Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bwana39]

I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face . 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.

[abqtraveler]

I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face . 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.

[bassoon1986]

I dont know if anyone has suggested this but the solution to this whole project has been staring you in the face . 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

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[Bobby5280]

The people in Allendale feel (and are likely right) that the same expenditure spent on non-transportation issues would be of far greater benefit to Allendale and to the city as a whole. (You could tear down and replace around 3,000 substandard homes and replace them with 1K sq ft houses. More if you had the families finance part of it.)

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

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

The positive thing about building the ICC is it will improve traffic flow/capacity thru that part of Shreveport, making the location more convenient. That in turn will encourage more business development there. That means more jobs and opportunity for that location.

[Plutonic Panda]

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."

[Anthony_JK]

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.

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.

[MikieTimT]

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.

[Bobby5280]

Why is this? I mean surely given the demand for affordable housing there is a way to build single family homes and make a profit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no housing crisis in the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bwana39]

Why is this? I mean surely given the demand for affordable housing there is a way to build single family homes and make a profit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no housing crisis in the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bobby5280]

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.

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

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

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

For one thing there is a spectrum of poverty affecting people in a range of circumstances. Mentally ill homeless people are on one end of that spectrum. People working one or more jobs and struggling to afford basics are on the other end. Plenty of Americans who technically are not in poverty are barely getting by. Some poverty is self-inflicted via drug abuse, gambling addiction, being foolishly stupid while young, etc. American popular culture and some of the bullshit it romanticizes sure isn't helping. We have growing income-class rifts due to several factors. The high and ever-rising cost of college education is an obvious one increasing the class divide.

[bassoon1986]

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.




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.




iPhone

[Bobby5280]

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.

[MikieTimT]

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.

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[bwana39]

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.