I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[vdeane]

^ 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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[Henry]

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).

[Bobby5280]

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.

[triplemultiplex]

"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?

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[bwana39]

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.

[triplemultiplex]

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? 

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[bwana39]

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.

[Henry]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[sprjus4]

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?

[Anthony_JK]

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)

[bwana39]

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

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.

[sprjus4]

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

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.

[DJStephens]

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.   

[Anthony_JK]

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)

[The Ghostbuster]

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

[Rothman]

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?

[Some one]

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.

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.