AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)  (Read 200381 times)

bassoon1986

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1314
  • Finish I-49 north in LA!

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Woodworth, LA
  • Last Login: October 02, 2022, 04:20:43 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #350 on: August 17, 2021, 07:07:13 PM »

So I post today in this thread and then see this article in Shreveport. Apparently Shreveport still sees a future of I-69 if they expect the LA 3132 extension to link up with it:

https://www.ktbs.com/news/preferred-route-of-hwy-3132-extension-between-neighborhoods-to-get-public-airing/article_21b9d0f6-feee-11eb-9218-37e3a3d13601.html?fbclid=IwAR3sb6A15gBsFDnewaI9HG8fRRc4L3TmJL2_SZmISY7Nsqflqyh1oQeCXqA




iPhone
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #351 on: August 17, 2021, 08:29:30 PM »

Taking this back to its actual intended topic....

I assume there has been no update whatsoever on whether LaDOTD and TxDOT have resolved their differences on doing an EIS for the Tenaha to Shreveport segment, right?

If that segment manages to get nuked, then what becomes of the section of I-69 through suburban Shreveport? An I-x49 connector?

If by chance the I-69 segment crossing the TX/LA line disappears, it's likely that TxDOT would petition to extend I-69 up the I-369 alignment as far as I-20, with the intention of multiplexing I-69 over I-20 to east of Shreveport, where it would diverge north toward AR.  If the Shreveport section -- at least the SE arc between I-49 and I-20 is retained as a local freeway loop, it may or may not get an Interstate number; as a southern extension of I-69 from the eastern I-20 divergence point, it would likely be a x69 if remaining an Interstate corridor.  But then again LADOT could just keep it as a state loop (3134?!).

From someone who is in Louisiana far more than he wants to be and is far too intimate with Louisiana in general and Shreveport / Bossier specifically I can tell you, no one in Northwest La thinks that I-69 gets built as proposed. Lots of folks beyond the economic development types want to see it from I-49 to I-20. The thinking would be more as a farther out outer belt as opposed to a through freeway.  The difference between US59 / SH315 / US79 and the proposed routing saves a dozen miles from Nacogdoches to  Shreveport more or less. Whether you go south along I-49 to connect or west along I-20 it still is close to the same. 

As far as the EIS goes, there is not even a firm agreement where the road would go. The discussion ranges from anywhere following US-84 And crossing the river just North of Logansport to going cross country from around Timpson to Woods and crossing the Sabine entirely in Texas.  The officials and advocates in DeSoto Parish hate this more northerly routing. The Shelby County people really aren't the greatest fans. The Shelby County folks had wanted it routed east of Nacogdoches and follow SH-7  to Joaquin. That was years ago.  There was a clear-cut decision NOT to do that. Texas has supposedly offered US-79 as an alternative and the Louisiana contingent nixed that because it probably would do away with the port crossing. 

No one in Shreveport is going to Arkansas City Arkansas. The extra fifteen minutes or less to Houston do nothing for the folks in Shreveport AND as Baton Rouge to Texas on the I-10 corridor is growing immensely, Shreveport/ Bossier is growing minimally or shrinking and less white. There  is no need to trade off in the legislature, NW Louisiana has a lesser portion of the members AND Baton Rouge and Southwest LA pretty much can decide to spend money however they want.

The beauty to the Woods routing would be that there would only be around twenty miles from the state line to I-49. The Logansport route is over 30 Louisiana miles to I-49.

OK, nobody's going to Arkansas City; obviously there's an assumption here that the corridor is going to abruptly end there short of where the Dean bridge would be sited.  And equally obvious is the fact that TX and LA can't seem to agree on a state-line crossing but within TX there are mini-controversies over that issue as well; a resolution seems no closer today than it was in 1995 when I-69 was designated.  Add to that the fact that TxDOT and the quasi-official state backers appear to consider the combined 69/369 corridor completion as "job #1" (i.e. "provide a northeastern commercial egress from Houston, whatever it takes").  Thus my previous comment about simply shunting I-69 along I-20 through Shreveport/Bossier.  That change is a simple "speedbump" in the whole I-69 developmental process -- but unless there's a sea change that would prompt rethinking of the whole Shreveport-Memphis corridor segment, including cutting down the new-terrain mileage to save money and/or rerouting the Mississippi River crossing over US 82/278,  69 will split off from I-20 at or near where currently planned.  Except for not having a national rooting section for the planned Red River crossing, there probably wouldn't be too many folks who would consider the minor TX/LA reroute as particularly detrimental -- probably not TxDOT, who would simply curve I-69 north around Tenaha and not have to worry about a system interchange there, and almost definitely not LADOT, who have enough on their plate with the ICC and I-49 South.

Now -- if such a move occurs, it wouldn't be surprising if some enterprising soul suggests continuing the I-20/69 multiplex all the way to Monroe before turning north on the composite 165/425 corridor, which might make some S. Arkansas folks blanch -- but ARDOT and their LR handlers would probably capitulate to this as long as AR 530 connects to wherever the I-69 corridor ends up (that N-S "branch" seems to get more state priority than the main I-69 trunk, almost certainly because of where it goes and what it serves).  As far as the original "central" section of I-69 goes, it may fall victim to the mentality (not unjustified in today's state fiscal environments) of "chew a piece off here, realign it there, shorten it a bit, and sooner or later you might have a corridor that's workable and affordable".  At this point, I think once a first move toward that end is made, the dominoes will fall and the corridor will eventually no longer resemble the original plan but feature much less new-terrain construction. 
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: October 03, 2022, 09:07:08 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #352 on: August 17, 2021, 11:31:19 PM »

So I post today in this thread and then see this article in Shreveport. Apparently Shreveport still sees a future of I-69 if they expect the LA 3132 extension to link up with it:

https://www.ktbs.com/news/preferred-route-of-hwy-3132-extension-between-neighborhoods-to-get-public-airing/article_21b9d0f6-feee-11eb-9218-37e3a3d13601.html?fbclid=IwAR3sb6A15gBsFDnewaI9HG8fRRc4L3TmJL2_SZmISY7Nsqflqyh1oQeCXqA




iPhone


LA-3132 should go to the port regardless of the outcome of I-69. The I-49 (to the) Port Connector is in the ROW acquisition stage. This ROW will be the path of I-69 if it ever comes across from Teneha. If it doesn't there would be initially service roads then (hopefully) main lanes at least from I-49 to the port. Absent I-69, it would still be the plan to build the segments from I-20 to I-49 however they might (or might not) be labeled. The current highway access to the port is less than desirable.  Youree Drive (LA-1)  and Flournoy-Lucas Rd is not a viable conduit from the Caddo side and Barksdale Blvd (US-71) is less so on the Bossier City side.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: October 03, 2022, 09:07:08 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #353 on: August 17, 2021, 11:45:05 PM »

Taking this back to its actual intended topic....

I assume there has been no update whatsoever on whether LaDOTD and TxDOT have resolved their differences on doing an EIS for the Tenaha to Shreveport segment, right?

If that segment manages to get nuked, then what becomes of the section of I-69 through suburban Shreveport? An I-x49 connector?

If by chance the I-69 segment crossing the TX/LA line disappears, it's likely that TxDOT would petition to extend I-69 up the I-369 alignment as far as I-20, with the intention of multiplexing I-69 over I-20 to east of Shreveport, where it would diverge north toward AR.  If the Shreveport section -- at least the SE arc between I-49 and I-20 is retained as a local freeway loop, it may or may not get an Interstate number; as a southern extension of I-69 from the eastern I-20 divergence point, it would likely be a x69 if remaining an Interstate corridor.  But then again LADOT could just keep it as a state loop (3134?!).

From someone who is in Louisiana far more than he wants to be and is far too intimate with Louisiana in general and Shreveport / Bossier specifically I can tell you, no one in Northwest La thinks that I-69 gets built as proposed. Lots of folks beyond the economic development types want to see it from I-49 to I-20. The thinking would be more as a farther out outer belt as opposed to a through freeway.  The difference between US59 / SH315 / US79 and the proposed routing saves a dozen miles from Nacogdoches to  Shreveport more or less. Whether you go south along I-49 to connect or west along I-20 it still is close to the same. 

As far as the EIS goes, there is not even a firm agreement where the road would go. The discussion ranges from anywhere following US-84 And crossing the river just North of Logansport to going cross country from around Timpson to Woods and crossing the Sabine entirely in Texas.  The officials and advocates in DeSoto Parish hate this more northerly routing. The Shelby County people really aren't the greatest fans. The Shelby County folks had wanted it routed east of Nacogdoches and follow SH-7  to Joaquin. That was years ago.  There was a clear-cut decision NOT to do that. Texas has supposedly offered US-79 as an alternative and the Louisiana contingent nixed that because it probably would do away with the port crossing. 

No one in Shreveport is going to Arkansas City Arkansas. The extra fifteen minutes or less to Houston do nothing for the folks in Shreveport AND as Baton Rouge to Texas on the I-10 corridor is growing immensely, Shreveport/ Bossier is growing minimally or shrinking and less white. There  is no need to trade off in the legislature, NW Louisiana has a lesser portion of the members AND Baton Rouge and Southwest LA pretty much can decide to spend money however they want.

The beauty to the Woods routing would be that there would only be around twenty miles from the state line to I-49. The Logansport route is over 30 Louisiana miles to I-49.


I know you like the I-69 to I-20 duplex. If it ever comes to that, TXDOT will pave I-69 along US-79 to the state line around Bethany and leave it to the two-lane in Louisiana.  I know never to say never, but I-69 will never duplex with I-20 in Texas . As to IH duplexes in Texas in  general, I believe (check me if I am wrong) the longest IH Duplex in Texas will be I-10/I-45 or I-45/I-69 in Houston.  I think the current I-10 /I-45 Duplex is the current longest.  There may come a time when I-69 ends at I-20, but that would be happenstance not anything by design.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7668
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:01:40 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #354 on: August 18, 2021, 12:00:31 AM »

^ I-35 / I-10 in San Antonio is currently longer.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: October 03, 2022, 09:07:08 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #355 on: August 18, 2021, 12:03:58 AM »

Iím surprised that there really hasnít been any more interest or push from Shreveport/Bossier for I-69. Northwest LA would benefit from I-69 more than their need for a route to Memphis. If nothing else, it would give another river crossing for the Red River. The southernmost bridge in Shreveport, the Jimmie Davis bridge/LA 511 is the only 2 lane crossing and has been needing to be 4 lanes for quite some time with no avail. It also gives a little bypass from the south to a few destinations east of Bossier City by being able to skirt around Barksdale AFB. It would also greatly improve driving from Shreveport/Bossier/NWLA to Houston. US 79 is a slog until you get to Carthage, TX and can hop on 59.


iPhone

Three points:
I-49 will require a 15 mile jaunt south from I-20. Greenwood is closer.
Most don't hop on 59 in Carthage. Most of the traffic uses SH-315 so you can have fewer miles and fewer small towns. All of US-59 is 4-lane, but the bulk of the traffic chooses SH-315 and its 2-lane stretches.
A freeway from just south of Shreveport would probably get the traffic, but for those in Shreveport, the current Shreveport to Nacogdoches routing is not a deal breaker.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: October 03, 2022, 09:07:08 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #356 on: August 18, 2021, 12:15:50 AM »

^ I-35 / I-10 in San Antonio is currently longer.

You are correct. I stand corrected. And after I detailed it, both sections of the I-45 duplex together probably would not  be greater than San Antonio. I honestly showed my lack of knowledge of San Antonio.

That said it is less than six miles.  As I said elsewhere, San Antonio Freeways as a whole look different in their style than the rest of Texas. Regardless, duplexes are not the norm in Texas or even a nominally accepted exception. 
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1595
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: October 03, 2022, 11:25:20 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #357 on: August 18, 2021, 07:08:55 AM »

The problem with a US 79/I-20 routing through Shreveport for I-69 is that that would potentially increase traffic on I-20 through Shreveport, and it would kill any shot of getting I-69 access to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier -- which is the entire point of that corridor in Shreveport in the first place -- along with providing an eastern completion to the Inner Loop now that I-220 East was butchered and truncated to a portal to Barksdale AFB.

I'm guessing that the authorities will take a go-slow/wait-and-see approach as to what TXDOT decides.

It's all the more reason I favored a split alignment for I-69 in the first place:

1) Houston to Texarkana using US 59 (then I-30/I-40 to Memphis)

2) Lake Charles/Iowa to Monroe to Little Rock via US 165/US 425/AR 530/I-530 (then either US 82 to Greenville then US 61 to Memphis, or a truncated AR alignment from Monticello to Memphis using the current proposal

Let Shreveport have the ICC and an extended Inner Loop to I-20 near Haughton as a consolation prize.



Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: October 03, 2022, 09:07:08 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #358 on: August 18, 2021, 11:30:00 AM »

The problem with a US 79/I-20 routing through Shreveport for I-69 is that that would potentially increase traffic on I-20 through Shreveport, and it would kill any shot of getting I-69 access to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier -- which is the entire point of that corridor in Shreveport in the first place -- along with providing an eastern completion to the Inner Loop now that I-220 East was butchered and truncated to a portal to Barksdale AFB.

I'm guessing that the authorities will take a go-slow/wait-and-see approach as to what TXDOT decides.

It's all the more reason I favored a split alignment for I-69 in the first place:

1) Houston to Texarkana using US 59 (then I-30/I-40 to Memphis)

2) Lake Charles/Iowa to Monroe to Little Rock via US 165/US 425/AR 530/I-530 (then either US 82 to Greenville then US 61 to Memphis, or a truncated AR alignment from Monticello to Memphis using the current proposal

Let Shreveport have the ICC and an extended Inner Loop to I-20 near Haughton as a consolation prize.

In the short term, this is what it looks like.  I agree fully!

 I think from the POV of Caddo and Bossier Parishes, if they can get the ICC, The 3132 extension, and the port connector, they have a win. If they can get the port bridge and a complete loop around BAFB, it will be gravy. There is little to no expectation of I-69 actually getting built especially north of I-20 in the next 40 years or so.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7338
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: October 03, 2022, 12:42:26 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #359 on: August 18, 2021, 11:37:13 AM »

The problem with a US 79/I-20 routing through Shreveport for I-69 is that that would potentially increase traffic on I-20 through Shreveport, and it would kill any shot of getting I-69 access to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier -- which is the entire point of that corridor in Shreveport in the first place -- along with providing an eastern completion to the Inner Loop now that I-220 East was butchered and truncated to a portal to Barksdale AFB.

I'm guessing that the authorities will take a go-slow/wait-and-see approach as to what TXDOT decides.

It's all the more reason I favored a split alignment for I-69 in the first place:

1) Houston to Texarkana using US 59 (then I-30/I-40 to Memphis)

2) Lake Charles/Iowa to Monroe to Little Rock via US 165/US 425/AR 530/I-530 (then either US 82 to Greenville then US 61 to Memphis, or a truncated AR alignment from Monticello to Memphis using the current proposal

Let Shreveport have the ICC and an extended Inner Loop to I-20 near Haughton as a consolation prize.

In the short term, this is what it looks like.  I agree fully!

 I think from the POV of Caddo and Bossier Parishes, if they can get the ICC, The 3132 extension, and the port connector, they have a win. If they can get the port bridge and a complete loop around BAFB, it will be gravy. There is little to no expectation of I-69 actually getting built especially north of I-20 in the next 40 years or so.
Better to build new-terrain I-69 than use existing highways through town. I've always believed that the only way an LA 3132 extension ever gets built is to have I-69 running to the southeast, and then it will have a meaningful connection. I hope it does happen, even if I become too old to drive by then (I'll be 91 at the end of the timeline).
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #360 on: August 18, 2021, 05:07:40 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As far as a "split alignment" for I-69 goes, that was attempted by a cadre of AR congressfolks 20+ years ago with what was termed the "Dickey Split", which didn't double up on I-30 and I-40 but ran a branch up US 79 until about Stuttgart, then veered east to cross into Mississippi somewhere near the US 49 bridge.  While that was shot down, as a "consolation prize" the delegation got a I-69 branch (SIU #28) heading north from Monticello, tying in with I-530 at Pine Bluff.  Since then, a sizeable chunk of the funds obtained so far by AR for construction of their share of the I-69 corridor has gone to extending AR 530 (familiar number?) south from Pine Bluff to near the E-W I-69 alignment at Monticello; so far, construction has been 2 lanes on a 4-lane ROW, more to reserve the ROW than anything.  With that branch in place, the chances of reconsidering anything like the original Dickey Split are slim and none, particularly if the alternative simply dumps more traffic onto the already crowded I-30 and I-40 east of LR.  But the idea of continuing the trunk I-69 corridor over US 79 to I-20 than simply replacing the south end of I-369 would be convincing if not for the fact that TxDOT is already planning a massive stack interchange at the 20/369 junction just east of Marshall; it's just as likely, considering the scope -- and overall cost -- of this and other in-state corridors, they would rather save some bucks, bite their cheeks, and tolerate a multiplex of I-69 with I-20 for the few miles east of Marshall to the state line.   
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: October 03, 2022, 09:07:08 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #361 on: August 18, 2021, 11:53:34 PM »

The problem with a US 79/I-20 routing through Shreveport for I-69 is that that would potentially increase traffic on I-20 through Shreveport, and it would kill any shot of getting I-69 access to the Port of Shreveport-Bossier -- which is the entire point of that corridor in Shreveport in the first place -- along with providing an eastern completion to the Inner Loop now that I-220 East was butchered and truncated to a portal to Barksdale AFB.

I'm guessing that the authorities will take a go-slow/wait-and-see approach as to what TXDOT decides.

It's all the more reason I favored a split alignment for I-69 in the first place:

1) Houston to Texarkana using US 59 (then I-30/I-40 to Memphis)

2) Lake Charles/Iowa to Monroe to Little Rock via US 165/US 425/AR 530/I-530 (then either US 82 to Greenville then US 61 to Memphis, or a truncated AR alignment from Monticello to Memphis using the current proposal

Let Shreveport have the ICC and an extended Inner Loop to I-20 near Haughton as a consolation prize.

I-220 was always supposed to go EXACTLY where it did. Just in the seventies when it was built, it was supposed to go on through Barksdale. Sort of like US 280 through Ft Benning. After 9-11 that simply is NOT going to happen.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Dave H

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10
  • Location: Shreveport
  • Last Login: December 03, 2021, 04:13:12 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #362 on: August 19, 2021, 02:20:13 PM »

It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: October 03, 2022, 09:07:08 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #363 on: August 19, 2021, 11:02:15 PM »

It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.

It might surprise you. Since this bridge will not get built absent some miracle AND the fact that local traffic outside commercial port traffic won't really use it initially at least, I think it could happen. Sell it as a commercial bridge with little POV traffic from the locals and it might just happen.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1882
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 01, 2022, 06:51:45 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #364 on: August 20, 2021, 08:53:16 PM »

It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.

It might surprise you. Since this bridge will not get built absent some miracle AND the fact that local traffic outside commercial port traffic won't really use it initially at least, I think it could happen. Sell it as a commercial bridge with little POV traffic from the locals and it might just happen.

Dis you ask Kent(y) Rodgers if he knows how to hold 'em?
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1595
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: October 03, 2022, 11:25:20 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #365 on: August 20, 2021, 09:29:51 PM »

It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.

Doesn't a toll bridge actually require enough traffic to justify it?

Unless they also plan to build the entirity of that segment of I-69 from I-49 to I-20 near Haughton and make that a toll road, this is a major "PASS" for me.
Logged

debragga

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 160
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Monroe, Louisiana
  • Last Login: August 23, 2022, 12:00:12 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #366 on: August 20, 2021, 11:10:08 PM »

A toll bridge in S/BC sounds like a terrible idea
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 337
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 02:31:12 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #367 on: August 21, 2021, 01:46:18 AM »

If a toll road isnít a good idea, how long would it take to start construction?
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: October 03, 2022, 09:07:08 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #368 on: August 22, 2021, 11:00:47 PM »

It's been awhile since I've been on here.  Regarding the I-49 ICC, I am hoping the recent announcement and construction of an Amazon fulfillment center in north Shreveport will help drive the completion of the short segment of interstate. 

Regarding I-69 and LA 3132 extension, I attended the Aug 17 public hearing and spoke with Kent Rodgers.  He said they (LA) have the funding to move forward with the I-69 corridor service road between I-49 and Ellerbe Rd.  Regarding the 3132 extension, an interesting twist emerged at the meeting.  An Alabama based company, Tim James, Inc (https://www.timjamesinc.com/) is proposing to fund and build a new Red River toll bridge from Shreveport to Bossier.  I don't see this happening as a toll bridge won't fly with the public.


Doesn't a toll bridge actually require enough traffic to justify it?

Unless they also plan to build the entirity of that segment of I-69 from I-49 to I-20 near Haughton and make that a toll road, this is a major "PASS" for me.

I think from a governmental POV, a toll road here is less than optimal. The point was that a NGO was going to build it at their cost and operate it. Unless the local government has to guarantee the bonds to build it, it is win / win for the locals. If the locals can get hung with a default, that is something to run from like the plague. If there is no guarantee by local governments (including the Port Commission), the worst outcome is the toll road / bridge is too expensive and no one even port traffic uses it. Such a waste, but at the same time, not the worst possible outcome.

As to the Amazon warehouse / DC, there are a couple of ways to look at it. Walmart's biggest DC complex is outside of Palestine (TX) and the nearest freeway is 30 miles away (I-45 in Buffalo).

The other way is that this new DC is just a block or two away from the ICC. By the way, it makes the logical intersection be Hearne AVE, not Caddo /  Ford Street / Hilry Huckaby III Dr. which is what the locals have wanted.  That is why US-171 was truncated at Greenwood Road and re-signed as LA-3094 so it would be permittable for the intersection to NOT be Hearne.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2021, 11:05:20 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14321
  • fuck

  • Age: 14
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 09:13:14 AM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #369 on: August 23, 2021, 12:49:11 AM »

That is why US-171 was truncated at Greenwood Road and re-signed as LA-3094 so it would be permittable for the intersection to NOT be Hearne.
Not true. From Application_LA_1978_171_US:
Quote
The Route Numbering Committee and the Executive Committee of AASIITO
have examined your Department's application for the extension of U.S. 171
In Shreveport. They voted to reject your application since the route lies
entirely within the State of Louisiana and Is In violation of Policy #5
of the Purpose and Policy In the Establishment and Development of United
States Numbered Highways, a copy of which Is attached.
They have asked that you review this route with the objective In mind
of renumbering U.S. 171 as a State Route and dropping the U.S. designation.
Logged
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

I agree to indemnify Belkin against unauthorized use of its MiniVak vacuum.

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: October 03, 2022, 09:07:08 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #370 on: August 23, 2021, 08:17:55 AM »

That is why US-171 was truncated at Greenwood Road and re-signed as LA-3094 so it would be permittable for the intersection to NOT be Hearne.
Not true. From Application_LA_1978_171_US:
Quote
The Route Numbering Committee and the Executive Committee of AASIITO
have examined your Department's application for the extension of U.S. 171
In Shreveport. They voted to reject your application since the route lies
entirely within the State of Louisiana and Is In violation of Policy #5
of the Purpose and Policy In the Establishment and Development of United
States Numbered Highways, a copy of which Is attached.
They have asked that you review this route with the objective In mind
of renumbering U.S. 171 as a State Route and dropping the U.S. designation.

You appear to be correct. Maps from the fifties, seventies, and early nineties verify what you say. I was going from discussion about the ICC locally (Primarily from around a decade ago). I am ALMOST certain that when I first came to being in Shreveport regularly (25 years ago more or less) that there were 171 signs along Hearne north of Greenwood Road.

I was guilty of trusting news reports and local discussions.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4017
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 52
  • Last Login: Today at 10:24:27 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #371 on: August 23, 2021, 09:21:12 AM »

That is why US-171 was truncated at Greenwood Road and re-signed as LA-3094 so it would be permittable for the intersection to NOT be Hearne.
Not true. From Application_LA_1978_171_US:
Quote
The Route Numbering Committee and the Executive Committee of AASIITO
have examined your Department's application for the extension of U.S. 171
In Shreveport. They voted to reject your application since the route lies
entirely within the State of Louisiana and Is In violation of Policy #5
of the Purpose and Policy In the Establishment and Development of United
States Numbered Highways, a copy of which Is attached.
They have asked that you review this route with the objective In mind
of renumbering U.S. 171 as a State Route and dropping the U.S. designation.

You appear to be correct. Maps from the fifties, seventies, and early nineties verify what you say. I was going from discussion about the ICC locally (Primarily from around a decade ago). I am ALMOST certain that when I first came to being in Shreveport regularly (25 years ago more or less) that there were 171 signs along Hearne north of Greenwood Road.

I was guilty of trusting news reports and local discussions.

Random rejection by AASHO...

Before and since they have approved changes (including extensions) of other single-state US routes...
Logged

bassoon1986

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1314
  • Finish I-49 north in LA!

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Woodworth, LA
  • Last Login: October 02, 2022, 04:20:43 PM
Re: I-69 in LA (and LA 3132/Shreveport Inner Loop Extension)
« Reply #372 on: August 24, 2021, 07:50:07 PM »

Also, US 171 used to follow Mansfield Rd all the way to Greenwood Rd/Texas Ave at US 79 and US 80 and then followed those highways along Texas into downtown Shreveport where it met US 71 and LA 1. Once Hearne Ave was completed and connected through town, 171 followed Hearne to its current terminus at 79/80 at Greenwood Rd. But it never went north of there.


iPhone
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.