AARoads Forum

This project deserves its own thread. It has moved forward to Louisiana's Historical Preservation Society according to this article:

https://www.ksla.com/2021/09/22/controversial-i-49-inner-city-connector-project-shreveport-is-standstill/

Here's the official project website:

https://www.i49shreveport.com/

I don't live here so what do I know but it seems like routing it on 220 and 3132 is the best idea.

Quote from: 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.

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.

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.

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.

Also, props to LADOTD for finally updating the ICC website. Took them a good while.

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. )

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.

Quote from: bwana39 on September 24, 2021, 11:16:07 PM
This is what the economics say.
— Fully elevated, 2 internal interchanges, 6 lanes - $640M

— 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 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.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 29, 2021, 12:37:12 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on September 24, 2021, 11:16:07 PM
This is what the economics say.
— Fully elevated, 2 internal interchanges, 6 lanes - $640M

— 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.

Quote from: MikieTimT on October 29, 2021, 02:23:49 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 29, 2021, 12:37:12 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on September 24, 2021, 11:16:07 PM
This is what the economics say.
— Fully elevated, 2 internal interchanges, 6 lanes - $640M

— 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.

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

Quote from: bassoon1986 on October 30, 2021, 01:00:28 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

Not any reason it shouldn't. The part north of I-220 is six lanes to Market Street

Quote from: bwana39 on October 30, 2021, 01:34:29 PM

Quote from: bassoon1986 on October 30, 2021, 01:00:28 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

Not any reason it shouldn't. The part north of I-220 is six lanes to Market Street

It's not that far. Just from I-220 interchange to MLK.


iPhone

Quote from: bassoon1986 on October 30, 2021, 02:36:18 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 30, 2021, 01:34:29 PM

Quote from: bassoon1986 on October 30, 2021, 01:00:28 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

Not any reason it shouldn't. The part north of I-220 is six lanes to Market Street

It's 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.

Quote from: bassoon1986 on October 30, 2021, 01:00:28 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.

Quote from: bwana39 on November 03, 2021, 02:46:10 PM

Quote from: bassoon1986 on October 30, 2021, 01:00:28 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 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.

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).

Quote from: 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).

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

Quote from: codyg1985 on November 08, 2021, 11:00:34 AM

Quote from: 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).

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

It shouldn't compete, all three need to happen along with a rebuild of I-10 through NOLA as long as they don't 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?

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 08, 2021, 02:30:18 PM

Quote from: codyg1985 on November 08, 2021, 11:00:34 AM

Quote from: 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).

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

It shouldn't compete, all three need to happen along with a rebuild of I-10 through NOLA as long as they don't 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.

Quote from: codyg1985 on November 08, 2021, 11:00:34 AM

Quote from: 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).

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:

Quote from: jbnv on November 09, 2021, 01:23:02 PM

Quote from: Henry on November 08, 2021, 10:05:19 AM
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.

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

Quote from: 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

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.

Quote from: jbnv on November 13, 2021, 04:12:34 PM

Quote from: 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

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.)

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.

Quote from: 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.

Still, over 100M per mile?

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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: 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.

Wouldn't I-10 be a higher priority than I-49? Far more traffic and immediate impact for such projects.

Unless you're specifically referring to Lafayette only.

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.

^ It's a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Quote from: 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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2021, 10:02:21 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 28, 2021, 10:08:16 PM
^ It's a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Quote from: 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.

isn't that why 210 exists?  :hmmm:

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 09:14:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 28, 2021, 10:08:16 PM
^ It's a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Quote from: 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.

isn't that why 210 exists?  :hmmm:

I-210 is not a viable through traffic bypass. (unless a major incident, of course) It's a local beltway route.

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

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 29, 2021, 12:11:35 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 09:14:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 28, 2021, 10:08:16 PM
^ It's a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Quote from: 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.

isn't that why 210 exists?  :hmmm:

I-210 is not a viable through traffic bypass. (unless a major incident, of course) It's 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...

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 12:15:35 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 29, 2021, 12:11:35 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 09:14:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 28, 2021, 10:08:16 PM
^ It's a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Quote from: 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.

isn't that why 210 exists?  :hmmm:

I-210 is not a viable through traffic bypass. (unless a major incident, of course) It's 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.

It's a longer route, and is still an urban 60 mph interstate highway, no different than I-10.

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_JKUpgrading 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.

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 09:14:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 28, 2021, 10:08:16 PM
^ It's a specific bridge replacement project in Lake Charles - an area that can be a bottleneck - not the entire corridor.

Quote from: 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.

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."

Quote from: 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_JKUpgrading 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.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 29, 2021, 03:29:51 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?

geeze, after looking at that article LA has a lot of issues with their road quality. Indiana was here a few years ago.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 29, 2021, 06:11:41 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 29, 2021, 03:29:51 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.

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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

Interesting. I always 2x3 meant 2 lanes in one direction and 3 lanes the other direction.

Quote from: 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.

2x3 means 3 lanes in both directions, to avoid all confusion.   :) :) :) :pan: :pan: :pan:

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 30, 2021, 01:21:53 PM

Quote from: 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.

2x3 means 3 lanes in both directions, to avoid all confusion.   :) :) :) :pan: :pan: :pan:

The preferred term would be 3-3.

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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: abqtraveler on January 03, 2022, 01:38:10 PM

Quote from: 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.

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:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CLmT41GZ40A

QuoteThat 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.

Just wait for a hurricane to destroy them, then build new bridges.  Worked for I-10 across the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain. :sombrero:

Quote from: 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:

Yes, but they didn't have to ship parts 400 miles...

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.

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.

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?

Build the ICC. Best solution.

Quote from: 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?

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.

Although I've 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. I'm 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.

Quote from: MCRoads on January 04, 2022, 07:06:24 PM

Quote from: 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?

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.

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?

Quote from: 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?

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.

Quote from: MCRoads on January 04, 2022, 07:06:24 PM

Quote from: 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?

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.

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.

Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 04, 2022, 07:20:03 PM
Although I've 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. I'm 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: 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.

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).

^^^ this

A completed ICC would also help improve business and residential development in the downtown Shreveport area.

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 05, 2022, 02:00:06 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.

Quote from: MCRoads on January 04, 2022, 07:06:24 PM

Quote from: 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?

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.

Quote from: bwana39 on January 06, 2022, 08:12:01 AM

Quote from: MCRoads on January 04, 2022, 07:06:24 PM

Quote from: 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?

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 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.

Quote from: abqtraveler on January 06, 2022, 10:07:08 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 06, 2022, 08:12:01 AM

Quote from: MCRoads on January 04, 2022, 07:06:24 PM

Quote from: 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?

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 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 it's been a few years.

Here's 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. It's a straight shot and shorter than the loop.
-having the freeway corridor north from I-20 is needed. It's mainly just LA 1 as the artery for people from the north accessing downtown. I don't 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

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 05, 2022, 02:00:06 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

Quote from: bwana39The 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.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 06, 2022, 11:42:16 AM
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."

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 06, 2022, 11:42:16 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 05, 2022, 02:00:06 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.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 06, 2022, 12:52:28 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 06, 2022, 11:42:16 AM
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.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaWhy 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 PandaThen 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: MikieTimTThere 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: MikieTimTThere 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: MikieTimTThere'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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 06, 2022, 01:41:25 PM

Quote from: Plutonic PandaWhy 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 PandaThen 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: MikieTimTThere 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: MikieTimTThere 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: MikieTimTThere'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.

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: bwana39I 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.

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

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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 07, 2022, 12:46:31 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.

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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 07, 2022, 12:46:31 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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 07, 2022, 12:46:31 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.

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

Quote from: 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

The building is nearly completed, but has to undergo dramatic retrofits to meet Amazon specs. ...

https://www.ksla.com/2023/07/29/city-leader-discusses-shreveports-amazon-fulfillment-center/

Is there a construction date for Interstate 49 between Interstate 20 and Interstate 220 yet? Or is it still in the study phase?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 31, 2023, 12:52:58 PM
Is there a construction date for Interstate 49 between Interstate 20 and Interstate 220 yet? Or is it still in the study phase?

Not yet....still in the environmental and engineering study stage.

Also, the long delay and tactics by the opponents of the original alignment has produced a new alignment (labeled Alignment 3b) that actually recurves east of SWEPCO Lake in order to avoid the sensitive areas around SWEPCO Park.

That alignment, along with the original 3 central alignments and the "Loop It" LA 3132/I-220 bypass alternative, will be analyzed in full in the Draft EIS, which is due for late fall 2023 or spring 2024.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 31, 2023, 07:22:29 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 31, 2023, 12:52:58 PM
Is there a construction date for Interstate 49 between Interstate 20 and Interstate 220 yet? Or is it still in the study phase?

Not yet....still in the environmental and engineering study stage.

Also, the long delay and tactics by the opponents of the original alignment has produced a new alignment (labeled Alignment 3b) that actually recurves east of SWEPCO Lake in order to avoid the sensitive areas around SWEPCO Park.

That alignment, along with the original 3 central alignments and the "Loop It" LA 3132/I-220 bypass alternative, will be analyzed in full in the Draft EIS, which is due for late fall 2023 or spring 2024.

any links to a map of this?  :hmmm:

Quote from: silverback1065 on August 01, 2023, 10:47:40 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 31, 2023, 07:22:29 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 31, 2023, 12:52:58 PM
Is there a construction date for Interstate 49 between Interstate 20 and Interstate 220 yet? Or is it still in the study phase?

Not yet....still in the environmental and engineering study stage.

Also, the long delay and tactics by the opponents of the original alignment has produced a new alignment (labeled Alignment 3b) that actually recurves east of SWEPCO Lake in order to avoid the sensitive areas around SWEPCO Park.

That alignment, along with the original 3 central alignments and the "Loop It" LA 3132/I-220 bypass alternative, will be analyzed in full in the Draft EIS, which is due for late fall 2023 or spring 2024.

any links to a map of this?  :hmmm:

Here you go....from the I-49 Shreveport ICC site:

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipM6eGQm8cLZ_eEPf0xcHud8EuN9avBak6Fdjr4s (https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipM6eGQm8cLZ_eEPf0xcHud8EuN9avBak6Fdjr4s)


(https://redgarterclub.com/RGClubNetwork/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/I-49-ICC-2023-Alternatives-And-Historical-District-Boundaries.png)


The purple colored alignment at the far right is the new Alignment 3A which was created to bypass the Allendale neighborhood, which is now scheduled to become a National Historical District. It cuts through another historical district (St. Paul's Bottom), but that neighborhood has decayed to the point that it is being considered for delisting from the NHDR, which would clear it as an alternative to the Loop It/Inner Loop/I-220 alternative that would cross Cross Lake.

There is now also a revised schedule for completing the environmental process, due to the need to study the feasibility of Alignment 3A. Feasibility studies would conclude with a public meeting scheduled later this year in the fall, then a more detailed environmental analysis of all the remaining alternatives would commence for another year, leading to a Draft EIS, a Public Hearing on whatever ends up becoming the Preferred Alternative, and a Final EIS/ROD tentatively scheduled for the winter of 2024/2025.

God that's dumb. They need to get to it or this project is going to be toast.

I think there is a huge OVERESTIMATION of the effects of the other routings. There si as much or more in the path of 3A including the historic waterworks museum and 2 crossings of Cross Bayou.

Swepco Park is not a significant park either in history or in utilization. There is NO ACCESS to the cooling pond  for the power plants (SWEPCO LAKE?) .  It actually is the site of the former "BOTTOMS" a place filled with poorly constructed and poorly maintained shotgun shacks. Like a lot of stuff in the I-49 ICC path, they were removed nearly 20 years ago.

3A is just agitators trying to slow the process.  For what is is worth, 3A would appear to impinge on both the movie studio and virtually new apartment buildings with 5 or 6 hundred units.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 02, 2023, 04:10:11 PM
God that’s dumb. They need to get to it or this project is going to be toast.

I agree!

The main issue with the other alignments, though, is that with the entire Allendale neighborhood about to be classified as a National Historical District, it would become next to impossible to route any centralized I-49 ICC alignment directly through it; which would strengthen significantly the case for the Loop It/Inner Loop/I-220 alternative. 3A may end up becoming a compromise alignment, if they really want I-49 built.

Incidentally, the Environmental Justice investigators at the USDOT/FHWA that launched an ongoing investigation of the ICC for possible racially discriminatory effects is the same one that is also investigating the Lafayette I-49 Connector project on similar grounds. No word as of yet on whether either investigation has been resolved to what conclusions.

Is Allendale becoming a National Historic District to prevent Interstate 49 from being built through the neighborhood? Or did the proposal for the neighborhood to become a NHD predate the Interstate 49 proposal?

Ironically the freeway will divide nothing significant. Whichever route it takes, 95+% of everything will be to the west of it. The only thing significant east of it will be new construction apartments and a handful of businesses.

Most of the people who own property in the previously proposed routes and points east want the freeway. Just like everywhere else, a handful of agitators fueled by out of town (out of state, out of geographic region...) leaders make problems that in themselves often cause expenses that cost as much to fight/ address/ cave-in to as the roadway they are arguing against.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2023, 12:15:42 PM
Is Allendale becoming a National Historic District to prevent Interstate 49 from being built through the neighborhood? Or did the proposal for the neighborhood to become a NHD predate the Interstate 49 proposal?

I'm guessing that the Allendale designation as a NHD is directed at blocking I-49, since the neighborhood has been one of the strongest in opposition to the project going through, and it was only recently that they filed for NHD status. Though, Section 106 guidelines would still allow for alignments to go through if either mitigation was proposed and approved by everyone through a Memorandum of Agreement between the Feds, state, and local historical authorities, or it was determined that no feasible alternatives to going through the neighborhood existed.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 03, 2023, 02:20:05 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2023, 12:15:42 PM
Is Allendale becoming a National Historic District to prevent Interstate 49 from being built through the neighborhood? Or did the proposal for the neighborhood to become a NHD predate the Interstate 49 proposal?

I'm guessing that the Allendale designation as a NHD is directed at blocking I-49, since the neighborhood has been one of the strongest in opposition to the project going through, and it was only recently that they filed for NHD status. Though, Section 106 guidelines would still allow for alignments to go through if either mitigation was proposed and approved by everyone through a Memorandum of Agreement between the Feds, state, and local historical authorities, or it was determined that no feasible alternatives to going through the neighborhood existed.

I am basically from Shreveport.  I have worked in Shreveport for 17 of the last 26 years. (Until the end of July! YEA!)  There isn't real opposition in Allendale. It is generally considered that the freeway is a good thing for both Shreveport AND Allendale. There are a handful of people who actually object to losing their homes, but most of them are long-term renters. This may be as much about the fear of losing the extremely low rent that goes with the substandard housing as having to move. There are outsiders who are suggesting the freeway money can be spent to improve Allendale. That the city or state could reallocate the highway funds for community redevelopment.  While this scenario is NOT possible, it looks attractive enough to get some token opposition.

As to the residents in the freeway paths (and there are no single family homes of note east of any of the proposed freeway tracks.) If rent stabilized housing were to be placed on any of the numerous vacant lots in Allendale, most of the renters would be more than pleased. The simple problem is the landlords will sell high and either take the money and run or either buy or build replacements with higher monthly rents.  These are indeed people who cannot put together moving costs. So as long as the status quo holds, they are better.

The big problem is not the freeway itself. It is the gentrification and or cost inflation that would come with it. There are probably twice as many vacant lots in Allendale outside the freeway path as there houses in the freeway path.

Hopefully, an alignment through Shreveport north of Interstate 20 can be built without having to renumber the mileposts and exit numbers on Interstate 49 north of Interstate 220. As for the LOOP-IT group, they can take their Interstate 49 loop plan and dump it in Cross Lake (or in the Red River). Interstate 49 should be completed in-town as proposed.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2023, 08:53:47 PM
Hopefully, an alignment through Shreveport north of Interstate 20 can be built without having to renumber the mileposts and exit numbers on Interstate 49 north of Interstate 220. As for the LOOP-IT group, they can take their Interstate 49 loop plan and dump it in Cross Lake (or in the Red River). Interstate 49 should be completed in-town as proposed.

They can probably fudge things a little bit with the mileposts and exit numbers based on the exact alignment selected.  Indiana did that with the extension of I-69 from Indy to Evansville by simply adding 200 miles to the original section from Indy to Michigan, despite the fact that the extension from the southern end of the original section at the I-69/I-465/Binford Blvd interchange on the northeast side of Indianapolis to the Ohio River will be 184 miles when finished. There will be no need for a second renumbering of the original I-69 section once the extension is finished, as I-69's overlap with I-465 will use I-465 mileposts and exit numbers.

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 23, 2023, 09:29:52 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2023, 08:53:47 PM
Hopefully, an alignment through Shreveport north of Interstate 20 can be built without having to renumber the mileposts and exit numbers on Interstate 49 north of Interstate 220.

They can probably fudge things a little bit with the mileposts and exit numbers based on the exact alignment selected.  Indiana did that with the extension of I-69 from Indy to Evansville by simply adding 200 miles to the original section from Indy to Michigan, despite the fact that the extension from the southern end of the original section at the I-69/I-465/Binford Blvd interchange on the northeast side of Indianapolis to the Ohio River will be 184 miles when finished. There will be no need for a second renumbering of the original I-69 section once the extension is finished, as I-69's overlap with I-465 will use I-465 mileposts and exit numbers.

See also: I-39 Wisconsin, I-41 Wisconsin, and I-70 Illinois. The current exit numbering of the existing northern section will be fine.

At least until they have to go back and renumber them all due to the southern extension.

The mile markers are not far off at all from the current endpoints if I-49. I think the numbers on mile markers north of I-220 were made with the ICC in mind. Counting the miles around the loop and I-220 put it over.


iPhone

I don't know if I am wrong, but rather than using the Inner Loop, aren't they using I-220 and I-20 as the temporary "through route" for I-49 until the ICC is built? That would probably validate the mileposts and remove any need to change them, right?

Maybe the mileposts and exit numbers not fully corresponding to exact mileage of Interstate 49 north of Interstate 220 will eventually be a moot point. After all, Interstate 49 is planned to be extended southward and eastward towards New Orleans. Then all exit numbers and mileposts on existing Interstate 49 will be renumbered, which means 49 can be built on any alignment between Interstates 20 and 220 in Shreveport.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 26, 2023, 12:36:40 PM
I don't know if I am wrong, but rather than using the Inner Loop, aren't they using I-220 and I-20 as the temporary "through route" for I-49 until the ICC is built? That would probably validate the mileposts and remove any need to change them, right?

The official through route that is signed is awful. From I-49 southbound coming into Shreveport, they sign "to I-49"  along I-220 west then onto I-20 EAST to the current I-49 terminus in downtown Shreveport then south along existing 49 from there. They avoid LA 3132 entirely even though it is freeway and the shortest route.

Quote from: bassoon1986 on August 26, 2023, 02:06:11 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 26, 2023, 12:36:40 PM
I don't know if I am wrong, but rather than using the Inner Loop, aren't they using I-220 and I-20 as the temporary "through route" for I-49 until the ICC is built? That would probably validate the mileposts and remove any need to change them, right?

The official through route that is signed is awful. From I-49 southbound coming into Shreveport, they sign "to I-49"  along I-220 west then onto I-20 EAST to the current I-49 terminus in downtown Shreveport then south along existing 49 from there. They avoid LA 3132 entirely even though it is freeway and the shortest route.

Probably because the Inner Loop/LA 3132 is not Interstate standard, even if it is fully access controlled, and the I-20 routing goes directly to the current I-49 terminus. Those wanting a quick bypass can use the Inner Loop, but those wanting to access the neighborhoods immediately south of downtown can still use this alternative for continuity's sake. I see no problem with it.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 26, 2023, 05:57:18 PM

Quote from: bassoon1986 on August 26, 2023, 02:06:11 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 26, 2023, 12:36:40 PM
I don't know if I am wrong, but rather than using the Inner Loop, aren't they using I-220 and I-20 as the temporary "through route" for I-49 until the ICC is built? That would probably validate the mileposts and remove any need to change them, right?

The official through route that is signed is awful. From I-49 southbound coming into Shreveport, they sign "to I-49"  along I-220 west then onto I-20 EAST to the current I-49 terminus in downtown Shreveport then south along existing 49 from there. They avoid LA 3132 entirely even though it is freeway and the shortest route.

Probably because the Inner Loop/LA 3132 is not Interstate standard, even if it is fully access controlled, and the I-20 routing goes directly to the current I-49 terminus. Those wanting a quick bypass can use the Inner Loop, but those wanting to access the neighborhoods immediately south of downtown can still use this alternative for continuity's sake. I see no problem with it.

Yet NB signs Texarkana on the Loop LA 3132 from the south.

And Dallas. I don't see a problem with that. Texarkana is the nearest major city to the north, and Dallas is the nearest major city to the west.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 26, 2023, 07:41:42 PM
And Dallas. I don't see a problem with that. Texarkana is the nearest major city to the north, and Dallas is the nearest major city to the west.

The point is that signing Texarkana on the loop isn't consistent with the signing southbound. If they wanted to be consistent, Dallas would the only control city for the loop and Texarkana would be signed for staying on I-49 north to I-20.

Quote from: debragga on September 02, 2023, 01:55:30 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 26, 2023, 07:41:42 PM
And Dallas. I don't see a problem with that. Texarkana is the nearest major city to the north, and Dallas is the nearest major city to the west.

The point is that signing Texarkana on the loop isn't consistent with the signing southbound. If they wanted to be consistent, Dallas would the only control city for the loop and Texarkana would be signed for staying on I-49 north to I-20.

But it is. From I-20 EB it says LA-3132 To Alexandria.
The signage on SB i-220 is unchanged since the 90's.

But I-220's end at LA 3132 and I-20 has changed. Since I-49 has been connected at the northern terminus, now at I-220's end in West Shreveport, the pull through just says LA 3132 Inner Loop Expressway. And the exit for I-20 east says Monroe To I-49

https://www.ktbs.com/news/new-alternative-for-i-49-inner-city-connector/article_01685870-6d61-11ee-9d15-6bcdf0bd9990.html#tncms-source=infinity-scroll-summary-siderail-latest

Which alternative do any of you think would work best for the proposed Interstate 49 corridor between Interstates 20 and 220?

The new alignment 3A was their attempt to compromise with the Loop-It folks by bypassing Allendale, but that fell flat instantly; because the LoopIt/AllendaleStrong folks simply don't want the freeway going through downtown; they insist on threatening Cross Lake and driving a mere 4-lane boulevard up Pete Harris Drive just to spite Shreveport residents and rescue a few housing developments for urban removal. What's next after diverting I-49 to the Inner Loop and I-220....tearing down all of I-49 from the Inner Loop to I-20? I mean, gotta reunite the neighborhoods and make driving so hostile that everyone moves over to rail and bicycles, right?


At this point, I'm for giving them what they deserve: nothing. Ditch this and spend the money on extending I-49 through Lafayette to NOLA.

This is so absurd.

Loop it destroys more housing and business than if every single family home on or east of the "A" route were torn down  and the businesses that do not front Common or Texas Avenue were all removed.

It does separate Allendale from downtown, BUT... Allendale is already separate from downtown.

Most of the housing east of Pierre should be torn down and replaced even if there were no thought of a freeway.

This is all about outside agitators stirring the pot.  It is not about no freeway in my back yard. It is about no freeway ANYWHERE.

If they built this freeway with Texas style frontage roads where the current Allen Avenue and Pete Harris Blvd are there would be greater access and more economic development. They might even build a real supermarket (the supermarkets north of I-20 and south of I-220 are all second-rate regional chains except for a single Super1 which is older and smaller than most of the stores in that chain (or just Brookshire Grocery Company as a whole.)

There are NO supermarkets within 2 miles of the current Milam at Pete Harris intersection.  There are a handful of busy bodegas.  This may be the point. The bodegas are mostly black-owned.  A supermarket in the vicinity might close several of them down (some would remain as they often extend credit.) The true issue may be that improving access adjacent to Allendale might change some of the character that comes with urban blight and poverty.  To some people, ESPECIALLY anthropologists and urbanists, this character may be desirable.

The only worthwhile defense I see in favor of the Loop-It effort is the threat of gentrification. Just about every "downtown redevelopment" effort that incorporates mixed use properties always makes the new housing units priced only for high income earners. None of the housing is built (or renovated) to accommodate a variety of income classes. If a downtown redevelopment effort gains momentum it spreads to other existing housing properties, leading to existing units being renovated or replaced with new construction. Either way the equation usually involves existing tenants being priced out and forced to relocate elsewhere. Little if any help is provided to the people who are displaced. That's the ugly truth of so-called "new urbanism."

But freeways on their own don't cause gentrification. Zoning policies at City Hall do it. They're the ones choosing which building permits to approve. The "strategy" seems to be making the next big deal on a new development and then letting the chips fall where they may afterward. There isn't a plan about maintaining any sort of balance with the needs of existing residents or small business owners.

In the meantime, it might be best for LA DOT to do what Anthony_JK suggests: spend the money meant for Shreveport's ICC on other parts of I-49 elsewhere in the state. There's a bunch of it they could build pretty quickly between New Orleans and Lafayette.

The future Interstate 49 extension between Lafeyette and New Orleans seems to be a very slow-moving process to upgrade US 90 to freeway and Interstate Standards. The portion within Lafeyette is the most difficult portion of the corridor and will likely to be the last segment that will be constructed. I think both the ICC and the US 90 upgrade should be priorities as I see both projects as very important.

I disagree with abandoning this project in favor of the southern route. Both are equally as important IMO. This needs to go through Allenwood. It needs to be as direct as possible. 3A is just moronic and in no way should be taken seriously.

Don't misunderstand me on this: I absolutely and strongly favor the ICC be built through the central alignment, and it should be higher in priority along with I-49 South through Lafayette and widening of I-10. It should be a greater priority, along with I-49 South through Lafayette and widening I-10 in South Louisiana.


All I am saying is that if they cave in to the Loop It group and reroute I-49 through LA 3132 and I-220, what would be next? Removing the now orphaned segments of I-49 between the Inner Loop and I-20/Downtown and converting that into a surface boulevard? Hell, why not go full YOLO and tear down I-20 through Shreveport and divert all through traffic to I-220? We gotta protect our inner city neighborhoods from the evil of cars and freeways, right?


I saw a YouTube video recently on putting a lid over Interstate 5 in Seattle (not a bad idea, btw, if done right), and it instantly morphed in the comments into folks calling for tearing down I-5 completely and repurposing it as a surface boulevard (freight traffic would be diverted to the Alaskan Way; through I-5 traffic diverted to I-605 or I-405. All in the name of "restoring neighborhoods".


Madness. Sheer....MADNESS.

^ Something similar is happening in Buffalo.  The neighborhood groups are upset with the proposal to cap NY 33 and are now in "full removal or bust" mode.

Is it likely that any portion of the NY 33 freeway will be removed? Back in Shreveport, capping the Interstate 49 ICC would not be a bad idea. Even if the Loop-It proposal is ultimately implemented, I would strongly oppose downgrading existing Interstate 49 between LA 3132 and Interstate 20 to a boulevard. I would rather number it Interstate 149.

The northern I-49/I-220 interchanges has stubs indicating that the ICC may be built, so it would certainly be a wasted effort if the Loop-It people win. This same tactic might work in Amarillo, where I-27 would go on an updated Loop 335 instead of plowing through downtown just to connect two freeway sections, but in Shreveport, it simply won't fly. The original I-49 ends at I-20, with its fate unknown (it's also the same story at I-10 in Lafayette).

I don't think there has ever been a concrete plan to extend I-27 North of I-40 thru downtown Amarillo. Geographically, there isn't much of a distance penalty to route I-27 around Amarillo since I-27 hits Loop-335 near the SW corner of the loop. If I-49 was routed onto LA-3132 and I-220 that would take thru traffic well out of the way.

Despite all the political and activist upheaval, the Shreveport ICC is far more do-able than pushing an I-27 extension North thru downtown Amarillo.

"Loop It" is the de facto situation that exists right now.  Is it crippling Shreveport traffic?

Remind me again why sending I-49 around the city on existing freeways would require the taking of a bunch of new r/w?  Where in the hell is that supposedly needed?  Because when I look at 3132 and I-220, it looks to me like there's plenty of room to add a third lane (if that's really needed) in the existing r/w.  Can probably even braid ramps between Linwood Ave and existing I-49 within existing r/w to eliminate that weave.  And if it has issues with shoulders, then those should be fixed regardless.  I get the impression there is hiding behind upgrades that are needed/wanted for LA 3132 regardless of whether it gets an I-shield and saying that reconstruction is needed for it to be I-49 so the cost looks more unfavorable compared to the ICC.

If there is an implication that one would need to completely reconstruct the existing system interchanges, I call BS on that.  Most I can see is to make the ramps that would follow I-49 at the system interchange with LA 3132 two lanes.

And as for the Cross Lake bridge, if it isn't jammed with traffic right now, then we've probably got decades before another lane is needed, at which point the existing span will be near the end of its lifetime anyway.  And remember, thru traffic is already using this corridor to get through Shreveport so whatever future problems people imagine from adding that 49 shield should be issues right now.

As I've said before, why die on this hill when there's a good enough option that bypasses all that controversy?

How many homes and businesses would have to be demolished to upgrade LA 3132 to Interstate Standards? I think Interstate 49's "missing link" should be built as existing 49 is six lanes between 3132 and Interstate 20, while 3132 and Interstate 220 are only four lanes, and would likely require widening to six lanes if Interstate 49 is rerouted to the Loop-It alternative.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 20, 2023, 11:27:49 AM
How many homes and businesses would have to be demolished to upgrade LA 3132 to Interstate Standards? I think Interstate 49's "missing link" should be built as existing 49 is six lanes between 3132 and Interstate 20, while 3132 and Interstate 220 are only four lanes, and would likely require widening to six lanes if Interstate 49 is rerouted to the Loop-It alternative.

The ONLY option that takes no additional houses and businesses is the no build option. If LA-3132 were upgraded to meet minimal interstate standards and kept at 2x2 there would be minimal additional property needed. The curve at I-20 on the SB could probably be reconfigured within the existing R.O.W.  The curve just south of Mansfield road MIGHT need to be reconfigured and that would create the need for properties. The mansfield road on and off ramps might need to be reconfigured and those would cost businesses. Otherwise it is just reconstruct / repair LA-3132. The biggest problem with LA-3132 is the condition of the roadway and the lack of useable shoulders. Traffic regularly flows at 75mph (yes the limit is 60) with minimal difficulty. It is probably the busiest freeway in town lane for lane during rush except for I-20 at the Red River.

Now I said above 2X2. When you start talking about expanding LA-3132 and I-220 to 3X3 or greater the number of homes and businesses is well over triple that of the ICC. The cost is around 30% higher (at the last estimation.) It will require a new Cross Lake bridge. The existing one went significantly over budget and sank over a foot during the later stages of construction. No one wants to get into that. 

Simply if you rebuild LA-3132 as is with a few upgrades, the money is minimally more than simply maintaining LA-3132. Anything else is markedly more than the ICC.

Quote from: bwana39 on October 20, 2023, 02:07:27 PM
When you start talking about expanding LA-3132 and I-220 to 3X3 or greater the number of homes and businesses is well over triple that of the ICC. The cost is around 30% higher (at the last estimation.)

See that sounds like bullcrap to me because there's plenty of room in the existing r/w for another lane in each direction.  3132 has a median that's plenty wide for more lanes.  Where is this additional r/w needed? 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 19, 2023, 10:35:50 PM
I don't think there has ever been a concrete plan to extend I-27 North of I-40 thru downtown Amarillo. Geographically, there isn't much of a distance penalty to route I-27 around Amarillo since I-27 hits Loop-335 near the SW corner of the loop. If I-49 was routed onto LA-3132 and I-220 that would take thru traffic well out of the way.

Despite all the political and activist upheaval, the Shreveport ICC is far more do-able than pushing an I-27 extension North thru downtown Amarillo.

There's not an I highly doubt that TxDOT would even consider it. It'll most certainly be routed around downtown as it should be. The ROW and path for the ICC pretty much exists albeit a few homes and some people claiming it'll ruin the entire city.

Amarillo's case is a bit different since it would literally go straight through the heart of downtown. I just hope we don't end up with some stupid 3DI number for the stubs and spurs that go to and from downtown Amarillo. Just leave it as US-87. Unless they planned for the entirely of I-27 to become a 3DI in Amarillo would the section through downtown become a 3DI business route? Do those exist?

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 20, 2023, 04:38:17 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 20, 2023, 02:07:27 PM
When you start talking about expanding LA-3132 and I-220 to 3X3 or greater the number of homes and businesses is well over triple that of the ICC. The cost is around 30% higher (at the last estimation.)

See that sounds like bullcrap to me because there's plenty of room in the existing r/w for another lane in each direction.  3132 has a median that's plenty wide for more lanes.  Where is this additional r/w needed?

I wish it were that easy.... The exit and entrance ramps primarily are the issue on 3132. I-220 is a little less wide to begin with. Then there is the issue of a new bridge across Cross Lake. it by itself will cost nearly as much as the ICC.

Now back to the opponents of the ICC. I finally figured out who they are. They are PRIMARILY a group of Katrina Refugees who have homes built in the proposed track by the Fuller Center (the ministry of Millard Fuller the founder of Habitat for Humanity after he left (was deposed) by Habitat.) Some can claim Shreveport lineage, but.....

This is NOT a racist issue. While some of the black Shreveport mayors have not supported the ICC, some have. Cederick Glover was the only one who vocally opposed it.  Shawn Wilson was the head of the LA DOTD and he made sure everyone knew he supported it. Most of the population of Shreveport support the ICC. A small group (perhaps as small as 7-8%)  actually oppose it. 

At some point an agitator told these people about what could happen IF the money projected to be spent on the ICC were to be spent on different community improvement projects in Allendale. Now they seem to believe that if it doesn't get built, they might actually see said money. 

During the Glover administration the city transferred properties in the proposed ROW to the Fuller Center and the Shreveport Housing Authority which in turn had a developer build Renaissance At Allendale apartments. Previous to 2007, the proposed R.O.W was mostly clear except for derelict (but occupied) houses.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 20, 2023, 06:23:51 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 19, 2023, 10:35:50 PM
I don't think there has ever been a concrete plan to extend I-27 North of I-40 thru downtown Amarillo. Geographically, there isn't much of a distance penalty to route I-27 around Amarillo since I-27 hits Loop-335 near the SW corner of the loop. If I-49 was routed onto LA-3132 and I-220 that would take thru traffic well out of the way.

Despite all the political and activist upheaval, the Shreveport ICC is far more do-able than pushing an I-27 extension North thru downtown Amarillo.

There's not an I highly doubt that TxDOT would even consider it. It'll most certainly be routed around downtown as it should be. The ROW and path for the ICC pretty much exists albeit a few homes and some people claiming it'll ruin the entire city.

Amarillo's case is a bit different since it would literally go straight through the heart of downtown. I just hope we don't end up with some stupid 3DI number for the stubs and spurs that go to and from downtown Amarillo. Just leave it as US-87. Unless they planned for the entirely of I-27 to become a 3DI in Amarillo would the section through downtown become a 3DI business route? Do those exist?

I never said I-27 should continue through Amarillo. I do agree that Loop 335 is the way to go for a future extension of the developing Ports to Plains Corridor. (And yes, 3di business routes do exist, with some also signed as downtown loops/spurs.)

As for I-49, after reading the post about the overwhelming support of the ICC among Shreveport's population (92-93%), plus the issues regarding LA 3132 and I-220 (aka the Loop-It plan), I'm now more convinced than ever that going through town is the most ideal solution, although the numerous delays have driven the price up to the point where it may not get built, if ever.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaAmarillo's case is a bit different since it would literally go straight through the heart of downtown. I just hope we don't end up with some stupid 3DI number for the stubs and spurs that go to and from downtown Amarillo. Just leave it as US-87. Unless they planned for the entirely of I-27 to become a 3DI in Amarillo would the section through downtown become a 3DI business route? Do those exist?

There's not very many 3-digit Interstate business routes.

Bus I-205 • Tracy, CA (mostly unsigned)
Bus I-126 • Columbia, SC
Bus I-526 • Mount Pleasant, SC
Bus I-229 • Sioux Falls SD
Bus I-375 • Detroit, MI (unsigned)
Bus I-376 • Moon Township, PA
Bus I-385 • Greenville, SC (unsigned since 2007)
Bus I-585 • Spartanburg, SC
Bus I-495 • Lowell, MA
Bus I-496 • Lansing, MI
Bus I-696 • Detroit, MI

It would be only a matter of time before any of the I-69E, I-69W and I-69C routes in Texas get business routes. I would expect to see at least a couple or more signed before those routes are completed. If I live that long.

In the case of the I-27 segment inside Amarillo's Loop 335, I would prefer to give it a 3-digit I-x27 route number if I-27 is routed around the West side of Amarillo and extended North to Dumas and beyond. While it makes sense to just sign it as US-87, doing so just feels like a down-grade. The Dumas Highway freeway just North of downtown Amarillo might need a few improvements, but it could be signed as another I-x27 spur.

Quote from: HenryAs for I-49, after reading the post about the overwhelming support of the ICC among Shreveport's population (92-93%), plus the issues regarding LA 3132 and I-220 (aka the Loop-It plan), I'm now more convinced than ever that going through town is the most ideal solution, although the numerous delays have driven the price up to the point where it may not get built, if ever.

I think both the commercial and residential real estate industries are poised for a major crash. We're in a housing price bubble every bit as bad as it was in the mid 2000's. Except we have even more foreign investor money thrown into it. When the crash happens "Uncle Sugar" will be expected to come forth with bailouts of "distressed properties." That's when state agencies will be able to acquire properties for highway ROW with little resistance.

Speculators buying up properties expecting Shreveport's ICC to be built sometime soon might risk taking a financial bath even if an overall real estate market crash never happens. Can these investors afford to hold onto properties bought in sketchy locations possibly for decades? I doubt it. Speculators are always looking for a fast pay day.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 20, 2023, 04:38:17 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 20, 2023, 02:07:27 PM
When you start talking about expanding LA-3132 and I-220 to 3X3 or greater the number of homes and businesses is well over triple that of the ICC. The cost is around 30% higher (at the last estimation.)

See that sounds like bullcrap to me because there's plenty of room in the existing r/w for another lane in each direction.  3132 has a median that's plenty wide for more lanes.  Where is this additional r/w needed? 

Another lane in each direction? Probably.

Another lane plus Interstate standard shoulders AND auxiliary/acceleration/deceleration lanes? Not really.

Plus the I-49/LA 3132 interchange would have to be greatly modified to transfer the through traffic to LA 3132.

Also, since the Inner Loop also serves as a convenient bypass for traffic from South Louisiana to and from the Dallas/Forth Worth area, adding any additional traffic using it as a bypass for I-49 would necessitate widening to 3x3 AND easing the sharper curves to meet Interstate standards.

Between that and having to rebuild I-220 across Cross Lake, the central alignment is clearly better.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 21, 2023, 06:05:42 AM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 20, 2023, 04:38:17 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 20, 2023, 02:07:27 PM
When you start talking about expanding LA-3132 and I-220 to 3X3 or greater the number of homes and businesses is well over triple that of the ICC. The cost is around 30% higher (at the last estimation.)

See that sounds like bullcrap to me because there's plenty of room in the existing r/w for another lane in each direction.  3132 has a median that's plenty wide for more lanes.  Where is this additional r/w needed? 

Another lane in each direction? Probably.

Another lane plus Interstate standard shoulders AND auxiliary/acceleration/deceleration lanes? Not really.

While I do generally support building the ICC, this isn't accurate, at least for the LA-3132 portion south of I-20.

The median is 64 ft wide which is plenty for a 12 ft paved shoulder and 12 ft travel lane being added in each direction, which would still leave 16 ft of grass in between. Additionally, there's adequate right of way to the outside if a small amount of widening is necessary, such as a few feet of additional pavement for a wider shoulder. There's not going to be "major right of way impacts" for a six lane widening.

Additionally - is I-220 already overwhelmed with traffic? Is six lane widening warranted today?

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 11:09:09 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 21, 2023, 06:05:42 AM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 20, 2023, 04:38:17 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 20, 2023, 02:07:27 PM
When you start talking about expanding LA-3132 and I-220 to 3X3 or greater the number of homes and businesses is well over triple that of the ICC. The cost is around 30% higher (at the last estimation.)

See that sounds like bullcrap to me because there's plenty of room in the existing r/w for another lane in each direction.  3132 has a median that's plenty wide for more lanes.  Where is this additional r/w needed? 

Another lane in each direction? Probably.

Another lane plus Interstate standard shoulders AND auxiliary/acceleration/deceleration lanes? Not really.

While I do generally support building the ICC, this isn't accurate, at least for the LA-3132 portion south of I-20.

The median is 64 ft wide which is plenty for a 12 ft paved shoulder and 12 ft travel lane being added in each direction, which would still leave 16 ft of grass in between. Additionally, there's adequate right of way to the outside if a small amount of widening is necessary, such as a few feet of additional pavement for a wider shoulder. There's not going to be "major right of way impacts" for a six lane widening.

Additionally - is I-220 already overwhelmed with traffic? Is six lane widening warranted today?

I'm not sure about the traffic counts on the Inner Loop, but since it makes for an excellent bypass connection between I-49 going south to South Louisiana and I-20 going west to DFW, I'd reckon that it gets its share of heavy traffic, and 3x3 widening + auxiliary lanes would be warranted even before factoring in the Loop It alternative.

It would still be an expensive task to upgrade the Inner Loop to 3x3 Interstate grade, not to mention reworking the I-49/LA 3132 4-level stack interchange to transfer the through movements for I-49 over to the Inner Loop. And, that doesn't even include widening I-220 through Cross Lake.

moto g power (2022)

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 11:09:09 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 21, 2023, 06:05:42 AM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 20, 2023, 04:38:17 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 20, 2023, 02:07:27 PM
When you start talking about expanding LA-3132 and I-220 to 3X3 or greater the number of homes and businesses is well over triple that of the ICC. The cost is around 30% higher (at the last estimation.)

See that sounds like bullcrap to me because there's plenty of room in the existing r/w for another lane in each direction.  3132 has a median that's plenty wide for more lanes.  Where is this additional r/w needed? 

Another lane in each direction? Probably.

Another lane plus Interstate standard shoulders AND auxiliary/acceleration/deceleration lanes? Not really.

While I do generally support building the ICC, this isn't accurate, at least for the LA-3132 portion south of I-20.

The median is 64 ft wide which is plenty for a 12 ft paved shoulder and 12 ft travel lane being added in each direction, which would still leave 16 ft of grass in between. Additionally, there's adequate right of way to the outside if a small amount of widening is necessary, such as a few feet of additional pavement for a wider shoulder. There's not going to be "major right of way impacts" for a six lane widening.

Additionally - is I-220 already overwhelmed with traffic? Is six lane widening warranted today?

I disagree with the estimation of a 64' median. The street view below  demonstrates it at about half of that ...less than 35' and there are negligible inside shoulders. https://maps.app.goo.gl/rciRVxirs2au5osU7 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/rciRVxirs2au5osU7)

The traffic on LA-3132 is PROBABLY a little heavier than I-220 but not much. If you expanded LA-3132 to 3x3 you would need to do the same to I-220 at least to the I-49 split.

Quote from: bwana39 on October 22, 2023, 01:06:12 AM
I disagree with the estimation of a 64' median. The street view below  demonstrates it at about half of that ...less than 35' and there are negligible inside shoulders. https://maps.app.goo.gl/rciRVxirs2au5osU7 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/rciRVxirs2au5osU7)

It's not an "estimation". Google provides a measuring tool. It is a 64 foot median - from yellow line to yellow line - look at it from aerial imagery. The Street View perception is skewed due to the angle. If you look from the opposite side, you get a better vantage point of how large the median is.

There is more than enough room to add a travel lane and full-size shoulder in each direction, with room still leftover.

Believe I - 49 in Louisiana was created from funds that were originally intended for cancelled NOLA expressways.  Interesting how they built out the rural sections relatively fast, but waited on finishing this last Shreveport piece.  Wonder why they didn't plan, acquire ROW, and construct this urban segment first?    Kind of mirrors what happened with the entire system as a whole.   

Quote from: DJStephens on October 22, 2023, 10:51:59 AM
Believe I - 49 in Louisiana was created from funds that were originally intended for cancelled NOLA expressways.  Interesting how they built out the rural sections relatively fast, but waited on finishing this last Shreveport piece.  Wonder why they didn't plan, acquire ROW, and construct this urban segment first?    Kind of mirrors what happened with the entire system as a whole.

Not quite.

The construction of the freeway segments of US 90 between Morgan City and Raceland, as well as the segment of the Westbank Expressway upgrade down to Ames Boulevard in Westwego, were mostly funded through a dedicated tax passed in the late 1990s known as TIMED.

Most of the funding for the cancelled freeways in NOLA and BTR went towards building I-49 between Lafayette/Opelousas and Shreveport; especially the segment through Alexandria.



moto g power (2022)

Regardless of where the funding comes from, they should complete both the Shreveport ICC and the Lafayette-New Orleans extension as soon as possible.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 22, 2023, 01:46:51 PM
Regardless of where the funding comes from, they should complete both the Shreveport ICC and the Lafayette-New Orleans extension as soon as possible.

Or what?

Quote from: DJStephens on October 22, 2023, 10:51:59 AM
Believe I - 49 in Louisiana was created from funds that were originally intended for cancelled NOLA expressways.  Interesting how they built out the rural sections relatively fast, but waited on finishing this last Shreveport piece.  Wonder why they didn't plan, acquire ROW, and construct this urban segment first?    Kind of mirrors what happened with the entire system as a whole.

Probably because it's a lot easier to buy ROW and build in a rural area, where there's less likely to be pushback, if any, than in an urban area.

Looking at some traffic counts from LaDOTD, 3132 has about 40k vehicles/day as is.  So it should probably be 3x3 regardless.
I-220 is 30 to 35k vehicles/day between I-20 and I-49 north.  That's on the low end for a 3x3.

That's where it's at with I-49 thru traffic already using the loop.  Adding the signs will not change that at all since everyone's GPS already tells them to go that way.

In my head, seems like a better investment to spend the money on expanding 3132, which is needed anyway.  And as others have pointed out, that existing r/w is plenty wide for a 3x3 urban freeway. The curves are fine; not everything needs to be an 80 mph design speed.

Once again....


The principal bypass users of LA 3132 are NOT those trying to bypass downtown to go to Texarkana; they are those using the Inner Loop as a straight-shot between I-49 south of Shreveport going to Baton Rouge/Lafayette and points east, and I-20 going west to DFW and points further west or NW. Upgrading the Inner Loop between I-49 and I-20 to 3x3 will certainly help them, but will do absolutely NOTHING for those wanting quicker access to downtown Shreveport who use the existing I-49 + the Allen Avenue/Pete Harris Drive couplet OR those wanting a more direct route to reach Texarkana and points north (ultimately).


Besides, the actual main issue is NOT just widening and upgrading the Inner Loop section to Interstate standards; it's widening I-220 from I-20 to the current I-49 North terminus. That segment bisects Cross Lake, which is a live aquifer that serves as Shreveport's sole drinking water source; and widening that to 3x3 would require an extensive, costly, and potentially very hazardous rebuild. In fact, that crossing would be considered as much if not more of an "avoidance" red flag as the core central segment through Allendale. Combine that with widening and improving the Inner Loop, and the Loop It plan has a cost of nearly $600K more than building the ICC near downtown.


The official detour route for I-49 that LaDOTD is using has I-49 through traffic routed on I-220 to I-20, then I-20 to the existing I-49 terminus near downtown. If they wanted to encourage traffic to use the Inner Loop as a true I-49 bypass, they would have recommended using LA 3132 as the alternate....but they didn't. That says pretty much their preference for the ICC route through the core of Shreveport, and their opposition to the Loop It proposal, which only exists and is supported by interests who want to preserve the Allendale neighborhood for "urban removal", or those who just don't like freeways just for hater's sake.

To be fair, the original I-49 ends at I-20, so it kind of makes sense for LaDOTD to use I-20/220 as through traffic for consistency. And I don't get why people on this forum are mad at the idea of people not wanting to live next to a freeway or not wanting them to go through an urban center. I like freeways, but I would rather have them bypass a city (center) than go through one.

3132 isn't that substandard and using the bypass route wouldn't be that big a deal at all. traffic likely wouldn't even increase an appreciable amount.

And that's the thing - it's true. How much would the traffic volumes truly increase? This is solely a matter of signage.

Through traffic on I-49 is already using I-220 / LA-3132. Adding some I-49 signs isn't going to make the volumes jump 20,000 AADT and all of a sudden warrant this massive 8 lane beltway with all this out-of-the-blue right of way acquisition of the surrounding neighborhoods. That's all blown way out of proportion to make the connector seem more plausible.

I'm not against the connector, and would like to see it built. But I'm not going to twist the facts about I-220 and LA-3132 to make them seem infeasible to carry I-49 either..

The 30,000 AADT and 4 lanes on I-220 will be more than adequate for years to come, even with I-49 being posted.

I don't live in Shreveport or don't know what traffic is like down there, however based on what I see in the Google Map, it is just logical to reroute I-49 along I-220/LA 3132 (by widening it to 3x3 or the improvements). I heard there were opposition to ICC (I don't know about now..as it may have died down a little), so why bother building ICC through the center city if people oppose to it? For an easier access to downtown? You can get to downtown from I-220/I-49 via US 71, LA 3 or LA 173.

Yeah, I do see Cross Lake can be a big problem... however there is already a bridge there (I-220) and eventually the bridge will need to be replaced, so why not widening it while you're at it.

Again, it is just IMO as I don't know the area.

That's not a good argument for Loop It.

No, completing the ICC will not add significant usage to the Inner Loop or I-220. It will, however give persons living in the heart of Shreveport which is served by existing I-49 from LA 3132 on north to I-20 the ability to have better access to downtown and to points north. Those destinations cannot be served by 3132 to 220.

In fact, take away the four or so block area crossing Allendale, and the current ICC proposal has actually less direct impact than even I-220/LA 3132. Outside of the apartment complex that was deliberately built to block the ICC, and the area north of Caddo/Ford near SWEPCO Park, there is basically no severe impacts to residents or businesses there.

I do favor upgrading the Inner Loop to a 3x3 and even extending it to become a semi-full loop with a connection to I-20 east of Barksdale AFB (that is, if that portion of I-69 between Carthage/Tenaha and Memphis gets axed). You have to serve your business districts and develop your infrastructure through the most direct and cost efficient route, though....and the ICC is just that; the most effective means to complete I-49 through Shreveport without major disruption.

And again....most through traffic on I-49 coming in from Texarkana is more likely to use I-220 to US 71/LA 1 through downtown or use the route signed by LADOTD (I-220 to I-20 to existing I-49/I-20 terminus). Diverting that to using the ICC as the most direct route would do wonders to ease traffic on I-220 and LA 3132, and allow the Inner Loop to serve its proper means of a NW-SE bypass between DFW and points SE.

Can we just get the loop repaved lol I mean the condition it was in last time I was on it was awful. And yes, I thought it needed to be a 3x3 as well.

Does LaDOT even know that Shreveport is in Louisiana? Hah

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 23, 2023, 09:04:40 PM
No, completing the ICC will not add significant usage to the Inner Loop or I-220.

Nobody said it would.

QuoteIt will, however give persons living in the heart of Shreveport which is served by existing I-49 from LA 3132 on north to I-20 the ability to have better access to downtown

How? I-49 ends just outside of Downtown, and I-20 runs along the south side of Downtown. Those living in Shreveport already have adequate access Downtown.

Quoteand to points north.

What are the traffic volumes taking this movement? Are the local roads overwhelmed to the point to warrant this project to alleviate congestion?

QuoteThose destinations cannot be served by 3132 to 220.

They are served by US-71 and LA-173 which provide two alternate connections. We are talking about a mere mile those in between I-220 and I-20 to be on arterial roads to access I-49, I-20, or I-220. There is adequate access as is.

Quote
In fact, take away the four or so block area crossing Allendale, and the current ICC proposal has actually less direct impact than even I-220/LA 3132.

In fact, take away the Cross Lake bridge on I-220, and the LA-3132 / I-220 option has actually less direct impact than the ICC.

and that is actually something you can take out. The Cross Lake bridge doesn't need to be widened for I-49.

QuoteOutside of the apartment complex that was deliberately built to block the ICC, and the area north of Caddo/Ford near SWEPCO Park,

So... there's impacts.

QuoteYou have to serve your business districts and develop your infrastructure through the most direct and cost efficient route, though....

They are served quite well. That entire area is within a mile of three (!) interstate highways and has adequate connections. The region has a major north-south and east-west interstate for long haul traffic.

Quote
And again....most through traffic on I-49 coming in from Texarkana is more likely to use I-220 to US 71/LA 1 through downtown or use the route signed by LADOTD (I-220 to I-20 to existing I-49/I-20 terminus).

Funny, I tried two different mapping softwares and neither recommended any other route besides LA-3132 / I-220. I doubt anyone (outside of a few) are actually using I-20 or US-71 through Downtown. That's a slog and takes way longer.

Quote
Diverting that to using the ICC as the most direct route would do wonders to ease traffic on I-220 and LA 3132,

Is there a traffic problem on either route?

Quoteand allow the Inner Loop to serve its proper means of a NW-SE bypass between DFW and points SE.

Looks to me like it already does... it exists and is a well designed 4 lane 60 mph freeway without any major traffic issues.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 23, 2023, 09:32:22 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 23, 2023, 09:04:40 PM
No, completing the ICC will not add significant usage to the Inner Loop or I-220.

Nobody said it would.

QuoteIt will, however give persons living in the heart of Shreveport which is served by existing I-49 from LA 3132 on north to I-20 the ability to have better access to downtown

How? I-49 ends just outside of Downtown, and I-20 runs along the south side of Downtown. Those living in Shreveport already have adequate access Downtown.

Quoteand to points north.

What are the traffic volumes taking this movement? Are the local roads overwhelmed to the point to warrant this project to alleviate congestion?

QuoteThose destinations cannot be served by 3132 to 220.

They are served by US-71 and LA-173 which provide two alternate connections. We are talking about a mere mile those in between I-220 and I-20 to be on arterial roads to access I-49, I-20, or I-220. There is adequate access as is.

Quote
In fact, take away the four or so block area crossing Allendale, and the current ICC proposal has actually less direct impact than even I-220/LA 3132.

In fact, take away the Cross Lake bridge on I-220, and the LA-3132 / I-220 option has actually less direct impact than the ICC.

and that is actually something you can take out. The Cross Lake bridge doesn't need to be widened for I-49.

QuoteOutside of the apartment complex that was deliberately built to block the ICC, and the area north of Caddo/Ford near SWEPCO Park,

So... there's impacts.

QuoteYou have to serve your business districts and develop your infrastructure through the most direct and cost efficient route, though....

They are served quite well. That entire area is within a mile of three (!) interstate highways and has adequate connections. The region has a major north-south and east-west interstate for long haul traffic.

Quote
And again....most through traffic on I-49 coming in from Texarkana is more likely to use I-220 to US 71/LA 1 through downtown or use the route signed by LADOTD (I-220 to I-20 to existing I-49/I-20 terminus).

Funny, I tried two different mapping softwares and neither recommended any other route besides LA-3132 / I-220. I doubt anyone (outside of a few) are actually using I-20 or US-71 through Downtown. That's a slog and takes way longer.

Quote
Diverting that to using the ICC as the most direct route would do wonders to ease traffic on I-220 and LA 3132,

Is there a traffic problem on either route?

Quoteand allow the Inner Loop to serve its proper means of a NW-SE bypass between DFW and points SE.

Looks to me like it already does... it exists and is a well designed 4 lane 60 mph freeway without any major traffic issues.

I just love the fact that people who don't live anywhere near the area are all of a sudden known experts in how the people who live there should run their cities and spend their tax dollars on their own highways.

Yes, the Inner Loop is already freeway grade and almost Interstate grade. Yes, it serves its purpose as a bypass for those wanting to escape Shreveport to the NW/W and SE/S. Yes, technically you could route I-49 down it and call it a day.

If that was the case, then why was there such a push to complete I-49 through the center of Shreveport? Why even build I-49 where it is right now if the Inner Loop serves the purpose of completing I-49?

Why? Because of the need for downtowns and inner cities to be accessible through major thoroughfares that can attract businesses and revitalize communities that have been neglected and abused for far too long.

They could have routed Interstate 10 to completely bypass Baton Rouge and use the Sunshine Bridge to connect Lafayette and NOLA; in fact, such a route was originally proposed in the 1950's and 1960's but rejected in favor of the current route through Baton Rouge and the 10/12 Split. The main reason? Cities wanted the direct access to their business districts close to downtown.

As much as you may not like the ICC routing and favor the quick fix of I-220/Inner Loop, the central alignment is still strategically speaking the most cost-effective and most direct means of completing the gap in I-49 from I-20 to I-220. It provides the most direct access to downtown from the bulk of the city south of I-20. It provides the most direct access for traffic from the north to access downtown without going through the Spring/Market couplet. And, it provides the best opportunity for rehabilitating and reviving Allendale as restitution for the poor lack of economic development that has affected that community.

Sorry, but I'm not of the ones that say that all freeways should just bypass major cities' business districts and be routed in beltways stretched wide around the cities. And, I do happen to believe that elevated freeways through inner cities CAN work if they are backed by CSS design that respects the cohesiveness of the communities that the project is going through. If we are going to justify the Loop It model as the default, shall we tear down every single freeway in Houston inside of I-610? I mean, we have to preserve the neighborhoods like they were in the 1940's, right?

Yes, the ICC has impacts. Guess what? Upgrading I-220 and the Inner Loop has even greater impacts, and, in the absence of completing the ICC and filling that 3 mile gap between I-20 and I-220, would cause more disruption and possible safety hazards (such as widening the viaduct over Cross Lake) than some apartment buildings that have already been abandoned anyway.

The majority of folks in Shreveport favor the ICC. The LADOTD will fund it as one of the Top 3 priority "megaprojects" (alongside I-49 South and the Calcasieu River Bridge). Their opinions matter a hell of a lot more than
the opinion of a few roadgeeks on a transportation forum.

As always, I will always respect everyone's opinions, but I will reserve my right to disagree. My views and mine alone.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 23, 2023, 09:04:40 PM
That's not a good argument for Loop It.

No, completing the ICC will not add significant usage to the Inner Loop or I-220. It will, however give persons living in the heart of Shreveport which is served by existing I-49 from LA 3132 on north to I-20 the ability to have better access to downtown and to points north. Those destinations cannot be served by 3132 to 220.

In fact, take away the four or so block area crossing Allendale, and the current ICC proposal has actually less direct impact than even I-220/LA 3132. Outside of the apartment complex that was deliberately built to block the ICC, and the area north of Caddo/Ford near SWEPCO Park, there is basically no severe impacts to residents or businesses there.

I do favor upgrading the Inner Loop to a 3x3 and even extending it to become a semi-full loop with a connection to I-20 east of Barksdale AFB (that is, if that portion of I-69 between Carthage/Tenaha and Memphis gets axed). You have to serve your business districts and develop your infrastructure through the most direct and cost efficient route, though....and the ICC is just that; the most effective means to complete I-49 through Shreveport without major disruption.

And again....most through traffic on I-49 coming in from Texarkana is more likely to use I-220 to US 71/LA 1 through downtown or use the route signed by LADOTD (I-220 to I-20 to existing I-49/I-20 terminus). Diverting that to using the ICC as the most direct route would do wonders to ease traffic on I-220 and LA 3132, and allow the Inner Loop to serve its proper means of a NW-SE bypass between DFW and points SE.

Argument? I just stated (IMO)= IN MY OPINON. I don't live in the area therefore why I stated things in my opinion. I did in fact checked out their official website, and guess what.. Loop It is one of the five alternatives listed on their website based on public opinion and the study is still ongoing, so there is still an opposition for the ICC.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 23, 2023, 11:43:30 PM
I just love the fact that people who don't live anywhere near the area are all of a sudden known experts in how the people who live there should run their cities and spend their tax dollars on their own highways.

Did I claim that?

Quote
Why? Because of the need for downtowns and inner cities to be accessible through major thoroughfares that can attract businesses and revitalize communities that have been neglected and abused for far too long.

I-20 goes right through Downtown and Allendale... where is this revitalization? Claiming I-49 needs to plow through in order to revitalize this dying community is overlooking the fact Interstate 20, a major east-west interstate highway, far more of importance than I-49, also traverses through.

Quote
They could have routed Interstate 10 to completely bypass Baton Rouge and use the Sunshine Bridge to connect Lafayette and NOLA; in fact, such a route was originally proposed in the 1950's and 1960's but rejected in favor of the current route through Baton Rouge and the 10/12 Split. The main reason? Cities wanted the direct access to their business districts close to downtown.

That would place I-10 nearly 30 miles away from Baton Rouge. I-49 will always be within 1-2 miles of Downtown Shreveport and most certainly the metropolitan area regardless of where it is routed... whether that be the ICC or LA-3132 / I-220. This isn't an apples-to-apple comparison.

Quote
As much as you may not like the ICC routing and favor the quick fix of I-220/Inner Loop, the central alignment is still strategically speaking the most cost-effective and most direct means of completing the gap in I-49 from I-20 to I-220.

I don't know about cost-effective... rehabilitating an existing interstate-grade freeway that already carries I-49 through traffic seems to be cheaper than a new viaduct alignment through an urban area.

QuoteIt provides the most direct access to downtown from the bulk of the city south of I-20.

I'm still confused here. I-20 and I-49 South already connect to Downtown... how is extending I-49 north going to make the connection from the south better?

QuoteAnd, it provides the best opportunity for rehabilitating and reviving Allendale as restitution for the poor lack of economic development that has affected that community.

Does Interstate 20, which passes by the southern boundary of the area, not provide adequate access and opportunity? I truly question if a new interstate plowed through there is the one puzzle piece they've been waiting on for decades to revitalize.

QuoteIf we are going to justify the Loop It model as the default, shall we tear down every single freeway in Houston inside of I-610?

Did I propose tearing down any interstates in Shreveport?

Quote
Upgrading I-220 and the Inner Loop has even greater impacts

Where? The freeway already exists.

Quoteand, in the absence of completing the ICC and filling that 3 mile gap between I-20 and I-220, would cause more disruption and possible safety hazards (such as widening the viaduct over Cross Lake) than some apartment buildings that have already been abandoned anyway.

As the current traffic volumes stand, that bridge over Cross Lake won't need to be widened for quite some time. I'm not sure why that keeps coming back up.

Is there a recurring traffic issue there I am not aware of? It hasn't been mentioned here yet.

Quote
The majority of folks in Shreveport favor the ICC. The LADOTD will fund it as one of the Top 3 priority "megaprojects" (alongside I-49 South and the Calcasieu River Bridge). Their opinions matter a hell of a lot more than
the opinion of a few roadgeeks on a transportation forum.

I believe that it is on their radar and they do see it as a priority... in talking anyway. The actual money allocation beyond studies so far says otherwise though. Perhaps that will change soon? Is this project scheduled for construction in the near future?

I would love to finally see I-49 complete in Louisiana!

The ICC is ultimately a much better idea than the Loop-It option. The ICC is the only thing that provides fast, efficient highway access to the North from the downtown Shreveport area. Yeah, I-49 goes farther North. Up to Texarkana now and well beyond that sometime in the future. Currently, highway access from downtown Shreveport to I-49 North of I-220 is GARBAGE. It sucks. No way around it. It's stoplight hell on US-71 for miles.

The thing that needs to happen is the city of Shreveport and LA state agencies need to actually give more than two shits about the people (probably not white) who may be displaced by an extension of I-49. If they can correctly handle those issues (by helping re-locate residents in a manner that is both convenient and won't crush their living cost budgets) the project can be a success. All too often, especially in the past, the powers that be didn't give a tinker's damn about any "little people" whose houses or apartments got bulldozed via abuses of eminent domain. You gotta strike a fair balance. With as much as it costs to build a freeway the cost of relocating a few dozen people should be pretty marginal.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 23, 2023, 09:04:40 PM.
or use the route signed by LADOTD (I-220 to I-20 to existing I-49/I-20 terminus).

While signage does exist on I-220 noting that I-20 East does indeed go to "I-49", which is not inaccurate, it's equally as important to note coming northbound on I-49 from the south, the control city for LA-3132 is "To Texarkana", which is indeed the fastest route to go.

I am going to make a couple of points.

Yes, through traffic gets routed by mapping software around the Inner Loop (LLA-3132 & I-220). On the other hand traffic originating / ending between I-20 and 70th Street gets routed via Hilry Huckaby / Ford Street and Allen Ave / Pete Harris.

I really don't see that through traffic gets helped a whole lot by the ICC being built. A lot of the traffic projection is based on I-69 being completed from Nacogdoches to I-49 before I-369 is completed to Texarkana. If that were to happen 2x2 only on  the Inner Loop couplet would not suffice. We all understand that scenario is not going to come to pass.

Now, the biggest proponent of the ICC on here has said this. Why am I so adamant? It is about north and south. There is not a decent route from the homes in fast growing North Bossier to the jobs in South Shreveport.  For me, it added nearly 15 minutes over the ICC; EVERY DAY. If you value the extra time these commutes cost the commuters it adds up in a hurry.

There are lots of heavy trucks on Market and Spring in downtown (as well as Airline and Benton Road in Bossier.) I-49 ICC would enable enacting heavy truck restrictions. Obviously some of the trucks are doing business downtown and will remain. Most of them will not.

While the discussion seems to focus on the homes north of Caddo / Ford, the real contentious are only the homes built or refurbished on ALSTON street. This group of Katrina evacuees are almost solely responsible for the pushback.

It will probably be a while before the ICC is constructed. Hopefully, they will sort things out in the Allendale neighborhood before construction begins.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 24, 2023, 02:54:18 PM
It will probably be a while before the ICC is constructed. Hopefully, they will sort things out in the Allendale neighborhood before construction begins.

Actually, it may be sooner than you think, if Wikipedia and Eric Kalivoda are to be believed:

Quote
The DOTD is also in the process of closing the last gap in the "I-49 North" project between I-20 and I-220 in Shreveport. A direct connection through Shreveport, known as the Inner-City Connector, is controversial since its path is projected to pass through the residential Allendale neighborhood, which would necessitate the displacement of many of its residents. A no-build alternative would route through traffic via the existing LA 3132 (Inner Loop Expressway) and I-220 alignments after necessary improvements to those highways are carried out. On March 5, 2016, a small group of Allendale residents, known as the LOOP-IT group, held a rally to protest against the Inner City Connector but voiced support for a business boulevard serving local traffic. In January 2023, a new route was revealed where it would not impact Allendale. In May 2023, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) secretary Eric Kalivoda announced that a route and design could be established by 2025 with a groundbreaking following about three years later. Although public opposition to the connector, which would cost about $1 billion to construct, remains strong, this proposal has had a more positive response than previous ones.

Good News!

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2023, 10:59:55 AM
Good News!

Not really. As long as opposition continues... It isn't good news. Along the proposed alternatives through Shreveport, there are oppositions, so that's why Loop-It is listed as one of the alternatives. Nobody wants an interstate to go through their historic neighborhood or area.

Quote from: Strider on October 25, 2023, 09:49:19 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2023, 10:59:55 AM
Good News!

Not really. As long as opposition continues... It isn't good news. Along the proposed alternatives through Shreveport, there are oppositions, so that's why Loop-It is listed as one of the alternatives. Nobody wants an interstate to go through their historic neighborhood or area.

This road is not slated to go through any part of what was historically Allendale. Regardless of the path, it would run east of that. What we have is a disused interurban rail line (disused for 60+ years) . Public housing was built adjacent to the tracks back in the 1960's.  It was all removed around 2000. In 2007 the Glover administration gave lots to the Fuller Center in the proposed path and they built housing for Katrina refugees. Later, the Glover administration gave the housing authority part of their previous land back. That is where the apartments are.  The part by the so-called Swepco Park was part of the Bottoms. The bottoms was a group of shotgun houses. They have mostly if not all removed. No one misses the bottoms. Even the gentrified term Ledbetter Heights has fallen to the wayside.  (As an aside It was St Paul's bottoms due to it being over the hill from St. Paul's Methodist Church.) Ledbetter Heights was named after Leadbelly (Hudie Ledbetter.) Leadbelly was a famous singer / musicians, but also a murderer.

I think the opposition is 10% of the people between Common and Jewella (Allendale) which is about 10% of the population of Shreveport. So about 1% of the population of Shreveport actually oppose it. Another 2-3% would oppose anything...

Quote from: bwana39 on October 26, 2023, 01:36:56 AM

Quote from: Strider on October 25, 2023, 09:49:19 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2023, 10:59:55 AM
Good News!

Not really. As long as opposition continues... It isn't good news. Along the proposed alternatives through Shreveport, there are oppositions, so that's why Loop-It is listed as one of the alternatives. Nobody wants an interstate to go through their historic neighborhood or area.

This road is not slated to go through any part of what was historically Allendale. Regardless of the path, it would run east of that. What we have is a disused interurban rail line (disused for 60+ years) . Public housing was built adjacent to the tracks back in the 1960's.  It was all removed around 2000. In 2007 the Glover administration gave lots to the Fuller Center in the proposed path and they built housing for Katrina refugees. Later, the Glover administration gave the housing authority part of their previous land back. That is where the apartments are.  The part by the so-called Swepco Park was part of the Bottoms. The bottoms was a group of shotgun houses. They have mostly if not all removed. No one misses the bottoms. Even the gentrified term Ledbetter Heights has fallen to the wayside.  (As an aside It was St Paul's bottoms due to it being over the hill from St. Paul's Methodist Church.) Ledbetter Heights was named after Leadbelly (Hudie Ledbetter.) Leadbelly was a famous singer / musicians, but also a murderer.

I think the opposition is 10% of the people between Common and Jewella (Allendale) which is about 10% of the population of Shreveport. So about 1% of the population of Shreveport actually oppose it. Another 2-3% would oppose anything...

The idea is to have 0% opposition or else the Loop It wouldn't be listed as one of the alternatives.

Quote from: Strider on October 26, 2023, 02:50:29 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 26, 2023, 01:36:56 AM

Quote from: Strider on October 25, 2023, 09:49:19 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2023, 10:59:55 AM
Good News!

Not really. As long as opposition continues... It isn't good news. Along the proposed alternatives through Shreveport, there are oppositions, so that's why Loop-It is listed as one of the alternatives. Nobody wants an interstate to go through their historic neighborhood or area.

This road is not slated to go through any part of what was historically Allendale. Regardless of the path, it would run east of that. What we have is a disused interurban rail line (disused for 60+ years) . Public housing was built adjacent to the tracks back in the 1960's.  It was all removed around 2000. In 2007 the Glover administration gave lots to the Fuller Center in the proposed path and they built housing for Katrina refugees. Later, the Glover administration gave the housing authority part of their previous land back. That is where the apartments are.  The part by the so-called Swepco Park was part of the Bottoms. The bottoms was a group of shotgun houses. They have mostly if not all removed. No one misses the bottoms. Even the gentrified term Ledbetter Heights has fallen to the wayside.  (As an aside It was St Paul's bottoms due to it being over the hill from St. Paul's Methodist Church.) Ledbetter Heights was named after Leadbelly (Hudie Ledbetter.) Leadbelly was a famous singer / musicians, but also a murderer.

I think the opposition is 10% of the people between Common and Jewella (Allendale) which is about 10% of the population of Shreveport. So about 1% of the population of Shreveport actually oppose it. Another 2-3% would oppose anything...

The idea is to have 0% opposition or else the Loop It wouldn't be listed as one of the alternatives.

Ummm.... that's not how things work.

The Loop It alternative was added to the alternatives considered as one of many alternatives conceived for the project. It will be analyzed with the same criteria and detail as the other alignments, with no preferential treatment given to it or any other proposed alignment. This is an environmental impact analysis, not a public opinion poll. The mere fact that there may be some opposition to one particular alignment as opposed to another should have only limited bearing on the criteria of whether an alignment meets the purpose and need for the project.


moto g power (2022)

Yeah, if any highway required 0% opposition in order to get built we'd all still be getting around on dirt "highways" using horse-drawn carriages.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 26, 2023, 03:38:52 PM

Quote from: Strider on October 26, 2023, 02:50:29 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 26, 2023, 01:36:56 AM

Quote from: Strider on October 25, 2023, 09:49:19 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2023, 10:59:55 AM
Good News!

Not really. As long as opposition continues... It isn't good news. Along the proposed alternatives through Shreveport, there are oppositions, so that's why Loop-It is listed as one of the alternatives. Nobody wants an interstate to go through their historic neighborhood or area.

This road is not slated to go through any part of what was historically Allendale. Regardless of the path, it would run east of that. What we have is a disused interurban rail line (disused for 60+ years) . Public housing was built adjacent to the tracks back in the 1960's.  It was all removed around 2000. In 2007 the Glover administration gave lots to the Fuller Center in the proposed path and they built housing for Katrina refugees. Later, the Glover administration gave the housing authority part of their previous land back. That is where the apartments are.  The part by the so-called Swepco Park was part of the Bottoms. The bottoms was a group of shotgun houses. They have mostly if not all removed. No one misses the bottoms. Even the gentrified term Ledbetter Heights has fallen to the wayside.  (As an aside It was St Paul's bottoms due to it being over the hill from St. Paul's Methodist Church.) Ledbetter Heights was named after Leadbelly (Hudie Ledbetter.) Leadbelly was a famous singer / musicians, but also a murderer.

I think the opposition is 10% of the people between Common and Jewella (Allendale) which is about 10% of the population of Shreveport. So about 1% of the population of Shreveport actually oppose it. Another 2-3% would oppose anything...

The idea is to have 0% opposition or else the Loop It wouldn't be listed as one of the alternatives.

Ummm.... that's not how things work.

The Loop It alternative was added to the alternatives considered as one of many alternatives conceived for the project. It will be analyzed with the same criteria and detail as the other alignments, with no preferential treatment given to it or any other proposed alignment. This is an environmental impact analysis, not a public opinion poll. The mere fact that there may be some opposition to one particular alignment as opposed to another should have only limited bearing on the criteria of whether an alignment meets the purpose and need for the project.


moto g power (2022)

I think we need to remember that "Loop IT" would include widening the Inner loop (including I-220). There is also a "no build" option that would leave things as they are.

Mike Johnson, Shreveport's Congressman, is now Speaker of the House. I wonder if this will make a difference.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 26, 2023, 03:38:52 PM

Quote from: Strider on October 26, 2023, 02:50:29 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 26, 2023, 01:36:56 AM

Quote from: Strider on October 25, 2023, 09:49:19 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2023, 10:59:55 AM
Good News!

Not really. As long as opposition continues... It isn't good news. Along the proposed alternatives through Shreveport, there are oppositions, so that's why Loop-It is listed as one of the alternatives. Nobody wants an interstate to go through their historic neighborhood or area.

This road is not slated to go through any part of what was historically Allendale. Regardless of the path, it would run east of that. What we have is a disused interurban rail line (disused for 60+ years) . Public housing was built adjacent to the tracks back in the 1960's.  It was all removed around 2000. In 2007 the Glover administration gave lots to the Fuller Center in the proposed path and they built housing for Katrina refugees. Later, the Glover administration gave the housing authority part of their previous land back. That is where the apartments are.  The part by the so-called Swepco Park was part of the Bottoms. The bottoms was a group of shotgun houses. They have mostly if not all removed. No one misses the bottoms. Even the gentrified term Ledbetter Heights has fallen to the wayside.  (As an aside It was St Paul's bottoms due to it being over the hill from St. Paul's Methodist Church.) Ledbetter Heights was named after Leadbelly (Hudie Ledbetter.) Leadbelly was a famous singer / musicians, but also a murderer.

I think the opposition is 10% of the people between Common and Jewella (Allendale) which is about 10% of the population of Shreveport. So about 1% of the population of Shreveport actually oppose it. Another 2-3% would oppose anything...

The idea is to have 0% opposition or else the Loop It wouldn't be listed as one of the alternatives.

Ummm.... that's not how things work.

The Loop It alternative was added to the alternatives considered as one of many alternatives conceived for the project. It will be analyzed with the same criteria and detail as the other alignments, with no preferential treatment given to it or any other proposed alignment. This is an environmental impact analysis, not a public opinion poll. The mere fact that there may be some opposition to one particular alignment as opposed to another should have only limited bearing on the criteria of whether an alignment meets the purpose and need for the project.


moto g power (2022)

Wrong. Loop It is added as one of the alternatives based on public comments AND the poll, not just because it is already one of the alternatives considered.

Quote from: Strider on October 27, 2023, 09:55:46 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 26, 2023, 03:38:52 PM

Quote from: Strider on October 26, 2023, 02:50:29 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 26, 2023, 01:36:56 AM

Quote from: Strider on October 25, 2023, 09:49:19 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2023, 10:59:55 AM
Good News!

Not really. As long as opposition continues... It isn't good news. Along the proposed alternatives through Shreveport, there are oppositions, so that's why Loop-It is listed as one of the alternatives. Nobody wants an interstate to go through their historic neighborhood or area.

This road is not slated to go through any part of what was historically Allendale. Regardless of the path, it would run east of that. What we have is a disused interurban rail line (disused for 60+ years) . Public housing was built adjacent to the tracks back in the 1960's.  It was all removed around 2000. In 2007 the Glover administration gave lots to the Fuller Center in the proposed path and they built housing for Katrina refugees. Later, the Glover administration gave the housing authority part of their previous land back. That is where the apartments are.  The part by the so-called Swepco Park was part of the Bottoms. The bottoms was a group of shotgun houses. They have mostly if not all removed. No one misses the bottoms. Even the gentrified term Ledbetter Heights has fallen to the wayside.  (As an aside It was St Paul's bottoms due to it being over the hill from St. Paul's Methodist Church.) Ledbetter Heights was named after Leadbelly (Hudie Ledbetter.) Leadbelly was a famous singer / musicians, but also a murderer.

I think the opposition is 10% of the people between Common and Jewella (Allendale) which is about 10% of the population of Shreveport. So about 1% of the population of Shreveport actually oppose it. Another 2-3% would oppose anything...

The idea is to have 0% opposition or else the Loop It wouldn't be listed as one of the alternatives.

Ummm.... that's not how things work.

The Loop It alternative was added to the alternatives considered as one of many alternatives conceived for the project. It will be analyzed with the same criteria and detail as the other alignments, with no preferential treatment given to it or any other proposed alignment. This is an environmental impact analysis, not a public opinion poll. The mere fact that there may be some opposition to one particular alignment as opposed to another should have only limited bearing on the criteria of whether an alignment meets the purpose and need for the project.


moto g power (2022)

Wrong. Loop It is added as one of the alternatives based on public comments AND the poll, not just because it is already one of the alternatives considered.

Really?


It was added as an alternative under orders from DOT Secretary Buttigieg, after the Save Allendale group petitioned FHWA to add it in. There was NO public opinion poll. Most Shreveport citizens outside of Allendale have said loudly they favor the central alignment.


All of the alignments will be judged equally on their ability to meet the purpose and need of the project, the ability to mitigate properly any negative impacts, and costs. Just because you don't want the central alignment personally (or that I favor it) does not mean that FHWA has to abide by your (or my) personal view. They, along with LADOTD and the people of Shreveport, will decide that based on their analysis during the EIS process.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 27, 2023, 10:43:05 PM

Quote from: Strider on October 27, 2023, 09:55:46 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 26, 2023, 03:38:52 PM

Quote from: Strider on October 26, 2023, 02:50:29 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 26, 2023, 01:36:56 AM

Quote from: Strider on October 25, 2023, 09:49:19 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2023, 10:59:55 AM
Good News!

Not really. As long as opposition continues... It isn't good news. Along the proposed alternatives through Shreveport, there are oppositions, so that's why Loop-It is listed as one of the alternatives. Nobody wants an interstate to go through their historic neighborhood or area.

This road is not slated to go through any part of what was historically Allendale. Regardless of the path, it would run east of that. What we have is a disused interurban rail line (disused for 60+ years) . Public housing was built adjacent to the tracks back in the 1960's.  It was all removed around 2000. In 2007 the Glover administration gave lots to the Fuller Center in the proposed path and they built housing for Katrina refugees. Later, the Glover administration gave the housing authority part of their previous land back. That is where the apartments are.  The part by the so-called Swepco Park was part of the Bottoms. The bottoms was a group of shotgun houses. They have mostly if not all removed. No one misses the bottoms. Even the gentrified term Ledbetter Heights has fallen to the wayside.  (As an aside It was St Paul's bottoms due to it being over the hill from St. Paul's Methodist Church.) Ledbetter Heights was named after Leadbelly (Hudie Ledbetter.) Leadbelly was a famous singer / musicians, but also a murderer.

I think the opposition is 10% of the people between Common and Jewella (Allendale) which is about 10% of the population of Shreveport. So about 1% of the population of Shreveport actually oppose it. Another 2-3% would oppose anything...

The idea is to have 0% opposition or else the Loop It wouldn't be listed as one of the alternatives.

Ummm.... that's not how things work.

The Loop It alternative was added to the alternatives considered as one of many alternatives conceived for the project. It will be analyzed with the same criteria and detail as the other alignments, with no preferential treatment given to it or any other proposed alignment. This is an environmental impact analysis, not a public opinion poll. The mere fact that there may be some opposition to one particular alignment as opposed to another should have only limited bearing on the criteria of whether an alignment meets the purpose and need for the project.


moto g power (2022)

Wrong. Loop It is added as one of the alternatives based on public comments AND the poll, not just because it is already one of the alternatives considered.

Really?


It was added as an alternative under orders from DOT Secretary Buttigieg, after the Save Allendale group petitioned FHWA to add it in. There was NO public opinion poll. Most Shreveport citizens outside of Allendale have said loudly they favor the central alignment.


All of the alignments will be judged equally on their ability to meet the purpose and need of the project, the ability to mitigate properly any negative impacts, and costs. Just because you don't want the central alignment personally (or that I favor it) does not mean that FHWA has to abide by your (or my) personal view. They, along with LADOTD and the people of Shreveport, will decide that based on their analysis during the EIS process.

Loop-It predated Buttigeig. It came out of a public comment meeting. I figure there was a question about what you supported at the meeting. (Public Poll). It was a poll of a packed partisan house (a poorly attended meeting with most of the few people there in opposition)... A resounding majority 20 out of 26. (just random numbers)

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 22, 2023, 01:21:52 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 22, 2023, 01:06:12 AM
I disagree with the estimation of a 64' median. The street view below  demonstrates it at about half of that ...less than 35' and there are negligible inside shoulders. https://maps.app.goo.gl/rciRVxirs2au5osU7 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/rciRVxirs2au5osU7)

It's not an "estimation". Google provides a measuring tool. It is a 64 foot median - from yellow line to yellow line - look at it from aerial imagery. The Street View perception is skewed due to the angle. If you look from the opposite side, you get a better vantage point of how large the median is.

There is more than enough room to add a travel lane and full-size shoulder in each direction, with room still leftover.

I went to Shreveport last week. You are right. ..

Quote from: bwana39 on November 03, 2023, 11:53:19 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 22, 2023, 01:21:52 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 22, 2023, 01:06:12 AM
I disagree with the estimation of a 64' median. The street view below  demonstrates it at about half of that ...less than 35' and there are negligible inside shoulders. https://maps.app.goo.gl/rciRVxirs2au5osU7 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/rciRVxirs2au5osU7)

It's not an "estimation". Google provides a measuring tool. It is a 64 foot median - from yellow line to yellow line - look at it from aerial imagery. The Street View perception is skewed due to the angle. If you look from the opposite side, you get a better vantage point of how large the median is.

There is more than enough room to add a travel lane and full-size shoulder in each direction, with room still leftover.

I went to Shreveport last week. You are right. ..

I drove 3132 yesterday from I-20 to I-49 and was surprised at how much room there was in the median -- more than I remembered.  That said, however, the road is in terrible shape and could use almost a complete rebuild.

Quote from: rlb2024 on December 07, 2023, 10:19:12 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on November 03, 2023, 11:53:19 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 22, 2023, 01:21:52 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 22, 2023, 01:06:12 AM
I disagree with the estimation of a 64' median. The street view below  demonstrates it at about half of that ...less than 35' and there are negligible inside shoulders. https://maps.app.goo.gl/rciRVxirs2au5osU7 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/rciRVxirs2au5osU7)

It's not an "estimation". Google provides a measuring tool. It is a 64 foot median - from yellow line to yellow line - look at it from aerial imagery. The Street View perception is skewed due to the angle. If you look from the opposite side, you get a better vantage point of how large the median is.

There is more than enough room to add a travel lane and full-size shoulder in each direction, with room still leftover.

I drove 3132 yesterday from I-20 to I-49 and was surprised at how much room there was in the median -- more than I remembered.  That said, however, the road is in terrible shape and could use almost a complete rebuild.

I went to Shreveport last week. You are right. ..

I still remember seeing the live video a few years ago of a lot of stuff in the cab of Big Rig Steve's truck being seriously stirred up by a trip that he took through Shreveport, LA on WB I-20.

MIKE

I-20 in Shreveport has my vote for the roughest road in the country. Doesn't matter the direction. I've been on smoother roller coasters... lots of them.

One of the YouTube streamer named roadwaywiz just drove that section of LA 3132 not long ago (the entire eastbound and westbound, from end to end). You can see there is plenty of room for widening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1gqczO-8Kk&t=53s (eastbound)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94vMsEnVuOo (westbound)

Sure there is enough room to widen the LA3132 portion. There is PROBABLY enough room to widen I-220 as well.

Widening the Cross Lake bridge would cost as much or more than the entire ICC.

Does Louisiana's DOT have any plans to extend LA 3132 beyond LA 523 in the future? I believe there was a proposed to extend it to connect with LA 1, and there is also a proposal to extend 3132 to Interstate 69 when/if it is constructed. Although this is a Fictional Highways pipe dream, I would like 3132 to be extended through the Barksdale Air Force base to reconnect with Interstates 20 and 220 at Interstate 20's Exit 26, to make 220 and 3132 a full beltway around Shreveport. Also, I know there is a connector being built off the eastern end of Interstate 220 into the air force base. Does anyone have any updates on when that might be completed (I believe it will be numbered LA 1267)?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
Also, I know there is a connector being built off the eastern end of Interstate 220 into the air force base. Does anyone have any updates on when that might be completed (I believe it will be numbered LA 1267)?

It looks like construction on the interchange was completed in February, but the interchange won't open until the base completes their new gate:  https://bossierpress.com/ribbon-cutting-held-for-long-awaited-i-20-i-220-barksdale-air-force-base-interchange/

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
Does Louisiana's DOT have any plans to extend LA 3132 beyond LA 523 in the future? I believe there was a proposed to extend it to connect with LA 1, and there is also a proposal to extend 3132 to Interstate 69 when/if it is constructed. Although this is a Fictional Highways pipe dream, I would like 3132 to be extended through the Barksdale Air Force base to reconnect with Interstates 20 and 220 at Interstate 20's Exit 26, to make 220 and 3132 a full beltway around Shreveport. Also, I know there is a connector being built off the eastern end of Interstate 220 into the air force base. Does anyone have any updates on when that might be completed (I believe it will be numbered LA 1267)?

I believe that there were plans to cut through Barksdale AFB and complete the Inner Loop as a true full loop, but it got blocked by BAFB. The recent construction of the new BAFB entrance gate connecting to I-20 at the I-220 East junction effectively kills any future thought of that idea.

The current plan for the Inner Loop is to extend it beyond Flounoy-Lucas Road and terminate it at a junction with the proposed I-69 "bypass" between Stonewall and Haughton, just to the west of where proposed I-69 would cross the Red River near Barksdale and the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. That is dependent, however, on what the future holds for I-69 from Tenaha/Woods NE to Memphis. A "temporary" frontage road, though, is planned along the path of Future I-69 between I-49 near Stonewall and I-20 near Haughton, as a stopgap and a possible temporary terminus for any Inner Loop extension.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 07, 2023, 10:15:15 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
Does Louisiana's DOT have any plans to extend LA 3132 beyond LA 523 in the future? I believe there was a proposed to extend it to connect with LA 1, and there is also a proposal to extend 3132 to Interstate 69 when/if it is constructed. Although this is a Fictional Highways pipe dream, I would like 3132 to be extended through the Barksdale Air Force base to reconnect with Interstates 20 and 220 at Interstate 20's Exit 26, to make 220 and 3132 a full beltway around Shreveport. Also, I know there is a connector being built off the eastern end of Interstate 220 into the air force base. Does anyone have any updates on when that might be completed (I believe it will be numbered LA 1267)?

I believe that there were plans to cut through Barksdale AFB and complete the Inner Loop as a true full loop, but it got blocked by BAFB. The recent construction of the new BAFB entrance gate connecting to I-20 at the I-220 East junction effectively kills any future thought of that idea.

The current plan for the Inner Loop is to extend it beyond Flounoy-Lucas Road and terminate it at a junction with the proposed I-69 "bypass" between Stonewall and Haughton, just to the west of where proposed I-69 would cross the Red River near Barksdale and the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. That is dependent, however, on what the future holds for I-69 from Tenaha/Woods NE to Memphis. A "temporary" frontage road, though, is planned along the path of Future I-69 between I-49 near Stonewall and I-20 near Haughton, as a stopgap and a possible temporary terminus for any Inner Loop extension.

Before 9-11 freeways and highways cut across military bases in several places. In the post 9-11 world, the military is not going for that anymore. If I -69 is ever built around the East side, it would come to I-20 near LA-157.

I expect that there will be freeway from I-49 to the port. There is a private toll bridge in the permitting phases to cross the river (at the port). I expect the I-49 to I-20 section to get built. The I-49 to I-369 portion is short enough it might get built. The part I-20 and north is probably 50 years or more away (if ever)

As to 3132 from Flournoy Lucus to the port. The ROW is still open, but there are $400K+ houses adjacent to it.  DOTD and the City of Shreveport are both still on-board for it.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
Does Louisiana's DOT have any plans to extend LA 3132 beyond LA 523 in the future? I believe there was a proposed to extend it to connect with LA 1, and there is also a proposal to extend 3132 to Interstate 69 when/if it is constructed. Although this is a Fictional Highways pipe dream, I would like 3132 to be extended through the Barksdale Air Force base to reconnect with Interstates 20 and 220 at Interstate 20's Exit 26, to make 220 and 3132 a full beltway around Shreveport. Also, I know there is a connector being built off the eastern end of Interstate 220 into the air force base. Does anyone have any updates on when that might be completed (I believe it will be numbered LA 1267)?

The I-69 would miss barksdale by as much as 5 miles. It would eventually come out on I-20 either just east of LA157 or perhaps a little bit to the west.

There is still a plan to extend LA-3132 to LA-1 and concurrent with LA-1 to I-69. At this point, the ROW still exists, BUT there are some $400k+ houses immediately adjacent to it. 

I-20 in Shreveport has my vote for the roughest road in the country. Doesn't matter the direction. I've been on smoother roller coasters... lots of them.

My response to the above post earlier in this thread is that I agree that I-20 in Shreveport is rough as are many Louisiana interstates.  I drove it in 2019.  However, I drove on a long section of Interstate for the first time in early October that is the ROUGHEST I have ever driven.  It was so bad that even cruising in the left lane didn't provide much relief, and it was several long sections...............the winner is......I-70 in eastern Colorado between the Kansas state line and the edges of metropolitan Denver, with the worst and longest part closest to Kansas.  It was totally worn-out and ROUGH concrete.  I dread ever driving that road again.

Quote from: bwana39Before 9-11 freeways and highways cut across military bases in several places.

I-44 still cuts right through the middle of Fort Sill.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2023, 02:06:15 AM

Quote from: bwana39Before 9-11 freeways and highways cut across military bases in several places.

I-44 still cuts right through the middle of Fort Sill.

I-90 is still on its original routing through Fort McCoy in Wisconsin, too.

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on December 09, 2023, 01:23:02 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2023, 02:06:15 AM

Quote from: bwana39Before 9-11 freeways and highways cut across military bases in several places.

I-44 still cuts right through the middle of Fort Sill.

I-90 is still on its original routing through Fort McCoy in Wisconsin, too.

Mike

I was actually thinking of US 27/280 through Ft Moore (Benning) and US-190/I-14 through Ft Cavazos (Hood) among others. I didn't mean to imply they were closed after 9-11, just that new public roads through military bases are pretty much not going to happen.

The more likely thing that's going to happen is various military bases being closed over the long term. Base Realignment and Clousure Commissions (BRAC) meet every now and then to evaluate various military installations across the country and overseas. Some posts don't survive the axe.

Still, even with installations that remain in operation it's still possible for highways to cross them. After all it has happened in the past. Anyway, the point is the situation is not cut and dry.

Quote from: cenlaroads on December 07, 2023, 07:10:36 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
Also, I know there is a connector being built off the eastern end of Interstate 220 into the air force base. Does anyone have any updates on when that might be completed (I believe it will be numbered LA 1267)?

It looks like construction on the interchange was completed in February, but the interchange won't open until the base completes their new gate:  https://bossierpress.com/ribbon-cutting-held-for-long-awaited-i-20-i-220-barksdale-air-force-base-interchange/

Yes, LaDOTD completed the I-20/I-220/LA-1267 interchange and completed LA-1267 up to the base fenceline. AFAIK, the MILCON project for the new main gate at Barksdale has not yet been started, and I don't know when that construction will begin.

Quote from: abqtraveler on December 11, 2023, 10:35:09 AM

Quote from: cenlaroads on December 07, 2023, 07:10:36 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
Also, I know there is a connector being built off the eastern end of Interstate 220 into the air force base. Does anyone have any updates on when that might be completed (I believe it will be numbered LA 1267)?

It looks like construction on the interchange was completed in February, but the interchange won't open until the base completes their new gate:  https://bossierpress.com/ribbon-cutting-held-for-long-awaited-i-20-i-220-barksdale-air-force-base-interchange/

Yes, LaDOTD completed the I-20/I-220/LA-1267 interchange and completed LA-1267 up to the base fenceline. AFAIK, the MILCON project for the new main gate at Barksdale has not yet been started, and I don't know when that construction will begin.

....and LA 1267, as well as all of the new ramps leading into/out of LA 1267, remain barricaded and closed to all traffic.

Quote from: cjk374 on December 12, 2023, 07:20:45 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on December 11, 2023, 10:35:09 AM

Quote from: cenlaroads on December 07, 2023, 07:10:36 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
Also, I know there is a connector being built off the eastern end of Interstate 220 into the air force base. Does anyone have any updates on when that might be completed (I believe it will be numbered LA 1267)?

It looks like construction on the interchange was completed in February, but the interchange won't open until the base completes their new gate:  https://bossierpress.com/ribbon-cutting-held-for-long-awaited-i-20-i-220-barksdale-air-force-base-interchange/

Yes, LaDOTD completed the I-20/I-220/LA-1267 interchange and completed LA-1267 up to the base fenceline. AFAIK, the MILCON project for the new main gate at Barksdale has not yet been started, and I don't know when that construction will begin.

....and LA 1267, as well as all of the new ramps leading into/out of LA 1267, remain barricaded and closed to all traffic.

Because LA-1267 is literally a dead-end right now until the new main gate at Barksdale is finished.

Quote from: bwana39 on December 08, 2023, 12:46:43 AM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
Does Louisiana's DOT have any plans to extend LA 3132 beyond LA 523 in the future? I believe there was a proposed to extend it to connect with LA 1, and there is also a proposal to extend 3132 to Interstate 69 when/if it is constructed. Although this is a Fictional Highways pipe dream, I would like 3132 to be extended through the Barksdale Air Force base to reconnect with Interstates 20 and 220 at Interstate 20's Exit 26, to make 220 and 3132 a full beltway around Shreveport. Also, I know there is a connector being built off the eastern end of Interstate 220 into the air force base. Does anyone have any updates on when that might be completed (I believe it will be numbered LA 1267)?

The I-69 would miss barksdale by as much as 5 miles. It would eventually come out on I-20 either just east of LA157 or perhaps a little bit to the west.

There is still a plan to extend LA-3132 to LA-1 and concurrent with LA-1 to I-69. At this point, the ROW still exists, BUT there are some $400k+ houses immediately adjacent to it. 

That alignment was considered and even suggested by Shreveport officials, but was ultimately rejected by FHWA due to concerns about maintaining full access control on LA 1 between the point of access between LA 1/LA 3132 and the currently proposed folded diamond interchange between LA 1 and the future I-69 routing. There are two at-grade railroad crossings of LA 1 within that stretch of highway, and also numerous at-grade connectors to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier that would have to be eliminated for that alternative alignment to work.

The LA 3132 alignment that was ultimately approved by FHWA through the NEPA/EIS process (FONSI/EA) terminates LA 3132 at a 3-way directional interchange with the proposed I-69 segment between I-49 near Stonewall and I-20 near Haughton. That junction would be about a mile west of the proposed interchange between LA 1 and I-69. A temporary interchange with the proposed "I-69 Frontage Road" would serve as a stopgap until I-69 was fully built out.


Don't know how the proposed "toll road" across the Red River would affect this alignment, but there you go.

Quote from: bwana39 on December 07, 2023, 06:46:42 PM
Sure there is enough room to widen the LA3132 portion. There is PROBABLY enough room to widen I-220 as well.

Widening the Cross Lake bridge would cost as much or more than the entire ICC.

The Alternate 5/"Loop It" proposal has variants for rebuilding the Inner Loop as is (2x2), and adding a third lane in either direction (3x3). There would still be a problem with the Jewella Avenue interchange with LA 3132 having to be removed due to spacing issues with the reworking of the I-49/Inner Loop interchange which would be required to switch the through traffic movements for I-49 onto the Inner Loop rather than continuing straight as currently done.

Perhaps Interstate 220 and LA 3132 should be expanded to six lanes, even if the Interstate 49 Inner-City Connector is constructed. Or would that be impractical, from a right-of-way and traffic demand perspective?

I'd have no objection to that, as long as the ICC is completed first.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 13, 2023, 10:49:34 AM
Perhaps Interstate 220 and LA 3132 should be expanded to six lanes, even if the Interstate 49 Inner-City Connector is constructed. Or would that be impractical, from a right-of-way and traffic demand perspective?

I certainly don't see both being done. AFATG the bridge across Cross Lake is probably what is there until it needs replaced due to structural disintegration.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 13, 2023, 04:12:13 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on December 07, 2023, 06:46:42 PM
Sure there is enough room to widen the LA3132 portion. There is PROBABLY enough room to widen I-220 as well.

Widening the Cross Lake bridge would cost as much or more than the entire ICC.

The Alternate 5/"Loop It" proposal has variants for rebuilding the Inner Loop as is (2x2), and adding a third lane in either direction (3x3). There would still be a problem with the Jewella Avenue interchange with LA 3132 having to be removed due to spacing issues with the reworking of the I-49/Inner Loop interchange which would be required to switch the through traffic movements for I-49 onto the Inner Loop rather than continuing straight as currently done.

Plenty of interstates exit by themselves to continue the routing. That is not going to be an issue unless YOU don't like interstates exiting by itself.

Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

Quote from: Strider on December 14, 2023, 02:08:22 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 13, 2023, 04:12:13 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on December 07, 2023, 06:46:42 PM
Sure there is enough room to widen the LA3132 portion. There is PROBABLY enough room to widen I-220 as well.

Widening the Cross Lake bridge would cost as much or more than the entire ICC.

The Alternate 5/"Loop It" proposal has variants for rebuilding the Inner Loop as is (2x2), and adding a third lane in either direction (3x3). There would still be a problem with the Jewella Avenue interchange with LA 3132 having to be removed due to spacing issues with the reworking of the I-49/Inner Loop interchange which would be required to switch the through traffic movements for I-49 onto the Inner Loop rather than continuing straight as currently done.

Plenty of interstates exit by themselves to continue the routing. That is not going to be an issue unless YOU don't like interstates exiting by itself.

Sure, but do "plenty of Interstates" bottleneck down to one lane when exiting themselves? The modifications to the I-49/Inner Loop interchange are necessary for Alt. 5 both for maintaining continuity should I-49 be shifted over to the Inner Loop/I-220 routing, and to maintain 2 lanes in either direction.

It's not my call whether TOTSO exits are good or bad. Got an issue with LADOTD/FHWA design specs just because you personally don't like freeways closer to downtown areas? Take it up with them. (https://www.i49shreveport.com) I don't make the rules.


moto g power (2022)

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2023, 02:26:59 AM
Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2023, 04:48:25 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2023, 02:26:59 AM
Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

There are three keys to why the ICC needs to be built from a local perspective.

1) More efficient movement of traffic from North of I-220 to Downtown Shreveport and points south of I-20. Shreveport wants the have a vital downtown. As workers move further away (primarily North Bossier City), there needs to be a better transit option.
2) Reduce traffic load @ the Red River on I-20
3) Have a clear divider between Allendale and Downtown.

Roadgeeks seem opposed to this road because they are only looking at it for its utility as a route from I-49 south of LA-3132 to I-49 north of I-220. Is the 4 or 5 miles closer, really that big a deal? Not really.  Yes, for those driving cross country, it has little utility. I suspect that when I-49 is completed a large share would continue to follow LA-3132 ESPECIALLY if they made it  a little smoother.

How did Caltrans manage to do their still U.C. Westside Parkway (CA 58) freeway through that well-established post-WWII neighborhood in Bakersfield,CA?

Mike

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2023, 04:21:10 AM

Quote from: Strider on December 14, 2023, 02:08:22 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 13, 2023, 04:12:13 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on December 07, 2023, 06:46:42 PM
Sure there is enough room to widen the LA3132 portion. There is PROBABLY enough room to widen I-220 as well.

Widening the Cross Lake bridge would cost as much or more than the entire ICC.

The Alternate 5/"Loop It" proposal has variants for rebuilding the Inner Loop as is (2x2), and adding a third lane in either direction (3x3). There would still be a problem with the Jewella Avenue interchange with LA 3132 having to be removed due to spacing issues with the reworking of the I-49/Inner Loop interchange which would be required to switch the through traffic movements for I-49 onto the Inner Loop rather than continuing straight as currently done.

Plenty of interstates exit by themselves to continue the routing. That is not going to be an issue unless YOU don't like interstates exiting by itself.

Sure, but do "plenty of Interstates" bottleneck down to one lane when exiting themselves? The modifications to the I-49/Inner Loop interchange are necessary for Alt. 5 both for maintaining continuity should I-49 be shifted over to the Inner Loop/I-220 routing, and to maintain 2 lanes in either direction.

It's not my call whether TOTSO exits are good or bad. Got an issue with LADOTD/FHWA design specs just because you personally don't like freeways closer to downtown areas? Take it up with them. (https://www.i49shreveport.com) I don't make the rules.


moto g power (2022)

It happens sometimes, particularly in older parts of the system, but my understanding is that it's frowned upon (at minimum) these days.  How Mississippi got FHWA to agree to I-69 north going through a single-lane loop ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8612454,-89.9902193,3a,75y,112.77h,93.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siT5ZdN2Z99Sh6L76e_mEKg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DiT5ZdN2Z99Sh6L76e_mEKg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D17.272736%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), I'm not really sure.  I know Kentucky rebuilt a couple movements in an interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.216158,-87.4455482,15.63z?entry=ttu) so I-69's through lanes could meet regular standards rather than act as a TOTSO.

That interchange reconfiguration happened in a relatively rural location. There's no way you could build such a reconfiguration of the Interstate 49/LA 3132 interchange in an urban location like Shreveport. I believe the Inner-City Connector will be constructed eventually.

Quote from: vdeane on December 14, 2023, 12:54:45 PM

It happens sometimes, particularly in older parts of the system, but my understanding is that it's frowned upon (at minimum) these days.  How Mississippi got FHWA to agree to I-69 north going through a single-lane loop ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8612454,-89.9902193,3a,75y,112.77h,93.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siT5ZdN2Z99Sh6L76e_mEKg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DiT5ZdN2Z99Sh6L76e_mEKg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D17.272736%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), I'm not really sure.  I know Kentucky rebuilt a couple movements in an interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.216158,-87.4455482,15.63z?entry=ttu) so I-69's through lanes could meet regular standards rather than act as a TOTSO.

I am not opposed to TOTSO when the resulting diverting movement is to the right:  Right hand / right turn. Eastbound I-20 with its departure from LBJ Freeway (I-635) through lanes had a totso for a couple decades and then TxDOT corrected it. I still wind up passing  I -20 and staying on I-635 then have to either go on to US-80 or make an exit and U-turn.  Yes, the signs tell me the correct movement. No, because of my (seeming) familiarity I don't even look.

Quote from: bwana39 on December 14, 2023, 02:47:37 PM

Quote from: vdeane on December 14, 2023, 12:54:45 PM

It happens sometimes, particularly in older parts of the system, but my understanding is that it's frowned upon (at minimum) these days.  How Mississippi got FHWA to agree to I-69 north going through a single-lane loop ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8612454,-89.9902193,3a,75y,112.77h,93.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siT5ZdN2Z99Sh6L76e_mEKg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DiT5ZdN2Z99Sh6L76e_mEKg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D17.272736%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), I'm not really sure.  I know Kentucky rebuilt a couple movements in an interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.216158,-87.4455482,15.63z?entry=ttu) so I-69's through lanes could meet regular standards rather than act as a TOTSO.

I am not opposed to TOTSO when the resulting diverting movement is to the right:  Right hand / right turn. Eastbound I-20 with its departure from LBJ Freeway (I-635) through lanes had a totso for a couple decades and then TxDOT corrected it. I still wind up passing  I -20 and staying on I-635 then have to either go on to US-80 or make an exit and U-turn.  Yes, the signs tell me the correct movement. No, because of my (seeming) familiarity I don't even look.

"I'm not an ambi-turner!"

Quote from: Rothman on December 14, 2023, 03:28:24 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on December 14, 2023, 02:47:37 PM

Quote from: vdeane on December 14, 2023, 12:54:45 PM

It happens sometimes, particularly in older parts of the system, but my understanding is that it's frowned upon (at minimum) these days.  How Mississippi got FHWA to agree to I-69 north going through a single-lane loop ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8612454,-89.9902193,3a,75y,112.77h,93.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siT5ZdN2Z99Sh6L76e_mEKg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DiT5ZdN2Z99Sh6L76e_mEKg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D17.272736%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), I'm not really sure.  I know Kentucky rebuilt a couple movements in an interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.216158,-87.4455482,15.63z?entry=ttu) so I-69's through lanes could meet regular standards rather than act as a TOTSO.

I am not opposed to TOTSO when the resulting diverting movement is to the right:  Right hand / right turn. Eastbound I-20 with its departure from LBJ Freeway (I-635) through lanes had a totso for a couple decades and then TxDOT corrected it. I still wind up passing  I -20 and staying on I-635 then have to either go on to US-80 or make an exit and U-turn.  Yes, the signs tell me the correct movement. No, because of my (seeming) familiarity I don't even look.

"I'm not an ambi-turner!"

These intersections after they are changed seem to me as stay left to go right / go (merge?) right to go straight / and from a driving (as opposed to traveling) viewpoint turn off the the prevalent traffic pattern to remain in that traffic pattern. I-635 is CLEARLY the prevalent traffic pattern there. I would assume many of the others are as well. The I-20 east of this is almost immediately a rural freeway. US-80 carries more traffic to Forney than I-20 does.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2023, 04:48:25 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2023, 02:26:59 AM
Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

The studies/meetings/discussions are still ongoing, so until they actually choose the ICC, then I don't see a problem rerouting I-49 via Inner Loop/I-220 especially if there are oppositions to the ICC.

Also, where is the evidence that says "most traffic prefer more direct access?" or is that your assumption? 

Quote from: bwana39 on December 14, 2023, 04:09:43 PM

Quote from: Rothman on December 14, 2023, 03:28:24 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on December 14, 2023, 02:47:37 PM

Quote from: vdeane on December 14, 2023, 12:54:45 PM

It happens sometimes, particularly in older parts of the system, but my understanding is that it's frowned upon (at minimum) these days.  How Mississippi got FHWA to agree to I-69 north going through a single-lane loop ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8612454,-89.9902193,3a,75y,112.77h,93.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siT5ZdN2Z99Sh6L76e_mEKg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DiT5ZdN2Z99Sh6L76e_mEKg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D17.272736%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), I'm not really sure.  I know Kentucky rebuilt a couple movements in an interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.216158,-87.4455482,15.63z?entry=ttu) so I-69's through lanes could meet regular standards rather than act as a TOTSO.

I am not opposed to TOTSO when the resulting diverting movement is to the right:  Right hand / right turn. Eastbound I-20 with its departure from LBJ Freeway (I-635) through lanes had a totso for a couple decades and then TxDOT corrected it. I still wind up passing  I -20 and staying on I-635 then have to either go on to US-80 or make an exit and U-turn.  Yes, the signs tell me the correct movement. No, because of my (seeming) familiarity I don't even look.

"I'm not an ambi-turner!"

These intersections after they are changed seem to me as stay left to go right / go (merge?) right to go straight / and from a driving (as opposed to traveling) viewpoint turn off the the prevalent traffic pattern to remain in that traffic pattern. I-635 is CLEARLY the prevalent traffic pattern there. I would assume many of the others are as well. The I-20 east of this is almost immediately a rural freeway. US-80 carries more traffic to Forney than I-20 does.

Just read the signs.

Quote from: Strider on December 14, 2023, 07:03:42 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2023, 04:48:25 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2023, 02:26:59 AM
Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

The studies/meetings/discussions are still ongoing, so until they actually choose the ICC, then I don't see a problem rerouting I-49 via Inner Loop/I-220 especially if there are oppositions to the ICC.

Also, where is the evidence that says "most traffic prefer more direct access?" or is that your assumption?

The only real opposition to the ICC is from the Save Allendale group and assorted New Urbanists who would oppose any freeway alignment through the middle of cities on general ideological grounds. The Shreveport City Council, the state representative representing the legislative district where the ICC would run through, and the mayor of Shreveport are all on record of supporting the ICC alignment, and the issues with having to improve and upgrade the segment of I-220 over Cross Lake more than counterbalance any impact on Allendale from the ICC.

If you reroute I-49 away from its current path north of the Inner Loop to run on LA 4132 and I-220 just to maintain "continuity", then what do you do with the section of I-49 between the Inner Loop and I-20? Make it an x49 spur? Transfer it to the city? Tear it down and turn it into a surface boulevard in order to "reconnect" the abutting neighborhood? Never mind that that segment serves as the principal route for residents in south and south central Shreveport to access the downtown area.

There is a reason why the original plans in the 1970's for the North-South Expressway, which birthed I-49, was approved through the center of Shreveport and not routed through the Inner Loop: direct access to the downtown from the central neighborhoods.

Filling that final gap between I-20 and I-220 would do far more  to balance out the destination of traffic than diverting I-49 to a bypass. The last thing Shreveport needs is uncontrolled sprawl.

moto g power (2022)

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2023, 07:31:49 PM

Quote from: Strider on December 14, 2023, 07:03:42 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2023, 04:48:25 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2023, 02:26:59 AM
Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

The studies/meetings/discussions are still ongoing, so until they actually choose the ICC, then I don't see a problem rerouting I-49 via Inner Loop/I-220 especially if there are oppositions to the ICC.

Also, where is the evidence that says "most traffic prefer more direct access?" or is that your assumption?

The only real opposition to the ICC is from the Save Allendale group and assorted New Urbanists who would oppose any freeway alignment through the middle of cities on general ideological grounds. The Shreveport City Council, the state representative representing the legislative district where the ICC would run through, and the mayor of Shreveport are all on record of supporting the ICC alignment, and the issues with having to improve and upgrade the segment of I-220 over Cross Lake more than counterbalance any impact on Allendale from the ICC.

If you reroute I-49 away from its current path north of the Inner Loop to run on LA 4132 and I-220 just to maintain "continuity", then what do you do with the section of I-49 between the Inner Loop and I-20? Make it an x49 spur? Transfer it to the city? Tear it down and turn it into a surface boulevard in order to "reconnect" the abutting neighborhood? Never mind that that segment serves as the principal route for residents in south and south central Shreveport to access the downtown area.

There is a reason why the original plans in the 1970's for the North-South Expressway, which birthed I-49, was approved through the center of Shreveport and not routed through the Inner Loop: direct access to the downtown from the central neighborhoods.

Filling that final gap between I-20 and I-220 would do far more  to balance out the destination of traffic than diverting I-49 to a bypass. The last thing Shreveport needs is uncontrolled sprawl.

moto g power (2022)

So in other words, you don't have a proof.

Quote from: Strider on December 14, 2023, 07:35:51 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2023, 07:31:49 PM

Quote from: Strider on December 14, 2023, 07:03:42 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2023, 04:48:25 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2023, 02:26:59 AM
Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

The studies/meetings/discussions are still ongoing, so until they actually choose the ICC, then I don't see a problem rerouting I-49 via Inner Loop/I-220 especially if there are oppositions to the ICC.

Also, where is the evidence that says "most traffic prefer more direct access?" or is that your assumption?

The only real opposition to the ICC is from the Save Allendale group and assorted New Urbanists who would oppose any freeway alignment through the middle of cities on general ideological grounds. The Shreveport City Council, the state representative representing the legislative district where the ICC would run through, and the mayor of Shreveport are all on record of supporting the ICC alignment, and the issues with having to improve and upgrade the segment of I-220 over Cross Lake more than counterbalance any impact on Allendale from the ICC.

If you reroute I-49 away from its current path north of the Inner Loop to run on LA 4132 and I-220 just to maintain "continuity", then what do you do with the section of I-49 between the Inner Loop and I-20? Make it an x49 spur? Transfer it to the city? Tear it down and turn it into a surface boulevard in order to "reconnect" the abutting neighborhood? Never mind that that segment serves as the principal route for residents in south and south central Shreveport to access the downtown area.

There is a reason why the original plans in the 1970's for the North-South Expressway, which birthed I-49, was approved through the center of Shreveport and not routed through the Inner Loop: direct access to the downtown from the central neighborhoods.

Filling that final gap between I-20 and I-220 would do far more  to balance out the destination of traffic than diverting I-49 to a bypass. The last thing Shreveport needs is uncontrolled sprawl.

moto g power (2022)

So in other words, you don't have a proof.

And you don't have an argument worthy of proof.

If you don't want I-49 routed through the ICC, just say so and bring something a tad more substantial than self-absorbed assumptions and weak arguments to the debate.

We will all see what will happen in the final process.


moto g power (2022)

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2023, 07:49:10 PM

Quote from: Strider on December 14, 2023, 07:35:51 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2023, 07:31:49 PM

Quote from: Strider on December 14, 2023, 07:03:42 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2023, 04:48:25 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2023, 02:26:59 AM
Not to mention, I-49 virtually follows that routing already. People traveling along I-49 have to use the beltway to continue. Adding I-49 shields to that routing will not change anything.

If the Feds and locals wanted I-49 traffic to bypass downtown Shreveport entirely and only use the Inner Loop, don't you think they would have upgraded the Inner Loop to full Interstate standards right then and there, and not built the current section of I-49 north of LA 3132 to I-20 and the Allen-Pete Harris couplet connection?

Also, most of the traffic on I-49 is destined for the main population areas in central Shreveport, as well as downtown. As of right now, the only people using LA 3132 as a bypass are those residents of the western fringes of Shreveport and those using the Inner Loop as a shortcut for getting between I-20 west (to DFW and points beyond) and I-49 south (to Alexandria/Opelousas/Lafayette/Baton Rouge/NOLA).

Until more of I-49 is completed beyond Texarkana and the gap between Texarkana and Barling/Fort Smith is filled, the utility of the Inner Loop/I-220 route is basically limited to being a temporary bypass for those wanting to avoid the Shreveport core.

Given that most traffic would prefer the more direct routing and access to downtown that the ICC would provide along with existing I-49 south of I-20, I fail to see why there is so much hate thrown at the ICC, even from roadgeeks who normally rant hard about New Urbanists and their anti-freeway biases.


moto g power (2022)

The studies/meetings/discussions are still ongoing, so until they actually choose the ICC, then I don't see a problem rerouting I-49 via Inner Loop/I-220 especially if there are oppositions to the ICC.

Also, where is the evidence that says "most traffic prefer more direct access?" or is that your assumption?

The only real opposition to the ICC is from the Save Allendale group and assorted New Urbanists who would oppose any freeway alignment through the middle of cities on general ideological grounds. The Shreveport City Council, the state representative representing the legislative district where the ICC would run through, and the mayor of Shreveport are all on record of supporting the ICC alignment, and the issues with having to improve and upgrade the segment of I-220 over Cross Lake more than counterbalance any impact on Allendale from the ICC.

If you reroute I-49 away from its current path north of the Inner Loop to run on LA 4132 and I-220 just to maintain "continuity", then what do you do with the section of I-49 between the Inner Loop and I-20? Make it an x49 spur? Transfer it to the city? Tear it down and turn it into a surface boulevard in order to "reconnect" the abutting neighborhood? Never mind that that segment serves as the principal route for residents in south and south central Shreveport to access the downtown area.

There is a reason why the original plans in the 1970's for the North-South Expressway, which birthed I-49, was approved through the center of Shreveport and not routed through the Inner Loop: direct access to the downtown from the central neighborhoods.

Filling that final gap between I-20 and I-220 would do far more  to balance out the destination of traffic than diverting I-49 to a bypass. The last thing Shreveport needs is uncontrolled sprawl.

moto g power (2022)

So in other words, you don't have a proof.

And you don't have an argument worthy of proof.

If you don't want I-49 routed through the ICC, just say so and bring something a tad more substantial than self-absorbed assumptions and weak arguments to the debate.

We will all see what will happen in the final process.


moto g power (2022)

From being in Shreveport at least 4 days in every week for the past ten years and living in the media market for all of it. I agree with Anthony.   It appears that the opposition group in Allendale is a small group of Katrina refugees and some againers (those who are against anything and everything) from around Shreveport with the support of urbanists from outside of Shreveport.

Obviously, I don't live in Shreveport (my residence is near Opelousas), but I have followed the drama of routing I-49 through Shreveport even since the days of the North-South Expressway proposals of the late 1970's. And, my takes on routing freeways close as possible to downtown centers while focusing on mitigating the negative impacts on abutting neighborhoods have been open and transparent here on this forum from the day I joined. Don't even have to agree with me on this or anything else I say here; but at least I back up my opinions and can defend them. And, I can acknowledge when I am wrong and adjust accordingly. Debates make a forum thrive, as long as we keep it cordial and respectful.

Interesting video on I-49

https://youtu.be/3It8GOsq5RE

Quote from: Dave H on December 25, 2023, 11:06:29 AM
Interesting video on I-49

https://youtu.be/3It8GOsq5RE

That guys channel is cool, highly recommend it! I wonder if he is on this board too.  :hmmm:

a discussion on "mileage mikes" channel would have been helpful, most specifically the "delays" in getting the I-49 ICC section done.   In other words, why on earth didn't they do it first, meaning the small urban section, when the funds were "transferred" to I-49 from cancelled NOLA expressways initially?   

Quote from: DJStephens on December 27, 2023, 09:58:17 AM
a discussion on "mileage mikes" channel would have been helpful, most specifically the "delays" in getting the I-49 ICC section done.   In other words, why on earth didn't they do it first, meaning the small urban section, when the funds were "transferred" to I-49 from cancelled NOLA expressways initially?   

At that time, the focus was on completing I-49 between Lafayette and Shreveport. Since opposition from Allendale was pretty strong back then and the segment from I-220 north was still just a concept, LADOTD decided to punt on constructing I-49 north of I-20, save for the Allen Avenue-Pete Harris Drive couplet connection.

It should be noted that Mileage Mike's vid discusses the entirety of the I-49 extension, from the (still needed) Bruce Watkins Drive upgrade in KC to I-49 South from Lafayette to New Orleans.


moto g power (2022)

The Bruce Watkins Drive situation is just baffling stupid. The signaled intersections along US-71 are rated among the most dangerous and crash-prone in Missouri. I guess the court prefers risking the lives of motorists or at the very least contributing to a lot of traffic collisions.

None of that wide median strip is park land (apparently MO DOT owns it). Limited access overpasses (or underpasses) for Gregory Blvd, 59th Street and 55th Street would do nothing to harm the adjacent neighborhoods. The limited access crossings nearby, Meyer Blvd in particular, have connecting sidewalks and even some beautification features. All of the business store fronts near US-71 are NOT facing the highway. They're facing Prospect Avenue. So a freeway upgrade would NOT affect them.

The stone-walling to upgrade the last non-freeway segments of Bruce Watkins Drive is only an example of some people being festering, infected assholes just to be that way. Middle fingers to them.

The Allendale situation in Shreveport is almost as stupid. The "Renaissance at Allendale" apartment complex was literally built to try to block the proposed I-49 extension. We'll see how that goes. Over in Dallas in the not too distant future that whole Embree Hill/Lake Village West Apartments complex as well as a bunch of houses South of it are going to be removed for the extension of the GHW Bush Turnpike South of I-30. Those folks knew the turnpike would eventually be extended. When that happens it will be an example for the anti-freeway crowd in Shreveport.

The Bruce Watkins Drive corridor has a court order preventing those intersections from being converted to interchanges and extending the Interstate 49 designation to Interstates 70/670. The Allendale corridor does not have a court order (at least not yet) and it would not be wise to give them any such ideas (I hope none of them read this forum).

The BWD is covered by a consent decree signed and approved by a federal district judge which blocks any attempt to close the freeway gap there. It can be renegotiated but would require a new agreement between the state and the city, along with the community leaders there, to modify the decree to allow construction of the remaining elements of the freeway. The locals and the city government, however, seem to be happy with the status quo; so until there is some serious movement, I-49 will terminate at the Grandview Triangle. For now.

Quote from: The GhostbusterThe Bruce Watkins Drive corridor has a court order preventing those intersections from being converted to interchanges and extending the Interstate 49 designation to Interstates 70/670.

Which is why I said the court apparently prefers risking the lives of motorists on US-71 just to make a few assholes happy. The court order is 100% idiotic. I think anyone who gets seriously hurt in a traffic accident at any of those three intersections should be able to sue the State of Missouri for malpractice. The families of any anyone getting killed in accidents there should have legit wrongful death cases to file against the state.

Quote from: Anthony_JKThe locals and the city government, however, seem to be happy with the status quo; so until there is some serious movement, I-49 will terminate at the Grandview Triangle. For now.

Those people should be grabbed by the backs of their necks and hauled into hospitals to visit anyone hurt in traffic accidents at those intersections and then try to explain themselves.

What's even dumber is that with the exception of those 3 intersections on Bruce Watkins, all of the remaining cross streets have already had access removed as you can clearly see on satellite view, so how exactly would overpassing the roads with through lanes harm the neighborhood in any way?  It literally would only take making 3 through lanes each direction of a limited access addition in the wide median to I-49/US-71 as 2 overpasses, leaving those same intersections for access and turning the current US-71 facility that spreads out to both sides into D/E/F lanes for access to the neighborhood.  The current layout has already accomplished a neighborhood division with only those 3 cross streets connecting the neighborhoods on either side.  Access preserved, congestion relieved, and safety increased.

If those three at-grade intersections were converted to limited access those intersections would be safer for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross. That's because the thru traffic would be isolated on the freeway main lanes. Pedestrians and bicyclists would have fewer vehicles to encounter on the frontage roads. And other motorists driving on the streets crossing US-71 would have fewer vehicles to encounter either. The whole thing would be safer.

Plus, if MO DOT was allowed to upgrade those intersections they could give them the same kind of beautification treatment they built on the Meyer Blvd crossing over US-71. It looks pretty nice and safe. And you barely see the freeway segment due to all the green-scaping they incorporated into the intersection.

Looks like we're going off-topic with the Kansas City situation, although I do wish that court order would be rescinded so that I-49 can reach its rightful endpoint at the Alphabet Loop in downtown. It'll be just a matter of time before the citizens get sick and tired of the injuries on that part of Bruce Watkins Drive.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2023, 11:43:22 AM
The Allendale situation in Shreveport is almost as stupid. The "Renaissance at Allendale" apartment complex was literally built to try to block the proposed I-49 extension. We'll see how that goes. Over in Dallas in the not too distant future that whole Embree Hill/Lake Village West Apartments complex as well as a bunch of houses South of it are going to be removed for the extension of the GHW Bush Turnpike South of I-30. Those folks knew the turnpike would eventually be extended. When that happens it will be an example for the anti-freeway crowd in Shreveport.

If one watches any "Nick Johnson" videos, he describes the situation on the ground in Shreveport as being one of the worst in terms of conditions, and opportunity, of any medium sized city in the South.  There used to be a GM assembly plant there, it likely has either closed or sharply reduced output.  It might make construction of the ICC more possible, due to these issues.   

A bunch of people in Shreveport desperately want the ICC to be built. An improved I-49 running uninterrupted through Shreveport might help spark development in and around the downtown area.

It shouldn't be all that hard to solve the problem of re-locating the small number of people who would be displaced by the new highway. Nation-wide there is a severe shortage of realistically affordable housing. I'm seeing this bullshit even here in Lawton, a mostly lower-middle class city. The only new homes getting built are for people with solid six-figure incomes, not for anyone making less than $50,000 per year.

Anyone renting a house or apartment in a neighborhood that is fixing to be affected by a new highway or just plain old gentrification would have a right to complain about that "progress." If a new highway project was coupled with new housing developments nearby to help re-home those who are displaced and not cost them any more than what they were paying previously there wouldn't be as much opposition to these highway projects. It's not good enough to pay a property owner fair market value and just say, "find somewhere else to live." And it's really bad when a landlord of an apartment building is getting paid whatever but the tenants are just kicked out on the street. That's what sparks a lot of anger. All that negative crap is preventable if certain parties would just work together.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2023, 11:24:53 AM
A bunch of people in Shreveport desperately want the ICC to be built. An improved I-49 running uninterrupted through Shreveport might help spark development in and around the downtown area.

Does an uninterrupted I-20 not do this? I'd argue I-20 is far more of an important route in terms of freight and commerce than I-49 is, especially looking at the low volumes on I-49 north of the city.

A single Interstate running gap-free through a city doesn't do much. Having two gap-free Interstates intersect each other does more to establish that junction as a transportation hub. It's somewhat of a psychological thing; it's visible on the map.

I know I-49 is not finished between Texarkana and Fort Smith. But politically speaking it's going to be much easier to build out that segment of I-49 in rural Arkansas. The ICC is a tougher thing to complete. The same can be said for the connector in Lafayette. They may end up getting all the freeway upgrade work done on the South side of Lafayette before the downtown connector gets built.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2023, 05:14:59 PM
A single Interstate running gap-free through a city doesn't do much. Having two gap-free Interstates intersect each other does more to establish that junction as a transportation hub. It's somewhat of a psychological thing; it's visible on the map.

I-49 and I-20 do meet in Shreveport, and through traffic goes east-west and north-south. Filling in a small gap, one that already has an interstate standard bypass, isn't going to all of a sudden explode development.

There isn't really much N/S through traffic through Shreveport as of yet, and that won't really change until I-49 is completed between Texarkana and Fort Smith. Most of the main freight traffic is either W/E via I-20 or W/S via I-20/LA 3132/I-49. There MAY be some SW/NE freight increase once the segment of I-69 is completed from the TX state line to I-20 near Haughton, but that's debatable since much of the main freight traffic will probably go up I-369 to Texarkana to catch I-30.

If Amazon is serious about building their distribution center in Shreveport, that might fuel enough development to justify filling the gap in I-49, and once the Texarkana-Fort Smith segment is completed, you could potentially get more development as NW AR gains access to areas to the south and southeast.

Also, once again, LA 3132 is, while a controlled access freeway, NOT quite Interstate standard.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 31, 2023, 08:48:13 PM
There isn't really much N/S through traffic through Shreveport as of yet, and that won't really change until I-49 is completed between Texarkana and Fort Smith. Most of the main freight traffic is either W/E via I-20 or W/S via I-20/LA 3132/I-49. There MAY be some SW/NE freight increase once the segment of I-69 is completed from the TX state line to I-20 near Haughton, but that's debatable since much of the main freight traffic will probably go up I-369 to Texarkana to catch I-30.

If Amazon is serious about building their distribution center in Shreveport, that might fuel enough development to justify filling the gap in I-49, and once the Texarkana-Fort Smith segment is completed, you could potentially get more development as NW AR gains access to areas to the south and southeast.

Also, once again, LA 3132 is, while a controlled access freeway, NOT quite Interstate standard.

What's stopping LaDOTD from upgrading it to interstate standards? And why is it bad to have thru traffic simply follow the bypass (LA3132/I-220 not I-20) instead?

1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

How exactly is it bad to have a through route that provides the most direct movement at the least cost, accesses the downtown areas directly, and does not strain a bypass that already has its own traffic to deal with? Not everyone going through Shreveport will want to completely bypass it.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 08:13:21 AM
1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

You don't need an official project at all... TODAY, virtually all through I-49 traffic is using the beltway.

You say would have to be widened to 6 lanes... why? What are the traffic volumes? Are they something like 50-60,000+ AADT that would warrant a needed expansion? What are the future projections? You still have failed to show any of this.

The loop is virtually interstate standards, and carries interstate through traffic without any issues.

I am quoting directly from LADOTD and FHWA officials, who have said that. Not just my personal opinion.

The FHWA has standards for Interstate highways that are not just merely "controlled access freeway"; they include interchange spacing, adequate sight clearance, etc. Just because a route is freeway standard does NOT mean it would be adequate to Interstate-grade; improvements would have to be made in order to upgrade it to such standards.

The EIS, when it is released, will have the proper traffic volume information which justifies whether Loop It would have to be widened to meet the projected traffic needs of carrying through I-49 traffic. However, there is already the portion of I-49 between the Inner Loop and I-20 that handles the full burden of traffic in central Shreveport, and filling that brief gap between I-20 and I-220 would be relatively inexpensive compared to forcing that traffic to completely bypass downtown via LA 3132 and I-220.

Really, sprjus, if you are that opposed to building the ICC and would rather have I-49 taken off and moved over to the Inner Loop simply because of personal feelz, then feel free to take it up with the project managers and the people in Shreveport. They are the ones who are pushing for this project. If they believed that the current bypass was good enough, they would have signed it likewise; the fact that they are pushing for the ICC says more than enough about what they want. It's not my want; it's theirs.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 01, 2024, 01:52:17 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 08:13:21 AM
1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

You don't need an official project at all... TODAY, virtually all through I-49 traffic is using the beltway.

You say would have to be widened to 6 lanes... why? What are the traffic volumes? Are they something like 50-60,000+ AADT that would warrant a needed expansion? What are the future projections? You still have failed to show any of this.

The loop is virtually interstate standards, and carries interstate through traffic without any issues.

Thanks Anthony! I am going to add...

It lacks a lot to be interstate standards. Both the Linwood and Jewella / Mansfield Road exits would need to be rejiggered. Linwood would likely have to be deleted altogether.  While the I-49 / LA-3132 exit would likely get by with a waiver, The I-20 / LA-3132 /I-220 Southbound would HAVE to be reconfigured and northbound MIGHT (Curves just north of I-20 have too great of an angle)

The curve just south of Mansfield road MIGHT have to be re-radiused. The shoulders would need to be paved AND the mainlanes really need redone.

Quote from: bwana39 on January 01, 2024, 02:46:07 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 01, 2024, 01:52:17 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 08:13:21 AM
1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

You don't need an official project at all... TODAY, virtually all through I-49 traffic is using the beltway.

You say would have to be widened to 6 lanes... why? What are the traffic volumes? Are they something like 50-60,000+ AADT that would warrant a needed expansion? What are the future projections? You still have failed to show any of this.

The loop is virtually interstate standards, and carries interstate through traffic without any issues.

Thanks Anthony! I am going to add...

It lacks a lot to be interstate standards. Both the Linwood and Jewella / Mansfield Road exits would need to be rejiggered. Linwood would likely have to be deleted altogether.  While the I-49 / LA-3132 exit would likely get by with a waiver, The I-20 / LA-3132 /I-220 Southbound would HAVE to be reconfigured and northbound MIGHT (Curves just north of I-20 have too great of an angle)

The curve just south of Mansfield road MIGHT have to be re-radiused. The shoulders would need to be paved AND the mainlanes really need redone.

I-220/LA-3132 already serves as the de-facto connection between I-49 North and I-49 South and it doesn't appear to be overwhelmed by traffic by any stretch of the imagination. It's not so much the reconfiguration of the I-20/I-220/LA-3132 or I-49(S)/LA-3132 interchanges that makes the "Loop-It" option unpalatable; rather it's the insistence by officials that the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake "must be widened" for the I-220/LA-3132 loop to become part of I-49. From what I've seen the bridge over Cross Lake handles traffic just fine, so I respectfully disagree that a new, wider bridge would be absolutely required for the loop to be designated as I-49.  Maybe a wider bridge over Cross Lake is something they could consider when the current bridge reaches the end of its service life and is due for replacement, but that will be many years away.

Quote from: abqtraveler on January 01, 2024, 04:01:18 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 01, 2024, 02:46:07 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 01, 2024, 01:52:17 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 08:13:21 AM
1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

You don't need an official project at all... TODAY, virtually all through I-49 traffic is using the beltway.

You say would have to be widened to 6 lanes... why? What are the traffic volumes? Are they something like 50-60,000+ AADT that would warrant a needed expansion? What are the future projections? You still have failed to show any of this.

The loop is virtually interstate standards, and carries interstate through traffic without any issues.

Thanks Anthony! I am going to add...

It lacks a lot to be interstate standards. Both the Linwood and Jewella / Mansfield Road exits would need to be rejiggered. Linwood would likely have to be deleted altogether.  While the I-49 / LA-3132 exit would likely get by with a waiver, The I-20 / LA-3132 /I-220 Southbound would HAVE to be reconfigured and northbound MIGHT (Curves just north of I-20 have too great of an angle)

The curve just south of Mansfield road MIGHT have to be re-radiused. The shoulders would need to be paved AND the mainlanes really need redone.

I-220/LA-3132 already serves as the de-facto connection between I-49 North and I-49 South and it doesn't appear to be overwhelmed by traffic by any stretch of the imagination. It's not so much the reconfiguration of the I-20/I-220/LA-3132 or I-49(S)/LA-3132 interchanges that makes the "Loop-It" option unpalatable; rather it's the insistence by officials that the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake "must be widened" for the I-220/LA-3132 loop to become part of I-49. From what I've seen the bridge over Cross Lake handles traffic just fine, so I respectfully disagree that a new, wider bridge would be absolutely required for the loop to be designated as I-49.  Maybe a wider bridge over Cross Lake is something they could consider when the current bridge reaches the end of its service life and is due for replacement, but that will be many years away.

If I may add to that: I looked at I-49 Shreveport ICC website where they listed the alternatives and what they plan on build when the alternative is chosen. I looked at the LA 3132/I-49 stack interchange, the only modifications they are going to make is the I-49 movements, the sweeping flyover from LA 3132 West to I-49 South and the interchange next to it and that is pretty much it. Of course, they are going to have to widen LA 3132 and I-220 as well as the Cross Lake Bridge. However, the connection between both I-49 segments is already there and traffic is using it.

Of course, the supporters of ICC rather to see a neighborhood being destroyed and dispatched so they can build 4 miles of I-49 right through town. It was clear from from their standpoint and it's whatever.

Also, if widening the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake is so problematic and costly, then why is the bridge there at the first place? Eventually they will have to replace the bridge in the future anyways, so they may go ahead and get that bridge replacement over with before it gets all too expensive.

Plus, the ICC is UNFUNDED so who's paying for it to be built when you already have the Loop It in which I-49 traffic has been using for years?

Quote from: bwana39 on January 01, 2024, 02:46:07 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 01, 2024, 01:52:17 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 08:13:21 AM
1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

You don't need an official project at all... TODAY, virtually all through I-49 traffic is using the beltway.

You say would have to be widened to 6 lanes... why? What are the traffic volumes? Are they something like 50-60,000+ AADT that would warrant a needed expansion? What are the future projections? You still have failed to show any of this.

The loop is virtually interstate standards, and carries interstate through traffic without any issues.

Thanks Anthony! I am going to add...

It lacks a lot to be interstate standards. Both the Linwood and Jewella / Mansfield Road exits would need to be rejiggered. Linwood would likely have to be deleted altogether.  While the I-49 / LA-3132 exit would likely get by with a waiver, The I-20 / LA-3132 /I-220 Southbound would HAVE to be reconfigured and northbound MIGHT (Curves just north of I-20 have too great of an angle)

The curve just south of Mansfield road MIGHT have to be re-radiused. The shoulders would need to be paved AND the mainlanes really need redone.

why would they have to do anything to those exits? the interchange spacing rule is broken all over the place, pretty much every urban interstate breaks this rule near downtown, hell even in the burbs this rule is broken.

Quote from: silverback1065 on January 01, 2024, 07:03:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 01, 2024, 02:46:07 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 01, 2024, 01:52:17 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 08:13:21 AM
1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

You don't need an official project at all... TODAY, virtually all through I-49 traffic is using the beltway.

You say would have to be widened to 6 lanes... why? What are the traffic volumes? Are they something like 50-60,000+ AADT that would warrant a needed expansion? What are the future projections? You still have failed to show any of this.

The loop is virtually interstate standards, and carries interstate through traffic without any issues.

Thanks Anthony! I am going to add...

It lacks a lot to be interstate standards. Both the Linwood and Jewella / Mansfield Road exits would need to be rejiggered. Linwood would likely have to be deleted altogether.  While the I-49 / LA-3132 exit would likely get by with a waiver, The I-20 / LA-3132 /I-220 Southbound would HAVE to be reconfigured and northbound MIGHT (Curves just north of I-20 have too great of an angle)

The curve just south of Mansfield road MIGHT have to be re-radiused. The shoulders would need to be paved AND the mainlanes really need redone.

why would they have to do anything to those exits? the interchange spacing rule is broken all over the place, pretty much every urban interstate breaks this rule near downtown, hell even in the burbs this rule is broken.

How many of those highways were originally built in the period before such standards were imposed; and how much is being spent today to correct those design flaws?

Also, I did err before; it's the Linwood Avenue interchange with the Inner Loop that would be threatened, not Jewella Ave.


moto g power (2022)

Quote from: silverback1065 on January 01, 2024, 07:03:58 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 01, 2024, 02:46:07 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 01, 2024, 01:52:17 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 08:13:21 AM
1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

You don't need an official project at all... TODAY, virtually all through I-49 traffic is using the beltway.

You say would have to be widened to 6 lanes... why? What are the traffic volumes? Are they something like 50-60,000+ AADT that would warrant a needed expansion? What are the future projections? You still have failed to show any of this.

The loop is virtually interstate standards, and carries interstate through traffic without any issues.

Thanks Anthony! I am going to add...

It lacks a lot to be interstate standards. Both the Linwood and Jewella / Mansfield Road exits would need to be rejiggered. Linwood would likely have to be deleted altogether.  While the I-49 / LA-3132 exit would likely get by with a waiver, The I-20 / LA-3132 /I-220 Southbound would HAVE to be reconfigured and northbound MIGHT (Curves just north of I-20 have too great of an angle)

The curve just south of Mansfield road MIGHT have to be re-radiused. The shoulders would need to be paved AND the mainlanes really need redone.

why would they have to do anything to those exits? the interchange spacing rule is broken all over the place, pretty much every urban interstate breaks this rule near downtown, hell even in the burbs this rule is broken.

*facepalm*

Someone hasn't been paying attention to FHWA oversight of Interstate conversion for the last 20 years or more.

Quote from: Strider on January 01, 2024, 04:53:09 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on January 01, 2024, 04:01:18 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 01, 2024, 02:46:07 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 01, 2024, 01:52:17 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 08:13:21 AM
1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

You don't need an official project at all... TODAY, virtually all through I-49 traffic is using the beltway.

You say would have to be widened to 6 lanes... why? What are the traffic volumes? Are they something like 50-60,000+ AADT that would warrant a needed expansion? What are the future projections? You still have failed to show any of this.

The loop is virtually interstate standards, and carries interstate through traffic without any issues.

Thanks Anthony! I am going to add...

It lacks a lot to be interstate standards. Both the Linwood and Jewella / Mansfield Road exits would need to be rejiggered. Linwood would likely have to be deleted altogether.  While the I-49 / LA-3132 exit would likely get by with a waiver, The I-20 / LA-3132 /I-220 Southbound would HAVE to be reconfigured and northbound MIGHT (Curves just north of I-20 have too great of an angle)

The curve just south of Mansfield road MIGHT have to be re-radiused. The shoulders would need to be paved AND the mainlanes really need redone.

I-220/LA-3132 already serves as the de-facto connection between I-49 North and I-49 South and it doesn't appear to be overwhelmed by traffic by any stretch of the imagination. It's not so much the reconfiguration of the I-20/I-220/LA-3132 or I-49(S)/LA-3132 interchanges that makes the "Loop-It" option unpalatable; rather it's the insistence by officials that the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake "must be widened" for the I-220/LA-3132 loop to become part of I-49. From what I've seen the bridge over Cross Lake handles traffic just fine, so I respectfully disagree that a new, wider bridge would be absolutely required for the loop to be designated as I-49.  Maybe a wider bridge over Cross Lake is something they could consider when the current bridge reaches the end of its service life and is due for replacement, but that will be many years away.

If I may add to that: I looked at I-49 Shreveport ICC website where they listed the alternatives and what they plan on build when the alternative is chosen. I looked at the LA 3132/I-49 stack interchange, the only modifications they are going to make is the I-49 movements, the sweeping flyover from LA 3132 West to I-49 South and the interchange next to it and that is pretty much it. Of course, they are going to have to widen LA 3132 and I-220 as well as the Cross Lake Bridge. However, the connection between both I-49 segments is already there and traffic is using it.

Of course, the supporters of ICC rather to see a neighborhood being destroyed and dispatched so they can build 4 miles of I-49 right through town. It was clear from from their standpoint and it's whatever.

Also, if widening the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake is so problematic and costly, then why is the bridge there at the first place? Eventually they will have to replace the bridge in the future anyways, so they may go ahead and get that bridge replacement over with before it gets all too expensive.

Plus, the ICC is UNFUNDED so who's paying for it to be built when you already have the Loop It in which I-49 traffic has been using for years?

The Inner Loop and I-220 does not carry I-49 through traffic. There is already I-49 that exists from the Inner Loop north to I-20 which carries the bulk of I-49 traffic north to near downtown. But I suppose they built that just to divide the city and spite Urbanists, huh?

LADOTD has BGS's explicitly telling through I-49 traffic to take I-20 east to the current I-49 terminus at I-20. There are NO signs anywhere on I-49 directing traffic to take LA 3132.

It may be unfunded as of now, but it is one of LADOTD's top priority megaprojects (Priority A), and it is fully backed by the city of Shreveport. Once it's approved, it will get funding.

Also, one of the alternatives in the original North-South Expressway alignment discussion that gave us I-49 to begin with was to route the freeway along the Inner Loop to I-220. The authorities rejected that approach for a central alignment through the heart of Shreveport to I-20 with an ultimate connection close to downtown. Do you think that was a waste of funds?

Finally, this distorts the primary purpose of the ICC; it is not just to complete I-49 through Shreveport; it is also to provide a direct connection to important destinations within central Shreveport, including the downtown area.

Again, if the people most affected by this project are willing to consider all the alternatives and still back what they consider to be the best one, then we can all argue otherwise. It's their city, and it's their decision. And, their funds.


moto g power (2022)

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 07:30:31 PM
The Inner Loop and I-220 does not carry I-49 through traffic. There is already I-49 that exists from the Inner Loop north to I-20 which carries the of I-49 traffic north to near downtown. But I suppose they built that just to divide the city and spite Urbanists, huh?

No one is taking I-49 to I-20 to I-220. That is far out of the way compared to LA 3132. Much more unnecessary mileage. Any GPS routing takes them on the loop. You keep using this argument but it falls flat from reality.

Quote
LADOTD has BGS's explicitly telling through I-49 traffic to take I-20 east to the current I-49 terminus at I-20. There are NO signs anywhere on I-49 directing traffic to take LA 3132.

You sure about that?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/DnG42Z98YmR7Hj717?g_st=ic
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Fzsdy8Dae7mEAwib8?g_st=ic

No one cares about highway signs say... most are following GPS - which is routing Loop 3132.

Quote
It may be unfunded as of now, but it is one of LADOTD's top priority megaprojects (Priority A), and it is fully backed by the city of Shreveport. Once it's approved, it will get funding.

I'll believe it when I see it... until then, it's unfunded.

This discussion keeps going in circles.

Not everybody has GPS.

Also, not everybody bases their driving decisions on what roadgeeks on a forum argue.

I'm with 3mx...we've all made our points. Let's move on.

Yeah, I'd rather just let this thread sit idle until we see some real movement on this project.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 07:30:31 PM

Quote from: Strider on January 01, 2024, 04:53:09 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on January 01, 2024, 04:01:18 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 01, 2024, 02:46:07 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 01, 2024, 01:52:17 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 08:13:21 AM
1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

You don't need an official project at all... TODAY, virtually all through I-49 traffic is using the beltway.

You say would have to be widened to 6 lanes... why? What are the traffic volumes? Are they something like 50-60,000+ AADT that would warrant a needed expansion? What are the future projections? You still have failed to show any of this.

The loop is virtually interstate standards, and carries interstate through traffic without any issues.

Thanks Anthony! I am going to add...

It lacks a lot to be interstate standards. Both the Linwood and Jewella / Mansfield Road exits would need to be rejiggered. Linwood would likely have to be deleted altogether.  While the I-49 / LA-3132 exit would likely get by with a waiver, The I-20 / LA-3132 /I-220 Southbound would HAVE to be reconfigured and northbound MIGHT (Curves just north of I-20 have too great of an angle)

The curve just south of Mansfield road MIGHT have to be re-radiused. The shoulders would need to be paved AND the mainlanes really need redone.

I-220/LA-3132 already serves as the de-facto connection between I-49 North and I-49 South and it doesn't appear to be overwhelmed by traffic by any stretch of the imagination. It's not so much the reconfiguration of the I-20/I-220/LA-3132 or I-49(S)/LA-3132 interchanges that makes the "Loop-It" option unpalatable; rather it's the insistence by officials that the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake "must be widened" for the I-220/LA-3132 loop to become part of I-49. From what I've seen the bridge over Cross Lake handles traffic just fine, so I respectfully disagree that a new, wider bridge would be absolutely required for the loop to be designated as I-49.  Maybe a wider bridge over Cross Lake is something they could consider when the current bridge reaches the end of its service life and is due for replacement, but that will be many years away.

If I may add to that: I looked at I-49 Shreveport ICC website where they listed the alternatives and what they plan on build when the alternative is chosen. I looked at the LA 3132/I-49 stack interchange, the only modifications they are going to make is the I-49 movements, the sweeping flyover from LA 3132 West to I-49 South and the interchange next to it and that is pretty much it. Of course, they are going to have to widen LA 3132 and I-220 as well as the Cross Lake Bridge. However, the connection between both I-49 segments is already there and traffic is using it.

Of course, the supporters of ICC rather to see a neighborhood being destroyed and dispatched so they can build 4 miles of I-49 right through town. It was clear from from their standpoint and it's whatever.

Also, if widening the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake is so problematic and costly, then why is the bridge there at the first place? Eventually they will have to replace the bridge in the future anyways, so they may go ahead and get that bridge replacement over with before it gets all too expensive.

Plus, the ICC is UNFUNDED so who's paying for it to be built when you already have the Loop It in which I-49 traffic has been using for years?

The Inner Loop and I-220 does not carry I-49 through traffic. There is already I-49 that exists from the Inner Loop north to I-20 which carries the bulk of I-49 traffic north to near downtown. But I suppose they built that just to divide the city and spite Urbanists, huh?

LADOTD has BGS's explicitly telling through I-49 traffic to take I-20 east to the current I-49 terminus at I-20. There are NO signs anywhere on I-49 directing traffic to take LA 3132.

It may be unfunded as of now, but it is one of LADOTD's top priority megaprojects (Priority A), and it is fully backed by the city of Shreveport. Once it's approved, it will get funding.

Also, one of the alternatives in the original North-South Expressway alignment discussion that gave us I-49 to begin with was to route the freeway along the Inner Loop to I-220. The authorities rejected that approach for a central alignment through the heart of Shreveport to I-20 with an ultimate connection close to downtown. Do you think that was a waste of funds?

Finally, this distorts the primary purpose of the ICC; it is not just to complete I-49 through Shreveport; it is also to provide a direct connection to important destinations within central Shreveport, including the downtown area.

Again, if the people most affected by this project are willing to consider all the alternatives and still back what they consider to be the best one, then we can all argue otherwise. It's their city, and it's their decision. And, their funds.


moto g power (2022)

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 02, 2024, 10:02:50 AM
Not everybody has GPS.

Also, not everybody bases their driving decisions on what roadgeeks on a forum argue.

I'm with 3mx...we've all made our points. Let's move on.

I'm with sprjus4. There is no signage telling people to use I-49/I-20/I-220. Most people see "To Texarkana" and will use LA 3132/I-220 to reach I-49 North anyways. Besides, it is not their funds because they asked the Federal Government to pay most of it since it is an interstate project. Without facts, all of what you said is purely based on assumptions. I will end this one for one and all: Until the ICC is chosen and funded, there's always I-220/LA 3132.

Yeah I'm also for letting this topic die out till we get any news on the fate of the ICC. But I will say that the notion that no one will take the bypass route because it's not the same signage is stupid. Plenty of cities have bypasses around them and they've been able to get by with no problems. Hell, even Louisana has two in the sense of I-12 and I-610. They both serve as through-traffic alternatives for I-10 and they see plenty of through-traffic. Or if you want an example similar to this, the planned I-69 extension in Indianapolis is going to bypass the city by overlapping with I-465, rather than go through it. I-69 was supposed to end at I-65 downtown but was canceled due to pushback. I'm also for "Loop-It" alternative if it means not having to displace any more residents or create another barrier through town. That's all I have to say for now.

Quote from: Some one on January 02, 2024, 11:09:26 PM
Yeah I'm also for letting this topic die out till we get any news on the fate of the ICC. But I will say that the notion that no one will take the bypass route because it's not the same signage is stupid. Plenty of cities have bypasses around them and they've been able to get by with no problems. Hell, even Louisana has two in the sense of I-12 and I-610. They both serve as through-traffic alternatives for I-10 and they see plenty of through-traffic. Or if you want an example similar to this, the planned I-69 extension in Indianapolis is going to bypass the city by overlapping with I-465, rather than go through it. I-69 was supposed to end at I-65 downtown but was canceled due to pushback. I'm also for "Loop-It" alternative if it means not having to displace any more residents or create another barrier through town. That's all I have to say for now.

Most people don't pay much attention to signage anymore period.  They just go where Google Maps navigation tells them to go.

I-12 serves its own purpose as a direct through route, as well as a semi-direct route from Baton Rouge or the Northshore to Jackson (via I-55).

I-610 does serve as a bypass, but it does NOT replace I-10 through downtown NOLA.

No one is calling for I-69 to go past I-465 in Indianapolis. Red herring.

I am for the ICC because it completes the gap in I-49 in Shreveport in the most cost effective means possible, it provides the best access to downtown Shreveport from the north, and because the effects on Allendale are mitigatable enough for the benefits thereof. I have nothing against the I-220/LA 3132 routing as a temporary bypass, but ultimately, in my view, it needs to be built both for local needs and to help complete I-49 to Kansas City and New Orleans.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it. You are entitled to yours. We will see what we will see. The defense rests, Your Honor.

Quote from: Strider on January 02, 2024, 10:12:01 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 07:30:31 PM

Quote from: Strider on January 01, 2024, 04:53:09 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on January 01, 2024, 04:01:18 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 01, 2024, 02:46:07 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 01, 2024, 01:52:17 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 01, 2024, 08:13:21 AM
1) Upgrading the Inner Loop would require closing of the Jewella Avenue interchange due to its close proximity to the I-49/LA 3132 full stack interchange (the latter would be to be greatly modified to allow for the I-49 through movements to be shifted to the Inner Loop. Plus, I-220 between I-20 and the north I-49 interchange would have to be widened to 6 lanes across Cross Lake in order to handle the additional anticipated through traffic, which would be further complicated because Cross Lake provides Shreveport with its drinking water.

You don't need an official project at all... TODAY, virtually all through I-49 traffic is using the beltway.

You say would have to be widened to 6 lanes... why? What are the traffic volumes? Are they something like 50-60,000+ AADT that would warrant a needed expansion? What are the future projections? You still have failed to show any of this.

The loop is virtually interstate standards, and carries interstate through traffic without any issues.

Thanks Anthony! I am going to add...

It lacks a lot to be interstate standards. Both the Linwood and Jewella / Mansfield Road exits would need to be rejiggered. Linwood would likely have to be deleted altogether.  While the I-49 / LA-3132 exit would likely get by with a waiver, The I-20 / LA-3132 /I-220 Southbound would HAVE to be reconfigured and northbound MIGHT (Curves just north of I-20 have too great of an angle)

The curve just south of Mansfield road MIGHT have to be re-radiused. The shoulders would need to be paved AND the mainlanes really need redone.

I-220/LA-3132 already serves as the de-facto connection between I-49 North and I-49 South and it doesn't appear to be overwhelmed by traffic by any stretch of the imagination. It's not so much the reconfiguration of the I-20/I-220/LA-3132 or I-49(S)/LA-3132 interchanges that makes the "Loop-It" option unpalatable; rather it's the insistence by officials that the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake "must be widened" for the I-220/LA-3132 loop to become part of I-49. From what I've seen the bridge over Cross Lake handles traffic just fine, so I respectfully disagree that a new, wider bridge would be absolutely required for the loop to be designated as I-49.  Maybe a wider bridge over Cross Lake is something they could consider when the current bridge reaches the end of its service life and is due for replacement, but that will be many years away.

If I may add to that: I looked at I-49 Shreveport ICC website where they listed the alternatives and what they plan on build when the alternative is chosen. I looked at the LA 3132/I-49 stack interchange, the only modifications they are going to make is the I-49 movements, the sweeping flyover from LA 3132 West to I-49 South and the interchange next to it and that is pretty much it. Of course, they are going to have to widen LA 3132 and I-220 as well as the Cross Lake Bridge. However, the connection between both I-49 segments is already there and traffic is using it.

Of course, the supporters of ICC rather to see a neighborhood being destroyed and dispatched so they can build 4 miles of I-49 right through town. It was clear from from their standpoint and it's whatever.

Also, if widening the I-220 bridge over Cross Lake is so problematic and costly, then why is the bridge there at the first place? Eventually they will have to replace the bridge in the future anyways, so they may go ahead and get that bridge replacement over with before it gets all too expensive.

Plus, the ICC is UNFUNDED so who's paying for it to be built when you already have the Loop It in which I-49 traffic has been using for years?

The Inner Loop and I-220 does not carry I-49 through traffic. There is already I-49 that exists from the Inner Loop north to I-20 which carries the bulk of I-49 traffic north to near downtown. But I suppose they built that just to divide the city and spite Urbanists, huh?

LADOTD has BGS's explicitly telling through I-49 traffic to take I-20 east to the current I-49 terminus at I-20. There are NO signs anywhere on I-49 directing traffic to take LA 3132.

It may be unfunded as of now, but it is one of LADOTD's top priority megaprojects (Priority A), and it is fully backed by the city of Shreveport. Once it's approved, it will get funding.

Also, one of the alternatives in the original North-South Expressway alignment discussion that gave us I-49 to begin with was to route the freeway along the Inner Loop to I-220. The authorities rejected that approach for a central alignment through the heart of Shreveport to I-20 with an ultimate connection close to downtown. Do you think that was a waste of funds?

Finally, this distorts the primary purpose of the ICC; it is not just to complete I-49 through Shreveport; it is also to provide a direct connection to important destinations within central Shreveport, including the downtown area.

Again, if the people most affected by this project are willing to consider all the alternatives and still back what they consider to be the best one, then we can all argue otherwise. It's their city, and it's their decision. And, their funds.


moto g power (2022)

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 02, 2024, 10:02:50 AM
Not everybody has GPS.

Also, not everybody bases their driving decisions on what roadgeeks on a forum argue.

I'm with 3mx...we've all made our points. Let's move on.

I'm with sprjus4. There is no signage telling people to use I-49/I-20/I-220. Most people see "To Texarkana" and will use LA 3132/I-220 to reach I-49 North anyways. Besides, it is not their funds because they asked the Federal Government to pay most of it since it is an interstate project. Without facts, all of what you said is purely based on assumptions. I will end this one for one and all: Until the ICC is chosen and funded, there's always I-220/LA 3132.

There actually are (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.4901996,-93.7551255,3a,49.3y,13.3h,99.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU2eFSN5U44mYPrQXXqV66A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), just not that far south.

Quote from: vdeane on January 03, 2024, 12:52:05 PM

Quote from: Strider on January 02, 2024, 10:12:01 PM
I'm with sprjus4. There is no signage telling people to use I-49/I-20/I-220. Most people see "To Texarkana" and will use LA 3132/I-220 to reach I-49 North anyways. Besides, it is not their funds because they asked the Federal Government to pay most of it since it is an interstate project. Without facts, all of what you said is purely based on assumptions. I will end this one for one and all: Until the ICC is chosen and funded, there's always I-220/LA 3132.

There actually are (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.4901996,-93.7551255,3a,49.3y,13.3h,99.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU2eFSN5U44mYPrQXXqV66A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), just not that far south.

That signage is beyond LA-3132... once you're that far north, either following surface streets or using I-20 -> I-220 is your only option.

If you're long distance traffic heading north on I-49 south of LA-3132, you're going to use LA-3132 to I-220 to bypass the city entirely on interstate-grade highway.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 02, 2024, 11:50:00 PM
No one is calling for I-69 to go past I-465 in Indianapolis. Red herring.

Red herring how? Maybe not now, but in the past, before it was planned to be extended further south beyond Indianapolis, there were plans to have I-69 end at the I-65/70 split but it was canceled due to neighborhood protests. Maybe it's not the best example, but now that I-69 is planned to go around Indianapolis rather than go through it, maybe it shows that not every freeway needs to go through the city it's supposed to serve.

I-69 inside the I-465 loop is an apples-oranges comparison to the situation in Shreveport.

The cancelled I-69 segment just to downtown Indianapolis would have been over 9 miles in length -nearly all of it running through developed areas. Add in at least another 4 miles worth of new freeway from I-70 to get I-69 down to its newer Southern connection with I-465. After all of that the mileage savings of a "direct" I-69 through the middle of Indianapolis would have been only about 2.5 miles (as opposed to taking I-465 round the East and South sides of the city).

The I-49 gap in Shreveport is under 4 miles in length and over half of it running through undeveloped green space. The remaining chunk is nearly all run-down, blighted area. The Renaissance At Allendale apartments complex is the only property in the proposed ROW that looks like it's worth anything. The I-49 ICC would provide roughly 5 miles of mileage savings between the I-49/I-220 interchange and I-49/LA-3132 interchange (as opposed to taking I-220 and LA-3132 around the West side of Shreveport).

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2024, 05:09:30 PM
I-69 inside the I-465 loop is an apples-oranges comparison to the situation in Shreveport.

The cancelled I-69 segment just to downtown Indianapolis would have been over 9 miles in length -nearly all of it running through developed areas. Add in at least another 4 miles worth of new freeway from I-70 to get I-69 down to its newer Southern connection with I-465. After all of that the mileage savings of a "direct" I-69 through the middle of Indianapolis would have been only about 2.5 miles (as opposed to taking I-465 round the East and South sides of the city).

The I-49 gap in Shreveport is under 4 miles in length and over half of it running through undeveloped green space. The remaining chunk is nearly all run-down, blighted area. The Renaissance At Allendale apartments complex is the only property in the proposed ROW that looks like it's worth anything. The I-49 ICC would provide roughly 5 miles of mileage savings between the I-49/I-220 interchange and I-49/LA-3132 interchange (as opposed to taking I-220 and LA-3132 around the West side of Shreveport).

Okay, you got me there. It's not a fair comparison. Still, idk if it's justifiable to tear down "blight"  to run a highway through there just to save a couple minutes. That was the same justification urban planners used in the 50s and 60s to tear down neighborhoods for highways.

Quote from: Some one on January 03, 2024, 06:07:05 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2024, 05:09:30 PM
I-69 inside the I-465 loop is an apples-oranges comparison to the situation in Shreveport.

The cancelled I-69 segment just to downtown Indianapolis would have been over 9 miles in length -nearly all of it running through developed areas. Add in at least another 4 miles worth of new freeway from I-70 to get I-69 down to its newer Southern connection with I-465. After all of that the mileage savings of a "direct" I-69 through the middle of Indianapolis would have been only about 2.5 miles (as opposed to taking I-465 round the East and South sides of the city).

The I-49 gap in Shreveport is under 4 miles in length and over half of it running through undeveloped green space. The remaining chunk is nearly all run-down, blighted area. The Renaissance At Allendale apartments complex is the only property in the proposed ROW that looks like it's worth anything. The I-49 ICC would provide roughly 5 miles of mileage savings between the I-49/I-220 interchange and I-49/LA-3132 interchange (as opposed to taking I-220 and LA-3132 around the West side of Shreveport).

Okay, you got me there. It's not a fair comparison. Still, idk if it's justifiable to tear down "blight"  to run a highway through there just to save a couple minutes. That was the same justification urban planners used in the 50s and 60s to tear down neighborhoods for highways.

It's questionable... but if Louisiana wants to burn a billion dollars on this over other priorities such as I-49 through Lafayette (where no freeway or bypass exists) or major improvements that have been needed for decades along I-10, then that's there wasteful spending.

I'm not necessarily opposed should they chose to build it, but it certainly is questionable being a "priority" over other sorely needed projects in the lower part of the state. I-10 and I-12 should be six lanes across the state, along with a bypass of Baton Rouge, before this gets built.

Quote from: Some oneOkay, you got me there. It's not a fair comparison. Still, idk if it's justifiable to tear down "blight"  to run a highway through there just to save a couple minutes.

There are considerably more reasons to build the ICC than just saving thru travelers a few minutes of drive time on I-49. A thru I-49 connection could help spark a lot of new development in downtown Shreveport as well as improve the Allendale neighborhood. One of the motivations is bringing more employers into that general downtown area, thus providing more job opportunities, particularly to residents living in that immediate area.

50+ years ago urban freeway projects were indeed being built without taking the concerns of local residents into account. Some of the efforts were even racist in their intent.

Today gentrification is a huge problem. It's often happening in urban areas where there isn't some new super highway being built. The process just happens on a building by building basis. With a super highway project like the ICC there has to be concern for residents who could be displaced and complete follow-thru to get them re-housed without it wrecking them financially.

Whether or not the I-49 ICC is built any time soon the Shreveport city government could target various dilapidated buildings in the Allendale area for demolition. Many cities have "D & D Lists" of dangerous and dilapidated buildings. Here in Lawton dozens of junked out structures have been demolished and cleared. They even tore down a shopping plaza called Midtown Square because it was such an eye sore. Usually these buildings are abandoned by owners and don't have any working utilities. The buildings may have squatters living there and be a source of criminal activity.

Anyway, the folks trying to block the I-49 ICC need to do quite a bit more than just build a token apartment building at the edge of a freeway to freeway interchange.

Quote from: sprjus4I'm not necessarily opposed should they chose to build it, but it certainly is questionable being a "priority" over other sorely needed projects in the lower part of the state. I-10 and I-12 should be six lanes across the state, along with a bypass of Baton Rouge, before this gets built.

The ICC in Shreveport is a considerably easier project to build than the I-49 connector in Lafayette. The ICC is small in scale to replacing those long I-10 bridges over the swamps between Lafayette, Baton Rouge and New Orleans -especially if we're talking about expanding the capacity to 3x3 lanes.

It should be noted, though, that the I-69 southern extension wasn't proposed until 1998, so no freeway proposal was ever considered south of downtown Indianapolis. Routing it around I-465 is a much better solution anyway, as it uses a preexisting freeway instead of completely piercing the heart of the city with mostly new-terrain routing.

As for the ICC, it certainly is one of the most badly-needed freeways in not just LA or the South, but in the entire nation. We can worry about Texarkana-Ft. Smith (the biggest piece of the puzzle) later, and even Lafayette-New Orleans, but right now, the ICC is the single most urgent priority in the ongoing I-49 saga.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2024, 10:44:47 PM
A thru I-49 connection could help spark a lot of new development in downtown Shreveport as well as improve the Allendale neighborhood. One of the motivations is bringing more employers into that general downtown area, thus providing more job opportunities, particularly to residents living in that immediate area.

So... a downtown boxed in by I-20 (a major east-west interstate highway), I-220 to the north, and nearby I-49 connecting to both the north and south just isn't enough?

Why is this small I-49 urban freeway the piece that is needed to revitalize the area? The area in question has immediate access to I-20, I-220, and I-49 South, and close access to I-49 North... any redevelopment can already happen today without this magical 3 mile segment that will save northeast Louisiana.

Quote
The ICC in Shreveport is a considerably easier project to build than the I-49 connector in Lafayette.

And yet the cost estimates are still north of $1 billion. I wouldn't exactly call it easy. Especially when this is the same state who's cash-strapped and at a standstill on where to proceed with a $2 billion bridge in Lake Charles on a major east-west interstate (I-10) that is old, falling apart, and congested. If this ICC project is Louisiana's priority over anything on I-10... their priorities are seriously misplaced.

Quote from: Henry on January 03, 2024, 11:13:25 PM
As for the ICC, it certainly is one of the most badly-needed freeways in not just LA or the South, but in the entire nation. We can worry about Texarkana-Ft. Smith (the biggest piece of the puzzle) later, and even Lafayette-New Orleans, but right now, the ICC is the single most urgent priority in the ongoing I-49 saga.

Sure... I'll believe that  :-D

If you're dismissing Lafayette-New Orleans and Texarkana-Fort Smith, then I-49 is virtually complete. The only "gap" is as much as I-95 isn't complete through Washington, I-69 / I-74 isn't complete through Indianapolis, I-70 isn't complete through Baltimore... you just take the beltways around the city and stay on 60+ mph freeways. Adds a couple miles. It's not a "most badly-needed freeway" in any regard.

Quote from: sprjus4So... a downtown boxed in by I-20 (a major east-west interstate highway), I-220 to the north, and nearby I-49 connecting to both the north and south just isn't enough?

I already explained the advantages earlier. I repeat myself too often as it is. BTW, it's a slog getting to I-220 from downtown Shreveport via US-71. So I wouldn't imply I-220 is serving the central area of Shreveport.

Quote from: sprjus4And yet the cost estimates are still north of $1 billion. I wouldn't exactly call it easy. Especially when this is the same state who's cash-strapped and at a standstill on where to proceed with a $2 billion bridge in Lake Charles on a major east-west interstate (I-10) that is old, falling apart, and congested.

None of these Interstate projects in Louisiana can be funded totally on the state's dime. Even at a billion dollars the ICC is still the least costly out of that list. Making I-10 3x3 lanes across Louisiana could cost well over ten times as much, if not even more. The Lafayette I-49 project and I-49 South are both larger in scale than the ICC.

There is a better than decent chance none of this stuff will get built because the costs are so friggin' high and out of control. It's long overdue for these construction companies and engineers to innovate in the direction of saving some damned money and making things more efficient. Of course lawyers are a big source of the cost problem too.

Like I said, the government of the state of Louisiana is going to have to come with a lot of new money through increased taxes coupled with fed money or half of this stuff won't ever get built. Hell damn near every major freeway in Shreveport needs to be rebuilt.

This doesn't even address what to do with I-10 in NOLA.

the original I-69 would have overlapped the already existing divided highway SR 37 now known as binford blvd. it would have went down to the north split with 65/70, then continued south as a 4th leg of the downtown inner loop to 465 using the harding street corridor the 4th leg was cancelled due to the white river and railroad tracks being in the way. having that would have been nice due to the amount of traffic the NE side has. they decided not to do this with the recent connection likely due to obvious opposition from residents. only 3 miles of this route to downtown would have displaced residents, the rest was essentially already built.

Considering there's little chance of Arkansas even starting on anything between Fort Smith and Texarkana this decade, I don't see any urgency to the ICC.  If that is going to somehow open the floodgates of traffic between Kansas City and the Gulf, it ain't happening any time soon.  So I agree with those who say Louisiana has more urgent highway needs than the ICC at this point in time.  Plenty of examples given already.

You mean, like, every other state in the country doesn't have revenue for transportation funding?

Louisiana's share for funding the ICC as a whole, based on 90/10 Federal funding, would be around $80 - $100 million dollars. The state share of funding for the Lafayette Connector alone would be around $150 million. Also, once the Lafayette Connector is approved environmentally, they can break the project down into segments that can be funded separately (like they are already doing with the Willow Street interchange and Kaliste Saloom Road interchanges) as funding is gradually acquired. It is NOT as if Louisiana is going to fund these projects completely with state funding entirely.

Also, you can segment the ICC so that the segment north of Hearne Avenue or even Caddo-Ford can be built first while engineering and design is completed for the other half segment to I-20.

Even as broke as Mississippi is, some of you still want them to upgrade US 61 to Greenville so you can have your favored I-69 routing; and even fund a new bridge crossing in South Memphis. Louisiana at least has some sembulence of revenue stream for transportation funds from oil revenues, yet you're telling me we can't fund completing I-49 to NOLA?

Oh, and widening I-10 in Baton Rouge is already under construction and fully funded. We're talking about funding for the future.

In addition, they are only doing environmental and design work for the ICC right now. No construction can even be thought about until NEPA approval is given, and that is still probably a year out given the EIS process. Only after the ROD is approved can they even file for Federal funding, since NEPA approval is required for Federal funding to begin with.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 03, 2024, 11:23:34 PM

Quote from: Henry on January 03, 2024, 11:13:25 PM
As for the ICC, it certainly is one of the most badly-needed freeways in not just LA or the South, but in the entire nation. We can worry about Texarkana-Ft. Smith (the biggest piece of the puzzle) later, and even Lafayette-New Orleans, but right now, the ICC is the single most urgent priority in the ongoing I-49 saga.

Sure... I'll believe that  :-D

If you're dismissing Lafayette-New Orleans and Texarkana-Fort Smith, then I-49 is virtually complete. The only "gap" is as much as I-95 isn't complete through Washington, I-69 / I-74 isn't complete through Indianapolis, I-70 isn't complete through Baltimore... you just take the beltways around the city and stay on 60+ mph freeways. Adds a couple miles. It's not a "most badly-needed freeway" in any regard.

Apparently, the authorities in Shreveport and Lafayette or even the state of Louisiana don't share that opinion, since they are pushing hard for both the ICC and I-49 South.

Also, segments of I-49 South along US 90 and the Westbank Expressway are already at Interstate standards and completed. You think the elevated segment of US 90 from Morgan City to Raceland was built just for lolz, or that the bulk of US 90 from Broussard to Berwick were built for future upgradability to Interstate standards to worship the spirit of Huey Long and Edwin Edwards? If they didn't really think that this was needed, then why go through all that effort and fund the TIMED program to fund those projects? 

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 04, 2024, 12:17:36 PM
You mean, like, every other state in the country doesn't have revenue for transportation funding?

Louisiana's share for funding the ICC as a whole, based on 90/10 Federal funding, would be around $80 - $100 million dollars. The state share of funding for the Lafayette Connector alone would be around $150 million. Also, once the Lafayette Connector is approved environmentally, they can break the project down into segments that can be funded separately (like they are already doing with the Willow Street interchange and Kaliste Saloom Road interchanges) as funding is gradually acquired. It is NOT as if Louisiana is going to fund these projects completely with state funding entirely.

Where's the money then? They've been talking about this project for a couple decades now, if not longer. Seems like a huge priority for the state.

Quoteyet you're telling me we can't fund completing I-49 to NOLA?

Did I say that? A lot of progress has been made on US-90, with more slowly progressing.

QuoteOh, and widening I-10 in Baton Rouge is already under construction and fully funded. We're talking about funding for the future.

How's that bridge replacement project in Lake Charles going? Where's all that federal money?

Or the outdated and crumpling interchange / viaduct structure that is a massive bottleneck in Baton Rouge?

QuoteIn addition, they are only doing environmental and design work for the ICC right now. No construction can even be thought about until NEPA approval is given, and that is still probably a year out given the EIS process. Only after the ROD is approved can they even file for Federal funding, since NEPA approval is required for Federal funding to begin with.

Didn't they do an EIS like 20 years ago? Or is this still the original EIS, still not complete? Where was the funding then?

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 04, 2024, 12:26:05 PM
Apparently, the authorities in Shreveport and Lafayette or even the state of Louisiana don't share that opinion, since they are pushing hard for both the ICC and I-49 South.

They can talk a big talk, let's see some ground broken, money spent, bridges put up, then I'll believe it.

QuoteAlso, segments of I-49 South along US 90 and the Westbank Expressway are already at Interstate standards and completed. You think the elevated segment of US 90 from Morgan City to Raceland was built just for lolz, or that the bulk of US 90 from Broussard to Berwick were built for future upgradability to Interstate standards to worship the spirit of Huey Long and Edwin Edwards? If they didn't really think that this was needed, then why go through all that effort and fund the TIMED program to fund those projects? 

Again... did I ever mention anything against upgrading US-90 to New Orleans? That's not even relevant here?

I thought we agreed to stop arguing about this.

The one thing that is beyond any doubt is that the ICC is still a decade away from completion (if ever).

Likewise a lot of other projects (including the calcasieu bridge in L.C.)

Regardless of the conclusions we reach here, it is up to people in Baton Rouge to make the decisions with the input of local and regional groups (not us) .


For crying out loud!