effectively reached the end of its lifespan; it almost managed to make the "structurally deficient" list; the steep gradients don't meet modern Interstate standards; and it's only 2x2 with no shoulders. The replacement would allow for continuous 2x3 with proper shoulders, a more forgiving grade, a possible grade separated interchange with Sampson Street in Westlake (or a second local crossing of the Calcasieu River between LCH and Westlake), and would fit in with the general push for 2x3 from the Texas state line/Sabine River Bridge to US 165 at Iowa.

I-210 is somewhat useful as an LCH bypass, but mostly it's used for easier access to McNeese State University and for the casinos off the bank of the "new" Calcasieu Lake (I-210) bridge.

I wonder when they dedicated the I-210 bridge to Isiah LaFleur? Before recently, everyone just referred it as "the new bridge."
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 29, 2021, 03:40:23 PM
The I-210 Israel LaFleur Bridge over the Calcasieu River isn't any better either. It's just 2x2 lanes with no shoulders. Bridges on a lot of the other I-210 exits are badly outdated as well.

Quote from: Anthony_JK
Upgrading the Atchafalaya Basin viaduct segment of I-10 would be prohibitively expensive; that's way down the line of priorities.

The federal government really needs to start planning for that ASAP. The I-10 viaducts over the Atchafalaya Basin between Lafayette and Baton Route as well as the I-10 (and I-55) viaducts over the Maurepas Swamp just West of New Orleans are all pretty old. I remember traveling over those things when I was just a kid in the early 1980's. That's roughly 40 years ago. I don't think those bridges were brand new back then either. Those bridges do not have an indefinite life span. Their limited capacity acts as a bottleneck, especially the viaduct over the Atchafalaya Basin. Long distance I-10 traffic can use I-12 to bypass New Orleans and those viaducts over the Maurepas Swamp. That traffic has little alternative crossing the Atchafalaya. US-190 runs parallel to the North, but provides more of the same: long bridges with limited capacity spanning over swamp land.

The states set the priorities for transportation these days, and although down the line Louisiana will have to confront the end-of-life cycle of all their elevated-above-swampland highway sections; that's well down the road. As of right now, the aforementioned roadways are doing all right, other than for fog events and the weekly pileups that closes down the I-10 Atchafalaya and Bonnet Carre segments for chunks.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: sprjus4 on December 29, 2021, 06:11:41 PM
The replacement would allow for continuous 2x3 with proper shoulders...

...would fit in with the general push for 2x3 from the Texas state line/Sabine River Bridge to US 165 at Iowa.
Wouldn't it be a consistent 3x3 section, with a minimum of three lanes and full left and right shoulders in each direction throughout?
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 07:05:38 PM
geeze, after looking at that article LA has a lot of issues with their road quality. Indiana was here a few years ago.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 29, 2021, 07:55:13 PM
The replacement would allow for continuous 2x3 with proper shoulders...

...would fit in with the general push for 2x3 from the Texas state line/Sabine River Bridge to US 165 at Iowa.
Wouldn't it be a consistent 3x3 section, with a minimum of three lanes and full left and right shoulders in each direction throughout?

I would assume so, since it would be built to full Interstate standards....although LA tends to favor narrower right shoulders.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2021, 11:34:52 AM
IMHO, it would be ridiculously idiotic for anyone to build a new Calcasieu River Bridge with anything less than 3 lanes in BOTH directions. A new bridge is going to be pretty expensive to build anyway. Why waste money on one with one direction being bottle-necked to 2 lanes? Any planners suggesting a 2x3 configuration should have their heads examined. That's a pretty busy section of I-10 after all.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: CtrlAltDel on December 30, 2021, 12:02:52 PM
IMHO, it would be ridiculously idiotic for anyone to build a new Calcasieu River Bridge with anything less than 3 lanes in BOTH directions. A new bridge is going to be pretty expensive to build anyway. Why waste money on one with one direction being bottle-necked to 2 lanes? Any planners suggesting a 2x3 configuration should have their heads examined. That's a pretty busy section of I-10 after all.

Is this just a question of phrasing, for lack of a better word? When I see a "2◊3" configuration, I think two sets of three lanes, for six lanes overall, since that's what 2 ◊ 3 means in arithmetic.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 30, 2021, 12:23:21 PM
Interesting. I always 2x3 meant 2 lanes in one direction and 3 lanes the other direction.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 30, 2021, 01:21:53 PM
IMHO, it would be ridiculously idiotic for anyone to build a new Calcasieu River Bridge with anything less than 3 lanes in BOTH directions. A new bridge is going to be pretty expensive to build anyway. Why waste money on one with one direction being bottle-necked to 2 lanes? Any planners suggesting a 2x3 configuration should have their heads examined. That's a pretty busy section of I-10 after all.

2x3 means 3 lanes in both directions, to avoid all confusion.   :) :) :) :pan: :pan: :pan:
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Henry on December 31, 2021, 10:21:13 AM
IMHO, it would be ridiculously idiotic for anyone to build a new Calcasieu River Bridge with anything less than 3 lanes in BOTH directions. A new bridge is going to be pretty expensive to build anyway. Why waste money on one with one direction being bottle-necked to 2 lanes? Any planners suggesting a 2x3 configuration should have their heads examined. That's a pretty busy section of I-10 after all.

2x3 means 3 lanes in both directions, to avoid all confusion.   :) :) :) :pan: :pan: :pan:
The preferred term would be 3-3.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: MCRoads on January 03, 2022, 01:30:51 PM
As a thought exercise, how would they even attempt to reconstruct the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge? Since it is in a wetland, just building new bridges off to the side is almost certainly off the table. My thoughts would be that it is done in multiple stages.

- The high-level sections over the Atchafalaya River and Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel would go first, as this would probably be the most disruptive part of the entire project, to both vehicular and marine traffic.. They could probably build a twin span across the river, and demolish and replace the existing span.
- the long, low-lying sections could be rebuilt by building a section of the new bridge just wide enough for 2 lanes of traffic, then demolishing the existing span and adding to the new bridge. This would definitely have to be done in stages, as having 2 10 foot lanes with no shoulders on a bridge for 5-10 miles is not an option.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: abqtraveler on January 03, 2022, 01:38:10 PM
As a thought exercise, how would they even attempt to reconstruct the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge? Since it is in a wetland, just building new bridges off to the side is almost certainly off the table. My thoughts would be that it is done in multiple stages.

- The high-level sections over the Atchafalaya River and Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel would go first, as this would probably be the most disruptive part of the entire project, to both vehicular and marine traffic.. They could probably build a twin span across the river, and demolish and replace the existing span.
- the long, low-lying sections could be rebuilt by building a section of the new bridge just wide enough for 2 lanes of traffic, then demolishing the existing span and adding to the new bridge. This would definitely have to be done in stages, as having 2 10 foot lanes with no shoulders on a bridge for 5-10 miles is not an option.
I would think for most of it, they could build the new bridge in the space between the existing bridges, but for the sections over the Atchafalaya River and the Whiskey Bay channel, they would need to take a different approach as the space between the two roadways narrows to allow for a single structure over said waterways. There, the new bridge sections would have to be built either 1) to one side of the existing structures, building one half, then demolishing the existing bridges and completing the second half; or 2) they build parts of the new structure outside of the existing bridges, then demolish the existing bridges and complete the middle portion of the new spans.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: MCRoads on January 03, 2022, 02:00:54 PM
As a thought exercise, how would they even attempt to reconstruct the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge? Since it is in a wetland, just building new bridges off to the side is almost certainly off the table. My thoughts would be that it is done in multiple stages.

- The high-level sections over the Atchafalaya River and Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel would go first, as this would probably be the most disruptive part of the entire project, to both vehicular and marine traffic.. They could probably build a twin span across the river, and demolish and replace the existing span.
- the long, low-lying sections could be rebuilt by building a section of the new bridge just wide enough for 2 lanes of traffic, then demolishing the existing span and adding to the new bridge. This would definitely have to be done in stages, as having 2 10 foot lanes with no shoulders on a bridge for 5-10 miles is not an option.
I would think for most of it, they could build the new bridge in the space between the existing bridges, but for the sections over the Atchafalaya River and the Whiskey Bay channel, they would need to take a different approach as the space between the two roadways narrows to allow for a single structure over said waterways. There, the new bridge sections would have to be built either 1) to one side of the existing structures, building one half, then demolishing the existing bridges and completing the second half; or 2) they build parts of the new structure outside of the existing bridges, then demolish the existing bridges and complete the middle portion of the new spans.

That space in the middle seems to be there for a reason, though I cannot find any info on it. That’s why I said that the new structures should probably be built as close to the original as possible, and using the same footprint.

Edit to add: it is a construction waterway. It allowed barges to build the bridges. My assumption is that it will still need to exist to allow reconstruction, otherwise they will have to close down one or both of the existing bridges to build the bridge in the center.

Here is the pretty cool video I got that from:

Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2022, 03:22:28 PM
Quote
That space in the middle seems to be there for a reason, though I cannot find any info on it.

The median between the bridges is used as a boat channel. There are boat ramps under I-10 exits 121 & 127. The median channel connects to at least a couple or so bayous cutting through the swamp.

The median between the bridges is fairly wide, about 120'. Obviously replacement bridges would have to be built one at a time, either within the existing median or the outboard side of the existing bridge. A mix of both approaches would probably be used for a complete replacement to arrive at a similar footprint. At any rate, those bridges are at least 40 or more years old. They're not going to last forever. So whether LA DOT plans on replacing them within the near future or within the next 20 or so years they had better start coming up with a plan at the very least.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 03, 2022, 05:12:25 PM
Just wait for a hurricane to destroy them, then build new bridges.  Worked for I-10 across the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain. :sombrero:
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: MCRoads on January 03, 2022, 09:14:05 PM
Just wait for a hurricane to destroy them, then build new bridges.  Worked for I-10 across the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain. :sombrero:

Yes, but they didnít have to ship parts 400 milesÖ
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2022, 11:02:10 PM
It would have to take something like a really severe Category 5 hurricane coming ashore near Morgan City to have any shot at destroying the I-10 bridges over the Atchafalaya Swamp.

One key thing to remember: it wasn't wind that took out the I-10 bridge to the South of Slidell. It was storm surge (combined with certain design aspects of the bridges which contributed to lower elevation spans getting dislodged by the surge). A giant dome of water is way more destructive than wind. The I-10 bridges over the Atchafalaya are too far inland to get topped by storm surge. Plus there are millions of trees between that portion of I-10 and the coast to blunt the energy of a storm surge. The I-10 bridges over by Slidell were far more exposed to the forces of Hurricane Katrina.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 04, 2022, 10:10:39 AM
Thought it was pretty obvious by my use of emoji that I was being facetious.
If ya'll could have heard me say that sentence, I think it would have landed, but text is so sterilizing.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: sernum on January 04, 2022, 06:51:52 PM
I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face :pan:. Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 04, 2022, 06:56:32 PM
Build the ICC. Best solution.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: MCRoads on January 04, 2022, 07:06:24 PM
I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face :pan:. Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?

That was literally one of the proposed alternatives, and it was thrown out because it would involve reconstructing the cross lake bridgeÖ which they should probably do, but they arenít going to.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: BlueOutback7 on January 04, 2022, 07:20:03 PM
Although Iíve never been to Shreveport, the ICC is ultimately the ideal setup. Besides, that would put too much traffic on the I-220/LA 3132 corridor. If the loop it idea were to happen, you would also have to renumber the stub I-49 as something like I-149 for instance. Iím very surprised that the folks down there are on board. If this were done in Philly for example, it would cause a ruckus among the locals.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: sernum on January 04, 2022, 10:28:35 PM
I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face :pan:. Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?

That was literally one of the proposed alternatives, and it was thrown out because it would involve reconstructing the cross lake bridgeÖ which they should probably do, but they arenít going to.
it was? thats news to me, the alternatives ive seen only go up to 5 and the 5th one is the only "loop it" option ive seen and it uses both parts of the loop, any link?
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 04, 2022, 11:11:00 PM
I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face :pan:. Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?

Ummm....The Loop It Alternative would do just that, only further reroute I-49 over LA 3132 (Inner Loop), which is freeway but not Interstate standard.  Only difference would be that you would still have to add an additional lane to the Cross Lake section, and simply replace reworking the I-20/I220 West interchange for reworking the I-49/Inner Loop interchange. No real difference.

Incidentially enough, the official "detour" route LADOTD uses for through I-49 traffic is to use I-220 southwest to I-20 east going southbound (and I-20 west to I-220 northeast going northbound).

Why not just build the dang ICC and cut out the middleman? Straight shots are still better than indirect, and it's still less expensive.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner City Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 04, 2022, 11:15:44 PM
I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face :pan: . Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?

That was literally one of the proposed alternatives, and it was thrown out because it would involve reconstructing the cross lake bridgeÖ which they should probably do, but they arenít going to.

Upgrading the Cross Lake section is assumed under the Loop It Alternative (Alt. 5). The ICC would eliminate (at least for the forseeable future) the need to widen I-220 through there, since a favorable straight through route would exist.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 04, 2022, 11:20:39 PM
Although Iíve never been to Shreveport, the ICC is ultimately the ideal setup. Besides, that would put too much traffic on the I-220/LA 3132 corridor. If the loop it idea were to happen, you would also have to renumber the stub I-49 as something like I-149 for instance. Iím very surprised that the folks down there are on board. If this were done in Philly for example, it would cause a ruckus among the locals.

The only real opposition to the ICC comes from some residents of Allendale, the usual New Urbanist/no freeway folks, and Transportation Sec Buttigeg, who has swallowed up the New Urbanism Kool-Aid whole. Most officials in Shreveport support the ICC.



You could make a good case for upgrading the Inner Loop to Interstate standards, since it's more than useful as a bypass for DFW-to-NOLA travelers.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 04, 2022, 11:37:46 PM
The inner loop needs to be upgraded no matter what. But in terms of having a high profile regional corridor the ICC needs to be built to serve I-49.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 05, 2022, 09:56:54 AM
I'll beat this dead horse again.  The western loop is what exists right now.  GPS navigation is going to route you that way.  The traffic that is there today is not going to substantially increase if I-49 shields go up.  I do not see the criticality of the ICC from a system perspective.  This is not a hill I'd be willing to die on when a serviceable alternative already exists.  Especially when Louisiana is trying to punch a much more useful urban freeway through another mid-sized city at this time.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner City Connector (Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 05, 2022, 02:00:06 PM
I'll beat this dead horse again.  The western loop is what exists right now.  GPS navigation is going to route you that way.  The traffic that is there today is not going to substantially increase if I-49 shields go up.  I do not see the criticality of the ICC from a system perspective.  This is not a hill I'd be willing to die on when a serviceable alternative already exists.  Especially when Louisiana is trying to punch a much more useful urban freeway through another mid-sized city at this time.

Except, the Inner Loop is not quite so serviceable; because in order for it to be suitable for rerouting I-49 through it, it will require reconstructing the Cross Lake bridge on I-220, removing a sharp curve, eliminating a local service interchange (Linwood Avenue, too close to the I-49/LA 3132 south system interchange), and modifying the latter interchange to shift the through traffic over to the Inner Loop. Not to mention, most of the traffic on current I-49 is NOT destined to bypass the city center, but directly access it; throwing I-49 over to the Inner Loop does absolutely nothing for that traffic.

And, it's not as if the ICC is going to completely bisect Allendale, either: only the small northeast portion of that neighborhood is going to be affected by the proposed central alignment. Most of the area between Pete Harris Drive and Allen Avenue where the bulk of the ICC is going is pretty much abandoned, save for that church, and north of SWEPO Park it's mostly wetlands and forest from there to I-220. And, since it will be mostly elevated, there should be no issues of accessing the small portion that would be separated.

Once again, regardless of what exists, the best route is the most direct.

Also, Louisiana is capable of multitasking; building out and funding the I-49 Lafayette Connector should have no impact on Shreveport's project, since Lafayette is further ahead in the process (CSS + Preliminary Design + SEIS/106).
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 05, 2022, 02:46:44 PM
^^^ this
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2022, 03:06:13 PM
A completed ICC would also help improve business and residential development in the downtown Shreveport area.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on January 05, 2022, 03:50:53 PM
A completed ICC would also help improve business and residential development in the downtown Shreveport area.

20 years ago there were still shotgun shacks inside Common Street (the divider for downtown / Allendale.)

It would help develop Allendale itself. If they would build the freeway (mostly) between Allen Avenue and Pete Harris and change  those two streets into Texas-style frontage roads, economic development might actually happen. Yes, much of it would be fast food and light commercial retail, but that is a dramatic improvement over the current slumlike conditions along that path.

They are building apartments between Pete Harris and downtown and seemingly looking eagerly toward the building of the ICC.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner City Connector (Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on January 05, 2022, 09:48:23 PM
where the bulk of the ICC is going is pretty much abandoned, save for that church,

If I am not mistaken, the church is actually empty too.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on January 06, 2022, 08:12:01 AM
I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face :pan:. Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?

That was literally one of the proposed alternatives, and it was thrown out because it would involve reconstructing the cross lake bridge… which they should probably do, but they aren’t going to.

The OFFICIAL (signed as "TO I-49" ) route is currently I-49 to I-20 to I-220 to I-49N. No one uses it because it is out of the way.
This would (as IS) be the "no build" alternative.

"LOOP IT" (which would have LA-3132 and I-220 widened to 3 or 4 lanes in each direction) would displace more homes and businesses, have a higher environmental impact, and cost significantly more than the ICC.  Just reconstructing LA-3132 (in 2x2) and fixing a few geometry issues would cost as much or more than the ICC.

There are only two real options. Build it or build nothing. With the assumption that traffic volumes will increase even minimally, increased capacity is needed. Of all the alternatives, building the ICC is the most prudent.

I have said this before. The only issue with the ICC in Shreveport is not about the road: It is about the expenditure.  The people in Allendale feel (and are likely right) that the same expenditure spent on non-transportation issues would be of far greater benefit to Allendale and to the city as a whole. (You could tear down and replace around 3,000 substandard homes and replace them with 1K sq ft houses. More if you had the families finance part of it.)

The problem is that most of this housing is not owner occupied and even in the Biden / Buttigig era this is not how expenditures are made.For this to work, you also have to assume the substandard housing has no value beyond the land value, and the landlords do not see it that way.

Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: abqtraveler on January 06, 2022, 10:07:08 AM
I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face :pan:. Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?

That was literally one of the proposed alternatives, and it was thrown out because it would involve reconstructing the cross lake bridgeÖ which they should probably do, but they arenít going to.

The OFFICIAL (signed as "TO I-49" ) route is currently I-49 to I-20 to I-220 to I-49N. No one uses it because it is out of the way.
This would (as IS) be the "no build" alternative.

"LOOP IT" (which would have LA-3132 and I-220 widened to 3 or 4 lanes in each direction) would displace more homes and businesses, have a higher environmental impact, and cost significantly more than the ICC.  Just reconstructing LA-3132 (in 2x2) and fixing a few geometry issues would cost as much or more than the ICC.

There are only two real options. Build it or build nothing. With the assumption that traffic volumes will increase even minimally, increased capacity is needed. Of all the alternatives, building the ICC is the most prudent.

I have said this before. The only issue with the ICC in Shreveport is not about the road: It is about the expenditure.  The people in Allendale feel (and are likely right) that the same expenditure spent on non-transportation issues would be of far greater benefit to Allendale and to the city as a whole. (You could tear down and replace around 3,000 substandard homes and replace them with 1K sq ft houses. More if you had the families finance part of it.)

The problem is that most of this housing is not owner occupied and even in the Biden / Buttigig era this is not how expenditures are made.For this to work, you also have to assume the sub-standard housing has no value, and the landlords do not see it that way.
Now that we have I-49 completed to the north and I-49 completed to the south, I would say let's spend a few years seeing how the existing freeway configuration in and around Shreveport works. If a few years go by and the existing system can handle the traffic volume, then leave it alone and call it good. But, if traffic demand warrants, then start pursuing one of the "build" options, be it the ICC or upgrading I-220 and LA-3132.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bassoon1986 on January 06, 2022, 11:04:26 AM
I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face :pan:. Instead of using 3/4ths of the loop as i-49, use half of the loop by going down the i-220 half from the existing 49 interchange, then add direct connector ramps at i-20/i220 interchange, then jog up 20, and add another set of connector ramps at i-20/i-49. what say you?

That was literally one of the proposed alternatives, and it was thrown out because it would involve reconstructing the cross lake bridgeÖ which they should probably do, but they arenít going to.

The OFFICIAL (signed as "TO I-49" ) route is currently I-49 to I-20 to I-220 to I-49N. No one uses it because it is out of the way.
This would (as IS) be the "no build" alternative.

"LOOP IT" (which would have LA-3132 and I-220 widened to 3 or 4 lanes in each direction) would displace more homes and businesses, have a higher environmental impact, and cost significantly more than the ICC.  Just reconstructing LA-3132 (in 2x2) and fixing a few geometry issues would cost as much or more than the ICC.

There are only two real options. Build it or build nothing. With the assumption that traffic volumes will increase even minimally, increased capacity is needed. Of all the alternatives, building the ICC is the most prudent.

I have said this before. The only issue with the ICC in Shreveport is not about the road: It is about the expenditure.  The people in Allendale feel (and are likely right) that the same expenditure spent on non-transportation issues would be of far greater benefit to Allendale and to the city as a whole. (You could tear down and replace around 3,000 substandard homes and replace them with 1K sq ft houses. More if you had the families finance part of it.)

The problem is that most of this housing is not owner occupied and even in the Biden / Buttigig era this is not how expenditures are made.For this to work, you also have to assume the sub-standard housing has no value, and the landlords do not see it that way.
Now that we have I-49 completed to the north and I-49 completed to the south, I would say let's spend a few years seeing how the existing freeway configuration in and around Shreveport works. If a few years go by and the existing system can handle the traffic volume, then leave it alone and call it good. But, if traffic demand warrants, then start pursuing one of the "build" options, be it the ICC or upgrading I-220 and LA-3132.
But itís been a few years.

Hereís my take as someone who is from Shreveport.

-The support is for the ICC where it may not always have been from local leaders and the bulk of Allendale.
-leaving the gap between 20 and 220 does not make any sense. Itís a straight shot and shorter than the loop.
-having the freeway corridor north from I-20 is needed. Itís mainly just LA 1 as the artery for people from the north accessing downtown. I donít think all that many people use LA 173, even coming from Blanchard.
-LA 3132/Inner Loop is already busy with local traffic and for those travelers from central/south LA going to Texas. It has its own set of needs to be upgraded and or repaved.
-The ICC would actually help Bossier traffic some. Having that north/south corridor from I-20 to I-220 will take people getting to and from north Bossier off of clogged Benton Rd and Airline Dr. and off of I-20 between I-49 and Bossier.
-Amazon is building a huge facility right in the area enclosed by LA 1, I-220, and the future I-49/ICC. The North Hearne future exit may be the way they travel.


iPhone
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 06, 2022, 11:42:16 AM
Not to mention, most of the traffic on current I-49 is NOT destined to bypass the city center, but directly access it; throwing I-49 over to the Inner Loop does absolutely nothing for that traffic.

I want to focus on this because if that is the case, then to me, that is an argument against this freeway cutting straight thru town.  It seems like at most, that's an argument for a spur of some kind dropping south from 220 to edge of downtown.  Existing conditions to the south of the ICC corridor are sufficient to access downtown Shreveport.

If there's not a whole lot of thru traffic on I-49, then that sounds to me like it's not a problem to route it along the existing loop.  This interstate isn't going north of Texarkana for decades at this rate and even when/if it does, I'm not certain that is going to create an overwhelming traffic situation.  By then, it will already be past the time to rebuild and upgrade the existing loop freeway simply due to local traffic and aging condition, so the idea that it's more expensive to go around than thru falls flat for me.

The other thing that I find unsettling about this particular project is the way some of y'all talk about this part of Shreveport.  I get that it's not a great neighborhood, but you know, that's the exact way folks talked about the urban neighborhoods that were bulldozed 50-60 years ago to build urban highways and public housing.  And I don't like it.  Have we learned nothing from history?
Just because Allendale is shitty right now, doesn't mean it'll be shitty forever.  How many downtown-adjacent neighborhoods have we seen revitalized in the last quarter century in cities large and small?  As southern Louisiana continues to sink into the Gulf, those folks down there are gonna need new places to go and for those wanting to stay in the state they know and love, Shreveport is going to see an influx of some of them.

Amid this ongoing housing crisis in America where we can only seem to build homes for millionaires and third condos for billionaires, the only vestige of affordable housing in many cities is mature building stock.  The homes that are cheaper because they suck a little bit and/or the neighborhood is iffy.  Say what you will about a crappy old house, it's better than living on the street.  It's better than sharing an overpriced duplex with three other families.  In a neighboorhood like Allendale, I see a place where people kicked out of their homes by rising sea level can afford to move and get back on their feet.

I'm sure all this sentimental rambling will be readily dismissed, but I'm just trying to get across that I cannot help but look at this freeway proposal in a larger context.  A seemingly simple little thing like filling a 3 mile gap of urban freeway actually has outsized consequences and opportunity costs that I'm certain most people haven't considered.

For what it's worth, though, pretty much every fictional map I've drawn of this region includes the ICC. :P
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 06, 2022, 12:32:50 PM
Quote from: bwana39
The people in Allendale feel (and are likely right) that the same expenditure spent on non-transportation issues would be of far greater benefit to Allendale and to the city as a whole. (You could tear down and replace around 3,000 substandard homes and replace them with 1K sq ft houses. More if you had the families finance part of it.)

Yeah, and if those substandard homes were replaced with nicer ones the "substandard occupants" would be replaced with "nicer" tenants or buyers. Renovating run-down neighborhoods into nice looking ones usually leads to a whole lot of gentrification. New York City is an excellent example. Former combat-zone 'hoods like Brownsville and Bedford-Stuyvesant are now much safer and nicer. But very few of the people who were living in those places 20+ years ago are still there now.

Improvement in downtown Shreveport can lead to gentrification with or without the ICC. If all the money for the ICC was blown on building new housing various developers would game the hell out of that system to push any low income people out to make room for upwardly mobile hipsters. The United States as a whole has a serious housing shortage problem for all sorts of people with limited incomes. Young adults trying to move out of their parents' homes is one category. Elderly people is another. Home builders only want to build single family homes for buyers in $200K and up income classes. Many city governments stupidly have their zoning tilted heavily toward that kind of residential development, often limiting or even banning multi-family units or apartment buildings unless they are of the luxury variety. There are all sorts of down-sides with this lunacy. My town has lost a few thousand people and has a pretty serious shortage of service industry workers because there is little if any housing for those kind of workers. It's getting to the point where if they stay here they have to cohabitate with multiple other people sharing the same house or apartment. It's a complicated problem with no easy answers.

The positive thing about building the ICC is it will improve traffic flow/capacity thru that part of Shreveport, making the location more convenient. That in turn will encourage more business development there. That means more jobs and opportunity for that location.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 06, 2022, 12:52:28 PM
Amid this ongoing housing crisis in America where we can only seem to build homes for millionaires and third condos for billionaires
Why is this? I mean surely given the demand for affordable housing there is a way to build single family homes and make a profit? This is conspiracy theory territory I am treading on here but it seems to be by design in SoCal where the state makes it hard if not impossible to build new large scale single family home developments. Two massive developments in Santa Clarita and San Diego area were stopped by the cities. Then they go on to claim there is a major housing shortage and the only way out is to build apartments/condos in the cites as "it's more sustainable."
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 06, 2022, 01:09:34 PM
Not to mention, most of the traffic on current I-49 is NOT destined to bypass the city center, but directly access it; throwing I-49 over to the Inner Loop does absolutely nothing for that traffic.

I want to focus on this because if that is the case, then to me, that is an argument against this freeway cutting straight thru town.  It seems like at most, that's an argument for a spur of some kind dropping south from 220 to edge of downtown.  Existing conditions to the south of the ICC corridor are sufficient to access downtown Shreveport.

If there's not a whole lot of thru traffic on I-49, then that sounds to me like it's not a problem to route it along the existing loop.  This interstate isn't going north of Texarkana for decades at this rate and even when/if it does, I'm not certain that is going to create an overwhelming traffic situation.  By then, it will already be past the time to rebuild and upgrade the existing loop freeway simply due to local traffic and aging condition, so the idea that it's more expensive to go around than thru falls flat for me.

The other thing that I find unsettling about this particular project is the way some of y'all talk about this part of Shreveport.  I get that it's not a great neighborhood, but you know, that's the exact way folks talked about the urban neighborhoods that were bulldozed 50-60 years ago to build urban highways and public housing.  And I don't like it.  Have we learned nothing from history?
Just because Allendale is shitty right now, doesn't mean it'll be shitty forever.  How many downtown-adjacent neighborhoods have we seen revitalized in the last quarter century in cities large and small?  As southern Louisiana continues to sink into the Gulf, those folks down there are gonna need new places to go and for those wanting to stay in the state they know and love, Shreveport is going to see an influx of some of them.

Amid this ongoing housing crisis in America where we can only seem to build homes for millionaires and third condos for billionaires, the only vestige of affordable housing in many cities is mature building stock.  The homes that are cheaper because they suck a little bit and/or the neighborhood is iffy.  Say what you will about a crappy old house, it's better than living on the street.  It's better than sharing an overpriced duplex with three other families.  In a neighboorhood like Allendale, I see a place where people kicked out of their homes by rising sea level can afford to move and get back on their feet.

I'm sure all this sentimental rambling will be readily dismissed, but I'm just trying to get across that I cannot help but look at this freeway proposal in a larger context.  A seemingly simple little thing like filling a 3 mile gap of urban freeway actually has outsized consequences and opportunity costs that I'm certain most people haven't considered.

For what it's worth, though, pretty much every fictional map I've drawn of this region includes the ICC. :p

One word: gentrification.

A lot of the New Urbanist nonsense about tearing down freeways is about "reclaiming" neighborhoods that were savaged by construction of those freeways in the past. In reality, it's mostly about wealthy landowners exploiting feels about past racism to justify development designed to bring hip suburbanites into that neighborhood in order to increase the city's tax base....mostly at the expense of the current residents who end up getting kicked out. This is the primary reason why the attempt to remove the Claiborne Elevated portion of I-10 in NOLA has failed to reach traction: the fears that current residents of Treme could become the victims of gentrified development. (That, and the removal of a vital artery between downtown NOLA/Superdome/French Quarter and the eastern suburbs.) Using that excuse against the ICC is a bit faulty because outside of a small segment of the northeast corner of Allendale that would be bisected by the proposed central alignment, most of Allendale is not directly impacted.

As for access? Well, maybe existing I-49 and the Allen/Pete Harris couplet may provide direct access to downtown (and there is also I-20 east to Common Street and the US 71 couplet), access from the north is very much lacking, and more than justifies the ICC. Right now, if you want to get to downtown from north of I-220, you have to take that roadway to US 71 (Market Street). At least the ICC would give you direct access to downtown via Caddo/Ford Streets as well as a far more direct route to I-20 to the west.

I still say that the benefits of the ICC as well as the cost savings over upgrading the Inner Loop and 220 more than outweigh the minor costs of relocating a few folks in Allendale. And that would be true even if I-49 doesn't go past Texarkana.



Now, I'm not saying that Allendale couldn't use plenty of development as a whole; but that's more a meta issue of getting better jobs and more money into the pockets of the residents so that they can create the tax base that would support more economic development. That's something quite beyond the scope of merely building a freeway on its periphery.

Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: MikieTimT on January 06, 2022, 01:16:56 PM
Amid this ongoing housing crisis in America where we can only seem to build homes for millionaires and third condos for billionaires
Why is this? I mean surely given the demand for affordable housing there is a way to build single family homes and make a profit? This is conspiracy theory territory I am treading on here but it seems to be by design in SoCal where the state makes it hard if not impossible to build new large scale single family home developments. Two massive developments in Santa Clarita and San Diego area were stopped by the cities. Then they go on to claim there is a major housing shortage and the only way out is to build apartments/condos in the cites as "it's more sustainable."

There is no housing crisis in the U.S.  There are cities which have become unaffordable, but no one has a right to dictate that affordable housing must be made available within the confines of a metropolis.  There's plenty of open, cheaper land once you get out of a city, and mobile homes are still pretty darn cheap.  I grew up rather poor and lived in 2 different trailer homes out in the boonies.  It can be done and has been done in the more rural states since the country was founded.  Many people seem to look down on those who live rurally or in a manufactured home for some reason, but they tend to be the same ones that look down on certain trades and jobs as well.  I have nothing but respect for anyone willing to work to earn a buck, however legally they choose to do it.  It's the ones that sit at home and wait for the government checks that get my gall.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 06, 2022, 01:41:25 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda
Why is this? I mean surely given the demand for affordable housing there is a way to build single family homes and make a profit?

One part of the problem is rich people wanting to protect their property values. They have pull at city hall. Some have seats on city councils. They twist zoning regulations around to make it very difficult, if not impossible, to build modest sized, more affordable single family homes and multi-family units in most areas of a city. Such units are confined to older, more run-down (read: ghetto) zones in that city, if any still exist. The regulations are all about encouraging the development of more units of large, expensive single family homes.

To make the situation more difficult, many new developments plop down as entire neighborhoods at once on dozens or even hundreds of acres of land. The houses are all uniform in style. And they all have a design code enforced by a Home Owners Association. Throw up some gates for good measure to keep out the riff raff. Big chunks of land go to these developments. The developers may get tax breaks or other incentives from the city, such as a whole lot of new city infrastructure being installed for free. Someone building modest sized homes one at a time isn't going to get the same breaks and may struggle to find a good location to build.

The shortage in more modest sized, modest priced housing forces many middle class buyers to get over their heads and buy homes they really can't afford. This also helps prop up demand and help keep a floor under high housing prices.

One result of this exclusionary style method of residential zoning: many people who work in various service businesses (restaurants, retail stores, etc) built in the commercial zones of these "rich" areas can't afford to live anywhere near their workplace. When the disconnect gets bad enough those businesses will have an increasingly harder time trying to find employees. Many places are already dealing with worker shortages now. But all we're hearing is "lazy Americans don't want to work, they want to stay home and collect welfare." The reality is older workers are retiring early. The younger ones are taking jobs closer to home.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda
Then they go on to claim there is a major housing shortage and the only way out is to build apartments/condos in the cites as "it's more sustainable."

The New Urbanist trope of everyone living in condos within the city center is another absurd fantasy. Every apartment tower I see going up in any major city is a luxury tower. The units are basically getting sold as 2nd or 3rd homes to rich buyers. They're assets to hold, not live in. With inflation ticking up this trend may only get more extreme.

Quote from: MikieTimT
There is no housing crisis in the U.S.

Um, bullshit. We're in another housing market price bubble. There is a big disconnect from reality on several housing market segments.

Quote from: MikieTimT
There are cities which have become unaffordable, but no one has a right to dictate that affordable housing must be made available within the confines of a metropolis.

Rich people shouldn't be able to game zoning rules so only certain kinds of houses can be built across much of a city either. Even if a developer wanted to build affordable housing units or just something more modest he often cannot do so because of zoning rules.

Quote from: MikieTimT
There's plenty of open, cheaper land once you get out of a city, and mobile homes are still pretty darn cheap.  I grew up rather poor and lived in 2 different trailer homes out in the boonies.  It can be done and has been done in the more rural states since the country was founded.

This is the year 2022, not 1940. Many cities and towns have banned or greatly limited the use of mobile homes. Any mobile home still needs access to infrastructure. You can't just plop one down just anywhere out in the sticks.

The thing that is now happening, the way young adults who aren't rich are adapting to the reality is more of them are opting out of the whole getting married and having kids thing. Our nation's birth rate is hitting new record lows. Life is a lot more affordable if you stay single. And that arrangement might work out for them, but it's not so good for our society on the whole. Our businesses and institutions can't survive without a steady supply of newly born Americans.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on January 06, 2022, 03:50:29 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda
Why is this? I mean surely given the demand for affordable housing there is a way to build single family homes and make a profit?

One part of the problem is rich people wanting to protect their property values. They have pull at city hall. Some have seats on city councils. They twist zoning regulations around to make it very difficult, if not impossible, to build modest sized, more affordable single family homes and multi-family units in most areas of a city. Such units are confined to older, more run-down (read: ghetto) zones in that city, if any still exist. The regulations are all about encouraging the development of more units of large, expensive single family homes.

To make the situation more difficult, many new developments plop down as entire neighborhoods at once on dozens or even hundreds of acres of land. The houses are all uniform in style. And they all have a design code enforced by a Home Owners Association. Throw up some gates for good measure to keep out the riff raff. Big chunks of land go to these developments. The developers may get tax breaks or other incentives from the city, such as a whole lot of new city infrastructure being installed for free. Someone building modest sized homes one at a time isn't going to get the same breaks and may struggle to find a good location to build.

The shortage in more modest sized, modest priced housing forces many middle class buyers to get over their heads and buy homes they really can't afford. This also helps prop up demand and help keep a floor under high housing prices.

One result of this exclusionary style method of residential zoning: many people who work in various service businesses (restaurants, retail stores, etc) built in the commercial zones of these "rich" areas can't afford to live anywhere near their workplace. When the disconnect gets bad enough those businesses will have an increasingly harder time trying to find employees. Many places are already dealing with worker shortages now. But all we're hearing is "lazy Americans don't want to work, they want to stay home and collect welfare." The reality is older workers are retiring early. The younger ones are taking jobs closer to home.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda
Then they go on to claim there is a major housing shortage and the only way out is to build apartments/condos in the cites as "it's more sustainable."

The New Urbanist trope of everyone living in condos within the city center is another absurd fantasy. Every apartment tower I see going up in any major city is a luxury tower. The units are basically getting sold as 2nd or 3rd homes to rich buyers. They're assets to hold, not live in. With inflation ticking up this trend may only get more extreme.

Quote from: MikieTimT
There is no housing crisis in the U.S.

Um, bullshit. We're in another housing market price bubble. There is a big disconnect from reality on several housing market segments.

Quote from: MikieTimT
There are cities which have become unaffordable, but no one has a right to dictate that affordable housing must be made available within the confines of a metropolis.

Rich people shouldn't be able to game zoning rules so only certain kinds of houses can be built across much of a city either. Even if a developer wanted to build affordable housing units or just something more modest he often cannot do so because of zoning rules.

Quote from: MikieTimT
There's plenty of open, cheaper land once you get out of a city, and mobile homes are still pretty darn cheap.  I grew up rather poor and lived in 2 different trailer homes out in the boonies.  It can be done and has been done in the more rural states since the country was founded.

This is the year 2022, not 1940. Many cities and towns have banned or greatly limited the use of mobile homes. Any mobile home still needs access to infrastructure. You can't just plop one down just anywhere out in the sticks.

The thing that is now happening, the way young adults who aren't rich are adapting to the reality is more of them are opting out of the whole getting married and having kids thing. Our nation's birth rate is hitting new record lows. Life is a lot more affordable if you stay single. And that arrangement might work out for them, but it's not so good for our society on the whole. Our businesses and institutions can't survive without a steady supply of newly born Americans.

You spent a lot of time working on this. I agree with most of not all of it.

I certainly agree that even if the money were spent on Allendale that the current residents of Allendale would be left behind. Allendale might improve, but the residents would indeed be new.  I think people would tend to discount gentrification in a majority minority city, but it works the same here as anywhere else. While it might not be predominately white people who are the new residents, it would still be people of higher SES .

Part of the issue of slums is that  the landlords are not forced to keep a minimum standard.  The slumlords would argue that they are delivering the quality of housing that the price point reflects. 

I absolutely agree that government assistance to create or refurbish rental units is a short term improvement at best.  It really just helps keep people in cycles of poverty.  While I wish that there were ways to break the cycle of poverty, that even in the Soviet Union there were different levels of income and various levels of SES including poverty.

Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 06, 2022, 07:08:56 PM
Ultimately the ICC is going to do more to dramatically help the city of Shreveport. The downtown district will be better connected to the highway system with I-49 running as a direct, thru route. That will attract new business development. Detouring I-49 around the loop will not yield the same benefit. IMHO, the whole I-49 corridor in that region will operate better if it passes straight thru Shreveport without an interruption along the way. Once I-49 is completed farther North the entire corridor will gain more importance.

Quote from: bwana39
I absolutely agree that government assistance to create or refurbish rental units is a short term improvement at best.  It really just helps keep people in cycles of poverty.  While I wish that there were ways to break the cycle of poverty, that even in the Soviet Union there were different levels of income and various levels of SES including poverty.

At least on the local level a completed ICC will set the stage for more commercial development and possible job opportunities for residents in Allendale.

Battling long term poverty is a far more difficult, complicated problem. There is no magic cure for it because there are so many issues contributing to the problem.

For one thing there is a spectrum of poverty affecting people in a range of circumstances. Mentally ill homeless people are on one end of that spectrum. People working one or more jobs and struggling to afford basics are on the other end. Plenty of Americans who technically are not in poverty are barely getting by. Some poverty is self-inflicted via drug abuse, gambling addiction, being foolishly stupid while young, etc. American popular culture and some of the bullshit it romanticizes sure isn't helping. We have growing income-class rifts due to several factors. The high and ever-rising cost of college education is an obvious one increasing the class divide.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bassoon1986 on January 06, 2022, 09:13:57 PM
Found out exactly where the Amazon facility in north Shreveport will be located. This graphic from a news article shows it literally across the bayou from the SB I-49 to EB I-220 ramp.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220107/bc3326a85538639d708b9000824a4b0d.jpg)


I tried to show it on Google Maps in satellite view in perspective of the other area highways, too. 3094 is North Hearne Ave where a potential exit for future I-49 will be.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220107/e93300df9d0b5b280805f0c5c7d6b31c.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 07, 2022, 12:46:31 PM
Amazon won't have any direct access to either I-220 or I-49 from that location. They'll be confined to using US-71 unless they build new bridges over Twelve Mile Bayou to somehow access I-49 to the South of the I-220/I-49 interchange. The I-220/US-71 exit and I-220/I-49 interchange are too close together to squeeze in another exit on I-220 in between. Maybe Amazon might build a new access road that hops over I-220 to connect into Cooper Road to the North.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: MikieTimT on January 07, 2022, 01:59:45 PM
Amazon won't any direct access to either I-220 or I-49 from that location. They'll be confined to using US-71 unless they build new bridges over Twelve Mile Bayou to somehow access I-49 to the South of the I-220/I-49 interchange. The I-220/US-71 exit and I-220/I-49 interchange are too close together to squeeze in another exit on I-220 in between. Maybe Amazon might build a new access road that hops over I-220 to connect into Cooper Road to the North.

Amazon's not in the business of building roads.  They are in the business of extracting as many tax breaks as possible to make as much for their shareholders as possible.  Just like every other corporation.  Wal-Mart got Arkansas to put an additional exit in on I-49 for 8th Street during the 6-laning through NWA.  And I'm sure they'll get Bentonville or some other entity to foot as much of the 8th Street widening as possible to serve their new Home Office currently under construction.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 07, 2022, 05:43:00 PM
Amazon warehouses seem to be popping up like weeds the way Walmart warehouses were 20 years ago.
Assuming the ICC has an interchange at Hearne Ave, that seems like the best interstate access for this proposed facility.

The real conspiracy with housing prices is The Man always needs to keep it just expensive enough to buy a home to where you have to lock yourself into debt for the rest of your working life.  That way The Man can lord that mortgage over you and keep you about in line with the rest of the nice worker bees.  :sombrero
And the generation that scooped up affordable homes under the GI Bill wonder why these younger generations haven't reached the same milestones they did.  That was a fantastic system for people who qualified (white military veterans).  Ostensibly, it still exists, but the special interests have gotten their grubby mitts on that system and the nature of modern military service makes it a dubious proposition for many people.

Since it came up, trailer homes are not a real solution to the growing housing crisis unless the person owns the land it's parked on.  The equity in home ownership is in the land it sits on, not the building itself.  If one doesn't own the lot their home is on, they own a money pit.  Buying a trailer home like buying a large car that you can't drive; it will never be worth more than it was when you bought it unless a celebrity dies there.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 07, 2022, 09:40:14 PM
Amazon won't any direct access to either I-220 or I-49 from that location. They'll be confined to using US-71 unless they build new bridges over Twelve Mile Bayou to somehow access I-49 to the South of the I-220/I-49 interchange. The I-220/US-71 exit and I-220/I-49 interchange are too close together to squeeze in another exit on I-220 in between. Maybe Amazon might build a new access road that hops over I-220 to connect into Cooper Road to the North.

A Hearne Avenue interchange is planned for the ICC that would indirectly access the proposed Amazon facility from there.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on January 08, 2022, 07:17:04 PM
Amazon won't any direct access to either I-220 or I-49 from that location. They'll be confined to using US-71 unless they build new bridges over Twelve Mile Bayou to somehow access I-49 to the South of the I-220/I-49 interchange. The I-220/US-71 exit and I-220/I-49 interchange are too close together to squeeze in another exit on I-220 in between. Maybe Amazon might build a new access road that hops over I-220 to connect into Cooper Road to the North.

The main entry to the Amazon facility will be on Hearne near The CCC (Caddo Parish Correctional Center... the county jail if you will). There also would be access along Market Street near Nelson or Barton Streets. Without the ICC, it is still only around two miles from I-220 and quick access to I-49 North.

Assuming there is an exit on the ICC on Hearne (which seemingly was previously traded away), this would be a good fit. Less than a mile.

No, crossing 12-mile Bayou is not an option to get to the freeway. Too expensive AND it is just a swamp out there anyway.
Title: Re: I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)
Post by: bwana39 on July 09, 2022, 11:37:10 PM
It appears there MAY be some of the SB277 /ACT 505 of 2022 money that MAY be used for the ICC.


There is some new TIMED funding  for this project SB277 was passed as ACT 505 of 2022. The I-10 bridges in Baton Rouge and Lake Charles and finishing I-49 to New Orleans. http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=22RS&b=SB277&sbi=y