I-49 Inner-city Connector(Shreveport)

[Some one]

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.

[silverback1065]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[Strider]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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

[sprjus4]

No, completing the ICC will not add significant usage to the Inner Loop or I-220.

Nobody said it would.

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

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.

and 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?

Those 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.

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.

Outside 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.

You 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.

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.

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?

and 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.

[Anthony_JK]

No, completing the ICC will not add significant usage to the Inner Loop or I-220.

Nobody said it would.

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

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.

and 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?

Those 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.

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.

Outside 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.

You 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.

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.

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?

and 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.

[Strider]

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.

[sprjus4]

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?

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.

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.

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.

It 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?

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.

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.

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?

Did I propose tearing down any interstates in Shreveport?

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

Where? The freeway already exists.

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.

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.

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!

[Bobby5280]

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.

[sprjus4]

.
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.

[bwana39]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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

[Henry]

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:

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

Good News!

[Strider]

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.

[bwana39]

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...

[Strider]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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)

[Bobby5280]

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.

[bwana39]

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.

[Ted$8roadFan]

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

[Strider]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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.