I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)

[bassoon1986]

You know; I am sure I seem like a know-it-all, I don't.

I have looked at the existing I-49 / I-220 intersection and I cannot see for the life of me where the Inner City Connector would come out of it.

I've got 2 images that may help out. The first from aaroads and the second from bayoubrief.com

49 will turn more southward instead of continuing SW through the I-220 interchange. The second image shows the path still to be chosen through the Allendale neighborhood just west of downtown Shreveport.






iPhone

[bwana39]

You know; I am sure I seem like a know-it-all, I don't.

I have looked at the existing I-49 / I-220 intersection and I cannot see for the life of me where the Inner City Connector would come out of it.

I've got 2 images that may help out. The first from aaroads and the second from bayoubrief.com

49 will turn more southward instead of continuing SW through the I-220 interchange. The second image shows the path still to be chosen through the Allendale neighborhood just west of downtown Shreveport.

It seems the mainlanes of I-49 would have to be the top level of the stack.  I drive through here several times a week and  I just cannot find a gap at any lower level even skewing more to the east.

[mgk920]

Eyeballing the Google Streetview images of the area, it looks to me like there is plenty of room between the EB I-220 to NB I-49 ramp and the I-220 mainline roadways for another level of bridges, those being for the future I-49 mainline.

Mike

[Grzrd]

The I-69 frontage road (also known as the I-49 Port Connector project) is moving along slowly, but Stage 0 of the environmental process should be completed by the New Year. NLCOG's June 19 draft minutes indicate that:

http://www.nlcog.org/Meetings/FY_2020/MPO/June_19_2020/June_19_2020_MPO_Minutes.pdf

The Draft Minutes also indicate that  an Open House for the LA 3132 extension has been delayed because of COVID.

A Feb. 22 TV video discusses these projects:

https://www.ksla.com/2019/02/23/nwla-leaders-briefed-mega-projects/

[Grzrd]

http://www.nlcog.org/Meetings/FY_2020/MPO/June_19_2020/June_19_2020_MPO_Minutes.pdf
The Draft Minutes also indicate that  an Open House for the LA 3132 extension has been delayed because of COVID.

I forgot to mention that the Open House is for the general public to review the Environmental Assessment, which can be found here:

http://www.nlcoglistens.com/document/la-3132-ext-environmental-assessment

[bwana39]

At least as of now, it appears the I-49 port connector (AKA I-69 frontage road) is to a point that they have the funding in place unless state funding is reduced.  It connects I-49 to the Shreveport side of the port of Shreveport / Bossier

https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/direct-access-highway-from-the-port-to-i-49-is-in-the-works/article_4fa2a2f4-8da6-11eb-b125-4f19cf09fc3b.html

[TheBox]

Nothing new here, just posting the images for reminder

[kernals12]

Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

[sparker]

Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

Aside from the fact that it's a direct extension of existing I-49 and the shortest alternative, one of the rationales for not simply rerouting I-49 over I-220 and Loop 3132 is the Cross Lake bridge on I-220; if the rerouted through traffic were to increase, it might be necessary to widen/rebuild that bridge, which traverses Shreveport's main water supply.  Apparently there are measures built into the existing bridges to keep refuse and detritus from bridge automotive traffic out of the reservoir below; widening the bridge would entail not only rebuilding the oil/waste collection system but expose the reservoir to construction debris.  I-49 wasn't even on anyone's mind, save LADOT, back in the '70's when I-220 was opened to traffic, so ready provisions for expansion weren't built into the facility. 

[kernals12]

Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

Aside from the fact that it's a direct extension of existing I-49 and the shortest alternative, one of the rationales for not simply rerouting I-49 over I-220 and Loop 3132 is the Cross Lake bridge on I-220; if the rerouted through traffic were to increase, it might be necessary to widen/rebuild that bridge, which traverses Shreveport's main water supply.  Apparently there are measures built into the existing bridges to keep refuse and detritus from bridge automotive traffic out of the reservoir below; widening the bridge would entail not only rebuilding the oil/waste collection system but expose the reservoir to construction debris.  I-49 wasn't even on anyone's mind, save LADOT, back in the '70's when I-220 was opened to traffic, so ready provisions for expansion weren't built into the facility.

Okay thanks.

[sprjus4]

^ In addition, both interchanges with I-49 would need a complete reconstruction in order to provide continuity for the route. That would be a costly expense in of itself, along with mainline widening to six or more lanes along the entire loop.

[bwana39]

Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

It isn't but a handful of homes. There is an apartment complex that was built solely to thwart the freeway construction. South of Caddo / Ford street what is in the path is mostly derelict (even those that are still inhabited.)  North of Ford (about 5 blocks total) there are some homes that would be affected. I really don't know how many are actually owner occupied.  Most of the path is either along a former rail line or over a flood plane.


Locally, the  main reason for opposition is really the idea that the money would be better (for the community) spent on other things. Most of the opposition is from outside agitators and locals who want to use the arguments to increase their position or power.

[kernals12]

Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

It isn't but a handful of homes. There is an apartment complex that was built solely to thwart the freeway construction. South of Caddo / Ford street what is in the path is mostly derelict (even those that are still inhabited.)  North of Ford (about 5 blocks total) there are some homes that would be affected. I really don't know how many are actually owner occupied.  Most of the path is either along a former rail line or over a flood plane.


Locally, the  main reason for opposition is really the idea that the money would be better (for the community) spent on other things. Most of the opposition is from outside agitators and locals who want to use the arguments to increase their position or power.

But the people nearby the highway will suffer from noise and pollution, especially as this road will have lots of truck traffic

[Thegeet]

Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

It isn't but a handful of homes. There is an apartment complex that was built solely to thwart the freeway construction. South of Caddo / Ford street what is in the path is mostly derelict (even those that are still inhabited.)  North of Ford (about 5 blocks total) there are some homes that would be affected. I really don't know how many are actually owner occupied.  Most of the path is either along a former rail line or over a flood plane.


Locally, the  main reason for opposition is really the idea that the money would be better (for the community) spent on other things. Most of the opposition is from outside agitators and locals who want to use the arguments to increase their position or power.

But the people nearby the highway will suffer from noise and pollution, especially as this road will have lots of truck traffic

I believe they can construct sound barriers, if it does become a problem in the future.

[Anthony_JK]

Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

Aside from the fact that it's a direct extension of existing I-49 and the shortest alternative, one of the rationales for not simply rerouting I-49 over I-220 and Loop 3132 is the Cross Lake bridge on I-220; if the rerouted through traffic were to increase, it might be necessary to widen/rebuild that bridge, which traverses Shreveport's main water supply.  Apparently there are measures built into the existing bridges to keep refuse and detritus from bridge automotive traffic out of the reservoir below; widening the bridge would entail not only rebuilding the oil/waste collection system but expose the reservoir to construction debris.  I-49 wasn't even on anyone's mind, save LADOT, back in the '70's when I-220 was opened to traffic, so ready provisions for expansion weren't built into the facility. 

In addition to what Sparker said, re-routing I-49 along the LA 3132/I-220 "Loop It" route would bring some issues with Federal Interstate standards. The south interchange between I-49 and LA 3132 would have to be totally rebuilt; it's currently a 4-level stack, but would have to be significantly modified to allow the transfer of the through movements from existing I-49 to the south to the Inner Loop to the west/northwest. The Linwood Avenue interchange with the Inner Loop may have to be closed due to interchange spacing requirements due to its proximity to the I-49 interchange, seriously impacting local access. In addition, there is a sharp curve just before the Inner Loop/I-20/I-220(W) interchange that would have to be eased in order to meet Federal Interstate standards. Alongside with having to widen I-220 over Cross Lake and threaten Shreveport's/Bossier City's drinking water supply, that's one of the biggest advantages of the central alignment, besides its direct and short connection filling the I-49 gap (all respect to the impacts on Allendale, of course).

[Strider]

Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

Aside from the fact that it's a direct extension of existing I-49 and the shortest alternative, one of the rationales for not simply rerouting I-49 over I-220 and Loop 3132 is the Cross Lake bridge on I-220; if the rerouted through traffic were to increase, it might be necessary to widen/rebuild that bridge, which traverses Shreveport's main water supply.  Apparently there are measures built into the existing bridges to keep refuse and detritus from bridge automotive traffic out of the reservoir below; widening the bridge would entail not only rebuilding the oil/waste collection system but expose the reservoir to construction debris.  I-49 wasn't even on anyone's mind, save LADOT, back in the '70's when I-220 was opened to traffic, so ready provisions for expansion weren't built into the facility. 

In addition to what Sparker said, re-routing I-49 along the LA 3132/I-220 "Loop It" route would bring some issues with Federal Interstate standards. The south interchange between I-49 and LA 3132 would have to be totally rebuilt; it's currently a 4-level stack, but would have to be significantly modified to allow the transfer of the through movements from existing I-49 to the south to the Inner Loop to the west/northwest. The Linwood Avenue interchange with the Inner Loop may have to be closed due to interchange spacing requirements due to its proximity to the I-49 interchange, seriously impacting local access. In addition, there is a sharp curve just before the Inner Loop/I-20/I-220(W) interchange that would have to be eased in order to meet Federal Interstate standards. Alongside with having to widen I-220 over Cross Lake and theaten Shreveport's/Bossier City's drinking water supply, that's one of the biggest advantages of the central alignment, besides its direct and short connection filling the I-49 gap (all respect to the impacts on Allendale, of course).

I don't think I-49 is going to be built through that community. There are strong opposition in that area. Loop it is the best method. IMO.

[sprjus4]

^ Not really... it seems the majority of the opposition is coming from outside RE/T groups.

[bwana39]

Can someone give me a TLDR explanation for why they need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and demolish dozens of home for a new North-South freeway through Shreveport when there's a perfectly good existing one that could just be re-signed?

Yes, this is one of those rare freeway projects that makes me skeptical.

Aside from the fact that it's a direct extension of existing I-49 and the shortest alternative, one of the rationales for not simply rerouting I-49 over I-220 and Loop 3132 is the Cross Lake bridge on I-220; if the rerouted through traffic were to increase, it might be necessary to widen/rebuild that bridge, which traverses Shreveport's main water supply.  Apparently there are measures built into the existing bridges to keep refuse and detritus from bridge automotive traffic out of the reservoir below; widening the bridge would entail not only rebuilding the oil/waste collection system but expose the reservoir to construction debris.  I-49 wasn't even on anyone's mind, save LADOT, back in the '70's when I-220 was opened to traffic, so ready provisions for expansion weren't built into the facility. 

In addition to what Sparker said, re-routing I-49 along the LA 3132/I-220 "Loop It" route would bring some issues with Federal Interstate standards. The south interchange between I-49 and LA 3132 would have to be totally rebuilt; it's currently a 4-level stack, but would have to be significantly modified to allow the transfer of the through movements from existing I-49 to the south to the Inner Loop to the west/northwest. The Linwood Avenue interchange with the Inner Loop may have to be closed due to interchange spacing requirements due to its proximity to the I-49 interchange, seriously impacting local access. In addition, there is a sharp curve just before the Inner Loop/I-20/I-220(W) interchange that would have to be eased in order to meet Federal Interstate standards. Alongside with having to widen I-220 over Cross Lake and theaten Shreveport's/Bossier City's drinking water supply, that's one of the biggest advantages of the central alignment, besides its direct and short connection filling the I-49 gap (all respect to the impacts on Allendale, of course).

I don't think I-49 is going to be built through that community. There are strong opposition in that area. Loop it is the best method. IMO.

Loop it (as opposed to a true NO-BUILD option) will result in MORE displacement, more turmoil, more.... LA-3132 has been called the WORST condition freeway in the USA. It would have to be totally rebuilt. Both LA-3132 and I-220 are already jammed and I-49 north of Texarkana is still years away. They would badly need to be widened. It would probably cost more to revamp the Cross Lake crossing than the entire cost of the ICC. To widen LA-3132 between I-49 and Jewella would create displacements too. There would likely be a few along I-220 between I-20 and Cross Lake.  "Loop it" is a billion dollar plus proposal.  No build which some seem to confuse with Loop IT has real capacity issues. Both of them also thwart the desire to get the HC off of I-220 across Cross Lake.

While the effects to Allendale will probably be less, the effects to both Shreveport in general and to minority communities will be as great (probably greater) than building I-49 through. If through frontage roads were built along Allen Avenue and Pete Harris from Murphy to Ford / Caddo it will do more for Allendale than anything that is going to happen with nothing coming through.

This idea of a walkable through boulevard here or for I-345 in Dallas , or anywhere else is almost laughable. Right now there is enough traffic along Ford street that it is not "walkable" . The oft discussed through Boulevard connected to freeways on both ends will just have truck traffic rendering it less walkable or crossable than it already is.  Allendale was already divided by the intraurban railroad. This long abandoned rail routing created a divide long before any thought of this. The northern portion has more homes.

Does Allendale need revitalized?  Yes. If this road is not built it isn't going to happen. It might not happen if it is.  Would the people of Allendale benefit if the cost of building the freeway were spent on community development in Allendale? If it were done well, yes. If not no. To make a difference, it will mean pouring funds into repair and replacement of privately owned housing units.  What is generally done is subsidizing rents in homes and apartments. The outcome is slightly better housing conditions, but none of the real generational wealth increase that comes with home ownership. Rental assistance is a short term solution for the renter, but it has no long term benefit for them. Any long-term benefits of rental assistance is all for the property owners. Even there, the real benefit is for the original developer with subsequent owners having diminishing profitability as the renters tend to lack investment in the property and the landlords try to squeeze every penny out of the property through lessened maintenance standards and unsustainable rent price increases, then blame all of the problems on the tenants.
One of the problems is the economic model that says a usable real property NEVER diminishes in cost. This translates to landlords buying for at least what it was previously sold for regardless of the condition when the previous price,  plus inflation, adjusted for property conditions should have been the cost. By corollary, rents NEVER decrease. 

I could spend hours discussing the economics of poverty.  The bottom line is that if the residents of Allendale expected to be fairly remunerated in this process the opposition would be minimal. The bottom line is renters will get the short straw in this or any relocation deal. Their rent WILL go up after a short term that the cost is similar to their current rental cost. Resident owners will get a value for their current home that is far below replacement cost.  This is the real disconnect in the equation. There are ways to adequately relocate the people without the state and the community both taking it on the chin. What inevitably happens is the owners of woefully inadequate rental properties will expect the same treatment and there is no way to pay them using a different formula.

[triplemultiplex]

I don't buy the water supply rationale.  There's already a freeway crossing it.  I-49 traffic is already using it.  Adding signs will change nothing about that.
I-220/LA 3132 is already the default I-49 thru route.  Is this not functional?

In a world of limited resources, Louisiana would be better off putting I-49 money to work down south; pick up the painfully slow freeway conversion pace down there between Nola and Lafayette.

[sparker]

I don't buy the water supply rationale.  There's already a freeway crossing it.  I-49 traffic is already using it.  Adding signs will change nothing about that.
I-220/LA 3132 is already the default I-49 thru route.  Is this not functional?

In a world of limited resources, Louisiana would be better off putting I-49 money to work down south; pick up the painfully slow freeway conversion pace down there between Nola and Lafayette.

Adding signage is the least of the worries; as stated previously, the Cross Lake bridges were designed specifically so road runoff would be shunted elsewhere and not into the reservoir being crossed; if traffic coming and going from I-49 north wouldn't be enough to result in congestion -- subsequently fomenting plans for I-220 (49) expansion -- then there wouldn't be a problem for the time being; only the substandard portions of Loop 3132 would have to be brought up to standard.  But that probably won't be the case; a "loop it" scenario will likely caused increased congestion over time around the loop and its various interchanges, causing a revisiting of the Cross Lake bridges.  Point to ponder:  the presence of a freeway loop doesn't mean it's appropriate as an Interstate alternate alignment; in this case, there's a lot of substandard features (I know, I've driven 3132 several times) that will need addressing.  All that will have to be weighed against the issues with the direct in-town alignment (although it's likely that some parties to that discussion have already made up their minds).

[bwana39]

I don't buy the water supply rationale.  There's already a freeway crossing it.  I-49 traffic is already using it.  Adding signs will change nothing about that.
I-220/LA 3132 is already the default I-49 thru route.  Is this not functional?

In a world of limited resources, Louisiana would be better off putting I-49 money to work down south; pick up the painfully slow freeway conversion pace down there between Nola and Lafayette.

Is this not functional?  With the current traffic loads barely. When I-49 is extended to Fort Smith, the traffic load will likely increase significantly. As it is, the traffic is pretty significant on LA 3132/ I -220. It moves MOSTLY. 

You also need to look at the north to south traffic through Shreveport (admittedly mostly Bossier City). From a local perspective, it would alleviate the gridlock crossing the I-20 Red River Bridge (it backs up as much as 1/4 mile onto I-49 and past I-49 on I-20 EB...  both over 2 miles.) then both Benton Road and Airline Drive are congested from I-20 to I-220 going to North Bossier.

I-49 / US-90. How long do you perceive the ICC to be? It is to be about 5 miles. There is a bigger problem spot in Lafayette alone much less all the way from Lafayette to New Orleans.  Or are you talking about I-10?

Still five miles is negligible as a cost transfer.

Sparker talks about the design the MINIMIZE the possibility of contamination of Cross Lake. Both sides tilt inward (kind of a reverse hog-back) to have the runoff etc drain into a collection pan and then off the bridge to the shore. But the outboard sides CAN spill if the contaminate were to have significant volume. Those ports are currently covered with sand bags. Real safety from contamination!

[bassoon1986]

My thing is...why was I-49 ever built through central Shreveport (between LA 3132 Inner Loop and I-20) if it was never going to be constructed north of that point? Especially now that I-49 has been constructed down to I-220.

Those 3.5 miles between I-20 and I-220 are mostly empty land. Only 1.5 or so are through the Allendale neighborhood. I'm not saying  that neighborhood is not important but it's definitely not an Overton Park/I-40 situation like Memphis or examples like those.

And it's not only the argument about I-49 using LA 3132 and I-220 as the Loop option with Cross Lake as the issue. I-49 completed north south through the center of downtown Shreveport will relieve LA 3132 traffic. The combined I-220/LA 3132 loop from north to south Shreveport is a combination of local traffic and long range. Having grown up north of Shreveport, it was very common to use I-220 to the west and LA 3132 to south Shreveport to get to the Youree Dr (LA 1) and Bert Kouns (LA 526) area of businesses. LA 3132 is very frequently the cutoff for Louisiana travelers going westward to Texas and vice versa.


iPhone

[bwana39]

My thing is…why was I-49 ever built through central Shreveport (between LA 3132 Inner Loop and I-20) if it was never going to be constructed north of that point? Especially now that I-49 has been constructed down to I-220.

Those 3.5 miles between I-20 and I-220 are mostly empty land. Only 1.5 or so are through the Allendale neighborhood. I’m not saying  that neighborhood is not important but it’s definitely not an Overton Park/I-40 situation like Memphis or examples like those.

And it’s not only the argument about I-49 using LA 3132 and I-220 as the Loop option with Cross Lake as the issue. I-49 completed north south through the center of downtown Shreveport will relieve LA 3132 traffic. The combined I-220/LA 3132 loop from north to south Shreveport is a combination of local traffic and long range. Having grown up north of Shreveport, it was very common to use I-220 to the west and LA 3132 to south Shreveport to get to the Youree Dr (LA 1) and Bert Kouns (LA 526) area of businesses. LA 3132 is very frequently the cutoff for Louisiana travelers going westward to Texas and vice versa.


iPhone

I think money was the issue. They used it up . When I-49 was built it was thought the Casinos were going to solve every money problem Louisiana ever had. There would be plenty of money as soon as the doors opened. It would just be a couple of years and they would have plenty of money to build I-49 ICC and probably more.

Here we are 27 years later. Louisiana is still broke. The Casinos in South Mississippi are still a bigger draw. The casinos in Oklahoma are doing well an hour and a half from DFW vs 3 hours plus to Shreveport  / Bossier.

It was a moot point until I-49 opened to the north. Traffic actually did go west to US-59 to get to Texarkana (not all of it, but a significant portion.) Now it goes on around and takes i-49.

Local traffic is still a big component of why this road needs built.

[edwaleni]

Why did they allow a private developer (Renaissance at Allendale) build a multi-unit development right smack dab in the middle of where the proposed ROW would go through?

Why weren't they buying and reserving property? 

The area the route would plow through is a low income area and while it would be inexpensive to buy the land, it would destroy the neighborhood irreparably.

Simply because they didn't think anyone would try to take I-49 any further.

Accept the facts, route the badge around the city, rename the urban route I-149 and move on.

Destroying local neighborhoods so some trucks can cut 5-8 minutes off their route is not worth it.

[sprjus4]

^ Constructing a new route overtop mostly undeveloped land on the edge of a community is not "destroying a neighborhood"  - accept the facts.

IIRC, more opposition seems to come from the outside than the inside itself - there's actually local support for the project. Accept the facts.